Question for Protestants and Orthodox ...

[Peter_J]

Would any non-Catholic Christians like to answer this question: do you believe that in 1854 Pope Pius IX “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals [in this case, the Immaculate Conception] to be held by the whole church”?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Would any non-Catholic Christians like to answer this question: do you believe that in 1854 Pope Pius IX “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals [in this case, the Immaculate Conception] to be held by the whole church”?

No. And it wasn’t necessary for his church either.

 

[Mickey]

No.

 

[JonNC]

Would any non-Catholic Christians like to answer this question: do you believe that in 1854 Pope Pius IX “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals [in this case, the Immaculate Conception] to be held by the whole church”?

Peter,
Not sure I understand. Are you asking if he was speaking
ex cathedra? If that’s what you mean, yes. If you’re asking if he was correct to do so, no (though I believe generally in the IC).

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,
Not sure I understand. Are you asking if he was speaking
ex cathedra? If that’s what you mean, yes. If you’re asking if he was correct to do so, no (though I believe generally in the IC).

Jon

Jon,

I don’t mean to be nitpicky, but I want to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

From your saying that he was speaking ex cathedra, I would assume that you agree that he defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. Would that assumption be correct?

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I don’t mean to be nitpicky, but I want to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

From your saying that he was speaking ex cathedra, I would assume that you agree that he defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. Would that assumption be correct?

That is my (maybe false) understanding. Are not all Catholics bound to agree with this doctrine?
Jon

 

[Peter_J]

That is my (maybe false) understanding. Are not all Catholics bound to agree with this doctrine?
Jon

Yes, all Roman Catholics are required to agree with this doctrine (under pain of excommunication, in fact). But that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking do you believe that he defined a doctrine to be held by the whole church?

P.S. I guess that question really hinges on how you understand the term “define”.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. I guess that question really hinges on how you understand the term “define”.

In fact, taking that a step further, I think the truth of Papal Infallibility depends on how the terms are understood. I believe it to be true, according to how I understand the terms; but perhaps, according to how you understand the terms, you are correct to say it’s false.

 

[JonNC]

In fact, taking that a step further, I think the truth of Papal Infallibility depends on how the terms are understood. I believe it to be true, according to how I understand the terms; but perhaps, according to how you understand the terms, you are correct to say it’s false.

Boy, now I’m really confused.

Ineffabilis Deus

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, **is a doctrine revealed by God **and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Ok, you know I don’t accept papal infallibility. I think the idea of the IC is acceptable and probably true. I also believe, however, that scripture is not explicit enough either to say it was "revealed by God, or to bind a believer’s conscience on the issue. Therefore, I don’t view it as an article of faith.

I’m I on target, or am I still missing your question.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I’m I on target, or am I still missing your question.

Jon

I wouldn’t say that you’re off target, but my question was really just looking for a “yes” or “no” answer. Edit: Well actually, I guess that’s an oversimplification. A yes-or-no question usual has at least 4 possible responses: “Yes”, “No”, “I don’t know”, or “That depends”.

(Explanations of why you say “yes” or “no” are perfectly welcome.)

 

[JonNC]

I wouldn’t say that you’re off target, but my question was really just looking for a “yes” or “no” answer. Edit: Well actually, I guess that’s an oversimplification. A yes-or-no question usual has at least 4 possible responses: “Yes”, “No”, “I don’t know”, or “That depends”.

(Explanations of why you say “yes” or “no” are perfectly welcome.)

Yes, he clearly defined a doctrine. But as most protestants and the EO reject the doctrine (not necessarily the IC), it is not held by the “whole church”.

Jon

 

[LilyM]

Yes, he clearly defined a doctrine. But as most protestants and the EO reject the doctrine (not necessarily the IC), it is not held by the “whole church”.

Jon

And if by the ‘whole church’ you mean all Christians then NO-ONE means that.

A Catholic Pope can never bind, or intend to bind, non-Catholics to any teaching, he can only bind Catholics. Neither Catholics nor non-Catholics would suggest that he can or does bind anyone other than Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, he clearly defined a doctrine. But as most protestants and the EO reject the doctrine (not necessarily the IC), it is not held by the “whole church”.

Jon

Well for me (and this may help to explain why I think that we have different understanding of the terms) the phrase “to be held by the whole church” really refers back to the “defines a doctrine”. I would compare “defines a doctrine to be held by the whole church” with “dogmatically defines a doctrine”. (Actually I’m really not even sure what the difference is between those two phrases, although some people seem to consider it an important distinction.)

Anyhow, thank you for participating in my little informal survey.

 

[Peter_J]

JonNC (and anyone else) I was thinking of something else that might help explain how I understand the word “define”. Namely Pope JPII’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), which requires all Catholics to believe that only men can be ordained to the priesthood. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not, however, considered an ex cathedra statement, because he did not define a doctrine to be held by the whole church.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC (and anyone else) I was thinking of something else that might help explain how I understand the word “define”. Namely Pope JPII’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), which requires all Catholics to believe that only men can be ordained to the priesthood. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not, however, considered an ex cathedra statement, because he did not define a doctrine to be held by the whole church.

So that means, Peter, that this could later be changed? (Not saying it would, or even should)
Jon

 

[Peter_J]

So that means, Peter, that this could later be changed? (Not saying it would, or even should)
Jon

Well of course, the statement that only men can be ordained to the priesthood, always has been and always will be a true statement. But as far as Catholics being required to agree with the statement (which I assume is what you’re asking about) … well I’m not really sure whether that could change in the future. I wouldn’t want to try to give you an answer on that without first re-reading Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and related documents.

But I think my underlying point still works, namely that I wouldn’t equate “defining a doctrine to be held by the whole church” with “establishing a policy in which anyone who denies such-and-such doctrine will/may be excommunicated”.

 

[JonNC]

Well of course, the statement that only men can be ordained to the priesthood, always has been and always will be a true statement. But as far as Catholics being required to agree with the statement (which I assume is what you’re asking about) … well I’m not really sure whether that could change in the future. I wouldn’t want to try to give you an answer on that without first re-reading Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and related documents.

But I think my underlying point still works, namely that I wouldn’t equate “defining a doctrine to be held by the whole church” with “establishing a policy in which anyone who denies such-and-such doctrine will/may be excommunicated”.

Isn’t there the implied consequence of denying a “defined doctrine to be held by the whole church” that one could be excommunicated?

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Isn’t there the implied consequence of denying a “defined doctrine to be held by the whole church” that one could be excommunicated?

Jon

Yes.

(Re-read my last post.)

 

[Peter_J]

But I think my underlying point still works, namely that I wouldn’t equate “defining a doctrine to be held by the whole church” with “establishing a policy in which anyone who denies such-and-such doctrine will/may be excommunicated”.

P.S. Note that I said that I would not equate A with B. I am in no way denying that A implies B.