Papal Infallibility

[Fearless]

If you believe in papal infallibility does that not mean you are compelled to also accept the Church's views on women's rights, gay rights, birth control, evolution, and so on and so forth?

Food for thought.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Seems logical.

But, I'm not Catholic.

[dballance]

2. How Interesting It is That Ratzinger is No Longer Infallible.

Guess it sucks to be a mere mortal again.

[jberryhill]

3. Oh I love this part of Star Trek

Where Kirk gets the evil thingie caught in a simple logical trap, and it explodes.

Either that, or he seduces it. But it's usually one or the other.

Incidentally, I am not a Catholic, but at least I know that they got over evolution a long time ago.

[arely staircase]

4. they are actually good on evolution, i think

the rest of your list, not so much

[Fearless]

5. They accept evolutionary creationism

That is, god created man in his image. Evolution is fine, but only if god designed it. Although I do remember being taught that woman was created from man's rib and that's why men have one fewer rib than women (not true) in elementary school.

[arely staircase]

7. while true, that isn't the same thing as creationism

my church too, episcopal, accepts scientific evolution and does not believe in bible literalism. a creationist would actually try to change a sceicne class while neither the catholic nor anglican church would.

put it this way, i betcha science classes at notre dame and bob jones university are quite different, with the former being a straight up science class and the latter some sort of mumbo jumbo.

[jberryhill]

8. You are making an analytical error

Does evolution, or science in general, prove or disprove whether deities of any sort exist?

My understanding, and I have to say my direct exposure to science is a minor in physics, is that science and religion are pretty much orthogonal.

Religious claims tend to be couched in such a way as to be untestable. Asserting that physical reality works according to purely physical principles "because God made it happen that way" doesn't really alter the validity of the scientific method or its results.

[Fearless]

10. I don't believe I've made an error

Science generally states that we don't know how the universe started.

Many religions state that god created the world and man and evolution doesn't exist.

Catholicism sometimes states that evolutionary creationism is possible, so long as it doesn't deviate from the god-centered creation. Granted again, the Church hasn't had an official position on it in over 100 years. Though the Humani Generis (1950) does suggest, as previously mentioned, that evolutionary science and religious belief could possibly coexist.

[cthulu2016]

16. Yes and No

Evolution does not disprove the existence of god(s) per se... nothing can.

But the question is perverse... there is not much call to disprove a non-phenomenon. The burden of proof is squarely on anyone claiming something exists that cannot be demonstrated, shown, proved, etc..

So in that sense, God starts out as not existing, the same as anything else.

But before evolution there WAS a phenomenon that nobody can deny (that living things have every appearance of being designed), and that had to be explained.

God was a one explanation. Evolution was a much, much better explanation. (The details are more consistent with evolution. And evolution has made thousands of correct predictions of things that later technologies allowed us to test, while religion has made very few.)

It is not that evolution disproves God. Evolution renders God unnecessary which is effective disproof because there is no reason to start out (absent a phenomenon to be explained) with, "God: disprove it."

Put another way, before the theory of evolution, the forms of living things were tantamount to the biblical miracles being ongoing and available for study. The Red Sea parting for all to see wouldn't prove God, but it would put something on the table that seemed very god-ish and demanded explanation.

[jberryhill]

17. Absolutely

But one could easily become dogmatic about lots of things.

The problem with "unscientific religious people used to believe something silly" is that the same criticism applies to "non- religious scientists" (or any scientist, really). I'm not religious, but if science is allowed to improve over time, then I think it's only fair to let religion do the same thing.

[arely staircase]

18. but you make the mistake of assuming

all christians consider things like the parting of the red sea as literally tue and part of a debate in which they are trying to prove something.

[cthulu2016]

36. The point is not whether miracles are necessary for belief

The point is that if miracles were visible to all, hypothetically, it would put a phenomenon on the table that demanded an explanation.

The living world does have every appearance of being designed... to believer and atheist and everyone in between.

