What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[rinnie]

rinnie,
All I did was quote you and ask questions about your statements. And I asked for sources. How is that “taking everything you said and turning it out to be the exact OPPOSITE of what you just said”?

Look at your post above. Among other things, you did say, “**you cannot be OUT of communion with the Roman Church which is Christ if you believe in Jesus Christ. He is the CC.” **

**Again, these were my questions.
**

It seems you are attempting to answer something below, but telling me about valid orders doesn’t really deal with your statement: “**you cannot be OUT of communion with the Roman Church which is Christ if you believe in Jesus Christ. He is the CC.” **

Again, how does that clarify your statement: “**you cannot be OUT of communion with the Roman Church which is Christ if you believe in Jesus Christ. He is the CC.” **

And where are your sources??

rinnie, I’m not asking these things to be argumentative. I really want to understand what you are saying, and how your words fit with the teachings of the CC and how those teachings are consistent down through the centuries.

Peace,
Anna

Because the teaching of the RCC is Christ is the Church. The Church and Christ are one. I think I see what you are asking now. You want the official teaching so you can read it,

Okay I gotta roll but will find it for you tommorow unless someone else does before that.

GOd Bless Anna.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I just finished reading Pope Boniface’s writings and what they are doing is re-stating the marks and charism of the Catholic Church…one, holy, apostolic, Catholic church…the role of St. Peter and the need for one leader.

The Church is reeling from the Great Schism, and a number of social problems and upheaval. I just read more in depth about the Great Schism, the procedures and types of personalities the different popes were. Yes, the Church needed to be clarified, reaffirmed after such a travesty.

Jesus Christ said we cannot come to the Father except through Him. Jesus established only one Church. He is not a god of confusion or division, His constant prayer on earth that we be one.

St. Boniface is reaffirming one Church, one deposit of faith to guide people to salvation, not competing or dissenting or temporal rulers, who had alot of power and sway as to who could become pope.

You have to study pronouncements in light of the times people lived. . . .

KathleenGee,

I appreciate the perspective and context you added to Unam Sanctam regarding the words of Pope Boniface VIII.

Ironically, until GaryTaylor posted Unam Sanctam, salvation was not on my list of objections to the infallible declarations of the Popes.

The following was my first post on this thread:

kd5glx,

This is a very good question and there are actually very few teachings of the Catholic Church, that I know, with which I disagree.

My main disagreement, and the one that keeps me from jumping into the “Tiber,” is that one must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra–then add the problem of finding the infallible declarations re Faith and Morals. Is there a list somewhere? I’m aware of the infallible teachings regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It’s difficult to pin down exactly what I would be embracing in the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Anna

In a response to dzheremi, rinnie had already posted the following:

Why is it difficult to get a handle on what is a fallible teaching and what it infallible? I will agree the teachings of Christ and his Church is very demanding as finding time to study etc. . . .

The teachings of the RCC are quite simple to learn. They are not hidden and there are books for all to read.

What teachings are fallible and infallible are written so you can tell the differnce.

As the the discussion continued, I’ve realized it is not so easy to find where the infallible teachings are written–even on the one subject of salvation.

GaryTaylor (Catholic) put Unam Sanctam on the table of discussion in Post #123. (btw: thanks Gary. Oh so much grief. uch

I think Gary quoted Unam Sanctam in its entirety: (please correct me, if I am wrong)

. . .Unam Sanctam…Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302 . . . .

I think since Unam Sanctam was put on the table of discussion; it is fair to ask the following questions:

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching?

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC?

**Question #3: **If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Since, Pope Eugene IV seems to be saying the same thing, only more sternly; I think it is fair to ask the same questions about the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441.

Pope Eugene IV:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Question #4: Is the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441 infallible?

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? I can’t imagine that he did. Who is left after “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” are professed to be headed into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the CC.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

If no one answers this time; I will drop it and sign off the thread.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I promise to answer your question regarding salvation/invincible ignorance by this coming weekend - IF I am not sidelined with yet another thread on the papacy (a discussion which I simply cannot resist joining - I think God hardwired me that way when I joined the Catholic Church ).

