Perceived inconsistencies with papal bulls, a stumbling block?

[achmafooma]

I often wonder why these types of threads don’t get much play and fizz out? I would think the apparent contradictions between Pius V’s anathema-attached determination to make sure the Tridentine remains THE Mass for all time and the complete overhaul of Vatican II would be a real topic for discussion and concern for Catholics. It certainly concerns me bigtime. I can’t fathom how a papal bull like apostolicae curae is upheld with vigor by most Catholics in here and yet on the other hand Pius V’s passionate bull is cast aside as no big whoop and subject to change?

With all respect, I think the thread fizzled out because the matter has been clearly addressed. Here are the key points:

Papal Infallibility has only been definitively invoked twice: on the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption of Mary (1950).

The teaching of the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morality, because the Holy Spirit protects the Church in this respect (‘the gates of hell shall not prevail…’). This is why Humanae Vitae, for example, can largely be treated as being infallible…it deals with matters of faith and morality.

Beyond matters of faith and morality, for example the exact order and structure of the Mass (outside of the Sacramental words that confect the Eucharist), the teachings of the Church are not infallible. As faithful Catholics, we obey the Church’s guidance, but she may (through proper channels) change this guidance. This is what happened between the Bull that troubles you and Vatican II.

God bless you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good to meet another Scott on here. Thanks for your post. And no worries about your first statement. Honestly I’m just trying to make sense of this issue. I’m not trying to talk myself OUT of Catholicism but into staying and being a good Catholic. I just want this to make some sense. I think you make a good point here with “morals” and I know that infallibility largely is related to that. But if we look at Lumen Gentium it says that we are to respect and obey and give our mental will over to the Holy Father on more than just moral pronoucements really. Why should I take Apostolicae Curae seriously then, another papal bull shooting down Anglican orders? Obviously that’s not a moral declaration so am I free to disregard it and believe Anglican orders are perfectly fine? 99.9% of Catholics in this forum I’ve met would say a resounding no way! So if papal bulls are NOT infallible they become speculative and it will lead the way for, and I hate this term because it is supplied so readily and with such gusto often times in here, cafeteria Catholicism.

Here is what Lumen Gentium says:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. 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.

And many would argue that the Mass is the ultimate statement of our “faith” in the “faith and morals” that we are to obey with the pope’s declarations. How we worship is part of the faith I would say.

But then again a lot of folks say “well Lumen Gentium isn’t infallible” to which I wonder how LG can say things are infallible when the document saying it isn’t? HUH?

With all respect, I think the thread fizzled out because the matter has been clearly addressed. Here are the key points:

Papal Infallibility has only been definitively invoked twice: on the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption of Mary (1950).

The teaching of the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morality, because the Holy Spirit protects the Church in this respect (‘the gates of hell shall not prevail…’). This is why Humanae Vitae, for example, can largely be treated as being infallible…it deals with matters of faith and morality.

Beyond matters of faith and morality, for example the exact order and structure of the Mass (outside of the Sacramental words that confect the Eucharist), the teachings of the Church are not infallible. As faithful Catholics, we obey the Church’s guidance, but she may (through proper channels) change this guidance. This is what happened between the Bull that troubles you and Vatican II.

God bless you.

 

[Toomey1979]

I don’t think Pius V was saying it was contrary to the faith to have mass in the vernacular. He just told people not to do it. He was the boss then so you had to go along with it. Paul VI was the new boss and he said no more Latin masses. I don’t think either of them was teaching that what language one uses in the liturgy is part of the Christian faith.

But I know what you’re saying. How come there isn’t an infallible list of all the infallible teachings of the pope? I don’t know. Why do we have to argue about what can be dissented and what can’t? Some people say women’s ordination is debatable, other say that a strict understanding of EENS is infallible and so on. Until the Church puts out said list the only things that are considered infallible are the Imacculate Conception and the Assumption.

