17
   

Pope says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Vatican Backpedals

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 12:35 am

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
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 04:19 am
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.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:25 am
@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.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:28 am
@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
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:33 am
@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.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:34 am
@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
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:34 am
@ossobuco,
Sorry, Set, I had missed seeing your post re ex cathedra.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 09:42 am
@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...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 10:49 am
@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
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 10:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I don't believe heaven has been branded and trademarked yet, dave.

I could be wrong, of course...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 10:56 am
@Rockhead,
Has the place where u were born
been branded and trademarked yet, Rocky ?
Is its initial capitalized ?

Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
you think I was born in heaven?

bless you my son...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:38 am
@Rockhead,
Heaven is a proper noun.
It shud be capitalized, the same as Florida.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
it wud be hard for me to take grammar advice from you, dave.

Laughing
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:50 am
@Rockhead,
Check a book.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 11:59 am
@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 ??
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 12:03 pm

Can the Pope discharge from office
Catholic clergymen who have been disloyal to him ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 12:22 pm

I 'm pondering whether a secretary of state
or a secretary of defense do the same thing to the President.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 02:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
why not a buk?

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

what the hell.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Jun, 2013 04:15 pm
@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.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 01:48:32