Papal Bull

[Fuerza]

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.

Hi Mickey,

A papal bull in and of itself is not infallible. It may contain an infallible statement or it may not. If it contains an infallible statement, it will be indicated in the text. Also, just because an infallible statement is issued does not mean that the entire document in which it is written is infallible. As mentioned, the infallible portion of the document defining the Assumption is confined to a few sentences. If later (or earlier) in that same document the Pope had said that 2+2=6 or that the Boston Red Sox have a right to exist, those statements would not be considered infallible (and the latter would certainly border on heresy).

My personal goal from this point on is to see how many times I can write “infallible” in the same post.

 

[ralphinal]

Hi Mickey,

A papal bull in and of itself is not infallible. It may contain an infallible statement or it may not. If it contains an infallible statement, it will be indicated in the text. Also, just because an infallible statement is issued does not mean that the entire document in which it is written is infallible. As mentioned, the infallible portion of the document defining the Assumption is confined to a few sentences. If later (or earlier) in that same document the Pope had said that 2+2=6 or that the Boston Red Sox have a right to exist, those statements would not be considered infallible (and the latter would certainly border on heresy).

My personal goal from this point on is to see how many times I can write “infallible” in the same post.

From a position of fallibilty, I can proclaim infallibly that I will not be infallible in my next statement, however infallibly stated that I might make it. I declair, with all power of infallibility given to those who live, without a doubt, in Alabama, that anything that is frozen 3 or more months out of the year should not be inhabited by man. Therefor, the Bosten Red Sox have little ground to stand on, and with this statement I speak infallibly. From the standpoint of an infallible doctrine, one can say that the infllible nature of it is in and of itself infallible though it may only be infallible in the sense that something was fallible to begin with.

I am Ralph and I approve this message.

 

[Mickey]

Hi Mickey,

A papal bull in and of itself is not infallible. It may contain an infallible statement or it may not. If it contains an infallible statement, it will be indicated in the text. Also, just because an infallible statement is issued does not mean that the entire document in which it is written is infallible. As mentioned, the infallible portion of the document defining the Assumption is confined to a few sentences. If later (or earlier) in that same document the Pope had said that 2+2=6 or that the Boston Red Sox have a right to exist, those statements would not be considered infallible (and the latter would certainly border on heresy).

So this statement qualifies the infallibility?
"We, with divine approval, decreed and proclaimed…"

Thank you for your charitable response. I truly did not know this.

My personal goal from this point on is to see how many times I can write “infallible” in the same post.

Just be careful with your spelling. It’s a tricky word.

 

[Mickey]

From a position of fallibilty, I can proclaim infallibly that I will not be infallible in my next statement, however infallibly stated that I might make it. I declair, with all power of infallibility given to those who live, without a doubt, in Alabama, that anything that is frozen 3 or more months out of the year should not be inhabited by man. Therefor, the Bosten Red Sox have little ground to stand on, and with this statement I speak infallibly. From the standpoint of an infallible doctrine, one can say that the infllible nature of it is in and of itself infallible though it may only be infallible in the sense that something was fallible to begin with.

I am Ralph and I approve this message.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

 

[ASimpleSinner]

You just cannot help yourself–how sad.
My best research revealed circular response and vague innuendos–so I posed the questin here–and now I get arrogance from you.
Yes. I cannot get direct answers–ever!
Ooh, more insults. How surprising.
Huh?

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

Who is insulting, or being arrogant to whom Mickey?

Ecscuuuuuse me!

You just cannot help yourself–how sad.

one post from you that is not colored with arrogance

tough guy

Don’t try to be a mind reader–kay

Mr Swami,

your vindictive diatribe.

This is not arrogance or sarcasm?

As to your question:

What is tethlon?

I mispelled it. My mistake - I meant Teflon - that is the most common non stick coating on pots and pans these days.

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?

Where did I say they were?

TO BE VERY CLEAR:
Papal bulls are not infallable.

This is a decent explination of infallability. It carries an imprimatur which means it is church-approved. If you want to look for information on what the Catholic Church teaches, start first by looking for an imprimatur.

