OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 08:39:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Defenders of Tradition Want the Infallible Church Back  (Read 2491 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: July 12, 2010, 04:05:05 AM »

The Defenders of Tradition Want the Infallible Church Back

They are pleading with the pope to condemn "ex cathedra" the errors of Vatican Council II. A new book by Romano Amerio is giving new force to their request. But Benedict XVI doesn't agree

by Sandro Magister

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344019?eng=y

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2010, 10:32:59 AM »

Oh goodness.  Sad
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2010, 11:10:01 AM »

The blessing *and* the curse of Papal infallibility, IMHO, is that it places limits on all future Popes.  The blessing is that they can't just change Church doctrine willy-nilly on a whim; the curse is they can't acknowledge errors in teaching that past Popes may have made. 

And yes, I'm still a Catholic, but I'm saying it anyway.  Undecided
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2010, 11:11:43 AM »

The blessing *and* the curse of Papal infallibility, IMHO, is that it places limits on all future Popes.  The blessing is that they can't just change Church doctrine willy-nilly on a whim; the curse is they can't acknowledge errors in teaching that past Popes may have made. 

And yes, I'm still a Catholic, but I'm saying it anyway.  Undecided
Well, as you know the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is very limited and so 99.9999999% of what any Pope says is fallible.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2010, 11:22:04 AM »

 Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2010, 11:23:02 AM »

Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2010, 01:01:35 PM »

Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.
Exactly. Also, haven't there only been two ex cathedra pronouncements made since Papal Infallibility was formally defined at the First Vatican Council: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? In both cases, these were doctrines that have long been present within the Catholic Church that were simply elevated to the level of dogma.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 01:04:00 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2010, 01:07:09 PM »

As I recall, the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility makes reference to the irreformability of such an ex-cathedra definition.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2010, 01:15:28 PM »

As I recall, the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility makes reference to the irreformability of such an ex-cathedra definition.
Right, and if that is the case it makes sense that there have only been two such statements. The Popes are cautious about not cranking out ex cathedra pronouncements willy-nilly, especially since any ex cathedra statement is final.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2010, 04:43:01 PM »

I wasn't aware there were any "ex cathedra" pronouncements from V2. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2010, 07:07:33 PM »

I wasn't aware there were any "ex cathedra" pronouncements from V2. 
There weren't. The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2010, 07:28:13 PM »

Then there's the dynamic of those clerics or hierarchs who want to scale back the pope's authority, abandon infallibility etc... and give way to collegiality, but have no interest in "Tradition". They actually defend the liturgical destruction after the Council and would muddy the clarity of Roman Catholic social teachings. If they had their way, Rome wouldn't become more Orthodox or "Orthodox-like" (if you prefer), it would wind up going the same path as the Church of England, which is a form of collegiality divorced from tradition, constantly giving way to modernity. A kind of modernism dressed up in episcopal garb.

There's another great Heenan quote here:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/card-heenan-from-across-the-decades/

Quote
Cardinal Heenan addressed the Synod the day after the experimental Mass had been presented and said he did not know the names of those who had proposed the new Mass but it was clear to him that few of them had ever been parish priests.

"At home," he said, "it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children."
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 07:35:40 PM by John Larocque » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2010, 10:29:31 PM »

A Catholic member of another forum (in another discussion regarding Vat. II) pointed out that apparently there were 5-6 Protestants on the Liturgical Reforms committee.

I really hope they do something about Vatican II, scrapping it would probably be best...
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2010, 10:49:59 PM »

A Catholic member of another forum (in another discussion regarding Vat. II) pointed out that apparently there were 5-6 Protestants on the Liturgical Reforms committee.

I really hope they do something about Vatican II, scrapping it would probably be best...

That's not gonna happen. The only thing that can happen is a re-interpretation of VII. Also VII is needed for it is probably the reason why a good number of educated protestants are able to become Roman Catholic with less hurdles.
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2010, 12:31:49 AM »

Dr. Geoffrey Hull's "Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church" is being republished in the fall.
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133278&SubjectId=1080&Subject2Id=1076
http://www.amazon.com/Banished-Heart-Heteropraxis-Catholic-Fundamental/dp/0567442209/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278994684&sr=1-1

For Catholic traditionalists, it has a surprising premise - he takes aim at Pius XII's reversal of the age-old maxim "lex orandi, lex credendi" and even the ultramontanist underpinnings of liturgical reform. I mentioned it in a previous thread there as well is this link:

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/04/the-proto-history-of-the-roman-liturgical-reform/

There's some additional material here from Fr. Chadwick as well, detailing the Jansenist origins behind Novus Ordo.

