List of Infallable papal proclamations

[Mickey]

“Major” doctrines are call “dogmas” and are (from the Catholic Encyclopedia)General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the ApostlesI believe Ludwig Ott defines several layers doctrine, all requiring obedience but with varying levels of intellectual ascent required.

It is on the basis of the need for obedience that I stated before that whether something is infallibly declared or not, if we disobey, we sin, and put our soul at risk.

In other words–you do not really know what is an infallibly declared doctrine or dogma.

That is the problem with the innovation of papal infallibility.

 

[davidv]

In other words–you do not really know what is an infallibly declared doctrine or dogma.

That is the problem with the innovation of papal infallibility.

Why would you put words in my mouth that I did not say?

 

[Mickey]

Why would you put words in my mouth that I did not say?

I did not mean to do that. Perhaps you could clarify.

You said:

"It is on the basis of the need for obedience that I stated before that whether something is infallibly declared or not, if we disobey, we sin, and put our soul at risk."

Are you saying that whether it is infallible or not, (which tells me you are not sure), you must practice total submission to the declarations of the Pope of Rome. What is “the need for obedience”?

 

[davidv]

I did not mean to do that. Perhaps you could clarify.

You said:

"It is on the basis of the need for obedience that I stated before that whether something is infallibly declared or not, if we disobey, we sin, and put our soul at risk."

Are you saying that whether it is infallible or not, (which tells me you are not sure), you must practice total submission to the declarations of the Pope of Rome.

I am not sure what you mean by “total submission”. If you you mean humble obedience, then yes, that’s what i said. I believe the Church is the one founded by Christ, therefore I must submit my will to her in the same way as if Jesus was standing in front of me saying the same thing.

What is “the need for obedience”?

I “need” to be sinless to enter heaven, therefore I must obey God’s commands received through His Church.

 

[Mickey]

I am not sure what you mean by “total submission”.

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

LUMEN GENTIUM
~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

 

[expectthebest]

In Acts 15:28, we read:

It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’"

This first Council of Jerusalem defined nothing new doctrinally that pertains to Divine Revelation, yet we see the action of the apostles proclaiming that their decision was arrived at with the help of the Holy Spirit, and it was therefore assented to.

We are taught also from the Vatican Council II document below that religious assent is not an option, but for any who call themselves Catholic, it is a matter of faith to believe God is speaking.

So, the Faithful must believe that the 68th Cannon of the Fourth Laterin Councel was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus assent must be given to this teaching?

 

[Joysong]

So, the Faithful must believe that the 68th Cannon of the Fourth Laterin Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus assent must be given to this teaching?

Enlighten me, please.

Otherwise, I would suggest that

• any ecumenical council lawfully convened by the pope,
• and attended by the college of bishops,
• who deliberate the subject matter for which the council was convened,

is to be given religious assent by the faithful.

Keep in mind that church teachings from these councils may be guided by the Holy Spirit into deeper aspects of truth. I have seen people etch into stone, wrongly, a previous proclamation given by a pope for a certain condition at a certain period in time, and believe it is still in force. After the time and subject matter for the conditional proclamation has passed, it may be abrogated and given more enlightened teachings of later councils.

Do you have any objections to this?

 

[clmowry]

So, the Faithful must believe that the 68th Cannon of the Fourth Laterin Councel was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus assent must be given to this teaching?

Yes and I’m sure it’s on the hearts and minds of all those 13th century Catholic Monarch’s to whom it would mean anything.

Chuck

 

[expectthebest]

Enlighten me, please.

As regards the Canons presented to the Council, it approved them with little discussion or variation. They included:

