F
Frank_J
Guest
So that means Humanae Vitae too. Both are ENCYCLICAL
- Status
F
Frank_J
Guest
For year the RC Church claims Humanae Vitae was Church teaching. Why is one teaching and the other has no meaning??? Both are ENCYCLICAL?? RC are like PC they pick and choose what they like and disguard what they don’t want
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
Not really, Frank. The subject of each one of those encyclicals is different. That’s what you must do with encyclicals, examine their content and context…They are not like apostolic constitutions or canons very carefully deliberated in order to better define some part of doctrinal teaching. Not all canons, themselves, are doctrinal…as an aside.
The discussion of the liturgy concerns elements of rite and ritual that are not, in themselves, part of revealed truth and immutable. They were of human and not divine origin. We tend to speak of such things in terms of doctrine [which is of divine origin] and discipline [of human origin]. So each encyclical has to be examined in terms of substance and cannot be presumed to simply be absolutely binding and necessary.
Also, your attitude is so bad that you are blinded to very simple truths about the Catholic Church. That is a plank in your eye that you need to consider before you shoot your mouth off again.
M.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hey, Frank J, at ease! 
This not only lacks charity but is an unjust criticism that simply lashes out because your hand was called on a totally irrelevant (to this thread) quote fromMEDIATOR DEI ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON THE SACRED LITURGY
If you want to through all of the encyclicals every written to find areas of apparent inconsistency and change - that is fine…and, maybe would be appropriate to another thread. This issue is binding dogma - and the Primacy of Peter is bnding dogma.
God bless
This not only lacks charity but is an unjust criticism that simply lashes out because your hand was called on a totally irrelevant (to this thread) quote fromMEDIATOR DEI ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON THE SACRED LITURGY
If you want to through all of the encyclicals every written to find areas of apparent inconsistency and change - that is fine…and, maybe would be appropriate to another thread. This issue is binding dogma - and the Primacy of Peter is bnding dogma.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Elijahmaria,
Nice post! 
God bless
Nice post!
God bless
Not really, Frank. The subject of each one of those encyclicals is different. That’s what you must do with encyclicals, examine their content and context…They are not like apostolic constitutions or canons very carefully deliberated in order to better define some part of doctrinal teaching. Not all canons, themselves, are doctrinal…as an aside.
The discussion of the liturgy concerns elements of rite and ritual that are not, in themselves, part of revealed truth and immutable. They were of human and not divine origin. We tend to speak of such things in terms of doctrine [which is of divine origin] and discipline [of human origin]. So each encyclical has to be examined in terms of substance and cannot be presumed to simply be absolutely binding and necessary.
Also, your attitude is so bad that you are blinded to very simple truths about the Catholic Church. That is a plank in your eye that you need to consider before you shoot your mouth off again.
M.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Apparently you’re not understanding what Papal Infallibility means and what it applies to. Encyclicals are merely letters from the Pope, and they can be infallible, or canonically binding but fallible, or merely theological opinions. On the other hand the Pope doesn’t need to issue an Encyclical for a teaching to be infallible according to Papal Infallibility. This isn’t a matter of picking and choosing, but simply the definition of Papal Infallibility.
For a teaching to be infallible coming from the Pope it must meet some very specific criteria, some explicit and some implicit. They are 1) it must come from the Pope acting as Pope, namely speaking as the voice of the Church and not merely as a private theologian or local Bishop, 2) it must be about Faith or Morals, not about Liturgical matters for example, 3) it must be declared as binding on all the Faithful as a matter of dogma. Implicit criteria are that the teaching can’t contradict the dogmatic teaching of the Church and the Apostolic deposit of Faith, so the Pope can’t change what has always been held or has already been defined.
With that said, neither Humanae Vitae nor Mediator Dei are infallible on the grounds of Papal Infallibility. It can be argued that Humanae Vitae is infallible, but not because of the Pope; it would be infallible on the grounds that it is setting forth an unchanging teaching of the Apostolic Church, the consensus of the Faithful, laity and Bishops, throughout history. This would be the Ordinary Magisterium and Sensus Fidelum, and doctrines can be infallible on these grounds without invoking Papal Infalliblity. Mediator Dei, on the other hand, is not dealing with Faith or Morals, does not reflect the unchanging consensus of the Faithful, and is dealing with matters that are always subject to change over time, namely Liturgical practice. Mediator Dei couldn’t be infallible even if the Pope wanted it to be.
This doesn’t mean that Mediator Dei had no meaning; it had plenty of meaning during the time of Pope Pius XII. Though it wasn’t infallible, it still could have been binding on liturgists and theologians, and it certainly carried weight as the opinion of the Pope.
Peace and God bless!
T
tqualey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Can you list all the infallible teachings since infallibility was infallibly declared?
