asserting incorrectly that teachings on sexual morality such as the indissolubility of marriage, contraception, abortion, etc., are not infallible; questioning the whole concept of infallibility and asserting that the consensus of Catholics or theologians determines the status of any teaching.
That's because the Church's teachings on sexual morality aren't infallible, moron. The Pope is only infallible when he is speaking Ex Cathedra. He has done so a total of twice in all of history: he's not exactly using it like a teenage girl uses a credit card, for reasons I hope are evident.
I mean, given that the Pope's Peter's successor, and that Peter wasn't exactly portrayed as infallible in the Bible...
While papal infallibility has been exercised extremely rarely (I think seven times, mainly on abstract metaphysical matters and two condemning Cornelius Jansen), the magisterium may also produce infallible teachings provided there is sufficient consensus among the bishops. This has been applied far more often, and for much more concrete purposes.
It also results in a lot of "maybes" when the hierarchy wants to make a statement but aren't certain if it'll last. Humanae Vitae, for instance, is sort of being treated as if it were infallible, though they've been reluctant to actually call it such -- mainly because internal opposition to the official stance on certain sexual matters ranges from slight to overwhelming majority, and there are only so many of the hardline-conservative newbies coming in to replace the current clergy.
false, captious, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and its practices, contumelious to Church and State, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected and savouring of heresy, favouring heretics, heresy, and schism, erroneous, bordering on heresy, often condemned, heretical, and reviving various heresies, especially those contained in the famous propositions of Jansenius.
these popes, they got no chill
it's false it's captious it's baaaad and wrong, it fucking blows just sucks burn it now
Keep in mind everything I type on the matter is coming from a Catholic who thinks infallibility is the single most toxic thing we've ever introduced into our dogma, so yeah.
That said, the Jansenists were kind of bad news. To oversimplify, they were like a really fucked up Calvinist sect, and gradually went from extreme to batshit (more batshit than we're used to from American Calvinist offshoots). By the time they finally started falling off the map the stragglers looked like the hideous three-way lovechild of Catholicism, Pentecostalism, and libertines. Somehow.
Humanae Vitae, for instance, is sort of being treated as if it were infallible, though they've been reluctant to actually call it such -- mainly because internal opposition to the official stance on certain sexual matters ranges from slight to overwhelming majority, and there are only so many of the hardline-conservative newbies coming in to replace the current clergy.
It's been a while - didn't it say in Humanae Vitae itself that the document wasn't completely infallible? And yet they treat it as such in places like Africa, etc.
While papal infallibility has been exercised extremely rarely (I think seven times, mainly on abstract metaphysical matters and two condemning Cornelius Jansen)
Note that we kind of have to go off the best-guesses of historians and theologians, because no list is actually kept (most likely so they can backpedal if necessary), so that number may vary depending on who you ask.
It seems like the Jansenists were like those asshole sub-Pentacostal fundies who believe that being "chosen"/"born again" justifies and absolves all bad behaviour.
I think the best parts of the famous Left Behind page by page review are the parts where the blogger shows that what the authors like to pass off as basic biblical literalism is very much not. Extensive quote follows:
The Bible, actually, is not a primary source for PMD eschatology. Pieces of it — chapters, verses, words, syllables — provide a portion of the raw material that people like Scofield, LaHaye or Hal Lindsay then combine with other ingredients to create, through textual alchemy, their finished product. But PMD eschatology is not found in, and does not come from, the Bible.
Consider just the events of our story so far. Russia destroys itself in an otherwise harmless nuclear attack on Israel. Every child on earth disappears, along with adults who are a very particular sort of Christian. Two men with guns trip and die while heckling two street preachers in Jerusalem. The pacifist president of Romania takes over the world, except for Israel, with whom he signs a peace treaty. Unless you were already steeped in the mythology and through-the-looking-glass logic of "Bible prophecy" delirium, you'd never guess that these events were meant to correspond to the Bible passages that Tim LaHaye says they "fulfill."
