infallibiltiy

[Lady_Kikyo]

I had read (don’t recall the book) that any Church document (or part of the document) beginning with “We declare…” or ending with, uh…if any not accept this teaching “let him be anathema” is essentially infallible. Is this correct?

Just checking before I respond to Mr. H. I’m trying to explain to him how to differentiate a Church *teaching *from any *opinion/statement *of a pope.

Thanks.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I had read (don’t recall the book) that any Church document (or part of the document) beginning with “We declare…” or ending with, uh…if any not accept this teaching “let him be anathema” is essentially infallible. Is this correct?

I think it’s important to point out that those are indicators of the Pope’s intention to make an infallible statement but they, in and of themselves, do not make a statement infallible. He also hast to be speaking ex cathedra (i.e. not in a private capacity), the subject matter hast to relate to doctrine of faith and morals and can’t contradict previous Church doctrine, and it’s application hast to be for the entire Catholic Church. Not all Church documents containing the phrase “We declare…” are infallible. An example of such a document is Regnans in Excelsis circa 1570.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Read what Pastor aeterunus, the dogmatic declaration of Vatican I, actually says.

Tell your friend to do so, too.

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

I think it’s important to point out that those are indicators of the Pope’s intention to make an infallible statement but they, in and of themselves, do not make a statement infallible. He also hast to be speaking ex cathedra (i.e. not in a private capacity), the subject matter hast to relate to doctrine of faith and morals and can’t contradict previous Church doctrine, and it’s application hast to be for the entire Catholic Church. Not all Church documents containing the phrase “We declare…” are infallible. An example of such a document is Regnans in Excelsis circa 1570.

What’s wrong with Regnans in Excelsis?

 

[diggerdomer]

I had read (don’t recall the book) that any Church document (or part of the document) beginning with “We declare…” or ending with, uh…if any not accept this teaching “let him be anathema” is essentially infallible. Is this correct?

Just checking before I respond to Mr. H. I’m trying to explain to him how to differentiate a Church *teaching *from any *opinion/statement *of a pope.

Thanks.

No, not correct.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Regnans in excelsis was strictly a political statement by the Pope at the time (Pius IV, I think, but I could be mistaken) hoping it would lead to the depostion, if not assassination, of Queen Elizabeth I and the enthronement of Mary Stuart.

It had nothing to do with doctrine.

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

No, not correct.

Then what is? If I were to tell an anti-Catholic which writings of the Pope he can “trust” so to speak, what would I tell him? I think it was Scott Hahn I was listening to (don’t quote me though…however, I do know it was on EWTN) who said that the Church has only declared 2 doctrines “ex cathedra,” papal infallibility and the Assumption. Well, we have more beliefs than that, the Eucharist being a prime example. Also the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, no birth control, no divorce, etc…I think you can tell where I’m going with this. I know that if I leave it at “he’s only infallible when speaking ex cathedra” he’s going to say that other things, not declared ex cathedra, at least could be false…

I’m talking with someone who’s very firm in his beliefs, but who is open for discussion (even if only to convert me). Any suggestions on how to handle this issue would be much appreciated.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\however, I do know it was on EWTN) who said that the Church has only declared 2 doctrines “ex cathedra,” papal infallibility and the Assumption.\

**Papal Infallibility was not declared by the Pope, but by Vatican I. You must have misheard EWTN.

All the Churches of the East as well have always believed in the bodily Assumption of the Theotokos, even though the preferred name is the Dormition (or falling asleep).

It has never been necessary to define everything ex cathedra. As one Orthodox bishop put it, there are beliefs that have never been officially proclaimed that the Church nevertheless holds with an unruffled unanimity. The principle applies in the Catholic Church as well.

To say that everything needs to be defined ex cathedra by a Pope–Sola Papa–is just the other side of Protestant fundamentalist Sola Scriptura.

And it’s just as false–and for the same reason. It’s a teaching in isolation: itself a classic definition of heresy.**

 

[malphono]

…however, I do know it was on EWTN) who said that the Church has only declared 2 doctrines “ex cathedra,” papal infallibility and the Assumption.

Actually the two are the Immaculate conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

Actually the two are the Immaculate conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950).

I assume you mean by the Pope, versus the Church in general?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Then what is?

