Is This Heretical?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

they see me trollin'

they hatin'

[Socrates]

Interesting point. To what degree, then, are Catholics to accept what the Pope says? Does that mean that gay marriage is up for debate? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall a specific doctrine stating that gay people are not allowed to marry. Though the Bible condemns gay acts, it also supports the idea that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth was created twice. I'm sure there is a good explanation for this. 

 

The individual statements of a given Pope are only infallible in certain specific circumstances.  As defined in Vatican II, he speaks infallibly, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

 

(Good article here.  Wikipedia's article is actually a pretty accurate summary of the position.)

 

Such statements are actually fairly rare.  Pope John Paul II was not defining a doctrine in the portion of  the ecumenical prayer cited.

 

The Pope is not considered infallible every time he opens his mouth.

 

The Church's teachings regarding the intrinsic immorality of homosexual activity (as well as all deliberate sexual activity outside of marriage and not open to life) is part of the moral teaching of what is called the Ordinary Magisterium - those unchanging moral teachings which have been constantly handed down from the Church from the beginning, and cannot be changed.  It's not just the personal opinion or interpretation of one pope. The immorality of homosexual activity, as well as marriage being only between a man and a woman are also both clearly stated in the Catechism. (For more on the reasoning regarding the Church's opposition to legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions," read this document.)

 

 

I disagree. If the Pope is the leader of the Church, wouldn't ignoring some of his statements seem like cherry-picking?

 

As I pointed out, the prayer cited was not a doctrinal statement to the whole Church, and defined nothing.  In fact, as has been said, it's not really clear exactly what he meant.  He did not define Islam to be true, salvific, or compatible with Christian belief.  (Any one of those statements would be clearly contrary to existing Church teachings on the Faith.)  

A prayer said by a Pope is not an infallible definition of dogma.

[Apotheoun]

The individual statements of a given Pope are only infallible in certain specific circumstances.  As defined in Vatican II, he speaks infallibly, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."  

 

. . .

I agree. I posted the following comment several years ago, but it fits here quite well:

 

 

The Second Vatican Council has no special competence as it concerns Islamic worship. 

 

The Magisterium of the Church is limited to making authoritative decrees dealing with divine revelation and the natural law.

 

 

Source thread: Apologetics for Muslims

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The individual statements of a given Pope are only infallible in certain specific circumstances.  As defined in Vatican II, he speaks infallibly, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

 

(Good article here.  Wikipedia's article is actually a pretty accurate summary of the position.)

 

Such statements are actually fairly rare.  Pope John Paul II was not defining a doctrine in the portion of  the ecumenical prayer cited.

 

The Pope is not considered infallible every time he opens his mouth.

 

The Church's teachings regarding the intrinsic immorality of homosexual activity (as well as all deliberate sexual activity outside of marriage and not open to life) is part of the moral teaching of what is called the Ordinary Magisterium - those unchanging moral teachings which have been constantly handed down from the Church from the beginning, and cannot be changed.  It's not just the personal opinion or interpretation of one pope. The immorality of homosexual activity, as well as marriage being only between a man and a woman are also both clearly stated in the Catechism. (For more on the reasoning regarding the Church's opposition to legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions," read this document.)

 

 

 

As I pointed out, the prayer cited was not a doctrinal statement to the whole Church, and defined nothing.  In fact, as has been said, it's not really clear exactly what he meant.  He did not define Islam to be true, salvific, or compatible with Christian belief.  (Any one of those statements would be clearly contrary to existing Church teachings on the Faith.)  

A prayer said by a Pope is not an infallible definition of dogma.

thankz

[jim111]

Here is what the past popes have said about islam.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:

“Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

 

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:

“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:

“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… 

How fascinating! Thank you for sharing. This Pope seems to have had a misconception about Islam. I can't recall a time when Sunni Islam considered Muhammad a sort of deity-like figure. The Muslims Pope Clement V is referring to, if I am not mistaken, would not have even "venerated" Muhammad like we do to the saints. If he was actually mistaken about this, what does this mean? Popes can be ignored unless they are speaking ex cathedra? 

[Nihil Obstat]

If he was actually mistaken about this, what does this mean? Popes can be ignored unless they are speaking ex cathedra?

Not ignored, precisely, but certainly they can be mistaken in some cases. Even significant ones.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Not ignored, precisely, but certainly they can be mistaken in some cases. Even significant ones.

Thanks for the response, Nihil! Please correct me if I am mistaken. The pope is only infallible on moral teachings, correct? Isn't the quote offered by jim111 somewhat relevant to morality? I am somewhat confused about this.

Edited April 29, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Nihil Obstat]

Thanks for the response, Nihil! Please correct me if I am mistaken. The pope is only infallible on moral teachings, correct? Isn't the quote offered by jim111 somewhat relevant to morality? I am somewhat confused about this.

Not quite. The pope can be infallible when pronouncing on issues of faith and morals. He is not always infallible, but he can invoke infallibility in certain situations.

But absolutely the pope can be mistaken about some fact. He can even be mistaken in a conclusion he reaches that is an issue of faith or morals. But those mistakes can never be infallible, obviously.

If a hypothetical pope were to say "Islam is evil because Muslims worship Mohammed as God", obviously he would be mistaken in the facts of the subject. But such a statement could never be made infallibly, nor could it ever be held by Tradition, simply by virtue of the fact that it is incorrect.

[Apotheoun]

How fascinating! Thank you for sharing. This Pope seems to have had a misconception about Islam. I can't recall a time when Sunni Islam considered Muhammad a sort of deity-like figure. The Muslims Pope Clement V is referring to, if I am not mistaken, would not have even "venerated" Muhammad like we do to the saints. If he was actually mistaken about this, what does this mean? Popes can be ignored unless they are speaking ex cathedra? 

Both Sunni and Shia Islam teach that Muhammad is the exemplar of humanity and in that sense they do "quasi-deify" him, and he takes the place of Christ, who is the true example of perfect humanity. Nevertheless, a better argument can be made that Islam replaces the living and incarnate Word of God with a book (i.e., the Qur'an). Sunni Islam in particular teaches that the Qur'an has two natures, divine and earthly, and that the eternal heavenly book of Allah enters into the world and subsists in each and every copy of the printed Qur'an.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Apotheoun

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Both Sunni and Shia Islam teach that Muhammad is the exemplar of humanity and in that sense they do "quasi-deify" him, and he takes the place of Christ, who is the true example of perfect humanity. 

Well, yes, they make him a sort of larger than life figure and follow his example. I still think the pope is actually wrong here. I wonder if there's a way to find out his exact understanding of the religion. I can only assume he means what his statements seem to imply. 

[Apotheoun]

Well, yes, they make him a sort of larger than life figure and follow his example. I still think the pope is actually wrong here. I wonder if there's a way to find out his exact understanding of the religion. I can only assume he means what his statements seem to imply. 

I don't think he is necessarily wrong. Clearly the Church has in the past held that Muhammadans are both infidels and idolaters, and that seems to be the point of the pope's remarks. The elevation of Muhammad in Islamic thought to a super-human status involves seeing him as some kind of quasi-divine figure. Islam may claim to be the most monotheistic of all religions, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, that statement is not accurate.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Apotheoun