The Pope Is Not Infallible Because He Has Not Decreed On Genesis

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 October 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1257047777' post='1994676']
Infallibility is very different from inspiration.

When the Holy Spirit inspired someone to write, the human author wrote exactly what God wanted him to write, no more and no less.

When a pope or an ecumenical council exercises the charism of infallibility, God merely prevents said pope or council from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
[/quote]
I would say they go hand-in-hand with the Pope. He's not just going to go off willy-nilly and hope that the Holy Spirit is paying attention and preventing him from speaking error. I would imagine that the few times the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, he was inspired by the Spirit to do so.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1257048444' post='1994683']
I would say they go hand-in-hand with the Pope. He's not just going to go off willy-nilly and hope that the Holy Spirit is paying attention and preventing him from speaking error. I would imagine that the few times the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, he was inspired by the Spirit to do so.
[/quote]

If one is going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired the Pope to define the Immaculate Conception or Assumption as a dogma, one would have to mean it in a different sense than when one says that St. Paul was inspired when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Only the latter would, strictly speaking, be divine inspiration.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 October 2009 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1257048723' post='1994685']
If one is going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired the Pope to define the Immaculate Conception or Assumption as a dogma, one would have to mean it in a different sense than when one says that St. Paul was inspired when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Only the latter would, strictly speaking, be divine inspiration.
[/quote]
I would think that any time the Spirit inspires, that's divine inspiration, unless it's an evil spirit…

I'm not sure how else you'd define it? The Pope just made a really good guess and God decided to give it to him? If you're going to insist that the truth is the truth and that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he's speaking the absolute truth, either God inspired him or the Pope is God.

[mortify]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='01 November 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1257091563' post='1994803']
I would think that any time the Spirit inspires, that's divine inspiration, unless it's an evil spirit…

I'm not sure how else you'd define it? The Pope just made a really good guess and God decided to give it to him? If you're going to insist that the truth is the truth and that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he's speaking the absolute truth, either God inspired him or the Pope is God.
[/quote]

It just means God's *providence* will not permit the Church to go into error. Since the Pope is the Supreme Teacher and the final arbiter between theological disputes effecting the souls of men, it follows that he can not uphold error in faith or morals.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='31 October 2009 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1257029947' post='1994601']
the point im making though, is that he exercises it not nearly enough, considering all the uncertainty and lack of guidance outethere, even amongst good catholics. it's like you can't expect anything clear except the most basic stuff.[/quote]

It's really for the same reason the Supreme Court doesn't try all cases. Not all theological disputes need to judged by the highest authority, not all theological disputes affect our eternal salvation and so a diversity of opinion is tolerable, and some are over mysteries that can't be defined further. Whether Adam was immediately created from the slime of the earth, or there were millions of evolving intermediaries, doesn't affect our salvation so long as we acknowledge God is our Creator, and that He created the souls of the first man and woman ex nihilo.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='01 November 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1257091563' post='1994803']
I would think that any time the Spirit inspires, that's divine inspiration, unless it's an evil spirit…

I'm not sure how else you'd define it? The Pope just made a really good guess and God decided to give it to him? If you're going to insist that the truth is the truth and that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he's speaking the absolute truth, either God inspired him or the Pope is God.
[/quote]

The Gospel of St. John is the word of God. [i]Pastor Aeternus[/i] (the Vatican I document that defined papal infallibility as a dogma), while infallible, is not the word of God.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='01 November 2009 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1257096542' post='1994823']
The Gospel of St. John is the word of God. [i]Pastor Aeternus[/i] (the Vatican I document that defined papal infallibility as a dogma), while infallible, is not the word of God.
[/quote]
God's inspiration doesn't have to only be his word. I didn't say the Pope was his mouthpiece, but you'd think with something as important as eternal truth, God would want some say in the wording.

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1257034310' post='1994621']
Theoretically, he should be able to define something like this infallibly. There has to be one true way man came to be, right? If the Holy Spirit so chose, couldn't he inspire the Pope to let us know what the truth is?
[/quote]
Infallibility isn't revelatory, it's merely a preventative thing. If the pope never said anything, it wouldn't disprove infallibility.

[Vincent Vega]

I missed the meeting where we decided evolution was a matter pertaining to Faith.

[Winchester]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='01 November 2009 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1257130221' post='1995038']
I missed the meeting where we decided evolution was a matter pertaining to Faith.
[/quote]
It's because you weren't invited. I spoke up for you, but the vote was clearly against.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='mortify' date='01 November 2009 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1257092393' post='1994807']
It's really for the same reason the Supreme Court doesn't try all cases. Not all theological disputes need to judged by the highest authority, not all theological disputes affect our eternal salvation and so a diversity of opinion is tolerable, and some are over mysteries that can't be defined further. Whether Adam was immediately created from the slime of the earth, or there were millions of evolving intermediaries, doesn't affect our salvation so long as we acknowledge God is our Creator, and that He created the souls of the first man and woman ex nihilo.
[/quote]

fair enough. i would agree evolution isn't a big deal. but there's other issues i was getting distracted on. he definitel doesnt define enough. even the supreme court takes many cases a year. the pope might address new issues, and if he does, he hardly ever does infallibly. (without getting into the 'ex cathedra' v. 'ordinary magisterium' extraordinary etc distinctions (and what i call the 'bunny from the hat' decrees))

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='02 November 2009 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1257199470' post='1995408']
fair enough. i would agree evolution isn't a big deal. but there's other issues i was getting distracted on. he definitel doesnt define enough. even the supreme court takes many cases a year. the pope might address new issues, and if he does, he hardly ever does infallibly. (without getting into the 'ex cathedra' v. 'ordinary magisterium' extraordinary etc distinctions (and what i call the 'bunny from the hat' decrees))
[/quote]
That is what I call "typical ignorance of theology and history" decrees.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Winchester

[Guest Tony Atonement]

Furthermore, the issue of evolution is very minor compared to the substantial divisive topics of salvation, authority, Revelation, etc.
[/quote]


I would say the issue of evolution, which is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults and "science falsely so-called" per 1 Tim 6:20, is an extremely important enemy that needs to be dealt with, if for no other reason that the very first sentence in the Bible demands it. Suffice it to say that God is not going to unlock the secrets of His creative prowess to athiest Charles Darwin, so Christians can then follow him like the pied piper. Even a superficial reading of the account in Genesis 1 & 2 impresses the reader with the idea of "suddenness". God simply called the universe into existence from nothing, all "by the breath of His mouth" (Ps 33:6), "so that the things that are seen, were NOT made of things which do appear" (Heb11:3). All theories of evolution, whatever form they take, posit some sort of glob in space that one day exploded to created everything we see today. But the book of Hebrews will not permit it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Evolution ≠ Big Bang Theory, aka The Horrendous Space Kablooie

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Winchester' date='01 November 2009 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1257125093' post='1994980']
Infallibility isn't revelatory, it's merely a preventative thing. If the pope never said anything, it wouldn't disprove infallibility.
[/quote]


No where in the official definition of infallibility at V-1 do we read that it is merely a "preventative". You are creating concepts of your own and pulling them like a rabbit out of a hat. It most definitely is something that is considered revelatory. Second, if he never once spoke "infallibly" after it was officially defined, I venture to say no one would believe it--or else, why should it even exist and why did the God of Catholicism waste His time putting it on your plate for consumption? To refute me, you'd have to submit a doctrine of your church that has been defined and has never been used once. I say you can't do it.