Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

Well, sure. Popes can disagree with one another and they can be wrong in their ideas...AS PRIVATE THEOLOGIANS. Just not when they are teaching formally as head of the universal Church. As I said, there are only a few times this has ever been done. I can name only two off the top of my head:

The Immaculate Conception (1854)
The Assumption of Mary (1950)

well, what then? Did god change his mind? Or were the popes fallible?

Sorry if I was unclear. Popes are not infallible in everything they say. So, they can disagree with each other about things that are not declared infallibly.

Aren't those people being led by the Spirit to make a wise decision?

I don't know, are they? so how does this work? God makes sure they don't pick an asshole and then makes him infallible? this is more curiosity than objection

Well, the Borgia popes were pretty bad, but yes, generally speaking God leads the cardinals to choose the man God desires as pope. And from that point, yes, the pope is PREVENTED by God from teaching error in his formal capacity as Pope. He can still be in error privately.

Pope Benedict has retired (a rare thing) and because he is no longer pope, he is no longer the head of the universal Church. Not infallible.

is....god ok with that? People quoting infallibility? sounds like it would be a job for life (I know it's not common to quit, but it does happen)

Benedict was not the first to resign.

ah...the ordination of women is a different question. Trying to sneak in a freebie, eh? Just kidding. Women cannot be ordained as priests because they are not male and therefore cannot stand in the place of Christ (in persona Christi) which a priest must do.

no, I know it's a bit off topic, I'll try to keep it on track

No problem. This is going well so far. I hope you agree.

a couple questions regarding the above:
~is Jesus god?
~Does god have a gender?
~why is a penis necessary to represent a perfect being?
~why does a perfect being have a penis!?!? nah, just kidding with this one

Yes.
No.
No comment.
No comment.

Dunno. Not the way God wanted to do it, I guess. But I can know what I'm supposed to do or not do as a believer, and I still choose to sin at times. Why would the man in the Vatican be any different?

I'm impressed. You admitted to not knowing. and well, fair enough

Cool. By the way, I should have asked when we finished discussing celibacy if you felt I had made a good-faith effort to answer your questions and whether you think my answers reduced the concerns you may have had about the subject previously?

yes, I'm actually glad because I feel like we're having a proper discussion. I don't think you can get me to like the catholic church's teachings, but to be fair you cleared up a couple things and I learned something too, so I'm inclined to call this discussion fruitful.

Cool. Let me know if you are satisfied with this topic. If so, we'll move on.

[Longhorn]

Sorry if I was unclear. Popes are not infallible in everything they say. So, they can disagree with each other about things that are not declared infallibly.

So how do we know when they are declaring infallibly? That they're not contradicting each other?

No problem. This is going well so far. I hope you agree.

Yep. Better than I expected.

Yes.
No.
No comment.
No comment.

That makes exactly 0 sense.

Cool. Let me know if you are satisfied with this topic. If so, we'll move on.

Just tell how do I tell when the pope is declaring infallibly and we can leave the guy alone.

[Randy Carson]

Sorry if I was unclear. Popes are not infallible in everything they say. So, they can disagree with each other about things that are not declared infallibly.

So how do we know when they are declaring infallibly? That they're not contradicting each other?

There is a special formulation in the language they use. Here is the paragraph from Munificentissimus Deus:

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

HOWEVER - this is where it gets a little bit tricky: the popes in more ancient times used different wording, so there is some disagreement over exactly which dogmas were declared infallibly. As I said before, the list ranges from about 6-10 generally recognized examples.

No problem. This is going well so far. I hope you agree.

Yep. Better than I expected.

Excellent.

Cool. Let me know if you are satisfied with this topic. If so, we'll move on.

Just tell how do I tell when the pope is declaring infallibly and we can leave the guy alone.

See above. And remember that the last two times were in 1854 and 1950. This doesn't happen very often!

[Longhorn]

Cool. I mean I still don't buy it, but whatever. We can move on

[abaris]

Well, the Borgia popes were pretty bad, but yes, generally speaking God leads the cardinals to choose the man God desires as pope. And from that point, yes, the pope is PREVENTED by God from teaching error in his formal capacity as Pope. He can still be in error privately.

Not as bad as their successors made them out to be. Alexander VI offered a safe haven for the jews being thrown out of Spain after the reconquista, Just to give one example. But it's certainly correct that he was corrupt to the bones, especially when it came to his family.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Well, sure. Popes can disagree with one another and they can be wrong in their ideas...AS PRIVATE THEOLOGIANS. Just not when they are teaching formally as head of the universal Church. As I said, there are only a few times this has ever been done. I can name only two off the top of my head:

The Immaculate Conception (1854)
The Assumption of Mary (1950)

well, what then? Did god change his mind? Or were the popes fallible?

