Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/4/83; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm!v6m
From: V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re**3 Rosen's lack of..etc
Message-ID: <1621V6M@PSUVM>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 14:25:45 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.1621V6M
Posted: Thu Feb 28 14:25:45 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 09:52:53 EST
Lines: 24

<<>>
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