E
Emily2014
Guest
With respect, please could you explain more clearly, as I am not a philosopher.
God is all powerful, the Creator of all that is -how therefore can anything be impossible for Him.
- Status
God is all powerful, the Creator of all that is -how therefore can anything be impossible for Him.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The problem is that there are examples of where teachings have changed. It is true that they may not be infallible dogmas. But there is another problem. Exactly how many infallible dogmas are there and what are they specifically. Does anyone have a complete list of all of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church?
B
Bookcat
Guest
A circle has a particular nature - as does a circle - one cannot have a square circle.
There cannot be a “non-existant cat”. For a cat cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Something either has being or it does not.
Something cannot be infallibly true and infallibly not true in the same respect.
A Pope’s definition cannot be infallible and later fallible.
E
Emily2014
Guest
All that Is, comes from God, as do our perceptions of what exists and what does not. Surely you are attributing human limitations upon the Almighty. It is within His power, as the Creator of all things to change anything. We are extremely fallible humans. God is not. His power is beyond our comprehension.
T
Tigg
Guest
I think you need to approach this considering the attributes of God. It would be incorrect to say He can do all things by His power because He cannot deny the essence of Himself. He cannot lie, for instance, because of His nature and who He is. He is intrinsically holy and therefore unable to sin and His truths as He has revealed them through the vehicle, His Church, are objective truths. Because God is omniscient His knowledge will never increase, although finite man can gain new insights into His immutable truths. It really is inaccurate to say that the Church can change her teachings which have come from divine revelation, but rather that man can progress to a greater understanding of that *same *truth. But this never means a repudiation of that which has always been taught, nor does it mean a substitution of something “new” (with a different understanding.) If one believes dogma can change, then they are not understanding that the Church belongs to Christ alone and through His guidance she will always stand upon the earth leading man to moral truth.
B
Bookcat
Guest
There is more to it than that…(see some of my examples above).
Give a call on tonight’s CA show with Jimmy Akin - such can be better explained in a live conversation - and he is one who can do it well and briefly. catholic.com/radio
As to the question at hand - a Pope cannot make an infallible dogma at one moment and then another Pope define the opposite - a Pope cannot infallibly define something as true here and he or another Pope later infallibly define something as not true - God protects him from so doing. That is the nature of infallibility.
G
Genesis315
Guest
First, the Pope just saying something does not determine Catholic doctrine. For example, if in an interview or a phone call with some private person he says something contrary to the faith, that does not thereby affect the doctrine of the Church. He must manifest his intention to be judging or laying down the doctrine of the universal Church. He is only infallible in this second way–there’s nothing stopping a Pope from personally erring otherwise.
Many canonists and theologians over the centuries have discussed what would happen if a Pope publicly manifested an obstinate refusal of Catholic dogma–ie if he became a heretic. They all agree that he should cease to be head of the Church (since heretics are not members of the Church), but disagree on some of the technical aspects of how this would take place and the actions that would need to be taken.
If this were to happen, by its very nature it would be recognizable to all (all the canonists and theologians say it needs to be public and manifest). Furthermore, since it is also a definitive doctrine of the Church that the Church of the city of Rome cannot defect, that Church would not follow a false head (it is a principle going back to the beginning that all the Churches must agree with the Church of Rome–if the Church of Rome could err, this would be a bad principle). Neither would the entire episcopate defect and follow a false head.
When a Pope dies, it is the Church of Rome, in the person of her Cardinals (the preeminent clergy of Rome) who recognize the need for a new Pope and convene to choose a new one. The same happens when a Pope resigns. I imagine the same would happen if a Pope defected from the faith.
We’ll have to cross that bridge if ever we come to it, but suffice it to say we won’t be left without any bishops–we wouldn’t be making these decisions alone. The Holy Spirit assures the continuation of the Church in all its constituent elements, including the episcopacy and the papacy.
C
cena
Guest
The statement that women could not be priests is under the infallible seal. If the pope teaches public against that he is a manifest heretic and no longer pope.
He cannot say woman can be priest under the infallible seal because that is impossible.
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, depending on context.
Popes cannot contradict one another. But they can clarify one another. A Pope could say that torture is morally acceptable under specific situations and immoral under others.
For example:
– Let’s assume a “mad man” created a nuclear bomb and had an associate hide it somewhere in a city. The bomb was set to blow up after a set period of time (like the subplot of the movie “The Dark Knight Returns”). Now, the FBI captures the associate. I would most likely be morally acceptable to torture him to save millions of people. However, if information could be received by other means, then torture would not be acceptable.
So in day to day live, torture is almost always immoral. Very few situations in today’s world (based on our technology, etc) call for the use of torture.
