Does papal infallibility interfere with free will?

[diggerdomer]

Ok, so let me get this straight. You are saying that there are popes that have taught error on faith and morals? Or are you saying that there were popes who really wanted to teach error on faith and morals but were mysteriously unable to do so? I always thought the corruption of the “bad” popes was more general and did not apply to this one area … Please clarify.

I would say yes, and no.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, if the Pope could speak error in faith and morals he would not be infallible. Period. It in no way effects his free will. If he is fallible, he can speak error. If he is infallible he cannot, otherwise he would not be infallible. How can a person who is infallible speak error? He’s infallible. You can’t be infallible and able to speak error at the same time. You would cease to be infallible just like a triangle ceases to be a triangle when it has more than three sides.

Exactly. If the Pope is infallible, he is infallible. Free will, as you said, cannot make him somehting he is not… ie fallible, able to speak error. If he is fallible he is fallible. If he is infallible he is infallible. He cannot be both. He cannot be infallible (in faith and morals) and capable of error, because he would then not be infallible.

And, as I said, that is where the discussion should be. Not whether his infallibity (which the friend doesn’t even believe in in the first place) hinders the Pope’s free will.

Yep that was exactly my point. A four sided triangle is not a triangle just like a person who can speak error is not infallible, it is a contradiction, like a four sided triangle. An infallible person speaking error is every bit a contradiction as a four sided triangle.

A contradiction is nothing. An infallible being able to speak error is a contradiction. They would not be an infallible being, they would be fallible.

Sure it does, because it is a contradiction. The Pope, who is infallible (meaning he cannot error) can no more teach error (because he would then stop being infallible) then he could create a four sided triangle. It cannot be done. An infallible being (in faith and morals) able to teach error cannot be possible. They would cease to be infallible like a triangle ceases to be a triangle when it has more than three sides.

God bless you

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible.

 

[kepha1]

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible.

Right on. I would like to further confound these anti-infallibalonians. It is impossible for a pope to teach a lie or falsehood under the Church’s definition of infallibility. It’s never happened. The best worst argument anti-infallibalonians have is Pope Honorius, and that argument crumbles under scrutiny.

Even if Satan himself were to somehow get elected Pope it would be impossible for him to use Papal Infallibility to change dogma. This has actually been tested when Pope Vigilius came to power in the 6th century, after killing the previous Pope, and tried to bring the Church into heresy. Once he sat in the Chair of Peter something came over him and he could not go through with the plan. The dogma of the Church was protected.

Dogma cannot be changed by anyone, not even a Pope. Papal Infallibility has never changed dogma – it clarifies and provides a formal definition for doctrine that already exists and has existed since the beginning.

Papal Infallibility (and of the Bishops in Ecumenical Counsel in union with the Pope) is the guarantee that God makes to us that we can always trust what is and what is not the genuine faith. Without this charism of Infallibility we could never know that the truth really is; it would be blown around by every flatulent opinion.

The Magisterium is like the Supreme Court – it settles disagreements about doctrine. But unlike the Supreme Court of a country, the Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in its declarations that are infallible.

Keep in mind not every teaching of the Church is infallible. There are four levels of Church teaching.

Level 1 is infallible dogma. Anyone obstinately doubting or denying Level 1 teaching is a heretic and automatically excommunicated.

Level 2 is definitive teaching which is also infallible. Anyone doubting or denying Level 2 teaching will suffer strong penalty – such as being barred from receiving the Eucharist.

Level 3 teaching is authoritative teaching. While we might be able to disagree with some authoritive teaching we are obligated to give the Church the benefit of the doubt and therefore assent to the teaching unless there is compelling evidence to show error (and I might add that none of us are qualified to establish error. This is for experts to prove).

Level 4 teaching is disciplinary in nature. We can respectfully disagree, but in all levels of teaching, including Level 4 teaching, we MUST OBEY.

God promised that He would protect His Church from error. God is not a liar. He keeps His promises. Thus I can say with total confidence that if somehow Satan himself was elected Pope, he would be prevented from changing doctrine. He might cause other kinds of damage, but he could not change Catholic doctrine.

Popes always have free will, but free will has nothing to do with infallibility. The premise of the OP is false because it presupposes the Pope can impose a doctrine out of his own private opinion, or, free will. It’s basically a Protestant projection of how their doctrines (that are at odds with truth) are formulated. The doctrine of infallibility is very limited. It is impossible for a Pope to formulate or invent doctrines. digger is correct. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible.