I really think we ought to get rid of papal infallibility just like we got rid of limbo and EENS (which were much older doctrines than PI). I think it hinders the growth of the Church.

 

[achmafooma]

Good to meet another Scott on here. Thanks for your post. And no worries about your first statement. Honestly I’m just trying to make sense of this issue. I’m not trying to talk myself OUT of Catholicism but into staying and being a good Catholic. I just want this to make some sense. I think you make a good point here with “morals” and I know that infallibility largely is related to that. But if we look at Lumen Gentium it says that we are to respect and obey and give our mental will over to the Holy Father on more than just moral pronoucements really. Why should I take Apostolicae Curae seriously then, another papal bull shooting down Anglican orders? Obviously that’s not a moral declaration so am I free to disregard it and believe Anglican orders are perfectly fine? 99.9% of Catholics in this forum I’ve met would say a resounding no way! So if papal bulls are NOT infallible they become speculative and it will lead the way for, and I hate this term because it is supplied so readily and with such gusto often times in here, cafeteria Catholicism.

…]

But then again a lot of folks say “well Lumen Gentium isn’t infallible” to which I wonder how LG can say things are infallible when the document saying it isn’t? HUH?

I understand your difficulty. The best I can say is that whether a statement is ‘infallible’ or not doesn’t really matter when it comes to regular Catholics like you and me (or even our Priests and Deacons).

I may personally agree or disagree with certain matters not infallibly defined, but I am called by my obedience to the Church to assent to her guidance…and if the guidance changes in the future on some matter or another, I am called then to assent to the new guidance…whether infallibly defined or not.

Today’s guidance is that the ‘Novus Ordo’ Mass in the vernacular is the proper, ordinary expression of the Catholic Mass, and this is the guidance I must assent to even though there was earlier guidance that said something else. I can, of course, personally disagree with this and wish to see it changed (not saying I do)…but I must also respect the Church’s [current] direction on the matter either way as one of her obedient children.

As a (somewhat absurd) example, a Priest might think that “Corpus Christi” translates better as “the Meat of God.” Well, he’s certainly entitled to that opinion, and he may try to influence his Bishop and others to require that people say it that way. He’s not required to believe that “the Body of Christ” is the best English translation of “Corpus Christi.” He is, however, required by his obedience to Mother Church to say “the Body of Christ” when offering the Mass…simply because he loves the Church, and the proper Church authorities say so.

The bottom line is that Papal Bulls are to be obeyed by us, the obedient Catholics in the laity (and clergy, for that matter)…they are not to be disregarded unless superseded by later, contradictory guidance from the Church. You rightly point out that if we were free to do this, everything becomes speculative and ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ becomes the norm. BUT, at the same time, we can and should independently consider the Church’s teachings and we may sometimes find that we disagree with them. In matters of faith and morals this is a bad thing (since, in those cases, I believe we are in error, not the Church). In other matters, however, civil disagreement can even be healthy for the Church since it helps the Church clarify and improve its practices.

Disagreement is not license to disregard those teachings on the argument that “oh, that’s not infallible and I think X instead of Y.” It is, however, a place where we can and should pray – that we come to better understand and/or agree with the Church’s position, or that the Church adjusts the position, or both.

Hope this helps. God bless you!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, Scott. I’m currently in that mindset you describe. I have several concerns and am at odds with the Church intellectually in some areas BUT I’m obeying. I’m trying my best to be a good boy and follow Mother Church. It’s just tough sometimes. Stay tuned

I understand your difficulty. The best I can say is that whether a statement is ‘infallible’ or not doesn’t really matter when it comes to regular Catholics like you and me (or even our Priests and Deacons).

I may personally agree or disagree with certain matters not infallibly defined, but I am called by my obedience to the Church to assent to her guidance…and if the guidance changes in the future on some matter or another, I am called then to assent to the new guidance…whether infallibly defined or not.

