Posted on 02/12/2009 4:05:04 PM PST by wagglebee
Thanks... I was just setting out to look for that.
The answer is “no.” Infallibiility normally is only asserted when a heresy has gathered strong enough support within the Church that the Pope (or an ecumenical council approved by a pope) has found it necessary to “pull rank” and rule definitively against it.
It is the mark of a charlaitan to say “Well, the church only ruled on such-and-such a date about such-and-such.”
>> You’re missing the point. Pope Pius X didn’t believe in evolution. You can’t have evolution and and anti-abortion or anti-euthenasia position. <<
At the risk of hi-jacking this thread, what are you talking about? 60% of Americans disbelieve in Darwin altogether, and yet the majority of them believe believe in Roe-v-Wade.
I’m an “old-earth” Catholic? Do I have to be pro-abortion according to your reasoning? Or are you confusing evolution with scientific nihilism? If you are, you’re slandering the Catholic Church.
>> Well, you know us rednecks ain’t smart enough to belong to a church that knows that the existence of the universe is a purely natural phenomenon! <<
Slander.
>> For example I don’t think any Pope and the Magesterium have every made the official pronouncement that believing in the Divinity of Christ is binding on all faithful. <<
Why, of course they have, lastchance. The Ecumenical Council of Nicea required all Christians to state their faith in this:
“I believe in ... one Lord, Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all worlds, the only begotten Son of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, one in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
and added:
“But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’ — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.”
But you knew that...
>> You don’t figure it was her God-given gift of logic and reason that all Catholics receive that formed her position??? <<
Absolutely not. Her sinfulness has blinded her, making it impossible for her to intellectually confront the evil of abortion. Catholics believe in original sin, too. It’s the definition of “freedom” and the intent of creation that we disagree with Calvinists over.
Catholics define freedom as the ability to achieve the purpose for which one was intended; Calvinists define freedom as the ability to do whatsoever one desires.
Both Catholics and Calvinists agree that a person is incapable of virtue except through grace. Calvinists view such a person as obeying his own desires, so call him “free.” Catholics see his as unable to do what he intended for, and therefore call him a “slave to sin.”
Once under grace, a person’s behavior is no longer capricious; he certainly does what God intends, whether it is what he would have desired when he was not under grace. Therefore, Calvinists see such a person as being a “servant of Christ.” Catholics see that any desire he has stemming from that grace is the will of God, and that such a person is intended to do the will of God, so see such a person as “liberated.”
Which is the biblical position?
St. Paul uses both notions of freedom, depending on context: the saved person is free from the world in the eternal sense, and bound to Christ in the worldly sense; the sinful person is free to his desires in the worldly sense, but bound to sin in the eternal sense.
>> No church ever has been nor ever will be the Body of Christ...The Body of Christ is ‘people’, proven time and again by Scripture... <<
Uh, the Church is people.
>> Does a pope decide for himself what is to be ‘ex cathedra’, or is it something God instructs him to do??? <<
Niether is entirely wrong, neither explains it well.
The pope is vested with the authority to proclaim ex cathedra. The term, in fact, is a reference to the authority of St. Peter, whom Christ grants the authority that what he declares loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven, and what is loosed in Heaven is loosed on Earth. But, separately, Christ also gives similar authority to all of the disciples.
Granting such an authority to the disciples presents a challenge? How can two people both authoritatively declare two contradicting things? Thus, the Catholic Church understands that such an authority is granted to the disciples when they speak in unison.
So, a pope can either proclaim something ex cathedra (from his authority as a successor to St. Peter), or he can discern that the successors to the disciples speak in unison. He can do this on his own, in the sense of the earthly authority is granted to him to do so, but he doesn’t do so whenever he wants, he must discern that it is God’s will to do so.
When unity among the disciples’ successors is apparent, the pope can speak as Pope John Paul II did. When it is not apparent, the pope can summon the bishops of the world to discuss such matters so as to achieve unity. An “ecumenical council” is a council in which the bishops of the whole world gather to achieve such unity.
~~~~You can try all you want to explain away the error you posted, but it is all yours. No one claims - ANYWHERE - that the Church is building, or paintings, or tapestries. Why do you post such obvious nonsense that no one believes?~~~~
Thomas Aquinas seems to disagree with you...He’s Catholic, isn’t he???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2185442/posts
You wrote:
“Thomas Aquinas seems to disagree with you...”
Nope.
“He’s Catholic, isn’t he???”
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.