Inquiring Catholic question: papal infallibility no matter what?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lovevirginitydeath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lovevirginitydeath said:
It’s a hypothetical, but let’s say that one day the Church began teaching your children that there was no such thing as gender and that to impede in the teaching of this concept to your children was heresy
Click to expand...
If it hasn’t happened in 2000 years, how would it happen now? I don’t dwell on such scenarios, people like JWs always propose this type of thing. The Church was given the mission by Christ to teach the Truth. That is good enough for me.
 
lovevirginitydeath said:
Likewise, if an inquirer does not ask him/herself about whether or not they would stick with the teachings of the Church even under dire circumstances, then is it not less of a real conversion?

(And less importantly, what is JW?)
Click to expand...
Jehovah’s Witness

My answer is: Have faith and trust in God that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Simple as that and that is my view on it. If somebody wants to entertain many hypotheticals, well that’s them not me. Have a good night.
 
You probably want to read The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. It has Cardinal Ratzinger’s thoughts on similar issues, but it may give some insights.

This is not a new issue. I have seen many people struggle with existential issues over the years. You might also think about Peter Abelard’s Sic et Non. He lists a whole lot of issues where the Church Fathers take apparently contradictory opinions. The preface is a discussion of how the apparently contradictory can be reconciled. This was the start of Catholic Scholasticism and so the basis of Catholic theology.

There are people who rush to “this contradicts that” without the struggle to understand; they do not know the basics of Catholic theology.
 
One thing you may rest assured of is that the Church still stands - despite 2,000 years of external and even worse: internal backstabbing, treachery, dishonesty, corruption and every manner of human sin.

It still stands, therefore it is of divine institution.

BTW, welcome and Merry Christmas!
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
I don’t doubt what you say, but could you explain further?
Click to expand...
Between the Zogby initiative (which is substantially similar to what then Cardinal Ratzinger put forth . . .), the explicit reservations included when their Patriarch belatedly signed Vatican I, the many decades spent in simultaneous communion with Rome and Constantinople . . .
lovevirginitydeath said:
It’s a hypothetical, but let’s say that one day the Church began teaching your children that there was no such thing as gender
Click to expand...
It’s hypothetical, but what if my coffee cup lifts off the table and chases the cat?

Possible, but not something worth any of my concern,.
 
A hypothetical where changes to doctrine shadow changes already seen in the secular world-- that’s really the same as a coffee cup chasing a cat, eh? Oh my goodness, what is–

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
David Attenborough: Some art historians say that the choice of iced coffee reflects the unnecessarily chilly response to a question posed in good faith; however, others argue that it reflects the ice cold take made by the poster.

Meme aside, this forum isn’t for me. Sincere thank you to everyone who gave an earnest reply.
 
Elf01 said:
if the Pope were to infallibly declare something
Click to expand...
A dogmatic definition cannot qualify as an ex cathedral definition if it is contrary to the consent of the Church. That consent might be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent.
 
The Pope can only teach infallibility on matters of faith and morals…he can speak his views on many subjects…climate change…immigration…building walls…etc…they are not doctrinal matters and people can agree or disagree as he is not speaking from the chair…ex cathedra…
 
lovevirginitydeath said:
A hypothetical where changes to doctrine shadow changes already seen in the secular world-- that’s really the same as a coffee cup chasing a cat, eh? Oh my goodness, what is–
Click to expand...
No, not the same.

I was posting something more likely than your “hypothetical” . . .
 
This is wrong. Vatican I had already defined that the pope can dogmatize some doctrines without the consent of the Church.
 
Isearch said:
This is wrong. Vatican I had already defined that the pope can dogmatize some doctrines without the consent of the Church.
Click to expand...
No, it is correct. You can read about it in the book on Vatican I, The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55
In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered the very question before the people here, in this way:
Click to expand...
“It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”
Click to expand...
Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).
 
Vico said:
40.png
Elf01:
if the Pope were to infallibly declare something
Click to expand...
A dogmatic definition cannot qualify as an ex cathedral definition if it is contrary to the consent of the Church. That consent might be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent.
Click to expand...
There’s no practical way to measure “consent” outside the bishops, and only when gathered in Council.

The media will manipulate any other process, even will try to manipulate a council too.

Who counts as a “theologian”? Anyone, including those who totally dissent? Anyone with a doctorate in…what. Exactly?

Does the one who has a degree in Theology and supports legal abortion get the same vote as the the one who is prolife? Does theologian Rosemary Radford Reuther get a vote? (look her up).

Who measures “clear sense of Scripture”? Who deduces when consent of the Church had been reached? The NY Times? 51 percent, or two thirds?

Remember Humanae Vitae?

If the theological organization in Germany supports X does that mean X is true in Germany because “Germany” consents?
 
Last edited:
just out of curiosity, and hypothetically, what happens if one pope’s ex cathedra is contradictory to something already dogmatic, such as a pope ex cathedra saying that Jesus’s nature is not both fully human and fully divine.
 
Last edited:
Mike1w said:
what happens if one pope’s ex cathedra is contradictory to something already dogmatic
Click to expand...
Then that would make Jesus a liar. In other words, not possible. The Holy Spirit will not permit a Pope to declare false dogma under the conditions necessary for infallibility.
 
well I hope and pray that no pope ever tests the Holy Spirit in that way.
 
It could very well have already happened and we might never know unless the Holy Spirit wanted us to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top