Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The individual Pope has nothing to do with what that Pope does as Pope;)
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
If the Pope is imperfect he cannot be infallible.
Because if he is imperfect, then he could be (and most likely often is) wrong.
Click to expand...
Infallibility does not mean that a person is never wrong.

Infallibility is a charism which is specific to the matters of teaching on faith and morals.

It doesn’t matter if a Pope pronounces a cardinal’s name wrong. It doesn’t matter if a Pope might let an F-bomb drop if he hits his hand with a hammer. These do not affect infallibility.

ImPECCABILITY means that a person is sinless. That would be Jesus and Mary. They were never ‘wrong’ in that sin is wrong, and they never sinned. But INFALLIBILITY doesn’t mean ‘never wrong’, therefore never sinning.

InFALLIBILITY is something else again.

But I’m glad you mentioned this because now it really is clear that you do not (yet) understand the difference and what infallibility is.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Infallibility does not mean that a person is never wrong.

Infallibility is a charism which is specific to the matters of teaching on faith and morals.

It doesn’t matter if a Pope pronounces a cardinal’s name wrong. It doesn’t matter if a Pope might let an F-bomb drop if he hits his hand with a hammer. These do not affect infallibility.

ImPECCABILITY means that a person is sinless. That would be Jesus and Mary. They were never ‘wrong’ in that sin is wrong, and they never sinned. But INFALLIBILITY doesn’t mean ‘never wrong’, therefore never sinning.

InFALLIBILITY is something else again.

But I’m glad you mentioned this because now it really is clear that you do not (yet) understand the difference and what infallibility is.
Click to expand...
Indeed, this.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Infallibility does not mean that a person is never wrong.

Infallibility is a charism which is specific to the matters of teaching on faith and morals.

It doesn’t matter if a Pope pronounces a cardinal’s name wrong. It doesn’t matter if a Pope might let an F-bomb drop if he hits his hand with a hammer. These do not affect infallibility.

ImPECCABILITY means that a person is sinless. That would be Jesus and Mary. They were never ‘wrong’ in that sin is wrong, and they never sinned. But INFALLIBILITY doesn’t mean ‘never wrong’, therefore never sinning.

InFALLIBILITY is something else again.

But I’m glad you mentioned this because now it really is clear that you do not (yet) understand the difference and what infallibility is.
Click to expand...
👍

And, I would add, Angry, if you can see how we view St. Peter, the first pope, it might assist you in understanding how someone can be imperfect yet also infallible, as the Catholic Church proclaims infallibility.

Clearly, he was imperfect. Clearly he was a sinner. He denied Christ 3 times–:eek:

Yet, he also wrote 2 infallible encyclicals.

And he held the office of the first vicar of Christ on earth.

So there you go. 🤷
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Infallibility does not mean that a person is never wrong.

Infallibility is a charism which is specific to the matters of teaching on faith and morals.

It doesn’t matter if a Pope pronounces a cardinal’s name wrong. It doesn’t matter if a Pope might let an F-bomb drop if he hits his hand with a hammer. These do not affect infallibility.

ImPECCABILITY means that a person is sinless. That would be Jesus and Mary. They were never ‘wrong’ in that sin is wrong, and they never sinned. But INFALLIBILITY doesn’t mean ‘never wrong’, therefore never sinning.

InFALLIBILITY is something else again.

But I’m glad you mentioned this because now it really is clear that you do not (yet) understand the difference and what infallibility is.
Click to expand...
The idea that an imperfect being can do something perfectly (like conveying the teachings of God) in a consistent way is illogical at best.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
The idea that an imperfect being can do something perfectly (like conveying the teachings of God) in a consistent way is illogical at best.
Click to expand...
Not true. Some people can perfectly quote you whole plays or even novels word for word, for decades after they read them. Some have an unerring memory for cards (a la Dustin Hoffman’s character in ‘Rain Man’). Some can hear a musical piece once and reproduce it with unerring accuracy as Mozart did with Allegri’s Miserere. Some can imitate the style of a famous painter so well that their fakes are mistaken for real works of the painter.

So yes, otherwise fallible people can have certain things that they do do consistently and/or perfectly well.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
The idea that an imperfect being can do something perfectly (like conveying the teachings of God) in a consistent way is illogical at best.
Click to expand...
That’s because you’re operating from the position of an atheist, and that God doesn’t exist.

If you can take one step away from that paradigm, (you are in a dialogue on a Catholic forum after all!), and assume that there is a God for the sake of discussion, then it’s quite an easy leap to see that there’s nothing illogical about it.

After all, if God can create the universe ex nihilo, then preventing an individual from erring in the areas of faith and morals should be quite a snap, no?

Now, of course, you can end the discussion with this: Well, I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s a moot point.

But that doesn’t seem to be your modus operandi.

It seems that you are able to take the theistic position simply for the sake of pursuing dialogue, and argue from the position that there is a God.

And, if you’re accepting of this (for the sake of discussion), then it’s not hard at all to reason that an Omnipotent Deity could do something as simple as preventing someone from erring. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
That’s because you’re operating from the position of an atheist, and that God doesn’t exist.

If you can take one step away from that paradigm, (you are in a dialogue on a Catholic forum after all!), and assume that there is a God for the sake of discussion, then it’s quite an easy leap to see that there’s nothing illogical about it.

After all, if God can create the universe ex nihilo, then preventing an individual from erring in the areas of faith and morals should be quite a snap, no?

