Quote:
The whole infallibility thing is misunderstood by nearly everyone, and you hit on the less frequently discussed issue I have with it. The whole idea that the Pope could, if he so chooses, define any manner of official doctrine of the faith is really odd. What could possibly have been missed in scripture and practice over the intervening centuries that they just figured out and need to start teaching with equal authority to everything else?
The two times it has been used seem to underscore that it is understood by Rome to be problematic. Neither instance has much of any bearing on how the faithful should live their lives, only something (arguably trivial) that we are required to believe (an odd concept).
As mentioned above, I'm no cultural Catholic, so while the RCC's Mariology seems worthy of a venerable sidebar to the story of salvation, whatever God's specific plan/actions were with Mary, the impact to the church's mission beyond her role as described in the Gospel seems fairly limited in day-to-day practice of the faith. Scripture is silent to the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary, and God being who we believe He is, would be capable of managing these however He wished, but He only chose to reveal these specifics via a Papal proclamation ex cathedra?
So, not so as to talk out of both sides of my mouth here, but I think you're not necessarily grasping the nature of an ex cathedra statement in RCC ecclesiology.
They aren't saying that he's promulgating a new teaching. There is an inherent guard against newness, anything new is by definition wrong and not apostolic. There is no new teaching, only "growth" of teaching or explanations and whatnot on the same, continuous faith.
The way to correctly state it, then, isn't that the pope is describing some new tradition, but simply clarifying or affirming something that has
always been held as part of the faith.
I just think the whole structure becomes somewhat perilous as since Vatican I there's a required belief that the pope can speak infallibly ex cathedra, and if you don't believe
that, you're anathema. But how do we know of that teaching? Well, because a council ratified by the pope said so. So it becomes almost kind of tautological. And since, like I said, clearly whatever the magisterium say goes, and the magisterium is defined exclusively by the hierarchy, and ultimately only what is ratified by the pope - with no appeal - then the pope is the basically the only vote that counts in the magisterium.
At the end of the day, under current Roman teaching, the pope - by virtue of his office (not his person, to be clear) - is vested with the ultimate teaching and pastoral authority of the church. Even to the point that no council can promulgate a binding teaching or doctrine or dogma without his ratification. Or that ultimately every bishop serves at his pleasure. Or that every would-be communicant is subject to his office. And that communion with his office is the only concrete arbiter of whether a church is or is not the Church. And all that is without even broaching the subject of the ex cathedra guaranty of infallibility.
Does that bother anyone? Does anyone believe that is right? I don't, clearly, so I'm out. But the Roman church says you have to believe that, on pain of anathema. If you don't believe it you're not a Roman Catholic in good standing.
So again, Roman Catholics can't say well I accept the magisterium but reject the (current) hiearchy. You can't. The ecclesiology requires you to take them together, because one has complete and utter authority over the other. You have no way to affirm or deny the teachings of the church without the hierarchy, it's all closed loop.