My question or concern - and this legit, dont debase it or dismiss it as arrogant - is this: How do you resolve to know what Holy Orthodoxy in fact teaches now that you are Orthodox?

You seem to throw up your hands and plead ignorance of Catholic teaching on the basis that “My best research revealed circular response and vague innuendos.” It seems as easy as buying, borrowing, or going to a library to look things up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can even do just that online if you wish to learn what is true about your old faith rather than having to rely on “what others tell you”. If that is your best research, we need to help improve that.

You spend all this time at Catholic Answers Forums - well enough time to wrack up 7016+ posts - and it is hard to understand how you can’t get answers. Just going to the mother site - www.Catholic.com - should clear up a lot of questions if you are sincere in finding out what your old church teaches. If you really want them and are asking for them to genuinely know, not setting out with presuppositions, I am having a tough time understanding how this is proving so difficult. How do you discern what Orthodoxy teaches when in fact they are even less centralized when it comes to have one place to go to get authoritative answers?

This isn’t arrogance or sarcasm - please don’t play it off or dismiss it like it is - but this thought remains: If you really don’t understand us that well, you may want to reconsider posting so much that attempts to rebutt what we teach and believe.

 

[Mickey]

As to your question:

My question has already been answered with love and charity and I thanked them.

If you want to look for information on what the Catholic Church teaches, start first by looking for an imprimatur.

I used to believe this, but I have seen so many errors on newadvent (and they carry an imprimatur), that I now take it with a grain of salt.

How do you resolve to know what Holy Orthodoxy in fact teaches now that you are Orthodox?

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

It seems as easy as buying, borrowing, or going to a library to look things up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Is the CCC infallible?

You can even do just that online if you wish to learn what is true about your old faith rather than having to rely on “what others tell you”. If that is your best research, we need to help improve that.

The CCC did not answer my question on papal bulls.

You spend all this time at Catholic Answers Forums - well enough time to wrack up 7016+ posts

Wow! I had no idea that my post count was such an issue for you.

mother site - www.Catholic.com - should clear up a lot of questions if you are sincere in finding out what your old church teaches.

How odd that you are obssessing about my question so much.

How do you discern what Orthodoxy teaches when in fact they are even less centralized when it comes to have one place to go to get authoritative answers?

Start your own thread if you are so interested in the answers.

If you really don’t understand us that well, you may want to reconsider posting so much that attempts to rebutt what we teach and believe.

Please do not tell me when and how much I am supposed to post. You do not moderate this site. I am a poster on this forum. I defend my faith as I compare and contrast it to the Latin Catholic Church and those in communion with Her.

I have become weary of trading barbs with you. Anger and arrogance saturates your every post. I am forced to place you on my ignore list.

May the remainder of your Lent be blessed.

 

[ralphinal]

So this statement qualifies the infallibility?
"We, with divine approval, decreed and proclaimed…"

Thank you for your charitable response. I truly did not know this.
Just be careful with your spelling. It’s a tricky word.

That line could do it. remember that it is not a formula for each one, but you can tell when it is.

How many times do you think that the pope has done this?

 

[Hesychios]

Ralphinal had a very decent and suitable post on infallible pronouncements.

I believe an Ex Cathedra statement can be in many forms. I would venture a guess that if a Pope was caught on tape uttering such a statement according to the correct guidelines, that would be sufficient for posterity.

A Bull is just a document which is sealed with the official seal. I guess that was pretty important when the only way of transmitting important official business was by hand, as if a piece of mail. I think that these days a Bull is mainly symbolic, that is to say “listen up” this is important. The reason I say it is symbolic is that the original purpose of delivering a message under seal (private until opened, from a known source), is not needed any more, all a Prelate or Prince has to do is stand in front of a microphone in a public place, and release a copy of the statement to the newspapers.

But an Ex Cathedra statement could be in the form of a Bull. Most Bulls of the past are about things that we don’t think of as theological, many are completely meaningless today, a few are not even pleasant to recall.