 

[Spirithound]

A more philosophical answer just occurred to me.

Socrates/Plato believed that to know the good was to do the good. Man is naturally drawn towards goodness, towards God. This same point is borne out by many Christian authors, with the development that because of original sin, we don’t know the good very well.

Sin is a “privation”. It makes us less than what we are meant to be. Thus, the desire to sin is not a “thing”, it is a lack of a thing, namely perfection.

So, if God grants the very specifically- and narrowly-defined gift of infallibility to the Pope, God is not overriding the Pope’s free will, he is perfecting it, in that one specific area.

 

[hellopeople]

The Pope has free will (as all humans do). The Church can teach infallibly. Both of those statements are taught by the Catholic Church.

What, more exactly, is your difficulty with these teachings?

If the pope has complete free will, then he can teach error. If he is being guided by the Holy spirit, then his free will is being impeded and he does not have free will. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Janet1983]

Keep in mind not every teaching of the Church is infallible. There are four levels of Church teaching.

Level 1 is infallible dogma. Anyone obstinately doubting or denying Level 1 teaching is a heretic and automatically excommunicated.

Level 2 is definitive teaching which is also infallible. Anyone doubting or denying Level 2 teaching will suffer strong penalty – such as being barred from receiving the Eucharist.

Level 3 teaching is authoritative teaching. While we might be able to disagree with some authoritive teaching we are obligated to give the Church the benefit of the doubt and therefore assent to the teaching unless there is compelling evidence to show error (and I might add that none of us are qualified to establish error. This is for experts to prove).

Level 4 teaching is disciplinary in nature. We can respectfully disagree, but in all levels of teaching, including Level 4 teaching, we MUST OBEY.

So what you are basically saying is that it does not matter what the Church tells you as a teaching, you have to obey in either way. You are only forced to believe in level 1 and 2, but you have to obey in every case (infallible teachings as well as fallible teachings).
Do you have examples as to what each group means? Level 1 is obviously concerning dogma, something that can be easily found on the internet. What are examples for level 2, infallible, but not a dogma? What are examples for levels 3 and 4, things you do not have to believe, but that require your obedience anyway?

 

[Rence]

If the pope has complete free will, then he can teach error. If he is being guided by the Holy spirit, then his free will is being impeded and he does not have free will. You can’t have it both ways.

I don’t agree with that hellopeople. Here’s why: Remember that free will can be used to decided to do good as well as bad. Being influenced by the Holy Spirit doesn’t affect free will according to what I have always been taught, and no one here has ever came up with any evidence that it does. Say for example, I tell you, hellopeople, “don’t eat that chocolate, it’s fattening, it’s got a lot of sugar, it’s empty calories. why not have that low-sugar banana nut muffin instead”. I’m trying to influence you to make a better choice. But you have the free will to make the choice no matter what you choose. My influence may inspire you, but it’s your choice, and you’re free to make it.

So the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church, but in the end, the Pope and Bishops have to decide, with their free will. They can choose correctly and they can choose incorrectly. Keep in mind, that choosing incorrectly may not be intentional. It could be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

I think that papal infallibility has to be one of those things that you have to accept blindly. But I think that people erroneously are thinking that this “blind faith” is a reflection on one’s faith in the Holy Spirit. But I strongly disagree. In some cases, we’re talking about a man (or men) and his ability to set aside personal beliefs, values, biases, thoughts, and completely clearing his mind to make the decision he thinks the Holy Spirit is guiding him to make. And I’m just not sure that’s possible anymore than it’s possible for us “normal people” to set aside what we truly believe, because that’s what make us ourselves. When going into a discussion, we all have our thoughts on the matter before we even go in. Those thoughts are shaped by everything around us. And I just don’t believe that a man can just decide to set aside his thoughts because I don’t think it’s in man’s nature to do so. Rather, I believe, that in most cases the previous popes were already in alignment with the HS when they went into the discussion. However, I (as well as others) often wonder if that’s the case in every situtation. For example, some of the teachings of the Church are quite old and were decided upon by men who didn’t have the knowledge and understanding that we do today. That’s why I wish some issues were revisited.

