I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Dutch had said on another thread:
The Church has condemned the proposition that the Church can establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is “useless … burdensome … harmful … dangerous.”
Furthermore, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article “Eccesiastical Discipline”, the author calls the thesis that ecclesiastical disciplines are indirectly infallible as being held “unanimously” by Catholic theologians, and, rightly understood, is “undeniable.”
Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:
I also refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm
Here’s an excerpt…
What are your thoughts on the thesis that established Eccesiastical Disciplines are infallible? Do you disagree with the author of the above Catholic Encyclopedia article? If so, why? If the proposition that the Church can establish discipline that is “uselfess … burdensome … harmful … dangerous” has been condemned, what do you suppose that implies with regard to the infallibility of these disciplines?
God bless,
Dave
It has been argued that formal disciplines of the Church ARE secondary objects of faith and morals.People are confused about the limits of the Church’s infallibility. It is really simple: They are only infallible in matters of faith and morals. NOT DISIPLINE
The Church has condemned the proposition that the Church can establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is “useless … burdensome … harmful … dangerous.”
Furthermore, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article “Eccesiastical Discipline”, the author calls the thesis that ecclesiastical disciplines are indirectly infallible as being held “unanimously” by Catholic theologians, and, rightly understood, is “undeniable.”
Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:
(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
I also refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm
Here’s an excerpt…
] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.Disciplinary Infallibility
What are your thoughts on the thesis that established Eccesiastical Disciplines are infallible? Do you disagree with the author of the above Catholic Encyclopedia article? If so, why? If the proposition that the Church can establish discipline that is “uselfess … burdensome … harmful … dangerous” has been condemned, what do you suppose that implies with regard to the infallibility of these disciplines?
God bless,
Dave