Now, of course, you can end the discussion with this: Well, I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s a moot point.

But that doesn’t seem to be your modus operandi.

It seems that you are able to take the theistic position simply for the sake of pursuing dialogue, and argue from the position that there is a God.

And, if you’re accepting of this (for the sake of discussion), then it’s not hard at all to reason that an Omnipotent Deity could do something as simple as preventing someone from erring. 🤷
Click to expand...
I want to say that this is the most affirming and positive approach I’ve seen for someone to use in talking to someone who is Atheist. I was Atheist for some time and I appreciate that someone can be an adult and not hurl insults and horrible comments. This is very mature and I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents and say so.

Lorrie
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
The idea that an imperfect being can do something perfectly (like conveying the teachings of God) in a consistent way is illogical at best.
Click to expand...
The idea that what one thinks is true is really the reflection of the outside world is questionable at the very least, what counts is that the idea one holds increases ones chance of survival.
 
Irishgal49 said:
I want to say that this is the most affirming and positive approach I’ve seen for someone to use in talking to someone who is Atheist. I was Atheist for some time and I appreciate that someone can be an adult and not hurl insults and horrible comments. This is very mature and I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents and say so.

Lorrie
Click to expand...
:curtsey: :thankyou:
 
LilyM said:
Not true. Some people can perfectly quote you whole plays or even novels word for word, for decades after they read them. Some have an unerring memory for cards (a la Dustin Hoffman’s character in ‘Rain Man’). Some can hear a musical piece once and reproduce it with unerring accuracy as Mozart did with Allegri’s Miserere. Some can imitate the style of a famous painter so well that their fakes are mistaken for real works of the painter.

So yes, otherwise fallible people can have certain things that they do do consistently and/or perfectly well.
Click to expand...
But they don’t do it perfectly.
There are always imperfections and errors in any major work.
A missed word, using the wrong tone, employing the incorrect color, etc.
Often times these mistakes are so small and insignificant that no one notices them, but they are still there.

Everybody makes mistakes.
Its more or less a feature of humanity.
Expecting anyone to be able to do anything infallibly is absurd in light of this common imperfection.
 
PRmerger said:
That’s because you’re operating from the position of an atheist, and that God doesn’t exist.

If you can take one step away from that paradigm, (you are in a dialogue on a Catholic forum after all!), and assume that there is a God for the sake of discussion, then it’s quite an easy leap to see that there’s nothing illogical about it.

After all, if God can create the universe ex nihilo, then preventing an individual from erring in the areas of faith and morals should be quite a snap, no?

Now, of course, you can end the discussion with this: Well, I don’t believe in God anyway, so it’s a moot point.

But that doesn’t seem to be your modus operandi.

It seems that you are able to take the theistic position simply for the sake of pursuing dialogue, and argue from the position that there is a God.

And, if you’re accepting of this (for the sake of discussion), then it’s not hard at all to reason that an Omnipotent Deity could do something as simple as preventing someone from erring. 🤷
Click to expand...
But that’s not the only assumption that the Catholic position requires.
You must also accept assumptions like God cares what individuals do, God is good, God thinks enough of the Papacy to make the Pope infallible, etc.
 
Tenofovir said:
But the Catholic Church must do what Angry Atheists ™ want it to do.
Click to expand...
Did you actually bother to read this thread before commenting?:rolleyes:

I said that these would-be priestesses should leave the Church rather than expecting it to change for them. That their attempt to reform the Catholic Church was futile.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
But they don’t do it perfectly.
There are always imperfections and errors in any major work.
A missed word, using the wrong tone, employing the incorrect color, etc.
Often times these mistakes are so small and insignificant that no one notices them, but they are still there.

Everybody makes mistakes.
Click to expand...
But when they teach on faith and morals, they proclaim without error.

That’s what we mean by infallibility. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

If you’re going to argue against infallibility, you’re going to have to argue against the Catholic understanding of it. Not argue against, “Well, I heard the Pope once say that it was going to rain today, and it didn’t. so therefore the Pope is not infallible.”
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
But that’s not the only assumption that the Catholic position requires.
You must also accept assumptions like God cares what individuals do, God is good, God thinks enough of the Papacy to make the Pope infallible, etc.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah.

If you’re going to argue against infallibility, and you’re on a Catholic forum, you’re going to have to argue intellectually and take certain presuppositions: God exists. God is good. God thinks enough of His Church to preserve it from error.

If you can’t make any of those presuppositions, for the sake of argument, then, again, you can just end all the discussions with, “Well, I’m an atheist and I don’t believe in God, so there!”
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
But they don’t do it perfectly.
There are always imperfections and errors in any major work.
A missed word, using the wrong tone, employing the incorrect color, etc.
Often times these mistakes are so small and insignificant that no one notices them, but they are still there.

Everybody makes mistakes.
Its more or less a feature of humanity.
Expecting anyone to be able to do anything infallibly is absurd in light of this common imperfection.
Click to expand...
Well, if there are always imperfections then no (or at least way fewer) fake paintingz allegedly by masters would ever make it past an art dealer or collector - they are examined and scientifically analyzed to an extent that would really make it nearly impossible if there were any mistakes.

And card counters would presumably find it not worth their while unless they were flawless - any mistake would surely make it not worth their while.
 
Bezant said:
It really shouldn’t be an issue that the Pope has to reaffirm.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. The Church has always had to defend itself from those who seek to get approval to do what the Church either has no authority to do, like women priests, and cannot do.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top