R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Ah! That makes sense! I knew that women’s ordination had been infallibly settled, so this definitely makes sense. Thanks!
In Christ,
Rand
- Status
Ah! That makes sense! I knew that women’s ordination had been infallibly settled, so this definitely makes sense. Thanks!
In Christ,
Rand
L
Loy
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Also, it is ultimately up to the magisterium to determine which teachings belong to the extraordinary magisterium, and which are part of the ordinary magisterium.
It’s important for theologians to remember the limitations of their authority — and to remind others of these limitations — when they state their opinions on Church teaching.
I get very nervous when someone says, “there are only two ex cathedra declarations”. The more accurate statement is, we know of at least two, there may be others. But once again, it is up to the magisterium to determine which papal declarations are ex cathdedra and which are not. The magisterium has never formally rendered a definitive list of ex cathedra declarations.
I’m sorry to throw another monkey wrench in the equation, but it won’t be “infallibly settled” until the magisterium defines it, either by ecumencial council in union with the pope, or ex cathedra by the pope alone. One of the characterisitics of the ordinary magisterium is that theologians continue to debate whether one teaching or another is infallible or not. This is an inherent problem with the ordinary magisterium. Once the extraordianry magisterium infallibly defines it, the debate over whether a teaching belongs to the ordinary infallible magisterium or not is ended.
Also, it is ultimately up to the magisterium to determine which teachings belong to the extraordinary magisterium, and which are part of the ordinary magisterium.
It’s important for theologians to remember the limitations of their authority — and to remind others of these limitations — when they state their opinions on Church teaching.
I get very nervous when someone says, “there are only two ex cathedra declarations”. The more accurate statement is, we know of at least two, there may be others. But once again, it is up to the magisterium to determine which papal declarations are ex cathdedra and which are not. The magisterium has never formally rendered a definitive list of ex cathedra declarations.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
And what about the canonization of saints? Those would have to be infallible too, wouldn’t they?
In Christ,
Rand
And what about the canonization of saints? Those would have to be infallible too, wouldn’t they?
In Christ,
Rand
L
Loy
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
I’ve seen excellent arguments for and against that proposition. But until the magisterium speaks on the matter, it is up for debate.
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
If, it were required that the Pope or the Bishops in union with him to say that they are speaking infallibly, then this would become condition number five.
Even if the Pope or the Bishops in union with him did say it you would still get those who would disagree.
Pax
Brian.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Keep this in mind when trying to discern if something is infallible or not:
John
L
Loy
Guest
Brian Ingram:
Brian Ingram:
No, because a statement is ex cathedra whether we recognize it as such or not. The magisterium’s affirmation of infallibility helps us to recognize it as infallible.
Brian Ingram:
Let’s hope that the magisterium reaffirms that such behavior is faithless, sinful and places the salvation of those individuals in jeopardy.
L
Loy
Guest
John Higgins:
This is not just a good idea, it’s the law! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
D
dcdurel
Guest
Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of papal infallibility: “. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
J
JOE_OBERR
Guest
The Prefect of the CDF, nor any other individual bishop, does not posssess the charism of infallibility individually, as does the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he could be in error, unless his statement is in agreement with all the other bishops of the world, including of course, the Pope. As I am not aware of this latter condition being met, his statement cannot be held as the definitive answer to the question.
One has to look at the appropriate magisterial documents, in this case it is Vat I & II which clearly state the conditions necessary for ex cathedra as well as ordinary and universal magisterium pronouncements. Post #29 has the 4 criteria listed. According to those criteria the Pope’s pronouncement on women’s ordination is ex cathedra.
To clarify, even if it wasn’t ex cathedra, i.e., if the Pope had said a a number of times before papal audiences, or at Mass, that women cannot be ordained for such & such reasons, than that would qualify as ordinary teaching which would still be infallible because by definition all teachings are infallible as the Church cannot teach error.
Joe
M
malachi_a_serva
Guest
Pope Pius XII stated Ex Cathedra “Don’t ever explain the Bible symbolically or allegorically to the determent of the literal”
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I will ask you again, where did you find this malachi_a_serva?! Plus, I thought that the only 2 explicitly ex cathedra statements were for the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, but I could be wrong. That’s a very good quote and I don’t see why you think it supports your view or is contrary to any Church teachings. Catholics are taught to always look to the literal first and then the other three senses of Scripture:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405bt.asp
B
batteddy
Guest
I agree.
There has been only one (the Assumption) since the formal definition of Papal Infallibility, but popes always had infallibility whether or not it was defined in the most solemn and explicit sense. Therefore, any statements by popes throughout Church history which match the criteria are infallible. This includes the Immaculate Conception as well as others.