Today’s guidance is that the ‘Novus Ordo’ Mass in the vernacular is the proper, ordinary expression of the Catholic Mass, and this is the guidance I must assent to even though there was earlier guidance that said something else. I can, of course, personally disagree with this and wish to see it changed (not saying I do)…but I must also respect the Church’s [current] direction on the matter either way as one of her obedient children.

As a (somewhat absurd) example, a Priest might think that “Corpus Christi” translates better as “the Meat of God.” Well, he’s certainly entitled to that opinion, and he may try to influence his Bishop and others to require that people say it that way. He’s not required to believe that “the Body of Christ” is the best English translation of “Corpus Christi.” He is, however, required by his obedience to Mother Church to say “the Body of Christ” when offering the Mass…simply because he loves the Church, and the proper Church authorities say so.

The bottom line is that Papal Bulls are to be obeyed by us, the obedient Catholics in the laity (and clergy, for that matter)…they are not to be disregarded unless superseded by later, contradictory guidance from the Church. You rightly point out that if we were free to do this, everything becomes speculative and ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ becomes the norm. BUT, at the same time, we can and should independently consider the Church’s teachings and we may sometimes find that we disagree with them. In matters of faith and morals this is a bad thing (since, in those cases, I believe we are in error, not the Church). In other matters, however, civil disagreement can even be healthy for the Church since it helps the Church clarify and improve its practices.

Disagreement is not license to disregard those teachings on the argument that “oh, that’s not infallible and I think X instead of Y.” It is, however, a place where we can and should pray – that we come to better understand and/or agree with the Church’s position, or that the Church adjusts the position, or both.

Hope this helps. God bless you!

 

[excubitor]

One stumbling block for many folks considering Catholicism is the perceived inconsistencies with papal decrees and infallibility. Quo Primum comes to mind. This was a papal bull written by Pope Pius V around the time of Trent. Now many would consider this bull infallible, correct? Pope Leo XIII wrote a bull call Apostolicae Curae in which he voided Anglican orders and Catholics cling tightly to this as obviously infallible.

Quo Primum declares that the Latin Tridentine form of the Mass is THE ONLY version of the Catholic Mass in the West that may be used except for previous forms that were around in some traditions of the West 200 years before, etc. Here is an excerpt of what Pius V says:
"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world", exceptions were allowed from the start…By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it…No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

The Novus Ordo Mass of Vatican II clearly violates what Pius V says here, does it not? How can one council contradict or supercede a previously infallible statement by a pope?

I think this is why there is the tension between Traditionalist Catholics and modern Catholics who are fine with the present status quo. It’s not clear.

Lumen Gentium also talks about FULL submission to the pope even when he is NOT speaking infallibly which seems to contradict the common apologetic that popes are only infallible when speaking on faith and morals officially from the Chair of Peter.

Some rulings on slavery also seem to contradict or be inconsistent along with the open-mindedness of the papacy and magisterium nowdays to science/evolution etc. whereas guys like Gallileo were jailed previously.

What do you all think about the accusation of inconsistencies and how can the statement of Pius be reconciled with Vatican II.

I’m not pontificating here but rather hoping to learn from people’s posts on this subject. It is frequently on my mind.

God bless all!

What I find disturbing about this post and the various response is that we are so quick to determine that papal bulls are contradictory and fallible. This post here makes the assumption that because Pope Pius V said “This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world” that therefore Pope Paul VI was fallibly promulgating the new order of the mass. Then those who respond say "No Pope Paul VI was correct and it was Pope Pius V who was fallible.

Well that is just plain wrong. Both Popes are infallible. There is absolutely no contradiction between the Popes. The mistake both sides are making is that Pope Paul VI never intended to bind his successors to his rule. His rule was made for his administration and for the foreseeable future. Even the scriptures use this never ending device to proclaim the importance of an edict.

Take this example “Exodus 29:28 And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’ by a statute for ever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering: and it shall be an heave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace offerings, even their heave offering unto the Lord.”

And yet who today imagines that a heave offering is required unto the Lord today.

