Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albert Cipriani · 04-21-2003, 11:08 AM

Dear Dancing,
I love garlic. I also love a woman whom I therefore married. I have not been married to a necklace of garlic (despite recent rumors of vampires in these parts). Why the confusion? Because neither statement was definitive, that is, love is not a univocal term and can be interpreted many ways.

Thus, only definitive statements may be infallible. Of the many possible infallibly definitive statements that may be made, only those concerning matters of faith or morals derived from scriptures or apostolic tradition are protected by the charism of Papal infallibility.

So, for example, the pope could proclaim that Americans are, at large, fat. This is infallibly true. Furthermore, for health reason, they must stop eating fatty fast foods or he will excommunicate the lot of us. Another infallibly true statement, and saints have been excommunicated for less.

But guess what, the pope would not be exercising his charism of infallibility even if, for the sake of argument, what he said was infallibly true. As a Catholic I could happily ignore him. Why? For 4 reasons. His statements:
1) The subject does not concern a matter of faith or morals.
2) The truth is not derive from scripture or apostolic tradition.
3) The pope was not speaking as pope, but as a busybody.
4) The pope did not bind all Catholics every were (only Americans).

The First Vatican Council defined these four strict prerequisites of infallibility. That is how the Church's definition of infallibility is not refuted by the 40-odd popes (not including the last two) who have been suspected of heresies. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

SULPHUR · 04-22-2003, 12:50 AM

They also keep electrons together

GunnerJ · 04-22-2003, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SULPHUR
They also keep electrons together

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that electrons were of a separate class of particles that we currently can't divide into anything else, and that there isn't anything to keep together.

SULPHUR · 04-22-2003, 06:24 AM

Yes I am pretty sure because in the dim distant past it was work on electrons that gave the first idea of quarks. this led to the idea of hadrons classed as mesons or baryons .

braces_for_impact · 04-22-2003, 06:54 AM

Well, there are electrons in fish, and now you can eat meat on Fridays, when you used to be unable to before...

There were no fish on the ark and they somehow survived the salinity of the seawater being diluted, so the Pope with the funny hat could remain infallible when they reversed the whole meat on Fridays thing.

Have I got everything straight now?

SULPHUR · 04-22-2003, 07:22 AM

Perfectly.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-22-2003, 07:37 AM

On the original topic, the Flood timeline:

As has already been noted, plenty of people weren't on the Ark. They were in Egypt and elsewhere, and they never even noticed the Flood.

...Which, according to the Bible's genealogies, was somewhere around 2500 to 2300 BC, with the Tower of Babel around two centuries later (another non-event).

Does anyone have more precise dates for those?

04-21-2003, 11:08 AM	#41
Albert Cipriani Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 3,018	Infallibility 101 Dear Dancing, I love garlic. I also love a woman whom I therefore married. I have not been married to a necklace of garlic (despite recent rumors of vampires in these parts). Why the confusion? Because neither statement was definitive, that is, love is not a univocal term and can be interpreted many ways. Thus, only definitive statements may be infallible. Of the many possible infallibly definitive statements that may be made, only those concerning matters of faith or morals derived from scriptures or apostolic tradition are protected by the charism of Papal infallibility. So, for example, the pope could proclaim that Americans are, at large, fat. This is infallibly true. Furthermore, for health reason, they must stop eating fatty fast foods or he will excommunicate the lot of us. Another infallibly true statement, and saints have been excommunicated for less. But guess what, the pope would not be exercising his charism of infallibility even if, for the sake of argument, what he said was infallibly true. As a Catholic I could happily ignore him. Why? For 4 reasons. His statements: 1) The subject does not concern a matter of faith or morals. 2) The truth is not derive from scripture or apostolic tradition. 3) The pope was not speaking as pope, but as a busybody. 4) The pope did not bind all Catholics every were (only Americans). The First Vatican Council defined these four strict prerequisites of infallibility. That is how the Church's definition of infallibility is not refuted by the 40-odd popes (not including the last two) who have been suspected of heresies. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

04-22-2003, 12:50 AM	#42
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	gluons They also keep electrons together

04-22-2003, 06:24 AM	#44
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	gluons Yes I am pretty sure because in the dim distant past it was work on electrons that gave the first idea of quarks. this led to the idea of hadrons classed as mesons or baryons .

04-22-2003, 07:22 AM	#46
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	fish Perfectly.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2003, 06:54 AM	#45
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	Well, there are electrons in fish, and now you can eat meat on Fridays, when you used to be unable to before... There were no fish on the ark and they somehow survived the salinity of the seawater being diluted, so the Pope with the funny hat could remain infallible when they reversed the whole meat on Fridays thing. Have I got everything straight now?

04-22-2003, 07:37 AM	#47
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	On the original topic, the Flood timeline: As has already been noted, plenty of people weren't on the Ark. They were in Egypt and elsewhere, and they never even noticed the Flood. ...Which, according to the Bible's genealogies, was somewhere around 2500 to 2300 BC, with the Tower of Babel around two centuries later (another non-event). Does anyone have more precise dates for those?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.