For example, it’s no secret that at one time the Church believed that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe, and it was sinful to say otherwise. But we know for a fact that the earth is round and isn’t the center of the universe. Although we may claim that it was in arrogance that the Church believed we were the center of the universe, I rather think it was a misunderstanding/misinterpretation. They didn’t have the knowledge and understanding back then. If the Church can be wrong in this matter, why can’t the Church be mistaken in other matters as well? You can’t convince me that they can’t because they HAVE.

In addition, certain radicals are teaching that every encyclical and article coming from the vatican is infallible, which makes things more confusing. My priest told me that the Pope has only made a few infallible statements, “the last one being on mary” and that encyclicals are there to guide, not demand. He told me we were to read the encyclicals with an open mind and pure heart and consider them with a clear conscience, and with that, they will direct you. But others here have said they’re all infallible teachings. But according to my priest, they’re not, unless “specifically” said to be infallible.

Also, I believe there are a few contraidictions in the teachings of the Church, which further makes me believe they don’t have as perfect an understanding as they want people to believe. Free will doesn’t always mean you’re going to make the right or wrong choices, it may be a lack of understanding that drives you as well.

 

[Rence]

So what you are basically saying is that it does not matter what the Church tells you as a teaching, you have to obey in either way. You are only forced to believe in level 1 and 2, but you have to obey in every case (infallible teachings as well as fallible teachings).
Do you have examples as to what each group means? Level 1 is obviously concerning dogma, something that can be easily found on the internet. What are examples for level 2, infallible, but not a dogma? What are examples for levels 3 and 4, things you do not have to believe, but that require your obedience anyway?

I specifically asked a few priests about this, and they all said this all was a misinterpretation by people. He said you have to believe in actual dogma. But you can disagree with other things, but must obey them. Then there are other things you have to look at with a clear conscience.

For example, I told him that I would like it if women were ordained, but that I know the Pope said it’s not going to happen. So I disagree with it, but I don’t fight about it. I accept that it’s a teaching, but disagree with it, and disagree with the rationale and reasons behind it. But I do not picket, encourage people to go against the pope, etc. He specifically said I was not sinning and could have communion because I wasn’t doing anything wrong or sinning.

I told him I had a problem with this Absolutism and “sin of relativity” that I hear about here on this forum. I told him I believe that people form their beliefs, values and morals from their sorroundings and that I’ve always respected the choices people make for themselves and that I will not condemn people for their choices (for example, abortion, or whatever). I told him that I do NOT believe in aboriton for me, it wouldn’t be an option for me. But that I have a problem telling a noncatholic or nonpracticing catholic what they should or shouldn’t do or “wind up in hell for it”. My priests have said that we, as catholics, have the obligation to make a person understand the rules of the Church and after that, it’s their choice and we are not to penalize them or treat them any different. They have the right to make their own choices. He said I was not sinning and could have communion for the way I felt.

Now, even though we believe that a person has the right and autonomay that enables them to make a bad choice (let’s continue to use abortion as an example), and we have told them the truth and they still do it anyway, we don’t condemn them, but treat them as we always have. We are not sinning by supporting them as individuals with individual rights. However, we are not allowed to participate in it in any way, such as being a nurse in an abortion clinic, helping someone pay for it, driving someone to the clinic, being one of those escorts to help them to get into one, etc. But we are not sinning by saying, “ok, I’ve told you it was wrong according to the Church, why it was wrong according to the Church, gave you other options, I think I’ve talked myself blue in the face trying to help you, but it’s your choice, and I still value you as a person, and I’ll always be here when you need me”. Get the difference?

The same goes for contraceptives. You can talk yourself blue in the face about the pros and cons of all sorts of birth control methods. If, in the end, the person makes the wrong choice, all you can do is pray for them and say, “Ok, that’s your choice. I don’t agree with you at all, but you have the right to make your choice. It’s a bad choice, but it’s your choice and I’ll be here if you need me”. That’s not sinning. You’re not going to get anywhere badgering a non-practicing Catholic. That will only push them further and foster resentment. What you can do is lead by example, and be consistent with teaching, and hope one day they will change their mind.

I asked him about voting. Some of the folks here on CAF have told me in previous posts that basically we have to vote the way the Church tells us to, or we are sinning and can’t go to Communion until we go to confession. My priests have told me that isn’t so. They all said that the Church makes recommendations and guides one, but in the end, it’s ONE’S own decision based on many factors not just one. If I voted for a candidate that the Church didn’t approve of, if I voted because I thought the candidtate was best for the job, that I was not sinning. If I voted specifically and only because a candidate agreed with something I agreed with but that the Church didn’t approve of, not considering other factors, then that was a sin.

