All along in this -- I was aware you assumed that I was implying such as the above -- to have it apply to recent news and developments.
But I was not, which has made it to be that all along here I have been forced to labor against your own assumptions of what I said or meant -- instead of what I plainly enough did say.
Did I say he was claimed to be infallible when he was speaking to a reporter? No, I did not. And that's not the level I was speaking towards in all of this -- nor was I speaking merely of so-called infallibility as that concept is applied only to the bishop of the Church of Rome, but as that applies also to the so-called teaching magesterium.
To the extent you are understanding me, it comes across as being extremely shallow, as in continued assumption that I have but a shallow understanding. This extra shadow dimension to the conversation, having to deal with that which was assumed all along but was unsaid --- is as if it I was up against those unstated fears which where in your own mind -- not mine.
And what are the(shallow) roots of that, but now evidenced within your own words -- highlighted above -- which make it out to be I said or was intending to mean this alleged infallibility extended to off-the-cuff remarks?
There perhaps are some people who think like that -=-- and that type of thinking here of late has become something of a problem.
But I am not one of those people! PERIOD! So knock it off -- quit talking to me as if I was.
After all I have written to you about this issue, you would actually think I was insinuating that the so-called condition of "infallible" be extended to remarks to reporters? Really? I wouldn't even say that it extends as far as the hand-outs (proposals) given to bishops themselves (while they were assembled at the Vatican itself).
But that can be part of the way, that as George Salmon mentioned ---the hour hands can be seen to move.
For if not now, then when? Maybe...never? ...for this last lavender soft-soaping scrubdown, I mean.
But being that there will be something come of this latest Synod (they can't just leave it hanging, now) --- I would place my bets on there eventually being a Jesuitical taking all around and on the sides of the [ahem] issues. Signed by Francis -- but carefully written to avoid triggering canon lawyer "infallible" even while still selling the must bge believed -- as in this is the direction to take. Ah -- and the Jesuit types (who can write out of both hands and with that pencil that is stuck behind their ear all seemingly at the same time) will leave it to be a wishy-washy pronunciation (concerning swishes)...
Oh yes it does -- almost. Almost, because it bumps up against it, and THAT is where the "suggestive" elements are not my own, at all.
What part of "must be believed" as it occurs in that document -- with that condition not limited to "papal teaching" but extended generally to bishops also, and that being at all times backtracked to the "Pope" do you not understand?
The magisterial function of bishops, then, is strictly tied to that of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, the conciliar text goes on aptly to say:"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking" (LG 25)
A "special way". Well, isn't that special? "Judgements made by him are sincerely adhered to"<--- with that having come after stipulated exclusion of "ex cathedra". His mind and will...known from 'the character' of the documents (which is be-A-utifully Jesuitically vague, but quite leading, which is the point) "..from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
His manner of speaking..?
Pope da'Dope says "jump". You must say "how high?".
Was there mention there of any sort of room for doubt? Was there, like Paul wrote, anything like (I will here paraphrase/partial quote from memory;
Let me answer that for you.
There is not.
For methodology as to determination of room for doubt, and how those doubts may be best dealt with or expressed --- there is no "papal" instruction that I know of.
There are ways to possibly accomplish approaching issues (whatever those may be), but once it comes down to crunch time --- decisions have finality about them and can scarcely be revoked at all.
Right about now -- there is a big [small war?] dust-up going on, with one bishop having just stood up on his hind legs and said more or less -- "the Pope has to straighten this and these other things out!" regarding some preliminary discussion-documentation/proposal sort of thing.
Now I know better than to think a document of that sort is anything like approaching "infallible". BUT -- it WAS what was handed to the bishops to talk about. So just who is in charge here, we do wonder...
But all this while, I have been speaking not to or about the daily news (as you seem to think I have) but instead have been speaking towards these issues ---> put in general terms; the various assorted claims made by the Church of Rome, (A.K.A. the Roman Catholic Church) as to it own infallibility in teaching Magesterium.
For the statements and teachings of past times which conflict with later developments, the best one can do is ignore the past (portions of) decree and statements which run contrary to what later developed, or else make excuses for any statements which are now not only not supported -- but here and there some of the very ideas previously touched upon in official papal statements -- made while citing Peter and the Apostles, and that the teaching be on faith and morals, etc., in later times (like in recent past and presently) are much taught against in realm of present time ordinary magesterium. If that not be true ---- then the Spirit is not against burning [at the stake] those which Rome perceives to be "heretics"? A Pope did sign off on a statement to that effect. But today -- would anyone much in higher echelon "magesterium" dare to do anything but speak against such a ghastly spectacle and idea? You tell me.
Not only that one document I extracted from suggested some stretch of infallibility (done while scrupulously avoiding use of that buzzword) but the suggestion itself (often unstated but often also alluded to in myriad ways) is a general tenor and tone which runs throughout RC theology.
You may deny it all you wish, and persist in telling me how wrong I allegedly am -- but it is not myself who had hinted around and suggested this. I'm just pointing it out, that's all.
It is YOU who are confused here on the definition of the word "suggest".
You may argue until you are blue in the face all about how restricted the alleged "infallibility " is, as that concept is seen by many to apply to a Pope, but it is not still not myself who suggests differently, for as the one document did say -- must be believed with that generally applied to ordinary magesterium. It's all there in black and white.
I see you could not deny that. Is that why you insisted I intended to have that apply to comments made to reporters and the like?
You said, "this is ridiculous". I'll tell you what is ridiculous (or should I say pathetic) is that not being able to deny what I have brought to you -- then it was if words were put in my mouth.
Well sure. It is easy enough to tell another person what that other person meant or intended/implied, framing that in such a manner to be best convenient to be then defeated by one's own arguments and denials.
It's called a strawman. I saw it peeking out it's poofy head previously, but until now you didn't let it out. Well, you may as well burn it now. Need a match?
The suggestive such as I brought example for is but one of many locations where such things are written of in papal communications --- that is where the action really is. And the Church of Rome-- goes at that very sort of thing hammer and tongs, 24/7. Figuratively speaking...
You think I don't know this??? You've got to be kidding me. OR -- are you kidding yourself?
For it is not all about canon law definition, carefully cherry-picked at for narrowest definition when desired, and then opened up much wider when convenient to the general and ongoing continual pressing for concept of "the One [and only] True Church" with the pope as vicar of Christ and thus himself earthly visible "head" of all the Church which Christ founded, etc.
It all about impressions --- and how those are internalized.
All along in this -- I was aware you assumed that I was implying such as the above -- to have it apply to recent news and developments.
Actually your assumption was wrong. I used these examples only to be expansive and because they were accessible. An audience is a fairly formal setting, and speaking to a reporter is very informal, and as such they covered both ends of the spectrum of possible papal commentary. In a previous post I used this example: "When they preach homilies, or answer questions, or speak to people or give advice or whatever, then they are as subject to their skills and capabilities as anyone." I have never given any thought to whether you had some particular situation in mind or not, and neither did I care. You were in error in your usage of the text, as I have said, and you continue to be in error. Nothing more.
And as the rest of this maxi lecture seems concerned with simply more of this erroneous assumption I will pass it over. None of it appears, at a glance, to add anything new to your misapplication of the audience text you originally quoted as being concerned with infallibility when it was not.