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

[rinnie]

This thread is on the edgy side…

Vatican II is about seeing God still at work in the modern world…He is not dead.

There are a number of Roman Catholic parishes that are drawing on Byzantine themes in their churches, mine one of them. I have read St. John Climacus, and see myself within the spirituality of the Cappadocians…as Roman Catholic…

What I have learned from Vatican II is we needed change. Not in our teaching, thats impossible, we needed change on our individual participation in Church.

That is when the Pope said open up the windows and let some fresh air in. What the biggest difference in our Church is we are given the responsobility to learn what the basic 16 documents of Vatican II are,

What Pope John Paul II has showed us is what kind of DISCIPLE are WE? What are we called to do in the modern world.

For myself it was church on Sunday, Holy Days, Confession, etc.

But now it is really learning our faith and teaching it to others.

But what the biggest change I see is we are called to become more involved with the Church that it is OUR CHURCH. And that is really not Change, it is how it used to be.

Then suddenly we got lazy and let others do all of the work. Like for instance on Friday’s during lent the People lead the stations w/o the Priest present. When did you ever see that.

What I am learning is the Priest cannot do everything. And where is he supposed to? What is our part? And that is what Vat.II has showed me. What did God put me here to do and why? And will I answer that call.

I always felt the CALL was only to be a Priest or Nun etc when it came to be involved in the Mass. I was wrong,

 

[GaryTaylor]

What I have learned from Vatican II is we needed change. Not in our teaching, thats impossible, we needed change on our individual participation in Church.

That is when the Pope said open up the windows and let some fresh air in. What the biggest difference in our Church is we are given the responsobility to learn what the basic 16 documents of Vatican II are,

What Pope John Paul II has showed us is what kind of DISCIPLE are WE? What are we called to do in the modern world.

For myself it was church on Sunday, Holy Days, Confession, etc.

But now it is really learning our faith and teaching it to others.

But what the biggest change I see is we are called to become more involved with the Church that it is OUR CHURCH. And that is really not Change, it is how it used to be.

Then suddenly we got lazy and let others do all of the work. Like for instance on Friday’s during lent the People lead the stations w/o the Priest present. When did you ever see that.

What I am learning is the Priest cannot do everything. And where is he supposed to? What is our part? And that is what Vat.II has showed me. What did God put me here to do and why? And will I answer that call.

I always felt the CALL was only to be a Priest or Nun etc when it came to be involved in the Mass. I was wrong,

Well said, Benedict recently spoke on the church working from the inside and outside both effectively.

God Bless, Gary

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for your post, Rinnie; it reflects the Holy Spirit at work in you.

If we are looking at the exterior at Mass, our attention is on man, and not on God.

I fully understand how the devout can be so afflicted…I experienced a parish where people were all talking out loud before Mass. I felt bound to stay there because my children were there through in-parish tuition. The pastor gave me permission to go to another parish for Sunday Mass. I would go to this parish for daily Mass there with the devout, a totally different ambient during the week, and would assist at the weekly children’s liturgies, so it worked out well.

But yes, Vatican II is calling us to work out our salvation and participation in the Church and not to depend on the priests and religious so much. That created such problems, and the church is paying dearly for its clericalism.

I think the Church is over its purification. You can’t pour fresh wine into an old flask.
We are seeking a new evangelization…

 

[rinnie]

You don’t have to have said it, because other people struggle with this same topic precisely because it is so difficult to get a handle on what is infallible and what is not. The fact that you don’t is great, and I should hope it would help you to help those who are not as strong as you are, but instead, as you have shown in the rest of your reply, you are not terribly interested in doing that.

No. Are you a priest now, content to talk to me this way just because I don’t find you persuasive? Aqabil el ayady, ya qods abouna?

Formosus, a faithful Catholic, has asked for further clarification as well. Whether it comes in a list form or not, I think that this request should be honored.

Indeed they don’t. They already have them. They need people like you to help them and not brush them off.

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.

But take the time people study the teachings of Chrust and compare it to the TV they have watched in their life,

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.

But for myself on a personal level I do not see where it really matters. If the Pope tells us to do this or that in my opinion we have no right to argue the point.

