Comments on: Torturous papal infallibility

By: joe

joe — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:17:59 +0000

Besides, NO ONE confuses a Bishop’s appointment with a moral teaching. But when the Church says Usury or Torture or Capital Punishment is wrong, gee whiz if the faithful don’t take that as the authoritative posture. By theargument being pursued, what on earth beyonf the Creeds and two articles about Mary even qualify as infallible. Certainly not contraception or an all-male priesthood, neither of which Rome will decree ex cathedra.

By: Angus McWasp

Angus McWasp — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:28:56 +0000

Sorry.

By: Greg Krehbiel

Greg Krehbiel — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:41:29 +0000

Angus,

I\’ve read all that stuff 14 times to Sunday. I just don\’t buy it. The distinction between a \”juridical decree\” that directly affects morals and a \”teaching document\” is too fine a distinction to be believable or useful.

By: Angus McWasp

Angus McWasp — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:35:40 +0000

Try the Catholic Answers article on ‘Papal Infallibility’ on their website. Allowing torture, choosing W_____as archbishop of Milwaukee, refusing to eat with pagans when the ‘Judaizers’ were around–all were bad decisions and set a bad example, but none were ever considered exercises of infallibility. At Vatican I the Ultramontanists wanted the pope’s table talk and his designations of monsignori to be considered infallible, and they were considerably chastened by the limitations of the doctrine as defined.

By: Greg Krehbiel

Greg Krehbiel — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:17:44 +0000

And how is a “juridical decision” different from a decision on morals? Aren’t laws moral?

By: Angus McWasp

Angus McWasp — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:14:00 +0000

Those were juridical decisions, not teaching documents.

By: Greg Krehbiel

Greg Krehbiel — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:07:58 +0000

Yes, I am understanding more and more why traditionally minded Catholics have their doubts about Vatican II. (Note that there\'s a discussion of this post over on the theology board.)

By: joe

joe — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:44:10 +0000

This is a good example of why many people feel that Vatican II was not a “development’ but a reversal of doctrine, all the Catholic bloggers and apologists notwithstanding. There is a clear shift, where the contemporary Church has adjusted itself to the Modern spirit.

Hence torture and capital punishment are now seen as evil, when in centuries past they were certainly approved.

Biblical inerrancy is qualified and toned tone, whereas early popes endorsed full inerrancy emphatically.

Other religions are a way of salvation, whereas earlier, even non-Catholic Christians were destined for Hell.

And as for Hell, it used to be the likely destination of many, and now the Church ‘dares hope all may be saved.’ Converts talks of appreciating Catholicism’s profound emphasis on divine love versus a Baptist-like emphasis on God’s wrath. While the theologically-minded nitpick over what is and is not a mortal sin, the pope suggests that in the end things will work out alright for most everyone, even as mortal sins like missing mass and fornication are rampant.

Is it any wonder that progressives lobby actively for female priests and gays lobby for same-sex partnership recognition? It certainly appears that many if not most doctrines can be softened and bent if changes are predicated on the imperative that ‘God is Love.’