Every proclamation is infallible but it must be understood that some proclamations are not a part of ageless tradition but are essential administrations for the time. The Pope has the power to bind and loose, and he has the power to abrogate rulings of his predecessors if times change. Of course he cannot change dogmas of the church which are a part of the Sacred Tradition.

As for the rulings on slavery. Well even that needs to be taken into cultural perspective. Most of us here are wage slaves, however when we think of slavery then we are naturally drawn to the kind of slavery that was inflicted upon the negroes. However slavery was even sanctioned and taught in the Old Testament, but not the kind of cruel slavery that existed in the American South in the cottonfields, which I might add was not slavery. Even the apostle Paul urged the escaped slave Onesimus to return to his master in the book of Philemon. So again, edicts against slavery are administrative and apply within the context of the culture and time in which they are directed.

As for the edicts against heliocentrism. These were infallible declarations of heresy which have never been abrogated and therefore are still binding on Catholics today. The fact that most Catholics are not aware of it, and the modern church turns a blind eye of apparent tolerance to it, should not in anyway cause us to infer that the Sacred Congregations and Popes of the medieval church were in error.

 

[excubitor]

Lumen Gentium is entirely correct. Popes must be assumed to be infallible on all matters in which they speak. Only if a successor of a Pope solemnly declares a previous Pope to be in error and abrogates formally his previous teachings should we dare to assume that the Pope is in error.

The faith and morals rule is horrendously abused. What matters are faith and morals and which are not? The medieval church explicitly stated that heliocentrism was injurious to the faith. So why then do we simply recategorise at our own discretion the rulings of the Pope and call it a matter of science so that we can ignore the Pope? That is illegitimate.

In fact the whole ex cathedra rule of Papal Infallibility is horribly abused with an army of lawyers trawling through history and judging by their own criteria what documents of the Popes are ex cathedra and which are not. To the point that today Popes are largely ignored as being in error unless they sit on their big chair and blow themselves up into full pontifical authority and pronounce a magical formula of words that invoke infallibility.

All papal bulls and encyclicals are issued from the Popes official papal office and therefore should be regarded as infallible until such time as a successor Pope rules it otherwise (which by the way never happens for the simple reason that the Pope is infallible)

The disgraceful abuse of the ex cathedra laws are nowhere more evident than in the issue of birth control. Modern catholics evidently truly believe that the Pope is wrong on this issue. They regard him as being in error because he has never anathematised birth controllers in an official ex cathedra formal and dramatic way.

What we see as a result is disobedience. A form of disobedience which began in the 17th and 18th century when the people defied and ignored the churches rulings on heliocentrism. The disobedience and disregard for the Pope came to a head in Vatican 1 when basically the council could not proceed on any of the points of agenda because the bishops had a completely wrong headed understanding of who the Pope was. They regarded him as just another bishop amongst equals like the orthodox do. Basically the Pope had to lock them up in chamber and not let them out until they confessed the authority of the Pope.

I am convinced that Vatican 1 saved the church, and one of the most important findings of the ex cathedra pronouncement which most people gloss over is this:

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of general councils,** adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs** and of general councils,we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] , which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Notice that the ruling on the primacy of the Pope was based upon an adherence to the previous decrees of previous pontiffs. NO EXCEPTION is given. Therefore the Papal Decree against Galileo was upheld without equivocation by Vatican 1 and in fact bases its findings on Papal primacy upon the truth and authority of that decree as well as all the other decrees. How could papal infallibility be proved if in fact any manifest and explicit decree had been found to be in error?

More from the Council of Vatican 1:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

So how many regard the Popes as being in supreme power over their lives. Not many I would suggest. Many who give lip service when it suits them, but not many who are prepared to put their axe grinding to one side in order to obey the Pope.

Now take this one:

“Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they
are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.”

Now which conclusions of Science prior to Vatican 1 had been condemned by the church as being contrary to the faith? ONLY ONE. The heretical view that earth is moving and going about the sun.

