No, all Christian teaching. The Fourth Lateran Council did not teach that the Holy Spirit is not God. That has been doctrine since the fourth century AD.
Regards,
Shodan
Denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit was the Pneumatomachi heresy.
The issue of papal infallibility has been dealt with above. In any event, papal infallibilit has nothing to do with “God’s infallibility,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
A Pope is no more assured of salvation than anyone else.
Well, he seems to have said that he wasn’t up to the job anymore, or was about to be not up to the job. It’s an important job. If he felt he couldn’t do it, he did the right thing by resigning. Not quite the same as getting tired of it and quitting.
God doesn’t pick the Pope. The College of Cardinals elects the Pope. They are, hopefully, guided by the Holy Spirit, but they are ordinary, fallible, sinful men, and may not understand God’s will, or they may be resistant to it, or (sinfully) allow their personal desires to be what guides their vote in conclave.
God is, of course, “infallible,” although I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. Men are sinful and fallible creatures possessed of free will. This isn’t exactly news.
Again, you completely misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallibility. Benedict never claimed that he was, at any time, speaking infallibly. It never came up.
It’s not true that “anybody with some money and a fancy hat can call himself Pope.” He’d also need to be the Bishop of Rome. Fancy hats are easy to come by. Election victories in conclave are a bit harder.
Nope. Benedict is Pope until February 28. Then he’s not. He’s just plain old Father Ratzinger then. Actually Bishop Ratzinger. Possibly, but not definitely, Cardinal Ratzinger.
You can call yourself a Pope without the money and fancy hat. I’ve been doing it for years. But Catholics and the College of Cardinals won’t care and they won’t put you up in a big house or anything. And the bit about buying the papacy may have been true centuries ago, but it has little to do with the current situation.
She’s not even Catholic so I’m not sure what she has to do with this discussion.
Are you this guy?
You’re right, of course, that anyone can call himself the Pope.
Not a christian any more, wasn’t Catholic beforehand (Lutheran) but I do think there are some interesting theological/political questions here that are getting sidetracked by the not-a-gotcha.
We’re going to have an ex-pope for the first time in modern history. Is there any sort of tradition or rules for what Bishop Ratzi gets to say and do in public now? Is he expected to cloister himself and not go out in public any more? Is he expected to refrain from theological nitpicking (I seem to remember he was big for this before he got poped) on the off chance that his nits might not match those of the new pope? If he DOES happen to have an opinion on something that doesn’t match the new pope, and he speaks his mind, what officially would happen to him? I can’t imagine that having a contradiction between a current and former pope would make the upper echelons very happy, so what can/would they be likely to do about it?
John Mace accused me of going for a “gotcha” question because, I believe, he thinks I’m insincere about my questions and is purposefully playing ignorant in order to catch Catholics on some theological conundrum. Sarah Palin is the person most famous for turning the phrase “gotcha question” into a household term. She did it because she’s stupid and thought any question that, if truthfully answered would reflect badly on the answerer, is a gotcha question. That’s why I said for John to stop listening to Palin. The thread isn’t a gotcha as much as a “I always thought infallibility meant this and if it does, how do you explain this?” thread. Some people have pointed out readings that I have since done that explained more in detail about this infallibility thing. But really, if John would have answered that in the first place and not put the “gotcha” out there, I wouldn’t have referenced him as a seemingly loyal follower of Sarah Palin
Yeah, I’m guessing this guy probably didn’t make it.
An interesting story on the difficulties of being a reporter on the Vatican beat: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/world/europe/pope-press-corps/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Couldn’t the Pope name himself Cardinal of [pick a see that’s now vacant, or create a new cardinalship-without-portfolio], to take effect upon his resignation date, and then live out his days as Cardinal Ratzinger?
For that matter, I’m surprised he didn’t set a firm date for the conclave which will elect his successor to convene.
He could, but he might not consider it appropriate. The core function of a cardinal is to advise the pope, and he might not think it right to saddle his successor with an ex-pope as adviser - even in a nominal capacity.
It’s not his job to; canon law gives someone else that responsibility. He could pre-empt canon law in this regard, of course, but it would send mixed signals to say (1) I’m resigning from 28 February, but (2) I’m going out of my way to take decisions which will have effect after 28 February - decisions I don’t have to take.
