sorry for the confusion...my point being is that it is your opinion that they need to be addressed ... the Church has already addressed them ad infinitum...no need for any "addressing"

did you bother reading the link...it said



if that were the case, then obviously the Church has not changed what it never had (though i recall quite the difference of opinion on this board as to its place in Church teaching...iirc there was a huge thread here when this info first came out)

i'm wondering though... since the previous train of thought was unbaptized infants did not go to heaven, but were in limbo, why would that be a comfort to the parent... happy that they were not in hell... as would be suggested with the absence of baptism

also..the article erred when it said this


there was, to the best of my knowledge, a differentiation between the Limbo of the Fathers and the Limbo of the Infants

ok...back to the original point of your OP

RCs here, does the Bellarmine statement qualify as infallible, by the rules? I got my opinion.

And tell me what says the papacy is divine? And, based on your past performance, what to you mean by divine?

GKC

You're right that separate Limbos were conceived of.

Also, I am perfectly aware Limbo was not part of official doctrine. It was, however, taught for centuries. I think this ambiguity, in teaching hundreds of millions of people to believe something, and then not make it part of doctrine, is a fault of Catholicism, not a mistake of mine.

The issue is in claiming infallibility and then posing speculative metaphysics.
Why did they think Limbo existed in the first place? Any evidence?
Then to claim that it does not after centuries? Based on new evidence?

This is not scientific method. It seems to me, it is little more than imagination, buttressed by wishful thinking. I suppose this is my general distaste for theological speculation on unknown (and I would say imaginary) realms, in contrast to the precision, controls and peer-review of science.

Back to the key arguments for catholicism?

Hi GKC. Bellarmine is not the pope, hence not infallible. But he is making a claim that the scripture is inviolable. He says dismissing the geocentric theory would be as rejecting the virgin birth, that they are exact truths. This just goes to show the history of making unsupported claims, in the face of evidence, and then revising them later. As a representative of the Church then, this is part of Catholic history of making and enforcing statements in strong ways and then revising them decades or centuries after conclusive evidence has come down. A flaw, I would say, though correction is of course preferable to tradition in light of new evidence.

What says the papacy is divine? Honestly, I have heard this claim my whole life, from books, movies, Catholics and non-Catholics. I heard the claim made by an archbishop in debate. A quick look at wikipedia refers me to the First Vatican Council in the mid 19th century.


"The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e.., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin."


The distinction between infallibility and impeccability is intriguing to me. Perhaps you can put it in a clearer context, GXC.

Do you think the Pope is infallible? Does he make mistakes?
Does he have a special connection with god or Jesus?
Do all priests have a special connection with god or Jesus?
I'd be curious about your responses.

I suspect you need a grounding in the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Magisterium, as a start.

And you are saying that the wiki-quote, in your mind, supports your assertion that the Papacy is divine? And what is your definition of divine again? And what is an infallible teaching of a Pope? Movies, friends, extra, who cares. Give me a source. I do like sources.

And what is your understanding of the concept of degrees of theological certainly, as discussed, for example, in Ott's FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA?

I kinda like your list of questions.

1a. No. 1b. Yes.

2a. Yes. 2b. Yes.

3. Yes.

If you hear subdued snickering in the background, while looking over the answers to your questions, most here will know why.

GKC

Why not post some of them here so we can read them? Thanks!

Switch the 1a answer to "yes" and I will agree with GKC.

I've always thought that the word 'infallible' was the wrong word to use, I know it's established and all but....it suggests that the Pope 'cannot make a mistake', in the words of the poster.....that isn't really the point, the real point is that the Pope is able to teach definitively, definitively meaning that it cannot be overturned, perhaps a word like 'irreformable' might be better. I almost never use the word 'infallible' when in argument or discussion, it is too prone to misunderstanding. I tend to prefer language like 'the Pope taught it with the highest degree of authority' or something similar.

My allergies are particularly bad this year.

GKC and thee differ on that point?

How could this be?

GKC

Gezundheit.

This, my friend, is a mystery to all of us. We hope the disagreement will soon come to an end.

Not gonna comment. But I don't think this is well conceived, as to the definition of the Papal, personal charism of infallibility.

OTOH, I don't think the OP has a grasp on what he is fumbling with.

GKC

Fair enough and thank you.

But that is not quite the sense in which the question was asked.

GKC

No, I didn't reckon so, to be honest.

Sometime I am too subdued and subtle.

GKC

If you are feeling Jacobean, you can be subtil instead.

Gezundheit.

Because I am right.