P
philjane
Guest
was this encyclical an infallible document? I believed that it was but i was listening to a tape last night that said it wasn’t
- Status
A
Apologia100
Guest
I don’t believe that this papal encyclical was issued ex cathedra, but rather the pope acting as teacher of faith and morals utilizing already established infallible declarations.
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
It is an offical teaching of the Church that should be followed by all Catholics.
M
mercygate
Guest
*Humanae Vitae * simply (well, not so simply!) restates the age-old teaching of the Church on the regulation of births. As you probably know, it was not until 1930 that ANY Christian body accepted contraception for any reason whatever.
This document, a brilliant encomium on human dignity, bases its teaching in both natural and moral law, neither of which are mutable by the Church. Thus, the teaching is infallible.
I would be very interested in learning why the tape you were listening to indicated that it is not, as I believe this is a commonly held view.
This document, a brilliant encomium on human dignity, bases its teaching in both natural and moral law, neither of which are mutable by the Church. Thus, the teaching is infallible.
I would be very interested in learning why the tape you were listening to indicated that it is not, as I believe this is a commonly held view.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
OK, can somebody clue me in again as to what the difference is between an ex cathedra teaching and an infallible statement? And if any given statement can be considered infallible, then what’s the purpose of even having an ex cathedra mode?
It would seem to me that if we have a special thing called “ex cathedra” by which the Pope was protected against error, then that same status would not necessarily apply to anything outside that mode. If that’s not the case, and humanae vitae is considered infallible teaching on faith and morals, then why doesn’t the Pope just declare it ex cathedra and be done with it?
Alan
It would seem to me that if we have a special thing called “ex cathedra” by which the Pope was protected against error, then that same status would not necessarily apply to anything outside that mode. If that’s not the case, and humanae vitae is considered infallible teaching on faith and morals, then why doesn’t the Pope just declare it ex cathedra and be done with it?
Alan
A
Apologia100
Guest
If it was issued ex cathedra, it would be promulgating a new doctrine. However, since it is simply a restatement of already established doctrine, it is simply an infallible statement, because it is a statement based on previously establish infallible pronouncements.OK, can somebody clue me in again as to what the difference is between an ex cathedra teaching and an infallible statement? And if any given statement can be considered infallible, then what’s the purpose of even having an ex cathedra mode?
It would seem to me that if we have a special thing called “ex cathedra” by which the Pope was protected against error, then that same status would not necessarily apply to anything outside that mode. If that’s not the case, and humanae vitae is considered infallible teaching on faith and morals, then why doesn’t the Pope just declare it ex cathedra and be done with it?
Alan
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Humanae Vitae is not an infallible statement (infallible exercise of the solemn magisterium). However, there is such a thing as an infallible exercise of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. In practice, this is a matter for dogmatic theologians to discern. The job of the Catholic is to submit to their superiors, just as Heb 13:17 commands us to.
Dogmatic theologians tend to disagree a times. Thus, at times, the supreme magisterium determines it is prudent to exercise the solemn magisterium, either as the Roman Pontiff through ex cathedra definition, or through General Council. But in my opinion, I don’t believe the decision to do so is up to them, but instead is a charism given by God. The pope hasn’t made an ex cathedra statement regarding the teachings of Humanae Vitae, perhaps because God has not given him the charism to do so.
I believe God wants belief in Him, belief in the deposit of faith, and obedience to his Church to be difficult. It’s a cross to carry, and as such every believer must “work out their salvation in fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) If it were easy, there’s be nothing meritorious about being faithful, and God wants us to merit congruously what Christ has merited for us condignly.
Dogmatic theologians tend to disagree a times. Thus, at times, the supreme magisterium determines it is prudent to exercise the solemn magisterium, either as the Roman Pontiff through ex cathedra definition, or through General Council. But in my opinion, I don’t believe the decision to do so is up to them, but instead is a charism given by God. The pope hasn’t made an ex cathedra statement regarding the teachings of Humanae Vitae, perhaps because God has not given him the charism to do so.
I believe God wants belief in Him, belief in the deposit of faith, and obedience to his Church to be difficult. It’s a cross to carry, and as such every believer must “work out their salvation in fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) If it were easy, there’s be nothing meritorious about being faithful, and God wants us to merit congruously what Christ has merited for us condignly.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I don’t find this all that convincing. The Assumption of Mary was a previously established doctrine which was infallible due to an exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, yet it was made unambiguously a formal dogma through an ex cathedra pronouncement.
Instead, I believe dogma develops. We are often impatient about its development.
From Ludwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
As I understand it, the development of the material part of dogma has concluded with the general revelation of Christ handed on to the Apostles. Since then, it has been a matter of development in formal dogma.
