Infallibility applies only to pope speaking ex cathedra, in the matters of faith. I'm not sure if all the talk about gays fits into these criteria.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Why is the pope so special??
- Thread starter Justusboys88
- Start date
Infallibility applies only to pope speaking ex cathedra, in the matters of faith. I'm not sure if all the talk about gays fits into these criteria.
kallipolis
Know thyself
http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Aug2004/Wiseman.asp
quote
Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic. She says that the Church has spoken infallibly only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption.
I say that it has spoken infallibly many times, especially through its 21 ecumenical councils. Which one of us is right?
A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labelled various statements as infallible.
The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.
unquote
quote
Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic. She says that the Church has spoken infallibly only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption.
I say that it has spoken infallibly many times, especially through its 21 ecumenical councils. Which one of us is right?
A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labelled various statements as infallible.
The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.
unquote
I think you hit it, mercuryman. Nothing like preaching against a group people already hate, and giving them an excuse for more hate (and this "hate the sin, love the sinner" stuff is BS; it's a legalistic disclaimer for what Pope Rat and his predecessors and minions have been preaching, which is plain old hate), to make them keep you in Prada shoes and white silk.
kallipolis
Know thyself
The matter of religion and its impact upon judging the ethics of sexual relationships, is always influenced by the willingness of the injured party to create an enemy of those who assume a right to judge the morality of another's behaviour.
Those who destroy their well being, and even their life through their free choices, and who so often obsess on the judgemental thoughts of others, must take responsibility for their self destructive behaviour. In other words, we should not blame others, for our choice to hate those who hate us.
Many of us go through life with the self assurance that our decisions, are our responsibility and consequently, do not permit the self righteous behaviour of others to influence our life. I am one of those people.
"Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labelled various statements as infallible."
Very true. And then there are those "conservative" Catholics who try to argue that there can be no dissent from whatever BS happens to be coming out of Rome on topics like contraception, homosexuality, or women's ordination ... reminds me of the 19th century English Catholic convert who said that he would like to read about a new infallible statement from Rome in the newspaper every morning when he took his tea.
No pope has spoken infallibly on homosexuality. Nor has any ecumenical council. While it can't be denied that the Church's position on homosexual acts has always been negative, it can't be said that the Church has ever formally issued an infallible or irreformable statement on the immorality of homosexual acts.
In other words, it's entirely conceivable that someday Rome could say that, in light of scientific developments (remember Galileo?), and a more refined and critical reading of the evidence from scripture and tradition, homosexual acts can now be regarded as morally justified for constitutive homosexuals in a blessed monogamous union.
It's a well-documented fact that the Church has taught authoritatively, yet (in retrospect) fallibly and erroneously, on certain aspects of morality before, e.g. usury, slavery, anti-semitism, religious freedom, geocentrism, salvation of non-Catholics, etc. Someday, the current teachings on the grave sinfulness of gay sex and artificial contraception may be added to this list.
Note that none of these things effect the essence of the Gospel message. In fact, some of these former teachings were at odds with the Gospel message, and the Church (in time) recognized the error and changed course.
Very true. And then there are those "conservative" Catholics who try to argue that there can be no dissent from whatever BS happens to be coming out of Rome on topics like contraception, homosexuality, or women's ordination ... reminds me of the 19th century English Catholic convert who said that he would like to read about a new infallible statement from Rome in the newspaper every morning when he took his tea.
No pope has spoken infallibly on homosexuality. Nor has any ecumenical council. While it can't be denied that the Church's position on homosexual acts has always been negative, it can't be said that the Church has ever formally issued an infallible or irreformable statement on the immorality of homosexual acts.
In other words, it's entirely conceivable that someday Rome could say that, in light of scientific developments (remember Galileo?), and a more refined and critical reading of the evidence from scripture and tradition, homosexual acts can now be regarded as morally justified for constitutive homosexuals in a blessed monogamous union.
