About Papal infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benedicti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Non sequitor. There is a substitution instance in which Peter or his descendants could have erred and it would not equate to the gates of Hell prevailing against the church.

As Aquinas said, '…in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love…"

If, for example, Peter or a descendant erred in a non-essential matter, and no one noticed, the gates of Hell would not prevail.
 
What i’m saying is that to say that the Pope can err in is Infalliblity(Ex Cathedra) then the gates of hell would certainly have prevailed because then the doctrines of the Church would be wrong. But we know that can’t happen because Jesus promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church
 
When a Pope errs when he is just making a general speech he is not in violation of his infallibility because he is not speaking Ex Cathedra on faith and morals so the gates of hell will not prevail
 
Non sequitor. There is a substitution instance in which Peter or his descendants could have erred and it would not equate to the gates of Hell prevailing against the church.

As Aquinas said, '…in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love…"

If, for example, Peter or a descendant erred in a non-essential matter, and no one noticed, the gates of Hell would not prevail.
You are attempting to redefine what a universal “ex-Cathedra” teachings is. The Holy See simply can not ever err in a universal teaching. It is a matter of definition. What moses wrote on the stone tablets was what defined The Law. The same is true with what the Pope writes into law and teaching since it is sourced from the Sacred Deposit of Faith - which comes from God.

Ex-cathedra teachings are very rare and not issued over trivial matters; and they are not made without a lot of deliberate forethought, prayer, and consultation with the bishops and theologians.

Also note that God would always notice any teaching error and so would Satan. We are at spiritual war and the Church Militant (the church here on earth) is coupled to the Church Triumphant (church in heaven). Any ex-cathedra teaching made in error would be a stunning victory for Satan since it would mean he has infused his will and voice over God’s very own bride and prevailed. That would make The Church unholy, defiled and unfit as a spouse. If that happened it would mean Christianity is false and we are the most pathetic, pitiable and hopeless people on the planet. It would be an event so sad that even a godless universe would weep and quake over the loss of the hope.

James
 
You are attempting to redefine what a universal “ex-Cathedra” teachings is. The Holy See simply can not ever err in a universal teaching. It is a matter of definition. James
By definition? Imagine the absurdity if I proclaimed that Protestants are infallible in matters of faith and morals. Unless those beliefs ARE actually in error. Then at that point, they are simply no longer Protestants. By definition. Ergo, Protestants are infallible.

Absurdity.

It’s like John Yoo’s so-called torture memos that explain that the President can’t violate the Conventions Against Torture because he has the ability to order acts contrary to the treaty, and when acts are done at his request in violation of the treaty, we are no longer part of the treaty for that act, and if we are no longer a party to the treaty, then by definition, we cannot violate a treaty we are not subject to.
What moses wrote on the stone tablets was what defined The Law. James
What Moses wrote on the tablets did not define the law. What God wrote on the first tablets is what defined the law. Moses merely promulgated the law.

That law was also written on their hearts. The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the Deposit of Faith because they do not have a monopoly on Scripture, Logic, and the Holy Spirit, just like Moses didn’t have a monopoly on the Law because it was God-breathed on their hearts. Moses is an example of God-ordained Magisterium, just as Peter was. But that doesn’t necessitate monopoly.
Any ex-cathedra teaching made in error would be a stunning victory for Satan since it would mean he has infused his will and voice over God’s very own bride and prevailed. That would make The Church unholy, defiled and unfit as a spouse. If that happened it would mean Christianity is false and we are the most pathetic, pitiable and hopeless people on the planet. It would be an event so sad that even a godless universe would weep and quake over the loss of the hope.
Why do ex-cathedra teachings made in error result in a stunning victory for Satan, but not non ex-cathedra teachings made in error? Doesn’t any error make the church unholy, defiled, and unfit as a spouse?

You have defined infallibility to be such that any hypothetical ex-cathedra error is Satan prevailing against the church. There is no logical basis for that that I can find. Consider three possibilities:

A: The church is infallible in universal professions of faith and morals. There is no error. Satan does not prevail.

