Too subtle again. I do that a lot.

GKC

Are you pointing that there could be a perceived tension between answering "Yes" to both parts of question 1? Even though that particular tension is not the reason you answered 1a with a "No"?

Among other things, yes, which speaks to the poor wording of the question, and the likely lack of understanding of the underlying concept. But that was not the primary point.

GKC

Not gonna comment, but then you did! But the Pope does not possess a 'personal' charism of infallibility, the charism is held by his office, not his person, that's the distinction I am trying to make.

Explicate the distinction.

GKC

If the Pope says 'the sky is green' it doesn't suddenly become so just because he said it....this is the kind of thing that the OP is getting at.

Oh, piffle, to be sure. Sure he is, if he understands no more than what he posted. As I replied to Obi-Wan. And I do like to lead these sort of folks on a while, to gauge their inadequacies. You know, like Yukon. Before making revealing statements. Like why Obi-Wan and I answered 1A differently. You will notice the OP addressed the questions to me. And here came the answer to 1A. Odd. What to make of it?

My comment was to the effect that the dogma as defined holds that the Person in the Chair possesses, by that fact, a personal charism of infallibility as defined (i.e., as limited to the VAT I definition). An office cannot exercise a function, absent a personage.

GKC

The problem is that when you use a word like 'infallible' it immediately creates confusion and misunderstanding, which one then spends the remainder of the conversation attempting to clarify. And it is an entirely self created problem which is the result of using language which seems like it was almost designed to sound inflammatory. It seems to me much wiser to simply not create the problem in the first place by using language which is not misleading.

The problem is that when you use a word like 'infallible' it immediately creates confusion and misunderstanding, which one then spends the remainder of the conversation attempting to clarify. And it is an entirely self created problem which is the result of using language which seems like it was almost designed to sound inflammatory. It seems to me much wiser to simply not create the problem in the first place by using language which is not misleading.[/quote]


(Deep sigh here). I draw your attention to the use of the word, by the OP, in the question to me. I was not creating a problem. I was leading him on. With an end in mind.

I bequeath him to you.

(Repeat deep sigh, in conclusion).

GKC

(Deep sigh here). I draw your attention to the use of the word, by the OP, in the question to me. I was not creating a problem. I was leading him on. With an end in mind.

I bequeath him to you.

(Repeat deep sigh, in conclusion).

GKC[/quote]

I'm not criticing or responding to waht yous said, i'm responding to the guy who seems to have disappeared into the ether....and i'm actually criticizing conventional Catholic theology which, as i said, tends to use language which seems to be deliberately designed to sound inflammatory and to create arguments. A phrase like 'the Pope is infallible' is the kind of thing which just seems to create problems where a problem need not exist at all, which is why I do everything I possibly can to avoid using that kind of language.

I'm not criticing or responding to waht yous said, i'm responding to the guy who seems to have disappeared into the ether....and i'm actually criticizing conventional Catholic theology which, as i said, tends to use language which seems to be deliberately designed to sound inflammatory and to create arguments. A phrase like 'the Pope is infallible' is the kind of thing which just seems to create problems where a problem need not exist at all, which is why I do everything I possibly can to avoid using that kind of language.[/quote]



Do you remember what Admiral Ackbar said? Sheldon quotes it often.

GKC

I will add Ordinary and the Extraordinary Magisterium and Ott's FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA to my reading list, though I would appreciate if you could share some of the fundamentals here.

That wikipedia quote connects with the interpretation of the Pope I have been immersed in my whole life. Have you not heard people claim the Pope is infallible? Have you not heard it in the media, in comedy, in movies? I am curious how many Catholics share your beliefs or have my (mistaken?) interpretation.

Infallible in the sense that, when the Pope says condoms are prohibited, this is absolutely and eternally true, and is the will of your god.

Still not a major point, but I do like clarifying things... Do most Catholics not view the Pope as infallible?

Perhaps I will share when I feel more comfortable.

I have one on computational challenges in predicting in a determinist universe, another on machine consciousness, and my dissertation on artificial intelligence.

GKC, Obi-Wan and Doom. I'm reading along.

Okay, infallibility as making perfect claims versus infallibility as being the ultimate source.

These distinctions are easy to make if you think they will help me clarify my wording.
It won't take a whole conversation to clarify it, and I wouldn't say I am 'fumbling'. If I am misusing the term (or lacking a technical definition which I was not taught in my own religion of Judaism), I'm sure you can forgive me. Perhaps a little less insulting and a little more amicable in sharing your technical Catholic terminology for an honest inquirer?



GKC, Leading me on, were you? Devious.


Doom, I was not going for the Pope saying the sky is green.
And I certainly didn't say the pope is infallible to be deliberatively inflammatory.



You say the office, not the pope is infallible. Please clarify. Is the office the ultimate authority? Can it make mistakes? Does the pope have a special line to god above normal priests, or is it just a matter of hierarchy that you accept the pope's words as ...binding or ultimate or what have you.


And again, the infallibility of the Pope is still quite off topic

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Infallibility - In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals"

"Preserved from liability to error regarding faith and morals."

If my use of infallibility was in error, note that this error is shared by wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility , by this Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html , and by all the millions who might view these pages. For this reason, you should be more gentle with your criticism of my lack of understanding, don't you think?

Let's run over it again.

You say the Papacy is divine...why?

You understand the Pope to be infallible...in what sense/circumstances?

I have no idea as to what most Catholics feel, re: the Pope and infallibility. Why do you ask?
But I have an idea you don't understand the dogma.


GKC

Devious, but easy to do. You make assumptions, on inadequate data.


GKC

But the probability of such phenomenon is far, far more than the probability of random creation of the most primitive self-replicating cell which would include DNA molecule. Because DNA molecule and the whole cell consists of much more atoms than the number of stars needed to constitute a message on the sky.

And the explanation that such primitive cell appeared as a result of evolution is absolutely equal to the "explanation" that message on the sky written with stars appeared as a result of evolution of the stars.

Why don't you just explain it to me, rather than continuing to ask and tell me I don't understand.
If I don't understand, neither does the vast majority of the world.

I referred to the Ordinary and Extroardinary Magisterium, the definitions of Papal infallibility (the source which you rejected), and then the Catholic encyclopedia's definition of infallibility.

If you guys can't get the right definitions on the mainstream pages, I don't think you should blame the lack of understanding on me here.
Just clarify it. I feel that I could quickly and easily clarify most concepts in atheism/secularism and many in science. Can you not do the same?

I'd still rather get back to the actual topic.

Oh, no. I told you early on that was not my sandbox. What I will do is point out that, as far as can be seen, you have little concept of the meanings of what you are attempting to assert. Theological doctrine/dogma, like many disciplines, has a vocabulary and definitions within which informed discourse can proceed. You are functionally illiterate (as far as I can see), in that language. Perhaps you can find here a RC who, if you declare (rather than merely manifest) your ignorance and interest, and state a specific doctrine, asking for what the Church teaches and holds on it (you may get a simplified reply), may answer.

For a couple of reasons, that won't be me. But I will continue to snark at your presumptions, as appropriate.

That the majority of the world does not understand much of this stuff, I have noted, over the years.

GKC