Greg wrote:

If one takes authoritativeness to consist in expertness, then, no, I don't think this will work, for the pope's infallibility is distinct even from what authoritativeness theological experts have.

I'm sure everybody understands that in order to call someone infallible, his authority and expertise must be beyond that of other experts in the field. So,

- The pope's authority and expertise must be beyond that of other experts.
- The pope's authority must belong solely to the pope, not to anyone else

How are these conditions fulfilled? In the light of the news items that started this thread, they are not.

Greg wrote:

I said the pope's statements (in this case--not as a general class) were not authoritative, not the pope. The Church understands infallibility and authoritativeness to attach to acts, like words utters with a certain form or documents promulgated in a certain way--not to persons. There are lots of matters about which the pope is not an authority, and beyond your assertion, I don't see why that should impugn his being infallible in specific circumstances.

If the statements of a given person consistently fail to live up to a necessary standard, then isn't it too overwhelming to pick and choose among the statements what to designate as infallible and what to designate as fallible? Besides, who is going to do this job of picking, choosing and designating? Not the pope, whose person has proven unstable, I assume. If somebody else, then why not designate the other person infallible instead?

What are we talking about anyway? About (a) the doctrine of papal infallibility, about (b) the doctrine of infallibility of papal statements, or about (c) the doctrine of infallibility of some select papal statements? It's labelled as (a), but after "clarification" looks like (c), which makes the label (a) unjustified.

The little news items in the beginning of this thread are merely the latest among gazillion examples that many conscious beli

Alexander wrote:

I'm not attempting to convince you of the truth of the teachings, just to point out that the questions you have raised seem based on utter lack of understanding of what the teachings are.

Indeed, I don't understand why call the pope infallible when for the most part he is just a regular joe, as has been "clarified" in this thread.

Says Edward Feser, "What the Council is describing here [defining infallibility] is the pope’s exercise of what is called his “extraordinary Magisterium,” as opposed to his “ordinary Magisterium” or everyday teaching activity in the form of homilies, encyclicals, etc." So, ordinary Magisterium in the form of homilies, encyclicals, etc. goes under regular joe activity, not under ex cathedra. What is then the space left for infallibility? Nothing, really. Therefore Feser aptly titles his post Papal Fallibility http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

I understand the teachings just fine. It's just that it is evident from the teachings that "infallible" is the wrong word for what is being described.

Agreed with the conclusion. Which is one of the reasons why I am not a Christian. I have a bias towards Divine Simiplicity and Trinity is irreconcilable with it. If I were a Christian, I would be some form of non-Trinitarian, making me unorthodox, so it's more honest to not be one at all. There are logically more palatable theological systems out there...

Going into details, the One must be reconciled with the multiplicity of the world somehow, such as via gradual generalizations. On this path, the Three would be an intermediate technical speculation where arbitrary terms would apply, but Christianity makes an absolute dogma out of this, with scripturally fixed terms. In Trinitarian Christianity, Trinity is the end-all, not a step along the way. Irreconcilable, looks like.

Greg wrote:

Alexander is entirely right here. Being infallible and being right are not the same thing. The Catholic Church's idea is that, when the pope speaks on certain topics with a certain form, you can be assured that what he says is true, where you cannot be so assured in general when other people speak on those topics. That's quite unlike your barber giving you the (correct) time when you ask.

I guess the proper word for this description is authoritative. Authoritative as in expert opinion, even though this does not apply exclusively to the pope (and why should it).

Greg wrote:

Well, at worst, the pope's statements would make the Church irrelevant, if they were authoritative.

So the pope is not even authoritative? Well, this serves to more clearly highlight the fact that infallible is an atrocious misnomer. For infallibility to have any meaning, it should be something better than authoritativeness, and for a person to embody infallibility, he should be at least authoritative the rest of the time.

Pope Francis spoke yesterday at a pastoral congress on the family for the Diocese of Rome, and his remarks are causing consternation among faithful Catholics. In off-the-cuff remarks, the pope made the dual claim that the “great majority” of Catholic marriages are “null” – in other words, not actual marriages – and that some cohabitating couples are in a “real marriage,” receiving the grace of the Sacrament.

“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity,” he said.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-most-marriages-are-null-some-cohabitations-are-real-marriage

So, the Pope says marriage is fidelity. Is this a sufficient characteristic?

More from the article, "The Vatican has provided video of the full remarks by the Pope as well as a full transcript of his remarks.  In the transcript, however, the words of the Pope as heard clearly in the video (at 1:14:20) are changed from saying the “great majority” of Catholic marriages are null, to “a part” of them are null."

Question: Why does the Pope need editing like this?

Another article https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-comments-on-marriage-cohabitation-widely-criticized

Pope Francis’s remarks on Thursday that the “great majority” of Catholic marriages are null while some cohabitating couples are in a “real marriage” drew widespread criticism from Catholic writers, theologians, and commentators.

“The great majority of Christian marriages are valid,” rebutted Dr. Edward Peters, a well-known canon lawyer.

Does Catholicism permit one to dispute the Pope?