So here we have again another example of the council utterly upholding even its most controversial of former decrees. In fact this Papal decree against Galileo is the greatest stumbling block of the church, which has undermined the authority of the Pope for hundreds of years. It’s a really serious, serious situation which has had ongoing ramifications of disobedience which are with us to this day.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So let me get this straight, I’m exhausted and brain-fried right now, are you saying you still think heliocentrism is a heresy and evil?

Lumen Gentium is entirely correct. Popes must be assumed to be infallible on all matters in which they speak. Only if a successor of a Pope solemnly declares a previous Pope to be in error and abrogates formally his previous teachings should we dare to assume that the Pope is in error.

The faith and morals rule is horrendously abused. What matters are faith and morals and which are not? The medieval church explicitly stated that heliocentrism was injurious to the faith. So why then do we simply recategorise at our own discretion the rulings of the Pope and call it a matter of science so that we can ignore the Pope? That is illegitimate.

In fact the whole ex cathedra rule of Papal Infallibility is horribly abused with an army of lawyers trawling through history and judging by their own criteria what documents of the Popes are ex cathedra and which are not. To the point that today Popes are largely ignored as being in error unless they sit on their big chair and blow themselves up into full pontifical authority and pronounce a magical formula of words that invoke infallibility.

All papal bulls and encyclicals are issued from the Popes official papal office and therefore should be regarded as infallible until such time as a successor Pope rules it otherwise (which by the way never happens for the simple reason that the Pope is infallible)

The disgraceful abuse of the ex cathedra laws are nowhere more evident than in the issue of birth control. Modern catholics evidently truly believe that the Pope is wrong on this issue. They regard him as being in error because he has never anathematised birth controllers in an official ex cathedra formal and dramatic way.

What we see as a result is disobedience. A form of disobedience which began in the 17th and 18th century when the people defied and ignored the churches rulings on heliocentrism. The disobedience and disregard for the Pope came to a head in Vatican 1 when basically the council could not proceed on any of the points of agenda because the bishops had a completely wrong headed understanding of who the Pope was. They regarded him as just another bishop amongst equals like the orthodox do. Basically the Pope had to lock them up in chamber and not let them out until they confessed the authority of the Pope.

I am convinced that Vatican 1 saved the church, and one of the most important findings of the ex cathedra pronouncement which most people gloss over is this:

Notice that the ruling on the primacy of the Pope was based upon an adherence to the previous decrees of previous pontiffs. NO EXCEPTION is given. Therefore the Papal Decree against Galileo was upheld without equivocation by Vatican 1 and in fact bases its findings on Papal primacy upon the truth and authority of that decree as well as all the other decrees. How could papal infallibility be proved if in fact any manifest and explicit decree had been found to be in error?

More from the Council of Vatican 1:
So how many regard the Popes as being in supreme power over their lives. Not many I would suggest. Many who give lip service when it suits them, but not many who are prepared to put their axe grinding to one side in order to obey the Pope.

Now take this one:

Now which conclusions of Science prior to Vatican 1 had been condemned by the church as being contrary to the faith? ONLY ONE. The heretical view that earth is moving and going about the sun.

So here we have again another example of the council utterly upholding even its most controversial of former decrees. In fact this Papal decree against Galileo is the greatest stumbling block of the church, which has undermined the authority of the Pope for hundreds of years. It’s a really serious, serious situation which has had ongoing ramifications of disobedience which are with us to this day.

 

[Toomey1979]

So let me get this straight, I’m exhausted and brain-fried right now, are you saying you still think heliocentrism is a heresy and evil?

Yeah you didn’t know that? And what’s this I hear about a round Earth?

 

[excubitor]

So let me get this straight, I’m exhausted and brain-fried right now, are you saying you still think heliocentrism is a heresy and evil?

Now let me get this straight. You have posted 6669 posts on this forum and have never come across this debate before?

