R
RSiscoe
Guest
Ah… I just read through the posts to see if I could figure out what you were talking about. I did not write the post you were responding to.
- Status
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
Pope Paul VI himself said the following: "Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966)
The Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris, told how releaved he was when he was told that Vatican II did not intend to define any statements infallibly:
“I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed.”(8. Interview of Bishop Morris by Kiernon Wood, Catholic World News, Sept. 27, 1997.)
At the close of the Council the Bishops asked the Council’s secretary, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Pericle Felici for that which the theologians call the “theological note” of the Council - that is, the doctrinal “weight” of Vatican II’s teachings. He said the following:
“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”
Isn’t it interesting that Vatican II gave us no new dogmas, yet “everything has changed” since that Council, so much so that if you still believe all of the dogmas of the faith, you are considered a “radical”, or worse.
According to John 23, and Paul 6 (the two Popes who reigned over Vatican II), the Concil did not give us any new dogmas. The only infallible statements are those that were defined at an earlier time and repeated at Vatican II.
Pope Paul VI himself said the following: "Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966)
The Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris, told how releaved he was when he was told that Vatican II did not intend to define any statements infallibly:
“I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed.”(8. Interview of Bishop Morris by Kiernon Wood, Catholic World News, Sept. 27, 1997.)
At the close of the Council the Bishops asked the Council’s secretary, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Pericle Felici for that which the theologians call the “theological note” of the Council - that is, the doctrinal “weight” of Vatican II’s teachings. He said the following:
“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”
Isn’t it interesting that Vatican II gave us no new dogmas, yet “everything has changed” since that Council, so much so that if you still believe all of the dogmas of the faith, you are considered a “radical”, or worse.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
And as I said in my original answer all the infallible statements of all the Councils and Popes are still infact INFALLIBLE. All of these are not Ex Cathedra, only 3 or maybe 5 of these are. See Denzinger for a listing of the infallible statements made by the Church or any of the Popes.
E
exile
Guest
As an outsider looking in, there does seem to be some conflict
of opinion amongst Catholics here.
Is EVERY statement of dogma, whether made by the Pope
or a Church Council
Does the decision of a Pope or Church Council bind the Church for evermore? (That is, if an infallible statement was retracted in the future, it could hardly be said to be infallible)
What precise effect did, say, the statement of the Pope on the Immaculate Conception have? Did it CHANGE the dogma of the church? (Elsewhere Catholics have argued to me that it merely confirmed existing doctrine - in which case one wonders why the Pope made such a statement).
of opinion amongst Catholics here.
Is EVERY statement of dogma, whether made by the Pope
or a Church Council
- ex cathedra
- infallible
Does the decision of a Pope or Church Council bind the Church for evermore? (That is, if an infallible statement was retracted in the future, it could hardly be said to be infallible)
What precise effect did, say, the statement of the Pope on the Immaculate Conception have? Did it CHANGE the dogma of the church? (Elsewhere Catholics have argued to me that it merely confirmed existing doctrine - in which case one wonders why the Pope made such a statement).
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
Regarding how many ex-cathedra statements there are. I will look into it, but I bet I can find at lest 10 ex-cathedra statements from the Popes. I can think of 5 right now (not including the 80 condemned propositions in the syllabus of errors), and I am sure there are many many more.
Regarding Denizingers: Are you referring to the entire book, or just one section, as being infallible and ex-cathedra pronouncements. If you are referring to the entire book, I can quote you hundreds of ex-cathedra statements from the Popes, since much of the book contains doctrinal statements of the Popes apart from Councils.
The encyclical Quanta Cura, and the accompanying Syllabus of errors of Pius IX has been considered ex-cathedra by most theologians (liberal theologians not included). This is how it ends: “Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” (Quanta Cura Denz.1699)
Do you agree that Quanta Cura, and the accompanying Syllabus, is infallible? Is so, it composes a list of 80 ex-cathedra statements all by itself.
If you do not consider it infallible, please tell me which of the four requirements is lacking.
Yes, all the infallible statements are still infallible (how could they not be?). And I was mistaken when I said that all infallible statement are ex-cathedra.
Regarding how many ex-cathedra statements there are. I will look into it, but I bet I can find at lest 10 ex-cathedra statements from the Popes. I can think of 5 right now (not including the 80 condemned propositions in the syllabus of errors), and I am sure there are many many more.
Regarding Denizingers: Are you referring to the entire book, or just one section, as being infallible and ex-cathedra pronouncements. If you are referring to the entire book, I can quote you hundreds of ex-cathedra statements from the Popes, since much of the book contains doctrinal statements of the Popes apart from Councils.
The encyclical Quanta Cura, and the accompanying Syllabus of errors of Pius IX has been considered ex-cathedra by most theologians (liberal theologians not included). This is how it ends: “Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” (Quanta Cura Denz.1699)
Do you agree that Quanta Cura, and the accompanying Syllabus, is infallible? Is so, it composes a list of 80 ex-cathedra statements all by itself.
