Replies

You know, I'm getting about FED UP with this sort of comment;

The statements you were quoting and applying to infallibility as a means of suggesting that popes are infallible more often than commonly thought (which by the way I don't actually deny as a concept) are simply not what you suggest.

I'm suggesting it?

It is not ME that [ahem] suggested the notion in the first place.

From;

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html entitled

The Successor of Peter Teaches Infallibly

Where from for sake of brevity, I'll bring again this central-to-the-concept paragraph;

For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope's teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra but is proposed in the ordinary exercise of his Magisterium with the manifest intention of declaring, recalling and confirming the doctrine of faith. It is a consequence of the institutional fact and spiritual inheritance that completes the dimensions of the succession to Peter.

There, and all the rest which can be found in that document is where it is suggested there is large extent or degree of overlap.

Stop blaming ME for it -- as if I'm getting it wrong. Just because I refuse to submit also to this sort of thing being spoken of only in certain prescribed RC apologetic manner -- does not equate with myself being the one that was doing all the suggesting.

But then again, for a long time the RCC has been holding itself out to be infallible in the perogatives which it affords to itself, it's bishops and it's popes -- regardless of what may come about in the course of exercising those prerogatives.

So just excuse the sam-billy out of me for seeing things for what they are--- when the rubber meets the road --- instead of vainly clinging to the distinctions (some of which are truly enough there) which in end result allow the Church of Rome to have things both ways all at once and always.

They do excel at that type of duplicity.

There, and all the rest which can be found in that document is where it is suggested there is large extent or degree of overlap.

No, you are wrong, and simply demonstrate what I am saying. That document speaks of authority generally, and specifically cites infallibility only in a small part. You are taking the references to general authority and suggesting that it applies to infallibility. The document does not do this.

Stop blaming ME for it -- as if I'm getting it wrong.

I am not blaming anyone, and, yes, you are still wrong.

So just excuse the sam-billy out of me for seeing things for what they are--- when the rubber meets the road --- instead of vainly clinging to the distinctions (some of which are truly enough there) which in end result allow the Church of Rome to have things both ways all at once and always.

Oh, this is all just ridiculous. Nothing in that document, or any other, allows Rome to have anything "both ways all at once and always," whatever that even means. The Church, and the Pope, are infallible in certain carefully prescribed situations, and not in others. And, most importantly, I am quite certain you object to that as it is. It isn't like you agree that the pope was infallible in saying that any particular Catholic is a saint in heaven and is therefore worthy of a cult, or that our Lady was assumed into heaven or conceived immaculately. So I hardly see what you think we Catholics are pulling off by denying that the Holy Father is infallible when speaking to a reporter or giving some audience to some pilgrims (at which times he isn't, btw). Your implication that I am just trying to use some apologetics trick and have it both ways is therefore just silly.