B: The church is fallible in professions of faith and morals. As fallacious beliefs are demonstrated to be so, the church has the ability to change, reject the heresy, and correct itself through the Spirit. Because of the correction, Satan does not prevail.

C. The church is fallible in professions of faith and morals. However, the church believes itself to be infallible, and therefore does not have measures in place to correct errors. Satan prevails.

B is the superior position because it precludes Satan’s prevailing on its own, but if necessary allows a switch to A without the danger of C.
 
By definition? Imagine the absurdity if I proclaimed that Protestants are infallible in matters of faith and morals. Unless those beliefs ARE actually in error. Then at that point, they are simply no longer Protestants. By definition. Ergo, Protestants are infallible.

Absurdity.
The error of the Protestants was in not discerning the difference between the ministerial priesthood and the universal priesthood of the members of the Church. You will find no precedence in “scripture only” where God has ever permitted a rebellion against His divinely appointed authority - not ever. If in doubt look to the case of young David with an opportunity to kill corrupt King Saul but being wise enough to respect “God’s anointed”. Also look to the other case of Korah (Numbers 16) where a rebellious leader and his faction decided that everyone had a right to minister to God and ignore divinely appointed authority The result? God incinerated them in a pile of ash and the earth swallowed them and their families straight into hell.

Bottom line - the Protestants who claim “scripture as its authority” have no licit authority to be claimed therein to justify their rebellion. Therefor it is absurd, and in fact irrational, to hold a double standard and for a single Protestant who professes to be a bible-Christian to claim any legitimacy to speak with any authority on religious matters. Without divine anointing there is no infallability. In fact the failed Protestant Revolution and the Catholic Counterrevolution are proof positive that “the gates of hell would not prevail against God’s Church”. God used Protestant errors to define infallibly over 120 new anathemas to tell us precisely what Christianity is NOT. In a nutshell Christianity is NOT protest against legitimate ecclesial authority or 120 things that the Protestants tried to tell the world it was. 😉
What Moses wrote on the tablets did not define the law. What God wrote on the first tablets is what defined the law. Moses merely promulgated the law.
The point is that Moses was the selected Law Giver and the one God appointed to JUDGE and interpret Law and who later appointed priests through HIS divine authority to JUDGE these matters of Law. Those that protested the law or challenged his authority or insisted on their own private interpretation were killed (ref Exodus 3,000 killed after the Golden Calf incident and Numbers 16 were Korah and 14,700 are killed).
That law was also written on their hearts. The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the Deposit of Faith because they do not have a monopoly on Scripture, Logic, and the Holy Spirit, just like Moses didn’t have a monopoly on the Law because it was God-breathed on their hearts. Moses is an example of God-ordained Magisterium, just as Peter was. But that doesn’t necessitate monopoly.
The Catholic Church most surely is sole custodian of the Deposit of Faith and is the only Church on the planet who has it. Who do you think Protestants copied the bible from then deprecated it - yet that is only part of the DoF. Not a single OT Jew was permitted to have his private interpretation of law and any who attempted to promulgate a private interpretation of law was stoned to death or run out of camp. The law written on the heart is one’s conscience and what will condemn those who are not listening to the moral laws. It however does not relieve one of the obligation to develop their moral conscience by Church Teachings. That is also a law that is written on the hearts of men unless he is so vain and so proud that he thinks he knows it all (also self condeming). 😉
Why do ex-cathedra teachings made in error result in a stunning victory for Satan, but not non ex-cathedra teachings made in error? Doesn’t any error make the church unholy, defiled, and unfit as a spouse?
Because individuals sin if they are misdirected in their teachings and that lands people in hell. Also, The Church is the mystical Body of Christ in a real sense - its not just metaphorical. For The Church to teach error would be for Christ to fall into error - which is blasphemy and impossible. Anyone who sees that The Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” must also know that is must remain so at every point in time - since Christ is eternal. A corrective action implies that Christ was a mere man and not divine.
You have defined infallibility to be such that any hypothetical ex-cathedra error is Satan prevailing against the church. There is no logical basis for that that I can find. Consider three possibilities:
These are mutual exclusive to each other and are not possible if The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Error is not an option. To accept the possibility for error is to admit to a deficient faith and to dismiss objective truth as being open to interpretation rather than being axiomatic or spiritually revealed.