Blessings,
Marduk

Because the teaching of the RCC is Christ is the Church. The Church and Christ are one. I think I see what you are asking now. You want the official teaching so you can read it,

Okay I gotta roll but will find it for you tommorow unless someone else does before that.

GOd Bless Anna.

Marduk & rinnie,
Thanks to both of you. No rush. No pressure.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Hesychios]

I just finished reading Pope Boniface’s writings…

The Church is reeling from the Great Schism, and a number of social problems and upheaval. I just read more in depth about the Great Schism, the procedures and types of personalities the different popes were. Yes, the Church needed to be clarified, reaffirmed after such a travesty.

Pope Boniface VIII was not dealing with the issue of the great schism, actually. However it can be shown that his actions initiated a chain of events that eventually brought about the Great Western Schism.

Pope Boniface was engaged in a military alliance against Philip IV of France, and he was losing.

Pope Boniface was using this document as a political weapon against the king of France. It was specifically sent to that king as a threat to the man’s salvation. The Pope was asserting a political claim over all kings, and Philip in particular. It just happens that the tactic did not work.

St. Boniface is reaffirming one Church, one deposit of faith to guide people to salvation, not competing or dissenting or temporal rulers, who had alot of power and sway as to who could become pope.

He was not canonized, he is not a saint. There are definitely reasons for that.

You have to study pronouncements in light of the times people lived.

Besides waging war against fellow Catholics in Italy and seizing their lands for his own family Pope Boniface was widely believed to have ordered the murder of his predecessor, Pope Celestine V (who actually is a saint).

Pope Celestine was supposed to be a temporary placeholder, because the Cardinals had gone two full years without deciding who should be the next Pope and they needed someone to fill in for a short while. The cardinals were divided into two equal powerful factions based on the most powerful families of the day in Italian politics, and as a compromise they reached out beyond the college of Cardinals to pick an old holy man from the mountains. The new Pope (already advanced in years) was apparently aware of the temporary role he was expected to play and was upset about the cabal around him, and he refused to go to Rome after his election. He served his entire Pontificate in Naples.

Pope Boniface, trained in law, was one of the contenders in the earlier voting and somehow became the old man’s advisor, and eventually one of the things he suggested was that the Pope step down.

After his resignation, the old Pope (St. Celestine) left for the mountains against the wishes of the new Pope, and guards were sent in pursuit. Celestine V then fled for his life. He tried to escape by taking a ship to Greece but a storm caused the ship to return to the coast of Italy, where he was apprehended and manacled. The new Pope Boniface VIII had him incarcerated. According to accounts a nail was driven into the old man’s skull while in his cell (a square hole can be seen in the relic).

Eventually Pope Boniface (after the wars and other contentious episodes) had also died, and the poet Dante (in his great work of fiction “The Divine Comedy”) remembered him by placing the man in hell with his feet on fire. Pope Boniface’s successor did not live long (probably murdered). The next Pope Clement V was a client of none other than the same Philip of France. King Philip was reconciled to the church through his new Pope and, as if to add one final assault to the repudiation of Pope Boniface poor old Pope Celestine was canonized by this same Clement V!

To top things off the Bull Unam Sanctam was forgotten and the claim to political power was abandoned. Clement V also moved the Papacy to Avignon in France. Since then some Roman Catholics have used the Bull to argue for spiritual claims of the Pope, while the twin claim of universal political power made in the same document has long been forsworn.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pope Boniface VIII was not dealing with the issue of the great schism, actually. However it can be shown that his actions initiated a chain of events that eventually brought about the Great Western Schism.

Pope Boniface was engaged in a military alliance against Philip IV of France, and he was losing.

Pope Boniface was using this document as a political weapon against the king of France. It was specifically sent to that king as a threat to the man’s salvation. The Pope was asserting a political claim over all kings, and Philip in particular. It just happens that the tactic did not work.
He was not canonized, he is not a saint. There are definitely reasons for that.
Besides waging war against fellow Catholics in Italy and seizing their lands for his own family Pope Boniface was widely believed to have ordered the murder of his predecessor, Pope Celestine V (who actually is a saint).