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/05/dom-prosper-gueranger-and-the-anti-liturgical-heresy/


« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 12:41:25 AM by John Larocque » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2010, 10:38:26 PM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 10:38:43 PM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2010, 11:07:29 PM »

Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.
Exactly. Also, haven't there only been two ex cathedra pronouncements made since Papal Infallibility was formally defined at the First Vatican Council: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? In both cases, these were doctrines that have long been present within the Catholic Church that were simply elevated to the level of dogma.
The IC was made dogma before Vatican I.  Vatican I would have to be considered "ex cathedra."  Then came the dogmatization of the Assumption.

Since Paster Aeternus vaguely defines "ex cathedra," we have no definitive list, and the Vatican "magsiterium" won't provide one.

"Simply elevated." Not quite: the IC was soundly denounced when it first appeared, less than a millenium before it became "dogma," well over a millenium after the Conception of the Theotokos.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2010, 11:10:26 PM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.

Mary

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2010, 11:12:54 PM »

The blessing *and* the curse of Papal infallibility, IMHO, is that it places limits on all future Popes.  The blessing is that they can't just change Church doctrine willy-nilly on a whim; the curse is they can't acknowledge errors in teaching that past Popes may have made.  

And yes, I'm still a Catholic, but I'm saying it anyway.  Undecided
Well, as you know the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is very limited and so 99.9999999% of what any Pope says is fallible.
Well, as you know the doctrine of Lumen Gentium is very broad and so 100% of what any pope says you have to assent.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 11:15:17 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2010, 11:14:50 PM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.


The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.

Mary

Mary
Ah Elijahmaria, right on cue.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2010, 11:24:58 PM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.
What do you plan to do to stop her, Mary? Wink  She offered an observation that I think may bear some validity and relevance to this discussion.  Do you not think you might want to actually engage her observation and ask her to defend it rather than speak of restricting her freedom to speak her mind?
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2010, 12:06:51 AM »

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.

Mary

Hmm ... yet other Catholics, who have also posted in this thread, have explicitly stated that the Pope has only made a few infallible statements, when he speaks ex cathedra.  Will you be addressing them as well?

By the way, are you a moderator?  Otherwise, I'm not sure you have the authority to tell me I am "not free to talk about" anything.  Of course, I will apologize if I am incorrect.  Smiley
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 12:08:13 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2010, 12:20:28 AM »

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.

Mary
Hmm ... yet other Catholics, who have also posted in this thread, have explicitly stated that the Pope has only made a few infallible statements, when he speaks ex cathedra.  Will you be addressing them as well?

By the way, are you a moderator?  Otherwise, I'm not sure you have the authority to tell me I am "not free to talk about" anything.  Of course, I will apologize if I am incorrect.  Smiley
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2010, 12:29:08 AM »

"Help!  Help!  I'm being repressed!"  Grin
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 12:30:08 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2010, 12:52:25 AM »

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.

Mary

Hmm ... yet other Catholics, who have also posted in this thread, have explicitly stated that the Pope has only made a few infallible statements, when he speaks ex cathedra.  Will you be addressing them as well?

By the way, are you a moderator?  Otherwise, I'm not sure you have the authority to tell me I am "not free to talk about" anything.  Of course, I will apologize if I am incorrect.  Smiley
1.  elijahmaria is not a moderator, so you've no need to follow her "instructions".
2.  We moderators will allow you to speak your mind about the "ordinary infallibility of the (Catholic) Magisterium", as long as your manner of doing so doesn't violate any other forum policies.

IOW, you don't need to worry. Wink
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2010, 01:54:43 AM »

Thanks!  Smiley

Mind you, I was not saying whether or not I agree or disagree with either the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" or the "only ex cathedra statements are infallible" position - just pointing out that the two schools of thought do exist.

For those who aren't familiar with it, the "ordinary infallibility" concept basically means that if the Pope (or one of his duly authorized officers*) gives an instruction or a judgment, it is for all intents and purposes "infallible" in the sense that, unless it's a direct command to commit a sin, the faithful are bound to assent to it.

Basically it's a glorified version of the "chain of command", found in most large organizations (like the military) - if you belong to/work for the organization, you follow its rules and agree with its public statements.  (If you don't, then you might want to reconsider your membership/employment.)

An "ex cathedra" pronouncement is super-serious, and not used very often, because once in place it *cannot* be reversed.

(Please note, these are my impressions - my opinions - of what the two positions are - I'm neither a theologian nor a canon lawyer!)

