Infallible Papal Statements

[bear06]

Uracan:

So you simply obey your pastor, your bishop, your pope? Would you still obey your superiors if they did something clearly illegal or immoral? Blind obedience has gotten Catholics in more hot water than anything else

The blind obedience argument surfaces again. I don’t think the Church has ever bound us to blind obedience. If we KNOW it to be a sin we should not follow. That said, people tend to use this argument a little too loosely sometimes. I’d also object to blind obedience getting more people into hot water than anything else. I think this is an overstatement. First of all, I think most would not follow a priest whom they KNEW to be telling them to sin. I think the entire Catholic community would do itself a big favor by reading Pastor Aeternus: ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Ummm . . . all assertations? You have alot of energy! You seem really mad at me.

I still think that you need to get a dictionary and look up your definitions .

Thanks for the encouragment!

Michael

Look at my post. Look at your response. Your response is a good example of how you have sidestepped many of our questions, requests, and responses to what you have been attempting to say.

In my opinion, I believe you are here to teach us and that teaching us does not include discussion. Discussion is considering the pros and cons (Webster’s) of what more than one person is saying.

You have not demonstrated an understanding of this. Your posts consistently sidestep the point of what people are saying and reiterate what you want to say without providing support for your assertions. This kind of tautological approach tends to shut down discussion rather than further it.

As for using a dictionary, I have already demonstrated that I have done this. You, however, declining to respond, have chosen to once again reiterate your point of view which is that I am need of a dictionary.

Some of your posts on this thread particularly, in my opinion, have crossed some boundaries of good taste. Many of your posts, in my opinion, have not been offered in good faith. I am calling you on it in the hope that you will take seriously some of the feedback you have been receiving and choose a more benign and responsive manner of participating in genuine discussion.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bear06:

I think the entire Catholic community would do itself a big favor by reading Pastor Aeternus: ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

Hi bear06. Thanks for the link. I added it to my Favourites list of links and will read it over time. I have started reading it already. It is interesting.

 

[michaelp]

Ani Ibi:

Hi bear06. Thanks for the link. I added it to my Favourites list of links and will read it over time. I have started reading it already. It is interesting.

Listen Ani,

I am very sorry that you are soo upset with me. But I looked back on the posts that you have made and have not seen anything but baseless accusations, ad homs, and post devoid of any substance. You only entered a few posts ago and your first post was an attack.

You have come in late, begun to accuse and attack me, when ALL of the others with whom I have been conversing know me and have not seen in me the intentions that you have seen. Much less do they attack me without even entering into the argument.

Respectfully, we were really having a good discussion until your attacks. I felt as if I might be coming across ungraciously and said that I was going to pull out for a while, then in you come with the attacks. Good timing!

I suggests one of two things for you:

1. Take a chill pill.
2. Report me to the ad mins.

I don’t want to come across as rude, but you have just been chasing me and attacking me with no discussion whatsoever. If all you have to offer is accusations of logical fallacies that I have committed, then please, save it for someone else and look up your definitions in a dictionary.

In short, you have not been contributing to the purpose of this thread the way that was intended. Please calm down.

If you have a question to ask me that pertains to the subject of this thread, please do so. If I say that I don’t want to go down that rabbit trail because I have already posted 100+ posts on that subject, please understand. If you want to start another thread on the subject, please do so. Maybe I will stop by. If Newby wants this thread to turn into an area of baseless attack, fine–but I doubt that was his intentions.

If you just hate me, fine, but you really don’t know me. Talk to Dennis, Pete, Lisa, Militant, or one of the others. They will vouge for my character, even if we don’t agree on many matters.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Listen Ani,

I am very sorry that you are soo upset with me. But I looked back on the posts that you have made and have not seen anything but baseless accusations, ad homs, and post devoid of any substance. You only entered a few posts ago and your first post was an attack.

You have come in late, begun to accuse and attack me, when ALL of the others with whom I have been conversing know me and have not seen in me the intentions that you have seen. Much less do they attack me without even entering into the argument.

Respectfully, we were really having a good discussion until your attacks. I felt as if I might be coming across ungraciously and said that I was going to pull out for a while, then in you come with the attacks. Good timing!

I suggests one of two things for you:

1. Take a chill pill.
2. Report me to the ad mins.

I don’t want to come across as rude, but you have just been chasing me and attacking me with no discussion whatsoever. If all you have to offer is accusations of logical fallacies that I have committed, then please, save it for someone else and look up your definitions in a dictionary.

In short, you have not been contributing to the purpose of this thread the way that was intended. Please calm down.

