The infallable pope

[Peter_J]

Peter, is what you are saying that the Pope doesn’t teach infallibly on faith and morals unless he makes an ‘ex cathedra statement’ or otherwise some kind of 'doctrinal act?

If you re-read what I posted, I think you will see for yourself what it is that I’m saying, namely that Ron’s statement:

Catholics are not saying the Pope is perfect in everything he says and does. They are just saying that he is always correct when he teaches about faith and morality.

is incorrect. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches on faith and morals.

Thank you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, if it were clear. . .

That is why I’m trying to make it clear.

If the Pope is teaching on faith and morals, are you saying that he can make an error unless he is specifically claiming the charism of infallibility through an ex cathedra statement or other doctrinal action?

You see, if the Pope is TEACHING (and those are Ron’s words), that is something more than the Pope just say chilling with the homeboys or engaging in small talk.

TEACHING is something much more than just talk.

And from the Catechism’s entry that I posted a while ago, it looks as though your claim is being a bit too ‘narrow’.

Now if the Pope is talking with one person and says (as he supposedly did) that there might be problems with Harry Potter books --he is not TEACHING ON FAITH AND MORALS and so he can err.

But if the Pope is TEACHING (not just talking) on faith and morals. . .you’re saying he can err?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

See, here is what the catechism says:

**

**890 **

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
**

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”** This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.**

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So in the catechism the phrase “infallibility in matters of faith and morals” IS used.

And the charism is said to be exercised in several ways.
And it EXTENDS as far as the deposit of divine revelation.

And in matters with ‘better understanding’, the faithful are to ‘adhere with religious assent’ which is an extension of faith.

I think you need to make that part clearer too.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, it is true that there are differences in doctrine between Methodists and Anglicans, between Lutherans and Quakers, etc.

But every single Protestant group has at least ‘one’ significant heretical teaching that denies the ‘fullness’ of truth that Catholicism possesses.

Say a person has committed 1 mortal sin, and another person has committed 6, and another 100, and another 10,000?

ONE mortal sin is sufficient to send a person to hell. The only difference is that of ‘degree’. The ‘destination’ is the same no matter how ‘many’ mortal sins were committed.

NOT that I am saying Protestants are condemned to hell, by any means.

Lutherans and Anglicans may in some ways have fewer doctrinal differences from Catholics than a Seventh Day Adventist or Quaker. . .but even one error is one error too many, and that any error exists needs to be ‘repaired’. Some churches will only need a ‘few errors’ fixed’; others will need many–but all Protestant churches have some errors.

I think this applies today as it did then.

ACTS 15
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

 

[ron77nyc]

I assume you’re aware, ron, that Protestants consider Catholics to be heretics? How did that fit in with your thinking?

BTW, I agree that lumping Protestants all into the same boat can be a problem, but I don’t see that mercygate was doing that.

Here is how it fits: both are wrong!!!
Here is what Peter preached. It applies here.

ACTS 15
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

 

[Irene72]

After all these posts I still dont see any proof.

 

[mercygate]

After all these posts I still dont see any proof.

All you can get is a preponderance of evidence. There is no proof of the resurrection either.

What would constitute proof in your estimation? Your signature says you are “considering Islam.” Is the “proof” that Muhammad was taken to heaven from Mount Moriah? Less than has been offered on this thread in support of a Petrine primacy and indefectibility from the Truth.

 

[Peter_J]

Here is how it fits: both are wrong!!!

Alright, so you don’t believe Roman Catholics are heretics, and you don’t believe Protestants are heretics, and I’m just assuming you don’t believe Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

So to try to get some perspective on your opinions … do you believe that the Arians were heretics?

 

[elts1956]

I’m sure that someone will accuse me of being a heretic or a Catholic basher for this but have you ever spoken to a non-Catholic about the Protestant Reformation? If you read Luther’s 95 theses you’ll get it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Haven’t read all 95, but what I have read seemed to be topics that “could” have been settled by compromise on both sides, with the exception of those beliefs that were pronounced infallible by the Magisterium. One of these, I think, was in regard to the dogma of transubstantiation during the Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[ron77nyc]

Alright, so you don’t believe Roman Catholics are heretics, and you don’t believe Protestants are heretics, and I’m just assuming you don’t believe Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

So to try to get some perspective on your opinions … do you believe that the Arians were heretics?