Something Dawkins said that I generally agree with is that anyone before Darwin who was a pure atheist was willfully ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary that the living world was designed.

(Which it was, but planning... without a guiding intellect or will)

[arely staircase]

38. fundies and athiest may continue to read the bible literally if they want

eom

[LiberalFighter]

51. I just wonder how god exists if god wasn't there before.

[cthulu2016]

9. Sadly, the pope is not infallible on that one—merely right

The Pope is the ultimate word on matters of faith and morality, but not on matters of practical fact.

As with all such things, the infallibility is unfalsifiable—it only applies to things that cannot be proven one way or another.

[Fearless]

11. Hell, I can also claim to be right

When I can't be proven wrong.

[HuckleB]

25. +1

[backscatter712]

12. This makes me glad I don't believe in papal infallibility.

Sorry, Catholics, it takes more than a title and a hat to earn my respect.

[patrice]

15. Respect? You just demeaned millions of people you have never met. I don't believe I'd

want respect from someone who does that sort of thing.

"a title and a hat" indeed!

I'm not a papist myself, but I can at least recognize the possibility that maybe a few of those millions of people you just dis-respected actually have their own authentic reasons for their attitudes toward the papacy, even if I don't agree with them.

:shakeshead:

[backscatter712]

22. No, I demeaned a set of assertions which are completely ridiculous.

The very idea that one person, by virtue of holding the title of a religious leader, becomes infallible on anything at all, is complete nonsense.

[Catherina]

13. Actually no. Papal Infallibility only concerns doctrines he defines "ex cathedra"

Ex Cathedra is when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

The last pronouncement I know of is the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and that was in 1950. Ex Cathedra is used extremely rarely.

The Church's views on women's rights, gay rights, birth control, evolution, and so on and so forth, aren't binding articles of faith.

[backscatter712]

23. Oh, so he can't be wrong on a subset of concerns.

[aristocles]

28. This is absolutely correct

There have been 7 ex cathedra pronouncements:

1. "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3. Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
4. Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5. Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

This copied from the Wikipedia article on papal infallibility, quoting from Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6

So, the pope has been infallible 7, count 'em, 7 times.

[patrice]

14. Papal Infallibility only applies to Dogma. Dogma is in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed says

nothing on any of the issues you list.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Catholics believe ALL Christian Baptism is forever. The only thing that can "un-do" a Baptism is to be excommunicated and the only reason you can get excommunicated is if you evangelize heresy.

[arely staircase]

21. interesing

that is slightly different than the version in my prayer book which says;m "..begotten, not made, of one being with the Father." no "consubstantial" in it.

[patrice]

40. Yes! I din't notice that. Quite interesting, indeed. I'll go get the link. Tks for the catch! nt

[patrice]

41. He, he . . . it's a substantial source, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

[sarisataka]

50. The wording changed last year

There were maybe a dozen changes in the liturgical prayers. The new wordings are closer translations to the Latin pre-Vatican2 versions.

[smokey nj]

26. Openly disagreeing with church doctrine is considered evangelizing heresy.

Supporting marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and the ordination of women can cause a Roman Catholic to be excommunicated.

[patrice]

39. Source that please. nt

[smokey nj]

44. Fr. Roy Bourgeois was excommunicated for participating in the symbolic ordination of a woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bourgeois

[smokey nj]

45. In 2009, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho excommunicated the mother and doctors of a 9-year-old

rape victim for aborting the twins she conceived when her stepfather raped her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Cardoso_Sobrinho

[smokey nj]

46. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz excommunicated members of various groups including Call to Action and

Catholics for a Free Choice. In 2009, the Vatican confirmed these excommunications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholics_for_a_Free_Choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_Action

[patrice]

49. The dissenting Catholics in all of those diocese should become Episcopalians. nt

[Arugula Latte]

52. But then a Mormon can Mormonize you after you're dead...

Ahhh, religion...so entertaining...

