Post by Didymus on Apr 19, 2023 13:06:20 GMT -5
God bless you
I have an intrigue or doubt on this point, in the sedevacantist groups that I have formed, sometimes when explaining Papal Infallibility it seems to go so far as to affirm that such infallibility in contingent things are still protected by it, and when one looks at it in practice they seem to be contradictory. . , for example in papal politics. I know that this subject touches on many theological points, however, from what I have read of the Magisterium of the Church, I know and understand that the Pope is infallible in everything, whether in his Ordinary or Extraordinary Solemn Universal Magisterium, even I understand that we must be obedient in disciplinary matters because we are certain that errors cannot come from the Church in matters of Morals, Faith and Customs. it is correct right?
I am also aware that Saint Pius X has a speech talking about love for the Papacy, and that when you love the Pope, you should not go looking for where infallibility begins or ends. I agree.
But it is inevitable for me to question this in the face of the apparent contradictions of contingent things, I am referring specifically to papal policy. Is she also protected by Infallibility?
Since I have heard some traditional sedevacantist religious who speak of Infallibility and seem to extend it to such an extent that even in the contingent issues of a Pope and one could not disagree even with a Papal Policy. In practice, contradictory facts are sometimes presented, in the face of these apparent contradictions one must only obey or ask oneself if such an act can be criticized or not.
A sedeplenist once told me:
"Sedevacantists are "papolatrists", sedevatantism has turned the dogma of infallibility into -super dogma- and they don't even understand it. The Pope does not become some kind of Saint or super Angel simply by being named Pope".
Is there anything real in this, are there some sedevacantists who have exaggerated Papal Infallibility? What would be those exaggerations accused by sedeplenists in things that are the responsibility of the Ordinary or Universal Ordinary Magisterium?
When I have heard sedevacantist religious say that the Pope must be obeyed even in political matters, it seems very good to me, especially when there is an explicit condemnation (for example communism), but my problem is when they extend this obedience to contingent policies, Are we also obliged to obey?
I have read it in my ignorant stage of conversion (I submit to all correction please) I have read that some Popes in contingent political matters have not made a correct decision or have not been the best option.
There are some examples that I have read in some authors (non-ecclesiastical) and sometimes some of them politicized in a certain trend.
However, the most common that I have heard has been Pius XI with the Cristeros, some refer to Pius XII and the correspondences with Roosevelt (allied with Churchill, Stalin), in World War II (although Pope Pius XII never accepted the policies Roosevelt idealists) etc.
Talking about this matter with a person a long time ago, I quote a book in French and English by Bp Fessler "True and false infallibility" who was the secretary of Pope Pius IX in Vatican I, this work seems to me approved by Pius IX in the 2 versions (English and French) the book is here: books.google.cl/books?id=5mENAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ,
The conversation was related to the contingent political aspect of a Pope and infallibility my question was the following:
me: Where does papal infallibility in contingent politics begin and end?
and this person answered me the following:
I quote Answer: "When the principles touch morality or religion, the Pope's judgment in politics is infallible. Thus, political secularism is infallibly condemned, the same as political communism. Exaggerated political nationalism (chauvinism) is also infallibly condemned. , denier of the universal". common good, but the Church has never ruled and will never rule on the political form that it should adopt in itself, because this field does not directly affect its competence, so we can be in favor of a monarchy, an oligarchy, a a dictatorship. , even a democracy, without questioning our catholicity.
We can, and even must, respect the person of the Supreme Pontiff, but we can, and even must, always respectfully contradict the Pope when he presents non-dogmatic facts based on fraud. We can criticize papal politics, which is a field that is not related to infallibility in its contingent applications (political alliances, diplomacy, etc.). Due to contingent aspects of a pontifical speech, it is not infallible. What belongs to faith and morality is infallible.
this is correct?
So, for example, is a Pontifical speech on contingent politics to a small group of Bishops that does not address matters of Morals, Faith and Customs protected by Infallibility?
Could a Catholic criticize or disagree with papal policy if he sees that he may be wrong in some contingent political judgment? As I understand it, this is a field that is not related to infallibility in its contingent applications (alliance, diplomacy, etc.). Can you correct me on this matter?
Do papal speeches do not fall under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, except in the points that come explicitly from a teaching on faith or morality; or even dogmatic facts?
Forgive any imprecision in my English, the translator sometimes does not do a good job, I submit to all correction and clarification of this matter. I would appreciate examples that can help me understand this issue.