Canon 1. Exposition of the faith and of the dogma of the Trinity, affirmation of the principle Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, that there is no salvation outside the Church. Mention of transubstantiation is taken as affirming that interpretation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Canon 2. Condemnation of Joachim of Fiore and Amalric of Bennes for heresy; vindication of Peter Lombard on the doctrine of the Trinity.
Canons 3-4. Procedure and penalties against heretics and their protectors, including the provision that “Catholics who have taken the cross to exterminate heretics shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who fight for the Holy Land”
Canon 5. Proclamation of the papal primacy. After the pope, primacy is attributed to the patriarchal sees in the following order:
Constantinople (at this time there was a Latin Patriarch, following the Fourth Crusade)
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem
Canon 9. Provision for the celebration of divine offices according to varying rites and in multiple languages
Canon 13. Founding of new religious orders forbidden
Canons 14-18. Rules on the conduct of the clergy including against irregularities such as:
incontinence or non-celibate living
drunkenness and frequenting taverns
hunting
attendance at farces and histrionic exhibitions
performing of surgical operations and thus shedding blood
conducting trials by ordeal or combat
Canon 21, the Omnis utriusque sexus (also called the Easter Duty), mandated universal confession for every Christian at least once a year. All members also had to partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist at Easter. Before Eucharist was taken, all members must confess to their priest. Prior to the enactment of canon 21, there were no regulations or mandates on confession and Eucharist. Failure to observe this canon resulted in being barred from entering a church during a person’s lifetime and the denial of a Christian burial at death. Canon 21 invested a broad social power among individual priests and increased their control over the individual conscience. If an individual has wronged another person, they are required to confess that sin directly to the priest.
Canon 51. Clandestine marriages forbidden
**Canon 68. Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians (see Judenhut, yellow badge). The latter are not to go outdoors during four days of Easter week. Jews are not to be given public offices. **
The Council confirmed the elevation of Frederick II to the position of Holy Roman Emperor. Pierre-Bermond of Sauve’s claim to Toulouse was rejected. The county of Toulouse was adjudged to Simon de Montfort; the lordship of Melgueil was separated from Toulouse and entrusted to the bishops of Maguelonne. The county of Provence, a possession of Raymond VI, was confiscated and kept in trust to be restored to his son if he proved worthy of it; the county of Foix was eventually to be restored to Raymond-Roger. In the event, Raymond VII pre-empted the decision concerning Provence by reconquering the county for himself.

Yes, at this time in my learning, I do have a problem with this. This seems like a very easy way for the Church to say whatever it wants, and that it was guided by the Holdy Spirit, when we don’t really know if it was guided. I was of the understanding that we could only be sure that infallible proclamations were guided by the Holy Spririt in totallity. If any Cannon whatsoever must be considered as truth which we must follow without discussion, what is the reason for infallible statements at all?

This is the problem; if the Church expects everyone to believe everything it says, and the Church can change it’s mind on things, how can the Faithful really be held responsable for teachings that are quite obviously not always without error. The anitsemitism apparent in the Cannon I bolded above was quite clearly wrong and I would think the Church would be against any such teacing today. To say it was enlightenment into deeper aspects of the truth which we didn’t fully understand in the past, or was appropriate for the time but not for now is an excuse the Church could use for any erroneous teaching it has made in the past. One would also have to say that the Holy Spririt was resonsable for guiding the Church in an erroneous teaching, or at least a teaching that fell short of the whole truth. I don’t think it is possible for the Holy Spirit to be in any error. Therefore, there is a trust issue for anything which has not been made infallible. If the Church is so sure of something, make it infallible. Mabe the reason certain teachings are not made infallible is because God has not allowed an erroneous teaching to be taken to that level.

 

[clmowry]

**Canon 68. Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians (see Judenhut, yellow badge). The latter are not to go outdoors during four days of Easter week. Jews are not to be given public offices. **

1. **Jews appearing in public **A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress – seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

 

[expectthebest]

Yes and I’m sure it’s on the hearts and minds of all those 13th century Catholic Monarch’s to whom it would mean anything.

Chuck

Not sure what you mean???

 

[Joysong]

Expectthebest:

Yes, at this time in my learning, I do have a problem with this. This seems like a very easy way for the Church to say whatever it wants, and that it was guided by the Holy Spirit, when we don’t really know if it was guided.

Then your faith in Jesus Christ who made the promise to Peter is very much in need of, “Lord, help my unbelief!” None of us can help you with that, I’m afraid, because words don’t cut it. Explanations won’t assure you. Faith is a gift.

I was of the understanding that we could only be sure that infallible proclamations were guided by the Holy Spririt in totallity. If any Canon whatsoever must be considered as truth which we must follow without discussion, what is the reason for infallible statements at all?

