I get the distinction you are trying to make between free will and freedom but I’m not sure it’s meaningful here. Free will doesn’t exist only in the mind unless someone is completely enslaved - it forms our behavior. As Catholics we usually think of free will as having a choice to say yes or no to God which manifests itself in our lives as some sort of action (or inaction).Not true, please be consistent with definitions.
You are always free to will anything you want. You just don’t always have the freedom to carry it out.
If there is no distinction, then the idea of “free will” is a fairy tale invention. If infalliblitiy can interfere with free will then free will is imaginary. I reject all of these conclusions, because I experience the reality of free will every day.I get the distinction you are trying to make between free will and freedom but I’m not sure it’s meaningful here. Free will doesn’t exist only in the mind unless someone is completely enslaved - it forms our behavior. As Catholics we usually think of free will as having a choice to say yes or no to God which manifests itself in our lives as some sort of action (or inaction).
Free will incorporates freedom to act out our desires as well. They might not be successful, but God isn’t stopping us from doing them…except in the case of the pope trying to teach something fallible and saying it is infallible.If there is no distinction, then the idea of “free will” is a fairy tale invention. If infalliblitiy can interfere with free will then free will is imaginary. I reject all of these conclusions, because I experience the reality of free will every day.
In addition, we do not have to act on our choices to sin. Recall Jesus’ teaching on lust in our hearts. Free will is not about behavior, it is about the ascent of the will.
Freedom or the lack thereof, along with our will, affects our behavior.
Why do you call it a pointless distinction?Free will incorporates freedom to act out our desires as well. They might not be successful, but God isn’t stopping us from doing them…except in the case of the pope trying to teach something fallible and saying it is infallible.
The freedom you describe is undoubtedly part of free will.
I don’t understand how you can argue this really. If the pope has free will to do whatever he wants, and God has no control over his actions at all, no matter what, then he cannot be infallible because he is a human and can make mistakes (intentional or not). Right? IF God doesn’t interfere with his actions, then how can there not be a chance that he makes mistakes? That is impossible. The pope is a human, humans by definition make mistakes, so at the very least there is a possibility that he could declare something infallible when it is not true.
But, if God interferes with the pope’s decisions so that he cannot make mistakes, then his free will is impeded on. You haven’t really challenged this argument at all. You have just made the pointless “distinction” between freedom and free will to try to support your point, but it actually is meaningless.
free·dom –noun
- the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
- exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
- the power to determine action without restraint.
If its a pointless destinction, why do dictionaries have different definitions for each?free will –noun
- free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
- Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
It is pointless because free will, in this context, includes freedom as well. We can and do anything that we are physically able to do without any supernatural force stopping us. THAT is free will. And the pope lacks this if he is infallible.Why do you call it a pointless distinction?
From dictionary.com:
If its a pointless destinction, why do dictionaries have different definitions for each?
This definition shows that free-will is expressed through our actions/behavior.Why do you call it a pointless distinction?
From dictionary.com:
free will –noun
If its a pointless destinction, why do dictionaries have different definitions for each?
- free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
- Philosophy. the doctrine that **the conduct of human beings **expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Ambiguity does not make for sound arguments. Why do you choose to define it differently than anyone else? Equivocating is a logical falacy. Your argument is invalid when you don’t use the proper terms, or you use a different meaning in a premise than the one used in the conclusion. Since this is what you have done with the meaning of free will, your conclusion that the pope loses his free will is not valid.It is pointless because free will, in this context, includes freedom as well. We can and do anything that we are physically able to do without any supernatural force stopping us. THAT is free will. And the pope lacks this if he is infallible.
So free will does not involve action? God can physically stop me from doing something, but this does not impede on my free will?Ambiguity does not make for sound arguments. Why do you choose to define it differently than anyone else? Equivocating is a logical falacy. Your argument is invalid when you don’t use the proper terms, or you use a different meaning in a premise than the one used in the conclusion. Since this is what you have done with the meaning of free will, your conclusion that the pope loses his free will is not valid.
It does using your non-traditional definition of free-will. I don’t accept that definition in the context of infallibility.So free will does not involve action?
Absolutely. For example, what if you can decide that you are going to commit some grave sin. Then, on the way to do so you are involved in an accident (assume it was due to divine intervention) that keeps you from carrying it out. How was your decision affected? You were still free to chose, eventhough you were not free to act on your decision.God can physically stop me from doing something, but this does not impede on my free will?
No, as Vatican I and Vatican II teach, when the Church declares something as taught infallibly, that teaching is considered free from error. This is a matter of faith for Catholics, based on the understanding that the Church is the pillar of truth, and Christ promised never to abandon her.But can the Pope teach error when he defines that teaching as an infallible truth?
If not, why not?
Can the Pope teach error when he is pronouncing something as infallible? And if he is being led by the Holy Spirit, how do you know he is following it? What if he is being led by the Spirit and then chooses to go against it…that is possible in your scenario and would definitely make him fallible, right?