God has spoken His Divine Word through the word made flesh - Jesus. Nothing remains to be said. All that remains is the deeper revelation of the Holy Spirit from the deposit of faith.

James
 
Actually there is a lot of misconception out there.

The promulgation of the dogma of papal infallability is an newer exhibition of the same opriginal deposit of faith. The dogma itself is thus founded on the OLDER teaching of **The Church **being infallable.

The Bishops speaking in unity of consent on a matter are also speaking infallability. This was in fact the original belief of the Church and always has been. Since the pope is in union with the bishops and vice versa it was a simple matter of logic to arrive at papal infallability.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against **his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church **can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. **Thus the Church **cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.

more: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

James
Great post James, thanks! 👍
 
Hello
I am confuse about something.
If the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when he declares or promulgates dogmatic teaching on faith or morals in the name of College of Bishops, why we don’t say that the College is infallible, not only the pope.
If the pope speak in the name of the Collage, the college is infallible, or not?
The pope can take Decisions outside, against, the will and decisions of the College? If he can, he is still infallible?
I’d recommend reading the Catechism para 874-892: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#I

Also, Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium para 18-25 are good: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 
Code:
By definition?  Imagine the absurdity.
I should think this would be obvious. It is clear in scripture that Peter made and infallible statement, voicing a revelation from the Father, then immediately afterward, scripture records that he was speaking as a tool of the devil. This alone should make it clear that he is infallible under certain conditions, and fallible in others.
Code:
... we are no longer part of the treaty for that act, and if we are no longer a party to the treaty, then by definition, we cannot violate a treaty we are not subject to.
I can appreciate the legal twisting you are doing here. However, the Attorneys did not have the promise of Christ to lead them into all Truth.
Code:
That law was also written on their hearts.  The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the Deposit of Faith because they do not have a monopoly on Scripture, Logic, and the Holy Spirit, just like Moses didn't have a monopoly on the Law because it was God-breathed on their hearts.  Moses is an example of God-ordained Magisterium, just as Peter was.  But that doesn't necessitate monopoly.
Who said it did? In fact, the Church teaches to the contrary.
Why do ex-cathedra teachings made in error result in a stunning victory for Satan, but not non ex-cathedra teachings made in error? Doesn’t any error make the church unholy, defiled, and unfit as a spouse?
This is a good question. Yes, all false statements are injurious. Those made ex-cathedra are fatal because they would demonstrate that the promise of Christ to lead them into all Truth was worthless. Most errors damage the person making them, and persons near them. False teaching promulgated by the one who was given by God the responsibility to preserve the truth damages the entire Body.
You have defined infallibility to be such that any hypothetical ex-cathedra error is Satan prevailing against the church.
This is the definition that Christ gave.
There is no logical basis for that that I can find.
I agree. I often find the revelation of God “not logical”. The basis is spirittal, not “logical”.
Consider three possibilities:

A: The church is infallible in universal professions of faith and morals. There is no error. Satan does not prevail.

B: The church is fallible in professions of faith and morals. As fallacious beliefs are demonstrated to be so, the church has the ability to change, reject the heresy, and correct itself through the Spirit. Because of the correction, Satan does not prevail.

C. The church is fallible in professions of faith and morals. However, the church believes itself to be infallible, and therefore does not have measures in place to correct errors. Satan prevails.

B is the superior position because it precludes Satan’s prevailing on its own, but if necessary allows a switch to A without the danger of C.
In your view, yes, but in the perspective of God, it is not. Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Body, the Church. He cannot be joined to error. Therefore, those who embrace error remove themselves from perfect unity with His Body.

