-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
When the Pope is to be taken infallibly
- Thread starter BAFRIEND
- Start date
- Status
Well, yes, the pope is a sinner and even goes to confession like all Catholics do (or should), but remember - infallibility does not equal impeccability. The pope can make use of the infalliblity, but that does not mean everything he says and does is infallible in any way. "It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll.L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope's authority and his infallibility are the same thing.
One way the Pope's extraordinary Infallible Magisterium can operate is as a 'negative restraint' against proclaiming error as truth when he is officially defining and binding a certain doctrine upon the Church. Let's say he wanted to define that Satan is a Saint, then the Holy Spirit would act as a negative restraint and prevent him from doing so. How he would be prevented from doing this, I don't know. But the Holy Spirit would prevent this from happening.
+
Upvote
0
How Infallibility Works
The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:
And here is a little something from Dietrich von Hildebrand in which all three levels of Magisterium are treated; 1. The extraordinary Magisterium 2.
"When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church's magisterium which we must accept as true.
But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. Thus the encyclical of the great Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, with its idea of a corporate state, differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI. But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required.... In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope. "
_______________________________
Lastly, here is something from New Adent (Catholic Encyclopedia)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
+
The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:
- Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
- Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past.
- Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience - religious assent.
And here is a little something from Dietrich von Hildebrand in which all three levels of Magisterium are treated; 1. The extraordinary Magisterium 2.
"When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church's magisterium which we must accept as true.
But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. Thus the encyclical of the great Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, with its idea of a corporate state, differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI. But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required.... In the history of the Church there have been many unfortunate ordinances and practical decisions by popes, which have then been retracted by other popes. In such matters we may, while obeying an ordinance, with all due respect express opposition to it, pray for its elimination, and address many appeals to the pope. "
_______________________________
Lastly, here is something from New Adent (Catholic Encyclopedia)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.
As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.
+
Upvote
0
- Jan 6, 2004
- 31,759
- 2,219
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Because I can believe in the majority of the teachings. I believe in the Nicene Creed, I believe in the Saints, I believe in the Sacraments, I believe in transubstantiation, I believe that the Church should have some kind of hierarchy, I believe only men have been called to be priests (though women have important roles too)... there's probably more reasons too but I just can't think of them at the moment.
I'm Catholic because I don't want to be Orthodox and I don't want to be Protestant--- God put me here and even if it is a struggle, I'm bond to do His will and so I have to stay. I've looked into Orthodoxy and different Protestant denominations but they just don't share the beliefs that I believe come from Biblical truth and Tradition.
Thank you to those who sent some encouragement my way too... it gives me hope to know maybe one day I'll be a so-so Catholic.
Upvote
0
When any organ of teaching with the authority to bind the entire church, says some doctrine on faith or morals definitively must be held or believed by the whole Church, it can be accepted in faith because it is infallible. This applies to the pope, ecumenical councils, the entire college of bishops headed by the pope dispersed throughout the world (the universal magisterium), etc. If such an organ says the whole church must believe or hold doctrine x, doctrine x is always true.
Upvote
0
Fish and Bread
Dona nobis pacem
- Jan 31, 2005
- 14,109
- 2,389
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
A couple of clarifications:
1. The Church can not "unsaint" people. Once someone has been declared a Saint, he or she is a Saint.
Two cases that are often misunderstood are those of St. Christopher and St. Valentinus. These were popular saints who were removed from the liturgical calendar following Vatican II. One can be removed from the liturgical calendar without being removed as a Saint. Lots of Saints don't have individual feast days. There are thousands of people formally known as Saints and only 365 days in a year, many of which are days that are tied to events and not people. Granted, some days are devoted to multiple people that the celebrant of a mass can choose between, but even then, with the number of Saints that are out there, there still aren't enough days to go around unless one wants twenty to a day or something.
In the case of St. Christopher and St. Valentinus, though they are no longer on the ordinary form calendar of the Latin Rite, they are on the extraordinary mass liturgical calendar. St. Valentinus' day is, you guessed it, Feburary 14th.
In any event, one is free to pray to or venerate any Saint, even those not on the calendar.