These ‘ex cathedra’ infallible statements have to do with Divine Revelation and the source is God Himself, who requires us to believe them, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

It is probably hard for you to fathom how the Magisterium can be gathered in unison, deliberate an important issue about faith or morals for the entire church whom they shepherd, invoke the Divine assistance of the Spirit, and be left unaided. Believing Catholics assent to the Magisterium’s teachings, as a matter of trust in God’s Divine guidance. Jesus did promise He would be with two or more gathered in HIS NAME. Either He was an inveterate liar, or His promise was entirely true. And when there is an entire Body consisting of many bishops deliberating together with the pope, which is more than just ‘two’, then I would suggest, you either believe or you don’t.

God bless you.

 

[expectthebest]

clmowry:
I’m not sure what you mean by posting a more detailed statement of the 68th Cannon. It basically says the same thing as the summation I presented.

 

[clmowry]

Not sure what you mean???

We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

It is “secular princes” that are expected to enforce this constitution. It has no other means of enforcement.

Chuck

 

[expectthebest]

Then your faith in Jesus Christ who made the promise to Peter is very much in need of, “Lord, help my unbelief!” None of us can help you with that, I’m afraid, because words don’t cut it. Explanations won’t assure you. Faith is a gift.

These ‘ex cathedra’ infallible statements have to do with Divine Revelation and the source is God Himself, who requires us to believe them, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

It is probably hard for you to fathom how the Magisterium can be gathered in unison, deliberate an important issue about faith or morals for the entire church whom they shepherd, invoke the Divine assistance of the Spirit, and be left unaided. Believing Catholics assent to the Magisterium’s teachings, as a matter of trust in God’s Divine guidance. Jesus did promise He would be with two or more gathered in HIS NAME. Either He was an inveterate liar, or His promise was entirely true. And when there is an entire Body consisting of many bishops deliberating together with the pope, which is more than just ‘two’, then I would suggest, you either believe or you don’t.

God bless you.

So, everything the Church says is to be believed, end of story, even though it can be by it’s own definition be in error. Would the Holdy Spirit guide anything that was in error? Certainly the Church has made errors in the past on issues that are not infallible. This is the excuse I hear every time someone says the Church got something wrong; that it’s possile for the Church to be wrong on anything that’s not infallible.

These ‘ex cathedra’ infallible statements have to do with Divine Revelation and the source is God Himself, who requires us to believe them, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

It is probably hard for you to fathom how the Magisterium can be gathered in unison, deliberate an important issue about faith or morals for the entire church whom they shepherd, invoke the Divine assistance of the Spirit, and be left unaided. Believing Catholics assent to the Magisterium’s teachings, as a matter of trust in God’s Divine guidance. Jesus did promise He would be with two or more gathered in HIS NAME. Either He was an inveterate liar, or His promise was entirely true. And when there is an entire Body consisting of many bishops deliberating together with the pope, which is more than just ‘two’, then I would suggest, you either believe or you don’t.

This is the same thing that any protestant denomination would argue for their point of view. They meet in groups of more than one and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t make the teaching true. It seems to me that if what you are saying is correct, that the Faithful are required to believe everything the Church says. If it ends up being wrong, we still would have sinned mortally for not believing it. Can you imagine going to hell for not believing a teaching that was an erroneous teaching in the first place?

Isn’t all of the Faith from devine revelation?

 

[expectthebest]

It is “secular princes” that are expected to enforce this constitution. It has no other means of enforcement.

Chuck

Sorry. I still don’t see what your point is. Secular inforcement of the Cannon is a different issue than the spritual necessity to assent to the Cannon. Can you explain further? Thanks!!

 

[Joysong]

So, everything the Church says is to be believed, end of story, even though it can be by it’s own definition be in error.

Where did you come up with this assumption?

This is the same thing that any protestant denomination would argue for their point of view. They meet in groups of more than one and ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t make the teaching true.

Protestant denominations do not have the promise of infallibility, so this is an inept assertion to put them on the same level as the One True Church.

Certainly the Church has made errors in the past on issues that are not infallible.

Errors? I’m not sure what you are referring to. However, the Church does not err in the matter of a lawfully convened council where the Magisterium convokes to define a solemn teaching with respect to the faith or morals of the faithful.

