Catholics don't actually deem the Pope himself infallible. "Infallibility" is only in regards to moral or doctrinal teaching, (not Church discipline) when done in union with all the other bishops of the world, and only "officially" when the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra" : from the Chair of Peter. It's usually only done when there has been doctrinal dispute that has been hashed out in a Council or there has been a widely accepted doctrine for many, many years that just gets a formal stamp on it.
It brings to mind the paraphrase: Andrew, I also do not believe in the Pope you don't believe in. However, there is a finer understanding of the role and mission of the Chair of Peter that all Christians should admire even if they do not bow.
I agree with Bernadette, above. The Pope speaking infallibly only very rarely occurs, and has only been invoked twice, once in 1854 and once in 1950. These were both about Mary, and I’m sure Andrew would be shaking his head again. It’s not like you could go to the pontiff and ask what the winning lottery numbers are, or whether Trump would win the next election.
I will put in a word here for the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the church, which relies on Scripture and the Tradition of the church. It is an ongoing dialog, not a “one and done’ proclamation engine. Older church teachings have been review or changed, and will continue to do so. This is an ongoing conversation, not a continuous commandment engine. Each believer is also obliged to educate himself and act according to rightly formed conscience, so if in good faith and careful contemplation, you believe a teaching to be incorrect, you must follow your conscience, if rightly formed. This does not mean you believe it is OK to cheat on your taxes, etc.
I have a friend who stated that after he read St. Paul stating that one should put away childish things he stopped running for recreation. Pretty sure that is not what Paul meant here. Thus the dangers of self-interpretation of reading of Scripture. This does not prevent us from reading and digesting Scripture, but it must be done carefully and with guidance. Jordan Peterson’s excellent series on Exodus was a superb example.
I don’t think Andrew will ever change his slams of the RCC regarding infallibility and the BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary, for those non-RCC readers out there) but at least we can raise what precisely it is and more importantly what it is not.
You reminded me of something. George Carlin, an expired cradle Catholic, used to make fun of some of the school and church names. I went to one of them in Queens. It was Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That was a mouthful when someone asked you where you went to school. ☺️
"Jesus doesn’t bow to religious authorities. He doesn’t allow scripture to make him stone an adulteress or cease healing on the Sabbath. Before Abraham was — before religion was — he is."
I don't trust a man who sits in a giant snake's head. He's a dodgy bugger if ever I saw one. Bring back the last bloke. He was a kraut but I can forgive him that.
Interesting. I never really thought about the name, MacBeth, other than Scottish. It was written during the reign of Elizabeth I.
Mac=Son of, and Beth, short for Elizabeth, or even House if using old Hebrew. So, Son of Elizabeth? Son of the House? Was Shakespeare making a statement in the name? 🤷🏼♂️
Good one to start my day. Thank you. Hamlet's holding back vs. Macbeth's plunging forward. How about this: it's nice to have words and they do do nuance well, counting out the angels on the head of a pin. But agape love is not about telling but showing: the "active love" (as opposed to "imaginary/dreamy love") Zosima says you do without thinking about it and not caring whether people are watching or whether there is ever any payback. Hard work without any apocalyptic relief teams from the sky to help out. That's where the logos fractal comes together.
Andrew, As I read your thoughts about conscience, moral order, and becoming who we are, I thought back to your interview with Jordan Peterson. I loved listening to two men speak about St. George and the Dragon, Phillip Marlow, mean streets, and how to maintain honor in ‘the mean’. I do believe I watched it three times. I think also of Desmond Dawes who lived out who God intended him to be, ‘fought’ for it within the confines of America’s Army during WW II; a soul seeking its deepest and best expression while a powerful institution sought to redesign it. But God and Desmond won. From Isaiah, “Lord, you have accomplished all that we have done.” Oh, the power, of a thoroughly converted imagination! Katherine
I'm not Catholic, and I'll grant that the Pope rarely speaks "Ex Cathedra." However, it seems to me that he does weigh in a lot on current issues, and some of his ideas don't line up well with scripture. Add to that the expectation that people WILL follow his teaching, and therefore I feel like it's a problem. I'm happy to look at the teaching of church fathers and even present day theologians, but I believe I have the Holy Spirit to guide me in my understanding of the Word. Many well-versed and well-meaning leaders have fallen, because they are only human. I give you Ravi Zaccarias as a Protestant example and the Popes of the 10th century (the "Pornacracy") as Catholic examples.