(*Bishops, Priests, Nuns with/without rulers  Wink, etc. )
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 02:03:42 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2010, 02:21:59 AM »

Ultramontane sedevacantists amuse me but they take issue with Robert Conte's take on the Magisterium.
http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2010/05/response-to-ron-contes-jrs-heresy-of.html

Mr. Conte is a campaigner against new dogmas for the Virgin Mary and describes "Magisteriumism" as a heresy. Properly understood, he places it third in order after Tradition and Scripture. This site, armed with old Papal quotes (the kind Irish Hermit likes), places the authority of St. Peter and his successors (except for the post-Vatican II "anti-popes") as being higher than everything else in the church, including tradition. Luther could not have dreamed these people up.

Conte has also argued that the faithful can legitimately dissent from the Magisterium if they have sound reasons for doing so - viz. they are holding to tradition.


« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 02:31:30 AM by John Larocque » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2010, 10:14:52 AM »

Conte has also argued that the faithful can legitimately dissent from the Magisterium if they have sound reasons for doing so - viz. they are holding to tradition.

I have yet to encounter any Catholic - whether liberal, conservative, or traditionalist - who did not dissent with the Magisterium about something

Even the ultramontanes are dissatisfied with the Pope's failure to crack down on the nonultramontanes!  laugh
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2010, 10:58:22 AM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.

The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is not a theory.  It is the consensus of the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.  A divinely given authority, no less.  Papal infallibility does not exist in isolation from the infallibility of the Church and the ordinary magisterium is integral to the infallibility of the Church.

That is not just the rantings of conservative Catholics.  That is the formal teaching of the Church.

You are free to dissent from it but as long as I am around you are not free to talk about it as you do here.  There too much disinformation floating around without adding to it.
What do you plan to do to stop her, Mary? Wink  She offered an observation that I think may bear some validity and relevance to this discussion.  Do you not think you might want to actually engage her observation and ask her to defend it rather than speak of restricting her freedom to speak her mind?

Dear Peter,

I see what you mean and I did not mean to indicate that she could not speak.  I meant that she could not speak without me countering with reality, with the truth.

By the same token I cannot be forced to engage a dissenting and false witness concerning Catholic teaching.

There is no point in engaging a dissenting Catholic.  What could I possibly say that would change her mind but what I said about the universal ordinary magisterium and papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church is all real and true teaching of the Church.

If you prefer the teaching of theistgal over elijahmaria...ok.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2010, 10:58:22 AM »


(Please note, these are my impressions - my opinions - of what the two positions are - I'm neither a theologian nor a canon lawyer!)

There are documents and articles to discuss if you want to get past impressions and opinions:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/tstorck_magisterium_may07.asp

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2010, 11:12:45 AM »

Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.
Exactly. Also, haven't there only been two ex cathedra pronouncements made since Papal Infallibility was formally defined at the First Vatican Council: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? In both cases, these were doctrines that have long been present within the Catholic Church that were simply elevated to the level of dogma.
The IC was made dogma before Vatican I.  Vatican I would have to be considered "ex cathedra."  Then came the dogmatization of the Assumption.

Since Paster Aeternus vaguely defines "ex cathedra," we have no definitive list, and the Vatican "magsiterium" won't provide one.

"Simply elevated." Not quite: the IC was soundly denounced when it first appeared, less than a millenium before it became "dogma," well over a millenium after the Conception of the Theotokos.

I think you are confusing definitions here. The First Vatican Council would not have to be considered ex cathedra because from the Catholic point of view it is an Ecumencial Council which is automatically binding. Ex cathedra only applies to the Pope making a statement. This is interesting to note because it wasn't as if the Pope woke up one day and decided to formally declare himself infallible, but rather the Magisterium of the Catholic Church acknowledged that he was via a Council. Also, the amount of people within the Church who disagreed with the Immaculate Conception may have been large or small, I don't know for sure and have not seen the numbers. I will ask this though, even if many within the Church disagreed with it, even if a majority did, would that actually matter or mean that it's false? Wasn't there a time when the majority of the Church embraced Arianism yet was it not still heresy?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2010, 12:08:34 PM »

Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.
Exactly. Also, haven't there only been two ex cathedra pronouncements made since Papal Infallibility was formally defined at the First Vatican Council: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? In both cases, these were doctrines that have long been present within the Catholic Church that were simply elevated to the level of dogma.
The IC was made dogma before Vatican I.  Vatican I would have to be considered "ex cathedra."  Then came the dogmatization of the Assumption.

Since Paster Aeternus vaguely defines "ex cathedra," we have no definitive list, and the Vatican "magsiterium" won't provide one.

"Simply elevated." Not quite: the IC was soundly denounced when it first appeared, less than a millenium before it became "dogma," well over a millenium after the Conception of the Theotokos.

I think you are confusing definitions here. The First Vatican Council would not have to be considered ex cathedra because from the Catholic point of view it is an Ecumencial Council which is automatically binding.

