Pope says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Vatican Backpedals

In Catholic theory,
is he the boss, with un-limited infallible authority ?

Does someone in that Church have the theological authority to overrule him ?

If Rosica is correct, then shud all Catholics look to HIM
for theological guidance in the future ?
Will he let the Pope be his representative in the future ?

I 'd seem that IF the Pope is indeed infallible,
then any inconsistencies between Catholic writings and him,
must be resolved in his favor.

0 Replies

According to the First Vatican Council (1868-70):

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

It seems to me that they're throwing this out the window.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It seems to me that they're throwing this out the window.

I don't think they do. I think they're bending over backwards in an effort to maintain that their man Frankie wasn't speaking ex cathedra.

1 Reply

@George,

I read that NYer article, George.

Yep, enjoyed it, and learned some new things - not re the catechism, but Fr. Rosica et al.

0 Replies

@snood,

I'm not clear if that catechism take actually counts as infallible church doctrine, that is, the pope (some former one) speaking ex cathedra. It may just be part of the magesterium, which I only vaguely remember about.

I'd have to look that up and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Bet George knows the ins and outs of all that.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

According to the First Vatican Council (1868-70):

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

It seems to me that they're throwing this out the window.

What else could they do? It's either that or take one up the poop chute.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Sorry, Set, I had missed seeing your post re ex cathedra.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Well, that's easy.

Real heaven is for Christians. There's another, slightly less nice, heaven for good atheists right across the railroad tracks.

It's separate but less than equal.

I suppose heaven for Bears isn't the same as heaven for Lions...what do you have against that ? This idea of equalizing what is not equal in nature is not just silly but very dangerous, quite frankly I rather have the world before Starbucks and MacDonald's...the point you make is wrong because this is not about a "less good heaven" but rather on what a perfectly good heaven should be for each one...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Well, that's easy.

Real heaven is for Christians.
There's another, slightly less nice, heaven for good atheists right across the railroad tracks.

It's separate but less than equal.

I suppose heaven for Bears isn't the same as heaven for Lions...what do you have against that ? This idea of equalizing what is not equal in nature is not just silly but very dangerous, quite frankly I rather have the world before Starbucks and MacDonald's...the point you make is wrong because this is not about a "less good heaven" but rather on what a perfectly good heaven should be for each one...

By what reasoning do u capitalize Starbucks, but not Heaven ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't believe heaven has been branded and trademarked yet, dave.

I could be wrong, of course...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Has the place where u were born
been branded and trademarked yet, Rocky ?
Is its initial capitalized ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

you think I was born in heaven?

bless you my son...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Heaven is a proper noun.
It shud be capitalized, the same as Florida.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

it wud be hard for me to take grammar advice from you, dave.

Laughing

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Check a book.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Setanta wrote:

It seems to me that they're throwing this out the window.

Thomas wrote:

I don't think they do. I think they're bending over backwards in an effort
to maintain that their man Frankie wasn't speaking ex cathedra.

Is that to say that his personal opinions
and his official opinions are inconsistent ??

1 Reply

Can the Pope discharge from office
Catholic clergymen who have been disloyal to him ?

0 Replies

I 'm pondering whether a secretary of state
or a secretary of defense do the same thing to the President.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

why not a buk?

it shud be buk if we ar to be consistent...

what the hell.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is that to say that his personal opinions
and his official opinions are inconsistent ??

No, it isn't. The distinction is not between his personal and his official opinions; it's between his opinions, official or not, and Catholic dogma. As the First Vatican Council promulgated, and as Setanta already posted, the operative words are these:

Quote:

when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Source

What the Vatican spokesperson is pointing out is that in this case, the pope did not speak ex cathedra to define a doctrine concerning faith or morals.

And that's perfectly typical for papal declarations: This whole infallibility business is a very limited deal. Since the Catholic Church first promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility, it promulgated only one new church doctrine through a pope speaking ex cathedra. In every other statement any pope made in the past 140 years, the pope spoke as an ordinary, fallible CEO.

1 Reply

Pope says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Vatican Backpedals

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know