Better use of dogma infalibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KevinK

Guest
Why is the power of papal infallibility used so seldom; in fact just twice that I can see: defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 and in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950. It seems many contentious issues could be settled with finality using this power. Don’t ge me wrong but the two instances mentioned don’t even seem that important in a way. If they had never been declared the daily life of Catholics would not have really changed and neither seem to have anything to do with salvation.
 
Because the infallible person was Christ.
We have the fullness of truth.
The Marian dogma needed to be upheld because it was roundly attacked by other Christians. Still is.
 
The power has to be used prayefully, and, honestly, with a lot of these contentious issues, the Church has said what she has said, and if people wont respect the catechism/bible/whatever, they most likely wont respect the Pope.
 
The examples you gave are very important in that they are meant to assert the truth. Infallibility is not for anything new, rather for affirming or clarifying what was true from the beginning. We don’t need new, we need depth.
 
One of my points is what does it really matter if Mary was immaculately conceived or not, or assumed into heaven or not. It may be an interesting theological question but if neither was actually the case what would be different to our daily lives and salvation?
 
Sinlessness is something to aspire for.
But honestly, her being sinless is exactly why people were convinced that Jesus was Divine.
That God would not come to us through a person who had sinned. She was chosen and created for this. To bring about the Savior as a MAN, fully human, but fully Divine. It does matter, or else people would just say he
was just a prophet.
 
Last edited:
More has twice. It’s been used many times throughout history.

Unam Sanctam, Tome of Leo to Flavian, Bendictus Deus etc.

Those dealt with heavy questions. I think it should be used more as you say but not too often as to make it lose its importance.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, likely due to a false irenicism (condemned by Vatican II), the dogma of papal infallibility has been unduly minimized. The unusual ceremonial attached to the two Marian dogmas have also minimized the other instances. The fact is, Popes have intervened to provided definitive judgments binding the whole Church many, many times.

At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure, the relator (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the bishops at the Council) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:

Bishop Gasser:
But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been many times. Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by Gasser above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, the Tome of St. Leo, etc.).

Some people ask for a definitive list of definitive judgments by the Pope, but this kind of misses the point. In fact, papal decrees and letters can be lost or forgotten over the course of time. Ordinarily, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church suffices to adequately teach the faith–that is the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith–that’s why this exercise of the Magisterium is called extraordinary–so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.
 
One of my points is what does it really matter if Mary was immaculately conceived or not, or assumed into heaven or not. It may be an interesting theological question but if neither was actually the case what would be different to our daily lives and salvation?
All the dogmas and doctrines about Mary are really about Christ and who He is.

The fact that Mary would need to be Immaculately Conceived in order to bare Jesus speaks volumes to who Jesus really is.

And the fact that Jesus would have the power to have His mother assumed in Heaven speaks volumes regarding His role & power in Heaven.

If you always keep in mind that all of the Marian doctrines & dogmas are really about Christ, it makes much more sense.

I pray this helps.

God bless
 
One of my points is what does it really matter if Mary was immaculately conceived or not, or assumed into heaven or not.
One might as well ask: “What is the value of truth?”

(“What’s with all this fact-mongering, anyway?”) 🧐😜
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how your question “what is the value of truth” follows from my question of whether these dogmas ultimately matter.
 
It is a matter of justice to give honor to whom honor is due, as the Bible says. Knowing the truth about Mary ensures that we honor her justly, and, as the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus confirming this doctrine notes, “at the same time honor more and more the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord through his holy Mother — since whatever honor and praise are bestowed on the Mother redound to the Son.”
 
Last edited:
Say we are trying to put together a puzzle of God’s love. All the pieces are important, they fit together perfectly to show us the whole picture. The two dogmas you mentioned are declared to be true, and “important pieces” necessary to the puzzle (mystery) of God’s love. :heavy_heart_exclamation:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top