Pope Celestine was supposed to be a temporary placeholder, because the Cardinals had gone two full years without deciding who should be the next Pope and they needed someone to fill in for a short while. The cardinals were divided into two equal powerful factions based on the most powerful families of the day in Italian politics, and as a compromise they reached out beyond the college of Cardinals to pick an old holy man from the mountains. The new Pope (already advanced in years) was apparently aware of the temporary role he was expected to play and was upset about the cabal around him, and he refused to go to Rome after his election. He served his entire Pontificate in Naples.

Pope Boniface, trained in law, was one of the contenders in the earlier voting and somehow became the old man’s advisor, and eventually one of the things he suggested was that the Pope step down.

After his resignation, the old Pope (St. Celestine) left for the mountains against the wishes of the new Pope, and guards were sent in pursuit. Celestine V then fled for his life. He tried to escape by taking a ship to Greece but a storm caused the ship to return to the coast of Italy, where he was apprehended and manacled. The new Pope Boniface VIII had him incarcerated. According to accounts a nail was driven into the old man’s skull while in his cell (a square hole can be seen in the relic).

Eventually Pope Boniface (after the wars and other contentious episodes) had also died, and the poet Dante (in his great work of fiction “The Divine Comedy”) remembered him by placing the man in hell with his feet on fire. Pope Boniface’s successor did not live long (probably murdered). The next Pope Clement V was a client of none other than the same Philip of France. King Philip was reconciled to the church through his new Pope and, as if to add one final assault to the repudiation of Pope Boniface poor old Pope Celestine was canonized by this same Clement V!

To top things off the Bull Unam Sanctam was forgotten and the claim to political power was abandoned. Clement V also moved the Papacy to Avignon in France. Since then some Roman Catholics have used the Bull to argue for spiritual claims of the Pope, while the twin claim of universal political power made in the same document has long been forsworn.

Hesychios,
Wow. It’s amazing how different people can view the same set of events and arrive at entirely different conclusions about motives and what actually happened–but then that applies to all things, including the views of primacy/authority/keys. Sometimes, it is truly overwhelming.

Thank you so much for your post.

Peace,
Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

I understand I bought up Unam Sanctam, but we all must understand the Catholic Church now follows the doctrine of V-II. Which I might be mistaken but I believe still acknowledges the No-Salvation theology. Lumen Gentium doesn’t change this but expands on it.

The history of the Popes is a window into their individual thinking on how they arrived at the encyclicals. Which is important. And of course all this must be weighed in understanding where we are today. There are Popes who are Saints in both churchs of the CC and EO, St. Agatho comes just off the top of my head. There are others who’s primary issue’s were establishing the authority of Rome. For example Martin V ends the schism in the 1400’s then proceeds the remainder of his time to establish authority. BTW this happens after the Bull Unam Sanctam.

Now, where we are today. I can’t conclude that anything different will happen in regard to No Salvation. This would remain with or without communion, never the less the situation of the EO is much different as we see in real time with these bulls in history. They are the same church historically and in scripture. The fact 1000-years has bought a variance in worship isn’t uncommon. Their understanding of scripture, theology, history etc, without a doubt is compatible to ours.

Also being that the Pope is basically speaking for Christainity should one want to accept this or not, its a fact of life. So when the churchs become fragmented, they then must decide the path for Catholics and consider christianity worldwide. And some strong statements have been made, and not to everyones liking.

As far as what is infallible I posted a link on page 2-3.

The tread went many different ways sorry if I came off the beaten path a bit. Yet we are mixing different apsects of the Christian faith here. And there is a difference in my mind from the CC + EO and rest of Christianity not in communion. I’m not up on the Angelican’s as I would be comfortable commenting on it. I’ve got into it a bit but not enough.

God Bless, Gary

 

[rinnie]

Marduk & rinnie,
Thanks to both of you. No rush. No pressure.

Peace,
Anna

Anna I think this is what you are asking.

What makes a teaching infallible under the Ecumencial Council?

Here is the answer.

1. The Roman Pomtiff and the body of Bishops gathered with him
2. The virtue of their respective offices the Pope as SUPREME SHEPHERD and TEACHER of ALL the faithful and the Bishops as fellow Shephers in communion with him.
3. by a definitive act, they proclaim
4. a doctine of faith or morals
5. which MUST be held by the whole Church.