Probably many Bulls (if not most) have been forgotten, and are lost to history.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

My question has already been answered with love and charity and I thanked them.

Sorry I arrived on the scene late.

I used to believe this, but I have seen so many errors on newadvent (and they carry an imprimatur), that I now take it with a grain of salt.

Demonstrate if you will where it is problematic, alternately, consider another source.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Ditto for us. That is really just a platitude though - who doesn’t claim as much? Anglicans do no less!

Is the CCC infallible?

Does it need to be? What is the obsession with infallibility? You don’t seem to need it discerning what the autocephalous polyarchy of Orthodoxy teaches… Why do you demand it to know what we teach? Double standard?

The CCC did not answer my question on papal bulls.

Well then, I hope the www.Catholic.com article with imprimatur did… Or does the supposed problems at New Advent preclude imprimaturs from ever being trusted?

Wow! I had no idea that my post count was such an issue for you.

It wasn’t - post all you like. It just belies and is telling how seriously we should take your copious posting if you honestly and genuinely plead ignorance into (a) what the Catholic Church (that you write against) teaches and (b) that you are sincere in your desire to get real answers and your questions are more than rhetorical barbs.

How odd that you are obssessing about my question so much.

This baffles me - did you or did you not wish to have an answer? Answering is obessing?

Start your own thread if you are so interested in the answers.

I have em Mickey.

Please do not tell me when and how much I am supposed to post. You do not moderate this site. I am a poster on this forum. I defend my faith as I compare and contrast it to the Latin Catholic Church and those in communion with Her.

I am not telling you what you may or may not do. I am gently suggesting that to avoid looking foolish when you lambaste the Pope of Rome and the “errors of infallability” at least knowing how infallibility works could preclude you from having some MAJOR egg on your face… Something that will occur all the more, if you post all the more without actually understanding what you are posting about.

Post away, it just gives you more rope to…

I have become weary of trading barbs with you. Anger and arrogance saturates your every post. I am forced to place you on my ignore list.

Does this mean I will not see the next 7016+ posts where you lambaste a Church you claim doesn’t answer your objections or give clear answers?

Fair enough.

I don’t mean to be some pedantic jerk, but I ask the other gentle readers of this thread to examine the vitrial, obfuscation, and logical errors in Mickey’s writing… Than consider that admitted ignorance has NEVER stopped Mickey from posting with triumphant contradistinction (Mickey isn’t sure what we teach, but knows we are wrong…) And then pray for Mickey who still seems, after having abjured affiliation with the Catholic Church - compelled to spend a whole lot of time in Catholic discussion groups.

When challenged, Mickey has resorted to…

Ecscuuuuuse me!
You just cannot help yourself–how sad.
one post from you that is not colored with arrogance
tough guy
Don’t try to be a mind reader–kay
Mr Swami,
your vindictive diatribe.

… yes, ad hominem attacks, character assasination, and sarcasm before just opting out of the discussion.

Mickey you can’t read or see this, but I resolve to pray for you for the remainder of Lent. Thank you for expounding on your thinking and logic for the rest of the forum with me.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralphinal had a very decent and suitable post on infallible pronouncements.

I believe an Ex Cathedra statement can be in many forms. I would venture a guess that if a Pope was caught on tape uttering such a statement according to the correct guidelines, that would be sufficient for posterity.

A Bull is just a document which is sealed with the official seal. I guess that was pretty important when the only way of transmitting important official business was by hand, as if a piece of mail. I think that these days a Bull is mainly symbolic, that is to say “listen up” this is important. The reason I say it is symbolic is that the original purpose of delivering a message under seal (private until opened, from a known source), is not needed any more, all a Prelate or Prince has to do is stand in front of a microphone in a public place, and release a copy of the statement to the newspapers.

But an Ex Cathedra statement could be in the form of a Bull. Most Bulls of the past are about things that we don’t think of as theological, many are completely meaningless today, a few are not even pleasant to recall.

Probably many Bulls (if not most) have been forgotten, and are lost to history.

Thank you. I agree with what you say 100%.

