Isn't the Church teaching that the Pope is infallible when it comes to issues of morality? So when the Pope says it is the right thing to take in immigrants or our moral duty to get vaccinated then the Church teaching is...?
No, that's not the teaching. The teaching is that the Pope is infallible when he is solemnly declaring and defining an issue of Faith or morality in an official Magisterial document. This rarely happens. So all those airplane and press interviews where Pope Francis gives his opinion on vaccinations... None of this is binding on the faithful. There is no official Church teaching whatsoever on vaccines. As for migration, that's a bit different, as migration itself is a natural right (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph migrated to Egypt from Judea, for instance, to escape Jesus being murdered by Herod), but still, there is no Church teaching that promotes mass immigration (i.e. the Great Replacement).
Geez... I sure hope you never called you own dad "father" or else you are clearly breaking the rule of Matthew 23:9... (rolls eyes)
Or, you know, perhaps Jesus was saying that there is only one HEAVENLY Father - God the Father - and wasn't saying that you couldn't literally call your own dad "father". And this is why you need a Church to interpret Scripture - because low IQ MORONS like Neo1 will interpret Scripture in stupid ways.
I don't believe the official Magisterial document is required for a teaching to be infallible but understand your point that he was not necessarily making a declaration. Regardless, what you're saying is the head of the faith, when he is directing the faithful, should be ignored when you disagree with him (e.g. when he says it's our moral duty to receive the vaccine)?
Yes, we can freely disagree and ignore if it's not Church teaching. We can consider his opinions, and even give them due respect as head of the Faith, but we don't have to assent if it's not Magisterial teaching. He doesn't even disagree with this. Pope Francis has never formally censured Catholic lay people for not taking the vaccine. He personally endorses it but has left it open to people to choose themselves. And many faithful Catholics I know, myself included, choose not to vaccinate.
Very much a loophole. The Pope was very clear that it was a moral duty to receive the vaccine, it may not have been written into doctrine but he was very clear. So he's not really special? Aside from a very specific instance of issuing doctrine he's just some guy with opinions?
As far as I know the only people ever censured or excommunicated are those who would possibly weaken the Church were they still allowed to associate with it in some way (e.g. high ranking members going to other churches or speaking up directly against the Vatican) so using the fact they didn't censure a huge portion of the members (an action that would hurt the Church by drastically reducing membership) isn't really material
Isn't the Church teaching that the Pope is infallible when it comes to issues of morality? So when the Pope says it is the right thing to take in immigrants or our moral duty to get vaccinated then the Church teaching is...?
No, that's not the teaching. The teaching is that the Pope is infallible when he is solemnly declaring and defining an issue of Faith or morality in an official Magisterial document. This rarely happens. So all those airplane and press interviews where Pope Francis gives his opinion on vaccinations... None of this is binding on the faithful. There is no official Church teaching whatsoever on vaccines. As for migration, that's a bit different, as migration itself is a natural right (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph migrated to Egypt from Judea, for instance, to escape Jesus being murdered by Herod), but still, there is no Church teaching that promotes mass immigration (i.e. the Great Replacement).
Being called "pope" ("father" in Italian) is blaspheming:
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." - Matthew 23:9
Geez... I sure hope you never called you own dad "father" or else you are clearly breaking the rule of Matthew 23:9... (rolls eyes)
Or, you know, perhaps Jesus was saying that there is only one HEAVENLY Father - God the Father - and wasn't saying that you couldn't literally call your own dad "father". And this is why you need a Church to interpret Scripture - because low IQ MORONS like Neo1 will interpret Scripture in stupid ways.
I don't believe the official Magisterial document is required for a teaching to be infallible but understand your point that he was not necessarily making a declaration. Regardless, what you're saying is the head of the faith, when he is directing the faithful, should be ignored when you disagree with him (e.g. when he says it's our moral duty to receive the vaccine)?
Yes, we can freely disagree and ignore if it's not Church teaching. We can consider his opinions, and even give them due respect as head of the Faith, but we don't have to assent if it's not Magisterial teaching. He doesn't even disagree with this. Pope Francis has never formally censured Catholic lay people for not taking the vaccine. He personally endorses it but has left it open to people to choose themselves. And many faithful Catholics I know, myself included, choose not to vaccinate.
Very much a loophole. The Pope was very clear that it was a moral duty to receive the vaccine, it may not have been written into doctrine but he was very clear. So he's not really special? Aside from a very specific instance of issuing doctrine he's just some guy with opinions?
As far as I know the only people ever censured or excommunicated are those who would possibly weaken the Church were they still allowed to associate with it in some way (e.g. high ranking members going to other churches or speaking up directly against the Vatican) so using the fact they didn't censure a huge portion of the members (an action that would hurt the Church by drastically reducing membership) isn't really material