Dr. Ott describes the development of formal dogma as follows:
Theologians will argue wether Humanae Vitae belongs to stage 1) or stage 2) in this process. Catholics ought to consider such arguments irrelevant, as we are bound to religious assent of intellect and will to all those teaching is stage 1) anyway (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25)
V
Vincent
Guest
Fr. Brian Harrison explains why he thinks it is infallible in " Status of the Encyclical Ex-Cathedra**Humanae Vitae".
Most theologians would probably disagree with him, but I think his thesis is worth considering.
Most theologians would probably disagree with him, but I think his thesis is worth considering.
A
Apologia100
Guest
Bah, I can’t decifer that legalistic mubo-jumbo. We need a lawyer to break it down into small words and translate. Anyone volunteer (I am thinking of a self-proclaimed liberal Catholic lawyer from Arkansas).
P
philjane
Guest
mercygate said:
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’m a Kansas engineer, but have often envied lawyers’ ability to make huge sums of money off their eloquence. Does that count?
To my earlier questions, here’s what I’ve gathered so far from at least a modest attempt at sorting through the legaleze (and we wonder why protestants call us legalistic):
To my first question, apparently the distinction is highly technical and immaterial to mere mortals such as myself, as statements that are relatively offhand, like wine, improve with age and if they get enough press they automagically become infallible anyway. Apparently the second question is the express lane for something to become infallible.
I agree with 99.9% of humanae vitae and the typical conclusions drawn therefrom. In other threads I have tried desperately to comprehend where I might be missing something in the remaining gaps and was unable to do it. What I gather from that exercise and this discussion is that if I have a differing opinion or even wish to question something that is infallible, or that is questionably infallible, or is not infallible but is the opinion of some bishop that someone else agrees with even though it may disagree with other bishops (who are probably liberals), then I am automatically wrong. Specifically, as applied to humanae vitae, I think it boils down to this: How dare I, an ordinary mortal man with a wonderful wife and six precious, intelligent, chaste (as far as I know
), and high-achieving children, presume to have any opinions regarding marriage, sex and having children, other than those given to me by a group of ostensibly celibate old men who have much more credentials and power than I do?Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Oops, sorry all. There I went getting all emotional again.
It just occurred to me I haven’t taken my meds today. :whacky:
Alan
It just occurred to me I haven’t taken my meds today. :whacky:
Alan
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Alan,
It’s not credentials and power that’s important, but **plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. **It is a charism from God, such that whatever the magisterium teaches as absolutely true, is to be understood as absolutely true, without doubt.
Even if one were to conclude that the teaching of Humanae Vitae was not a formal dogma of Catholicism, one must still adhere to the teaching with submission of intellect and will. (cf. *Lumen Gentium, *25; see also canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law).
Let’s pretend it is not a formal moral dogma of Catholicism, but merely a doctrine or discipline. If so, Catholicism, still asserts …
Pope Pius IX
It’s not credentials and power that’s important, but **plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. **It is a charism from God, such that whatever the magisterium teaches as absolutely true, is to be understood as absolutely true, without doubt.
Even if one were to conclude that the teaching of Humanae Vitae was not a formal dogma of Catholicism, one must still adhere to the teaching with submission of intellect and will. (cf. *Lumen Gentium, *25; see also canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law).
Let’s pretend it is not a formal moral dogma of Catholicism, but merely a doctrine or discipline. If so, Catholicism, still asserts …
Pope Pius IX
No matter how you slice it, there’s no room in Catholic teaching for dissent and disobedience to the teachings of Humanae Vitae.
J
jimmy
Guest
I was just talking to a priest tonight that said contraception is still being debated among the bishops. This priest seems like he is very knowledgable. He was talking about Humanae vitae and he said that Paul set up a commision of theologians to examine the issue of contraception. This comission said that contraception was OK. He overruled them and said the opposite.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Here’s a paper I think may be of benefit …
**PROCLAIMING THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON **MARRIAGE IN THE AGE OF BIRTH CONTROL AND DISSENT
by William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., USA
christendom-awake.org/pages/may/kellyword.htm
**PROCLAIMING THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON **MARRIAGE IN THE AGE OF BIRTH CONTROL AND DISSENT
by William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., USA
christendom-awake.org/pages/may/kellyword.htm
D
Dismas2004
Guest
All encyclicals - because they are the private ideas and theology of a Pope made public for the express purpose of acting as Shepard, guiding the flock, are just that - a pastors advice and the reason for it. We often loose sight of that with all the Theological mumbo jumbo and wording. They are very edifying and Catholics are encouraged to read them. they are not bound by Canon law to read nor follow them. However, be warned - these are the words of holy and faithful men leading us closer to Christ. We would do well to heed their words, or at least consider and investigate them for ourselves. either way we are brought Closer to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
C
chrisg93
Guest
If you look at the current state of the Church teaching on Artificial birth Control it is pretty discouraging. The Church ban on ABC is an infallible, unchangeable dogma and violation is a grave sin. Surveys show that approximately 80% of Catholics and 99% of other Christians reject the Church’s teaching and practice contraception. This doctrine is basic to marriage and to society, but it is almost never discussed, mentioned or stressed.
