B
Bookcat
Guest
Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers discuss this more at length here: jimmyakin.com/2004/11/contraception_i.html
- Status
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Its common sense to say that papal authority means the Pope is AWARE and then approves of a document.
Akins link doesn’t add anything more to this discussion
R
Rau
Guest
Are you reading my mind now ? I’m saying that if YOU think the declaration is not an explicit act/infallible one, then you have the alternative basis put to you also.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
What do you mean?
R
Rau
Guest
One wonders what is to be understood by the term “definitive and irreformable”? If not infallible, then perhaps thinkandmull could explain? And what did Christ mean by his promise to the Church of teaching authority? “He who hears you hears me”. “Whatever you loose/bind etc”. Could it be that what is “definitive and irreformable” could be wrong, thus violating Christ’s promise?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I was saying that this fallible document by a commission was stating that it thought this doctrine was infallibly taught, but neither said when nor how this occurred.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“First Vatican Council… did not define Papal Infallibility such that every teaching of the Pope on faith and morals would be infallible, nor did it define it so that every condemnation of a false or heretical theological position would constitute an infallible definition of the opposing position… Popes have condemned various theological ideas, without such condemnations rising to the level of an infallible solemn definition. For example, the Bull issued by Pius VI in 1794 called Auctorem Fidei lists a number of theological ideas that were condemned, with varying levels of force, as heretical, or as erroneous, or as false, rash, and injurious. Condemnations of various heretical or false theological ideas were also issued by Pope Pius IX in 1864, under the title ‘Syllabus of Errors.’ Many Popes throughout the history of the Church have condemned various theological errors in various ways. If every such condemnation were held to be a solemn definition, then the Popes would in effect be unable to condemn any false theological position by means of non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church… Popes are free to exercise either the infallible or the non-infallible Magisterium of the Church when teaching truth or condemning error.”
Put well by Catholic writer Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Put well by Catholic writer Ronald L. Conte Jr.
R
Rau
Guest
That may be so
If that’s your central point, we have no disagreement.Pose note: it is not “documents” that are deemed infallible, but teachings. The latter are often captured in a sentence or two.
R
Rau
Guest
Conte is another source who will tell you the teaching is infallible, on multiple grounds:
catechism.cc/articles/contraception-heresy-3.htm
T
thinkandmull
Guest
He doesn’t have a certain proof or evidence there
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Pius XII said with regard to fallible teaching that the words of Jesus “He who hears you hear me” applies. Therefore a teaching may appear to be infallible, since the Pope is trying to speak as if Christ is speaking. But unless it is clearly infallible, Canon Law says we are not to regard something as infallible
R
Rau
Guest
Is there a theologian or a Bishop claiming that it is not infallible? Is there one claiming that the document provided to all Confessors around the world is wrong? Is there one arguing that the Magusteriun has not consistently taught that contraception is wrong? Is there one offering a new understanding of what “definitive and irreformable” might mean?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
None of that is relevant.
The Church doesn’t teach that a consistent teaching is infallible. Vatican I says when the whole hierarchy teaches something together and intends it to be infallible, that is infallible. But such a case has to be proven.
The decree condemning Galileo, which mentions heliocentrism as “contrary to Scripture”, was sent not only to all the Inquisition courts but to all the major universities as well by the Pope. Geocentrism was pretty universally held and believed and taught for hundreds and hundreds of years. Its not clearly infallible though
The Church doesn’t teach that a consistent teaching is infallible. Vatican I says when the whole hierarchy teaches something together and intends it to be infallible, that is infallible. But such a case has to be proven.
The decree condemning Galileo, which mentions heliocentrism as “contrary to Scripture”, was sent not only to all the Inquisition courts but to all the major universities as well by the Pope. Geocentrism was pretty universally held and believed and taught for hundreds and hundreds of years. Its not clearly infallible though
A
adrift
Guest
Can you provide a source for this decree? The Church never condemned geocentrism. Copernicus theories were accepted on geocentrism and he remained in good standing with the Church. The problem was that Galileo presented it as fact, which at the time it was not.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
We had a thread on this a couple months ago.
R
Rau
Guest
It is relevant to seeing that you sit out on a limb, alone. I only wonder why you wish to be there?
Galileo is most certainly irrelevant to the Church’s teaching capacity LOL.
R
Rau
Guest
****Further information about the nature of Truths to be believed and how they are taught will be found in here. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
In the extract from the CDF below, the “first paragraph” refers to the following:
*“With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”*and “second paragraph” to:
“I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals"
In connection with these, Cardinal Ratzinger, for the CDF, writes:*The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining.
In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council.
In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph).
Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.(17) The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.*And Note 17 reads:
*It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.*It should be noted that the Catechism exists to promulgate Catholic Doctrine.
From:
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
the following is written:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.”
In the extract from the CDF below, the “first paragraph” refers to the following:
*“With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”*and “second paragraph” to:
“I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals"
In connection with these, Cardinal Ratzinger, for the CDF, writes:*The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining.
In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council.
In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph).
Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.(17) The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.*And Note 17 reads:
*It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.*It should be noted that the Catechism exists to promulgate Catholic Doctrine.
From:
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
the following is written:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I am not by myself on this. Others on here have questioned the infallibility of the contraception doctrine. Also, geocentrism does have to do with doctrine because Galileo was condemned by the Holy Office for writings things “contrary to Scripture” and the Holy Office decree was sent by the Pope not only to the Inquisition courts, but to the major universities, thus showing it was not merely about disciplining.
The document you cite doesn’t say if the Pope approved of it or not. As you know, I don’t believe it is binding unless the Pope has approved of it. Anyway, it is impossible for us to prove if something is “expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith”. Geocentrists bring up tons of Church Fathers who taught geocentrism and point to the near unanimous agreement of post-Father Catholics writers who supported geocentrism. They too are using this “always taught” idea to promote their believe that geocentrism is a doctrine “**derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, **and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense.”
Finally, the Church has said for example that the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be contradicted. However, since the list of Church Fathers has never been declared by the Magisterium, this is a dead end of a teaching, whether it is discipline or doctrine. Same in this case of contraception. Until the Magisterium says how we can know whether there enough evidence of past belief, we can’t know if there has been “diachronic” infallibility.
The document you cite doesn’t say if the Pope approved of it or not. As you know, I don’t believe it is binding unless the Pope has approved of it. Anyway, it is impossible for us to prove if something is “expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith”. Geocentrists bring up tons of Church Fathers who taught geocentrism and point to the near unanimous agreement of post-Father Catholics writers who supported geocentrism. They too are using this “always taught” idea to promote their believe that geocentrism is a doctrine “**derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, **and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense.”
Finally, the Church has said for example that the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be contradicted. However, since the list of Church Fathers has never been declared by the Magisterium, this is a dead end of a teaching, whether it is discipline or doctrine. Same in this case of contraception. Until the Magisterium says how we can know whether there enough evidence of past belief, we can’t know if there has been “diachronic” infallibility.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Have you heard of Paul IV’s* Cum ex apostolatus officio*? Despite the use of the word “define”, it is believed this is a disciplinary document because of its over reaching statements. If it is doctrine, than we could never be sure if we had a Pope because we would all have to study to see if he said anything heretical before his election. That is what the decree said. So we understand it as a disciplinary document. But as such, it can never be applied because again, Catholics should not be bound to study to see if an elected Pope ever taught heresy. In the case of implicit consent of Tradition, such can hardly be proven, and so these are simply examples of a discipline and a teaching that has no application
- Status