As for Jews being saved… the Church teaches that one must be Baptized to see the Kingdom of God. But at the same time, Christ can make exceptions if He chooses to do so. We do NOT know when he will make exceptions. But it’s logical that if HE chooses to do so, it will be for someone who would have been Christian/Catholic if he/she was born into a different situation. God being God would know how alternate timelines would have turned out and what choices we would have made if our lives would have been different. So a good Jew who worships God and lives a good life MAY be saved if God chooses to do so. Being a good Christian is the rule… but God can make exceptions if He chooses to do so. Finally, let’s remember that God wants ALL people to be saved, as God’s love for each of us is greater than our love for our own children!
P
phil19034
Guest
To the OP: The Pope cannot change Dogma. The Holy Spirit will protect the Church, even if that means taking the Pope’s life.
The one Pope who tried to blatantly declare something wrong infallible died the eve before he was to make his proclamation.
The one Pope who tried to blatantly declare something wrong infallible died the eve before he was to make his proclamation.
E
Emily2014
Guest
Sorry but that sounds presumptuous. Humans cannot gain new insights into the immutable truths of God. We are His created beings and His all encompassing knowledge is beyond our comprehension. Everything we do, everything we are is because God enables this to be so.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t think it is 100% clear as to which teachings are infallible dogmas. Where is the officially approved complete list of all infallible dogmas?
C
cena
Guest
If the teaching is defined with "ex cathreda " it is infallible. The infallible seal was used when defining things against heresies. Other than those I do not know where you could find a list. I know councils like The Council of Trent probably have some.
R
ready
Guest
A true pope can not fall into heresy, as he is protected by the Holy Ghost as promised by Jesus Christ. If a claimant to the Chair of Peter were to change some dogma, then he would be considered a manifest heretic and would *ipso facto *lose his office. This is the Church’s official teaching on the matter. God bless you.
L
Le_Nozze_di_Fig
Guest
The 15 popes that have been either murdered or rumored murdered…
John VIII (872-882): Poisoned and clubbed to death
Adrian III, St. (884-885): Rumored poisoned
Stephen VI (896-897): Strangled
Leo V (903): Murdered
John X (914-928): Suffocated under a pillow
Stephen VII (VIII) (928-931): Possibly murdered
Stephen VIII (IX) (939-942): Mutilated and died from injuries
John XII (955-964): Suffered a stroke while with a mistress
or murdered by an outraged husband
Benedict VI (973-974): Strangled by a priest
John XIV (983-984): Starved to death or poisoned
Gregory V (996-999): Rumored poisoned, probably malaria
Sergius IV (1009-1012): Possibly murdered
Clement II (1046-1047): Rumored poisoned
Damasus II (1048): Rumored murdered
Boniface VIII (1294-1303): Died from abuse received while a
captive of the French in Anagni
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think you are right in how you make these distinctions.A magisterial statement which is not intended as doctrine or dogma does not fall under the notion of infallibility.
Could a Pope make a statement, not intended as doctrine or dogma, which is in error? Asked and answered: yes.
Not every word in a papal document is a statement of doctrine or dogma. Therefore, by definition, not every word in a papal document is protected by infallibility.
Now you’ve moved on to a different question. Earlier, you were asking about assent to doctrine and dogma. Now, you’re asking about assent to assertions that are neither doctrinal nor dogmatic. Yes, there are teachings which fall outside these categories. Yes, Catholics are called to obey the teachings found in encyclicals, even if they’re not, strictly speaking, ex cathedra statements.
Correct.
Even if the statements aren’t intended as ‘irreformable’, Catholics are to assent to them.
It would be important to look at the statement in context, in order to discern what exactly was being said.
G
Gorgias
Guest
There is no single volume of “officially approved complete lists of all infallible dogmas”. The Catechism is a great place to start, though…
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yet it has not happened thus far in 2,000 years, and we’ve had some guys who were self serving sinners yet they didn’t have time for doctrine they were too busy living in sin.
Odd surely, but God has his way of handling things.
Track record speaks for itself…
He’s up a stump since Pope john Paul the Great plainly stated that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that allows for it, so it cannot happen.
Irrelevant, since their opinions are not infallible or authoritative.
Except that the clowns were Episcopal not Catholic and the Chinese New Year is just custom and had nothing to do with a change in the Mass anymore than our American flags and Christmas trees in church do.
This is a non-starting “what if” since it hasn’t happened in 2,000 years and won’t happen…better to concern oneself with the least of the brethren.:yup:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
What would happen if the Pope changed dogma?
Well, a lot of Protestants would be popping champagne corks…except the Baptists, of course.
Well, a lot of Protestants would be popping champagne corks…except the Baptists, of course.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
What would happen if the Pope changed dogma?
Well, a lot of Protestants would be popping champagne corks…except the Baptists, of course.
- Status