J
James15
Guest
I still don’t understand the infalliability of the Pope…
Is his infalliability limited only, when he exercises his office or not?
Is his infalliability limited only, when he exercises his office or not?
Two major points here are that it must be a definitive act and it is an issue on faith and morals.(the Pope) enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformaable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.
It limited, that is, not everything the Pope say’s or does is protected by the Holy Ghost from error. Vatican Council One defined infallibility by stating the following,I still don’t understand the infalliability of the Pope…
Is his infalliability limited only, when he exercises his office or not?
…when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
- in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2)in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
- he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irriformable
The Church is also infallible when she teaches something that has constantly been held (like her stance on contraception) and taught by the Bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff. This is also known as the “Ordinary Magisterium”.So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
James15I still don’t understand the infalliability of the Pope…
Is his infalliability limited only, when he exercises his office or not?
Read this article on the Galileo Contreversy…Does papal infallibility include discernment of heresy? It seems that it would, as heresy is the antithesis of the Church’s position on faith and morals. Yet the pope erroneously condemned and imprisoned Galileo Galilei for promoting the Copernican theory. How can this be explained?
Because the war did not meet the requirements of just-war doctrine.Another question . . . our present pope said that the war to free Iraq is immoral.
But the Iraqis had a relatively free society. Now Christian liquor-store owners are having their property destroyed and in some areas women are being forced to wear the veil. Is that freedom?I think it is very moral to give them a chance to create a free society (and perhaps immoral to look the other way).
Another article from Catholic Answers that answers this far better than I could…Another question . . . our present pope said that the war to free Iraq is immoral. What is the basis for his saying it is immoral? Regardless of whether it will ultimately be effective to free the Iraqis, it seems extremely moral to free them of the bloodiest dictator the world has known for many decades. I think it is very moral to give them a chance to create a free society (and perhaps immoral to look the other way). Again, whether or not it actually works matters not to the issue of morality. Sometimes it is more important to do the right thing, even if it doesn’t seem effective. (Fortunately, the vast majority of Iraqis are very grateful for the opportunity to create a free society.)
I believe that God is miraculously able to guide His Church through the ages and I believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail against her. But I have reservations that the pope is always infallible on issues of faith and morality. Nevertheless, God’s sovereignty is greater than human failings.
I would be most grateful for (name removed by moderator)ut on this.
Steve
Because the war did not meet the requirements of just-war doctrine.
But the Iraqis had a relatively free society. Now Christian liquor-store owners are having their property destroyed and in some areas women are being forced to wear the veil. Is that freedom?
Yeah, but if they somehow got on Saddam’s bad side (very easy to do apparently-the man was extremely paranoid, kinda like Hitler), they or their family would “disappear.” Saddam also employed “Official violators of women”-men whose sole job it was to kidnap and rape women as some sort of punishment. “Relatively free” depends on who you ask.
I think the thing about the just war theory is that the Pope feels that Iraq doesn’t meet the criteria, but other theologians think it does, it’s really a matter of how you read it. My daughter’s religion teacher claims there has never been a just war-not even WWII-even though we were attacked by the Japanese on our own soil, and we were trying to stop Hitler from slaughtering millions of innocent people. That’s obviously ridiculous. The death penalty, despite what some anti-life politicians like to claim, is also not a matter of infallibility-the Pope just believes that in today’s society it’s rarely, if ever, needed to protect society. But you can be a Catholic in good standing and still support it, as well as the war in Iraq.
Ellen
I’d go even a step further than that and say that by definition, a pope can NOT speak infallibly on the prudential judgement regarding application of Just War Doctrine. Just War Doctrine is the ‘faith and morals’ area (and he can speak infallibly on that topic), the particular applications of Just War Doctrine are not (and he can only offer one of many opinions).Steve, in reading the article you linked, I understand papal infallibility better. It also seems that the 3rd criteria for infallability was not met in the pope’s declaration of the immorality of the war to free the Iraqis.
You MUST be kidding right? You show incredible ignorance of the life the Iraqi’s led under Saddam Hussein if you really believe that.But the Iraqis had a relatively free society.
I read the Just War Doctrine last night, and the War in Iraq meets the requirements.Because the war did not meet the requirements of just-war doctrine.
I don’t understand how you can say that. This was previously one of the most closed, opressive societies on earth.But the Iraqis had a relatively free society. Now Christian liquor-store owners are having their property destroyed and in some areas women are being forced to wear the veil. Is that freedom?
Easier to say it than it is to show it.You MUST be kidding right? You show incredible ignorance of the life the Iraqi’s led under Saddam Hussein if you really believe that.
Sorry to be harsh, but that is truly one of the silliest statements I have heard on the subject of the Iraq war.