Many Catholics I’ve talked to do believe that, as I said above.
Since you’re having difficulty understanding what I meant, let me spell it out for you: People who believe in nonsense can believe in all kinds of nonsense, whether it’s nonsense that’s espoused by the church in question or the supplementary nonsense that accumulates around the core of church-approved nonsense that they’re supposed to believe in.
And I suppose he would strike down any consecrated priest who abused his authority over choirboys, too. After all, isn’t he the guy who sees every sparrow that falls?
First f all, I am a practicing catholic and I do not know what exact matter the conflict with the nuns is…
The pope is not infallible except for 'ex cathedra" As far as wikipedia informs us, the first and last time ex cathedra was used, was to pronounce the two last dogmas of the Virgin Mary. May be there are others.
The cardinals even as high as the second in rank, do not have ex cathedra privileges.
It was stunning experience a year ago? when the vatican cardinals produced the one world government document. After the outrage from many catholics, secretary of state denounced the document as never heard of it before. The pope never took any stance on it. But what if the catholics would stay silent? Now we would have a vatican proposal of what many christians fear to be the rising NWO. And when I say christians I mean all christians 2.2 bln, not only the 1.1 bln catholics. I am an remain catholic. But I sense something very bad is coming to the church.
This. Splendid summary.
I’ve known Catholics who believe that this what happened to Pope John Paul I: He was about to make an incorrect pronouncement ex cathedra, and so God smote him.
God needs to update his vocabulary. What’s with all this smiting and begetting and saying unto?
So Borgia Popes are okay with the killing and the fornicating and the warring, but speak out of turn and you get a heart attack?
So, if whenever the pope speaks ‘ex cathedra’ he’s supposed to be infallible, how is it determined that he was speaking ‘ex cathedra’ in the first place? Does he just have to proclaim that he’s going to do that, and then say something? Or is it a retroactive ‘well since everyone agrees this is true and has done so for a long time, we’ll proclaim it to have been infallibly spoken’?
I sure wish non-Catholics would get off this papal infallibility schtick they seem so obsessed with. No Catholic I know thinks the pope is infallible and it would not occur to us to think so. Our faith is in Jesus, not whoever the current pope is. Popes come and go.
I’ve been a devotee of two extremely different spiritual practices in my life: Zen Buddhism and Roman Catholicism. In my opinion the thing which is the most different about them, as practiced in the USA, is that the former is a highly self-selected group of people who are unusual in highly similar ways, and the reverse is true of RC’s.Therefore, there are a lot of dim, incurious, habitual Catholics, because there are a lot of dim, incurious, habitual people in general. There are brilliant erudite Catholics, there are passionate radical Catholics, there are reactionary Catholics, there are just a LOT of Catholics and hardly any useful generalizations can be made about them.
In the older cohort there is a lot of ignorance based on careful but silly teachings from long ago; in the younger cohort there is also ignorance, based on sloppy teaching or no teaching at all. But nothing is stopping anyone from educating themselves except laziness. Not a flaw exclusive to Catholics.
As I recall, this “radical nun” is the spokeswoman for most of the orders of nuns in the US, some 55,000 women. She isn’t particularly radical. For a nun anyway.
See my post above, where I said "You’re right, of course. I should have said “the Church doesn’t teach” rather than “Catholics don’t believe.”
Yes, we know, it’s all nonsense, imaginary friend, flying spaghetti monster, etc. Not really relevant to the question in the OP, though.