A
Anesti33
Guest
How would you define “teaching”?
You said everything the Pope says or teaches in regards to God is infallible, but if he says something ordinary like it’s going to rain, that’s not infallible because he could be wrong and it doesn’t rain… so wouldn’t that mean his teaching are what’s infallible?By the power of the Holy Spirit who prevents them from doing so.
I really don’t know why some people (I am talking generally and not you specifically) obsess over knowing which teachings are infallible and non-infallible.I am having trouble understanding how some teachings are non-infallible and some are.
So the teaching on masturbation is infallible or not? Why is it infallible or non-infallible if it is?
What would be an example of a non-infallible teaching if there are any?
Are the theologians who dissent with infallible teachings in mortal sin? Are they going to hell?
When I see this, it’s generally because somebody is hoping a particular teaching in some area will change or that there’s a loophole to get out of it somehow. Nobody ever picks a teaching to ask this about that they personally don’t have any issue with, it’s always something that they think is questionable.I really don’t know why some people (I am talking generally and not you specifically) obsess over knowing which teachings are infallible and non-infallible.
No I didn’t say that. Nor is that true.You said everything the Pope says or teaches in regards to God is infallible,
AgaIn, the Bible isn’t infallible. No book is infallible nor document. Things aren’t infallible. People are. People infallibly teach in certain cases.Why would God need to make the person infallible if the Word of God is infallible?
It is inerrant, and inspired… the upshot of infallibility and inspiration…AgaIn, the Bible isn’t infallible.
Yes, of course it is infallible, as it is contained in the clear dictates of reason and reiterated consistently for 20 centuries by the Church in Her preaching and teaching on morals.So the teaching on masturbation is infallible or not? Why is it infallible or non-infallible if it is?
What does that mean? What would he teach ex cathedra other then what applies to God’s Truth?I said when he teaches ex cathedra that something is definitively taught
It means he only exercises ex cathedra when he is specifically teaching that something must be definitively held as a dogma. For example: the assumption of the BVM. The immaculate conception.What does that mean?
He teaches many things NOT ex cathedra. The Popes teach all the time, but not all teaching is an exercise of infallibility.What would he teach ex cathedra other then what applies to God’s Truth?