All of the priests I talk to can’t be collectively wrong. I rather think there are a few radicals making a whole bunch of noise on a forum. Like us, they are following their conscience. We all are responsible for following our conscience and doing what we believe is right.

 

[hellopeople]

I don’t agree with that hellopeople. Here’s why: Remember that free will can be used to decided to do good as well as bad. Being influenced by the Holy Spirit doesn’t affect free will according to what I have always been taught, and no one here has ever came up with any evidence that it does. Say for example, I tell you, hellopeople, “don’t eat that chocolate, it’s fattening, it’s got a lot of sugar, it’s empty calories. why not have that low-sugar banana nut muffin instead”. I’m trying to influence you to make a better choice. But you have the free will to make the choice no matter what you choose. My influence may inspire you, but it’s your choice, and you’re free to make it.

So the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church, but in the end, the Pope and Bishops have to decide, with their free will. They can choose correctly and they can choose incorrectly. Keep in mind, that choosing incorrectly may not be intentional. It could be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

I think that papal infallibility has to be one of those things that you have to accept blindly. But I think that people erroneously are thinking that this “blind faith” is a reflection on one’s faith in the Holy Spirit. But I strongly disagree. In some cases, we’re talking about a man (or men) and his ability to set aside personal beliefs, values, biases, thoughts, and completely clearing his mind to make the decision he thinks the Holy Spirit is guiding him to make. And I’m just not sure that’s possible anymore than it’s possible for us “normal people” to set aside what we truly believe, because that’s what make us ourselves. When going into a discussion, we all have our thoughts on the matter before we even go in. Those thoughts are shaped by everything around us. And I just don’t believe that a man can just decide to set aside his thoughts because I don’t think it’s in man’s nature to do so. Rather, I believe, that in most cases the previous popes were already in alignment with the HS when they went into the discussion. However, I (as well as others) often wonder if that’s the case in every situtation. For example, some of the teachings of the Church are quite old and were decided upon by men who didn’t have the knowledge and understanding that we do today. That’s why I wish some issues were revisited.

For example, it’s no secret that at one time the Church believed that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe, and it was sinful to say otherwise. But we know for a fact that the earth is round and isn’t the center of the universe. Although we may claim that it was in arrogance that the Church believed we were the center of the universe, I rather think it was a misunderstanding/misinterpretation. They didn’t have the knowledge and understanding back then. If the Church can be wrong in this matter, why can’t the Church be mistaken in other matters as well? You can’t convince me that they can’t because they HAVE.

In addition, certain radicals are teaching that every encyclical and article coming from the vatican is infallible, which makes things more confusing. My priest told me that the Pope has only made a few infallible statements, “the last one being on mary” and that encyclicals are there to guide, not demand. He told me we were to read the encyclicals with an open mind and pure heart and consider them with a clear conscience, and with that, they will direct you. But others here have said they’re all infallible teachings. But according to my priest, they’re not, unless “specifically” said to be infallible.

Also, I believe there are a few contraidictions in the teachings of the Church, which further makes me believe they don’t have as perfect an understanding as they want people to believe. Free will doesn’t always mean you’re going to make the right or wrong choices, it may be a lack of understanding that drives you as well.

I don’t really see how you don’t agree with me…are you saying that the pope is fallible?

 

[jayk15]

Remember, the Pope is only infallible if he chooses to make a proclamation ex cathedra, which doing so is an act of free will. He could have chosen to make the proclamation not ex cathedra.

 

[kepha1]

So what you are basically saying is that it does not matter what the Church tells you as a teaching, you have to obey in either way. You are only forced to believe in level 1 and 2, but you have to obey in every case (infallible teachings as well as fallible teachings).
Do you have examples as to what each group means? Level 1 is obviously concerning dogma, something that can be easily found on the internet. What are examples for level 2, infallible, but not a dogma? What are examples for levels 3 and 4, things you do not have to believe, but that require your obedience anyway?

It is my opinion that the Protestant mindset cannot comprehend infallibility.