 

[clmowry]

Sorry. I still don’t see what your point is. Secular inforcement of the Cannon is a different issue than the spritual necessity to assent to the Cannon. Can you explain further? Thanks!!

The Cannon is addressed to “secular princes”.

i.e. The Catholic Church cannot order Jews to do anything, spiritual or otherwise.

The only “spiritual” issues addressed by the cannon “seem” to be about Christians blaming likeness in clothing as an excuse as to why they couldn’t avoid inter-faith unions (yeah right, I by that one) and whether or not Jews should be allowed to mock Christians during their liturgical celebrations (I’m thinking no.)

Both of these items seem rather “trivial: to me, but apparently it was enough of a problem to at least one bishop that it was addressed by the council.

Chuck

 

[Joysong]

Expectthebest,

Your profile says you are Catholic, and I don’t know your background, but it seems highly unusual to be debating this issue with one of our own, so to speak, rather than with someone outside the church who is invincibly ignorant of this charism.

I offer the CCC’s teachings, in part, to help you reflect on what we say we believe. If this still bothers you, as I said before, you have a personal issue with faith, and probably should make an appointment with your pastor.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

It seems futile to hold a discussion about a matter that does not concern any of us such as the canon you cited from antiquity. Are you trying to convince any of us, or yourself? Our ability to help you is rather limited to proposing what Catholics believe.

 

[expectthebest]

Expectthebest,

Your profile says you are Catholic, and I don’t know your background, but it seems highly unusual to be debating this issue with one of our own, so to speak, rather than with someone outside the church who is invincibly ignorant of this charism.

I offer the CCC’s teachings, in part, to help you reflect on what we say we believe. If this still bothers you, as I said before, you have a personal issue with faith, and probably should make an appointment with your pastor.

It seems futile to hold a discussion about a matter that does not concern any of us such as the canon you cited from antiquity. Are you trying to convince any of us, or yourself? Our ability to help you is rather limited to proposing what Catholics believe.

Let me try an explain where I am coming from:

The original post started as a question on what was infallible. I posed the question of why Catholics must assent to a teaching which is not infallible, something the Church cannot say is 100% true.

Growing up, I always just believed whatever I was told, even if it didn’t make sense. Now that I am actually researching and trying to understand the “whys” in my Faith, things are becoming very blurry. When I get into these kinds of questions, Catholics, such as yourself, will tell me it’s because that’s the way it is, it’s because the Church says so, it’s not for you to question. Ok, if that’s the teaching, then I understand that.

So, as I’ve made the point in many discussions, if we are just to believe everything we are told, what is the point to researching or studying the Faith? Especially when such research and study often makes things less clear than they were before. It seems to me that it would be best to simply not ask why and just submit to every whim of the Church. After all, it can’t be wrong. It’s kind of like when my kids ask why and I say because I said so. In the end, we are slaves to whatever the Church tells us. Bottom line. No discussion. Right?

It seems futile to hold a discussion about a matter that does not concern any of us such as the canon you cited from antiquity. Are you trying to convince any of us, or yourself? Our ability to help you is rather limited to proposing what Catholics believe./

Why in the world would you say that? I would think that every Cannon is important, especially if it was antisemetic, something the Church has been accused of throughout history. I’m sure the Holy Spririt didn’t guide the Church to be antisemetic.

Your profile says you are Catholic, and I don’t know your background, but it seems highly unusual to be debating this issue with one of our own, so to speak, rather than with someone outside the church who is invincibly ignorant of this charism.

This is a forum for “Catholic” discussions or am I mistaken? Or, is this a forum for Catholics to discuss issues with protestants and not other Catholics? I didn’t know that it was highly unusual to debate Catholic theology with other Catholics on a Catholic forum.

Yes, I am a Catholic trying to make sense out of my Faith. I’m not trying to convince anyone. I’m looking for answers to tough questions. If you belive my questions are “futile” or “highly unusual” to the point it is bothering you, please tap out of the discussion. I am looking for help in getting answers. That’s why I’m here. I’m trying to solidify what I have learned with the actual teaching (there are many Catholics, even on this board, that will tell you different things) and am trying to understand why something is taught to a deeper level than “because the Church says so”.