 

[dzheremi]

In Gurney’s defense, there’s generally not been much debate on the topic in recent centuries.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Now let me get this straight, I wouldn’t have asked you the question if I didn’t want your opinion, would I? If your response is insulting sarcasm, then don’t answer and go to another thread. But if you want a civil discussion and can answer my question, I look forward to hearing it. Thanks!

P.S. One could be in CAF for 50,000 posts and if a debate has never roused one’s interests, then one wouldn’t enter that thread, would he? I’ve never spent much time reading people’s thoughts on heliocentrism on here, perhaps that hadn’t occurred to you that I don’t explore every single thread or theme on here.

Now let me get this straight. You have posted 6669 posts on this forum and have never come across this debate before?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

LOL…along with the whole gravity controversies and oxygen-nitrogen scandals

In Gurney’s defense, there’s generally not been much debate on the topic in recent centuries.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So when Pius V declares that anyone who touches or tweeks his Tridentine Mass will burn in hell and perdition’s flames over a very slow amount of time, you’re saying that that was a bull for Pius’ generation and can later be changed. I guess my question is what is the expiration date on the anathema and flames? 100 years? 200 years? 50 years? When can another pope do the very thing Pius anathamized? It seems that you’re saying there is an expiration date for the curse of hellfire and suffering that Pius declared would engulf anyone who messed with the tridentine order of things? So when Vatican II arrived, the anathema had expired and things were ok to tinker with the Mass and a new order arrived…

Lumen Gentium is entirely correct. Popes must be assumed to be infallible on all matters in which they speak. Only if a successor of a Pope solemnly declares a previous Pope to be in error and abrogates formally his previous teachings should we dare to assume that the Pope is in error.

The faith and morals rule is horrendously abused. What matters are faith and morals and which are not? The medieval church explicitly stated that heliocentrism was injurious to the faith. So why then do we simply recategorise at our own discretion the rulings of the Pope and call it a matter of science so that we can ignore the Pope? That is illegitimate.

In fact the whole ex cathedra rule of Papal Infallibility is horribly abused with an army of lawyers trawling through history and judging by their own criteria what documents of the Popes are ex cathedra and which are not. To the point that today Popes are largely ignored as being in error unless they sit on their big chair and blow themselves up into full pontifical authority and pronounce a magical formula of words that invoke infallibility.

All papal bulls and encyclicals are issued from the Popes official papal office and therefore should be regarded as infallible until such time as a successor Pope rules it otherwise (which by the way never happens for the simple reason that the Pope is infallible)

The disgraceful abuse of the ex cathedra laws are nowhere more evident than in the issue of birth control. Modern catholics evidently truly believe that the Pope is wrong on this issue. They regard him as being in error because he has never anathematised birth controllers in an official ex cathedra formal and dramatic way.

What we see as a result is disobedience. A form of disobedience which began in the 17th and 18th century when the people defied and ignored the churches rulings on heliocentrism. The disobedience and disregard for the Pope came to a head in Vatican 1 when basically the council could not proceed on any of the points of agenda because the bishops had a completely wrong headed understanding of who the Pope was. They regarded him as just another bishop amongst equals like the orthodox do. Basically the Pope had to lock them up in chamber and not let them out until they confessed the authority of the Pope.

I am convinced that Vatican 1 saved the church, and one of the most important findings of the ex cathedra pronouncement which most people gloss over is this:

Notice that the ruling on the primacy of the Pope was based upon an adherence to the previous decrees of previous pontiffs. NO EXCEPTION is given. Therefore the Papal Decree against Galileo was upheld without equivocation by Vatican 1 and in fact bases its findings on Papal primacy upon the truth and authority of that decree as well as all the other decrees. How could papal infallibility be proved if in fact any manifest and explicit decree had been found to be in error?

More from the Council of Vatican 1:
So how many regard the Popes as being in supreme power over their lives. Not many I would suggest. Many who give lip service when it suits them, but not many who are prepared to put their axe grinding to one side in order to obey the Pope.