No, according to the Vatican it is Ecumenical and binding only when, if and until the pope of Rome says so. I assUme the pope's A-OK would have to be ex cathedra.

Quote
Ex cathedra only applies to the Pope making a statement.

btw, some say the canonization decrees of sainthood are ex cathedra, others say no.

Quote
This is interesting to note because it wasn't as if the Pope woke up one day and decided to formally declare himself infallible,

No, it was a long process of culmulative error.

Quote
but rather the Magisterium of the Catholic Church acknowledged that he was via a Council.

According to the accounts of the council, not exactly.

Quote
Also, the amount of people within the Church who disagreed with the Immaculate Conception may have been large or small, I don't know for sure and have not seen the numbers. I will ask this though, even if many within the Church disagreed with it, even if a majority did, would that actually matter or mean that it's false? Wasn't there a time when the majority of the Church embraced Arianism yet was it not still heresy?
Am not sure what you are refering to, as I didn't bring the issue of how many disagreed with the IC, just that it's appearance is documented and it is not from the Apostolic age, and when it appeared it was rightly denounced and the flaws in it pointed out that remain valid to this day.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2010, 12:49:59 PM »

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm

Quote
Is it a Heresy to Believe that the Ordinary Magisterium is Infallible?

<snip>

Now the Church teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1) solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff, meeting all of the conditions defined by the First Vatican Council,
2) solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, meeting a similar set of conditions but from the body of bishops led by the Pope, not the Pope alone,
3) the teachings of the Universal Magisterium, meeting the conditions taught by the Second Vatican Council.

Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Bishops from the United States of America on their 'Ad Limina' Visit (Thursday, 15 October 1988), gave a concise summary of these three ways that the Magisterium teaches infallibly:

“This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific 'charisma veritatis certum,' [Latin for: the charism of certain truth] which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church's infallibility.”

A teaching falls under the Universal Magisterium (i.e. the ordinary universal Magisterium) when the Bishops of the Church “…even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25)

All other teachings of the Magisterium, other than those that fall under one of the three modes of infallibility, are, without exception, ordinary and non-infallible, and are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation.


These teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are referred to by then Cardinal Ratzinger, with particular wording, as “the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium” and “non-irreformable magisterial teaching,” in the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called 'The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,' n. 28 and 33. This wording demonstrates Cardinal Ratzinger's understanding that not all Magisterial teachings are infallible or irreformable.

In the same Address to the U.S. Bishops cited above, Pope John Paul II said: “With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” Clearly, the term religious submission of will and intellect refers to the ordinary non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium and is a different degree and type of assent than the divine and Catholic faith due to infallible teachings.

Therefore, the Magisterium can teach both infallibly and non-infallibly. Heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of the infallible teachings and also of those ordinary teachings which are essential to salvation; heresy is a refusal to give the full assent of faith due to those teachings. The denial or doubt of non-infallible teachings in general might also be sinful and culpable, but the sin is not generally the sin of heresy and is a lesser matter, because the assent required is a lesser degree of assent.

<snip>

3. Description of This Heresy

As is usually the case with heresy, the heresy in question takes a number of different forms, with different persons, holding the same basic view, giving different explanations, each of which results in what is essentially the same claim: that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. All such claims present the Ordinary Magisterium as if it were without the possibility of error.

<snip>

All the above described forms of this idea are heretical, because they conclude that the Ordinary Magisterium itself (not the Universal Magisterium properly understood), is infallible. The end result of all these different approaches is that the gift of infallibility, given as a gift to the whole Church by God, but exercised only by the Pope and the Bishops, is extended beyond the limits established by God.

4. Why this belief is a Heresy

The First Vatican Council infallibly taught that a teaching of the Pope himself is only infallible when certain conditions are met. The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed and clarified this infallible doctrine. These criteria or conditions required for a Papal teaching to be infallible can be enumerated as five (some enumerate these same conditions as four, combining the first two, but the doctrine is the same). The First Vatican Council (in Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4) infallibly defined the criteria needed for the Pope himself to teach infallibly:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, n. 25) reaffirmed this teaching with a difference in wording, but not in doctrine:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”

Recall that heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of any truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Now this requirement to believe certainly includes the infallible definition of the First Vatican Council on when the Pope teaches infallibly. For that Council also added this anathema: “So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” Therefore, anyone who contradicts this infallible definition concerning the conditions or criteria under which the Pope teaches infallibly has fallen into heresy.

Now anyone who claims that the Pope always teaches infallibly or that the criteria needed for an infallible Papal teaching are less than these same criteria required by the First Vatican Council, thereby contradicts or nullifies the teaching of both Vatican Councils and also commits the sin of heresy. They nullify this dogma by wiping away some or all of the criteria for Papal Infallibility, even though these criteria were so carefully and clearly taught by two consecutive Councils.

