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

  • Thread starter Thread starter kd5glx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GaryTaylor said:
Heres another link if you want to view this more in depth and from different perspectives.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicapologetics.info%2Fthechurch%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocauthority.htm&ei=v4f3TaGKG8ne0QHVg62mCQ&usg=AFQjCNGotsl3uvPaj0lKdN5eaAPUUJ0zWg

God Bless, Gary
Click to expand...
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.

The article also says that these Catholic writers have forgotten that the “internal and sincere assent due to teachings presented even in a non-infallible way by the supreme teacher and ruler of the Church militant is definitely and seriously obligatory.”

**Ironically, the article goes on to say the “obligation holds until the Church might come to modify its position on some particular portion of the teaching contained in the encyclicals, or at least until the time when very serious reasons for such modification might become apparent.”
**
The article refers to a large number of prominent theologians who, in regards to encyclical letters, consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio.

The article mentions another “very imposing group of theologians” who explicitly list papal encyclicals as non-infallible documents. However, they maintain that “the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.” An “internal mental assent” is also demanded.

The article continues saying, "The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.”

**So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit to teachings of Papal Encyclicals that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous. **

At least, now I understand why there is not an all inclusive list of infallible beliefs or doctrines.

Regarding the OP’s Question:
What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

I can’t tell you what “infallible declaration of any Pope on morals” to which I would object, because there is no Catholic consensus on what is infallible.

Without knowing precisely what is infallible; the OP’s question is impossible to answer.

Peace to all,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
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.

The article also says that these Catholic writers have forgotten that the “internal and sincere assent due to teachings presented even in a non-infallible way by the supreme teacher and ruler of the Church militant is definitely and seriously obligatory.”

**Ironically, the article goes on to say the “obligation holds until the Church might come to modify its position on some particular portion of the teaching contained in the encyclicals, or at least until the time when very serious reasons for such modification might become apparent.”
**
The article refers to a large number of prominent theologians who, in regards to encyclical letters, consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio.

The article mentions another “very imposing group of theologians” who explicitly list papal encyclicals as non-infallible documents. However, they maintain that “the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.” An “internal mental assent” is also demanded.

The article continues saying, "The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.”

**So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit to teachings of Papal Encyclicals that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous. **

At least, now I understand why there is not an all inclusive list of infallible beliefs or doctrines.

Regarding the OP’s Question:
What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

I can’t tell you what “infallible declaration of any Pope on morals” to which I would object, because there is no Catholic consensus on what is infallible.

Without knowing precisely what is infallible; the OP’s question is impossible to answer. So, I’m signing off this thread.

Peace to all,
Anna
Click to expand...
So there you have it.

God Bless, Gary
 
FabiusMaximus said:
I’m sure the Church has its reasons to believe in those issues. But why can’t it take an official viewpoint without making them ‘absolutely irreversible’ or allowing wiggle room among its members?

Many Catholics I know don’t even know the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - they think it refers to Jesus. I just don’t see how the Catholic faith is ‘reduced’ if that becomes a more optional belief than a mandated one.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent point.
 
Dear sister Anna,
Anna_Scott said:
mardukm,

The question of this Thread: **What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?
**

It’s difficult to answer the question of the OP, if I don’t know what falls under “infallible declarations” of the Popes.

So, it would be helpful if you would spend some time identifying the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, instead of making speculations and assumptions about my motives, beliefs, and whether or not I have a “log in my eye.”
Click to expand...
But you’re the one that brought it up.🤷 Did you know at the time you brought it up that it was not germane to the topic? If so, why did you bring it up? If you did not realize it at that time, why are you unwilling to discuss it now?:confused:

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Anna_Scott said:
Without knowing precisely what is infallible; the OP’s question is impossible to answer.
Click to expand...
You can start by looking at the lists that theologians give, and determining what is common between them.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear sister Anna,
Anna_Scott said:
Is this an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that “neither salvation nor the remission of sins” exists outside the Catholic Church–and it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff–no exceptions?
Click to expand...
The mitigation of invincible ignorance has always been recognized by the Catholic Church. It was especially so during the renaissance of the scholastic period in the Latin CC. So there are exceptions.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Anna as far as post 139 thats from V-II. I see the thinking directed at the majority of the unthinking population to encourage them to seek God in the correct way. Really its more “We know where the church is, we do not know where it is not”

The idea that the Popes release full of fire encyclicals is nothing new. The trickle down effect becomes changed through the grape vine. Sunday Homilys etc and winds up being “Salvation is in the Catholic Chruch.” Which it is.

Its apparent right here on this forum there are very good Christians in many fragmented areas of Christianity. Gods children cover this earth. Gods children exist in the center of Islam.

We live and we learn just as in the Bible as we have come to know the earth isn’t flat.

Nonetheless its also clear the first 300-years of the one and only Catholic Apostolic Church is a fact to the reality of Peters Chair and primacy. No church father before claims anything else. By 451 we again have wording which basically reminds me of the encyclicals. You really have place it under a magnifying glass and view every word with scrutiny.

Today is really the concern. I think its great to talk history and go through the issues. But the EO and where they are going as a whole we don’t yet know. In essense, the ball is in their court. Constantinople claims primacy in the EO world. Some agree and others totally reject the theology. So where it ends we will know in the next 2-years. Then we can view the idea of communion once again. In the meantime they are carefully doing just as we are doing. Looking closely at the ecumenical councils.

