V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/28/85)
<<>> Hm...before Steve calls in artillery support, I'll post. When I read Rich's posting on "infallibility" I understood it in the context of the group and in the common complaint of the Roman Church i.e. Papal Infallibility. Indeed this is a "reserved word" (as in parsing :-) ) and we we use it judiciously. As Steve says no individual priest is infallible BUT he is expected to teach those dogmas which are defined as such. He is also expected to be a competent teacher and leader in the area of faith and morals. The laity are expected to go to him for guidance and to follow his instructions since these should be in accordance with Church dogma and practice. He has authority but NOT infallible authority. The Bishop has the final teaching authority in the diocese but he is NOT infallible. We are obliged to both of them but not infallibly. As for the postion of the church on Infallibility changing that is INCORRECT!!!!. There are some wrong theologians challenging it but that is NOT the Church. Sorry. Steve called this one correctly. Devotedly yours etc etc. Vince
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/03/85)
> As for the postion of the church on Infallibility changing that is > INCORRECT!!!!. There are some wrong theologians challenging it but that is > NOT the Church. I think Vince is being a little ungracious here. The theologian's job is to speculate and interpret ("faith seeking understanding".) Theologians may propose something which isn't consonant with current Church understanding, and one would be wrong to confuse that with official Magisterial teaching. But that doesn't make a theologian "wrong". At best, one might clarify the distinction between what the Church teaches and what the theologian proposes. It is a little short-sighted to look upon such healthy inquiry and debate as "wrong", for much of what we take for granted as part of our belief, was originally be labelled as "wrong", or at least uncodified. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA