Papal Bull

[Mickey]

According to Latin Catholic understanding:

When a Pope releases a Papal Bull, are the contents of the Papal Bull considered to be infallible teaching of the Pope of Rome?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

According to Latin Catholic understanding:

When a Pope releases a Papal Bull, are the contents of the Papal Bull considered to be infallible teaching of the Pope of Rome?

The designation “Latin Catholic” isn’t really needed, in this case the answer is the same accross East, West, North, and South.

NO, a papal bull is not considered to be an infallible teaching of the Pope of Rome.

You didn’t know that when you were Catholic?

 

[ralphinal]

It is my understanding that any time the pope is speaking ex cathedra, the language will include some indication to that effect. I’ve seen it said outright as well as said that it has always been the teaching, thus making it clear that it is a part of the Sacred Tradition.

The New Advent site has information about what a bull is.

From this New Advent article on Papal Infallibilty.

It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You didn’t know that when you were Catholic?

I didnt know that when i was catholic.

i dont think the average catholic has any idea when something classifies as “ex cathedra”.

 

[ralphinal]

I didnt know that when i was catholic.

i dont think the average catholic has any idea when something classifies as “ex cathedra”.

Dude,
I don’t think the average Catholic knows that they are Catholic half the time.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Dude,
I don’t think the average Catholic knows that they are Catholic half the time.

Very true. Verrry true.

 

[THutch04]

But there have been Papal Bulls that while they weren’t actually declared as being ex cathedra still retain the characteristics of it (I really wish I could remember what exactly Cardinal Ratzinger’s language was when he made that statement regarding certain Bulls). And because of that they’re still expected to be believed by all Catholics.

 

[AgnosTheist]

“Bull” has a very negative meaning nowadays. “Papal Bull” ehehehe.

 

[ralphinal]

“Bull” has a very negative meaning nowadays. “Papal Bull” ehehehe.

I always thought the same thing. We need a new name for it, or we should use the Latin.

Lots of groups have “bulls” too.

 

[Mickey]

The designation “Latin Catholic” isn’t really needed

Ecscuuuuuse me!

You didn’t know that when you were Catholic?

Man, it would be nice to see one post from you that is not colored with arrogance.

The reason I asked the question is because as a one time “Latin” (and then Eastern) Catholic, I was given contradictory responses.

Is that okay with you, sir?

 

[Mickey]

It is my understanding that any time the pope is speaking ex cathedra, the language will include some indication to that effect. I’ve seen it said outright as well as said that it has always been the teaching, thus making it clear that it is a part of the Sacred Tradition.

The New Advent site has information about what a bull is.

From this New Advent article on Papal Infallibilty.

Yes, my friend. Hence, the confusion.

 

[Mickey]

But there have been Papal Bulls that while they weren’t actually declared as being ex cathedra still retain the characteristics of it (I really wish I could remember what exactly Cardinal Ratzinger’s language was when he made that statement regarding certain Bulls). And because of that they’re still expected to be believed by all Catholics.

Now I am confused again. :whacky:

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, my friend. Hence, the confusion.

I know. That is why I put both sites on there. A bull may contain an infallible statement, but if it does, that statement is indicated as such.

 

[Mickey]

I know. That is why I put both sites on there. A bull may contain an infallible statement, but if it does, that statement is indicated as such.

So the bull will actually say something to the effect : “What you are about to read next is an infallible statement”.

I am not joking here–I am serious.

 

[THutch04]

Now I am confused again. :whacky:

lol as am I :whacky:

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Ecscuuuuuse me!
Man, it would be nice to see one post from you that is not colored with arrogance.

The reason I asked the question is because as a one time “Latin” (and then Eastern) Catholic, I was given contradictory responses.

Is that okay with you, sir?

Ditto Mickey, ditto.

Having been given contradictory responses, what did you do to get down to the bottom of things and get official magisterial approved teachings?

You have 7003+ posts on CAF and have been a Catholic and you are just now asking if all papal bulls are infailable? If you are genuine, one has to wonder how well you know the contradistinctive creeds of your vision of Orthodoxy… (A good number of what you tout as official are actually unsettled questions, certain anti-Roman propositions representing only one party in an unsettled debate that has never been resolved officially in council…)

On the other hand, if it is a ploy to make a barb or your part, your call of me being arrogant is really the pot calling the kettle tethlon coated on this one.