Right now we are creating issues which we don’t in fact know will even be issues. First off if and when a communion occurs. Then a ecumencal council will immediately follow.

The Pope as Primacy will always be, the question of his specific tasks comes to mind and “Dominus Iesus” is also complex. This is exactly where the EO and CC are at. Control over other areas isn’t an issue. Rome never controlled Constantinople. Constantinople was build as the “second” Rome. As the Christian world evolved. Actually Alexandria was chosen before Constantinople but history shows how that faired.

Nonetheless we certainly need to rise to higher level of Christainity as a whole.

My theory is not to dwell on fault first, its to unite through common bond first. Then we can work on the wrinkles.

God Bless, Gary
 
Anna_Scott said:
Gary and rinnie,

Is this an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that “neither salvation nor the remission of sins” exists outside the Catholic Church–and it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff–no exceptions?

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
Anna this teaching has nothing to do with the Roman Pontiff, The No salvation outside of the CC has a different meaning for me. What is the CC? That is when you will see what the true meaning of the Popes words are,

The CC for us is Jesus Christ. Think about it what can a Church do or bring to us? Nothing! Unless you truly know what the CC is.

As we are taught through SS and ST the Church and Christ are one as Christ teaches us. I am sending the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT to lead you to all truth. So who is the Leader? Who is the Church? Simple. To us it is our dear Christ Jesus.

So let me repeat the words of the Pope now and I am sure you will agree. There is no Salvation outside of the CC,aka There is no Salvation outside of JESUS CHRIST!!

See people take the words of the Pope just like they take the words of Jesus and run with them and try to make them say what THEY want them to say.

Just like we have the CC being led by Christ in the Spirit to speak up and interpret his words using the human body of the Popes and Bishops we were lucky enough to have the Pope ALIVE and well to interpret what those words were meant to mean.

To us Jesus Christ leads the CC just like he said he would. In order to deny that you would have to say that the Advocate did not appear on the day of Pentecost to the Church.

Now people say I believe those words but it is not YOUR Church it is ALL Church’s. My answer then would be, then why can St Peter be traced to the RCC? ANd he can, so to me that is MY proof I am in the Church led by the Holy Spirit.

The next question comes Christ is leading all Church’s. IS he? If that is true then you would have to agree that the Advocate the Holy Spirit leads us to many truths. And that is not true! There is only ONE TRUTH. Christ tells us.

The Pope said he admires all Church’s for the truth that they have but they do not have the FULLNESS of the TRUTH. Simply because if they did we would all have the same truth and no arguments.

That is just my simple logical personal take on it. While I believe that Christ is everywhere and as scripture states wherever people pray in his name he is there, I believe those words.

But I also believe his words do not stray and believe false teachers and be led away from the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church.

You see that today. Father said 2 weeks ago if you want a Church that is going to change with the modern times you do not want the RCC. Christ leads the RCC the People do not lead Christ. The RCC is not a majority rules. If you don’t like a teaching of Christ you cannot change it to fit your needs.

Christ will not comform to man Man must conform to Christ.
 
Anna what is Salvation and how do we obtain it.

Simple Salvation is thru Jesus Christ. How did he leave us the way to obtain it.

Simple he is the door to Salvation Open the door and enter.

Salvation is through Christ and by his death on the Cross he made possible for us the Sacraments.

The Sacraments are what Christ said we need to obtain eternal life.

Communion= You must eat and drink my body and blood to obtain eternal life. If you do not eat and drink there is no life in you.

Confession= You must confess your sins to be forgiven= IF you forgive sins they are forgiven if you retain they are retained.

Baptism. You must be baptised in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Holy Orders= He breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit.=Be carefull of who you lay your hands on.

Last Rites= heal the sick by the laying hands on them and praying over them.

Confirmation=receive the Holy SPirit and go be a disciple of Christ and spread the good news.

Marriage=As CHRIST and his CHURCH are one, Man and women also become one.

All of the Sacrments are necessary for eternal life and are available in the RCC through the Priest who is standing in for Christ and has the authority from Christ to do his work.
(ALL that my FATHER had given ME I now GIVE to you. GO!!

Again ALL that my Father has given ME I now GIVE TO YOU!! GO!! That is why we believe that the Priest has all authority to do what he does. We beleive with our whole soul that Christ indeed had the authority and his authority never dies.
 
Mickey said:
But it is okay because they are invincibly ignorant. :confused:
Click to expand...
No MIck they are far from ignorant. Most well educated and arrogant. Man keeps forgetting the Worlds going to change because nothing is constant but change. And always when we look back on it its ignorance.

A perpertual cycle Gods Children been going through since Egypt, the wages of sin are War and Bondage.

Its always the question; How are we going to build the Temple instead of building the Temple? I think we almost have the Temple up this time:D

God Bless, Gary
 
Mickey said:
You must be joking.

Holy Orthodoxy is the Church that Christ founded. It is the Church of our Holy Fathers. It is the fullness of truth.
Click to expand...
Of course but did not the issue of Constantinople just arrise as a primacy for the EO? 🤷

God Bless, Gary
 
You never heard Constantinople wanted to establish the EOs primacy there? And other countrys were opposed to it? I was just reading about it the other day.

God Bless, Gary
 
GaryTaylor said:
You never heard Constantinople wanted to establish the EOs primacy there? And other countrys were opposed to it? I was just reading about it the other day.
Click to expand...
Primacy is not supremacy. Can you show me a link to the article, I would like to read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top