IF anyone says that it is possible that at some time given the advancement of knowledge a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Chuch which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands let him be anathema.

Hence too, that the meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which once been declared by the Holy mother Church and there must NEVER be any adandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understand.
(First Vatican Council on faith and Reason n 3, 14)

Is this what you are looking for,

Anotherward Anna the Pope has the right to teach us any way he wants as long as it adds up to the word of God.

No one can tell him what he can or cannot teach. As long as it lines up with dogma of the faith he can use any words he wants and teach anyway he wants.

Dogmas do not change, The Magisterium whether exercised by the POPE OR an ecumenical Council or Bishops dispersed through the world LED by the Pope does not have the ability or authority to change infallible teaching. Neither does the Canon Law have that ability or authority. If someone says the Cannon Law can change the sense that is assigned to the dogmas defined to the Church he fall under the sentence of Anathema of the First Vatican Council.

 

[rinnie]

The best example would be the Immaculate Conception. It is very broad in that Mary was preserved from original sin entirely from all effects at her conception.

She could not have been given ANY MORE grace or blessing then she was given. She could not have been brought anymore further away from original sin.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The best example would be the Immaculate Conception. It is very broad in that Mary was preserved from original sin entirely from all effects at her conception.

She could not have been given ANY MORE grace or blessing then she was given. She could not have been brought anymore further away from original sin.

rinnie,
Thanks for that example. I am aware of the infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

I posted it earlier in the thread, when I was trying to find what teachings are infallible.

. . . .Wikipedia lists 7. Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Are these all Ex Cathdra Documents?

1. “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3. Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
4. Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5. Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

And are there more?

Harpazo added two more:

Don’t forget Humanae Vitae, Quantum Praedecessores and Unam Sanctam.

In Christ,
Andrew

GaryTaylor then posted:

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F07790a.htm&ei=CEb3TY77BcHg0QHaioXYCw&usg=AFQjCNHUNWoagNaZamIp2t-mCsxjL6QlFg

Andrew, Humanae Vitae, Quantum Praedecessores and Unam Sanctam. Are encyclicals which for example Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul speaks on marrage, pro-creation etc.

Here’s the encyclical, btw this is nothing new in light of histroy

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html&ei=CEn3TbWlGJSr0AH26qHRCw&usg=AFQjCNGswj52pRfly_lD36OxGw-L_Fyh1Q

Here’s a link relating it to history and explaining and expanding on it.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FTheology%2FAUTHUMVT.HTM&ei=H1T3TevrBOSu0AHbyvSXCw&usg=AFQjCNGYZwsLOFKB-uxc5szxypoRGjWh1A

This encyclical is considered Prophetic.

And to understand each and every encyclical requires deep researc as stated above. One whould require exactly this type of re-search. Should one hear to calling to take on the responsibility “God Bless Them”. The Pope has taken 4-years to complete Part I+II of Jesus of Nazareth, and its still assumed a Part III is yet to came.

The Pope is the Compass for Mankind for Morals in as he who speaks from Peters Chair.

Heres a history of th encyclicals which date to Paul and the New Testament Not all are infallible. I’ve heard many Cathilc debates that " Humanae Vitae" is not and infallible enyclical.

Gary

GaryTaylor then postedUnam Sanctam in its entirety:

Andrew, you seem to have a concern about this Bull also so here it is…?

Unam Sanctam…Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302 . . . .

Peace,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholicism has its hierarchy of truths, and encyclicals, for example, carry different weights.

As Rinnie has stated, the pope speaks infallibly when in communion with the bishops of the world and the believers. When a statement is made, by then anyway, it makes sense and we are already able to integrate such a teaching into real life…

It feels right and connects to the real world around us, not us marching in step like robots and immediately thinking we have to submit or else …

When I asked the source…the display of comments appeared to me as all being out of context, inhumane, making the pope a charicature of a self-proclaimed demi-god.

The progression of papal infallibility was a growing response to temporal rulers running the church, appointing their own bishops and consequently not serving God and creating a very unstable world for their inhabitants.

