How is the Pope making official statements (“defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals” pretty much sums up all pontifical statements that aren’t a direct response to world events) concerning faith/morals which is destined to catholics anything “rare”?
BTW you paraphrased in a way that makes it less legible (IMO), here is the original:
[…] when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals
We don’t have the official statements made by Urban II When he called for a crusade, I’d argue it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he didn’t bless that war to some degree, but if you someone wants to argue otherwise I guess we’d have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, pope Leo made this statement:
God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs
He is Is the Roman Pontiff, and there is no indication that he’s making this statement outside this role
He has made a declaration which can be qualified as a doctrine
“a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief” Merriam Webster
That point can be argued though, “doctrine” is a weird word.
Which is applicable to the whole church (“Anyone who is a disciple of Christ”)
My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy”
Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.
Well the pope just needs to not contradict their predecessors for this to hold. We’re (me included) snarking because Popes did materially support & call for wars, but (recorded) official statements have generally been anti-war.
Although funnily enough, unlike their roman counterpart, orthodox / coptic patriarchs always refused to call for holy wars, because:
As a matter of principle it didn’t really fit
Giving Christian support for wars made those wars (which were usually inevitable anyway) a Christian vs. non-Christian matter, meaning the church would die when it could survive under non-Christian management
And Muslims invading the eastern roman empire tended to be pretty tolerant & the taxes imposed by Muslims (including the Jizya) sometimes were even lower than those they paid under byzantine rule
And they also really did not care about the canon of the catholic churches (coptic, orthodox, roman), meaning heretics who would be burned or need to reform in Christian lands could live normally under Muslim rule
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Edit: I was wrong
How is the Pope making official statements (“defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals” pretty much sums up all pontifical statements that aren’t a direct response to world events) concerning faith/morals which is destined to catholics anything “rare”?
BTW you paraphrased in a way that makes it less legible (IMO), here is the original:
Source (Vatican 4th session, chapter 4)
We don’t have the official statements made by Urban II When he called for a crusade, I’d argue it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he didn’t bless that war to some degree, but if you someone wants to argue otherwise I guess we’d have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, pope Leo made this statement:
deleted by creator
After digging I’ll concede the point.
My misunderstanding was on the “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”, specifically “defines”, which is not simply, as I understood it, “makes a statement concerning X”
deleted by creator
Apologies accepted, and to be honest I’d rather have a tense argument than to be ignored, especially when it’s a good opportunity to learn 😁
Wishing you all the best
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Edit: I was wrong
Speaking infallibly can be done a number of ways, including the one which I literally quoted, from the Vatican council. This is not external information, this is catholic doctrine. You can find it on the official Vatican website, though only in Latin: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700718_pastor-aeternus_la.html
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
deleted by creator
Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.
deleted by creator
So the predecessor says ABC, and the current pope says no, are they both right and wrong?
Well the pope just needs to not contradict their predecessors for this to hold. We’re (me included) snarking because Popes did materially support & call for wars, but (recorded) official statements have generally been anti-war.
Although funnily enough, unlike their roman counterpart, orthodox / coptic patriarchs always refused to call for holy wars, because: