What Would You Most Like Pope Francis To Do?

[einna]

With all the liberal nutjobs in the media lately calling themselves “Catholic” and promoting anti Catholic agendas this has been discussed lately. On Ca Live and on these forums. Do a search on ordination of women infallible. And you can educate yourself on why it is infallible in the magisterium and the deposit of the faith. There are several ways a Dogma can be infallible. And this one meets the criteria.
It is infallible. If you can find evidence to the contrary be my guest!

What in the world is the difference between unchangeable and infallible!!!???
Explain how something in the Catholic Church could be unchangeable but not infallible? What a paradox!

I like how you have qualifiers in most of your statements. “maybe” possibly" etc…
Dont be afraid of TRUTH. TRUTH of the faith needs no qualifiers and it does nothing to further intellectual debate because it takes absolutely no position.

I am sorry for those who find this off topic. This will be my last point on this, one that gets me a little frustrated here. I am not one to use the term infallible as loosely as others. There are only two times in history that the Church has said a Pope has been infallible in announcing doctrine, both had to do with Mary. First in 1854 when Pope Pius IX proclaimed Mary’s Immaculate Concept, and in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

I could find not find any doctrine stating only men could be priest under infallibility of the church. Irreformable or definitive might be better terms.

 

[Moore11]

I am sorry for those who find this off topic. This will be my last point on this, one that gets me a little frustrated here. I am not one to use the term infallible as loosely as others. There are only two times in history that the Church has said a Pope has been infallible in announcing doctrine, both had to do with Mary. First in 1854 when Pope Pius IX proclaimed Mary’s Immaculate Concept, and in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

I could find not find any doctrine stating only men could be priest under infallibility of the church. Irreformable or definitive might be better terms.

Your understanding of how the Church Promulgates infallible teachings is incomplete.

Infallibility can be pronounced by a Pope, the Bible, Tradition, (magesterium) etc.

here is a good article for you to read.

ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

Do you have something that supports your opinion?

How can you define something could be unchangeable but not infallible if the True Church is the Catholic Church?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Infallibility is a technical term, reserved for unusual moments in time.

Inerrancy is the more correct term for the teachings of the Magisterium. Anything proceeding from the Magisterium in terms of doctrine and dogma is not subject to error. That would include the Catechism in its entirety, the proclamations from the Vatican such as encyclicals and apostolic letters, etc.

The teaching on the so-called “female priesthood” is not going to change, regardless of which renegade members of which religious Orders or communities state otherwise, and regardless of the wishes and dreams of any lay females (or males) affiliated with the Roman Church.

 

[Rence]

Rence, either I’m not sure that I understand you, or I’m not sure that you read Bezant correctly. I don’t see the phrase “hard line” in his post above.

No, he didn’t use “hard line”. He used the words “uniting the divisions within the Church”.

My post was in regard to the new Pope uniting the divisions within the Church while fulfilling the responsibility to educate others on what exactly the Church demands of people.

 

[PJM]

=Rence;10489002]The Church doesn’t require one to receive on the tongue in the first place.

TRUE, but

It DOES remain the International Norm for the RCC:thumbsup:

 

[TimSpalding]

Inerrancy is the more correct term for the teachings of the Magisterium. Anything proceeding from the Magisterium in terms of doctrine and dogma is not subject to error. That would include the Catechism in its entirety, the proclamations from the Vatican such as encyclicals and apostolic letters, etc.

Pardon me, but that is NOT Catholic theology. You’re seriously going to argue that encyclicals cannot contain errors? You’ve severely confused your levels of teaching.

The same applies to the Catechism. Certainly it contains many inerrant teachings, but it is by no means itself and in ever detail an inerrant teaching.

 

[einna]

Your understanding of how the Church Promulgates infallible teachings is incomplete.

Infallibility can be pronounced by a Pope, the Bible, Tradition, (magesterium) etc.

here is a good article for you to read.

ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

Do you have something that supports your opinion?

How can you define something could be unchangeable but not infallible if the True Church is the Catholic Church?

I never it to be definitely or impossible to be unchangeable or infallible. In the article, it said "definitive theological judgements of ordinary magisterium are every bit as binding in faith’. Does that mean infallible?

 

[Rence]

Surely that’s the point. The traditionalists want a “smaller, more faithful church.” They want what they call “pruning.”

Yes. They’ll either get a smaller Church, or more likely people will just continue doing as they do now: they’ll just do as they want and not change anything and still call themselves Catholic, or lapsed Catholic, or non-traditional Catholic, etc.

 

[Moore11]

Infallibility is a technical term, reserved for unusual moments in time.

Inerrancy is the more correct term for the teachings of the Magisterium. Anything proceeding from the Magisterium in terms of doctrine and dogma is not subject to error. That would include the Catechism in its entirety, the proclamations from the Vatican such as encyclicals and apostolic letters, etc.

The teaching on the so-called “female priesthood” is not going to change, regardless of which renegade members of which religious Orders or communities state otherwise, and regardless of the wishes and dreams of any lay females (or males) affiliated with the Roman Church.

potato potahto

The Catholic Encyclopedia is complete on this issue.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I probably should have posted this earlier as it is a generally agreed upon source.

