Goodbye

[gtsecc]

It's not as though I go around declaiming my doubts about certain doctrines or as though I wear pro-choice badges to Mass. If they were to exclude everyone who privately disagreed with certain doctrines of the Church from communion, I don't think that anyone I know would be allowed to receive. I think this is partially cultural, too.

Right, right. But, according to them (RC) all of these people are in grave error.

Not that I would blame you, but I do see some problems.

 

[Fish and Bread]

just don't change it to "Apostolicae Curae"

LOL! That was my first thought too, that he might change it to that. Then I remembered what I knew of him and realized he wouldn't do something like that. Amusing though it might have been, I'm kind of glad he is someone of good enough character not to trash his last church on his way to the next one.

 

[No Swansong]

I am curious if SO have you accepted the doctrine of Papal Infallibility which is Roman Catholic dogma? (something that must be believed to be Catholic)

 

[rrguy]

I believe your heart will be full of joy if you continue to seek the Holy Spirit. I don't think it matters so much what we think, our thoughts are not always of God's. If you continue to open your heart to the truth you will do well with God.

God Bless

Greg

 

[DeoJuvante]

I am curious if SO have you accepted the doctrine of Papal Infallibility which is Roman Catholic dogma? (something that must be believed to be Catholic)

I tend to think that that particular dogma is practically meaningless. I accept the two dogmas promulgated under papal infallibility, but I'm not going to lose sleep over whether or not papal infallibility itself is true.

 

[gtsecc]

Someoen correct me, but I believe Papal infallibility only refers to a very very limited case when the Pope declairs a teaching, already believed by the majority of the church, to be doctrine.

 

[No Swansong]

Someoen correct me, but I believe Papal infallibility only refers to a very very limited case when the Pope declairs a teaching, already believed by the majority of the church, to be doctrine.

Says nothing about being believed by the majority of the Church. And no that is not correct.

Papal Infallibility states that when a Pope speaks "ex cathedra" he is prevented from teaching error and thus his statements are infallible.

 

[No Swansong]

I tend to think that that particular dogma is practically meaningless. I accept the two dogmas promulgated under papal infallibility, but I'm not going to lose sleep over whether or not papal infallibility itself is true.

Actually if I am not mistaken one of the Popes (I would have to research) declared that Saepius Officio was an infallible statement.

 

[No Swansong]

I tend to think that that particular dogma is practically meaningless. I accept the two dogmas promulgated under papal infallibility, but I'm not going to lose sleep over whether or not papal infallibility itself is true.

Respectfully my friend have you shared with the priest overseeing your RCIA that you find this doctrine practically meaningless. This is dogma for the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that he would agree that it is meaningless.

 

[norbie]

Papal Infallibility states that when a Pope speaks "ex cathedra" he is prevented from teaching error and thus his statements are infallible.

You are so right, that's what I learned in school, too. A lot of people don't understand it, there were not many times in the history of the church in which a Pope has spoken "ex cathedra". It goes back to Peter, "..what ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven..", but only in spiritual matters.
So if the Pope says from tomorrow we have Woman Priest, or the Clergy can get married - this things have nothing to do with the infallibility of the Pope.

 

[Secundulus]

He's only been infallible for 137 years since he declared himself so in 1870.

 

[DeoJuvante]

Respectfully my friend have you shared with the priest overseeing your RCIA that you find this doctrine practically meaningless. This is dogma for the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that he would agree that it is meaningless.

What I mean is: suppose the Pope were to declare ex cathedra that Jesus was not divine. At some point before making the formal declaration, he would have had to believe that that were true. By believing that (in full knowledge, yada yada, but we can assume all that, he is Pope after all), he would have made himself a heretic and therefore no longer Pope. Thus, his statement would not have been an example of papal infallibility. This is a contradiction.

So, in other words, I think papal infallibility is more or less a logical tautology and the practical applications are extremely limited.

Actually if I am not mistaken one of the Popes (I would have to research) declared that Saepius Officio was an infallible statement.

I think it was declared that Apostolicae Curae was an infallible statement but I can't really remember. In any event, that's not actually an exercise of papal infallibility, if I recall correctly.

 

[Fish and Bread]

My feeling is that the Vatican should issue an official list of past Papal statements that are documented to have met the criteria for infallibility. I think that would resolve a lot of these discussions. Right now, people actually argue about how many there have been and cite numbers as few as two (The two everyone agrees met the criteria: The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) or as many as dozens. It's an important point and I think it would be very helpful both to Roman Catholics and to people who are not members of that church to know. Right now it's being left awfully vague and I find it a bit odd given how specific the RCC is about so many things.

 

[AngCath]

To be fair, since Vatican I when infallibility was declared only one dogma has been defined under this power: the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pius XII. The Immaculate Conception is included as well, but this was defined by Pius IX in 1854 prior to Vatican I though it is seen as an instance of the Pope's infallibly.

