I was trying to muddle through this one, the other day. What I found was a series of conflicting views over time, as to when the pope is infallible, and when he is not.
I have read a statement just recently, by an avowed catholic in a thread here, that the pope was simply unqualified to make a particular moral judgement that he made. The reference was to the condemnation by JP2 of the Iraq invasion (OIF1). I was surprised to read that. My sense was that any moral pronouncement by the pope is taken at face value by the faithful.
Apparently, there is a more critical process at work. I posed this question differently in another thread. I don’t want to be disrespectful, and such a directly worded question could be seen that way. But I do wonder… How does a Catholic know, when the Church is right, and when it is wrong? Surely, the actions of individuals on behalf of the Church have not always been “right” through history. This is to be expected with such a large institution, having endured for so long.
When does a well formed conscience come into play for a Catholic seeking guidance from his or her Church? When is individual interpretation allowed or encouraged, and when is it discouraged?
the majority of the faithful are ‘illiterate’ when it comes to church doctines, actions, encyclicals, etc., or are just disinterested as to the politics, power-lust, etc. in a foreign country, in some distant continent, when making both ends meet itself is a life-time problem…and when unimaginable power is given to one person, absolute corruption is the end result!
the main confusion that baffles all and sundry is due to the fact that the decisions/pronouncements of the pope relate to his authority as both church head and political head, and one cannot know, except the minority, when he is speaking what, in which capacity and the faithul are obligated to just follow like confused sheep!
you make some intelligent questions that would make this infallibility myth just what it is, if you try to understand regarding CONSCIENCE and its UNEQUIVOCAL, SUPREME, ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OR ‘COURT OF JUSTICE’ over any papal verdict, that in the wrong hands could -or actually did- assume extreme TOTALITARIAN DIMENSIONS, as we have seen during critical turning-points in HISTORY!..that claimed thousands or millions of innocent lives during the course of history…2012 years!
your post contains the key to identifying i-f as meaningless and cannot be defended and is totally unjustified, wrong and unwarranted…
fyi and better understanding, i forward the relevant rule/clause that is or should be in the ccc, and is quoted in the words of the German Pope Benedict the 16th :
Originally Posted by Marie5890
It is a legit quote.
On the sacredness of conscience, theologian Ratzinger sums up perfectly the teaching of Vatican II:
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of extemal social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle: in opposition to increasing totalitarianism." (Joseph Ratzinger, in Ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Doctrine of Vatican II, vol V, p 134.
the above rule, relatively unknown to a majority - possibly 90 % - of the FAITHFUL, is the KEY that explodes the myth of infallibility…or negates/nullifies/invalidates the universality of the said doctrine…
“TRUTH IS OFTEN ECLIPSED, BUT IT CAN NEVER BE EXTINGUISHED” – Livy
PRAISE THE LORD!
