ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Pope to resign!(170 Posts)
Didn't know this was allowed - thought they saw themselves as "chosen" by a higher power and it was a job for life
But no reason has been given yet following the simple announcement from the Vatican.
Sorry, Ken. Love your insult, btw. Makes me think of Alice in Wonderland in serpent form. Consider it wound.
I was agreeing with you sieglinde. Thought you explained very well. Wind your neck in.
who really cares anyway. It's about time their was no pope's
Ken Dodd, can you read? I explained above. Infallibility DOESN'T mean you have to agree with everything the Pope says.
I suspect you want to ignore that so you can fill your straw target with arrows.
Nah he's not infallible , we don't have to virtuously agree with everything he says. Especially on moral issues.
A priest told me years and years ago he was when a few of us young ones were querying all sorts! So I've remembered that. But you're right only when he makes a special announcement. I forgot that bit! It was several lifetimes ago. A quote from the bible. Jesus said to Peter I give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven. ' Haven't looked it up but something along those lines. So that was good enough for me. Though I hardly ever go to church these days.
He's not even infallible on all doctrinal matters, Viviennemary. Only on a few. But certainly NOT on moral matters.
Has anyone seen this stuff about him writing to the Italian PM requesting immunity from prosecution?
The Pope is only infallible on doctrinal matters. (Sorry if that sounds like something out of Father Ted. . Not on moralistic ones. That's what I was told in any case. So if he says Jesus rose from the dead that's doctrinal. But no sex before marriage that's moralistic.
Good to have a chance to explain. It is a bit complex...
Apostolic succession and the doctrine of infallibility are separate though related ideas.
The former need not imply the latter. Most C of Es believe in the former but NOT the latter.
The former simply means the idea that each Bishop of Rome takes on the authority granted to Peter by Christ, when Christ said 'upon this rock I will build my church' - this is actually a pun on Peter's new nickname, Petrus or Rocky... and 'what you hold bound on earth I will hold bound in heaven.'
Papal infallibility applies only to a very VERY few pronouncements, seeker. The latest is actually the assumption of Mary, and as far as I know there has NEVER been an infallible pronouncement on the theology of the body. It's usually a weapon against serious schism.. so the following are the most agreed instances:
"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon; [against the Arian heresy]
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
Can't see that these are likely to outrage or even interest most outside the RC church
Therefore it is perfectly possible to be a very devout catholic and to disagree a LOT even with ex cathedra statements, though normally such disagreements should be private. (Ex cathedra is NOT btw the same as an infallible pronouncement at ALL.)
If anyone is still
awake interested I can rant on some more about ex cathedra.
I'm not a Catholic though, brought up CofE, now Quaker
Papal infallibility is a central tenet of Catholicism. I don't see how you can be a catholic and not believe in it.
Who says St.Peter was infallible though ? I thought that would just be Jesus as he was divine ? (according to Christian tradition)
But...but...but....if you believe in the apostolic succession, then surely you also have to believe in Papal infallibility? And when the Pope pronounces on, for example, human sexuality ex cathedra you have to do follow him?
Sorry Sieglinde I think I misunderstood what you were saying there - as I said I was surprised by what I thought I read as I remember having some good discussions with you before (though I have a shocking memory so it's more of an impression than a memory !)
Glad to hear you say you might be a Quaker if you weren't an RC ! And interesting to understand more about the importance of sacraments to Catholics.
Goodness, no, juggling. Just I hardly know ANYONE that counts as 'married' by strict RC standards. I actually love the Quakers! If I wasn't RC I might be quaker.
My point was more that I can't see why there's a particular fuss about same-sex marriage given that the RC church also condemns all childless marriages and in fact any ceremony done outside the RC church. By these standards, none of my extended family are married...
Lovely to hear about your friend, 1944. Yes, the RC church is really all about communion/the sacraments/visiting the Blessed Sacrament/sacramentals. People outside it tend to focus on its theology of the body, but my point is that this isn't really central to most RCs themselves.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I'm surprised to see you write a sentence like "95% of marriages are invalid by RC standards" Sieglinde ?
What about you ? Aren't you more questioning of that assumption, it seems rather arrogant and intolerant to me ? You didn't really say what you think about that idea ?
In fact I might be inclined to take that slightly personally as we had a Quaker marriage service. I try to respect other people's relationships whatever celebrations they have chosen (and however informally or otherwise) to represent their commitment to each other.
The fact that I believe in the core stuff, seeker - the number and nature of the sacraments, the transubstantiation, the apostolic succession, the saints, Purgatory. Afraid all that matters much more than the church view of gay marriage. All that's why I'm RC. I'm not RC because of homophobia.
I'm not gay, and if I was I doubt I'd want to be married. That's what I mean by not taking it personally. 95% of marriages are invalid by RC standards. Shrug. I acknowledge that we are not eh world. I also know that bishops can err. Doh. It's not the point.
Ok, there was the gay marriage silliness - no idea why they felt so stressy about that - but I didn't take it personally."
I am constantly amazed by the ability of Roman Catholics to gloss over huge swathes of stuff the church says and does and belives with a light "oh, I didn't take that personally" if you can decide you don't believe the bits you don't want to belive in, whqt actually makes you a Roman Catholic?
Yes, 1944girl, the hope or expectation that we (RCs) will wither away has been expressed since the time of Elizabeth I. But we aren't going.... and I think some orders - the very trad ones - are still doing well.
I went to a mass in the EF at York Minster last year - yes, an RC mass in the Minster - and it was so crowded they ran out of hosts.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.