I
ImKevin
Guest
Is a Papal decree the same as dogma? Can it change? Is it infallible?
- Status
J
JM3
Guest
U
Usagi
Guest
If the contents of a papal decree meet the conditions for infallibility, then obviously the teaching would be infallible. But merely because a document is issued by the Pope does not make it’s contents irreformable.
Do you have an example of a papal decree that you are wondering about?
Usagi
Do you have an example of a papal decree that you are wondering about?
Usagi
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Pope has to state that he is speaking infallibly, if I understand it correctly.
I
Ignatius
Guest
However, as pointed out earlier: Any papal Bull, Brief, or Motu Proprio is a decree inasmuch as these documents are legislative acts of the Holy Father. These are a mtter of Church discipline and must be obeyed.
A
ActuallyAquinas
Guest
So, pray your Rosary everyday.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
True, but that doesn’t make them infallible. As a discipline, that means they can be changed. An infallible statement cannot be reversed.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Not so. There is no such requirement.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Exactly, sadly some people will argue that, since they are not infallible statements they can be ignored. That is the issue I was addressing. They require the obedience of the faithful.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Whoa, I didn’t say they can be ignored. I said they are disciplines. When the Pope imposes a discipline on the faithful, it can’t simply be ignored. Celibate priests? Abstaining from meat on Fridays in Lent?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Are you sure? I’ll check some resources.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Not so. There is no such requirement.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Not so. There is no such requirement.
JPII made the statement that the Church was not empowered to ordain women. He never said it was an infallible statement. Later journalists asked Cardinal Ratzinger if it was an infallible statement and he replied it was. There is no requirement in the formal definition of papal infalliblity that the pope must say it is infallible just as there is no requirement that any scripture writing state that it is inspired. Infallibility exists if all of the prerequisites are met. This is why the canon of scripture was formally defined at Trent and not at Florence even though the canon was defined at Florence. BUT at Florence the canon was defined in a Bull addressed to one of the eastern churches and not addressed to the universal Church thus it did not meet all the requirements for infallibility.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I think you’re mixing apples and oranges. The male-only priesthood is not because the Pope declares it infallibly. It’s there because of Sacred Tradition… Christ initiating this tradition in the upper room (and a few other reasons).
Appended:
Ink, Here’s what you may be explaining:
I
inkaneer
Guest
None the less the pope made a statement on female ordination. The press asked Ratzinger if the statement was infallible. Obviously the pope made no comment on whether his remark was infallible or not. Ratzinger said it was because it satisfied all the prerequisites for infallibility. Prior to this there was no definitive answer to the question. By the way, JPII did not say the church could not ordain women because of Sacred Tradition. He said the church had no God given authority to ordain women. It, then, is a question of authority, not teaching.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Here’s what Catholic Answers’ “This Rock” says about the authority of the Pope teaching infallibly:
So, did John Paul II say that he was teaching as the successor to Peter?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I
inkaneer
Guest
A swing and a miss. It has nothing to do with the bishops meeting in council. Although even in council the bishops must be united to the pope. That is, they must agree with the pope.
Rather, my point was that at the Council of Florence the Pope issued several bulls to different Eastern churches. In one of those bulls to one of the Eastern Churches the pope outlined the canon of scripture [apparently this church had a different canon]. The canon that the pope outlined in the Bull was exactly the same as that of the synods of Rome, Carthage and Hippo some thousand years earlier. However, the Church does not claim that this Bull formally defined the canon at Florence but rather formal definition of the canon occurred at the Council of Trent, about 100 years or so later. WHY? Because the bull issued at Florence did not meet the requirements for infallibility. TO WIT: It was not directed to the universal church but rather to only one Rite of the Church. But was the Pope acting in his capacity of Pope? Yes. Was he intending to teach? Yes. Was he teaching on a subject of faith and/or morals? Yes. Was he teaching to the whole Church? NO. Therefore his teaching was not infallible. He may have been and indeed was, correct but not infallible.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I agree with your discussion on Trent and Florence? So… what are we arguing about exactly?
I
inkaneer
Guest
Your statement in post #4 in which you said:
“The Pope has to state that he is speaking infallibly, if I understand it correctly.”
I say the pope does not have to make any such statement. As long as the conditions for infallibility are met then the teaching is infallible.
P
PJM
Guest
I’m unclear of what you mean by :decree"? How is such deceminated and under what form?
Perhaps this information will assist you? FROM the Current Code of Canon Law:
BOOK III.
THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI
Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.
§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.
Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.
§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.
Can. 749 §1.*** By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.***
§2. *The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; *or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Can. 750 §1.*** A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith*** entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
**Can. 751 **Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 752* Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.*
**Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
Hope you find this helpful:thumbsup:
God Bless you,
Pat
- Status