Posted on 05/20/2018 12:47:05 PM PDT by NRx
Pope Francis: it is not a sin to criticise the Pope
***
But it apparently was a sin in 1518.
The "protecting the Catholic church from error" is a qualified statement though, which means that infallible statements are protected from error, yet this only applies to the actual formal statements, and not to any arguments or supports enlisted for them, such as for the assumption of the mythical Catholic Mary in Munificentissimus Deus.
So-called infallible teachings, papal or conciliar in union with him (since RC teaching is that the authority of ecumenical councils flows from the pope) require assent of faith, but make up only a minority of RC teaching, and both how many and what they are, including what portions of teachings are, are subject to interpretation, as are their meanings.
Meanwhile, it is allowed that non-infallible "official" church teachings may err, but not salvifically, and are also binding, requiring assent of mind and will, and exclude public dissent. A third or fourth (depending on who is explaining) magisterial level is that of general teachings what may err more seriously.
Yet what magisterial level each falls under, including portions of teachings, are subject to interpretation, as are their meanings.
And as the one basic duty of the laity is to follow their pastors as docile sheep, and authoritative teachers show their understanding by their application, then what Rome effectually teaches is what RCs tend to go by.
But which relates to my last post on what magisterial level each teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required. See exasperated response by poster on Catholic forums discussing this:
rr1213 Oct '06
itsjustdave1988: It is not official Catholic teaching that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is inerrant or an exercise of infallible teaching authority. However…
Direct and positive infallibility pertain to teachings which are “of faith” (de fide) and as such without error and immutable. But there’s another sense of infallibility, called indirect and negative infallibility. This sense does not connote immutability, but pertains to whether the object is harmful or dangerous to the faithful. If I erroneously assert 2+3=7, I’ve made an error, but I have not asserted something that is necessarily harmful to my faith.
Infallibility in the indirect and negative sense pertains to the protection of God given to approved ecclesiastical discipline. It is affirmed by Pius VI condemnation of the Jansenist proposition that approved ecclesiastical discipline can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful (cf. Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, *78).
Thus, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:
See more on disciplinary infallibility, here.
So, it appears that although general disciplinary norms may not be “the best,” given the contemporary situation, and therefore not immutable, they are always protected by God such that they can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful*. *
From this, it is my opinion that this Divine protection necessarily includes Catholic doctrine. That is, since canon law is infallible in the indirect and negative sense, and since canon law demands religious assent to the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in union with him, then it follows that religious assent to this doctrine can not be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, even if such doctrines are not proclaimed solemnly, definitively as de fide.
Consequently, the doctrines described within the Catechism of the Catholic Church as universally taught by the magisterium can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, and as such, are infallible in the indirect and negative sense.
rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/30
The response to which is just obey everything:
Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.
Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31
Got it?
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Recall we had ebbtide telling us the Spirit does not select the pope.
Francis wasn’t elected by accident
And frankly I don’t think Benedict quit by accident either
I have long suspected the revolutionaries in the college basically said enough with two conservatives in a row
And they elected an off the charts leftist
A black conservative pope from Africa would have made a better statement frankly
But they eschewed that
That’s a good question.
If the answer is yes, then why are you so angry at Pope Frank for changing the truth as is his right?
If the answer is no, then why are you so angry at the Reformers who stood up for moral truth and got excommunicated—and in some cases, martyred—by a wicked Pope because of it?
Which leads to the question then, of just HOW the Holy Spirit is protecting the Roman Catholic church. What mechanism does He use then?
Because if what we see going on in Catholicism today is an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the church........
From what we’ve seen on a good number of these threads the Roman Catholic seems to be relying upon Mary for pretty much everything.
Yes. Roman Catholicism has done so over the ages. Perhaps if you were more familiar with your denomination’s history you’d know this.
If this was a game of chess ebb would be in checkmate.
I went to a catholic high school. We even relied on Mary to help us win hockey games. I think I just figured out why we lost so many games. 😁🤣
And the thing is I’m not even telling him not to be Catholic if he wants to be.
(I hope he depends on Jesus and not his own works for salvation, though.)
But if he wants to believe all the other stuff, that is ultimately between him and God, and I’m just the messenger of the Gospel.
It’d just be nice if the hypocrisy on the part of many of the FRomans would stop. I’m getting tired of people yelling ‘HERETIC!’ at me like this is some kind of Warhammer 40k convention, especially when they condemn me for stuff that they’re doing at the same time.
The irony of some Roman Catholics acting like Luther on these threads is not lost on the readers.
Except Luther knew what he was talking about.
From what I’ve seen black Christian leaders from Africa usually make Western conservatives look like wimps. No way would the soviet of cardinals elect one of that crew.
Isn't it more than ironic how they can call Pope Francis the "Protestant" but refuse to see themselves that way? The term was invented to tarnish those who rebelled against the Roman Catholic church - THEY are the ones doing the rebelling! At least Martin Luther had Holy Scripture on his side.
I guess they could have resorted to the historical method of dealing with rival Popes - poisoning!
Well, after having an entire lifetime of ‘CATHOLIC GOOD, FILTHY CHRISTIAN PROTESTANTS BAD’ pounded into their heads, it’s probably the only way that the cognitive dissonance doesn’t reach head-exploding levels.
The answer is, "No". And that's why I'm angry with both Bergoglio and his predecessors, your so-called "Reformers". Both have have changed the "moral truth". To quote the father and hero of the reformers, Martin Luther, "Be a sinner and sin boldly".
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.