Posted on 03/04/2015 9:35:19 AM PST by marshmallow
Recently, Cardinal Burke stated that, if Pope Francis were to endorse a position on marriage and sexuality that were contrary to the tradition of the Church, that he would be obliged to “resist” the pontiff. Although the cardinal clarified that he was speaking of a purely hypothetical situation, he hit upon a nerve that gets struck from time to time among Catholics—in instant messages, in passing, on Facebook, though almost never in print—“What if?” What if Cardinal Kasper’s ideology takes over the upcoming Ordinary Synod on Marriage and the Family? What if the behind-the-scenes machinations of his supporters ultimately win the day? What if the pope lets civilly divorced and remarried Catholics receive communion?
Fr. James Schall identified the dilemma last year, when he pointed out that the elephant in the room is the question of heresy. If Church discipline of excluding Catholics who have obtained a civil divorce and remarriage from Communion is based on infallible Church doctrine about sin and repentance, and if the pope tries to change that discipline, wouldn’t that make the pope a heretic concerning that doctrine?
In the finest tradition of Jesuit discourse, Fr. Schall insisted that we talk about the elephant rather than staring at it. I agree because I know that God is not going to let us down, and neither is Pope Francis.
What is a heretic?
In order to even talk about the elephant, we have to identify it. A “heretic” is someone guilty of a heresy. According to the Catechism, “heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” A heretic differs from an “apostate,” who is guilty of “apostasy” (the total repudiation of the.....
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
Not quite. Let met take it apart:
Isn’t the only time that a Pope has to be thought of as perfect
"Perfect" and "infallible" aren't quite the same. Infallible means only "preserved from error". "Perfect" means things like "preserved from sin" or "exactly optimal in every way," neither of which is included in "infallible".
Infallibility is only a guarantee of what the Pope won't say. It doesn't guarantee that what he actually says is helpful, necessary, or especially well-phrased, or even that he will say anything at all.
when he is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him
No, there's no claim that the Pope channels new revelations from God. (The most prominent group that makes claims like that is headquartered in Salt Lake City.) Public revelation (revelation binding on all Christians) ended at the death of the last apostle. All the Pope can do is help the church to work out the implications of public revelation. The Holy Spirit protects him in that, so he doesn't herd the flock over a cliff, so to speak.
someone we knew is now with God and is a saint
Yes, canonizations are infallible acts.
If a tree doesn't fall in a forest, how do you know what sound it makes? ;-)
If he never says anything that is infallible, then he is never "being infallible," by definition.
That's what YOU say. But you're not infallible. And your statement is not "perfect," to use your term. It's not even true.
What you've done is make an erroneous statement about Catholic theology, and then, resisting repeated correction, you assail your own statement as if it were Catholic theology.
It's tedious.
In all of your rambling posts, I haven’t seen anything that shows my statement inaccurate.
Is the leader of your denomination capable of infallibility, and do they ever tell your denomination something that God told them and that is accepted by you as infallible, or perfectly relayed from God?
In all of my rambling posts, I must have emphasized this 3 or 4 times already.
I'm not going to continue. This is not only tedious, but futile. Have a nice day.
What is he relaying to his church members when he tells them that he is speaking infallibly, isn’t it something that he got from God?
The canonization of saints, for instance, is not a prophetical utterance. It's not "Thus saith the Lord." That's all. I have to go now.
I haven’t used the word prophecy, but it seems that whoever is currently head of your denomination can pass instructions or messages to you that he got directly from God.
It is interesting that some Catholics think this canonization of people into Saints is the Pope perfectly speaking for God, or relating God’s instructions to you infallibly, and some Catholics think that Francis is just making it up.
False. Here's your problem.
Over and out.
What is he relaying to his church members when he tells them that he is speaking infallibly, isn’t it something that he got from God?
Think on this well Catholic friends, if you introduce a whole lot of extraneous matter into God’s garden, you’ll make it less likely that His plants will take root in the right things and grow. Not saying for one single minute that none will, known plenty that did.
For instance, Catholics can and do debate whether the statement has fulfilled the criteria --- ALL of the criteria --- set forth in Pater Aeternus. That's why there are debates, e.g. about whether canonizations, or the statement on the priesthood being essentially a masculine vocation, or the statement that every marital act must be open to the transmission of life, are infallible.
A statement can be authoritative without being infallible in the formal sense.
The first sentence is supposed to say, "It's not precisely that he tells people, "Hey, listen up, this part here is infallible." It's that people figure out he's speaking infallibly by determining if his statement conforms to the criteria set forth if Pater Aeternus."
So he is only infallibly passing on God’s message to him, after the others decide if they agree with it or not.
That doesn’t make it sound like it is infallible. Even in assigning Sainthood to people, the denomination doesn’t agree if God really told him to, or if it was just his personal decision to do so.
It sounds like the infallibility claim of the Popes, is not very accepted by their church members.
So once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I said we have to apply the criteria found in Pater Aeternus. That determines whether the statement is infallible, or merely authoritative.
It is to be obeyed either way, and whether you agree with it or not. It is not only infallible statements which command obedience, but everything taught by the Church under apostolic authority. This is called the Ordinary Magisterium.
"Even in assigning Sainthood to people, the denomination doesn’t agree if God really told him to, or if it was just his personal decision to do so."
Listen: for the 7th time I'm going to say this: "Infallibility" does not mean "God told him." And now for 8th time: "Infallibility" does not mean "God told him."
I consider this repetition of already-corrected misinformation either provocation or impertinence, and I'm calling it quits.
You've undermined my motivation to go on with this conversation, which seems pointless because I seem to be talking to a hearing impaired person.
I haven’t seen anything corrected.
So far it looks like the belief that the head of your denomination can receive messages from God and is infallible in giving them to you, is something that you don’t believe in, except on a case by case deal, after you or others agree that he didn’t make that one up.
For instance in your case, you wait for the committee to decide on each infallible statement and whether they call BS on him or not, except for saints, for saints, you just don’t believe in his infallibility at all, is that correct?
It's not correct. You're incorrigible. Over and out.
I THINK ansel12 said it was something we don’t believe in, but it was a very convoluted thought expression.
Actually I was saying that it appears from what Mrs. was saying, that when the Popes infallibly pass on God’s message, that it isn’t necessarily “infallible” until it is voted on, or in the case of canonizing people into Sainthood, that the individual Catholic can decide for himself if the Pope is putting out personal wishes, or is actually passing on what God told him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.