But if this is true, how could a Pope, who is 'guided' by some type of infallibility, allow such burnings? We await Thomas' explanation.
As the question of infallibility has occurred here and elsewhere, I shall take this opportunity to clarify the teaching for anyone who might actually be interested.
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows (my comments in parentheses):
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility (and a pope is a bishop), they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.
The point here is that it is the teaching itself that is infallible, not the teacher. If a bishop decides to give his own slant or opinion, or has himself misunderstood the teaching, then neither we nor he are infallibly bound by what he has said.
And when a lay person gets it right, the teaching is infallible because the teaching is infallible, not because of the person.
Infallibility covers matters of
faith and morals only, and does not apply to any other issue.
A case in point was Pope Honorius I (from 625-638), who was later condemned as a heretic, for comments made in a letter which, whilst an official reply to a formal consultation, was equally a private discussion between the pope and his correspondent Sergius, and not addressed to the Church as a whole. Honorius got a very delicate point of faith wrong (on the issue of monothelitism and monophysitism). As the letter does neither defines nor condemns a teaching, and in no way makes any binding requirement upon its recipient, or the Church as a whole, it cannot be considered an
ex cathedra statement, nor can it be considered under the indefectible charism of the Holy Church.
Thus a Pope can hold any opinion he so chooses, but that does not make it infallible because it is the opinion of a Pope. The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has published a number of books, none of which are in themselves infallible, but purely the work of a pastor and theologian.
The Pope has written two encyclical letters,
Deus Caritas Est and
Spe Salvi. These issue from the Office of Peter, as pastoral works addresed to the whole church by the Vicar of Christ, and whilst they offer a sure and certain teaching, again neither define nor condemn a specific teaching, therefore are not considered
ex cathedra statements and binding upon the Church, although they are 'safe bet' and you won't be condemned for using them as a reference theologically. (In fact Benedict has introduced some startlingly new insights into the teaching of Purgatory that has given more than a few theologians something to think about.)
On the other hand, Pope Paul VI's encyclical
Humanae Vitae stated clearly and succinctly the Church's opposition to birth control, so is considered an
ex cathedra statement in that regard.
In discussing Pope Paul's right to declare such a position as infallibly the proper position of the Church, one needs to trace his sources in Scripture and Tradition on which the teaching is founded. As the encyclical is founded on sure Scripture, Tradition and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we regard it as infallible.
(As an aside, all Protestant churches were against contraception until the 1930's, at which point the Anglican Communion caved in under social pressure, and the others followed ... once the sacrosanct nature of human life was abandoned, in just over 50 years patients are killed daily in our hospitals as a matter of routine, in accordance with economic necessity.)
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the Pope as head of the bishops (Matthew 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
This does not mean that the Pope's position is inarguable — for Paul argued and indeed berated Peter for his actions as detailed in Acts, whilst still acknowledging Peter as head of the Church. St Catherine of Sienna, a Doctor of the Church, Saint and Mystic, was notable for giving Pope Gregory XI a really rough time and insisted he moved the papacy from Avignon back to Rome, and reform the clergy of his day.
It does mean his word is final, and binding.
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep... "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter... ")
To answer a specific point, the condemnation of a teaching and, in some cases, its teacher, has been the subject of
ex cathedra statements, defined in the phrase "anathema sit" — 'let him/her/it be condemned' ... that's it.
So a teaching is condemned, and even a person is condemned, but how that person is to be treated is not the subject of an ex cathedra statement, so the treatment of heretics, be it execution, imprisonment, exile, or simply the withdrawal of a teaching licence (as is the case today) is not a matter of infallibility, be it of the Pope, the Magisterium, or the Church as a whole. In fact, such treatment usually corresponds to the secular norms of the day, which are far from infallible ...
Or, it may be that Thomas does indeed feel the burnings were justified. We will never know until Thomas breaks his silence on this topic.
As I have stated my position on this point quite clearly, I read this as continuing his policy of following Thosophical 'black-propaganda' anti-Catholic mischief-making...
Anyone else is welcome. If it's a big-deal issue, we can take it elsewhere, although as it's 'house rules', as it were, I sometimes wonder why it's so important to those not in 'the house'.
I have house rules in my house, and if you are in my house you are expected to abide by them, whether you agree or not (no tricks, you understand, nothing esoteric, just don't spit on the carpets, or make overt and/or offensive advances towards my daughters, set the furniture alight ... that kind of thing). And if you don't, I will ask you to leave, and expect you to go. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But then I happen to think the football referee's word is final, even though he's not guaranteed by God.
Thomas
