We don't have to believe every Papal Bull

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrift
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CCC 891 The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Click to expand...
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph describes infallible teachings, which “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” The second paragraph refers to teachings which are not regarded as infallible, but teach on faith and morals. Such teachings require “religious assent.”

“Assent” means we accept it because we accept the authority of the Church (“He who hears you, hears me”), even if we would not accept the teaching otherwise. It’s kinda like saying, “well, that sounds crazy to me, but I will take your word for it because I accept your authority.”

Either way, both infallible and non-infallible teachings are binding upon the Faithful. The distinction is pretty much irrelevant to laypeople.

A Papal Bull (ie, bulletin) is a very low-level form of communication. It is unlikely that a Pope would use a Bull to express a teaching which requires the “religious assent” of all of the Faithful (I cannot think of an example where this has ever happened - and if it ever did, it would probably be a long time ago). Teaching requiring “religious assent” would usually be promulgated through an Encyclical or an Apostolic Constitution.
 
DavidFilmer said:
A Papal Bull (ie, bulletin) is a very low-level form of communication.
Click to expand...
In the modern church, yes. We now have the concepts of encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, decrees, etc.

But, reading the article I linked to above, this is not the case in years gone by. The origin of the word “bull” has to do with the seal affixed to the document, and many years ago just about any document with the papal seal (bull) affixed was called a “bull”.

So, we can’t paint too broad a brushstroke here without knowing more specifically *which *bull the OP is talking about.
 
1ke said:
In the modern church, yes. We now have the concepts of encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, decrees, etc.

But, reading the article I linked to above, this is not the case in years gone by. The origin of the word “bull” has to do with the seal affixed to the document, and many years ago just about any document with the papal seal (bull) affixed was called a “bull”.

So, we can’t paint too broad a brushstroke here without knowing more specifically *which *bull the OP is talking about.
Click to expand...
Not referring to anyone in paticular.
rturner76 said:
I read the Papal Bull and I saw what the Pope at the time had to say about it. For me it’s a stretch but I’m not bound by those rules of being required to believe every Papal Bull. I love so much about Catholicism. I just have a hard time when there are things that I can’t believe but I would have to believe it anyway to be a “true” Catholic. Anyway, that part’s of topic. God Bless.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm, my copy of “Catholicism for Dummies”, in the “Who’s Who in the Catholic Church” chapter lists the papal documents from the most solemn on down as:

Papal Bulls
Papal Encyclicals
Papal Briefs
Apostolic Exhortations
Apostolic Constitutions
Apostolic Letters
Motu Proprios

It notes that pre-Vatican II the type of document determined how much authority the pope intended to exercise. After Vatican II, the content and context determine degree of authority more so than the type.

My 20 min internet search produced several lists where bulls are not even mentioned. :confused:
 
Regardless of what it is called, I think we can regard any teaching as (at least) “authoritative” (requiring religious assent) if it:


  1. *]Is promulgated by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council.
    *]Is intended for all the Faithful (not for a particular group, country, etc).
    *]The subject matter predominately concerns the Catholic Faith itself and the Church’s moral teaching.

    This is my own list, inspired by CCC 891.

    The Canon mentions that such teaching may be promulgated by the world’s Bishops. An Ecumenical Council is the only practical way I can think of that the Bishops could exercise this authority without the direct involvement of the Pope to teach on their behalf. Much of the Doctrine of Vatican II would fall into this category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top