Did benny deny the unam sanctum?

[TraderJack]

TraderJack, We went 200 posts on this no more than 15 months ago. You couldn't show me any official Catholic documents that showed it was considered infallible back then and instead tried to pump up the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia as being infallible itself. Give it a rest.

Wrong!

I cited a litany of Romanist documents defining unam sanctum as an infallible instrument.

 

[TraderJack]

Hi TJ. To be fair I went back thru every post on this thread and the only time "infallible" was mentioned was by you.
Is there a source or anything you can bring up on whether the word "infallible" was ever used for Unam Sanctum?
Just trying to get an honest assesement and when is something claimed as infallible?. Thanks

Edit to add.......I just saw this post by TJ after I made this post......

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which carries the nihill obstat and imprimatur, verifying that it is free of errors, states what Rome has taught since unam sanctum, saying it "makes dogmatic propositions on the neccessity of belonging to the Church and being subject to the Pope for salvation....."

Dogma can only be dogma if it is transmitted by an "infallible" instrument, either by council or papal decree.

Unam Sanctum meets the latter.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which carries the nihill obstat and imprimatur, verifying that it is free of errors, states what Rome has taught since unam sanctum, saying it "makes dogmatic propositions on the neccessity of belonging to the Church and being subject to the Pope for salvation....."

Dogma can only be dogma if it is transmitted by an "infallible" instrument, either by council or papal decree.

Unam Sanctum meets the latter.

Thanks TJ. I am really ignorant of that myself.

Does the New Catholic Encyclopedia make any changes to that?

Catholic Encyclopedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, also referred to today as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, is an English-language encyclopedia published in the United States. The first volume appeared in March 1907 and it was completed in April 1914. It was designed "to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine."[1]
The Catholic Encyclopedia was published by Robert Appleton Company, a publishing company that had been incorporated at New York in February 1905 for the express purpose of publishing the encyclopedia. The five members of the encyclopedia's Editorial Board also served as the directors of the company. In 1912 the company's name was changed to The Encyclopedia Press. Publication of the encyclopedia's volumes was the sole business conducted by the company during the project's lifetime.[2]

 

[MrPolo]

Can we help if the your Pope and Denomination view those outside of Rome and the Papacy as defective, ignorant and practically non-Christian?

What world are you living in, LLOJ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What world are you living in, LLOJ?

Note my location.....

 

[Zoness]

Some Catholics do kind of act that way though...not to say that some protestants are any better. I'm thinking that some people are just defective.

 

[bbbbbbb]

One of the great and infallible truths of infallibility within Catholicism is that even though something or some Pope might have been believed to be infallible at some point in time, doesn't mean that they retain that infallible position. At one point Papal Bulls were considered to be infallible. After the evolution of Papal infallibility in 1872 it was determined that only "es cathedra" statements by a Pope are infallible. Thus many highly embarrassing Papal Bulls were consigned to the dustbin. In effect, there are only four infallible dogmas in the Catholic Church. Everything else has not passed muster yet and can be accepted or rejected as time and circumstances warrant. Even the four infallible dogmas are open to interpretation, which simply means that they can be understood in different ways that they were intended when they were pronounced in 1950. Thus, there is really no such thing as objective, infallible truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[MrPolo]

There seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion regarding papal infallibility here and that papal bulls are "automatically" infallible or some such. This is not the case. Nor was it ever. Nor was Luther's excommunication an exercise in "infallibility." Luther's excommunication was hardly an article of faith or morals for the whole Church to "believe in." It was a disciplinary measure for Luther.

To clarify confusion, it's best to take it from the horse's mouth, the actual definition of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. (Vatican I, 4.9, full context here)​

Carry on...

 

[Secundulus]

There seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion regarding papal infallibility here and that papal bulls are "automatically" infallible or some such. This is not the case. Nor was it ever. Nor was Luther's excommunication an exercise in "infallibility." Luther's excommunication was hardly an article of faith or morals for the whole Church to "believe in." It was a disciplinary measure for Luther.

To clarify confusion, it's best to take it from the horse's mouth, the actual definition of Papal Infallibility from Vatican I:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. (Vatican I, 4.9, full context here)
​

Carry on...

Tilting at windmills is more fun.

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

Thread closed per OP request.​