How do you explain "papal infallibility" when the current Pope does not agree?
with previous popes? ... ie limbo and purgatory. If they are infallible, how is that not everyone agrees? The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible when he speaks of his position authority over a particular issue or doctrine (speaking ex cathedra).
Papal infallibility is a doctrine of Catholicism, often misunderstood (even within the Catholic circles!). Contrary to popular opinion, the pope is not infallible says every time he speaks. The Pope is still a human being with human interests and not spend 100% of their time talking about religious issues. There are two conditions to be satisfied before a decree of the Pope to be considered foolproof: 1. The case * must * faith concern and / or morals. If the pope were to punish a sports team, talking about the wonders of technology or even venture into politics, his words speak on the ability of Mr. Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI as not). It is argued by a number of Catholic theologians (post hoc, of course) that historical papal bulls on the dynamics of planetary motion (see the scandal of Galileo), although seen by contemporaries as infallible, in fact, precisely because the matter * * Does not affect the moral or faith (referring to cosmology and science). 2. The pope has the desire to actually * define * a dogma. This is the language generally used by the Pope uses in a definition. Phrases like "solemnly define" or "As a matter of Catholic faith and universal" are good indicators that the Pope is trying to exert * infallibility. Now, this does not mean that a Catholic can ethically just dismiss anything and everything the pope teaches, simply because do not use the charisma of infallibility. Applies to all Catholics to * default * confidence that the Pope in his quality of teaching. Infallibility is simply the mark dogma. Believe it or not, there are ways in which a Catholic through the conflict of conscience can not in any way created a certain teaching * dissent from that teaching. Of course there are levels of authority that accompany the different types of education (and a parallel level or opinion which is expected). However, the dogma must be accepted by all Catholics or (s) ceases to be Catholic. Now comes the hard part: How to determine what lessons the pope are infallible and which are not? Unfortunately (or, perhaps fortunately?) that the Vatican has not released an exhaustive list of all officially recognized states infallible. In fact, the determination of the fallibility of a papal decree is a subject of much controversy among Catholic theologians. It is the minimalist position which believes that only two of the Marian dogmas are (obviously) infallible an extreme position that sees almost 350 infallibility papal decrees (including those that are frankly anti-Semitic and anti-democratic) and a series of intermediate positions. You are correct in their observation that the popes have frequently contradicted throughout history (though his examples are, frankly, not to the point. Purgatorio has never been provided a doctrine of the Church). I just wish more Catholics paid attention to our history to not get caught up in this conservative mentality of "What I said Current Pope goes! "Was historically in charge of a number of popes who: 1. Jews are inherently guilty of" deicide "simply for refusing conversion after "killing Jesus". 2. Religious freedom is a heretical concept. 3. Slavery is intrinsically immoral (neither good nor bad). 4. Usury (loaning money at interest) is bad in itself and a "serious condition contrary to natural law." 5. All sex outside of direct, purposeful, procreative sex is gravely sinful (including sex between acquaintances, perpetually infertile couples). Now, in the church of the 21st century, we have been taught (even by our current Pope) that: 1. The concept of "Deicide" is absurd, unfounded, and wrong. Claiming that Jews either "killed Jesus" or are "intrinsically evil" is erroneous. 2. Religious Freedom is an innate human right endowed to us by our Creator. 3. Slavery (all forms) inherently evil. 4. Usury is not necessarily bad, only when a person intentionally operates a debtee through interest extravagant. 5. Sex (between men married women and, of course) need not be objectively * * procreation sex as long as it still works as a means to unite the couple (ie, infertile couples can now marry and have sex). Some of these can be attributed to genuine development, organic doctrine, while others are more difficult to do so. Some seem to be obvious * * Changes in education that obviously raises the question: Should a Catholic always agree with the current pope, even if that cause spiritual distress and Catholic causes, said he felt as if (s) that is sinning? I would say, of course not! I like to use this experiment Mental imagine that physicists find a way to go back in time, and a 21st century Catholics were to visit the 12th century Christendom. Now, during this time, the Catholic Church was systematically * * anti-Semitic. Is this the Catholic travel time bound "to accept all that the Catholic Church teaches" Consca despite its obviously 21st century
Purgatory Explained