In Christ and Mary
Thommie.
I have an intrigue or doubt on this point, in the sedevacantist groups that I have formed, sometimes when explaining Papal Infallibility it seems to go so far as to affirm that such infallibility in contingent things are still protected by it, and when one looks at it in practice they seem to be contradictory. . , for example in papal politics. I know that this subject touches on many theological points, however, from what I have read of the Magisterium of the Church, I know and understand that the Pope is infallible in everything, whether in his Ordinary or Extraordinary Solemn Universal Magisterium, even I understand that we must be obedient in disciplinary matters because we are certain that errors cannot come from the Church in matters of Morals, Faith and Customs. it is correct right?
I am also aware that Saint Pius X has a speech talking about love for the Papacy, and that when you love the Pope, you should not go looking for where infallibility begins or ends. I agree.
But it is inevitable for me to question this in the face of the apparent contradictions of contingent things, I am referring specifically to papal policy. Is she also protected by Infallibility?
Since I have heard some traditional sedevacantist religious who speak of Infallibility and seem to extend it to such an extent that even in the contingent issues of a Pope and one could not disagree even with a Papal Policy. In practice, contradictory facts are sometimes presented, in the face of these apparent contradictions one must only obey or ask oneself if such an act can be criticized or not.
A sedeplenist once told me:
"Sedevacantists are "papolatrists", sedevatantism has turned the dogma of infallibility into -super dogma- and they don't even understand it. The Pope does not become some kind of Saint or super Angel simply by being named Pope".
Is there anything real in this, are there some sedevacantists who have exaggerated Papal Infallibility? What would be those exaggerations accused by sedeplenists in things that are the responsibility of the Ordinary or Universal Ordinary Magisterium?
When I have heard sedevacantist religious say that the Pope must be obeyed even in political matters, it seems very good to me, especially when there is an explicit condemnation (for example communism), but my problem is when they extend this obedience to contingent policies, Are we also obliged to obey?
I have read it in my ignorant stage of conversion (I submit to all correction please) I have read that some Popes in contingent political matters have not made a correct decision or have not been the best option.
There are some examples that I have read in some authors (non-ecclesiastical) and sometimes some of them politicized in a certain trend.
However, the most common that I have heard has been Pius XI with the Cristeros, some refer to Pius XII and the correspondences with Roosevelt (allied with Churchill, Stalin), in World War II (although Pope Pius XII never accepted the policies Roosevelt idealists) etc.
Talking about this matter with a person a long time ago, I quote a book in French and English by Bp Fessler "True and false infallibility" who was the secretary of Pope Pius IX in Vatican I, this work seems to me approved by Pius IX in the 2 versions (English and French) the book is here: books.google.cl/books?id=5mENAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ,
The conversation was related to the contingent political aspect of a Pope and infallibility my question was the following:
me: Where does papal infallibility in contingent politics begin and end?
and this person answered me the following:
I quote Answer: "When the principles touch morality or religion, the Pope's judgment in politics is infallible. Thus, political secularism is infallibly condemned, the same as political communism. Exaggerated political nationalism (chauvinism) is also infallibly condemned. , denier of the universal". common good, but the Church has never ruled and will never rule on the political form that it should adopt in itself, because this field does not directly affect its competence, so we can be in favor of a monarchy, an oligarchy, a a dictatorship. , even a democracy, without questioning our catholicity.
We can, and even must, respect the person of the Supreme Pontiff, but we can, and even must, always respectfully contradict the Pope when he presents non-dogmatic facts based on fraud. We can criticize papal politics, which is a field that is not related to infallibility in its contingent applications (political alliances, diplomacy, etc.). Due to contingent aspects of a pontifical speech, it is not infallible. What belongs to faith and morality is infallible.
this is correct?
So, for example, is a Pontifical speech on contingent politics to a small group of Bishops that does not address matters of Morals, Faith and Customs protected by Infallibility?
Could a Catholic criticize or disagree with papal policy if he sees that he may be wrong in some contingent political judgment? As I understand it, this is a field that is not related to infallibility in its contingent applications (alliance, diplomacy, etc.). Can you correct me on this matter?
Do papal speeches do not fall under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, except in the points that come explicitly from a teaching on faith or morality; or even dogmatic facts?
Forgive any imprecision in my English, the translator sometimes does not do a good job, I submit to all correction and clarification of this matter. I would appreciate examples that can help me understand this issue.
In Christ and Mary
Thommie.