I believe that all religions including Catholicism have some error therefore they are all heretics according to someone else’s standards. Calling people heretics is inflammatory language. It’s not even consistent with current church teaching and the spirit of ecumenism according to Ut Unim Sint. That’s why I say it’s old fashioned and contagious. It’s like calling someone ignorant. Ignorant means uninformed or unaware and we are all ignorant about something but does that mean we should constantly refer to others as ignorant?

 

[ron77nyc]

Haven’t read all 95, but what I have read seemed to be topics that “could” have been settled by compromise on both sides, with the exception of those beliefs that were pronounced infallible by the Magisterium. One of these, I think, was in regard to the dogma of transubstantiation during the Sacrifice of the Mass.

From what I’ve read about it and I can’t say that it is all true because I wasn’t alive then, Luther wanted to open up dialog with the Church to reform it but was constantly ignored.

 

[ron77nyc]

Alright, so you don’t believe Roman Catholics are heretics, and you don’t believe Protestants are heretics, and I’m just assuming you don’t believe Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

So to try to get some perspective on your opinions … do you believe that the Arians were heretics?

I don’t know what the Arians taught and I believe the line has to be drawn somewhere but not among people who worship the same Lord and believe the same Gospel.

 

[Cinette]

I believe that all religions including Catholicism have some error therefore they are all heretics according to someone else’s standards. Calling people heretics is inflammatory language. It’s not even consistent with current church teaching and the spirit of ecumenism according to Ut Unim Sint. That’s why I say it’s old fashioned and contagious. It’s like calling someone ignorant. Ignorant means uninformed or unaware and we are all ignorant about something but does that mean we should constantly refer to others as ignorant?

***Ron I wonder what you think of St Peter because he doesn’t mince his words. With Faith, you have to call a spade a spade - there is no such thing as “old fashioned and contagious” and niceties. Ignorance is ignorance.

See here:

2 Peter 3:16: “speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

You see, black is black! ***

 

[Cinette]

I don’t know what the Arians taught and I believe the line has to be drawn somewhere but not among people who worship the same Lord and believe the same Gospel.

**I do believe Arians were heretics. Constantine was an Arian. His Mother was a true Christian.

Please confirm as I am a little unsure

Thank you
**

 

[ron77nyc]

**I do believe Arians were heretics. Constantine was an Arian. His Mother was a true Christian.

Please confirm as I am a little unsure

Thank you
**

I looked into the Arians. They are like the Jehovah’s Winesses. They have a different Jesus. They (the Arians) reject His divinity and the trinity. Hey that rhymes doesn’t it? They don’t worship the same Lord and they have a different gospel.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know what the Arians taught and I believe the line has to be drawn somewhere but not among people who worship the same Lord and believe the same Gospel.

Just so. One Catholic might say “I don’t call Orthodox or Protestants ‘heretics’. I only apply ‘heretics’ to those who don’t believe that Christ is God, such as the Arians.”

Another Catholic might call Protestants “heretics” but not Orthodox.

Yet another Catholic might call Protestants and Orthodox “heretics”.

We each draw the line in a different place – but I think the differences between those different usages of “heretic” are largely a matter of semantics.

 

[ron77nyc]

***Ron I wonder what you think of St Peter because he doesn’t mince his words. With Faith, you have to call a spade a spade - there is no such thing as “old fashioned and contagious” and niceties. Ignorance is ignorance.

See here:

2 Peter 3:16: “speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

You see, black is black! ***

I mean ignorance is an inflammatory word just as heretic is inflammatory so if you’re going to refer to separated brethren you shouln’t use that language. I didn’t make this up. John Paul II did.

In another post I quoted Peter’s speech in Acts 15. He was talking about division between Jews and Gentiles. Do you think it could also be appropriate to our divisions?

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

 

[Peter_J]

**I do believe Arians were heretics. Constantine was an Arian. His Mother was a true Christian.

Please confirm as I am a little unsure

Thank you
**

That doesn’t sound right to me. But I’m not completely sure either – perhaps he was an Arian for a while, but later repented?

 

[Cinette]

I looked into the Arians. They are like the Jehovah’s Winesses. They have a different Jesus. They (the Arians) reject His divinity and the trinity. Hey that rhymes doesn’t it? They don’t worship the same Lord and they have a different gospel.

**They were heretics with a doubt! **

 

[ron77nyc]

**They were heretics with a doubt! **

Without a doubt.