A cardinal isn’t cardinal of anywhere – that’s a bishop. And Benedict is already a bishop. He’s the Bishop of Rome, of course, and he was Archbishop of Munich a while back.
And once a bishop, always a bishop, even after retirement.
When John Paul I died after one month in office, I figured he must have been the wrong choice. The cardinals must have misunderstood the Holy Spirit.
John Paul I, John Paul II. With names so similar, it’'s pretty easy to get them confused!
To be truly nitpicky…
…there are very few cardinals that are cardinals of a see, but ALL cardinals are cardinals of somewhere.
As a general rule, there are only ten cardinals that are cardinals of a see.
Cardinals have three ranks: cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and cardinal deacons.
Those titles sort of sound like a bishop who is named as a cardinal would be a cardinal bishop, a priest who is named as a cardinal would be a cardinal priest, and a deacon who is named as a cardinal would be a cardinal deacon, but that’s not it at all.
Cardinal bishops are the most senior of the cardinals. The Vatican Camerlengo, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, the Vatican Secretary of State – they are all Cardinal Bishops. In addition, the Eastern Patriarchs are all Cardinal Bishops. Each cardinal bishop is “assigned” to a titular see – one each to the seven suburbicarian dioceses. These are the dioceses located geographically close to the diocese of Rome. Basically this is an “in name only” assignment; they don’t actually govern those dioceses as bishops.
Cardinal priests are the most numerous – they are bishops or archbishops from around the world that are created cardinals. Each one of them is assigned a titular church in Rome, again with no power of governance over that church.
Ranking lowest on the cardinal ladder are cardinal deacons – these are basically bishops who serve in the Vatican administrative ranks of the Curia, or bishops over the age of 80 that are created cardinal. There are fifty or sixty churches in and around Rome that are “cardinalatial deaconries,” and the new cardinal deacon is assigned one as a titular church.
So… the Dean of the College of Cardinals is the most senior cardinal, followed by each Cardinal Bishop by date of becoming a cardinal, followed by each cardinal priest by date of becoming a cardinal, followed by each cardinal deacon by date of becoming a cardinal.
More than you wanted to know, I suspect!
That’s exactly what he intends to do, I understand – that is, he will simply revert to his pre-papal status as Cardinal. I suppose he might even participate and vote in the Conclave, but he probably won’t, wouldn’t look right, too much thumb-on-the-scale.
This abandoned convent in Vatican City is going to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s retirement home.
It’s not clear that he is a cardinal any more - that appointment may have come to an end when he became pope. The office of cardinal is to assist the pope, and how can a man hold the office of assisting himself?
Even if he is a cardinal, he can’t take part in the conclave. He’s over 80.
Yeah, I presume he automatically stopped being a cardinal when he became Pope. I could see that he would remain a bishop, though - and would, specifically, become Bishop of Rome.
I’m certain that, more than once, past Popes have become too weak, sick or senile to fulfill heir duties. In those instances, their aides, servants and handlers propped them up and the Church maintained the pretense that all was well.
Joeph Ratzinger is different- he recognizes that he is weakening, both mentally and physically, and has acknowledged that fact openly and honestly. And, let’s face it, if he HAD tried to hang in there a few more years, MANY of the same people now calling him a quitter would be scoffing, “Look at that feeble old man! Everybody can see he’s too old for the job, why doesn’t he have the decency to resign?”
No, the new Pope will be Bishop of Rome. Benedict will be the former Bishop of Rome. Still a bishop, but with no see, so he’s Bishop Emeritus of Rome.
In sees other than the Holy See, say, the fictional diocese of Brickstonia, the new bishop arrives and takes canonical possession of the diocese by showing his appointment letters to the college of consultors, the group of priests appointed to that role from the diocese. At that moment, he becomes Bishop of Brickstonia.
Now, if that bishop is transferred to a new diocese, then the moment he takes canonical possession of the new diocese, he becomes Bishop of Newdiocese, and the see of Brickstonia is said to be vacant.
But if that bishop retires instead of getting transferred, the see of Brickstonia is still vacant – but that Bishop is now known as Bishop Emeritus of Brickstonia.
For the Holy See, the analogue to “taking canonical possession” is the acceptance of a bishop of the vote of the College of Cardinals. At that moment, he becomes Pope, and Bishop of Rome. (If he’s not a bishop already, then the moment happens when he is ordained bishop, which is done by the Dean of the College of Cardinals.)