edit: I should have been much nicer in sharing knowledge. Do not be like me.
the Roman pontiff (the pope alone or with the College of Bishops)
2 speaks ex cathedra – that is, when (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) he defines a doctrine:
3 concerning faith or morals, and
4 to be held by the whole Church.
that shit is so rare, it’s only ever been done twice. I swear the people who are supercilious about religion know just as much as most people in the religion. I.e. not a lot.
How is the Pope making official statements (“defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals” pretty much sums up all pontifical statements that aren’t a direct response to world events) concerning faith/morals which is destined to catholics anything “rare”?
BTW you paraphrased in a way that makes it less legible (IMO), here is the original:
[…] when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals
We don’t have the official statements made by Urban II When he called for a crusade, I’d argue it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he didn’t bless that war to some degree, but if you someone wants to argue otherwise I guess we’d have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, pope Leo made this statement:
God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs
He is Is the Roman Pontiff, and there is no indication that he’s making this statement outside this role
He has made a declaration which can be qualified as a doctrine
“a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief” Merriam Webster
That point can be argued though, “doctrine” is a weird word.
Which is applicable to the whole church (“Anyone who is a disciple of Christ”)
My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”
To be fair to you, I could have been nicer. I have been constantly looked over in my life and career and not given credence to my thoughts, which has resulted into too much bitterness.
I will also concede that the pope when speaking regularly can be considered infallible until a later pope, or the councils decide otherwise.
I apolgozie for my candor. It was unbecoming and shameful and I hope you will forgive the unkindness I have paid you. Blessings upon you and your family and I wish only the best for you and your kin.
You as well. And in the interest of further apologizing; I’d like to share this link with you. It’s a brief overview of the Dicasteries in the Catholic Church.
There’s even a Dicastery of Social Justice! But these can be considered councils that advise the pope. Where ultimately, the pope has the final say.
The catholic church has such a fascinating amount of bureaucracy in it lol.
Have a beautiful day, and may great blessings come to you.
Edit: Started off strong, then immediately went into asshole mode. Bad me.
Blessings and speaking infallibly are two very separate things. Again, it’s only ever been done twice. You’re including extraneous information that does not help your case, because you are trying to sound smarter than you really are and not arguing within the confines of the argument. Leo is NOT speaking infallibly when he says no war is blessed. You have to go through a very long process to speak infallibly. That’s why Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only ones.
You’re trying to recontextualize the rules, so that they fit your argument. Are you Western Christian perhaps?
You be ignorant, child.
edit: not blessings, but rather just speaking on what the Lord blesses is not considered infallible.
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
Man, if only I studied Latin for religious studies. Oh wait! I did! Speaking with Papal Infallibility is only done in specific vircumstances. Anything else can be considered possibly infallible. Fuck, y’all are dumb.
Edit: It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy” there’s a process you have to go through to speak from the chair. Same reason it hasn’t been done since 1950. You clearly know how to read and research, so just do it.
Edit: The church has rejected multiple declarations from Popes over the years. It means nothing!
It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy”
Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.
edit: I should have been much nicer in sharing knowledge. Do not be like me.
that shit is so rare, it’s only ever been done twice. I swear the people who are supercilious about religion know just as much as most people in the religion. I.e. not a lot.
Edit: I was wrong
How is the Pope making official statements (“defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals” pretty much sums up all pontifical statements that aren’t a direct response to world events) concerning faith/morals which is destined to catholics anything “rare”?
BTW you paraphrased in a way that makes it less legible (IMO), here is the original:
Source (Vatican 4th session, chapter 4)
We don’t have the official statements made by Urban II When he called for a crusade, I’d argue it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he didn’t bless that war to some degree, but if you someone wants to argue otherwise I guess we’d have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, pope Leo made this statement:
Edit: I am way too rude here
when was the last time a pope spoke ex cathedra. just answer that question and we can resolve this asinine bullshit.
After digging I’ll concede the point.
My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”
To be fair to you, I could have been nicer. I have been constantly looked over in my life and career and not given credence to my thoughts, which has resulted into too much bitterness.
I will also concede that the pope when speaking regularly can be considered infallible until a later pope, or the councils decide otherwise.
I apolgozie for my candor. It was unbecoming and shameful and I hope you will forgive the unkindness I have paid you. Blessings upon you and your family and I wish only the best for you and your kin.
Apologies accepted, and to be honest I’d rather have a tense argument than to be ignored, especially when it’s a good opportunity to learn 😁
Wishing you all the best
You as well. And in the interest of further apologizing; I’d like to share this link with you. It’s a brief overview of the Dicasteries in the Catholic Church.
There’s even a Dicastery of Social Justice! But these can be considered councils that advise the pope. Where ultimately, the pope has the final say.
The catholic church has such a fascinating amount of bureaucracy in it lol.
Have a beautiful day, and may great blessings come to you.
Edit: Started off strong, then immediately went into asshole mode. Bad me.
Blessings and speaking infallibly are two very separate things. Again, it’s only ever been done twice. You’re including extraneous information that does not help your case, because you are trying to sound smarter than you really are and not arguing within the confines of the argument. Leo is NOT speaking infallibly when he says no war is blessed. You have to go through a very long process to speak infallibly. That’s why Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only ones.
You’re trying to recontextualize the rules, so that they fit your argument. Are you Western Christian perhaps?
You be ignorant, child.
edit: not blessings, but rather just speaking on what the Lord blesses is not considered infallible.
Edit: I was wrong
Speaking infallibly can be done a number of ways, including the one which I literally quoted, from the Vatican council. This is not external information, this is catholic doctrine. You can find it on the official Vatican website, though only in Latin: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700718_pastor-aeternus_la.html
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
Edit: I am a supercilious fool.
Man, if only I studied Latin for religious studies. Oh wait! I did! Speaking with Papal Infallibility is only done in specific vircumstances. Anything else can be considered possibly infallible. Fuck, y’all are dumb.
Edit: It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy” there’s a process you have to go through to speak from the chair. Same reason it hasn’t been done since 1950. You clearly know how to read and research, so just do it.
Edit: The church has rejected multiple declarations from Popes over the years. It means nothing!
Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.
Again, I am sorry. I would delete my comment, but I feel it is worthwhile to see our mistakes and be reminded, so we can further grow.
I was the supercilious one, not you. I am the dumb one. Knowledge is power and should shared in a pleasant way, not hatefully like I have.
Again, my sincerest apologies for my candour. It was detestable.