I just reread everything in our conversation. I never "dodged" your questions. I answered them. I just answered them in a way that didn't fit your misconception on the authority of the Pope, and you referred to it as a "loophole" because you are anti-Catholic and frankly just want to argue instead of listen. Again, yes we can disagree with the Pope if he publicly tells the Jewish Mainstream Media his "politically correct" opinions on things. Moreover, if he misrepresents the Faith (and the current Pope has done this multiple times, unfortunately) we can publicly rebuke him for doing that as well, and of course, disobey following him in his error. What we as Catholics CANNOT do is disobey the Pope when he officially teaches a matter of Faith and morals that is CONSISTENT with known Catholic teaching.
But who determines consistency? Therein lies even more wiggle room when consistency with pre-established Scripture is not a requirement for the teaching of a Pope to be infallible.
If a man has proven himself to misrepresent the faith, what authority is given to him?
That's the thing... consistency with pre-established Scripture IS MOST DEFINITELY a requirement for the teaching of a Pope to be infallible. If the Pope BLATANTLY contradicts Scripture in his Magisterium, then we are, again, obliged to DISREGARD his teaching.
The fact of the matter is that the Pope's authority is pretty limited. He is bound by Scripture, Tradition (the verbal and written beliefs that Catholics have held for 2000 years), and the Magisterium of previous Popes. IF HE CONTRADICTS THOSE, THEN WE CANNOT ASSENT.
However, IF HE DOESN'T CONTRADICT THOSE AND HE OFFICIALLY TEACHES A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE, THEN WE MUST ASSENT.
Understand?
So Popes actually have a very narrow scope of authority. Their primary purpose is to govern the Church and secondly to decide matters of disagreement amongst the Faithful, and they are BOUND to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium themselves when doing the latter.
Lol indeed, way to dodge everything else
I just reread everything in our conversation. I never "dodged" your questions. I answered them. I just answered them in a way that didn't fit your misconception on the authority of the Pope, and you referred to it as a "loophole" because you are anti-Catholic and frankly just want to argue instead of listen. Again, yes we can disagree with the Pope if he publicly tells the Jewish Mainstream Media his "politically correct" opinions on things. Moreover, if he misrepresents the Faith (and the current Pope has done this multiple times, unfortunately) we can publicly rebuke him for doing that as well, and of course, disobey following him in his error. What we as Catholics CANNOT do is disobey the Pope when he officially teaches a matter of Faith and morals that is CONSISTENT with known Catholic teaching.
But who determines consistency? Therein lies even more wiggle room when consistency with pre-established Scripture is not a requirement for the teaching of a Pope to be infallible.
If a man has proven himself to misrepresent the faith, what authority is given to him?
That's the thing... consistency with pre-established Scripture IS MOST DEFINITELY a requirement for the teaching of a Pope to be infallible. If the Pope BLATANTLY contradicts Scripture in his Magisterium, then we are, again, obliged to DISREGARD his teaching.
The fact of the matter is that the Pope's authority is pretty limited. He is bound by Scripture, Tradition (the verbal and written beliefs that Catholics have held for 2000 years), and the Magisterium of previous Popes. IF HE CONTRADICTS THOSE, THEN WE CANNOT ASSENT.
However, IF HE DOESN'T CONTRADICT THOSE AND HE OFFICIALLY TEACHES A MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE, THEN WE MUST ASSENT.
Understand?
So Popes actually have a very narrow scope of authority. Their primary purpose is to govern the Church and secondly to decide matters of disagreement amongst the Faithful, and they are BOUND to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium themselves when doing the latter.