For some reason, however, I think that something must be written down for the ex cathedra statement to be complete. I have it in my head that until it is delivered in writing to the bishops, it is not promulgated. I may be wrong, and the verbal pronouncement, in the correct form, may be enough.

 

[Genesis315]

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?

It depends on the contents. Infallibility is not tied to a particular classification of document–these are relatively recent developments whereas the charism of papal infallibility has always existed.

If the Pope intends to definitively confirm some truth of the faith for the whole Church, its truth is guaranteed–regardless of the type of document (he could even do so verbally). Papal bulls can do this, but they are elso used for ecclesiastical discipline as well, for example.

 

[Mickey]

If the Pope intends to definitively confirm some truth of the faith for the whole Church, its truth is guaranteed–regardless of the type of document (he could even do so verbally). Papal bulls can do this, but they are elso used for ecclesiastical discipline as well, for example.

Thank you for this answer.
Also many thanks to Hesychios, Fuerza, and raphinal. Admittedly, I have many problems with the doctrine of infallibility. It is something that I do not see from early Church history as it is defined and presented in modern day Catholicism. But I am interested in learning more regarding how it applies. Most sources are bias (even if it does carry the imprimatur) and I was not able to get convincing answers on the question of infallibility of papal bulls. It seems that the answer is: There can be infallible pronouncements, but the papal bull itself is not necessarily infallible.

I am now going to turn my attention to an in depth study of the Pope who defined and declared infallibility to be an infallible doctrine—Pius IX–an interesting fellow.

I thank all who answered me with Christian charity and love without judging my motives out of paranoia or premeditated distrust.

The passions of anger and arrogance can be debilitating and deadly. We need to understand eachother on a Christian level.

Let us not be like the pharisees.

My children, desire to purify your hearts from envy and from anger with each other, lest death should overcome you, and you will be counted among the murderers. For whosoever hates his brother, kills a soul.
St Anthony the Great

 

[Mickey]

I don’t mean to be some pedantic jerk

Then perhaps you should follow the example of your fellow Catholic Christians and refrain from responding with so much vitriol.

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you. I agree with what you say 100%.

For some reason, however, I think that something must be written down for the ex cathedra statement to be complete.

Perhaps. I always assumed it would be in writing. Eventually, everything gets written down
But when I composed my post I realized that the pronouncement was always referred to as a statement, and I never did see anything more detailed on the subject.

…I have it in my head that until it is delivered in writing to the bishops, it is not promulgated. I may be wrong, and the verbal pronouncement, in the correct form, may be enough.

What always amazed me was that an Ex Cathedra statement could be just one portion of a larger document and the context of that document could be utterly discounted.

For instance, many Latin Catholics are of a mind that the BVM did not die. It is speculated by many (if not most) that she was not only assumed bodily into heaven, but while living…not having actually experienced bodily death.

I don’t see it discussed much these days on the forum, the document Munificentissimus Deus is replete with references to her physical bodily death; and the document was authored by the Pope himself, but the Faithful seem to be willing and able to ignore that context, many do.

In fact I have seen Marian sites which will not quote the entire document, just that one ‘key’ paragraph.

I would think the Pope would see the occasion of such a pronouncement as an ideal teaching opportunity, but if the context if the document can legiitimately be ignored I have to wonder about the actual need to put the pronouncement in writing.

If, in the course of a speech before the United Nations, or even the Knights of Columbus, a Pope were to verbally declare that the BVM were Mediatrix of ALL Graces according to the formula, would people be bound to believe it?

I think the cassette tapes would sell like hotcakes.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[ralphinal]

Michael,
Remember that as a rule, things are not pronounce or defined by the church until there is a reason to do so. That is one reason that heresies seem to catch on. We react, not proact. The Creeds for example came out because of the heresies. Had the church defined things from the beginning, would Arianism had the same hold on so many?

As far as the death of the BMV, I am one who holds that she died. I do not think that it was a painful death. She was the first follower of her Son, and as he died, why would she not want to as well?

The idea of the pope making such a pronouncement made me think. Perhaps it is one reason that we have been blessed with media savy popes. They tend to choose their words carefully.