If you do not consider it infallible, please tell me which of the four requirements is lacking.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hopefully, you are referring to the Great Golden Book of Infallible Statements.
Yes, that part of the analysis is a joke.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Whether a Catholic doctrine is infallibly defined, or merely a certain teaching of the magisterium, we owe our religious assent. So, whether a doctrine is understood as infallible or not is irrelevent, and is only a matter of practical importance to dogmatic theologians and dissidents. Faithful Catholics are to submit to their superiors whether they speak infallibly or not.
Nonetheless, if we want to know if a doctrine is infallible, just ask the Pope.
The charism of papal infallibility is not merely to be equated to those instances where the pope pronounces *ex cathedra *that a dogma is de fide definita.
The pope certainly acts infallibility on those occassions when he proclaims material dogma is to be assented to definitively as a formal dogma of the Catholic faith, as in the case of the doctrine of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. Yet, the pope also acts infallibly when he defends against erroneous understandings of Catholic doctrines which are already formal dogma, that is, already matters of faith and morals. Pointing just to two material dogmas expounded upon and made formal dogmas (Assumption and Immaculate Conception), while not appreciating the countless formal dogmas defended by papal judgment is to only grasp part of the concept of papal infallibility, in my opinion.
Vatican II’s, Lumen Gentium 25*, *clarifies this by speaking of the charism of infallibility which the Roman Pontiff enjoys when he acts as supreme teacher of the universal Church and is “expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.”
So, when a pope defends a doctrine of faith that is already a formal dogma, by proclaiming a proposition to be erroneous or heretical for example, he is also acting with the charism of infallibility.
Furthermore, the pope can defend a dogma that has never been pronounced as *de fide definita, *but is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium. For example, *Providentissimus Deus, *while not an *ex cathedra *statement on the inerrancy of Scripture, is certainly a defense of the formal dogma of the inerrancy of Scripture, and as such, is an exercise of the charism of papal infallibility.
Thus, there have been countless occasions in the past 2000 years when the pope has definitively passed judgment on some matter of faith and morals. A “list” of these occasions is impractical as it would be too volumous. And since we are to submit to all Catholic doctrines, infallible or not, such a list has little value to practicing Catholics. It is more practical to have a compendium of all Catholic doctrines. This we have in the documents of ecumencial councils, papal encyclicals published in the *Acta Apostolica Sedis, *and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Nonetheless, if we want to know if a doctrine is infallible, just ask the Pope.
The charism of papal infallibility is not merely to be equated to those instances where the pope pronounces *ex cathedra *that a dogma is de fide definita.
The pope certainly acts infallibility on those occassions when he proclaims material dogma is to be assented to definitively as a formal dogma of the Catholic faith, as in the case of the doctrine of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. Yet, the pope also acts infallibly when he defends against erroneous understandings of Catholic doctrines which are already formal dogma, that is, already matters of faith and morals. Pointing just to two material dogmas expounded upon and made formal dogmas (Assumption and Immaculate Conception), while not appreciating the countless formal dogmas defended by papal judgment is to only grasp part of the concept of papal infallibility, in my opinion.
Vatican II’s, Lumen Gentium 25*, *clarifies this by speaking of the charism of infallibility which the Roman Pontiff enjoys when he acts as supreme teacher of the universal Church and is “expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.”
So, when a pope defends a doctrine of faith that is already a formal dogma, by proclaiming a proposition to be erroneous or heretical for example, he is also acting with the charism of infallibility.
Furthermore, the pope can defend a dogma that has never been pronounced as *de fide definita, *but is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium. For example, *Providentissimus Deus, *while not an *ex cathedra *statement on the inerrancy of Scripture, is certainly a defense of the formal dogma of the inerrancy of Scripture, and as such, is an exercise of the charism of papal infallibility.
Thus, there have been countless occasions in the past 2000 years when the pope has definitively passed judgment on some matter of faith and morals. A “list” of these occasions is impractical as it would be too volumous. And since we are to submit to all Catholic doctrines, infallible or not, such a list has little value to practicing Catholics. It is more practical to have a compendium of all Catholic doctrines. This we have in the documents of ecumencial councils, papal encyclicals published in the *Acta Apostolica Sedis, *and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
So, I can believe the Eucharist is symbolic and practice believer’s baptism and as long as I believe the two above I’m okay???
I’m confused…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
“Boats” are churches in the Bible and “Two”=the church and "large bodies of water = sea of damnable souls??!!???!!!
Either I’ve been drinking too much “punch” or you have.
Peace…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
See my post #27 above.So, I can believe the Eucharist is symbolic and practice believer’s baptism and as long as I believe the two above I’m okay???
I’m confused…
I you every want to free that Catholic trapped in a Southern Baptists/Universalist body, you have to assent to all doctrines of the Catholic Church.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
See my post #27 above.
I you every want to free that Catholic trapped in a Southern Baptists/Universalist body, you have to assent to all doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Hey buddy!!!
