Our pontiff's authority here?

[billcu1]

I have a link here to something Francis has recently said,

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1048

Now this would be an example of non liturgical speaking would it not? There is no infallable things being discussed right? Does the pope just speak to the church or world like this on ocassion?

Bill

 

[teeboy]

I have a link here to something Francis has recently said,

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1048

Now this would be an example of non liturgical speaking would it not? There is no infallable things being discussed right? Does the pope just speak to the church or world like this on ocassion?

Bill

The Pope hardly ever speaks infallibly. Certain conditions must be met before a teaching can be considered infallible. The Assumption is an infallible teaching, and I believe is the only infallible doctrine.

 

[Corki]

The Pope hardly ever speaks infallibly. Certain conditions must be met before a teaching can be considered infallible. The Assumption is an infallible teaching, and I believe is the only infallible doctrine.

The Assumption is one of a handful of* Ex Cathedra* proclamations (the Immaculate Conception is another). There are quite a few infallible doctrines. Ex Cathedra proclamations are only one type of infallible teaching.

But, the article in the OPs link seems to be a case of the Pope verbalizing his understanding of the situation in the Middle East and possible solutions. Not a statement of doctrine or even discipline.

 

[Greekrhetoric]

He is asking the international community to stop ISIS. Nothing infallible here.

 

[St_Francis]

The Pope carries a certain cachet when it comes to moral action. He doesn’t want us to “bomb them back to the Stone Age,” or take some other action which would be too wide and thus include people not originally involved.

In addition, the idea of a balance of powers is one many feel more comfortable with than one World Policeman, or even with one World Policeman and one wannabe.

Better that there are several powers which balance each other out. Right now, the US is/was the single superpower; there are challengers, but not realistic ones and not good ones, either. We have not been so very good to other nations that we are trustworthy, and all the power that the US has could so easily be turned towards evil with no possibility of checking by other nations.

The problem is that the UN has a huge number of Moslem nations (57, iirc), and a pretty large number of nations which are bedazzled by cultural relativism. Too many of the rest are simply interested in power for themselves, and the few left over are simply struggling to survive. So it is very difficult to get anything done via the UN.

 

[Abu]

teeboy #2
The Assumption is an infallible teaching, and I believe is the only infallible doctrine.
Corki #3
The Assumption is one of a handful of Ex Cathedra proclamations (the Immaculate Conception is another). There are quite a few infallible doctrines.

There are dogmas which are infallible, and there are doctrines which are infallible. There are doctrines which are non-infallible.

The three categories can be examined here and are summarised as:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

 

[billcu1]

The Pope carries a certain cachet when it comes to moral action. He doesn’t want us to “bomb them back to the Stone Age,” or take some other action which would be too wide and thus include people not originally involved.

In addition, the idea of a balance of powers is one many feel more comfortable with than one World Policeman, or even with one World Policeman and one wannabe.

Better that there are several powers which balance each other out. Right now, the US is/was the single superpower; there are challengers, but not realistic ones and not good ones, either. We have not been so very good to other nations that we are trustworthy, and all the power that the US has could so easily be turned towards evil with no possibility of checking by other nations.

The problem is that the UN has a huge number of Moslem nations (57, iirc), and a pretty large number of nations which are bedazzled by cultural relativism. Too many of the rest are simply interested in power for themselves, and the few left over are simply struggling to survive. So it is very difficult to get anything done via the UN.

The thing here I see to examining the Pope’s wishes. That I think my be being overlooked is that as far as military the US just might be the only military power to successfully work here. I understand I should look for ex cathedra sayings. whatever that might be. A bull? A statement like lumen; an encyclical?

Also concerning the ISIS plight, the world needs to rally but these people are only relevant because of certain situations. They have somehow got a hold of military hardware. Probably where the US et al left for the Iraqis is a rush to leave and doing half a job.
 These people use good old fashioned "Guerrilla warfare". Cheating. I would also point to things such as the Ottoman empire, The Knights Templar and the holy lands. This is not the first religious extremest group to rise. People being people.

 As far a military might. Maybe right now the US "is" the world's policemen.

 

[billcu1]

There are dogmas which are infallible, and there are doctrines which are infallible. There are doctrines which are non-infallible.

The three categories can be examined here and are summarised as:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on *Ad Tuendam Fidem

by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

Does the fallible and infallible beliefs here relate to epistemology? I believe it mentions fallibility.

 

[St_Francis]

The thing here I see to examining the Pope’s wishes. That I think my be being overlooked is that as far as military the US just might be the only military power to successfully work here.

The Pope’s comments regarding ISIS carry some authority, but are infallible *only *insofar as they reflect Church teaching. He is warning us about the potential for acting immorally.

I understand I should look for ex cathedra sayings. whatever that might be. A bull? A statement like lumen; an encyclical?

If you want infallible statements, they are those which are ex cathedra, yes. Also, all statements *insofar as they set forth the perennial teachings of the Church, *so Humanae Vitae is infallible, not because the Pope wrote it but because it sets forth already-infallible teachings.

Also concerning the ISIS plight, the world needs to rally but these people are only relevant because of certain situations. They have somehow got a hold of military hardware. Probably where the US et al left for the Iraqis is a rush to leave and doing half a job.

The main problem with ISIS is that they have the *will *to destroy. They are like Mohammed and his followers who took over Saudi Arabia and most of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula within 150 years of the founding of Islam.

The foundation for ISIS has been there all along. The fact that the environment in which they find themselves now allows them to do what at least a certain strain of Islam always wants to do is a side issue: they did not come upon the military hardware and decide to do this; they had the will to do this and now conditions are ripe for the action, and part of those conditions is the military hardware.

These people use good old fashioned “Guerrilla warfare”. Cheating. I would also point to things such as the Ottoman empire, The Knights Templar and the holy lands. This is not the first religious extremest group to rise. People being people.

Yes, this is true.

As far a military might. Maybe right now the US “is” the world’s policemen.

Yes, in terms of the physical needs of fighting, the US is needed. It’s a fine balance which must be maintained: that of the US being, perhaps, the first among equals: a leader rallying people to action while at the same time remaining open to discussion.

At the same time, there’s a lot of “realpolitik” which needs also to be considered… it’s a mess.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The popes speak and write on many subjects.

Popes are authoritive in their teachings.

But

The pope is infallible only when teaching faith and morals.

 

[billcu1]

The Pope’s comments regarding ISIS carry some authority, but are infallible *only *insofar as they reflect Church teaching. He is warning us about the potential for acting immorally.

If you want infallible statements, they are those which are ex cathedra, yes. Also, all statements *insofar as they set forth the perennial teachings of the Church, *so Humanae Vitae is infallible, not because the Pope wrote it but because it sets forth already-infallible teachings.

The main problem with ISIS is that they have the *will *to destroy. They are like Mohammed and his followers who took over Saudi Arabia and most of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula within 150 years of the founding of Islam.

The foundation for ISIS has been there all along. The fact that the environment in which they find themselves now allows them to do what at least a certain strain of Islam always wants to do is a side issue: they did not come upon the military hardware and decide to do this; they had the will to do this and now conditions are ripe for the action, and part of those conditions is the military hardware.

Yes, this is true.

Yes, in terms of the physical needs of fighting, the US is needed. It’s a fine balance which must be maintained: that of the US being, perhaps, the first among equals: a leader rallying people to action while at the same time remaining open to discussion.

At the same time, there’s a lot of “realpolitik” which needs also to be considered… it’s a mess.

I have just heard they now have access to an airstrip. But I don’t think they have a navy. Military scholars are baffled as to how Khan got so far in his campaigns when he had no navy.

Bill