[treestar]

19. In theory

But that's not working any more. This is why there is no real need to be so concerned about the Pope's views. Catholics don't listen to him any more either. There's no political power there now, like there was in the medieval period.

[backscatter712]

31. While some Catholics might ignore the Pope, a lot of Catholics listen to every word he says.

The Roman Catholic church has millions of dollars to spend on its political battles - case in point, Proposition (H)8. Thousands of pastors, preach messages of misogyny and homophobia from their pulpits to millions, and many of those millions follow.

The pope you say is ignored actually has a huge bully pulpit that preaches against some of the core values that we as Democrats hold dear.

[treestar]

34. No one really has to listen to him though

In that sense, he's no different than Rush Limbaugh.

Back during the Sandra Fluke things, there was a poll, saying, I believe, even Catholics believe in birth control by a majority.

[backscatter712]

35. Rush Limbaugh's a pretty good analogy for what the Pope does to the world.

Take away the hat, the religious ceremony and the beautiful palace, and you have a hateful ranting gasbag spewing verbal filth to an audience of millions.

[treestar]

37. The Pope has some good things to say

Unlike gasbag Limbaugh. I don't think Popes are "hateful" or "ranting" and they have some standing in the world - few think they are spewing vile and unacceptable things. They merely represent more conservative views, maybe some of the most backward in Western culture. But that's what we all came from.

[joeybee12]

20. Yeah, but only from the 19th century on...also, Mary wasn't a virgin

prior to that time (or maybe earlier).

[Kingofalldems]

24. The ignorance in this thread is freeper-like

[aristocles]

30. Sad, really. Reflects modern education n/t

[LibertyLover]

27. I admit that as a recovering Catholic (Wiccan for over 25 years now)

that I have forgotten a great deal about Catholic dogma. I do remember whatever point of belief that the pope (or an ecumenical council) defines or sets out is only considered infalible when he makes a pronouncement ex cathedra, literally 'from the throne'. Then yes, according to the Church, once that happens, the matter is settled and all members of the Catholic Church are supposed to believe/practice/teach whatever was said. This refers to dogma and theology, not matters of science or history. Infallibility, real papal infallibility, is invoked rarely.

[aristocles]

29. See my #28 reply, above

[Kingofalldems]

33. Of course, but don't tell the DU experts.

They know better.

[jsr]

43. Sounds like it was meant as a last resort to impose consensus

mostly in the old days.

[Bake]

32. The Pope, per the Church, is not always infallible.

Only when he speaks "ex cathedra," which he doesn't always do--in fact, seldom does.



Bake

[pnwmom]

42. The only people who believe in general Papal Infallibility are non-Catholics

because Catholics know that unless a Pope issues a doctrine "ex cathedra" -- which has happened only twice in history -- that he's speaking infallibly.

[Recursion]

47. The infallibility doctrine isn't that simple

It only applies to issues of "doctrine or morals" where there is no guidance to be had by science and reason, and only when the pope is speaking ex cathedra, which he doesn't do very often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Conditions_for_teachings_being_declared_infallible

[LanternWaste]

48. Try "Papal Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue, by Mark E. Powell

Try "Papal Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue, by Mark E. Powell; and The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity (cannot for the life of me remember that author's name for the latter). You'll get some good answers to your question-- maybe more answer than you'd like.

Both authors actually researched and studied doctrine rather than pretending to know the issue and basing any premises off that lack of knowledge... which, although quite popular, it also quite annoying.

[Squinch]

53. I just know that the Pope is totally infallible

when it comes to his shoe choices. Those red Pradas kick ass!

Other than that, pretty much no.

[hughee99]

54. So what happens if the pope says he was wrong?

If he must always be right, then he must have been wrong.

[lunatica]

56. Once he thought he was wrong but

he was mistaken.

[Mz Pip]

55. Last time it was used was 1950

Not everything the Pope proclaims is infallible. The last time a Pope used his "infalliblity " priviledges was in 1950 and that was proclaiming the Assumption of Mary.