You know I couldn’t help posting that!!! It was the most comical thing I’ve seen all day. Then I read BibleReader’s comments about the boats and whatchamacallit’s and laughed even harder!
I know, I know. Whether or not in the back of your mind you’re thinking “Where in the world did they come up with this???” you still must believe. That’s incredible. I’ve have to shut my mind off and walk around in a daze to be able to do that!
Peace, my friend?
B
BibleReader
Guest
ahimsaman72 said:“Boats” are churches in the Bible and “Two”=the church and "large bodies of water = sea of damnable souls??!!???!!!
Either I’ve been drinking too much “punch” or you have.
Peace…
Any “boat” = “The Church.”
“Two” *also *= “The Church.”
And all large bodies of water = “sea of damnable souls.”
It works. Try it.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Heb 13:17 doesn’t ask you to shut off your mind. But the author of Hebrews clearly has a different ecclesiology than you do. He teaches that you are to accept the fact that someone else other than your own fallible mind is responsible for your soul, given that responsibility through sacred ordination, and that God binds you to obey the lawful pastors placed in the care of your soul.
Protestant ecclesiology suggests that if you want to be a pastor, ordination is bestowed through a college certificate, not sacred ordination derived from apostolic succession. Furthermore, in Protestantism, if you don’t agree with your “college-ordained” pastor, go find a new one that agrees with you. Thus, the never -ending “church shopping” and protesting of Protestantism.
Consequently, you will find little agreement among Southern Baptist pastors with your theories about hell. So you keep “church shopping” and protesting, never suspecting that it may actually be you that is wrong and the lawful pastors for the past 2000 years that have been correct.
The 15th century monk, Thomas Kempis, describes the problem of protestantism quite clearly in his book Imitation of Christ:
Protestantism has its source in disobedience to lawful prelates. It’s really the only thing all protestants have in common.
M
michaelp
Guest
ahimsaman72 said:“Boats” are churches in the Bible and “Two”=the church and "large bodies of water = sea of damnable souls??!!???!!!
Either I’ve been drinking too much “punch” or you have.
Peace…
I agree. What kind of interpretation is that. I really thought that it was a joke, but it seems that he (or she) was serious. WOW! I guess that you can make the Bible say anything you want if you use your imagination.
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
All the teachings on faith and morals are infallible.I think they are trying to quibble over the statements from the Chair of Peter.The teachings on faith and morals can be found in the catechism.Michael, if you have a cd or dvd burner you can go to the ewtn archives and record Father Corapi series on the catechism, I also suggest the spiritual warfare talks.God Bless
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Let’s pretend you are correct for a minute
.Now, if I understand you correctly, I am to hold *others *responsible for my soul-keeping (such as the priest, bishop and pope). So, in the end of time and judgement of my soul if there’s a problem with the way I lived my life I can tell God that Pope X said Y and Z and since he was in authority, I believed him. If that conflicted with God’s plans - I guess I can play dumb?
Seriously, that may not be what you are saying, but it seems to deny personal responsibility. The problem I see with that is that other religions can do the same thing. If I was born a Muslim (for example) the local Muslim cleric could say the same thing. “What I tell you is truth”. “As long as you believe what I say, you’ll be fine when you meet Allah”. That doesn’t wash with me.
Not every authority instituted is correct or by nature infallible. I’ve seen all the arguments for authority of the church given to Peter, etc. So, you don’t have to go there. Let’s bring this into the arena of politics (oh boy!).
President X is in authority. President X says men must have many wives. President X says this is the new law. As long as you follow this law, you are doing what your government says and are in good standing with him and his government.
Now, wait a minute - you wouldn’t go for that - would you? Even though he is the president you wouldn’t agree to that. It goes against your *conscience *and your religious beliefs. So, what to do? Obey the law of the land or obey the law of your conscience?
I say - go with the conscience.
Peace…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Dave,
The following proposition is condemned as an error. In other words, anyone who believes what I am about to quote is in error.
Syllabus of Errors #15. “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true”. – CONDEMNED STATEMENT ( Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.)
Do you believe each person is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true? Do you believe that? A person who believes such a thing is condemned by the Catholic Church.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but I am curious whether or not you believe each person is free to believe and profess whatever religion they choose; or if you believe people are not free to believe and profess any religion they choose.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Also see this thread for various listings of ex cathedra papal proclamations.
M
michaelp
Guest
Thanks Lisa,
So, the catechism is infallible?
Last time I asked this the answer was no. Now it is yes.
I do have the Catechism. I also have all the books that everyone has recommended to me. I have been reading them much.
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
The teachings on faith and morals are found in the catechism.Those teachings are infallible,that is what is protected against error.If the Church or the Pope says that they don’t like burger king that would not be a faith and morals issue. Stiil go to ewtn archives and listen to Father Corapi on the Catechism and spiritual warfare.I would be surprised if you could find a problem with any of the teachings.God Bless
PS are you enjoying the books?
- Status