A. Some say that the Magisterium teaches infallibly and non-infallibly, but that its non-infallible teaching is also certainly true and is merely the truth expressed in a different manner.

This view, on the surface, would seem to be in accord with the First Vatican Council, since a Papal teaching could be infallible or non-infallible. But the claim that even the non-infallible teachings are also certainly true has the effect of erasing any real distinction between what is infallible and what is non-infallible. This view makes all teachings of the Pope inerrant and irreformable, regardless of which teachings meet the criteria taught by the First Vatican Council under the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The distinction that is made here is that the infallible teachings are definitions and are certainly true, whereas the non-infallible Papal teachings are said to be also certainly true, but not definitions. This useless distinction has the effect of nullifying the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council, because that Council was not defining the conditions under which the infallible teachings of the Pope are or are not classified as a definition, but instead was defining the very conditions under which the Pope teaches infallibly by his own authority (apart from an Ecumenical Council or the Universal Magisterium).

B. Others expand the extent of the ordinary universal Magisterium, so that nearly all teachings of the Magisterium fall under its infallibility.

At issue here is the extent to which the ordinary teachings of the Pope are claimed to fall under the Universal Magisterium, when in fact they do not. Those who hold to this view usually reduce the criteria for a teaching fall under the Universal Magisterium. The result is that many ordinary teachings of the Pope are said to be infallible because some other Bishops have taught the same, but mainly because the Pope himself has taught it. Again, this contradicts the infallible definition of Papal Infallibility, because ordinary teachings of the Pope are claimed to be infallible even though they meet the criteria neither for Papal Infallibility, nor for the Universal Magisterium.

C. Still others hold that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when exercised by the Pope or by an Ecumenical Council.

In this view, the Ordinary Magisterium is not always infallible, but the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is always infallible. Sometimes a few of the criteria for Papal Infallibility are cited, such as that the Pope must be teaching on faith and morals, or that he must be teaching definitively, or both. But this still falls significantly short of the five criteria required by the First Vatican Council. Reducing the criteria for Papal Infallibility is the same as contradicting the infallible definition of the Council. Such a contradiction brings to bear the penalty of the anathema issued by that Council.

D. Some claim that any teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium that is expressed definitively, even merely by being repeated, is infallible.

Those who make this claim generally do not allow that individual Bishops can teach under the Ordinary Magisterium at all, unless they are merely repeating the same doctrine already taught by the Pope. Thus, this claim concerns mainly the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. The view is that a repetition of a teaching makes it definitive, and all that is required for a Pope to teach infallibly is that he teach definitively, or that he teach on faith and morals definitively.

This claim contradicts the definition of the First Vatican Council, which required five criteria, not two or three. Thus it is heretical by subtraction, since it subtracts the other criteria required by the Council. This claim is also heretical by distortion, since it takes the criterium that the Pope must be teaching definitively and reduces the meaning of the term definitive so severely that it almost anything qualifies as definitiveness. The slightest repetition is claimed as meeting the criterium for a definitive teaching.

E. Others say that there is a theoretical possibility of error in the Ordinary Magisterium, but that it never happens to any significant extent.

This is a heresy by distortion. It distorts the meaning of non-infallible so that there is no significant difference between infallible teachings which are certainly always true, and non-infallible teachings. The latter are claimed to be so reliable that they are almost certainly and almost always completely true. No errors of any significance are admitted. This is especially applied to the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. Thus, the conditions required by the First Vatican Council for an infallible Papal teaching are nullified because every teaching of the Pope is said to be certainly true or almost entirely inerrant. The possibility of error is wiped away, even apart from those conditions required by the Council, by considering error as only a theoretical, but never an actual possibility.

F. Finally, there are those who believe that the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible without any conditions, because Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me.”

This interpretation of the Scriptures contradicts the infallible dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council as to when the Pope teaches infallibly. It is not the Scripture which is false, but an overly simplistic interpretation which would impune infallibility to every teaching of Popes, Councils, and the Magisterium in general, in contradiction to an infallible Conciliar definition.

Conclusion

This distortion or denial of the First Vatican Council's definition on Papal Infallibility is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. This heresy is spreading among conservative Catholics today, many of whom now think that the Ordinary Magisterium, or the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, is always infallible or always inerrant, even when the conditions required by the First Vatican Council have not been fully met. A number of prominent priests, theologians, and lay leaders hold to this heretical view and have been teaching it to the faithful as if it were a doctrine of the Church.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 12:51:21 PM by John Larocque » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2010, 01:03:36 PM »

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm

Quote
Is it a Heresy to Believe that the Ordinary Magisterium is Infallible?

