Replies

That little quandry is why the heretical declaration of papal infallibility introduces a second innovation besides the placing of the authority of the Bishop of Rome above that of an Ecumenical Council: it makes a distinction between a bishop's teaching 'ex cathedra' and other pronouncements of a bishop. Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition just as there is no warrant for localizing the infallibility which the Church posesses by virtue of the indwelling the Holy Spirit in one man or one office.

Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition just as there is no warrant for localizing the infallibility which the Church posesses by virtue of the indwelling the Holy Spirit in one man or one office.

Do you really believe that papal infallibility has anything to do with a piece of furniture?

That still doesn't compute.

Surely, the original error of the previous Pope had to be ex-cathedra as well, right?

Or, do we sweep all errors of Popes into the non-ex-cathedra category? Isn't that too convenient?

If infallibility is limited only to ex-cathedra, then why all the furor over Vatican II? Oh, is it because, ex-cathedra, that Pope changed a lot of things, that had been ex-cathedra before him? And thus, any change corrected an error or introduced an error, and thus, even ex-cathedra, some pope somewhere erred?

That little quandry is why the heretical declaration of papal infallibility introduces a second innovation besides the placing of the authority of the Bishop of Rome above that of an Ecumenical Council: it makes a distinction between a bishop's teaching 'ex cathedra' and other pronouncements of a bishop. Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition just as there is no warrant for localizing the infallibility which the Church posesses by virtue of the indwelling the Holy Spirit in one man or one office.

Understanding your objection, what you are objecting to is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Pope is held to be infallible when he teaches Christians on a point of dogma or morals with an intent of binding them defniitively to his judgement. He is not infallible when he makes private theological speculations or declines to settle a controversy at some point in time.

Infallibility is also not localized in the Pope. While the Pope can speak infallibly on his own and definitively settle controversies, we believe an ecumenical council can also do likewise. And of course, we believe that all Bishops and Priests teach infallibly when they repeat the universally held beliefs of the Church in instructing us.

Lastly, infallibility is nothign more than a protection from error. It is not a positive power that gives the Pope especial knowledge, wisdom, eloquence, or understanding. The Pope cannot speak for the Church so as to lead the Church astray that's all. On the other hand, he might very well speak poorly, or perhaps not at all.

Lets look at it this way. You believe an ecumenical council is infallible in a way that the sermon of a Bishop in his cathedral is not. What essentially is the difference? Also, no ecumenical council has every included the participation of all the Bishops. Therefore, it seems like some fo the Bishops are being made more authoritative than all the Bishops. How is this different from your objection?

>> That little quandry is why the heretical declaration of papal infallibility introduces a second innovation besides the placing of the authority of the Bishop of Rome above that of an Ecumenical Council: it makes a distinction between a bishop's teaching 'ex cathedra' and other pronouncements of a bishop. Somehow the Pope speaking when sitting on his throne is more authoritative than the Pope speaking at a Mass or writing in his study, a bizarre notion for which there is no warrant in Holy Tradition <<

The issue is the intent of the Pope. Infallibility is the product of discernment; the Pope may still wish to offer his weighty opinion on matters, or make assertions without meaning to exclude all other possible opinions. When he speaks in some contexts, he is presenting his understanding. The Pope is a very learned man, and certainly his own understanding is very valuable, and far more knowledgeable than most of his critics. But he can make errors.

The author of "Pope Fiction" does not merely move to disprove assertions of heresy from the throne, but all assertions of heresy. He does a decent job: he even cites one case of a Pope who wished to release an authoritative biblical translation (if I remember right) who was struck dead just as he prepared to issue the Papal Bull endorsing it. No wonder Pope John Paul II's staff was quick to clarify that the Pope's privately expressed opinion about "The Passion of the Christ" was not a Church teaching! The nit-pickers would treat any historical error as proof that "it" was NOT "as it was," and therefore assert the Pope was a heretic!