pope teaching error

[dairygirl4u2c]

If you answer is no, why does that church legalese exist in extra's "pope teach heresy" thread? That essentially says.. "if the pope teaches error, we are to follow him in all but sin."

[photosynthesis]

The pope teaches what Christ teaches. What he says about faith and morals is infallible. So if it's infallible, then there's no error in it.

I refused to speculate.

[Krostandt]

Well, I put in I refuse to speculat. I'm not catholic and personally I think no bishop alone has infallibilty. Thus, although I respect the Roman Church, I have no reason to speculate on its dogmas. My two kopecks.

[Socrates]

No. The Pope can never teach error ex cathedra, so this thread is nonsensical.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Actually on closer inspection, the legalese never said that the pope could teach error, only that the error could be espoused by that pope and that it becomes publically known. sort of implying by means other than actually teaching it.

thread done. please refer to my legitimate development thread.

Edited February 2, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 1 2006, 10:10 PM']Actually on closer inspection, the legalese never said that the pope could teach error, only that the error could be espoused by that pope and that it becomes publically known. sort of implying by means other than actually teaching it.

thread done. please refer to my legitimate development thread.
[right][snapback]872626[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You'll have to bring up and quote the document (which you so deridingly refer to as "legalese") for your posts to have any meaning here. If you don't even know what you're refering to or what exactly it says, you've shown nothing here except that you really don't know what you're talking about!

I think what your are refering to is that a Pope could hold an erroneous opinion in private, but that he could never publicly teach an error regarding Faith or morals as Pope.

[qfnol31]

Not all teaching of the Holy Father is [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] and in fact, probably 99% or more of all taught by Popes is not. (Only two!)

The Pope can most certainly err on other things. I cannot speculate on too many of these here, but definitely in secular matters. Is he still the Pope, most certainly! He has the charism of infallibility, but that doesn't mean everything he says is right.

[peacenluvbaby]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Feb 1 2006, 09:30 PM']The pope teaches what Christ teaches.  What he says about faith and morals is infallible.  So if it's infallible, then there's no error in it.
[right][snapback]872589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Though I refused to speculate...my point was simply that although like has been said most teachings are not ex-cathedra, and thus could be erroneous - I think the basic issue is that one must obey the Pope's teachings which are ex-cathedra and use his other ones as probably wise suggestions or perspectives on issues and such.

One only has to flip through old time Papal Bulls and other encyclicals to find incongruencies between "accepted" standards of morality, and theology from hundreds of years ago and today.

Thus, I do think the "CHURCH" is legit, but that does not mean that one blindly follows to the letter encyclical writings or other "teachings" of the pope. Each person must form her own conscience and use those teachings as good suggestions, but not "The Word of God."

For example - though I agreed with JPII's condemnation of the war in Iraq, there are plenty of catholics, and catholic soldiers and politicians.... who didn't agree and haven't followed that particular "teaching" but still are faithful members of the church.

PEACE!

[Victor]

This is something that I typed up in another forum that I hope will be helpful to you guys. Please read carefully.

[color=purple]In my second post I noted what is considered [b]final say[/b] (Ecumenical Councils and ex-cathedra) for Catholics. I want to come at this in a different angle because I realize now when non-Catholics say “Catholic doctrine has changed” they are understanding it differently then I am. Whether someone believes doctrine involves science, history, or what ever else people think is involved. I usually respond by saying anything that involves faith and morals is considered doctrine. Or as Dei Verbum says “everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God”. So doctrine can be found outside of what I called “final say”. Final say is basically dogma. As Pah said, dogma “is a truth further defined”. I was attempting to stick to final say because it is easier for me to explain and for people to misunderstand. But regardless of where doctrine lies (dogma or not yet defined) Scott made an excellent point by saying [b]“no matter how extensive and clear the Church tries to make them, [u]may need explaining”[/b][/u]. With that said, doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church. That is exactly why things are revised and further explained. From day one people have misunderstood and deviated from what the Church was trying to say. If the up rise was large enough the Church would release letters or hold Councils to clarify and settle the matter. This was also part of the growth process for the Church. It’s about presenting your ideas so plainly that most people can understand them regardless of their biases and presuppositions. No text can truly accomplish this on its own. That is why a live interpreter and corrector (The Church) is needed. And that is why I said that doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church.
I do apologize for not clarifying things earlier. I hope this helps.
I will also paste Councils and Canon Law to further explain how things work concerning the topic. [/color]

[color=blue][u][b]Code of Canon Law[/b][/u][/color]-[color=green]provides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" [/color][color=red](CIC 749 § 3). [/color]

[color=blue][u][b]Vatican I[/b][/u][/color], [color=green]which defined the doctrine of Infallibility for the Pope says, "The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra . . . possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals"[/color] [color=red](Pastor Aeternus 4). [/color]

[color=blue][u][b]Vatican II[/b][/u][/color] [color=green]explained the doctrine of infallibility with unity of bishops (Ecumenical Councils) as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith"[/color] [color=red](Lumen Gentium 25). [/color]

[lifescanticle]

I responded as"refuse to speculate" because the question appears to be too vague. If the question is " Can the Pope teach ex cathedra in error" the answer is clearly no. If you are asking can the Pope be in error about a teaching that is not ex cathadra then as I understand it is technically possible, although unlikely.