Simply because Jesus left him the keys to the kingdom what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. So at the given time the Pope has power to teach we should treat him no different then we would St Peter. I see no power St Peter was given that the Pope does not have. IF St Peter was given a different Job or power I have failed to see it.

 

[rinnie]

Thanks for your post, Rinnie; it reflects the Holy Spirit at work in you.

If we are looking at the exterior at Mass, our attention is on man, and not on God.

I fully understand how the devout can be so afflicted…I experienced a parish where people were all talking out loud before Mass. I felt bound to stay there because my children were there through in-parish tuition. The pastor gave me permission to go to another parish for Sunday Mass. I would go to this parish for daily Mass there with the devout, a totally different ambient during the week, and would assist at the weekly children’s liturgies, so it worked out well.

But yes, Vatican II is calling us to work out our salvation and participation in the Church and not to depend on the priests and religious so much. That created such problems, and the church is paying dearly for its clericalism.

I think the Church is over its purification. You can’t pour fresh wine into an old flask.
We are seeking a new evangelization…

I think that the time has come for us all to say what have I did for Christ lately? Not what does the Priest or the Church OWE ME.

I hear people time after time say I get nothing out of Church, and what I HEAR is I get nothing out of Christ, and I think to myself and I bet Christ gets nothing out of your either.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The infallible declarations of a Pope is held to Faith and Morals and not the personal thoughts or feelings of the man himself. With that said I am curious as to what official infallible declaration that any Pope has ever made on Morals only,(Not on Faith) that any non-Catholic Chritian here on Catholic Answers Forum objects to and why? I am not really interested in debating you on any of the objections but really would like to learn some view points.

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

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .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.

rinnie,

Exactly where are these teachings written—which you say are “quite simple to learn”? Got a list somewhere?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Anna,

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.

Please answer these questions:

(1) On what matters do you think we are supposed to give religious submission?
(2) Are you aware that Catholics are to give a like religious submission to his/her own bishop?
(3) Are we to assume that you as an Anglican are not required to give religious submission to your own authorities?

then add the problem of finding the infallible declarations re Faith and Morals. Is there a list somewhere?

Exactly where are these teachings written—which you say are “quite simple to learn”? Got a list somewhere?

ISTM asking for a list would miss the whole point. If you are concerned about a particular teaching, then you ask about that particular teaching, right? What purpose does it serve to ask whether or not it belongs to some kind of official list? Please respond to that question.

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

Perhaps, but can you deny that it is even moreso or MUCH moreso in every other Church which is not of the Catholic Communion?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jnpl1185]

Getting back to the original question for the non-Roman Catholics here, I will agree with Anne on the matter of submission even in matters that are not spoken ex cathedra and in regard to official doctrine, although I admit to not knowing too incredibly much about the details of this particular declaration aside from its existence. Considering that popes have preached crusades, I find this difficult for my own conscience on principle.

My conscience tends to be mostly in line with Rome (regarding infallible moral declarations, not matters of faith), but as a Lutheran, I am uncomfortable with certain distinctions regarding birth control. I am fully willing to accept that using birth control is not the moral ideal, but making moral distinctions between using condoms or the pill and using NFP do not sit well with my inner Lutheran. Catholics argue that there is something unnatural that comes in between the husband and wife when using condoms and that the pill precludes the possibility of having sex for reproductive reasons. Most Lutherans believe that it is not the how, but the why that is sinful–it is the intentions of the heart which determine whether an act is sinful. The intention still seems to be to prevent pregnancy regardless of whether you are using artificial or “natural” forms. I know and understand the catholic argument that it is the chastity that makes the difference, but the cause of the chastity and self-denial is still to prevent pregnancy, so this doesn’t seem right to me.

Again, just answering the question and giving a perspective, not looking to argue, as I’ve read and understand JPII’s Theology of the Body (especially since this is not the thread for discussing birth control matters).

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,

Exactly where are these teachings written—which you say are “quite simple to learn”? Got a list somewhere?

Thanks,
Anna

Okay lets start with Vat. II. The documents are listed in a book named just that. What teaching of the RCC do you want Info on and I will do my best to show you where to get it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Kindred spirits as always, I concur. Lumen Gentium, infallibility, indulgences, treasury of merit, universal supremacy of the Pope, and this submission of mind and intellect to the pope even when matters aren’t ex cathedra Lumen Gentium 25, that bugs me as well. The idea of submitting mind and intellect at all times to ex cathedra stuff is hard enough!