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman Pope’s Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility, that is to distinguish between his Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and his non infallible Authentic Ordinary Magisterium
Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Dz.1839), the Pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is.
Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted by the Church, such was the case of Humanae Vitae:
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church’s constant refusal to ordain women, this overall falls into his Ordinary Infallible Magisterium however he further clarified it by saying the Church had no authority to ordain women, that is the Church or dissident Bishops are unable to ordain woman even illicitly. This particular clarification of the Church Tradition I believe falls into the catergory of his **Solemn or **Extraordinary ****Magisterium; in that it had not been determined before (as far as I know).
Pax
Brian
It is incorrect to say the Pope is only infallible in his Extraordinary Magisterium, he can also be infallible in his Ordinary Magisterium.
It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman Pope’s Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility, that is to distinguish between his Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and his non infallible Authentic Ordinary Magisterium
Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Dz.1839), the Pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is.
Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted by the Church, such was the case of Humanae Vitae:
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church’s constant refusal to ordain women, this overall falls into his Ordinary Infallible Magisterium however he further clarified it by saying the Church had no authority to ordain women, that is the Church or dissident Bishops are unable to ordain woman even illicitly. This particular clarification of the Church Tradition I believe falls into the catergory of his **Solemn or **Extraordinary ****Magisterium; in that it had not been determined before (as far as I know).
Pax
Brian
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Unam Sanctam infallible? Bah! Only in the mind of Feeneyites. The “formula” which some point to to confer some retroactive infallibilty was commonly used in papal bulls in the 13th through 16th centuries. The quote from US that everybody points to (for those who don’t know)
Not infallible, it seems not even operable if you look at the Catechism:
John
D
dcdurel
Guest
Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of papal infallibility: “. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
Can 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.
This means that is a doctrine does not meed these four tests, it is not infallibly defined by the Pope.
Since the Pope’s encyclicals on Humanae Vitae and on the ordination of women meet these four tests, then they are manifestly demonstrated to be infallible.
Simple as that. No way around it. All four tests are met, thus they are infallible, as are all the other teachings of the Popes, when teaching as part of their office, that concern faith or morals that are to be held by the universal Church.
In other words, the Popes constantly teach infallibly. It would be close to impossible to list all their infallible teachings.
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
Can 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.
This means that is a doctrine does not meed these four tests, it is not infallibly defined by the Pope.
Since the Pope’s encyclicals on Humanae Vitae and on the ordination of women meet these four tests, then they are manifestly demonstrated to be infallible.
Simple as that. No way around it. All four tests are met, thus they are infallible, as are all the other teachings of the Popes, when teaching as part of their office, that concern faith or morals that are to be held by the universal Church.
In other words, the Popes constantly teach infallibly. It would be close to impossible to list all their infallible teachings.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
John Higgins said:
How can you say that Unam Sanctum is not infallible by citing the CCC that came out nearly 700 years later? Shouldn’t the CCC have to be in line with Unam Sanctum rather than vice versa? After all, the doctrines of the Catholic Church never change, at least they’re not supposed to…
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Not quite, dogma never changes;doctrine develops.
John
U
USMC
Guest
Of course you are exactly right. The fallible must be interpreted in accord with the infallible. Prior to Vatican II this was easy since the two were in perfect harmony; however, since the Council, we have been given ambiguous documents that can be interpreted in more than one way. Obviously, the proper thing to do is to interpret the ambiguous and fallible document in accord with the unambiguous and infallible document.
John Higgins:
Doctrinal developement brings a clearer and more precise meaning to what has always been held; whereas doctrinal evolution (which was condemned by Pop Pius X), changes what has always been believed.
The following was written by St. Vincent of Lerins, and was used in the documents of the first Vatian Council.
St. Vincent wrote: "There is a development when a thing in itself is enlarged; there is a change when something is changed into another thing… Understanding, knowledge and wisdom must increase and powerfully grow in one and in all, both in each individual man and in the Church, during the passage of time and of the ages, but grow solely within its own species, that is to say within the same dogma, in the same sense and in the same meaning. In eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia [This expression was lifted textually by Vatican Council I and for the Anti-Modernist Oath-Ed.]
Unfortunately, this true notion of doctrinal developement had been rejected by many within the church today, and substituted for “doctrinal evolution”, which teaches that doctrine changes from one meaning to another: thus the docrinal chaos within the Church today, between those who still believe what the Church has always taught, and those who reject it.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
That is exactly what Protestants say when they claim to have the authority to judge the Catholic Church against their personal interpretation of Scripture.
This attitude is no more wrong than when traditionalists claim to have the authority to judge Vatican II against their personal interpretation of prior papal and conciliar documents.
Faithful Catholics follow the living Magisterium of the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and place their trust in that living Magisterium, relying on Christ’s words, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
- Status