dont these popes admit that infallibility doesn't exist? how do you explain it

[dairygirl4u2c]

notice he says more than just having heretical personal beliefs, he says they "teach" contrary to the faith. 

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523 (Quaestiones in IV Sent quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908)

Pope Pius IX (1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

[Nihil Obstat]

If found to be a formal heretic, he ceases to be Pope. Thus, infallibility is preserved.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it sounds like a cheap ploy to say "once a pope teaches err he no longer is a pope, therefore infallibility is preserved". the common sense approach would be that if a pope taught error, he contradicts catholic faith and infallibility is denied. 

[Nihil Obstat]

it sounds like a cheap ploy to say "once a pope teaches err he no longer is a pope, therefore infallibility is preserved". the common sense approach would be that if a pope taught error, he contradicts catholic faith and infallibility is denied. 

Water is solid at room temperature. That is a scientific fact. The fact that it can be gaseous or solid does not contradict that fact - it simply means that we are no longer dealing with room temperature in those cases.

I do not really care if you think it sounds like a "cheap ploy".

[Didacus]

Wait a minute, the pope himself is failible, but he can speak infallibly when in communion with the magisterium.  

A lone pope by himself can be in error. 

 

Check the. Conditions. Of infallibility and get back to us if you will.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

a pope is said to be infallible when: the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. 

pretty sure the conditions of infallibility are also said to be. a pope can teach infalliblily on his own or when in communion with the magisterium. which is just another way of saying hte pope has to teach it. 

to simply say a pope is in error is too vague. one can be a heretic and not teach it. that wouldn't violate infallibility. but to go so far as to also teach the error touches on infallibility. 

 

[Didacus]

Can a church scholar point to a link on the conditions of infallibility?

I believe my statement is far more accurate than dairy-chick's.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

to quote authoritative source "the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "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."<sup>[1][2]"

someitmes i go back and forth between whether it is better to say a pope is infallible when he "teaches" something or better to say when he "binds" (or defines)", looking at it organiically, if you teach something, it is being defined well enough. youd have to qualify your teaching as nonauthoritative, such as the limbo teachings, to say a teachings isnt definitive.</sup> 

[Nihil Obstat]

"In no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, Who is the first and essential truth, and Who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions... "(17)

The conditions for Papal Infallibility were subsequently defined by Vatican I as follows:  

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, 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, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals." (18) 

(Bishop Vincent Gasser)

 

"Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…" (54) 

(Pietri Ballerini)

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah as he quoted, it's basically like i said. all a pope has to do is teach the church on faith and morals for it to be considered infallible. pretty simple. 

"Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy]"

the rest of it is interesting because it explicity rests on the presupposition that a pope can teach heresy.  id use that quote actually as an argument against the catholic church. i question whether that parenthetical is an accurate representation of the preceeding text. 

 i know it's been said you dont care what i say, but it's pretty sad, desperate, when catholics are actually admitting that a pope can teach error, just choosing instead to write it off for various reasons. (read, excuses)

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

"Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching." 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

That is the key part I believe you are missing dairygirl.  There are conditions to the Popes infallibly and unless he meets these he can say, teach, and mumble error all the live long day.  Yet not once in the history of popes has one met the conditions for infallibility and taught heresy.  

Edited September 20, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, maybe. i question how authoritative that link and quote is. i think the actual verbiage of Vatican I and II, as similar to what poster above quoted, are more along the lines of "defines" not "solemnly defines". which somewhat goes along with the issues i was discussing earlier, teach v define. and might i add as Jesus said with Peter, "bind". looking at it organically, if papal infallibility were true, what would you expect from a pope? i tend to say anything he teaches should be considered official and protected. part of me can see that we are all human, so he would have to give some extra consideration and "solemnly define" it. in any case, i think the official declarations are more in line with what i say. 

then again, there often is a second criteria for infalliblity. they say a pope can teach himself. or, he can teach along with the bishops of the world. i never saw th need for that second criteria as they both seemed to fall back on the pope teaching it. maybe this indicates a logic that i'm missing?

Edited September 20, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

If an heretical pope attempted to infallibly define heresy, he would lose the pontificate before such a definition could be made. Simple.

[Didacus]

From what I read in Nihil's post;

The pope can talk about the faith, publicly with the intent to teach and do so while making errors or having misunderstandings.

However, when he defines a doctrine on matters of faith or morals - that is when infallibility kicks in.

 

Thus, he can be giving a speech on abortion, intent on teaching his audience the sin of abortion, and while doing so make an error in the content and say 'abortion is wrong only when a mother's life is not threatened.'  He could afterwards, read and learn that he was in error, and then correct himself and teach according to the proper doctrine.

However, a pope would be kept, by infallibility, from define a new doctrine applicable to abortion such 'abortion is wrong only when a mother's life if not threatened'.  Such that he would not ex cathedra (from the throne) declare this as a truth to be followed by the faithfuls or the Church as a whole.

 

 In the first circumstance, his speech was not intended to define anything new or express a firm doctrine.  in the second instance, he is not making a simple speech but making a declaration, intended to establish a doctrine and addressed to the whole church (not just an immediate audience).

 

 

Did I get the correctly Nihil?

(snip) 

he teaches should be considered official and protected. part of me can see that we are all human, so he would have to give some extra consideration and "solemnly define" it. in any case, i think the official declarations are more in line with what i say. 
(snip)

That is precisely as I stated above.  Unless he intends it to be a definitive doctrine, the pope can make an error while speaking to a crowd or other circumstances.

Any pope does not get to be pope by being a fool, and prior to making something official and preparing a declaration, he would invest some serious thought and time prior to making any such declaration.  But if you hold everything that comes out of the pope's mouth as something that can be used against him, even on the spur of the moment, the as a mere human of course he will come short.

 

Jesus had all sorts of people trying to trap him and get him on the spot - and He always replied perfectly.  As He is perfect.  Not so for the papas.

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe someone can correct me, but when i was looking at the vatican I material, even where was suppose to get into defining infallibility, they did a bad job. all i see from vatican II is how the bishops in the world can coincide with teh pope when teaching and be infallible. i know ive seen some official definitions before, but maybe they weren't at the council level.