I agree with your assessment. I wish I could find an answer.

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

 

[Anna_Scott]

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

Dear sister Anna,

Please answer these questions:

(1) On what matters do you think we are supposed to give religious submission?

(2) Are you aware that Catholics are to give a like religious submission to his/her own bishop?

mardukm,

Answering questions with questions is not really an answer.

(3) Are we to assume that you as an Anglican are not required to give religious submission to your own authorities?

This thread is not about Anglicanism.

ISTM asking for a list would miss the whole point. If you are concerned about a particular teaching, then you ask about that particular teaching, right? What purpose does it serve to ask whether or not it belongs to some kind of official list? Please respond to that question.

My questions was, “Is there a list somewhere?” Again you answered a question with a question, which is not an answer.

Perhaps, but can you deny that it is even moreso or MUCH moreso in every other Church which is not of the Catholic Communion?

Again, the topic is Catholicism.

So, there is no list of infallible teachings?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Kindred spirits as always, I concur. Lumen Gentium, infallibility, indulgences, treasury of merit, universal supremacy of the Pope, and this submission of mind and intellect to the pope even when matters aren’t ex cathedra Lumen Gentium 25, that bugs me as well. The idea of submitting mind and intellect at all times to ex cathedra stuff is hard enough!

I agree with your assessment. I wish I could find an answer.

Hey, gurney,
So far, questions are being answered with questions. LUMEN GENTIUM made the issue of submission all the more complicated. Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Okay lets start with Vat. II. The documents are listed in a book named just that. What teaching of the RCC do you want Info on and I will do my best to show you where to get it.

rinnie,

Re: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Please name ten (10) non-Ex Cathedra teachings to which Catholics must submit religious mind and will.

Peace,
Anna

 

[GaryTaylor]

Infallibility of the church is not only Catholic its Orthodox also. Infallibility of the “Church” not the Pope. The Pope speaks for the church as from a conference of the Bishops just as who ever is speaking for the Orthodox Church becomes unity.

For example the issue of Contraceptives came up on another thread. Theres a difference between EO and CC.

This doesn’t mean anything but what each church at this moment holds to be true and right for the Moral aspect of mankind. Does the EO think or go against Tradition and Scripture? Does the CC go against tradition and scripture? Of course they don’t intentionally do this.

Since the authority here claimed is associated with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and is founded on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it is not entirely foreign to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church believes that the bishops are responsible for preserving the faith, the dogmatic truths and traditions. This does not equate to any of the bishops being individually infallible, but means that, in consensus, in combined agreement, they are charged with the universal faith. Thus the Orthodox Church, though it may not use the same terminology, would generally accept the Catholic views of the infallibility of bishops in an ecumenical council, with the important reservation that not every council that proclaims itself ecumenical is so in fact.

The Orthodox does not accept the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The Universal Magisterium is where the EO doesn’t agree with the CC. Which amounts to nothing. We are not bound to agee with theirs?

The doctrine of papal infallibility states that when the Pope teaches ex cathedra his teachings are infallible and irreformable.

As far as a list how many are in the EO or CC we would be talking about the Ecumenical Councils of either church.

Ex Cathedra is what it is from Vatican-I 1870 and the proclaimations made. Few were made with the last in 1950.

I find it facinating that everyone doesn’t believe this exists in every single church on earth including satans. How do you suppose they run on automatic pilot and hope for the best. Of course someone is speaking for the collective whole. Or they are collectively speaking together as the whole. However you chose to view this. If a recorded history in the Bishops or elect of “any” church doesn’t exist. That is an error on the part of failing to record the stated minutes. The CC doesn’t do this nor ever has so yes there is a TON of information. And thanks be to God we actually have a record. Because apparently its lacking everywhere else.

To accumulate a list from either church would mean re-search dating back to the first Ecumenical Council. I don’t believe theres a need or desire for anyone to take on such a task when the individual information is at your keyboard for any specific idea on your mind.

Such is infallibility.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Okay lets start with Vat. II. The documents are listed in a book named just that. What teaching of the RCC do you want Info on and I will do my best to show you where to get it.

rinnie,

Re: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Please name ten (10) non-Ex Cathedra teachings to which Catholics must submit religious mind and will.