<snip>

Now the Church teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1) solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff, meeting all of the conditions defined by the First Vatican Council,
2) solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, meeting a similar set of conditions but from the body of bishops led by the Pope, not the Pope alone,
3) the teachings of the Universal Magisterium, meeting the conditions taught by the Second Vatican Council.

Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Bishops from the United States of America on their 'Ad Limina' Visit (Thursday, 15 October 1988), gave a concise summary of these three ways that the Magisterium teaches infallibly:

“This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific 'charisma veritatis certum,' [Latin for: the charism of certain truth] which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church's infallibility.”

A teaching falls under the Universal Magisterium (i.e. the ordinary universal Magisterium) when the Bishops of the Church “…even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25)

All other teachings of the Magisterium, other than those that fall under one of the three modes of infallibility, are, without exception, ordinary and non-infallible, and are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation.


These teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are referred to by then Cardinal Ratzinger, with particular wording, as “the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium” and “non-irreformable magisterial teaching,” in the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called 'The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,' n. 28 and 33. This wording demonstrates Cardinal Ratzinger's understanding that not all Magisterial teachings are infallible or irreformable.

In the same Address to the U.S. Bishops cited above, Pope John Paul II said: “With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” Clearly, the term religious submission of will and intellect refers to the ordinary non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium and is a different degree and type of assent than the divine and Catholic faith due to infallible teachings.

Therefore, the Magisterium can teach both infallibly and non-infallibly. Heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of the infallible teachings and also of those ordinary teachings which are essential to salvation; heresy is a refusal to give the full assent of faith due to those teachings. The denial or doubt of non-infallible teachings in general might also be sinful and culpable, but the sin is not generally the sin of heresy and is a lesser matter, because the assent required is a lesser degree of assent.

<snip>

3. Description of This Heresy

As is usually the case with heresy, the heresy in question takes a number of different forms, with different persons, holding the same basic view, giving different explanations, each of which results in what is essentially the same claim: that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. All such claims present the Ordinary Magisterium as if it were without the possibility of error.

<snip>

All the above described forms of this idea are heretical, because they conclude that the Ordinary Magisterium itself (not the Universal Magisterium properly understood), is infallible. The end result of all these different approaches is that the gift of infallibility, given as a gift to the whole Church by God, but exercised only by the Pope and the Bishops, is extended beyond the limits established by God.

4. Why this belief is a Heresy

The First Vatican Council infallibly taught that a teaching of the Pope himself is only infallible when certain conditions are met. The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed and clarified this infallible doctrine. These criteria or conditions required for a Papal teaching to be infallible can be enumerated as five (some enumerate these same conditions as four, combining the first two, but the doctrine is the same). The First Vatican Council (in Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4) infallibly defined the criteria needed for the Pope himself to teach infallibly:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

The Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, n. 25) reaffirmed this teaching with a difference in wording, but not in doctrine:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”

Recall that heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of any truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Now this requirement to believe certainly includes the infallible definition of the First Vatican Council on when the Pope teaches infallibly. For that Council also added this anathema: “So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” Therefore, anyone who contradicts this infallible definition concerning the conditions or criteria under which the Pope teaches infallibly has fallen into heresy.

Now anyone who claims that the Pope always teaches infallibly or that the criteria needed for an infallible Papal teaching are less than these same criteria required by the First Vatican Council, thereby contradicts or nullifies the teaching of both Vatican Councils and also commits the sin of heresy. They nullify this dogma by wiping away some or all of the criteria for Papal Infallibility, even though these criteria were so carefully and clearly taught by two consecutive Councils.

A. Some say that the Magisterium teaches infallibly and non-infallibly, but that its non-infallible teaching is also certainly true and is merely the truth expressed in a different manner.

This view, on the surface, would seem to be in accord with the First Vatican Council, since a Papal teaching could be infallible or non-infallible. But the claim that even the non-infallible teachings are also certainly true has the effect of erasing any real distinction between what is infallible and what is non-infallible. This view makes all teachings of the Pope inerrant and irreformable, regardless of which teachings meet the criteria taught by the First Vatican Council under the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The distinction that is made here is that the infallible teachings are definitions and are certainly true, whereas the non-infallible Papal teachings are said to be also certainly true, but not definitions. This useless distinction has the effect of nullifying the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council, because that Council was not defining the conditions under which the infallible teachings of the Pope are or are not classified as a definition, but instead was defining the very conditions under which the Pope teaches infallibly by his own authority (apart from an Ecumenical Council or the Universal Magisterium).

B. Others expand the extent of the ordinary universal Magisterium, so that nearly all teachings of the Magisterium fall under its infallibility.