“It has been urged that neither a fallible individual nor a collection of fallible individuals can constitute an infallible organ. This is quite true in reference to natural knowledge and would be also true as applied to Church authority if Christianity were assumed to be a mere product of natural reason. But we set out from an entirely different standpoint. We assume as antecedently and independently established that God can supernaturally guide and enlighten men, individually or collectively, in such a way that, notwithstanding the natural fallibility of human intelligence, they may speak and may be known with certainty to speak in His name and with His authority, so that their utterance may be not merely infallible but inspired. And it is only with those who accept this standpoint that the question of the Church’s infallibility can be profitably discussed.” Catholic Encyclopedia

1&2 Peter are infallible papal encyclicals.

 

[kepha1]

So what you are basically saying is that it does not matter what the Church tells you as a teaching, you have to obey in either way. You are only forced to believe in level 1 and 2, but you have to obey in every case (infallible teachings as well as fallible teachings).
Do you have examples as to what each group means? Level 1 is obviously concerning dogma, something that can be easily found on the internet. What are examples for level 2, infallible, but not a dogma? What are examples for levels 3 and 4, things you do not have to believe, but that require your obedience anyway?

If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:
*Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood. *
In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines “Jesus Christ is God” and “women may not be ordained to the priesthood” because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.
Notice the explicit “we define” here? Notice that it is addressed to “anyone,” not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don’t believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.

In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not “the red dog runs at night.” This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted “de fide.” (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, “Is Enclyclical X infallible?” need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven’t been strictly defined.

All other teachings are owed obedience. Now we need to explain what Catholicism means by obedience, because it relates to free will.

 

[kepha1]

OBEDIENCE

We are forbidden to do our own will for we are to “Leave (our) own will and desires” (Eccl. 18:30), and “…beg the Lord in prayer that His will may be done in us” (Mt. 6:10). Thus we learn not to do our own will for Scripture warns us: “There are ways that seem right to men, but they lead, in the end, to the depths of hell” (Prv 16:25).

(Humility) is reached when a man, not loving his own will, does not bother to please himself, but follows the injunction of the Lord: “I came not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me” (Jn 6:38).

I have found obedience to be a salvation. Two examples:

1. My Conversion to the Catholic Church: When I finally sat down and took a look at Scripture honestly (and literally) I found that it was the Catholic Church, not the Baptist Church who truly interpreted Scripture literally. (i.e., the Real Presence, the Chair of Peter). When I looked at history I found that, too, the Catholics were right after all. When confronted with these Truths, I had a decision to make. Either obey Truth, or follow delusion—either become Catholic, or remain Protestant. I obeyed the Truth even though I didn’t understand it all.

2. My devotion to Mary: Although I was convinced of the authority of the Church, the Real Presence, and all, I was not so convinced about the communion of the saints and the doctrine on Mary. That took a little while longer. But since I knew that the Church had the AUTHORITY to declare these doctrines, I simply OBEYED.

Was my “belief” from the heart? No. Did I “feel” the devotion to Mary? No. I merely obeyed the Church and believed in the doctrine of Mary and the communion of the saints out of shear cold obedience.

But then something odd happened. Almost immediately after I obeyed the Church on this and submitted my mind and will to the Church’s teachings, all of a sudden, I began to understand the doctrine. It was almost like magic. I began to “know” what these doctrines were about. In short order I found myself no longer obeying in cold submission, but in understanding also. I had come to understand and to agree with the doctrine through the reason of my mind.

Still, something was missing—the devotion of my heart. Within one month after the cold obedience, followed by the revelation of intellect given to me to understand (only after the obedience), finally came an understanding of the heart.

I can give other examples of this, but the chronology is always the same:

1. 
   *]shear cold obedience
   *]understanding of intellect
   *]understanding and application of heart and spirit
   
   Without the obedience, the undersanding and application of heart would not have happened. Now, most of the time, my obedience is warm, not cold, but I do sometimes come up against some things that I want to resist. It is then that the cold obedience must happen.
   
   God tells us in Scripture that obedience is greater than sacrifice…
   
   How can we impart this truth to our generation? Even to ourselves who have been so socialized in this American culture to consider ourselves our own authority to one degree or another?
   
   Lord help me to obey! And then upon that solid rock of Yourself with my obedience laid upon it, indeed even molded into it, help me to build the house of Your Love. Amen.
   
   by Br. Ignatius Mary, former Baptist minister

 

[hellopeople]

It is my opinion that the Protestant mindset cannot comprehend infallibility.