2. An anti-Pope is not a Pope who does bad things. We've had plenty of bad Popes and they are not anti-Popes. An anti-Pope is someone claiming to be a Pope who is not actually legitimately a Pope at all. An example of an anti-Pope would be if I declared myself Pope Peter II or something -- I'd be an anti-Pope because I wasn't really the Pope at all.
1. The Church can not "unsaint" people. Once someone has been declared a Saint, he or she is a Saint.
Two cases that are often misunderstood are those of St. Christopher and St. Valentinus. These were popular saints who were removed from the liturgical calendar following Vatican II. One can be removed from the liturgical calendar without being removed as a Saint. Lots of Saints don't have individual feast days. There are thousands of people formally known as Saints and only 365 days in a year, many of which are days that are tied to events and not people. Granted, some days are devoted to multiple people that the celebrant of a mass can choose between, but even then, with the number of Saints that are out there, there still aren't enough days to go around unless one wants twenty to a day or something.
In the case of St. Christopher and St. Valentinus, though they are no longer on the ordinary form calendar of the Latin Rite, they are on the extraordinary mass liturgical calendar. St. Valentinus' day is, you guessed it, Feburary 14th.
In any event, one is free to pray to or venerate any Saint, even those not on the calendar.
2. An anti-Pope is not a Pope who does bad things. We've had plenty of bad Popes and they are not anti-Popes. An anti-Pope is someone claiming to be a Pope who is not actually legitimately a Pope at all. An example of an anti-Pope would be if I declared myself Pope Peter II or something -- I'd be an anti-Pope because I wasn't really the Pope at all.
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 73,951
- 10,060
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Because I can believe in the majority of the teachings. I believe in the Nicene Creed, I believe in the Saints, I believe in the Sacraments, I believe in transubstantiation, I believe that the Church should have some kind of hierarchy, I believe only men have been called to be priests (though women have important roles too)... there's probably more reasons too but I just can't think of them at the moment.
I'm Catholic because I don't want to be Orthodox and I don't want to be Protestant--- God put me here and even if it is a struggle, I'm bond to do His will and so I have to stay. I've looked into Orthodoxy and different Protestant denominations but they just don't share the beliefs that I believe come from Biblical truth and Tradition.
Thank you to those who sent some encouragement my way too... it gives me hope to know maybe one day I'll be a so-so Catholic.
Dont be so hard on yourself.
What most 'GOOD' Catholics do is adhere to the teachings regardless if they understand them all or not.
You stick to the Church then you proclaim she is true. And if she is true, you agree to the doctrines... and that does not mean your finite knowledge [or anyone's] will always understand every bit of them... but you still remain faithful.
God doesnt ask perfection.
He asks for participation. And doing so with your whole heart.I am sure if you ask, He will reveal this to you. But I wouldnt sweat it. He gives us only what we can handle, when we are ready to handle it.
Upvote
0
"Knock and the door shall be opened to you, seek and you shall find."
Just keep listening...
God bless you both,
Neal
Just keep listening...
God bless you both,
Neal
Upvote
0
I don't agree at all. I think this is precisely the type of scenario that Augustine was referring to when he warns us "In such cases, we should not rush headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."
When Humani Generis was written, Pius XII is addressing an idea that is based solely on conjecture -- that Adam and Eve may not have literally been the biological parents of all humans. There was no scientific evidence at the time to base this on. Left with that, we certainly have no choice but to believe what Genesis says to be literal in our understanding of original sin.
He doesn't make any attempt to address what our response should be if it's shown by science that this is not likely to have been the case, and why should he have when the concept of DNA couldn't even have been imagined? The striking thing that DNA teaches us is how we are all physically related to each other, regardless of a direct parent/child relationship.
If the church ultimately accepts the concept of polygenism, what we will eventually gain is a deeper and more profound understanding of original sin. I don't view that as being the church was 'wrong', and it won't shake my faith in the authority the church was given by Christ to teach at all. It falls under the understanding that "Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. "
These are truly wondrous times in which we live, and we shouldn't be afraid of the way our understanding of the natural creation leads us to an even more profound understanding of God imo. However, the other wondrous marvel is the constant affirmation of the great truths the church has taught regarding sin and salvation since the beginning.