 

[AngCath]

My feeling is that the Vatican should issue an official list of past Papal statements that are documented to have met the criteria for infallibility. I think that would resolve a lot of these discussions. Right now, people actually argue about how many there have been and cite numbers as few as two (The two everyone agrees met the criteria: The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) or as many as dozens. It's an important point and I think it would be very helpful both to Roman Catholics and to people who are not members of that church to know. Right now it's being left awfully vague and I find it a bit odd given how specific the RCC is about so many things.

Here is said list:
"Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

• "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
• Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
• Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
• Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
• Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
• Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
• Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary."

 

[No Swansong]

What I mean is: suppose the Pope were to declare ex cathedra that Jesus was not divine. At some point before making the formal declaration, he would have had to believe that that were true. By believing that (in full knowledge, yada yada, but we can assume all that, he is Pope after all), he would have made himself a heretic and therefore no longer Pope. Thus, his statement would not have been an example of papal infallibility. This is a contradiction.

So, in other words, I think papal infallibility is more or less a logical tautology and the practical applications are extremely limited.



I think it was declared that Apostolicae Curae was an infallible statement but I can't really remember. In any event, that's not actually an exercise of papal infallibility, if I recall correctly.

oops yep that would not be SO would it? Apostolicae Curae would be the document, and I still think it was declared infallible by a later Pope. So I would have to ask you SO if it has been declared infallible do you accept it as dogma?

 

[Fish and Bread]

oops yep that would not be SO would it? Apostolicae Curae would be the document, and I still think it was declared infallible by a later Pope. So I would have to ask you SO if it has been declared infallible do you accept it as dogma?

In fairness, since there is some question as to whether it met the criteria for infallibility and also some question as to whether it was claimed to be infallible by a subsequent Pope, maybe some documentation of it being considered infallible by the RCC should be provided before he is asked to answer that question.

 

[No Swansong]

In fairness, since there is some question as to whether it met the criteria for infallibility and also some question as to whether it was claimed to be infallible by a subsequent Pope, maybe some documentation of it being considered infallible by the RCC should be provided before he is asked to answer that question.

Ok that is fair. How about this question. Should a pope make or have been found to have made an infallible statement that Anglican Orders are null. Would you be able to assent to that as you must according to Anglican doctrine?

 

[No Swansong]

I found this on New Advent:

THE AUTHORITY OF "APOSTOLICAE CURAE"

The question has been raised whether the pronouncement of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae" is or is not to be taken as an infallible utterance of the Holy See. But even if it were not it would not follow that it can be disregarded, and its eventual withdrawal confidently anticipated. What may be safely assumed is that it fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. This at least Leo XIII must have meant to signify when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his "intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever" (absolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that "Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem".
Still, as a matter of speculative interest, it may be asked whether the definition is strictly infallible, and the answer may be stated shortly thus. It belongs to a class of ex cathedral utterances for which infallibility is claimed on the ground, not indeed, of the terms of the Vatican definition, but of the constant practice of the Holy See, the consentient teaching of the theologians, as well as of the clearest deductions from the principles of faith.
To understand what is meant it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between a dogma and a dogmatic fact, the former being a doctrine of revelation, the latter a fact so intimately connected with a revealed doctrine that it would be impossible without inconsistency to assert the former and deny the latter. It may be urged that the Vatican Council merely defined that the Pope when speaking ex cathedra has "that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to have in defining doctrine of faith and morals", without going on to define the range of infallibility which Our Lord wished His Church to have. But it must be remembered



Seems that Leo did indeed to intend this to be the final Catholic word on the issue. And that it must be accepted as doctrine by the whole church.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Alright, I think jtbdad is partly correct. According to Cardinal Ratzinger (Now the Pope) Apostolicae Curae does not reveal dogma or doctrine, but nevertheless presents certain teachings that are considered irreversible and which must be firmly and decisively assented to by Roman Catholics. So jt is wrong about the teaching being a dogma (and being certified as being infallible, since infallibility has only been certified as applying to dogma in the RCC) or a doctrine as such, but is right about many of his other points.

Here is what Wikipedia says:

Despite the ongoing work of the ecumenical Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), in 1998 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and later Pope Benedict XVI) issued a doctrinal commentary to accompany Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter "Ad Tuendam Fidem", which established penalties in Canon law for failure to accept “definitive teaching”. Ratzinger’s commentary listed Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, declaring Anglican orders to be “absolutely null and utterly void”, as one of the irreversible teachings to which Catholics must give firm and definitive assent.[7] These teachings are not understood by the Church as revealed doctrines but are rather those which the church’s teaching authority finds to be so closely connected to God's revealed truth that belief in them is required in order to safeguard the divinely revealed truths of the Christian Faith. Those who fail to give firm and definitive assent, according to the letter, “will no longer be in full communion with the Catholic church.”