What happens if a Pope decides that a preceding Pope was wrong about something, given they are both infallible

Question

Death from above, what are you on about? The Pope can still excercise infallibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Death from above, when he last did it is irrelevant, the fact still remains he could do it tomorrow.

Answer 1

First, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is NOT

. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Second, An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Answer 2

It will be decided that the first pope was correct at the time he made his claim --- but now things have changed and the current pope (who has taken into account the changed circumstances) is also correct.

Answer 3

lol!!
you DO live in the past, don't you ? the notion of the infallibility of the pope was done way with so long ago it is not even funny... I guess you missed it, too busy bashing Catholics to notice...
anyhow, judging bu the answers so far...
Atheist feeding frenzy alert!!!
EDIT: Ah, if it is Wikipedia, then it MUST be true... the keyword is CAN, when DID he last do it, can you tell me, please... ? I can't wait...

Answer 4

The Pope doesn't claim to be infallible, merely a servant of God.

Answer 5

I think that just happened. I remember Pope Paul as being a loving, tender, humble man who just wanted the best for all peoples - this new German guy seems much the opposite, and has already condemned everybody who isn't Catholic.
That's real "Christian" of him, isn't it. Remember, he was elected by a group of his "peers" - I don't know that I'd call that a "calling". He worries me.

Answer 6

Fortunately, after 600 years promoting torture as the appropriate treatment for heretics, some Pope decided that it perhaps wasn't very nice.

I know that technically I cannot prove that god doesn't exist... but how much more evidence do you really need?

Answer 7

non sequitur
impossible

Answer 8

rofl


†