| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Papal Infallibility; and Infallibility of the Church | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 21. January 2008, 23:07 (2,405 Views) | |
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 18:16 Post #136 |
|
Can you provide a reference in Church Law that places that - or any - restriction on the Pope other than that what he pronounces on comes under the undefined label of "Faith and Morals". All I can see is what the Catholic Encyclopedia - a dated but generally still accurate authority on these matters - says:
|
![]() |
|
| KatyA | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 19:12 Post #137 |
|
Why should that be? I tend to feel quite uncomfortable with what often seems to be a rush to finish the Mass after Communion - no real time for thanksgiving. KatyA |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 20:08 Post #138 |
|
I don't think many people would find a 30 minute distribution time for Holy Communion to be in any way uplifting, there's nothing to take part in and that length of time would be far too long for most people to spend in private prayer, not least when you take into account the distraction from people getting in and out of seats, etc.
That's not a big problem around here which may be something to do with the fact that Mass (on Sundays and Holydays) lasts about 40 mins and there is no sense of rush after Holy Communion. If the distribution of Holy Communion were to be increased to about half an hour, that would take Mass over the one hour mark and probably create exactly the problems you are talking about. Whether people should regard 1 hour for Mass as excessive is another issue but that it seems to me that the attention span is really not much over 45 minutes for most people. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 21:00 Post #139 |
![]()
|
Why? You deny the possibility of providing an example from "the undefined label of "Faith and Morals". Yet all PJD suggests is that the Pope is not free to do as he wishes and is bound by a higher Law. I am puzzled though, what is undefined about the terms Faith and Morals? |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 22:11 Post #140 |
|
Because I'd like to know if this is something specified in Church Teaching/Law or whether it is just an opinion shared by you and PJD.
We are all bound by a higher law. What I am interested in here is trying to understand the bounds of papal infallibility because I don't see any. I'll be honest and admit that I am very perturbed by the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition that " ... infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error ... it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly I'm not overly concerned about "sinful and wicked men " but I would worry about the fact that popes can reign until a very advanced age and I can easily visualise a pope suffering from senility, refusing to listen to those around him, deciding to make some preposterous announcement and declaring it ex cathedra. . It seems a somewhat nebulous term to me, we have the earlier example of female ordination and I find it a strange issue to be considered as Faith and Morals except to the extent that it can be argued that everything in the Church can be considered as Faith and/or Morals; that, however, takes us into a virtually unrestricted range for the pope to invoke infallibility. |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 22:53 Post #141 |
|
OR, as is reputed to have happened... for a pope to be effectively usurped by domineering characters around him using his authority and making declarations in his name! If senior churchmen can't gain uncontrolled access to the pope, they can't really be certain who is in control. |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 22:57 Post #142 |
![]()
|
This states that the Pope has power over the Church which implies that he does not have power over God, which personaly I would have thought would go without saying but clearly not, so for those who missed the sub-text the Pope cannot change Divine Law. As for your bizarre example of a Mad Pope making an Infallible statement it is clear from the text you quote that the church has no issue with this, probably because it has enough faith in God to recognise that the Good Lord has the power to prevent such a thing happening by the very fact that God has the power over life and death. I suspect this at is an example of a Divine Law the Pope cannot change, he cannot declare himself immortal. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church Edited by Penfold, Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 23:03.
|
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 23:00 Post #143 |
![]()
|
Move over Dan brown a new novel is brewing, old plot same old fiction.
|
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 22. December 2010, 23:59 Post #144 |
![]()
|
Sorry Gerry but I really have no more to offer.
|
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Thursday, 23. December 2010, 09:55 Post #145 |
|
Penfold, Why apologise to me? I kinda dropped out a while ago. I am comfortable with my position, which is in conformity with catholic faith up until 1875 or thereabouts and beyond that I dont deny I just doubt. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Thursday, 23. December 2010, 09:58.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Thursday, 23. December 2010, 14:45 Post #146 |
|
"I suspect this at is an example of a Divine Law the Pope cannot change, he cannot declare himself immortal. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church" The example above provided by Penfold2, although somewhat obvious, is a reasonable example of such that has been requested. Another example, slightly lower down, is where - mistakenly - the chalices have been fillled with coloured water instead of wine. In which case no pope or any human whatsoever can declare that the words of consecration have been followed by the supernatural reality of the Eucharist; in other words an invalid Mass. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 23. December 2010, 15:28 Post #147 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Reading the posts made by people who are well versed in Catholic doctrine, confirms the opinion I have held since I first saw the Catechism. We are in desperate need of a formal book, outlining the whole spectrum of Catholic teaching, deliberately aimed at the person of average intelligence and education, presented in a manner that is easily understood. My understanding of the doctrine of Papal (I do mean Papal, not Church) infallibility, as taught to me is: Christ appointed Peter the head of the Church.
Only one man, Peter had received the divine revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus built the Church on Peter the rock. He promised the gates of the underworld can never overpower the Church. He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, he said that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever Peter looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.' When Peter died the Apostles appointed a successor. Some could say Jesus never promised a thing to the successor, but it makes common sense that, Peter being mortal, the keys would need to be in the hands of a successor. As each successor died, another was appointed. My understanding is, that even if the whole college of bishops, as a body, err, we have protection in the infallibility of the Pope. A Pope can go senile or insane. God is so powerful that nothing would exist without him, so I an confident he is quite capable of preventing a mentally incapacitated Pope claiming infallibility when he talks nonsense. That is how I understand the doctrine. I fear that if I delve too deeply into documents written in archaic language, and using terms normally used only by theologians, my brain would end up tied in knots. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Thursday, 23. December 2010, 17:34 Post #148 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator and what he says stands, unless what he rules is unjust, or is in error - in which case, such ruling can be disregarded. The highest Law is the Salvation of Souls. A Pope can call a Council. The Council answers to the Pope, and as far as I am aware, anything decided by Council must be approved by the Pope - I think it was the 5th Lateran Council that declared the superiority of Popes over Councils. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 05:52 Post #149 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 09:27 Post #150 |
|
In order not to continue a distraction on the sspx thread I say here that the mere fact that claims for infallibility are surrounded with conditions and restrictions demonstrates clearly that unless those restrictions and conditions are met then the pope can teach things that are mistaken. Examples are legion. Gerry. |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |







Sorry Gerry but I really have no more to offer.



8:36 PM Jul 11