Specifically. The bolded.

In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council when it says that “the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)” (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

 

[einna]

Yes, to get back on topic, I would like this Pope to tell us what being Catholic is truly suppose to be. I know there are many here that can tell me, but I would like to get a clear explanation from him in the simplest terms possible, and I have great faith he will do just that.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Pardon me, but that is NOT Catholic theology. You’re seriously going to argue that encyclicals cannot contain errors? You’ve severely confused your levels of teaching.

I actually didn’t mean to include the encylicals. I mean to include the catehcism. When I was searching for an earlier post on Inerrancy (on CAF), I combined two when I didn’t mean to. Sorry about that!

 

[PJM]

=einna;10489334]I am sorry for those who find this off topic. This will be my last point on this, one that gets me a little frustrated here. I am not one to use the term infallible as loosely as others. There are only two times in history that the Church has said a Pope has been infallible in announcing doctrine, both had to do with Mary. First in 1854 when Pope Pius IX proclaimed Mary’s Immaculate Concept, and in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

I could find not find any doctrine stating only men could be priest under infallibility of the church. Irreformable or definitive might be better terms.

That dear freind is due to youur lack of Right Understanding; NOT evidence

Can Law: Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident

Can. 750 §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church"

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Pope John Paul II

***Apostolic Letter On Reserving Priestly Ordination To Men Alone ***

Delcared Offically as Pope on a MATTER of FAITH

Gave 3 Reasons WHY only men can be Priest

1. Ordiantion is a SACRAMENT Instituted by Christ therefore noone; not the Pope and not the MAgisterium can change it
2. Because Christ is Male gender so to MUST [absolutely] His Priest: This IS MY Body; This IS MY Blood is literal. Male to male is essential for the Sacrament of the Eucharist
3. By God’s FREEWILL choice: Adam, Noah; Moses, David’ Jacob; the Prophets and Judges; John the Baptist’ The Apostles and Jesus Himself are all male gender; Therefore Sacred Tradition too supports this mandated position. END OF DISCUSSION! The CHURCH HAS SPOKEN:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[TimSpalding]

Well, you’re wrong on the Catechism. Obviously it includes much that is infallible.

 

[TimothyH]

The position which you impute to the Jesuits is the position taken by Judas Iscariot and in opposition to Saint Mary of Bethany, and to the Gospel.

Jesus said that the oil was for his burial, not his glory. It was so that he could be properly buried after he was murdered for you and I.

-Tim-

 

[Moore11]

Yes, to get back on topic, I would like this Pope to tell us what being Catholic is truly suppose to be. I know there are many here that can tell me, but I would like to get a clear explanation from him in the simplest terms possible, and I have great faith he will do just that.

I hope he will do just that. But are we willing to hear the Truth no matter how it contradicts with our own ideas for the faith. You and I, Trads and liberals might not find what they expect being “Catholic” is.

But I submit to you that many Popes throughout history have done just as you described. Is that not enough for us?
My prediction, this Pope will reveal nothing new about what it means to be Catholic but only reiterate what has been revealed and what we should already know but can’t seem to come to terms with.

 

[SHEMP]

I would most like him to help me get to heaven.

 

[TimothyH]

I would most like him to help me get to heaven.

Yeah, I would like him to pray for me.

-Tim-

 

[Moore11]

Well, you’re wrong on the Catechism. Obviously it includes much that is infallible.

The Catechism contains infallible teaching. The book itself is not infallible. A much debated topic on CAF in the past.

 

[PJM]

=Rence;10489449]Yes. They’ll either get a smaller Church, or more likely people will just continue doing as they do now: they’ll just do as they want and not change anything and still call themselves Catholic, or lapsed Catholic, or non-traditional Catholic, etc.

The point seems to me Ought to be WHAT DOES GOD want? Is God Happy about things “as they currently are”?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Tim,
This is one of the posts that I was referencing, which I accidentally conflated with my earlier thoughts. In fact it distinguishes encyclicals from other documents. I’ll just quote part of it here as further evidence of my good will and self-correction:

Which documents are infallible? There have been only two documents issued by the popes that are Ex Cathedra, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

There are many documents issued by popes that make references to infallible dogma or make comments on infallible dogma. But the documents themselves are not infallible. The last such document, which Traditionalists will never mention, because to some, mentioning Bl. John Paul II is like swallowing cod liver oil, is Evangelium Vitae. The only infallible part of it is the central paragraph where it decrees that abortion is always evil and can never be justified. But this is not an Ex Cathedra statement. He’s pulling from Tradition. The statement is infallible and embedded in an encyclical.

There is a tendency to believe that all encyclicals are infallible. The pope need not decree something to be infallible for it to be error free as long as he’s speaking about revealed dogma or divine moral law.

[emphasis mine there, Tim.]

JR has further elaborated elsewhere (repeated, that is) that the entire moral law proclaimed by the Church is without error. I was merely making the point that the linguistic equivalency of infallible and inerrant is not the ecclesiastical equivalency. A proclamation can be wthout error and yet not have been issued Ex Cathedra.

Sorry about the confusion.