Catholics don't actually deem the Pope himself infallible. "Infallibility" is only in regards to moral or doctrinal teaching, (not Church discipline) when done in union with all the other bishops of the world, and only "officially" when the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra" : from the Chair of Peter. It's usually only done when there has been doctrinal dispute that has been hashed out in a Council or there has been a widely accepted doctrine for many, many years that just gets a formal stamp on it.
It brings to mind the paraphrase: Andrew, I also do not believe in the Pope you don't believe in. However, there is a finer understanding of the role and mission of the Chair of Peter that all Christians should admire even if they do not bow.
Fully agree with you and I amplified it a bit below in a separate post.
…Sigh...
I agree with Bernadette, above. The Pope speaking infallibly only very rarely occurs, and has only been invoked twice, once in 1854 and once in 1950. These were both about Mary, and I’m sure Andrew would be shaking his head again. It’s not like you could go to the pontiff and ask what the winning lottery numbers are, or whether Trump would win the next election.
I will put in a word here for the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the church, which relies on Scripture and the Tradition of the church. It is an ongoing dialog, not a “one and done’ proclamation engine. Older church teachings have been review or changed, and will continue to do so. This is an ongoing conversation, not a continuous commandment engine. Each believer is also obliged to educate himself and act according to rightly formed conscience, so if in good faith and careful contemplation, you believe a teaching to be incorrect, you must follow your conscience, if rightly formed. This does not mean you believe it is OK to cheat on your taxes, etc.
I have a friend who stated that after he read St. Paul stating that one should put away childish things he stopped running for recreation. Pretty sure that is not what Paul meant here. Thus the dangers of self-interpretation of reading of Scripture. This does not prevent us from reading and digesting Scripture, but it must be done carefully and with guidance. Jordan Peterson’s excellent series on Exodus was a superb example.
I don’t think Andrew will ever change his slams of the RCC regarding infallibility and the BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary, for those non-RCC readers out there) but at least we can raise what precisely it is and more importantly what it is not.
Aside from that one phrase, excellent articles.
You reminded me of something. George Carlin, an expired cradle Catholic, used to make fun of some of the school and church names. I went to one of them in Queens. It was Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That was a mouthful when someone asked you where you went to school. ☺️
"Jesus doesn’t bow to religious authorities. He doesn’t allow scripture to make him stone an adulteress or cease healing on the Sabbath. Before Abraham was — before religion was — he is."
The last paragraph was powerful. Another great article, Andrew.
I don't trust a man who sits in a giant snake's head. He's a dodgy bugger if ever I saw one. Bring back the last bloke. He was a kraut but I can forgive him that.
Interesting. I never really thought about the name, MacBeth, other than Scottish. It was written during the reign of Elizabeth I.
Mac=Son of, and Beth, short for Elizabeth, or even House if using old Hebrew. So, Son of Elizabeth? Son of the House? Was Shakespeare making a statement in the name? 🤷🏼♂️
That’s worth looking into!
Good one to start my day. Thank you. Hamlet's holding back vs. Macbeth's plunging forward. How about this: it's nice to have words and they do do nuance well, counting out the angels on the head of a pin. But agape love is not about telling but showing: the "active love" (as opposed to "imaginary/dreamy love") Zosima says you do without thinking about it and not caring whether people are watching or whether there is ever any payback. Hard work without any apocalyptic relief teams from the sky to help out. That's where the logos fractal comes together.
And the painting is by whom???
I would like to know the name of this painting.
Jesus conquered the world before any of it was written down.
Andrew, As I read your thoughts about conscience, moral order, and becoming who we are, I thought back to your interview with Jordan Peterson. I loved listening to two men speak about St. George and the Dragon, Phillip Marlow, mean streets, and how to maintain honor in ‘the mean’. I do believe I watched it three times. I think also of Desmond Dawes who lived out who God intended him to be, ‘fought’ for it within the confines of America’s Army during WW II; a soul seeking its deepest and best expression while a powerful institution sought to redesign it. But God and Desmond won. From Isaiah, “Lord, you have accomplished all that we have done.” Oh, the power, of a thoroughly converted imagination! Katherine
I'm not Catholic, and I'll grant that the Pope rarely speaks "Ex Cathedra." However, it seems to me that he does weigh in a lot on current issues, and some of his ideas don't line up well with scripture. Add to that the expectation that people WILL follow his teaching, and therefore I feel like it's a problem. I'm happy to look at the teaching of church fathers and even present day theologians, but I believe I have the Holy Spirit to guide me in my understanding of the Word. Many well-versed and well-meaning leaders have fallen, because they are only human. I give you Ravi Zaccarias as a Protestant example and the Popes of the 10th century (the "Pornacracy") as Catholic examples.