So the emphasis in practice, is not on the pope in himself, but that the rule of God comes from God, not arbitrary or self-serving temporal order.

Again, you have to look at dates and events in the given culture to get right perspective.

And then pray to the Holy Spirit for understanding.

My focus and faith is on Jesus Christ, not the pope.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna I think this is what you are asking.

What makes a teaching infallible under the Ecumencial Council?

Here is the answer… . . . .

rinnie,
I appreciate the explanation.

I have read about the hierarchical structure of the CC and authority in the Vatican II document LUMEN GENTIUM.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
CHAPTER III
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. *And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) **And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment."****Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The problem is that Catholics cannot agree on what is and isn’t infallible, even knowing the definition of the hierarchical structure of the Church and its teachings on authority and infallibility.

And-----can you take the CC’s definition of the hierarchical structure of the Church, authority, and infallibility, and use it to answer the questions still on the table?

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching?

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC?

**Question #3: **If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Since, Pope Eugene IV seems to be saying the same thing, only more sternly; I think it is fair to ask the same questions about the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441.

Pope Eugene IV:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Question #4: Is the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441 infallible?

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? I can’t imagine that he did. Who is left after “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” are professed to be headed into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the CC.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Peace,
Anna

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,
I appreciate the explanation.

I have read about the hierarchical structure of the CC and authority in the Vatican II document LUMEN GENTIUM.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
CHAPTER III
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. *And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) **And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment."****Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The problem is that Catholics cannot agree on what is and isn’t infallible, even knowing the definition of the hierarchical structure of the Church and its teachings on authority and infallibility.

And-----can you take the CC’s definition of the hierarchical structure of the Church, authority, and infallibility, and use it to answer the questions still on the table?

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching?

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC?

**Question #3: **If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Since, Pope Eugene IV seems to be saying the same thing, only more sternly; I think it is fair to ask the same questions about the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441.

Pope Eugene IV:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as

Peace,
Anna

Anna if something is infallible its infalllible. But what I am trying to tell you there are NO exceptions to the teaching. But there are ways of teaching something one way, and then another way and both being correct.

That is what I am trying to tell you.

There is NO salvation outside of the CC aka Jesus Christ. But with that said does someone HAVE to be a member of the CC in order for Jesus to save them? No. Do you see what I am saying.

There is Christ leading his Church which is the visible Church here on earth, And there is the HS who is the invisible Church the HS who leads people, So both are true,

One Pope explains the truth in a way that the other Pope explains the truth in another way. But TRUTH is Truth. Do you see what I am saying.

One Pope was explaining the VISIBLE CHURCH and the other was Explaining the INVISIBLE CHURCH. Both true, both the same JESUS CHRIST. Only in different ways. Are you understanding now?

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister (brother?) rinnie,

The best example would be the Immaculate Conception. It is very broad in that Mary was preserved from original sin entirely from all effects at her conception.

She could not have been given ANY MORE grace or blessing then she was given.

Actually, this is a very common misconception. The Apostolic Constitution on the IC specifically asserts that Mary increased in Grace throughout her life. Please do have a careful read of the Apostolic Constitution.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

The context is that Peter has successors and that the Church, Christ’s only established church, and subsequently that having the full deposit of faith on the true reality and fullness of Jesus Christ, is represented in the Holy Father…

This particularly developed in the past 700 years in response to the unruly and infighting temporary rulers, these rulers appointing bishops and popes, the rise of Protestantism and the shattering of unity in Christiandom, the rise of atheistic secularism.

It is to be noted as well to verify that the Church has developed its own disciplines in regards to the papacy…if this position had been reformed, there might not have been a Reformation…the Council of Trent corrected past ecclesial weaknesses…

That in the past 100 plus years, we have had the fortune of many holy popes…so we are not spiritually scarred by those popes that gave rise to scandal or neglect or improper election of the past.

The Church, nevertheless, is a human institution, and reflects the difficulties as well as human developments of its times. There was a time when the world considered the world flat, not just the Church.

