Hannity, O'Reilly and the non-infallible Pope

[blackadder65738]

Something that gets me wondering, is these Catholic Neoconservatives like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and many others who are all for the death penalty, even though the Catholic Church says you cannot have a death penalty. If you are a Catholic, the Pope is supposed to be infallible, right? If he says no death penalty, then that's the end of the discussion, isn't it? The Pope also said no to the most recent war in Iraq. I thought they were going to have to chain Hannity to the wall to keep him from beating some the anti-war people that were on his TV show a few times. So, I guess these guys figure the Pope is only infallible when it's convenient? I understand that no follower of a religion is perfect, but what are you doing when you reject what the Pope tells you about going to war ahead of time and you support it anyway?

I guess I should qualify this by saying I'm not Catholic, never have been, don't believe in that Xtian stuff, and frankly think it's just all ◊◊◊◊ that someone made up.

Thanks for listening!

 

[Landis]

Actually, Bill O'Reilly is against the Death Penalty as surprising as that may sound. He has also been a major thorn in the side of the Catholic Church over the cover up of Priest who sexually abused children. Of course, he remains a devout Catholic and a believer in a God who is somehow guiding over America. I perused one of his books recently and was suprised to see a statement that resembled Pascal's wager, why not believe in God whether you know for sure or not because if you die and you are wrong you'll roast in hell and if you're right well there's no Vengeful God to worry about so you've lost nothing. (except years of your life worshiping and believing in something that may not exist.)

 

[Beleth]

I'm not a Catholic but I play one on TV.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible. Only when he is speaking "Ex Cathedra" is it defined to be infallible. And that rarely happens.

 

[Yahzi]

I'm not a Catholic but I play one on TV.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible. Only when he is speaking "Ex Cathedra" is it defined to be infallible. And that rarely happens.

Two words.

Birth control.

And that's Ex Cathedra.

 

[Liamo]

I'm not a Catholic but I play one on TV.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible. Only when he is speaking "Ex Cathedra" is it defined to be infallible. And that rarely happens.

Do you know if there is, somewhere, a list of Ex Cathedra statements? Apparently not everyone agrees on whether a specific statement has been made Ex Cathedra or not...

However, difficulties often arise when Catholic theologians disagree about whether or not certain statements have been made ex cathedra and when Catholic theologians accept that a statement has been made ex cathedra, but nevertheless disagree about precisely what this infallibly true statement means.

(Wikipedia)

Liam

 

[ceo_esq]

Do you know if there is, somewhere, a list of Ex Cathedra statements? Apparently not everyone agrees on whether a specific statement has been made Ex Cathedra or not...
(Wikipedia)

Liam

The general view is that the last time a pope spoke ex cathedra was in 1950, in relation to the proclamation of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. There are a minority of Catholics who believe that every canonization of a saint is an ex cathedra pronouncement, however.

 

[Liamo]

Thanks, ceo_esq

Liam

 

[Giz]

but nevertheless disagree about precisely what this infallibly true statement means

Bloody theologians! How much hairsplitting can you get??!

(I didn't realise that it was only ex cathedra statements - I'd always thought that the Pope must be a whiz at 20 questions!)

 

[Darat]

The general view is that the last time a pope spoke ex cathedra was in 1950, in relation to the proclamation of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. There are a minority of Catholics who believe that every canonization of a saint is an ex cathedra pronouncement, however.

Aren’t also pronouncements (papal bulls) or even decisions of ecumenical gatherings, if sanctioned by the pope considered infallible?

 

[ceo_esq]

Aren’t also pronouncements (papal bulls) or even decisions of ecumenical gatherings, if sanctioned by the pope considered infallible?

I know that bulls have been used to make infallible statements, but a statement is not infallible by virtue of appearing in a bull. I think bulls are mostly used these days for formalistic things like appointing bishops. The pope usually uses encyclicals (another type of document, kind of like an open letter to the bishops or to some other audience) for theological statements, but encyclicals (while considered highly authoritative) are not infallible per se.

I don't think declarations of ecumenical (interdenominational) gatherings would be used by the Pope to promulgate infallible statements, since they aren't purely Catholic documents. Also, they're a pretty recent development. Were you thinking of conciliar decrees approved by the pope (like Vatican II)?

Here's what appears to be a pretty good explanation of papal infallibility and conciliar infallibility:

http://www.tcrnews2.com/Encyclical.html

 

[hgc]

Do you know if there is, somewhere, a list of Ex Cathedra statements? Apparently not everyone agrees on whether a specific statement has been made Ex Cathedra or not...
(Wikipedia)

Liam

Maybe it's because he keeps forgetting the [/ex Cathedra] closing tag.

 

[hgc]

The general view is that the last time a pope spoke ex cathedra was in 1950, in relation to the proclamation of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. There are a minority of Catholics who believe that every canonization of a saint is an ex cathedra pronouncement, however.

If canonization is ex cathedra, then this pope has a lot of infallability. He has canonized 469 and beatified 1314 (as of May 3).

 

[Fun2BFree]

I perused one of his books recently and was suprised to see a statement that resembled Pascal's wager, why not believe in God whether you know for sure or not because if you die and you are wrong you'll roast in hell and if you're right well there's no Vengeful God to worry about so you've lost nothing. (except years of your life worshiping and believing in something that may not exist.)

Or worshipping the WRONG Deity--if it turns out the Muslims are correct or whichever other mutually exclusive deity belief system you did NOT put your wager on...so not believing is not really any worse of a bet.. Pascal--great math...lousy philosophy.