The Pope Is Not Infallible Because He Has Not Decreed On Genesis

[zunshynn]

[url="http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/dear-pope-what-is-up-with-genesis/"]Here.[/url]

Basically, he's saying that because evolution majorly divides Christians, and the primary reason that we believe in Papal Infallibility is for the preservation of unity, the fact that the pope has not made a definitive statement on evolution to preserve unity, makes "the claim for infallibility is sterile."

Thoughts? And maybe someone would want to head over there... there aren't really any Catholics pointing out the flaws in his thinking. I would but I'm lousy at this kind of thing and it wears me out. Edited October 31, 2009 by zunshynn

[MIKolbe]

I believe in papal infallibility bc it's true.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

As evolution is a matter of science, the only way for the pope's infallibility to be relevant would be for him to say that Tradition excludes it as a matter of holy and divine faith. Now, he could do that, but it would be for the pope to take a very specific interpretation of Scripture when Scripture does not necessarily lend itself to that (particularly taking into account the four senses of Scripture) and the Tradition says nothing about theistic evolution. It would be for the pope to make a statement without any substantial support from Revelation. If there is any real, solid, conclusive data against evolution, it will be in the field of science.

Furthermore, the issue of evolution is very minor compared to the substantial divisive topics of salvation, authority, Revelation, etc.

[mortify]

I personally believe man's origin is miraculous, and that the scientists have a lot left to learn.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='31 October 2009 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1257026689' post='1994572']
I personally believe man's origin is miraculous, and that the scientists have a lot left to learn.
[/quote]

Atheistic evolution is incompatible with the Gospel, that much the pope has said, so man's origin is certainly miraculous.

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='31 October 2009 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1257027172' post='1994578']
Atheistic evolution is incompatible with the Gospel, that much the pope has said, so man's origin is certainly miraculous.
[/quote]

We have to remember that the Second Adam mirrored the First, and if the Second Adam came into existence miraculously, it's likely the First did as well.

Edited October 31, 2009 by mortify

[King's Rook's Pawn]

I glad the pope uses the infallibility power very, very sparingly. How prudent would it be if he attempted to use it for everything?

[dairygirl4u2c]

just because he doesnt use it, doesn't mean it's not true.
with that said, i dont think it's true. i basically have the same beefs as the orthodox, traditionalists and sedevacantists, and what cardinal newman had, to encapsulate why i think that.
but anyway, it does make less respect for his power if he never uses, even on things as clear as evolution. perhaps evoloution is not true as is thought, but it's clear enough, and yet he wont move one way or the other.
it's like... those who dont want him to exercise it, are too afraid of him too. that's probably just as often the case as any practical considerations.

surely tehre are practical too though... unity by not defining can be a wise manuever (i was being hard on him before, but it might be more wise than i give it credit for- considering how engrained 'no evolution' is in christianity etc, and giving it time to accept the reality and absorb the facts etc), and perhaps it might become a big legal mess even admitting for the sake of argument that infallibility is true. not to mentional church politics, secular politics and a host of other issues.

the point im making though, is that he exercises it not nearly enough, considering all the uncertainty and lack of guidance outethere, even amongst good catholics. it's like you can't expect anything clear except the most basic stuff.
all the popes do, is write long walls of truism, and poetic sounding stuff, instead, to make it look like they're accomplishing something, most of their encyclicals. but when it comes to actually taking some sort of definitive stance on stuff other than "helping others is good" etc etc... those who know better, know better.

Edited October 31, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

if all he does is define the obvious.. what's the point? if all he does is define what's been done thousands of years ago, and are not subject to true scrutiny, what's the point? or at least where's the power, where's the test of its strength. (ya have to presuppose infallibility is true and then go from there, there's not enough tests. there's historical evidences, but it's too debateable, and id say goes against it)

Edited October 31, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jaime]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='31 October 2009 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1257033258' post='1994615']
if all he does is define the obvious.. what's the point? if all he does is define what's been done thousands of years ago, and are not subject to true scrutiny, what's the point? or at least where's the power, where's the test of its strength. (ya have to presuppose infallibility is true and then go from there, there's not enough tests. there's historical evidences, but it's too debateable, and id say goes against it)
[/quote]

I'd like the pope to rule infallibly on Dairgirl's gender.

[Fidei Defensor]

Theoretically, he should be able to define something like this infallibly. There has to be one true way man came to be, right? If the Holy Spirit so chose, couldn't he inspire the Pope to let us know what the truth is?

