Q to Catholics - degree of Papal authority?

As a Catholic..

Let's FIRST start with defining Papal Infallibility - as I think a misunderstanding of this role is at the center of your questions.

Papal Infallibility is the belief that when the Pope, in his role as the Vicar of Christ and successor to Peter, officially settles a matter which affects all of Christianity regarding faith and morals with the support of the Bishops, then that statement is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

So let's break down the elements, because that sentence had a lot of criteria.

1) must be said specifically in the capacity or in the role of St. Peter (aka ex-cathedra which means 'from the chair) General statements are not infallible

2) must be stated in an official capacity with the intent to be infallible

3) Must be a grave matter regarding faith or morals which concerns all of Christianity

4) Must be in conjunction with the magestria, aka all the other Bishops

5) Is then protected by the Holy Spirit from putting forth something that is in fact wrong.

So, when viewed properly, "infallibility" is more about what the Pope CAN NOT do, then what he CAN do. -- It is a negative power. He simply can't say something that is not true. Which is different then always being right.

Lastly, this means that the power is not HIS, technically.. but the Holy Spirit's. It is therefore more about a trust in God to guide his church then a trust in the magical abilities of a single man.

Infallibility can not suddenly undue or contradict the core doctrines of the faith, contradict the bible, or go against the consensus of the Bishops. Because the Holy Spirit would not allow this to happen.

In the clear case of the last infallible statement which was the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. The Pope may have declared this to be 'infallible' HOWEVER - he specifically stated that this had always been the historical belief of the Catholic faith even before it was defined. Therefore, he was not technically stating anything NEW, but merely quelling internal confusion (settling a matter that touched on faith)

Furthermore, to leave no doubt in the minds of modern day media. Since about the 20th century, there is a separate council that will communicate to the media and confirm for everyone if an ex-cathedra statement was made. Unless the "Doctrine of the Faith" confirms it with the media, then whatever the Pope says is NOT infallible.

In other words, the church will very CLEARLY state - "Yes! what was said was INDEED said 'ex-cathedra' and is thus infallible" -- unless the church clearly releases that to the world - then the statements by the Pope are his own teaching and not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Make sense???

1) Catholics who reject the reforms of Vatican II are still Catholic. Just not in full communion with the church. Rather like our Orthodox brethren. Still Catholic - just schismatic.

2) Saints are generally ordained based either on dying as a martyr OR based on the holiness expressed during their lives. Candidates suggested by other Catholics, then have to be shown to assist with at least 2 miracles. Typically, miraculous healings. This doesn't mean they were PERFECT and many of them have 1 or more blemishes in their past. So they can be mistaken about certain things. They are only human after all.

I am not aware of 'blood libel" being a ground for excommunication, but I am not a canon lawyer.

3) See first portion explaining infallibility. Your scenario doesn't fit because it contradicts the bible as it was canonized (and Pope's can't go back and change that) Catholic doctrine (and Pope's can't go back and change that) and the magestrium (Conference of Bishops) So your scenario fails on multiple levels.

1) A Catholic can reject something the Pope says, such as saying Catholics should not evangelize Jews. Buckley is welcome to his differing opinion on the subject. However, as Catholics we shouldn't be hasty to reject what the Pope say, because of his knowledge, and spiritual maturity. We should weigh what he says carefully. But, rejecting what a pope says about something like that does not mean you reject the papacy or the Church, just that particular position.

If someone rejects the entire papacy, the authority of the pope and the Church, yes that would make them protestant.

2) I don't understand what your asking here. Do you have a link where where we can read about the number of popes who said repeating blood libel accusations are to be excommunicated? Also, repeating them isn't the same as repeating them as truth.

3) If that were to happen, then the Church would cease to exist and Christ's return would be imminent. The Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals, he cannot lead the faithful astray.

to your question. Jesus built His Church on men. He named Peter His first successor. Isiah 22:22 is a prophesy for the Papacy. And then Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle. Peter walks on water. Jesus pays His and Peter's tax together. Jesus first prayers for Peter. Peter is renamed to Peter, from Simon, Peter meaning rock. The Pope is infallible in faith and morals only. It is a fact that all Popes have been true to this statement. For this is traceable and can be looked up. There never has been a Pope to "shock" the world with a weird teaching on faith or morals. The Pope, again a man, is selected by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit will lead him (John 16:12-13). I am sure you can find much much more on this. Good luck and God bless!

1. The modern "rebels" really can't be held under what you ask, although they have their opinions on the matter, it doesn't necessarily make them protestant either.

2. A saint must be declared saint AFTER he/she meets all the requirements which are listed for sainthood. So blood libel is not taken into account.

3. You would still be following the teachings of Christ which would still make you a Christian. Especially since Christ's teachings were not totally the teachings of the Rabbis. That would also keep all the Gentiles out of the picture of succession since Gentiles were the enemies of Jews and were not allowed to speak to each other. Remember that Moses and many of his people rejected/Sinned against GOD by not following his instructions. They also lost faith so they may have been the righteous children, but they were no longer allowed to be so. It is a nice theory, but it will never happen since the Jews will not accept the teachings of Christ.

Papal authority as expressed ex cahtedra is only used on matters of doctrine, where it cannot be challenged. It has really only been used once, in 1950 on the issue of the Assumption of Mary. Ex cathedra utterances are very stritly defined in the Church, and not everything (or even most things) said by a Pope is ex cathedra. However, if one does dispute an ex cathedra matter, it is usually grounds for ex communication.

while the pope decrees something 'Ex Cathedra', it immediately is added to the perception equipment of the Church. This has in trouble-free terms got here approximately on very uncommon activities. At that 2nd the pope is seen infallible and that he's speaking the will of God and what he broadcasts will become the regulation of the church.

It's a shame you are not getting answers. I'm interested in this as well.