It is not the acts of men that preserve the Truth in the Church, but God. Jesus is her Head, and the Spirit is her soul, that is why the Church cannot err. It is the Divine elements of the Church that preserve her and protect her from error.
’
This protection only extends to people to the extent that they are in unity with the Head.
 
The error of the Protestants was in not discerning the difference between the ministerial priesthood and the universal priesthood of the members of the Church. You will find no precedence in “scripture only” where God has ever permitted a rebellion against His divinely appointed authority - not ever.
Was the Sanhedrin a divinely appointed authority? Was Pharaoh? As to the second question, Romans 13:1 would probably say yes. Or Paul would punt, and distinguish between power and authority.
If in doubt look to the case of young David with an opportunity to kill corrupt King Saul but being wise enough to respect “God’s anointed”. Also look to the other case of Korah (Numbers 16) where a rebellious leader and his faction decided that everyone had a right to minister to God and ignore divinely appointed authority The result? God incinerated them in a pile of ash and the earth swallowed them and their families straight into hell.

Bottom line - the Protestants who claim “scripture as its authority” have no licit authority to be claimed therein to justify their rebellion.
Which Protestants claim that? Sola Scriptura speaks of sufficiency, not desirability.
Therefor it is absurd, and in fact irrational, to hold a double standard and for a single Protestant who professes to be a bible-Christian to claim any legitimacy to speak with any authority on religious matters.
If the premise is true. But for my own edification, could you rationalize this out for me.
Without divine anointing there is no infallability.
True. But irrelevant. All truth comes from God. I can speak truth. I can speak infallible truth with divine anointing. But that doesn’t make me pope.
In fact the failed Protestant Revolution and the Catholic Counterrevolution are proof positive that “the gates of hell would not prevail against God’s Church.”
Evidence, yes. Proof, no. Running half a mile is evidence you can run a mile. It is not proof you can run a mile.
God used Protestant errors to define infallibly over 120 new anathemas to tell us precisely what Christianity is NOT. In a nutshell Christianity is NOT protest against legitimate ecclesial authority or 120 things that the Protestants tried to tell the world it was.
“…concerning God, we cannot grasp what He is, but only what He is not, and how other things stand in relation to Him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church part 43.

It comes as no surprise to me that Protestantism is instrumental in describing Christianity. Nay, God Himself. 😉
The point is that Moses was the selected Law Giver and the one God appointed to JUDGE and interpret Law and who later appointed priests through HIS divine authority to JUDGE these matters of Law. Those that protested the law or challenged his authority or insisted on their own private interpretation were killed (ref Exodus 3,000 killed after the Golden Calf incident and Numbers 16 were Korah and 14,700 are killed).
If we were to be a fly on the wall in the Temple in Jerusalem at Christ’s time, would their version of Daniel have Bel and Dragon?

A) If so, when was it taken out after Christ for the Tanakh?

B) If not, uh oh spaghetti-oh.
The Catholic Church most surely is sole custodian of the Deposit of Faith and is the only Church on the planet who has it. Who do you think Protestants copied the bible from then deprecated it - yet that is only part of the DoF. Not a single OT Jew was permitted to have his private interpretation of law and any who attempted to promulgate a private interpretation of law was stoned to death or run out of camp. The law written on the heart is one’s conscience and what will condemn those who are not listening to the moral laws. It however does not relieve one of the obligation to develop their moral conscience by Church Teachings. That is also a law that is written on the hearts of men unless he is so vain and so proud that he thinks he knows it all (also self condeming). 😉
One of your friends dissents:

Quote:

Originally Posted by capablanca911 View Post

That law was also written on their hearts. The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the Deposit of Faith because they do not have a monopoly on Scripture, Logic, and the Holy Spirit, just like Moses didn’t have a monopoly on the Law because it was God-breathed on their hearts. Moses is an example of God-ordained Magisterium, just as Peter was. But that doesn’t necessitate monopoly
.
Who said it did? In fact, the Church teaches to the contrary.
To be continued…
 
…continued:
Because individuals sin if they are misdirected in their teachings and that lands people in hell. Also, The Church is the mystical Body of Christ in a real sense - its not just metaphorical.
Defend that assertion, if you would.
For The Church to teach error would be for Christ to fall into error - which is blasphemy and impossible. Anyone who sees that The Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” must also know that is must remain so at every point in time - since Christ is eternal. A corrective action implies that Christ was a mere man and not divine.