Peace,
Anna

rinnie,

When you name those 10 things, please exclude beliefs proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, since most Christians agree with this creed. I realize there are some differences in the Orthodox Church regarding the “Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]”. Link: oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=10

Link: creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
Nicene Creed in English Liturgical Language which we recite every Sunday in the Anglican Church:
**
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son.]
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.**

I am not asking for these 10 things to be difficult. I really want to know.

You did say this is quite simple to learn. So, I’m assuming you, as a Catholic, have learned the infallible teachings, and the non-Ex Cathedra teachings to which you must submit religious mind and will…

. . . .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. . . .

It is my understanding that Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are Ex Cathedra teachings.

Again, I am asking for ten (10) non-Ex Cathedra teachings to which Catholics must submit religious mind and will.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .I find it facinating that everyone doesn’t believe this exists in every single church on earth including satans. How do you suppose they run on automatic pilot and hope for the best. Of course someone is speaking for the collective whole. Or they are collectively speaking together as the whole. However you chose to view this. If a recorded history in the Bishops or elect of “any” church doesn’t exist. That is an error on the part of failing to record the stated minutes. The CC doesn’t do this nor ever has so yes there is a TON of information. And thanks be to God we actually have a record. Because apparently its lacking everywhere else.

To accumulate a list from either church would mean re-search dating back to the first Ecumenical Council. I don’t believe theres a need or desire for anyone to take on such a task when the individual information is at your keyboard for any specific idea on your mind.

Such is infallibility.

GaryTaylor,

You know I am a fan of your posts, and I understand what you are saying–and indeed other Churches have common beliefs and those in authority. The problem for me is that “submission of religious mind and will.” I can give that submission to Christ-to the Holy Trinity; but not to a person on earth.

I haven’t found sufficient evidence that the Catholic Church should hold such power. Obviously the Orthodox haven’t either. It’s an interesting situation–the Catholic Church declared itself to be the sole authority, the Chair of Peter. It’s a “because I said so” situation; and I just can’t find historical support for that claim–again, neither can the Orthodox.

However, I am still here and willing to listen.

Surely the Vatican has a complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. If such a list exists, I would really appreciate the link.

Peace,
Anna

P.S. 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]

GaryTaylor,

You know I am a fan of your posts, and I understand what you are saying–and indeed other Churches have common beliefs and those in authority. The problem for me is that “submission of religious mind and will.” I can give that submission to Christ-to the Holy Trinity; but not to a person on earth.

I haven’t found sufficient evidence that the Catholic Church should hold such power. Obviously the Orthodox haven’t either. It’s an interesting situation–the Catholic Church declared itself to be the sole authority, the Chair of Peter. It’s a “because I said so” situation; and I just can’t find historical support for that claim–again, neither can the Orthodox.

However, I am still here and willing to listen.

Surely the Vatican has a complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. If such a list exists, I would really appreciate the link.

Peace,
Anna

P.S. 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?

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

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Answering questions with questions is not really an answer.

The questions are not for you. They’re for me or anyone else who wants to have a little more knowledge of your premises so we can answer your question better. If you don’t want to engage in the dialogue, that’s OK, too.

This thread is not about Anglicanism.

The question is meant to determine if there is not a log in the eye with regards to your opinion. If you believe your own bishop has no authority for you to follow, then your complaint would have some relevance. If you believe that you owe your own bishop religious submission, then your concerns are a log in the eye and have no real merit.

My questions was, “Is there a list somewhere?” Again you answered a question with a question, which is not an answer.

If you can tell us why such a list would be necessary for someone to live their faith, then we can proceed with the discussion from there. if you cannot give a reason, then why should anyone bother to answer your question?

Again, the topic is Catholicism.

Again, it’s all about the log in the eye.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[pablope]

rinnie,

Exactly where are these teachings written—which you say are “quite simple to learn”? Got a list somewhere?

Thanks,
Anna

I think I may read a thread about this here. There is no official list. It will just be simply an undertaking of a lifetime. a very enormous task.

With 260 plus popes, one will have to examine what each one proclaimed, wrote, decided, and so forth.

That is why we have the Magisterium…to guide us ordinary Catholics.