Now take this one:

Now which conclusions of Science prior to Vatican 1 had been condemned by the church as being contrary to the faith? ONLY ONE. The heretical view that earth is moving and going about the sun.

So here we have again another example of the council utterly upholding even its most controversial of former decrees. In fact this Papal decree against Galileo is the greatest stumbling block of the church, which has undermined the authority of the Pope for hundreds of years. It’s a really serious, serious situation which has had ongoing ramifications of disobedience which are with us to this day.

 

[dzheremi]

I must say, candidly and with love for my Catholic friends, the defenses put forth in this thread really make papal infallibility seem even more untenable than any of the Orthodox or Protestant criticisms of it make it out to be.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I didn’t know the pope made an infallible statement concerning Galileo. Everything I’ve read indicates that an office in the Vatican dealt with the issue. For instance,

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

"Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility."

 

[excubitor]

So when Pius V declares that anyone who touches or tweeks his Tridentine Mass will burn in hell and perdition’s flames over a very slow amount of time, you’re saying that that was a bull for Pius’ generation and can later be changed. I guess my question is what is the expiration date on the anathema and flames? 100 years? 200 years? 50 years? When can another pope do the very thing Pius anathamized? It seems that you’re saying there is an expiration date for the curse of hellfire and suffering that Pius declared would engulf anyone who messed with the tridentine order of things? So when Vatican II arrived, the anathema had expired and things were ok to tinker with the Mass and a new order arrived…

Pius V pronouncements included the liturgical prayer which Pius X completely altered with his new arrangement for reading the psalms. Now we know that Pius X is not roasting in hell. He is dogmatically proclaimed as a Saint, and even has a church named after him. These people who go to this church hurl screams of abuse at Paul VI for changing the mass of Pius V but then give glowing acclamations to Pius X.

What incredible hypocrisy. The fact is that Pius V has no power to bind his successors. Whereas Paul VI has equal authority to Pius V. In fact because Paul VI follows after Pius V he therefore has the power to loose what Pius V bound and to bind what Pius V loosed. Because we are not followers of Pius V or Paul VI but of Christ who is the master of both these servants and who rules his church in every generation according to the administration suitable for that generation.

 

[excubitor]

I must say, candidly and with love for my Catholic friends, the defenses put forth in this thread really make papal infallibility seem even more untenable than any of the Orthodox or Protestant criticisms of it make it out to be.

Yes of course, which is why very few really believe the Pope is infallible even though they make a big show of giving lip service to his infallibility. The Pope is not just infallible when it suits us so that we can pick and choose what rulings we are going to follow. The problem of admitting his infallibility is that if we are going to put our money where our mouth is then it means that we must believe him when it does not suit us. That is what submission to the supreme religious authority is all about. Sorry, but I was quoting from Vatican 1. I suggest you go and read the Decrees and Canons of Vatican 1 for a proper perspective on the infallibility of the Pope.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Papal encyclicals are documents containing a variety of points about one or more issues. Some or all of these points are often about things that are beyond the scope of papal infallibility, dealing with things other than faith or morals, or being directed to some segment of the church. Traditionally, encyclicals are circular letters addressed only to the bishops of the Church. They tend to be discussions of some pressing matter at hand.

The only two "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements made during the last two centuries were contained in "apostolic constitutions," documents similar to an encyclical but addressed to no one and designed to make statements of law or fact, rather than to discuss an issue as do encyclicals. Yet, even these apostolic constitutions were not infallible in their entirety. Munificentissimus Deus defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in one sentence of a thirty-two page document.1  Ineffabilis Deus defined Mary's Immaculate Conception with one sentence in a twenty-three page document.2  Both contain a sentence detailing the penalty for refusing to believe the revealed doctrine. The remaining pages are devoted largely to outlining the history of the dogma in question and how it had been accepted by the faithful and the theologians over the centuries. While the single sentences of definition were guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, Pius XII or Pius IX could have made an error in one or more of their historical representations, since popes are not infallible in their teaching of history. And, at least in theory, they could have even made dogmatic or moral errors in parts of the document not directly connected to the "ex cathedra" pronouncement.

