What about the Bible legitimizing slavery? Has he apologized for that?
My issue is not just the Holy See getting it wrong, the Bible itself is wrong on the issue.
Okay but the Catholic church’s endorsement of slavery is why we had the transatlantic slave trade, it is one of tbe most damaging decisions in world history and acknowledging that it was wrong is important. Blaming the bible is just giving them an out, and for once its an out theyre not even taking.
I think if the pope edited the Bible people would stop listening to him 🤷♂️
I didn’t say he should edit slavery out of the Bible, he should apologize and condemn every passage that legitimizes slavery. Slavery in all its forms, including biblical slavery, is deeply evil.
Cool, cool, hey that’s pretty great. So, ready to turn over all those priests that fucked kids?
I’m not unreasonable though, if you want to just pop 'em up against the wall yourselves I’m comfortable with that. Saves us all some time.
Any apologies for pope urban and the crusades?
Leo has the opportunity to be the funniest pope in like a thousand years He just needs to dig up urbans body and put him on trial
Cool, cool. They gonna apologize for backing the fascists to kill off the anarchists?
How does this square with papal infallibility?
That’s only a thing if he says it ex cathedra, or from his big pimp chair.
The catch is that there’s no way to get on the thing
That’s only a thing if he says it ex cathedra, or from his big pimp chair.
Thus is one of those things that we just kinda say but also isnt meaningfully true. Ratzinger as head of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith wrote a whole thing about how thats obviously not true ans that also what “Ex Cathedra” means is so much broader than what people realise.
Yeah, it’s as meaningful as saying “from the Oval Office” when talking about an executive order.
The idea of a special pope chair is funny though, I want to will it into being true.
Can you link it? I’m trying to understand the claim of infallibility better and so far I’ve mostly been going off of John Henry Newman.
Thank you
Papal infallibility is about what the popes teach, not about what the popes do. There are some controversies about whether popes in the past have taught things that are contradictory, such as John XXII with the Beatific Vision controversy, or Honorius with failing to reject Monophysitism (which opponents of papal infallibility would strengthen to saying that the pope taught monophysitism, not just that he failed to reject it, based on his anathemization in the subsequent council of Chalcedon).
IMO this opens up an interesting question of to what extent Alexander VI and previous popes that allowed slavery (or actively gave orders that would see it expanded) were teaching when doing anything at all. But I don’t think it’s necessarily contradicting the understanding of infallibility that the Church has held since Vatican II, which means that this shouldn’t bring anyone from believing in Catholicism to not believing in Catholicism (unless they’re really, really racist… which actually maybe does include a lot of people)
edit: I think I may have been a bit too broad about what I conveyed to count as infallible? Basically, the main points of papal infallibility are that the Pope cannot teach a heresy (so e.g. imagine tomorrow the pope sent out a letter saying Jesus isn’t God), and has the ability to declare certain facts to be absolutely true (so canonizing people as saints, or declaring dogmas which has only happened twice and probably won’t happen again for a while). That being said, the pope does have the ability to declare something and ask every faithful Catholic to assent their faith to it, only for a later pope to change it. So if 50 years from now, China is the only functioning country, and the pope comes out and says “yeah Marxist socialism isn’t really that bad” that technically doesn’t go against papal infallibility. It’s weeeeird.