So before calling anyone arrogant, expect it to be the case that in your labors here of telling us how we are in error so much of the time, someone (even if it just little old me) is going to come along and say “You are convinced of our error but you don’t understand this? Even though you were Catholic?”

That is legit - trying to put it back on me with sarcasm (“Ecscuuuuuse me!”) or invectivces (“it would be nice to see one post from you that is not colored with arrogance”) simply isn’t.

If you don’t know not all papal bulls are inallable, maybe you need to take some time off of your arguments against what the Catholic Church teaches, here on CAF, to make sure you understand what we are actually supposed to be wrong about?

 

[ralphinal]

So the bull will actually say something to the effect : “What you are about to read next is an infallible statement”.

I am not joking here–I am serious.

Well, not in those exact words. You are talking about philosophers and theologins here.

Some of the Language may be that it has been the constant teaching of the universal church or that this statement is binding on all of the universal church.

this is from Munificentissimus Deus, which defined the Assumption of Mary

1. We confidently hope that Mary will not refuse or leave unfilled Our entreaties and the unanimous prayers of all Catholics–she whom We, with divine approval, decreed and proclaimed, in the Holy Year of 1950, to have been taken up, body and soul, into the abode of blessedness in heaven;[16] she whom We solemnly declared and ordained to be properly venerated by all mankind as the Queen of Heaven;[17] she, finally, whose maternal graces We invited a multitude to enjoy on the centenary of her appearances, as a gracious giver of gifts, in the grotto of Lourdes to an innocent girl.[18]

But look at the letter for the Immaculate Conception. Much longer proclomation, but it states it none the less.

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

Does this help?

 

[Mickey]

Ditto Mickey, ditto

You just cannot help yourself–how sad.

Having been given contradictory responses, what did you do to get down to the bottom of things and get official magisterial approved teachings?

My best research revealed circular response and vague innuendos–so I posed the questin here–and now I get arrogance from you.

You have 7003+ posts on CAF and have been a Catholic and you are just now asking if all papal bulls are infailable?

Yes. I cannot get direct answers–ever!

If you are genuine, one has to wonder how well you know the contradistinctive creeds of your vision of Orthodoxy.

Ooh, more insults. How surprising.

(A good number of what you tout as official are actually unsettled questions, certain anti-Roman propositions representing only one party in an unsettled debate that has never been resolved officially in council…)

Huh?

(On the other hand, if it is a ploy to make a barb or your part, your call of me being arrogant is really the pot calling the kettle tethlon coated on this one

It was an honest question, tough guy. Don’t try to be a mind reader–kay? What is tethlon?

So before calling anyone arrogant, expect it to be the case that in your labors here of telling us how we are in error so much of the time, someone (even if it just little old me) is going to come along and say “You are convinced of our error but you don’t understand this? Even though you were Catholic?”

See above.

That is legit - trying to put it back on me with sarcasm (“Ecscuuuuuse me!”) or invectivces (“it would be nice to see one post from you that is not colored with arrogance”) simply isn’t

If you do not like my questions Mr Swami, then do not respond. I would much rather get honest responses from my Catholic friends here rather than your vindictive diatribe.

If you don’t know not all papal bulls are inallable, maybe you need to take some time off of your arguments against what the Catholic Church teaches, here on CAF, to make sure you understand what we are actually supposed to be wrong about?

Now I am really confused. First you said that Papal bulls are not infallible. Now you say that they are infallible. You see my dilemma?

 

[Mickey]

Does this help?

Yeah, sort of. But I still cannot discern whether every bull is automatically infallible, or only certain aspects of it.

Thank you for your charitable responses raphinal.

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, sort of. But I still cannot discern whether every bull is automatically infallible, or only certain aspects of it.

Thank you for your charitable responses raphinal.

You are very welcome. I have not ventured much into the RC/EO argument because the venom is too harsh. I like talking to Muslims. THe Protestants are in the middle. The topic interests me, though.

Let me try to articulate my understanding.

Every bull has weight, as they are written by Popes. This should be acceptable to EO, as the writings of Patriarchs have special wieght as well.

Not all of the information is considered dogmatic. This is really the question: what is binding on the faithful. It must be declaired as such.

Now, we hold the Pope as being unable to teach incorrectly in matters of faith and morals. When the subject of a bull turns to these matters, the information can be taken as correct. That said, some of the information in them may be historical or matters of discipline not doctrine. For example, the letter on the Immaculate Conception. IF the dates or quotes are wrong, it does not matter. The infallible part was the definition, and it was indicated as being such.

Any better?