For a pronouncement to be an "ex cathedra" exercise of infallibility there must be no question as to the Pope's intention to make such a pronouncement, or about which phrase(s) contain the pronouncement. By its very nature the charism of infallibility would be useless if the faithful had to guess whether or not it was being employed. This requirement is reflected in the Code of Canon Law by the statement that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated."3   If informed and reasonable people can honestly hold that a pope did not signify this intention about a particular proposition, it cannot be an "ex cathedra" definition.

It should be noted, though, that Church documents may contain infallible teaching even though they make no "ex cathedra" pronouncements. In addition to the extraordinary magisterium, specifically expressed "ex cathedra" by popes and ecumenical councils, the Church also speaks infallibly through her ordinary magisterium, the teaching authority of popes and bishops who teach the unchanging Catholic Faith. Such pronouncements are more difficult to authenticate, in that they must be compared to, and found to agree with, the body of the Church's traditional teaching. Obviously, they must not contradict the ex cathedra teachings of popes and councils, or any of the teachings of immemorial tradition.

Church of the Holy Rosary

 

[excubitor]

I didn’t know the pope made an infallible statement concerning Galileo. Everything I’ve read indicates that an office in the Vatican dealt with the issue. For instance,

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

"Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

You see this is where arguments of papal infallibility and ex cathedra rulings send us into thinking of an absurd nature. Are you suggesting that the pope was trying to make a fallible flawed ruling concerning Galileos views. You reckon that the Pope imprisoned Galileo, pronounced heliocentrism as heresy, listed the work of Galileo and other heliocentrists on the Index of Prohibited works for a hundred years, referred the matter to the Sacred Congregation of the Index BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE WRONG OR THAT HE MIGHT BE IN ERROR. No. He would not have done those things unless he was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he was correct. As I have said before, there is not a single matter of the faith which had been proclaimed as heresy more emphatically and resoundedly than the matter of Galileo and his views. If these decrees against Galileo were not infallible then we cannot be certain of any decree prior to that being regarded as infallible. In fact the Dimond Brothers, (of unworthy state) absolutely scuttle the doctrine of Baptism of Desire by pointing out that the doctrine of an immovable earth was far, far, more emphatically pronounced by the church than ever Baptism of Desire was. Of course they come from the point of assumption that the church was proven wrong in the case of Galileo. Other protestant scholars have done similar works to utterly scuttle the doctrine of Papal Infallibility over this very issue.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

The document in question was a Papal decree from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It was not an ordinary tribunal (whatever you think that might be)

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office by its very nature and charter was exactly at the centre of the Pope’s mind. Not only Urban VIII but numerous popes after him ratified the findings of the Holy Office. To this day those findings have never been abrogated by any Pope.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

That is some canon lawyers set of rules that he has foxed out of Vatican I . But that is not what Vatican I says. Go back and read Vatican I quotes that I provided in a previous post. What is utterly disgraceful is that we have modern Canon lawyers subjecting the decrees of previous Popes to their rules of ex cathedra papal fallibility. In fact what they are doing is picking and choosing what they want to believe from the former Popes and labelling them “infallible” and then putting the kybosh on everthing they don’t want to believe and labelling it “fallible”.

In fact in the case of Geocentrism all of those three criteria were met anyway. The decree against Galileo expressly stated that heliocentrism was injurious of the faith. It was issued as a Papal decree from the Popes own Holy Office. It was solemnly proclaimed to be held by the faithful by being placed on the Index of prohibited works. Canon lawyers have to jump through hoops to make this and other decrees on the subject fallible. I suggest you call in a Cassini a member here who is an expert on these decrees. He runs rings about anybody who argues that these decrees had a charism of fault and fallibility about them.