[thessalonian]

Your poles betray your lack of understanding. There is no gaurantee of perfection in a Popes every day teaching. There may be some slight error from time to time. He cannot officially in his capacity as Pope teach outright heresy. If he does then Christ's promise is a lie. Ya right.

[Victor]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Feb 2 2006, 10:56 AM']Your poles betray your lack of understanding.  There is no gaurantee of perfection in a Popes every day teaching.  There may be some slight error from time to time.  He cannot officially in his capacity as Pope teach outright heresy.  If he does then Christ's promise is a lie.  Ya right.
[right][snapback]873152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is why I personally voted yes.

[Desert Walker]

In 1139 Pope Innocent II forbid Christians to fight each other with crossbows. He considered crossbows to be a highly un-Christian way to kill others in battle...............

Edited February 2, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Socrates]

[quote name='peacenluvbaby' date='Feb 2 2006, 05:55 AM']Though I refused to speculate...my point was simply that although like has been said most teachings are not ex-cathedra, and thus could be erroneous - I think the basic issue is that one must obey the Pope's teachings which are ex-cathedra and use his other ones as probably wise suggestions or perspectives on issues and such. 

One only has to flip through old time Papal Bulls and other encyclicals to find incongruencies between "accepted" standards of morality, and theology from hundreds of years ago and today.

Thus, I do think the "CHURCH" is legit, but that does not mean that one blindly follows to the letter encyclical writings or other "teachings" of the pope.  Each person must form her own conscience and use those teachings as good suggestions, but not "The Word of God."

For example - though I agreed with JPII's condemnation of the war in Iraq, there are plenty of catholics, and catholic soldiers and politicians.... who didn't agree and haven't followed that particular "teaching" but still are faithful members of the church.

PEACE!
[right][snapback]872739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We are also to heed the teaching of the Church's ordinary magisterium on matters of Faith and Morals.

There are no "incongruities" in the Church's teachings on Faith and Morals. Anti-Catholics and "liberal Catholics" often claim this, but these claims do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

One must distinguish between a [b]moral teaching[/b], and a [b]disciplinary decree[/b]. The Church may command different things or change disciplinary standards (such as regarding whether priests may be married, rules of fasting, etc.), but [b]cannot change dogma or moral teaching[/b].
(For instance, the Church could not one day declare abortion or fornication to no longer be a sin.)

Also we must distinguish between teaching a moral truth and giving an opinion on a [b]particular application [/b]of a moral truth.
(For instance, the Church infallibly teaches against unjust war, but the Pope is not infallible when deciding whether a particular war is unjust.)

[quote]Thus, I do think the "CHURCH" is legit, but that does not mean that one blindly follows to the letter encyclical writings or other "teachings" of the pope.  [b]Each person must form her own conscience and use those teachings as good suggestions, but not "The Word of God." [/b][/quote]
That is liberal nonsense.
The Magisterium of Christ's Church has binding authority over Catholics and is much more than just "good suggestions."
This line of thought unfortunately often boils down to "I'll heed the Church's teachings only when they happen to coincide with my own personal opinion."

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 2 2006, 11:40 PM']We are also to heed the teaching of the Church's ordinary magisterium on matters of Faith and Morals.

There are no "incongruities" in the Church's teachings on Faith and Morals.  Anti-Catholics and "liberal Catholics" often claim this, but these claims do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

One must distinguish between a [b]moral teaching[/b], and a [b]disciplinary decree[/b].  The Church may command different things or change disciplinary standards (such as regarding whether priests may be married, rules of fasting, etc.), but [b]cannot change dogma or moral teaching[/b].
(For instance, the Church could not one day declare abortion or fornication to no longer be a sin.)

Also we must distinguish between teaching a moral truth and giving an opinion on a [b]particular application [/b]of a moral truth.
(For instance, the Church infallibly teaches against unjust war, but the Pope is not infallible when deciding whether a particular war is unjust.)
That is liberal nonsense. 
The Magisterium of Christ's Church has binding authority over Catholics and is much more than just "good suggestions."
This line of thought unfortunately often boils down to "I'll heed the Church's teachings only when they happen to coincide with my own personal opinion."
[right][snapback]873583[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Socrates indeed, you are wise friend

[quote]25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, [b]even when he is not speaking ex cathedra[/b]; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

--Second Vatican Council, [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html"]Lumen Gentium 25[/url][/quote]

Edited February 3, 2006 by Myles