As an ordinary Catholic layman I believe the Church teaching is true but it is incomplete, unconvincing and uncompelling.
The reason is that the dogma is not Biblically based as set forth in the CCC or in Humanae Vitae. Both documents are based on “natural law”, “unitive purpose”, “procreative purpose”, “marital chastity” and so forth. This is totally unconvincing to most Catholics (including priests) and virtually all non-Catholics. It takes a HUGE amount of Faith or a HUGE amount of intellect to adhere to this teaching on the basis of “natural law”. Most people don’t understand it, are not convinced by it, think it is something the Church “made up”, is debateable or it is easily overcome by “conscience”.
All Church doctrine is explicitly or implicitly present in the Holy Scripture, including the ban on ABC. I believe this Scripture to be “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”. Jer 1:5. This verse states that God knew and loved each of us from the foundations of the world. He knows exactly how many children he has planned for you and exactly what their names are. If you do not bring these children into existence by artificially frustrating his will, you will have to answer to God for the non-existence of a human life.
I believe that Jer 1:5 is the Biblical basis for the ban on ABC and it’s inclusion is the only way the dogma will ever attain significant understanding and acceptance.
As an ordinary Catholic layman I believe the Church teaching is true but it is incomplete, unconvincing and uncompelling.
The reason is that the dogma is not Biblically based as set forth in the CCC or in Humanae Vitae. Both documents are based on “natural law”, “unitive purpose”, “procreative purpose”, “marital chastity” and so forth. This is totally unconvincing to most Catholics (including priests) and virtually all non-Catholics. It takes a HUGE amount of Faith or a HUGE amount of intellect to adhere to this teaching on the basis of “natural law”. Most people don’t understand it, are not convinced by it, think it is something the Church “made up”, is debateable or it is easily overcome by “conscience”.
All Church doctrine is explicitly or implicitly present in the Holy Scripture, including the ban on ABC. I believe this Scripture to be “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”. Jer 1:5. This verse states that God knew and loved each of us from the foundations of the world. He knows exactly how many children he has planned for you and exactly what their names are. If you do not bring these children into existence by artificially frustrating his will, you will have to answer to God for the non-existence of a human life.
I believe that Jer 1:5 is the Biblical basis for the ban on ABC and it’s inclusion is the only way the dogma will ever attain significant understanding and acceptance.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear jimmy,
I read somewhere that an appointed commission was inconclusive. That might have been in HV itself but I’ve read so much lately that I’m not sure.
Alan
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t know if Humanae Vitae is classified as “ex cathedra” or not, but I consider it to be an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and in this case, of the Pope himself. He is teaching, after all, publically, on a matter which pertains to faith or morals (in this case, morals) and is speaking to all the faithful. I think he has the Divine protection of the Holy Spirit in such a case.
The fact that that the study commission, if left to itself, might have recommended a change in the doctrine, only convinces me further. Paul VI was not a particularly strong pope or a strong leader. The fact that he did not allow himself to be swayed by their opinion on this matter is to me further proof that he was strengthened by the protection of the Holy Spirit in defending the Church from error.
What is truly astounding is the rapidity with which other denominations allowed their previous teaching to be overturned. The consistent teaching of every Christian denomination has been that artificial contraception is wrong. In the space of 10 years this changed, beginning with the Anglicans. The 1920 Lambeth Conference condemned contraception. The 1930 Lambeth Conference approved it, for “hard cases,” therby overturning 400 years of Protestant theology since the Reformation.
The fact that that the study commission, if left to itself, might have recommended a change in the doctrine, only convinces me further. Paul VI was not a particularly strong pope or a strong leader. The fact that he did not allow himself to be swayed by their opinion on this matter is to me further proof that he was strengthened by the protection of the Holy Spirit in defending the Church from error.
What is truly astounding is the rapidity with which other denominations allowed their previous teaching to be overturned. The consistent teaching of every Christian denomination has been that artificial contraception is wrong. In the space of 10 years this changed, beginning with the Anglicans. The 1920 Lambeth Conference condemned contraception. The 1930 Lambeth Conference approved it, for “hard cases,” therby overturning 400 years of Protestant theology since the Reformation.
- Status