If you have a question to ask me that pertains to the subject of this thread, please do so. If I say that I don’t want to go down that rabbit trail because I have already posted 100+ posts on that subject, please understand. If you want to start another thread on the subject, please do so. Maybe I will stop by. If Newby wants this thread to turn into an area of baseless attack, fine–but I doubt that was his intentions.

If you just hate me, fine, but you really don’t know me. Talk to Dennis, Pete, Lisa, Militant, or one of the others. They will vouge for my character, even if we don’t agree on many matters.

Michael

I can vouge for Michael. He is a great person to dialog with and have enjoyed many a dialog with him.

He makes debate interesting and is does not shy away from making it fun with a little humor. If he does not want to rehash old debates I totally understand.

I can also understand the desire to have someone respond to your posts. I think this is an issue of bad timing.

Peace

 

[bear06]

ahimsaman72:

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…

Several saints have spoken on this issue. What it comes down to is that if you KNOW it’s a sin (not just think) than you should not follow. If you are not sure than you should follow the Pope and if he is wrong then the sin is his.

So then you’ve got to take out el presidente and insert Pope. Where has the Pope tried to bind us to sin? Where do you know the Pope is telling us to sin? Where is he sinning himself. Nobody ever seems to answer these questions and then the thread usually dies. I like to call these little questions thread killers.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Listen Ani,

I am very sorry that you are soo upset with me. But I looked back on the posts that you have made and have not seen anything but baseless accusations, ad homs, and post devoid of any substance. You only entered a few posts ago and your first post was an attack.

You have come in late, begun to accuse and attack me, when ALL of the others with whom I have been conversing know me and have not seen in me the intentions that you have seen. Much less do they attack me without even entering into the argument.

Respectfully, we were really having a good discussion until your attacks. I felt as if I might be coming across ungraciously and said that I was going to pull out for a while, then in you come with the attacks. Good timing!

I suggests one of two things for you:

1. Take a chill pill.
2. Report me to the ad mins.

I don’t want to come across as rude, but you have just been chasing me and attacking me with no discussion whatsoever. If all you have to offer is accusations of logical fallacies that I have committed, then please, save it for someone else and look up your definitions in a dictionary.

In short, you have not been contributing to the purpose of this thread the way that was intended. Please calm down.

If you have a question to ask me that pertains to the subject of this thread, please do so. If I say that I don’t want to go down that rabbit trail because I have already posted 100+ posts on that subject, please understand. If you want to start another thread on the subject, please do so. Maybe I will stop by. If Newby wants this thread to turn into an area of baseless attack, fine–but I doubt that was his intentions.

If you just hate me, fine, but you really don’t know me. Talk to Dennis, Pete, Lisa, Militant, or one of the others. They will vouge for my character, even if we don’t agree on many matters.

Michael

Give it a rest. Rather than apologizing for your behaviour you are escalating. Cool off.

 

[Thomas_Love]

Matt16_18:

The confusion of this thread is caused by the fact that many Catholics do not understand how the church receives her infallible teachings.

A papal ex cathedra teaching is an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium of the Church. All dogmas defined by papal ex cathedra statements are infallible teachings.

The dogmas defined by papal ex cathedra statements, and the dogmas solemnly defined at valid Ecumenical Councils are the two ways that the Church receives infallible teaching through the extraordinary exercise of the teaching office of the Church.

The vast majority of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church has NOT been received through extraordinary exercises of the magisterium, but through the teachings that have been received through the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. For example, the teaching that abortion is gravely sinful in every circumstance is an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium. Most of the infallible moral teaching of the Catholic Church has been received through the ordinary universal magisterium.MAGESTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magesterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

MAGESTERIUM, ORDINARY The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magesterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S. J.

Yes that is true but the Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium (“ordinary magisterium”) and confine our attention to ecumenical councils and the pope.

So for practical purposes nowadays we shouldnt regard any current exercise of the ordinary magisterium as giving rise to an infallible teaching.

 

[Matt16_18]

Thomas Love:

So for practical purposes nowadays we shouldnt regard any current exercise of the ordinary magisterium as giving rise to an infallible teaching.

The pope exercised the ordinary papal magisterium when he wrote Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which affirms that the Sacrament of Ordination is reserved for males only. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, makes it quite clear that he believes that this is an infallible teaching that has been received through the ordinary universal magisterium:

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).

Responsum ad Dubium
October 28, 1995
Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

---

It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter . … In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

Letter, October 28, 1995

Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[NilNisiTeDomine]

Hey all and God bless!

I don’t know if this has already been answered or needs to be, but I figured my two cents might be interesting to read:

I am told by a man who did his doctoral thesis on the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) that the Syllabus was an addendum to the Encyclical Quanta Cura without the Pope’s express signature, and thus was not infallible.

God bless.

In Christ,
Nil