Many protestants believe that the bible is inerrant and infallible.

 

[kepha1]

Many protestants believe that the bible is inerrant and infallible.

In the context of the thread, by “infallibility” I meant papal infallibility, and Protestants are in protest to papal authority in general. That is why they are called Protestants. Apostolic Succession, Papal authority, and Magisterial Infallibility can be demonstrated by inerrant and infallible scriptures even though these Traditions PREDATE THE CANON OF THE BIBLE, Protestants rebel against the very Bible they hold to be inerrant. But the OP question pits human will against divine will, and Protestantism cannot, or will not, accept the fusion of the two. "He who hears you hears Me…" are infallible words of God to the Apostles that summarizes Papal Infallibility and Protestants think Jesus is talking about them.

 

[Janet1983]

OBEDIENCE
I can give other examples of this, but the chronology is always the same:

1. *]shear cold obedience *]understanding of intellect *]understanding and application of heart and spirit [by Br. Ignatius Mary, former Baptist minister](http://www.saint-mike.org/library/brojp/obedience.asp)

1. 
   Kepha,
   
   You seem to assume that I never practiced such devotion, especially to Mary. I was devoted enough to prefer living in a nunnery over living with my parents while I was still in High School. On the way from school to the bus I passed a church every day and I went in every day, because the Marian chapel in the back was always open.
   I know what obedience is like and I am familiar with shear cold obedience, though it never felt too cold for me as I was raised a cradle Catholic.
   What I was curious about was how I can (in the English language nonetheless) distinguish between something that has been taught for years and something that hasn’t if I am not familiar with every single doctrine and it is not as obvious as you have pointed out. The question whether something is fallible or not seems to me like it is only an interior one. It is not about whether or not you are to obey, because that is something you have to do in either case, but it is about whether or not you have to believe in that which you obey.
   Now what are tangible examples that have happened in reality in which you can p(name removed by moderator)oint out between level 1 and level 2 infallible or between those and level 3 or 4. I always assumed that it’s either infallible or fallible and never seen any more differentiation in there.
   How could I as a non-native speaker of the English language point out what the difference is apart from things that are just implied?

 

[JohnAlexander]

Yes the Pope does lose free will in this regard.

The Holy Spirit will prevent a Pope from purposely teaching as infallible something that is not true.

Papal infallibility is not a positive power. It does not confer any special ability onto the Pope. It is a limiting power. It limits what he can do and teach. There is just a huge difference between “what I say is true because I say it” and “I am only able to say that which is true”.

If a Pope still wanted to teach something that was not true then he would have to resign as Pope, leave the Church and start a new one. Protestants do this all the time when they don’t like some particular teaching. That is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. So he has the free will to teach what he wants but not to teach what he wants as Pope. But such a situation is so bizarre that it is very unlikely. There have historically been many worldly Popes. They did not bother teaching doctrines, they were preoccupied with their worldly concerns.

 

[Rence]

Yes the Pope does lose free will in this regard.

Can you please cite where in the Church’s documents that you found this? I would really love to read it.

 

[hellopeople]

Can you please cite where in the Church’s documents that you found this? I would really love to read it.

It might not be in church doctrines but in my opinion it is the only way that it can happen.

 

[kepha1]

Kepha,

You seem to assume that I never practiced such devotion, especially to Mary. I was devoted enough to prefer living in a nunnery over living with my parents while I was still in High School. On the way from school to the bus I passed a church every day and I went in every day, because the Marian chapel in the back was always open.
I know what obedience is like and I am familiar with shear cold obedience, though it never felt too cold for me as I was raised a cradle Catholic.
What I was curious about was how I can (in the English language nonetheless) distinguish between something that has been taught for years and something that hasn’t if I am not familiar with every single doctrine and it is not as obvious as you have pointed out. The question whether something is fallible or not seems to me like it is only an interior one. It is not about whether or not you are to obey, because that is something you have to do in either case, but it is about whether or not you have to believe in that which you obey.
Now what are tangible examples that have happened in reality in which you can p(name removed by moderator)oint out between level 1 and level 2 infallible or between those and level 3 or 4. I always assumed that it’s either infallible or fallible and never seen any more differentiation in there.
How could I as a non-native speaker of the English language point out what the difference is apart from things that are just implied?

Identifying Infallible Statements
By Jimmy Akin