These are mutual exclusive to each other and are not possible if The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Error is not an option. To accept the possibility for error is to admit to a deficient faith and to dismiss objective truth as being open to interpretation rather than being axiomatic or spiritually revealed.
There are non ex-cathedra statements that are fallible. Non ex-cathedra statements can be corrected with an ex-cathedra bull. That correction does not imply Christ was a mere man–but on the other hand, why would it? What you stated on correction does not follow.
 
Was the Sanhedrin a divinely appointed authority? Was Pharaoh? As to the second question, Romans 13:1 would probably say yes. Or Paul would punt, and distinguish between power and authority.
Yes, Yes. The only additional comment I’d say here is that in a secular context one is permitted to yield to the primal law of moral conscience if a secular authority is imposing a requirement to sin. For example abortion is lawful in the USA and in China abortion is mandatory if one has more than one child. It would be immoral for US Christians to not resist abortion on demand as a means of immigration control or population control and its permitted to “protest” and to even actively rebel (by Christian means) against the legal authority while that immoral law is in force. A Chinese listening to his moral conscience would be permitted to defend his child from death with deadly force in my opinion.
Which Protestants claim that? Sola Scriptura speaks of sufficiency, not desirability.
I have run into quite a few Protestant Apologists who try to claim the reformers had authority to rebel against The Catholic Church. When I ask them where they got the authority to actively rebel I get an either a vague answer like a “moral imperative” due to perceived abuses by Catholics or else they claim scripture needed to be preserved from corrupt teachings and given to more people to read for themselves. But when pressed not one of them can show me where in scripture rebellion within the Church is ever scripturally condoned. We can only conclude that the Protestant Revolution was utterly unlawful and unauthorized and immoral as well since it can not be justified before man nor God.
If the premise is true. But for my own edification, could you rationalize this out for me.
The general premise is that if somone illicitly gains an apparent authority then that authority remains illicit and the passage of time does not make it become an authority in fact just by merely claiming it.

If you walk up to a judge and shoot him dead then strip the corpse and put on his judicial robes and take his gavel does that give you competence as a judge or any real authority in fact? Is authority a matter of who can defend it and keep it? Is competence an automatic attribute of the office? I don’t think so…
True. But irrelevant. All truth comes from God. I can speak truth. I can speak infallible truth with divine anointing. But that doesn’t make me pope.
Conceptually true - even a child can speak the truth (Matthew 21:16 Out of the mouths of babes… ). But without being a recognized authority no one listens to the truth and instead everyone listens to themselves and we get into endless debates and can’t be productive in anything and must reinvent the wheel every-time we encounter somone with a different opinion about truth. The other danger of a legion of self proclaimed popes is that truth becomes hidden in the chaff so to speak and everyone being pragmatic just says “there is no truth - everyone do whatever they want to (within some arbitrary least common denominator reason or else degrade to anarchy)”.
Evidence, yes. Proof, no. Running half a mile is evidence you can run a mile. It is not proof you can run a mile.
Good point. So far so good. Keep the faith since we can see the finishing line on ahead…
“…concerning God, we cannot grasp what He is, but only what He is not, and how other things stand in relation to Him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church part 43.

It comes as no surprise to me that Protestantism is instrumental in describing Christianity. Nay, God Himself. 😉
Actually Christianity did just fine for 1400 years before the reformers came along. But its apparent that there was a latent emerging secular Zeitgeist that was starting to rise within The Church that needed to be seperated out. God did that and then let us use that example to define what is not Christian and which can not be permitted to enter His Church. So now with the anathemas good Catholics know that if they hear any anathematized Protestant ideas from their friends to leave them outside the door of the Church when they enter for mass and communion with fellow Catholics during worship.
If we were to be a fly on the wall in the Temple in Jerusalem at Christ’s time, would their version of Daniel have Bel and Dragon?