At issue here is the extent to which the ordinary teachings of the Pope are claimed to fall under the Universal Magisterium, when in fact they do not. Those who hold to this view usually reduce the criteria for a teaching fall under the Universal Magisterium. The result is that many ordinary teachings of the Pope are said to be infallible because some other Bishops have taught the same, but mainly because the Pope himself has taught it. Again, this contradicts the infallible definition of Papal Infallibility, because ordinary teachings of the Pope are claimed to be infallible even though they meet the criteria neither for Papal Infallibility, nor for the Universal Magisterium.

C. Still others hold that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when exercised by the Pope or by an Ecumenical Council.

In this view, the Ordinary Magisterium is not always infallible, but the Ordinary Papal Magisterium is always infallible. Sometimes a few of the criteria for Papal Infallibility are cited, such as that the Pope must be teaching on faith and morals, or that he must be teaching definitively, or both. But this still falls significantly short of the five criteria required by the First Vatican Council. Reducing the criteria for Papal Infallibility is the same as contradicting the infallible definition of the Council. Such a contradiction brings to bear the penalty of the anathema issued by that Council.

D. Some claim that any teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium that is expressed definitively, even merely by being repeated, is infallible.

Those who make this claim generally do not allow that individual Bishops can teach under the Ordinary Magisterium at all, unless they are merely repeating the same doctrine already taught by the Pope. Thus, this claim concerns mainly the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. The view is that a repetition of a teaching makes it definitive, and all that is required for a Pope to teach infallibly is that he teach definitively, or that he teach on faith and morals definitively.

This claim contradicts the definition of the First Vatican Council, which required five criteria, not two or three. Thus it is heretical by subtraction, since it subtracts the other criteria required by the Council. This claim is also heretical by distortion, since it takes the criterium that the Pope must be teaching definitively and reduces the meaning of the term definitive so severely that it almost anything qualifies as definitiveness. The slightest repetition is claimed as meeting the criterium for a definitive teaching.

E. Others say that there is a theoretical possibility of error in the Ordinary Magisterium, but that it never happens to any significant extent.

This is a heresy by distortion. It distorts the meaning of non-infallible so that there is no significant difference between infallible teachings which are certainly always true, and non-infallible teachings. The latter are claimed to be so reliable that they are almost certainly and almost always completely true. No errors of any significance are admitted. This is especially applied to the Ordinary Papal Magisterium. Thus, the conditions required by the First Vatican Council for an infallible Papal teaching are nullified because every teaching of the Pope is said to be certainly true or almost entirely inerrant. The possibility of error is wiped away, even apart from those conditions required by the Council, by considering error as only a theoretical, but never an actual possibility.

F. Finally, there are those who believe that the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible without any conditions, because Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me.”

This interpretation of the Scriptures contradicts the infallible dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council as to when the Pope teaches infallibly. It is not the Scripture which is false, but an overly simplistic interpretation which would impune infallibility to every teaching of Popes, Councils, and the Magisterium in general, in contradiction to an infallible Conciliar definition.

Conclusion

This distortion or denial of the First Vatican Council's definition on Papal Infallibility is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. This heresy is spreading among conservative Catholics today, many of whom now think that the Ordinary Magisterium, or the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, is always infallible or always inerrant, even when the conditions required by the First Vatican Council have not been fully met. A number of prominent priests, theologians, and lay leaders hold to this heretical view and have been teaching it to the faithful as if it were a doctrine of the Church.
The problem with its conclusion, of course, is that at one time the First Vatican Council's definition of Papal Infallibility was not dogma: The Anglo-Irish Catechism (1870), with imprematur and nihil obstat, denied it as a "Protestant lie." Given the reiteration of V II requiring assent of anything the pope of Rome says, and the idea of "doctrinal development" we cannot say that that "this heresy" isn't tommorrow's dogma of the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2010, 04:53:07 PM »

Smiley Hi Papist - Yes, I do understand that and know what you mean.

However, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, supposing a Pope were to declare a doctrine, ex cathedra, based on information available at the time; but a later Pope, getting new information that wasn't available, wanted to change or at least modify that doctrine.  He can't do it - his hands are tied by the infallibility thing.

Now, as I said, that's good in that he can't just arbitrarily change a legitimate doctrine.  But it's also bad because it keeps the Church from having a self-correcting mechanism in place to make sure the Truth it's teaching is REALLY the Truth.

Does that make sense?  As I said, I'm still a Catholic, but obviously I am having some disagreements with this doctrine in particular.
If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.
Exactly. Also, haven't there only been two ex cathedra pronouncements made since Papal Infallibility was formally defined at the First Vatican Council: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? In both cases, these were doctrines that have long been present within the Catholic Church that were simply elevated to the level of dogma.
The IC was made dogma before Vatican I.  Vatican I would have to be considered "ex cathedra."  Then came the dogmatization of the Assumption.