It's a well-documented fact that the Church has taught authoritatively, yet (in retrospect) fallibly and erroneously, on certain aspects of morality before, e.g. usury, slavery, anti-semitism, religious freedom, geocentrism, salvation of non-Catholics, etc. Someday, the current teachings on the grave sinfulness of gay sex and artificial contraception may be added to this list.
Note that none of these things effect the essence of the Gospel message. In fact, some of these former teachings were at odds with the Gospel message, and the Church (in time) recognized the error and changed course.
What difference does that make? Infallibility involves actual actions (making pronouncements about doctrine). If you can't be wrong when you do that, you can't have free will when doing that.
I don't believe the Pope could be the only person in the world who LACKS moral agency and free will.
I don't believe the Pope could be the only person in the world who LACKS moral agency and free will.
Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope becomes 'possessed' or 'overrided' by the Holy Spirit or something like that – not even momentarily. Since papal infallibility does mean that the Pope is prevented by God from defining as a dogma (something to be believed by the Church as part of God's Revelation) something that is false.
In other words, it's a negative protection – maybe like a parent preventing a child from falling off a cliff. If a parent prevents a child from doing such a thing, I suppose you could say it's incompatible with the child's free will. But we might also say that it's okay for the parent to thwart the child's free will, since following it to its logical conclusion would destroy him!
In other words, it's a negative protection – maybe like a parent preventing a child from falling off a cliff. If a parent prevents a child from doing such a thing, I suppose you could say it's incompatible with the child's free will. But we might also say that it's okay for the parent to thwart the child's free will, since following it to its logical conclusion would destroy him!
But the option of chosing wrong while stating infallible does not.
Having the possibility of making bad choices doesn't mean You can be able to chose the right thing all of the time, especially that while speaking ex-cathedra in the infallible mode, pope is supposed to be under influence of Holy Spirit. And with God's direct guidance, he can't fail, can he.
Actually even possession, when voluntary, doesn't necessarily involve total helplessness. When I've been divinely possessed, I can always end it when it gets too scary, or too intense in any way. But my possession induction ("drawing down the moon") is designed to have those safeguards.
I'm not sure what the Pope's infallibility is supposed to entail, but I know it's not being "ridden" (in the Voudou sense) or "possessed" (as in Wicca or Santeria). It seems like they believe that being elected Pope (by fallible humans) in some way makes him superhuman (in the sense that he's capable of becoming infallible temporarily under whatever circumstances cause that). I find this concept laughable, and also hypocritical, since the idea that no human is infallible is part of their doctrine as well.
I assure you that no Catholic believes that the Pope becomes "superhuman". I agree that this concept is quite laughable, so it's a good thing that it's not what the Church has ever taught! The Pope remains a fallible human being. He is a sinner just like everyone else (the Pope goes to confession) and he err in his everyday, ordinary teaching. But because of his important office, as visible head of the Catholic Church on earth, Catholics believe that God, in his mercy, would never allow the fallible sinner Pope to destroy the Church by forcing heresy on it.
So if the Pope in all sincerity believed that something should be doctrine, but in fact it was heresy in the eyes of God, what does Catholic doctrine say happens? God intervenes and speaks to the Pope out of a burning [STRIKE]cross[/STRIKE] bush?
I can't think of any mechanism that lets stop a bad or misguided Pope (and remember, the Pope is elected by Cardinals who can be blackmailed or otherwise coerced--how else explain the election of Pope Rat?) from introducing a heretical doctrine without compromising the Pope's condition of free will.
Do you know how that's supposed to work?
If they ever have a female Pope, will they call her a Mome?
...it'd be a little Mome and Pope shop...
Ah, very nice touch, that (although you might want to do a bit more research on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Ku Klux Klan).
And with that piece of flippant bigotry, I officially bow out of this thread ...
Naw, I know the KKK has a history of hating the RCC, but enemy of my enemy could still be an evil son of a bitch. Al Qaeda and the Iranian Islamic Courts hate each other's guts, but either would kill me on sight.
That said, the RCC isn't as bad as the KKK, most ways. They're bigger and more powerful, but they try to be respectable, which limits their actions greatly. The KKK makes no such attempt.
