Back when I was still Catholic, I was taught that Papal infallibility is the belief that the Pope, under very specific conditions, is preserved from error when officially teaching on matters of faith or morals. It does not mean the Pope is always right, always holy, or incapable of making mistakes in everyday life. When the Pope gets directly involved in matters that do not bear on faith or morals, he is overstepping Papal infallibility, and can be as wrong as any man. God protects him in matters of faith. The rest, he's on his own.
I'm not Catholic -- I was raised Lutheran, which I've been told is about as "Catholic" as you can get and still be Protestant -- but that's my understanding of "Papal Infallibility", too. On matters of faith and doctrine, he's never wrong, but on anything else he can be as wrong as anyone else. (I won't include morals because so many people -- Popes included -- throw political grandstanding into the "morality" category.)
Having done my time in Catholic grade school, I can assure you that the Pope is infallible. When it applies to Church doctrine, only. End of story.
Outside of that, he is just another human being, with biases and prejudices, and uninformed opinions. I would no more ask my plumber about a health issue then I would expect the Pope to be correct about world politics.
And, it is pretty arrogant for a Cardinal, or anyone for that matter, to make the claim that "... no one has the right to..." anything.
.
There is a fundamental human right to express one's opinion and thoughts. Fundamental. If you are a human being you have the right to say what is on your mind. For a Cardinal to ignore that right is absolutely awful. I do not care who the Cardinal is defending.
.
The Pope may be right in his statements about world politics. He may be 100% correct. But, that does not negate anyone's fundamental human right to disagree.
.
That leads to discussion, debate, and formation of arguments. All of which lead to greater understanding. Stifling that right to disagree is not what the Church should be doing in any way. I know several very religious individuals. We are talking oaths of poverty, obedience, and chastity level of religious. And, they welcome debate on faith, church doctrine, ethics, and even world politics.
.
There is a reason I am not a practicing Roman Catholic any more. This Cardinal is one of the main reasons why.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Agca a Bulgarian asset spy terrorist, (Don't know accurate term) Working for Bulgaria's Intelligence -secret police? Again ditto above. & Bulgaria was wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR. Much more than say Hungary. And as far as Pope John Paul II speaking as a non Christian, Superlatives do not begin to describe him. Which is precisely why they wanted to kill him. So no conspiracy theory. Sometimes they are really out to get you.
Wouldn't rely on his opinion as to which is the best baseball team. Based on what I've seen of his now-deleted Twitter thread, very unlikely to take to heart anything he has to say about immigration, the Dems, the Chicago machine, or...President Trump. Do appreciate he doesn't appear to hate Americans or the TLM, though. In those respects he is a most welcome change from the predecessor who picked him (yes he did - that was a mighty short conclave).
Spot on, Miguel.
Great perspective, Miguel. I agree completley.
There's also the fact that papal infallibility was invented long after the days of Christ, I think somewhere in the middle ages.
The more the church pronounces in politics the more I want them.
Oops. Add "taxed" to the end of my sentence. Geez, I'm too old to outlive stupid stuff I do.
Which of the Pope's recent pronouncements were "ex cathedra"? Hmmm....none?
Back when I was still Catholic, I was taught that Papal infallibility is the belief that the Pope, under very specific conditions, is preserved from error when officially teaching on matters of faith or morals. It does not mean the Pope is always right, always holy, or incapable of making mistakes in everyday life. When the Pope gets directly involved in matters that do not bear on faith or morals, he is overstepping Papal infallibility, and can be as wrong as any man. God protects him in matters of faith. The rest, he's on his own.
I'm not Catholic -- I was raised Lutheran, which I've been told is about as "Catholic" as you can get and still be Protestant -- but that's my understanding of "Papal Infallibility", too. On matters of faith and doctrine, he's never wrong, but on anything else he can be as wrong as anyone else. (I won't include morals because so many people -- Popes included -- throw political grandstanding into the "morality" category.)
Having done my time in Catholic grade school, I can assure you that the Pope is infallible. When it applies to Church doctrine, only. End of story.
Outside of that, he is just another human being, with biases and prejudices, and uninformed opinions. I would no more ask my plumber about a health issue then I would expect the Pope to be correct about world politics.
And, it is pretty arrogant for a Cardinal, or anyone for that matter, to make the claim that "... no one has the right to..." anything.
.
There is a fundamental human right to express one's opinion and thoughts. Fundamental. If you are a human being you have the right to say what is on your mind. For a Cardinal to ignore that right is absolutely awful. I do not care who the Cardinal is defending.
.
The Pope may be right in his statements about world politics. He may be 100% correct. But, that does not negate anyone's fundamental human right to disagree.
.
That leads to discussion, debate, and formation of arguments. All of which lead to greater understanding. Stifling that right to disagree is not what the Church should be doing in any way. I know several very religious individuals. We are talking oaths of poverty, obedience, and chastity level of religious. And, they welcome debate on faith, church doctrine, ethics, and even world politics.
.
There is a reason I am not a practicing Roman Catholic any more. This Cardinal is one of the main reasons why.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Agca a Bulgarian asset spy terrorist, (Don't know accurate term) Working for Bulgaria's Intelligence -secret police? Again ditto above. & Bulgaria was wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR. Much more than say Hungary. And as far as Pope John Paul II speaking as a non Christian, Superlatives do not begin to describe him. Which is precisely why they wanted to kill him. So no conspiracy theory. Sometimes they are really out to get you.
Go back to the first millennium and tell that to St. Paul before he confronted St. Peter.
Wouldn't rely on his opinion as to which is the best baseball team. Based on what I've seen of his now-deleted Twitter thread, very unlikely to take to heart anything he has to say about immigration, the Dems, the Chicago machine, or...President Trump. Do appreciate he doesn't appear to hate Americans or the TLM, though. In those respects he is a most welcome change from the predecessor who picked him (yes he did - that was a mighty short conclave).