[NYer]

Infallible ping!

[the invisib1e hand]

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter.

The same can pretty much be said of all true doctrine, especially in a world where things like the New York Times and MTV live.

[piytar]

Erudite analysis, but the core issue is simpler:

An “infallible” teaching of the Pope, of which there has been exactly one since Vatican I, is Christ speaking directly through the Pope as heir to Peter's grant of the Earthly keys to the Kingdom.

IOW, an infallible teaching isn't really the Pope's. It is His. And as stated, it is beyond very rare.

Seen in that light, much of the to do about the Pope being “infallible” is wasted breath.

[count-your-change]

“Infallible” is not a difficult to understand word, it means not subject to failure or error.
The “problematic” part seems to be in redefining the word to make it rubbery enough to find an example of any Pope making an “infallible” statement.

[ml/nj]

What's funny to me is that the @$$holes who write stuff like this almost certainly believe that Obama is infallible.

ML/NJ

[boatbums]

The fact that the vast majority of Church teachings are not taught under this charism does not mean that such teachings are unimportant. They do not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible, which have a greater binding force, precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation.

This part was the most surprising of all the article. I cannot imagine what the author means by saying doctrines such as the trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, his propitiatory death for sin, the grace of God, salvation by grace through faith and all the essential doctrines that go into making Christianity do "not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible". Seeing that the author identifies only the Assumption of Mary as falling under the heading of "Infallible teachings", I find it astonishing that these other core doctrines are not seen as important as a doctrine that is nowhere even found in Scripture and has no relation at all to what needs to be believed in order to be saved.

He explains that the reason is "Infallibly" defined doctrines "have a greater binding force precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation". To me, he is saying that extra-Bibical, "special" revelation of these doctrines makes them MORE important that Biblically revealed truths. Am I understanding this correctly and do you agree with him?

[Tramonto]

Not one of them (the popes), not the biggest drunkard, not the most . . . out-and-out ruffian, not one of them ever preached ex cathedra a word of false doctrine. Now isn’t that an astonishing thing?

LOL Now thats funny.