Aren't those people being led by the Spirit to make a wise decision?

I don't know, are they? so how does this work? God makes sure they don't pick an asshole and then makes him infallible? this is more curiosity than objection

Pope Benedict has retired (a rare thing) and because he is no longer pope, he is no longer the head of the universal Church. Not infallible.

is....god ok with that? People quoting infallibility? sounds like it would be a job for life (I know it's not common to quit, but it does happen)

ah...the ordination of women is a different question. Trying to sneak in a freebie, eh? Just kidding. Women cannot be ordained as priests because they are not male and therefore cannot stand in the place of Christ (in persona Christi) which a priest must do.

---

no, I know it's a bit off topic, I'll try to keep it on track

a couple questions regarding the above:
~is Jesus god?
~Does god have a gender?
~why is a penis necessary to represent a perfect being?
~why does a perfect being have a penis!?!? nah, just kidding with this one

---

Dunno. Not the way God wanted to do it, I guess. But I can know what I'm supposed to do or not do as a believer, and I still choose to sin at times. Why would the man in the Vatican be any different?

---

---

I'm impressed. You admitted to not knowing. and well, fair enough

Cool. By the way, I should have asked when we finished discussing celibacy if you felt I had made a good-faith effort to answer your questions and whether you think my answers reduced the concerns you may have had about the subject previously?

yes, I'm actually glad because I feel like we're having a proper discussion. I don't think you can get me to like the catholic church's teachings, but to be fair you cleared up a couple things and I learned something too, so I'm inclined to call this discussion fruitful.

---

Who circumcised God?

[downbeatplumb]

well, what then? Did god change his mind? Or were the popes fallible?

Sorry if I was unclear. Popes are not infallible in everything they say. So, they can disagree with each other about things that are not declared infallibly.

I don't know, are they? so how does this work? God makes sure they don't pick an asshole and then makes him infallible? this is more curiosity than objection

Well, the Borgia popes were pretty bad, but yes, generally speaking God leads the cardinals to choose the man God desires as pope. And from that point, yes, the pope is PREVENTED by God from teaching error in his formal capacity as Pope. He can still be in error privately.

is....god ok with that? People quoting infallibility? sounds like it would be a job for life (I know it's not common to quit, but it does happen)

Benedict was not the first to resign.

no, I know it's a bit off topic, I'll try to keep it on track

No problem. This is going well so far. I hope you agree.

a couple questions regarding the above:
~is Jesus god?
~Does god have a gender?
~why is a penis necessary to represent a perfect being?
~why does a perfect being have a penis!?!? nah, just kidding with this one

Yes.
No.
No comment.
No comment.

I'm impressed. You admitted to not knowing. and well, fair enough

Cool. By the way, I should have asked when we finished discussing celibacy if you felt I had made a good-faith effort to answer your questions and whether you think my answers reduced the concerns you may have had about the subject previously?

yes, I'm actually glad because I feel like we're having a proper discussion. I don't think you can get me to like the catholic church's teachings, but to be fair you cleared up a couple things and I learned something too, so I'm inclined to call this discussion fruitful.

Cool. Let me know if you are satisfied with this topic. If so, we'll move on.

A truly medieval mindset.

[Metis]

So how do we know when they are declaring infallibly? That they're not contradicting each other?

There is a special formulation in the language they use. Here is the paragraph from Munificentissimus Deus:

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

HOWEVER - this is where it gets a little bit tricky: the popes in more ancient times used different wording, so there is some disagreement over exactly which dogmas were declared infallibly. As I said before, the list ranges from about 6-10 generally recognized examples.

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time […] All and every single Jew, of whatever sex and age, must everywhere wear the distinctive dress and known marks by which they can be evidently distinguished from Christians.”

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […]  They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.”

Both from his decree of 1442
Guess my boyfreind was never a very good Catholic then, he lived next door to a Jew that dresses like everyone else. He even went to her barbaques!

We decree for now and all time....That sounds like a pretty specific pronouncement Randy, one that dear old Eugene put in such strong terms it was evidently rather important to him. I can pull out several others ranging from calling for the execution of non-Catholics to Innocent III proclaiming himself king of the universe. How come these proclamations aren't infalliable but are worded if not just as strongly than even stronger than the ones Catholic take as Gospel?

Edit: The pun was unintended -_-;

[Randy Carson]

Cool. I mean I still don't buy it, but whatever. We can move on

Okay. And for the next topic:

YOUR PICK!

I chose the first two...you choose the next one.

[Dystopia]

Why do Catholics oppose contraception and premarital sex (and the question is valid for most Christian denominations)?