When is the Pope Considered to be infallible then?

[Yeshua1]

Most recent time?

 

[Reformed1689]

Whenever it is convenient for them to say so.

 

[Yeshua1]

Whenever it is convenient for them to say so.

Under what circumstances, and when has he actually pronounced infallible doctrine?

 

[Reformed1689]

Under what circumstances, and when has he actually pronounced infallible doctrine?

When he speaks ex cathedra. I believe the last official time this happened was in 1950.

 

[Walter]

When he speaks ex cathedra. I believe the last official time this happened was in 1950.

Which is what you could have said to begin with, but you can't resist showing your venomous fangs. I have rarely run across anti-Catholic bigotry as bad, except for Rand Winburn (Protestant) and his determination/obsession to prove the pope is the antichrist.

 

[Reformed1689]

Which is what you could have said to begin with, but you can't resist showing your venomous fangs. I have rarely run across anti-Catholic bigotry as bad, except for Rand Winburn (Protestant) and his determination/obsession to prove the pope is the antichrist.

Well the Pope is definitely not of Christ and therefore antichrist but not THE AntiChrist.

 

[rsr]

To the OP: Pius XII affirmed the Assumption of Mary, i.e., Mary "was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" in 1950.

It is doubtful that any modern pope, after Vatican II (which, intended or not) reaffirmed the primacy of councils over popes, that any pope could dare to pronounce a binding decision on the magisterium. As proof, John Paul II would certainly have pronounced Mary co-redemptrix had he thought he had the power, but he didn't. And that little bit of Marian dogma seems entirely unlikely to emerge again anytime soon.

 

[David Kent]

To the OP: Pius XII affirmed the Assumption of Mary, i.e., Marys "was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" in 1950.

It is doubtful that any modern pope, after Vatican II (which, intended or not) reaffirmed the primacy of councils over popes, that any pope could dare to pronounce a binding decision on the magisterium. As proof, John Paul II would certainly have pronounced Mary co-redemptrix had he thought he had the power, but he didn't. And that little bit of Marian dogma seems entirely unlikely to emerge again anytime soon.

JP II certainly did pronounce Mary co-redemptress and in an article in the London Evening Standard, Norman St John Stevas, wrote an article defending it. He said "Only the most rabid protestant would oppose it."

 

[Adonia]

JP II certainly did pronounce Mary co-redemptress and in an article in the London Evening Standard, Norman St John Stevas, wrote an article defending it. He said "Only the most rabid protestant would oppose it."

An article in a newspaper is not speaking "ex cathedra". Such momentous decisions are arrived at in consultation with the other bishops of the Church, not just by the individual Pope.

 

[rsr]

JP II certainly did pronounce Mary co-redemptress and in an article in the London Evening Standard, Norman St John Stevas, wrote an article defending it. He said "Only the most rabid protestant would oppose it."

Yet it is not Catholic dogma; JPII did not pronounce it ex cathedra and made no pretence of doing so..JPII pronounced, as he did many other things and it is not dogma; it is not in the catechism. And, believe it or not, many Catholics oppose the formulation. Do you have any evidence that Benedict and Francis have affirmed it in any binding way, or in any way at all? I think not.

 

[David Kent]

Yet it is not Catholic dogma; JPII did not pronounce it ex cathedra and made no pretence of doing so..JPII pronounced, as he did many other things and it is not dogma; it is not in the catechism. And, believe it or not, many Catholics oppose the formulation. Do you have any evidence that Benedict and Francis have affirmed it in any binding way, or in any way at all? I think not.

I don't know whether it was dogma or not, but it was one of his pronouncements. it was also heresy.

I have no idea what the other two get up to.

 

[rsr]

But back to the OP:

The pope is always fallible. I would suggest that the myth of papal infallibility promulgated by Vatican I (although hedged by some legalist language) was a last gasp in support of the obscurantism that made the papacy an anachronism in the modern world.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well the Pope is definitely not of Christ and therefore antichrist but not THE AntiChrist.

At least not as of yet!

 

[Yeshua1]

An article in a newspaper is not speaking "ex cathedra". Such momentous decisions are arrived at in consultation with the other bishops of the Church, not just by the individual Pope.

So when did any pope last have infallible theology expressed, and can the Pope add new revelations from God not found in scriptures?

 

[rsr]

1. Pius XII affirmed the Assumption of Mary, i.e., Mary "was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" in 1950.

 

[Yeshua1]

1. Pius XII affirmed the Assumption of Mary, i.e., Mary "was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" in 1950.

How was that really any different from when the Mormon church claimed revelation that God no longer was judging Blacks due to sin of Ham in 1978?