So science and reason must go hand in hand with faith. There has been great developments in the field of psychology just within the past 30 years, where people are now being greatly helped and their lives renewed…thinking of the 12 step programs…I believe it was two physicians, who developed this program. A Sr Ignatia then applied the 12 step program to the Catholic spiritual tradition of perfection and self-examination with the hope in Jesus Christ, and that – the 12 steps program will not work if people are not following a Christian moral life.

Anyway, our world is a continual discovery for truth and knowledge, and the Church continues to grow as well.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? I can’t imagine that he did. Who is left after “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” are professed to be headed into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the CC.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

I think we will be at an impasse, and it would be useless to continue with the discussion, unless and until you divest yourself of the misconception that a teaching needs to be infallibly defined for it to be believed by the Church.

The Church only defines things (i.e. makes dogma) when there is a conflict about a certain issue that is great enough to require a definition. No one has ever doubted that invincible ignorance is a mitigating factor for culpability in sin, so there has never been a need to define it.

I will ask you two questions, and please respond this time:

1. Do you understand and accept that the Church does not need to define every little thing for something to be believed by the Church?
2. Do you understand and accept that the Church is infallible not just when she defines dogma through her Extraordinary Magisterium, but also when she is merely transmitting the truth through her Ordinary Magisterium?

Your answers to these questions will determine if it will be worthwhile to offer you the proofs from Sacred Tradition for belief in the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance. I mean, wouldn’t it be a waste of time if I go through all the trouble, just to have you dismiss all my work with a claim that “These are not formal definitions, so I don’t care about them.”?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .The problem is that Catholics cannot agree on what is and isn’t infallible, even knowing the definition of the hierarchical structure of the Church and its teachings on authority and infallibility.

And-----can you take the CC’s definition of the hierarchical structure of the Church, authority, and infallibility, and use it to answer the questions still on the table?

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching?

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC?

**Question #3: **If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Since, Pope Eugene IV seems to be saying the same thing, only more sternly; I think it is fair to ask the same questions about the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441.

Pope Eugene IV:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Question #4: Is the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441 infallible?

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV infallibly define any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? I can’t imagine that he did. Who is left after “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” are professed to be headed into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the CC.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” infallibly defined?

Peace,
Anna

Anna if something is infallible its infalllible.

Are you referring to the statements, quoted in my post above, of both Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV, by saying 'if something is infallible it’s infallible"? IOW, Are you answering “yes” to questions #1 and #4?

But what I am trying to tell you there are NO exceptions to the teaching. But there are ways of teaching something one way, and then another way and both being correct.

That is what I am trying to tell you.

There is NO salvation outside of the CC aka Jesus Christ. But with that said does someone HAVE to be a member of the CC in order for Jesus to save them? No. Do you see what I am saying.

Not really. I’ve asked before for your source regarding your claim that “Jesus Christ is the CC.” You’ve said it a number of times.

There is Christ leading his Church which is the visible Church here on earth, And there is the HS who is the invisible Church the HS who leads people, So both are true,

One Pope explains the truth in a way that the other Pope explains the truth in another way. But TRUTH is Truth. Do you see what I am saying.

One Pope was explaining the VISIBLE CHURCH and the other was Explaining the INVISIBLE CHURCH. Both true, both the same JESUS CHRIST. Only in different ways. Are you understanding now?

Are you still talking about Pope Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV, that one was explaining the Visible Church and the other was explaining the Invisible Church? Which was which; and how does this answer any of the questions I asked?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .I think we will be at an impasse, and it would be useless to continue with the discussion, unless and until you divest yourself of the misconception that a teaching needs to be infallibly defined for it to be believed by the Church.

I never said a teaching must be infallibly defined for it to be believed by the Church.

My 1st post:

. . . .My main disagreement, and the one that keeps me from jumping into the “Tiber,” is that one must submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra–then add the problem of finding the infallible declarations re Faith and Morals. Is there a list somewhere? I’m aware of the infallible teachings regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It’s difficult to pin down exactly what I would be embracing in the Catholic Church.

Also see Post #141

Gary,

Thank you for posting this link: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

The article speaks of some Catholic writers who disregard and even oppose certain statements in papal encyclicals—adopting the attitude that much of the material, presented in the encyclicals, does not come from the Holy Father with an absolute guarantee of infallibility. . . .