A) If so, when was it taken out after Christ for the Tanakh?

B) If not, uh oh spaghetti-oh.
Not sure I follow you here. Jesus quoted the LXX Septuagint. But the Jews went back in after they were deposed in exile and modified texts and revised things in an attempt to discredit Christians as beeing stooges about Jewish OT scripture. But it all failed - except Luther took some of the enemies of Christians advise and removed a tithe of OT scripture but fortunately ignored their advise to can the NT entirely…😃
One of your friends dissents:

Quote:…
I disagree. The Church is eternal and inseparable from the HS. The term “monopoly” is an economic term and the Word of God is not for sale to the highest bidder (Think Simon the Magician tried that). Various fractional truths that came from the DoF are floating around in various places but its often polluted with other false teachings that render it unreliable to salvation. The DoF is an attribute of The Church. Does one’s eyes not belong uniquely to ther person who received them in birth? I suppose somone could pluck an eye out and try to sell it but that would be immoral and self defeating.

James
 
40.png
CentralFLJames:
Because individuals sin if they are misdirected in their teachings and that lands people in hell. Also, The Church is the mystical Body of Christ in a real sense - its not just metaphorical.
Defend that assertion, if you would.
Which? I made 2. I’ll defend both.
  1. If I tell you that you that it is OK to have intercourse outside of marriage as long as your wife give you her permission and you believe me and do just that then one has committed fornication AND adultery. I have also participated in that sin by so advising you since having sway over another person as an advisor or trusted friend or as a trusted spiritual advisor (which may or may not even be a legitimate relationship) makes one culpable. Therefore we need to have definitive teachings from an authoritative source. This is why the “bible” is not to be privately interpreted outside of an apostolic teaching framework. It can certainly be read and meditated on and used for spiritual enlightenment but one must have authoritative teachings from The Church since it is the 'pillar and foundation of truth". And there is only One Body of Christ therefor only one Church - 'You are Peter and on this rock I build MY Church" (not plural churches).
  2. I will quote you the Catechism and let you go check the underlying references
Mystical Church from Catholic Catechism:
771 “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.” 184 The Church is at the same time:
  • a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;
  • the visible society and the spiritual community;
  • the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches." 185
These dimensions together constitute “one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element”: 186

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest. 187
O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven’s beauty has adorned her. 188

Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 1, SubSection 3, Heading 3

779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.

Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 2, SubSection 2, Heading 2

791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: “In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church.” 222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: “From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice.” 223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” 224

See also 795

809 The Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the soul, as it were, of the Mystical Body, the source of its life, of its unity in diversity, and of the riches of its gifts and charisms.

See 863, 886, 923, 958, 1070, 1119, 1165, 1396, 1416
More here : vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
There are non ex-cathedra statements that are fallible. Non ex-cathedra statements can be corrected with an ex-cathedra bull. That correction does not imply Christ was a mere man–but on the other hand, why would it? What you stated on correction does not follow.
Not true the way you have stated it. I can agree with it this way: “there are non ex-cathedra statements that are believed to be true but are not guaranteed to be infallable”.

You are making an error in assuming that non ex-cathedra are automatically in error just because they are not ex-cathedra. This is a non-sequitor. All statements issues by the Catholic Church are believed to be true and are made with highest regard to accuracy, truth and responsibility. Catholics accept non ex-cathedra statements as true unless later revoked (I don’t know of any that have been countermanded though - just clarified). The Church never wants to foster an attitude among the laity that just because a teaching is not issued ex-cathedra that is carries less authority than the ex-cathedra statement. The Church itself is that authority in all cases (and where the pope’s authority comes from). If we permit a lax respect to non ex-cathedra statements people would think the statements were wishy-washy and think “well they are not 100% sure on this one so won’t guarantee it so I will just push the envelope on this teaching till somone gives us a guarantee that its right”. It does not work this way - teachings are teachings.

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top