Upvote
0
HisKid1973
Thank You Jesus For Interceding For Me
- Mar 29, 2005
- 5,887
- 365
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Amen, dying to our flesh and being more alive in the Spirit enables us to be more sensitive to God moving in us and through us to others....
Upvote
0
helenofbritain
St Mary MacKillop of the Cross, pray for us
Hey Tati,
No one answered this post of yours, so allow me
The pope never would do that. Part of the idea of infallibility means that the Holy Spirit will do anything, from making his computer crash, to giving him laryngitis, to striking him down dead to stop the pope from teaching anything "wrong". Obviously these sorts of things would be last resort - for the most part I believe the Holy Spirit works with the popes like it does with everyone else - quietly, in our hearts.
So, since he won't get it wrong, no, you won't have to believe it
As others have said, coming to terms with a teaching is one thing. Adamantly denying it is another. Example:
I don't understand how Jesus could be 100% God and 100% Man. Doesn't that make Him 200%? And how did He die? God can't die... I'm gonna have to do some research and prayer and thinking.
versus
Clearly, Jesus was God, but He wasn't a Man. He was just pretending.
Do you see the difference?
How does something being able to be faithfully followed by you equal it being a good teaching? Jesus said we must love our neighbour as ourself. Does this mean that it's only a good teaching if we are loving 100% of the time?
Not understanding papal infallibility is not a sin. Wondering how the pope can be infallible is not a sin. Deciding that even the concept of papal infallibility is wrong is leading you into the grey areas...
Popes are human, and humans (with two notable exceptions) aren't perfect. Therefore, having never met the bloke, I agree it's fair to speculate that the pope is a sinner. Just like the rest of us. But I couldn't say for sure, just as I couldn't say about you, because I'm not God.
Infallible = without error.
Impeccable = without sin.
Lots of people mix these two up. They are not actually related. You can have one without the other. Our Lady was impeccable, but not infallible. Popes are infallible, but not impeccable.
No one answered this post of yours, so allow me
The pope never would do that. Part of the idea of infallibility means that the Holy Spirit will do anything, from making his computer crash, to giving him laryngitis, to striking him down dead to stop the pope from teaching anything "wrong". Obviously these sorts of things would be last resort - for the most part I believe the Holy Spirit works with the popes like it does with everyone else - quietly, in our hearts.
So, since he won't get it wrong, no, you won't have to believe it
As others have said, coming to terms with a teaching is one thing. Adamantly denying it is another. Example:
I don't understand how Jesus could be 100% God and 100% Man. Doesn't that make Him 200%? And how did He die? God can't die... I'm gonna have to do some research and prayer and thinking.
versus
Clearly, Jesus was God, but He wasn't a Man. He was just pretending.
Do you see the difference?
How does something being able to be faithfully followed by you equal it being a good teaching? Jesus said we must love our neighbour as ourself. Does this mean that it's only a good teaching if we are loving 100% of the time?
Not understanding papal infallibility is not a sin. Wondering how the pope can be infallible is not a sin. Deciding that even the concept of papal infallibility is wrong is leading you into the grey areas...
Popes are human, and humans (with two notable exceptions) aren't perfect. Therefore, having never met the bloke, I agree it's fair to speculate that the pope is a sinner. Just like the rest of us. But I couldn't say for sure, just as I couldn't say about you, because I'm not God.
Infallible = without error.
Impeccable = without sin.
Lots of people mix these two up. They are not actually related. You can have one without the other. Our Lady was impeccable, but not infallible. Popes are infallible, but not impeccable.
Upvote
0
geocajun
Priest of the holy smackrament
not exactly. He is to be taken as infallible when he speaks on matters of faith and morals, and invokes the uses the language indicating he is intending to speak infallibly. This is a topic often debated by theologians.
Fortunately, there is no practical value for us to know what is infallible and what isn't - either way, as catholics we have to assent to it if it is a teaching - infallible or not.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
