C
CTBcin
Guest
I don’t see this as ever happening for a variety of reasons. (And I say that as someone who generally opposes the death penalty).
What would be the next doctrine to be proclaimed infallibly ex cathedra?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
Emeraldlady
New member
I’m just speculating randomly but I think a firm proclamation may need to denounce millenialism in the future. It’s manifest outside the Church but in recent years there is a force of isolationism where people feel they are the ‘remnant’. The ‘saved’, that will exist through the tribulation to be scooped up sans judgement. They are of the belief that they have a special status and don’t need the same sort of self examination as the rabble.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Just a thought, but I don’t see this pressing anytime soon…
That the decrees of an ecumenical council of Bishops in union with the Pope are infallible, are of equal authority to an ex-Cathedra decree from the Pope, and that the ecumenical councils have, so far, been Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus … Vatican II.
Somewhat like the Canon of the Bible.
And/or a similar statement on “authority” which would affirm that decrees at the level of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope John Paul II, 1994) are irrevocable and unimpeachable (“infallible” may not be the best word).
That the decrees of an ecumenical council of Bishops in union with the Pope are infallible, are of equal authority to an ex-Cathedra decree from the Pope, and that the ecumenical councils have, so far, been Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus … Vatican II.
Somewhat like the Canon of the Bible.
And/or a similar statement on “authority” which would affirm that decrees at the level of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope John Paul II, 1994) are irrevocable and unimpeachable (“infallible” may not be the best word).
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
If God wants something declared ex cathedra at a certain point in time he will arrange for it to happen.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
I do not believe there will be any new dogmas ever!
C
commenter
Guest
Referring to my suggestion that the NT canon be defined now.
Rational people would agree that Trent’s definition is sufficient, but we are not living in the Age of Rational People. People will argue that Trent didn’t even have access to books like Gospel of Thomas and others now rediscovered, so they couldn’t have been properly considered.
The weasels will argue that Trent’s Canon can be “preserved” , sort of like Trent’s Extraordinary Form of liturgy is preserved now, but that the “novus ordo” Bible for most daily use will be the expanded, or even a la carte canon.
Vatican 2 didn’t foresee this problem, (or a whole lot of other problems), so I think a post V2 pope will need to address it: specifying these 27, plus a couple of others perhaps used by the East for liturgical purposes. And no more.
Last edited:
W
Welshrabbit
Guest
The Holy Father needs to proclaim ex cathedra that the word “synod” is pronounced “sigh-nod” and not “sin-id.”
The way it’s currently pronounced bugs me to no end…
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Pope John Paul II did that with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994. If things were different, we’d probably hear about the 25th anniversary of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and have a commemorative encyclical about it.
Not to derail the thread, but someone should bring this up at the Amazon Synod in Rome.
Not to derail the thread, but someone should bring this up at the Amazon Synod in Rome.
T
twf
Guest
No, the canon was definitely defined by the Council of Trent.
T
twf
Guest
The CDF disagrees. The clarification issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the teaching is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium, but it was not an exercise of the papal extraordinary magisterium in that manner. It’s still binding either way.
T
twf
Guest
“As well as the defining of papal infallibility itself”? That would be a bit rich, wouldn’t it? The Pope himself defining the dogma of papal infallibility? Had that been the case, I imagine it would still be disputed to this day… very circular!
No, papal infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council… most dogmas have been solemnly and infallibly defined by ecumenical councils, not by the Pope alone.
No, papal infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council… most dogmas have been solemnly and infallibly defined by ecumenical councils, not by the Pope alone.
C
Canvas
Guest
Complete hypothetical: what if an Epistle, or the hypothetical “Q” Document, or something was found and the Church determined that it was authentic, and worthy to be part of the canon? Would you not assent to the Holy See if a major discovery was made that was determined to be an authentic Apostolic document?
OK, I see now, I knew that, papal infallibility was defined by Vat1. I was asleep at the controls.
Those who don’t want to accept papal infallibility, though, would maintain that it is kind of “circular” for the Church to proclaim papal infallibility in the first place (“the Pope is infallible because we say so” — it’s more complicated than that, but that’s what they’d say), then to have the Pope to teach infallibly after this.
Bit of trivia for today: both the bishops of Little Rock and of Savannah opposed defining the doctrine of papal infallibility. Odd for bishops of the US church at the time, and from the recently warring Confederacy at that, to play so prominent a role in something like this.
C
commenter
Guest
If we still lived in the 1950s, and theologians were united to the Magisterium, ok. But today many claim to speak for the Church, often backed by the media, which will declare anything to be “authentic”.commenter:
Complete hypothetical: what if an Epistle, or the hypothetical “Q” Document, or something was found and the Church determined that it was authentic, and worthy to be part of the canon? Would you not assent to the Holy See if a major discovery was made that was determined to be an authentic Apostolic document?
Some scholars already declare the Gospel of Mary to be authentic, and Mary of Magdala to be an apostle. By coincidence, these same scholars support women’s Ordination.
Some books currently in the Canon were not written by apostles.
We already have authentic apostolic era books (Shepherd of Hermas, Didache) that are not Scripture, but are very helpful. This new hypothetical book would be like that.
Last edited:
True. But use in the Liturgy is a requirement for a text to be considered Scripture. It does not follow that use in the Liturgy automatically makes something scripture. Liturgical use is only one qualifying criterion.
2 Esdras is used in the Liturgy but is not Scripture. At the time the question was raised, it could have been considered because it met that qualification. Obviously, it failed some other qualifications.
Now if some new document confirmed to come straight from the pen of St. Paul is discovered, it will never be Scripture because it was never used in the Liturgy.
2 Esdras is used in the Liturgy but is not Scripture. At the time the question was raised, it could have been considered because it met that qualification. Obviously, it failed some other qualifications.
Now if some new document confirmed to come straight from the pen of St. Paul is discovered, it will never be Scripture because it was never used in the Liturgy.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Millenialism was condemned in the early centuries of the Church. The Church Teaches by TAN Books has it in there. I think they still print it.
- Status