No, the Pope is not, generally, infallible.
"...in everything he says."
You needed to finish that statement.
No, it was finished as that. You are wrong to claim that "Catholicism says that the Pope is infallible". Its more correct that he
can be infallible, under certain specific circumstances.
Only when he is in his "chair" as you said. But that means when he is in the official "Pope" position.
I was refering to
Ex Cathedra. Its one of the those specifc circumstances:
quote:
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.
sauce
Pop quiz: When was the last time those circumstances happened?
When he said you were ghey.
No homo?
Your source has the instances of papal infallibility:
quote:
"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
So, really, the Pope is only infallible about 0.00001% of the time.
But this is only a part of your wider argument:
From
Message 132
The ONLY religion where true, infallible authority is found (currently, and ignoring Catholicism for this example) is in the Muslim faith. These infallible men DO define what Islam believes. They CAN make new laws. They DO have actual, unquestionable authority over Islamic doctrine and interpretation.
So...
If Obama comes out and says the US hates Muslims, that cares absolutely no weight. In fact, he would be fired as president. His opinion would have no bearing on US politics.
If a Christian minister came out and said that Christianity does not accept homosexuals, that does NOT mean Christianity as a whole does not accept homosexuals. The minister's opinion would be just that, his opinion, and would have no bearing on Christianity itself.
However... If an Imam says women are not allowed to show their face in public, that DOES mean it is Islamic law that women should not show their faces in public. The Imam's interpretation of scripture would have bearing on the Muslim faith since the Imam is infallible and their word is like that of Allah.
In these three cases, only one has real authority. So it does matter which religion we are discussing. And when those Imam's call for violence as a resolution, it is like the word of Allah, and as such, it can be said that Islam is a religion that currently promotes violence as a resolution.
The reason this is not said for any other religion is because no other religion has infallible, authoritative rule.
I think you do have a decent point here, and it actually is on topic unlike me correcting you on Catholic dogma.