Was Alexander VI Infallible?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
2/24 - Seventh Friday
[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Feb 24 2006, 04:04 PM']the paragraph i cited does constitute an infallible [i]statement[/i], tho, right? that's all i was trying to say.
[right][snapback]896969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Though I would be inclined to agree with you, the majority academic opinion doesn't line up behind us.

[Era Might]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Feb 24 2006, 06:04 PM']the paragraph i cited does constitute an infallible [i]statement[/i], tho, right? that's all i was trying to say.
[right][snapback]896969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The [i]statement[/i] itself is not infallible, but the [i]teaching[/i] is.

The reason is because John Paul did not "define", he "declared". He didn't intend the document as a dogmatic definition of his own, but as a Papal reiteration of a teaching which was already infallible.

It's really just a theoretical distinction with no relevance except that it illustrates how the Church doesn't need to invoke her infallible authority in a specific instance for the teaching itself to be infallible, must less binding. Unfortunately, too many Catholics think their obedience begins and ends with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Era Might

[phatcatholic]

thank you for clearing this up. i stand corrected.