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
Mickey,
This seems to be some sort of litmus test for Orthodox who hope to deny papal infallibility.
The fact that there are no lists or varying lists seems to be some kind of proof of something.
What it proves to me is the fact that most if not all lay Orthodox that I know do not understand the teachings on infallibility in the Catholic Church at all.
Rather than asking for “lists”…It would make far more sense to get at the various teachings concerning infallibility in the Church and work from there.
Oddly enough that never happens in these kinds of discussions.
I do not mean to be taking any kind of shot at you, as I did with Frank’s gratuitous comment. I take your inquiry seriously but I’ve seen it over and over again, and it really goes nowhere and honestly does nothing to support any kind of Orthodox position against papal infallibility.
M.
C
CDB1718
Guest
According to this list, that would only be the Assumption of Mary. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_declarations_of_infallibility
" …by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The dogmatic proclamation from the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus Defining the Dogma of the Assumption on November 1, 1950. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
The wiki footnote about other lists refers to the Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is not an infallibly defined document requiring assent but does show modern Roman Catholic thought on what is defined infallibly. ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, CDB1718,
Yes, this is one. And, one that I think the Orthodox are in agreement with.
Mickey, do you have any comments on this or in how it was determined to be an Article of Faith and coming from Papal Infallibility?
God bless
Yes, this is one. And, one that I think the Orthodox are in agreement with.
Mickey, do you have any comments on this or in how it was determined to be an Article of Faith and coming from Papal Infallibility?
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Elijahmaria,
This certainly seems like a reasonable request, especially based on your experience in such a topic.
God bless
This certainly seems like a reasonable request, especially based on your experience in such a topic.
God bless
M
Mickey
Guest
It just seems feasible that…if there are certain criteria that must be met…that the Latin Church would know when this happened…and would be able to provide those instances. I have seen many different lists.
M
Mickey
Guest
Is that a consensus? Only the Assumption? What about the doctrine of infallibility itself?
G
Ghosty
Guest
First off, you asked about the time since Papal Infallibility was declared. Secondly, Papal Infallibility was declared by a Council, not a Pope, so it wouldn’t count as an act of Papal Infallibility in any case.
Some argue that declaration of Sainthood is an act of Papal Infallibility, but I’ve not seen anything that firmly establishes that. Not counting all the Saints that have been declared, there has only been one act of Papal Infallibility since it was declared a dogma, and that is the Assumption of Mary.
Peace and God bless!
M
Mickey
Guest
Depends on which version you read.
Neither have I…but I hear that often.
Interesting…so you say only **one **also. I have not heard this before.
H
Hesychios
Guest
The other one was before the power was recognized by the council of 1870.Interesting…so you say only **one **also. I have not heard this before.
Luckily for that Pope, he had a very long reign, and in his later years he was able to see that he needed to do something to formalize that power before it was too late. I think perhaps it was the coming dissolution of the Papal States that alarmed him most, and with that the possibility that bishops of Rome would follow who did not think like him.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t know what you mean by this. It’s historical fact that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility comes from Vatican I, and was written up by the Bishops after much debate. Some ideas were thrown out and not included in the final statement, in fact. There is absolutely no basis for arguing that Papal Infallibility was declared infallible by the Pope alone.Depends on which version you read.
I don’t know what other Papal declarations you’re thinking of, and I’m surprised you’ve never heard that the Assumption, minus the Saint declarations, is the only Dogma to be declared under Papal Infallibility after PI was declared by Vatican I. I honestly have no idea how you could frequent these discussions for so long and come away with the idea that something else has been declared dogma under Papal Infallibility after Vatican I.Interesting…so you say only **one **also. I have not heard this before.
The only other dogma that was declared by Papal Infallibility was the Immaculate Conception, but that was done before PI was defined at Vatican I. It’s also worth noting that the IC was declared only because many Bishops requested that it be declared, and the Pope then surveyed the Bishops of the world regarding their beliefs on the matter. After receiving an overwhelmingly positive response he declared the IC, again at the behest of the other Bishops.
Peace and God bless!
C
CDB1718
Guest
Stephen Colbert said only 2 have ever been declared ex cathedra.
But he also said that the mother of Mary was Elizabeth so I don’t know what 2 he was thinking of.
Exclusive - 2011: A Rock Odyssey Featuring Jack White - Catholic Throwdown
But he also said that the mother of Mary was Elizabeth so I don’t know what 2 he was thinking of.
Exclusive - 2011: A Rock Odyssey Featuring Jack White - Catholic Throwdown
G
Ghosty
Guest
Steven Colbert is actually pretty well informed about Catholic teaching, even though he seems to dissent from some of it. Even when he mocks it he seems to know what he’s mocking.
Peace and God bless!
- Status