The statement hast to meet the requirements mentioned above. It’s more complex than simply saying “We declare…”. Another poster has already pointed out why, despite the use of that phrase, Regnans in Excelsis is not an infallible document.
Lady Kikyo;6241741:

If I were to tell an anti-Catholic which writings of the Pope he can “trust” so to speak, what would I tell him?

As another poster has pointed out; a doccument doesn’t have to be declared infallible for it to be true (at least in the context of Catholic doctrine). For example, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an infallible document because it is a private declaration absent of dogma i.e. not derived from divine inspiration but the concept that ordination is reserved exclusively for men is considered infallible by the Magisterium because it is tradition believed to have a foundation in the Bible. I would also add that statements don’t have to be made by the Pope to be considered infallible.

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

Papal Infallibility was not declared by the Pope, but by Vatican I. You must have misheard EWTN.

Above I said “who said that **the Church **has only declared 2 doctrines ‘ex cathedra,’” not the Pope.

To say that everything needs to be defined ex cathedra by a Pope–Sola Papa–is just the other side of Protestant fundamentalist Sola Scriptura.

lol

And it’s just as false–and for the same reason. It’s a teaching in isolation: itself a classic definition of heresy.

Never thought of it that way, makes an excellent point. Thanks.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Above I said “who said that the Church has only declared 2 doctrines ‘ex cathedra,’” not the Pope.\

Only the Pope can define dogmas ex cathedra.

 

[diggerdomer]

Then what is? If I were to tell an anti-Catholic which writings of the Pope he can “trust” so to speak, what would I tell him? I think it was Scott Hahn I was listening to (don’t quote me though…however, I do know it was on EWTN) who said that the Church has only declared 2 doctrines “ex cathedra,” papal infallibility and the Assumption. Well, we have more beliefs than that, the Eucharist being a prime example. Also the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, no birth control, no divorce, etc…I think you can tell where I’m going with this. I know that if I leave it at “he’s only infallible when speaking ex cathedra” he’s going to say that other things, not declared ex cathedra, at least could be false…

I’m talking with someone who’s very firm in his beliefs, but who is open for discussion (even if only to convert me). Any suggestions on how to handle this issue would be much appreciated.

Trust everything the Catholic Church teaches, while recognizing (as the Catholic Church teaches) there is a “hierarchy of truths” – meaning, some teachings are (on one end of the spectrum) considered divine revelation and so must be believed in faith, while other teachings (on the other end of the spectrum) are more provisional and open to less certainty.

 

[Lady_Kikyo]

\Above I said “who said that the Church has only declared 2 doctrines ‘ex cathedra,’” not the Pope.\

Only the Pope can define dogmas ex cathedra.

wrong term, my bad:blush:…but you know what i mean

 

[ProVobis]

the subject matter hast to relate to doctrine of faith and morals

I would challenge this. A lot of pronouncements in the area of morals are binding but not necessarily infallible as they can change with the times and environment.

O tempora. O mores.

 

[ProVobis]

.if any not accept this teaching “let him be anathema” is essentially infallible. Is this correct?

Careful here. A lot of Trent canons ended with “anathema sit.” Some of these are doctrinal in nature, and some are practices which reflect doctrine to different extents. They were all binding at the time of the Council. The doctrine behind Trent teachings was infallible; the practices are debatable as to how binding they are.

One of the Trent canons specifically anathematized any pastor who created any new rites. Obviously a new rite was created in 1970. Did anyone suffer any penalties for violating the Trent canon? Not that I know of. So what good was the anathema?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I would challenge this. A lot of pronouncements in the area of morals are binding but not necessarily infallible as they can change with the times and environment.

O tempora. O mores.

Pro,

Can you give an example?

 

[ProVobis]

Pro,

Can you give an example?

One example was when the Pope said Mass in a country where a bare-chested woman was allowed to be reader. (Was it Assisi? I can’t remember.)

 

[bpbasilphx]

One example was when the Pope said Mass in a country where a bare-chested woman was allowed to be reader. It’s the first thing that popped into my head; give me time, I’ll think of another one.

I’ve seen the picture you’re talking about.

In this culture, it was perfectly appropriate.

And I’m sure that sometime before he was elected Pope, Ven. John Paul became aware of the amazing fact the women have beasts.