[dairygirl4u2c]

and it's like the election cycle for the popes is reeking of all these doubts. 'we need to pick someone tried and true and who will not rock the boat' (the subtext being.. lest infallibility be wrong and our world turned upside down). and th whole syste of hyerarchy and years put in, is a good way to systemize all that. it's funny a lot of the controversial stuff, came back from the middle ages back when who was the pope was more up for grabs, 'the popes son, or is it the other son' etc etc. even back when i was a 'good' catholic (though whether i ever truly was is debateable), i had these same thoughts during papal transition or the idea of it. i know how catholics think, at least a good lot if not majority of em, ya know it's true.

Edited November 1, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1257034310' post='1994621']
Theoretically, he should be able to define something like this infallibly. There has to be one true way man came to be, right? If the Holy Spirit so chose, couldn't he inspire the Pope to let us know what the truth is?
[/quote]

Micah's answer answers this question regarding scientific truth.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1257034310' post='1994621']
Theoretically, he should be able to define something like this infallibly. There has to be one true way man came to be, right? If the Holy Spirit so chose, couldn't he inspire the Pope to let us know what the truth is?
[/quote]

Of course he [u/could[/u] if the Holy Spirit so chose. But maybe the Holy Spirit chooses not to inspire on that matter? Who are we to demand that the Holy Spirit tell us whatever we want when we want to know it?

As Raphael said... evolution is a minor issue in the grand scheme of salvation.

The thing about this guy is, he seems to think that the pope's infallibility is there primarily to unify... true. But we have an obligation to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. We don't insist that we will only be unified if God meets our expectations about how much he reveals to us.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1257034310' post='1994621']
Theoretically, he should be able to define something like this infallibly. There has to be one true way man came to be, right? If the Holy Spirit so chose, couldn't he inspire the Pope to let us know what the truth is?
[/quote]

Infallibility is very different from inspiration.

When the Holy Spirit inspired someone to write, the human author wrote exactly what God wanted him to write, no more and no less.

When a pope or an ecumenical council exercises the charism of infallibility, God merely prevents said pope or council from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 October 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1257047777' post='1994676']
Infallibility is very different from inspiration.

When the Holy Spirit inspired someone to write, the human author wrote exactly what God wanted him to write, no more and no less.

When a pope or an ecumenical council exercises the charism of infallibility, God merely prevents said pope or council from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.
[/quote]
I would say they go hand-in-hand with the Pope. He's not just going to go off willy-nilly and hope that the Holy Spirit is paying attention and preventing him from speaking error. I would imagine that the few times the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, he was inspired by the Spirit to do so.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='31 October 2009 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1257048444' post='1994683']
I would say they go hand-in-hand with the Pope. He's not just going to go off willy-nilly and hope that the Holy Spirit is paying attention and preventing him from speaking error. I would imagine that the few times the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, he was inspired by the Spirit to do so.
[/quote]

If one is going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired the Pope to define the Immaculate Conception or Assumption as a dogma, one would have to mean it in a different sense than when one says that St. Paul was inspired when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Only the latter would, strictly speaking, be divine inspiration.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 October 2009 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1257048723' post='1994685']
If one is going to say that the Holy Spirit inspired the Pope to define the Immaculate Conception or Assumption as a dogma, one would have to mean it in a different sense than when one says that St. Paul was inspired when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. Only the latter would, strictly speaking, be divine inspiration.
[/quote]
I would think that any time the Spirit inspires, that's divine inspiration, unless it's an evil spirit…

I'm not sure how else you'd define it? The Pope just made a really good guess and God decided to give it to him? If you're going to insist that the truth is the truth and that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he's speaking the absolute truth, either God inspired him or the Pope is God.

[mortify]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='01 November 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1257091563' post='1994803']
I would think that any time the Spirit inspires, that's divine inspiration, unless it's an evil spirit…

I'm not sure how else you'd define it? The Pope just made a really good guess and God decided to give it to him? If you're going to insist that the truth is the truth and that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he's speaking the absolute truth, either God inspired him or the Pope is God.
[/quote]

It just means God's *providence* will not permit the Church to go into error. Since the Pope is the Supreme Teacher and the final arbiter between theological disputes effecting the souls of men, it follows that he can not uphold error in faith or morals.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='31 October 2009 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1257029947' post='1994601']
the point im making though, is that he exercises it not nearly enough, considering all the uncertainty and lack of guidance outethere, even amongst good catholics. it's like you can't expect anything clear except the most basic stuff.[/quote]

It's really for the same reason the Supreme Court doesn't try all cases. Not all theological disputes need to judged by the highest authority, not all theological disputes affect our eternal salvation and so a diversity of opinion is tolerable, and some are over mysteries that can't be defined further. Whether Adam was immediately created from the slime of the earth, or there were millions of evolving intermediaries, doesn't affect our salvation so long as we acknowledge God is our Creator, and that He created the souls of the first man and woman ex nihilo.