. . . .I will ask you two questions, and please respond this time:

1. Do you understand and accept that the Church does not need to define every little thing for something to be believed by the Church?
2. Do you understand and accept that the Church is infallible not just when she defines dogma through her Extraordinary Magisterium, but also when she is merely transmitting the truth through her Ordinary Magisterium?

Your answers to these questions will determine if it will be worthwhile to offer you the proofs from Sacred Tradition for belief in the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance. I mean, wouldn’t it be a waste of time if I go through all the trouble, just to have you dismiss all my work with a claim that “These are not formal definitions, so I don’t care about them.”?

All I’m wanting is a little help from Catholics to sort out whether the statements of two Popes were infallible or not; and when the exceptions to “no salvation outside the CC” entered Catholic history. I don’t think that is too much to ask—but maybe it is–since creative methods of avoiding the questions are quite abundant on this thread.

If Pope Eugene IV’s statement, “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her” is infallible, where is there any room for an exception?

If Pope Eugene IV’s statement was not infallible, then the exceptions are not such an issue. If his statement was infallible and he defined no exceptions, exceptions at a later date could be a problem. That is an obvious concern.

I will re-frame the questions:

Question #1: Is Unam Sanctam, which declares, proclaims, and defines that “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” an infallible teaching or a non-infallible teaching?

Question #2: If Unam Sanctam is infallible, did Pope Boniface VIII define any of the exceptions (infallibly or non-infallibly) that are taught today in the CC?

**Question #3: **If Pope Boniface VIII did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” defined (infallibly or non-infallibly)?

Since, Pope Eugene IV seems to be saying the same thing, only more sternly; I think it is fair to ask the same questions about the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441.

Pope Eugene IV:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Question #4: Is the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441 an infallible teaching or a non-infallible teaching?

Question #5: If it is infallible, did Pope Eugene IV define (infallibly or non-infallibly) any of the exceptions that are taught today in the CC? I can’t imagine that he did. Who is left after “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” are professed to be headed into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with the CC.

Question #6: If Pope Eugene IV did not define exceptions; at what point in history were “exceptions” (infallibly or non-infallibly) defined?

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .The Church, nevertheless, is a human institution, and reflects the difficulties as well as human developments of its times. There was a time when the world considered the world flat, not just the Church. . . . .

KathleenGee,
I appreciate all that you wrote.

rinnie keeps telling me that Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. Do you know what she is talking about and a source for such a claim?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[rinnie]

Dear sister (brother?) rinnie,

Actually, this is a very common misconception. The Apostolic Constitution on the IC specifically asserts that Mary increased in Grace throughout her life. Please do have a careful read of the Apostolic Constitution.

Blessings,
Marduk

Please double check on this and you will see this is not the teaching of the RCC. Mary was FULL of Grace. Full means she was FILLED completely with the Grace of God.

The Scripture does not state that Mary was to be filled gradually with the Grace of God. The scripture states that Mary was full of Grace.

The teaching of the CC states that Mary was completely free from Original Sin at the Moment of her Conception. Not gradually free from sin after her conception.

This Anna is a perfect example of what I was telling you.

You check for yourself and you will see that Mary was completely saved from Sin at the moment of her Conception. Saved from Original Sin means full of Gods Grace from the beginning of her Conception, Other wise she could not be Free from Original sin from her conception.

The Church does not teach nor has ever taught that the Virgin Mary was gradually given Grace from the Moment of her Conception. As I stated ST states she was COMPLETELY Saved.

 

[rinnie]

KathleenGee,
I appreciate all that you wrote.

rinnie keeps telling me that Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. Do you know what she is talking about and a source for such a claim?

Thanks,
Anna

Simple Anna Christ himself tells you he is sending HIS Spirit the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all Truth. The Church and Christ are one just as a bride and a bridegroom become united into ONE SPIRIT!!

This is Only ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH just like there is ONLY ONE GOD AND ONE HOLY SPIRIT!!

The Church is not many. The CHurch is one. ONE IN CHRIST!!