Or consider this sequence of events and see if you can find any rationale for reading the Bible in that particular order:
1. Turn to Ezekiel 38 & 39. Don't read the first 37 chapters of Ezekiel, they don't matter. And don't read Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 — they don't matter either. You're supposed to start reading Ezekiel at Chapter 38. That's obviously why it's Chapter 38.
2. Turn from Ezekiel 39 to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, being very careful not to read verses 13 and 14 of this chapter. (Those verses introduce the section that follows as being about death, hope and grieving and you're going to have to try, instead, to read this section as though it is about the disappearance of all of the earth's children, which it doesn't actually mention.) Anyway, read on through the 11th verse of the following chapter and then jump to the obvious next passage in the plainest, most literal and logical reading of the Bible …
3. Revelation Chapter 11. Don't read the first 10 chapters of Revelation — notyet. First finish Chapter 11, then turn to …
4. Revelation 6:1-2. Don't read the third verse yet, because first you need to turn to …
5. The ninth chapter of Daniel. Skip the first 19 verses and start with Daniel 9:20.
It seems like the Jansenists were like those asshole sub-Pentacostal fundies who believe that being "chosen"/"born again" justifies and absolves all bad behaviour.
They had some kinda schizophrenic ideas on that. Like, on the one hand they were into sola scriptura and predestination, but on the other they sometimes admitted people who were otherwise in good graces could damn themselves anyway.
So in a way, it's like the most cynical parts of both camps.
Comments
That's because the Church's teachings on sexual morality aren't infallible, moron. The Pope is only infallible when he is speaking Ex Cathedra. He has done so a total of twice in all of history: he's not exactly using it like a teenage girl uses a credit card, for reasons I hope are evident.
it's false it's captious it's baaaad and wrong, it fucking blows just sucks burn it now
It's been a while - didn't it say in Humanae Vitae itself that the document wasn't completely infallible? And yet they treat it as such in places like Africa, etc.
thought it was twice?
The Bible, actually, is not a primary source for PMD eschatology. Pieces of it — chapters, verses, words, syllables — provide a portion of the raw material that people like Scofield, LaHaye or Hal Lindsay then combine with other ingredients to create, through textual alchemy, their finished product. But PMD eschatology is not found in, and does not come from, the Bible.
Consider just the events of our story so far. Russia destroys itself in an otherwise harmless nuclear attack on Israel. Every child on earth disappears, along with adults who are a very particular sort of Christian. Two men with guns trip and die while heckling two street preachers in Jerusalem. The pacifist president of Romania takes over the world, except for Israel, with whom he signs a peace treaty. Unless you were already steeped in the mythology and through-the-looking-glass logic of "Bible prophecy" delirium, you'd never guess that these events were meant to correspond to the Bible passages that Tim LaHaye says they "fulfill."
Or consider this sequence of events and see if you can find any rationale for reading the Bible in that particular order:
1. Turn to Ezekiel 38 & 39. Don't read the first 37 chapters of Ezekiel, they don't matter. And don't read Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 — they don't matter either. You're supposed to start reading Ezekiel at Chapter 38. That's obviously why it's Chapter 38.
2. Turn from Ezekiel 39 to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, being very careful not to read verses 13 and 14 of this chapter. (Those verses introduce the section that follows as being about death, hope and grieving and you're going to have to try, instead, to read this section as though it is about the disappearance of all of the earth's children, which it doesn't actually mention.) Anyway, read on through the 11th verse of the following chapter and then jump to the obvious next passage in the plainest, most literal and logical reading of the Bible …
3. Revelation Chapter 11. Don't read the first 10 chapters of Revelation — notyet. First finish Chapter 11, then turn to …
4. Revelation 6:1-2. Don't read the third verse yet, because first you need to turn to …
5. The ninth chapter of Daniel. Skip the first 19 verses and start with Daniel 9:20.
nuff said