Since Paster Aeternus vaguely defines "ex cathedra," we have no definitive list, and the Vatican "magsiterium" won't provide one.

"Simply elevated." Not quite: the IC was soundly denounced when it first appeared, less than a millenium before it became "dogma," well over a millenium after the Conception of the Theotokos.

I think you are confusing definitions here. The First Vatican Council would not have to be considered ex cathedra because from the Catholic point of view it is an Ecumencial Council which is automatically binding.

No, according to the Vatican it is Ecumenical and binding only when, if and until the pope of Rome says so. I assUme the pope's A-OK would have to be ex cathedra.


This is a perversion of the teaching of papal infallibility. 

A Council is NOT an extension of papal infallibility. 

The Church is not like the military.  There is NOT a chain of command in that sense.

But now one can undo all these missed perceptions in one sitting.  Particularly when they are insisted upon by the holder of the warped perception.

These are some of the things that will simply have to remain in place if we return to communion.  We are not going to change all hearts and minds at one time.

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2010, 04:53:07 PM »


The problem with its conclusion, of course, is that at one time the First Vatican Council's definition of Papal Infallibility was not dogma: The Anglo-Irish Catechism (1870), with imprematur and nihil obstat, denied it as a "Protestant lie." Given the reiteration of V II requiring assent of anything the pope of Rome says, and the idea of "doctrinal development" we cannot say that that "this heresy" isn't tommorrow's dogma of the Vatican.

The problem with this conclusion, changing the particulars of course, is that it can be equally asserted against the major Christological dogmas...etc., etc.

And just as an aside the local Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870 is not something one wants to use as an infallible authority against the universal Church.

M.
Logged

theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2010, 04:54:24 PM »

There is no point in engaging a dissenting Catholic.

I dissent with that!   Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2010, 06:40:55 PM »

There is no point in engaging a dissenting Catholic.

I dissent with that!   Cheesy

Well...  angel there's no point in dissenting with an engaging Catholic...so I'll yield!!

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2010, 10:00:05 AM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.
No, its not circular logic. I am justifying the doctrine of Papal infallibility. All I am saying is that if there is such a thing, then it needs no corrections.

And yes, I understand what you are saying. However, keep in mind that we are to give assent to all teachings that the magesterium proposes for belief.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: July 19, 2010, 10:02:20 AM »

Conte has also argued that the faithful can legitimately dissent from the Magisterium if they have sound reasons for doing so - viz. they are holding to tradition.

I have yet to encounter any Catholic - whether liberal, conservative, or traditionalist - who did not dissent with the Magisterium about something

Even the ultramontanes are dissatisfied with the Pope's failure to crack down on the nonultramontanes!  laugh
That's not really dissenting against the magesterium but against lack of pastoral action.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 19, 2010, 11:08:00 AM »

If the statement was truely infallible, then no self correction would be needed.

Well, yes, but isn't that circular logic?  Huh

Also, by the way, I agree with you about the fact that only a few truly infallible statements have been made.  However, I am sure you have also come across the concept of the "ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium" - an awful lot of conservative Catholics buy into that idea.  I don't agree with it (and assume you don't either), but it is definitely out there as a working theory.
No, its not circular logic. I am justifying the doctrine of Papal infallibility. All I am saying is that if there is such a thing, then it needs no corrections.

And yes, I understand what you are saying. However, keep in mind that we are to give assent to all teachings that the magesterium proposes for belief.

Something to consider.

There are two primary kinds of assent ask for by the Church. 

1. Is the assent of faith

2. Is the assent of the intellect

and then the assent of the intellect has varying degrees of certitude.

Each one has a particular meaning and weight that cannot be discerned by common parlance and assumption, but should be explained to believers as clearly as possible by teachers in the Church,  and each Catholic has a responsibility to seek out these teachings as part of having a well formed conscience.    Too many pastors would tell me I am an idiot for saying this and that they have enough trouble teaching people what is sin and what ain't.   Many more would not see what I say here as foolishness and impossible,  and do teach people HOW they are to approach the teachings of Scripture and Tradition, doctrine and discipline.  That's how I learned it.  I lucked out with my pastors and then I studied on my own and formally.  But it all began at the parish level.

There is NO requirement that faith must be preceded by understanding otherwise none of us would have much...faith OR understanding.

So when you all go roaring off at one another saying this and that with the certitude that I see here, I just smile because it is all rather like listening to second graders showing first graders the ropes.  I don't say that to be mean but most of what I see happening in this thread could use a whole lot more learnin' and experience and effort!!

M.

Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.209 seconds with 68 queries.