I’m looking for some reasons and refrences, for thes:
Yes, not quite exactly right.
This is a very liming set of circumstances. Since Vatican-1, only two Papal teachingd (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) have been universally regarded as being infallibly proclaimed (though *Humane Vite *is widely considered to be a third such proclamation). There have been dozens (maybe hundreds) of Papal teachings.
There are LOTS of people who want to whip out their Kaptain Katholic decoder rings and attempt to apply their five-point Vatican-1 infallible checklist to prior Papal teachings. But I’m pretty sure that’s not actually what the Church taught by the term manifestly evident. If I had to guess, I would think that the Church reserved to herself the ability to define what is “manifestly evident” (and what is not), and not to random Catholic scholars or laypeople who wish to overlay their interpretation of Vatican-1 upon historic Papal teachings.
Quite so. If Catholics do that, they are using private judgement - interpreting the interpreter.
At which point you use your private judgement and interpret the interpreter, but moving on:
Well, if you can ask your infallible guide what “manifestly evident” means, by all means do. Lets not leave it to random Catholic scholars and laypeople. At the very least, you have to concede that the Infallible Guide is not necessarily perspicuous. At that point you may say “but the magisterium can clarify what it says, which Scripture can’t”, and then I’ll point out that at no point has infallible clarification ever been given. Unless that changes, you have to use private judgement.
Widely considered? So you cannot even agree on what is infallible. That won’t do. This view of Humanae Vitae may be a growing consensus or not, I don’t know, but it is obviously from lay Catholics using private judgement in lieu of any authority. The magisterium isn’t sure either, or it would have decided the matter. How can the magisterium not know if what it promulgated is infallible or not? The lack of certainty in Roman Catholicism is not reassuring.
From what I gather, it has to be declared as speaking definitively by the Pope himself for it to be considered an infallible teaching. There’s been two: One declared before papal infallibility (the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary in 1854 - papal infallibility was defined in 1870) and one after (assumption into heaven - 1950s)
Eh, close, but no cigar. The conditions that must be met for a statement of the Pope to be infallible are:
Thank God that we have a pope to guide us, especially in matters of faith and morals. The church has stood the test of time and continues until Jesus comes again in judgment. He promised to be with us and He gives us His body, blood, soul and divinity at every Mass. People may nitpick about various details, but overall, no one who truly seeks the truth can long delay in joining with us in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which guides us through the Holy See, the Vicar of Christ. Learn what the Church really teaches and you’ll come home to the Catholic church.Exactly – not taken lightly by any means – must be ‘**ex cathedra’ **- from the chair
The doctrine of papal infallibility states that under certain circumstances the Pope is infallible in his teaching. The doctrine lists several conditions, all of which must be met, in order for the teaching to be infallible. Most of the time the pope says something it is not an infallible statement lacking one or more of the necessary conditions. The doctrine is stated simply as follows:
First of all, you question presupposes that a pope would teach that. I say he would not. Here I am understanding your term “sin inherits” to mean that a father’s sin is inherited by his children which is contrary to scripture. Or do you mean “inherited sin” as it is sometimes used to mean Original Sin as committed by Adam?
When he speaks in ex cathedra he is infallible on faith and morals, but when he speaks in a homily for example he is not infallible.
I agree! As Scott Hahn often says, we have such a rich faith, full of beautiful truths and 2000 years of history. It took 14 years for this cradle Catholic to discover that.
No, you have the misunderstanding. We very much pray to Mary and all the saints. That is exactly how we “ask” them to pray with us.
This issue / and that we ‘pray to’ saints are two areas non Catholics often have a misunderstanding about - and sadly many Catholics have been poorly instructed on this as well — We do not ‘pray to’ Mary or the saints - we ask them to ‘pray with’ us - it is a simple but VERY important distinction / as is Papal infallibility - we need to know what our Church teaches - when we don’t it is ok, just provides an opportunity to learn!
Great topic!