FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp W Column, 5.30.09
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(06-09-2009, 11:37 AM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Do you think Pius XII was unaware of what the CE says? Do you think Pius XII contradicted what the CE says or misunderstood the scope of infallibility?
Not at all.

It is simply a case of you being unable to comprehend the grammatical construction of the sentence and, hence, its meaning. The pope is telling you that encyclical letters do not (normally) exercise the supreme power of the pontiffs, i.e. make Ex Cathedra definitions.

He is also telling you that just because encyclicals do not normally contain Ex Cathedra definitions it does not mean that one is free to withhold religious assent from what is being taught.

Right, you may not withold assent from what is said in encyclical letters, PERIOD. Not because they are infallible definitions, but because they are the ordinary teaching of the Pope. He was not saying that we can compare "what is expounded in encyclicals letters" to tradition and then see if we will give our religious assent.

"Pius XII, Humani Generis" Wrote:For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"

"Denzinger" Wrote:[From the Encyclical, "Humani generis", August 12, 1950],

Dz. 2313 Surely it is lamentable that those eager for novelty easily pass from a contempt for scholastic theology to a neglect, and even a disrespect for the magisterium of the Church, which supports that theology by its authority. For, this magisterium is considered by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle to science; indeed, by certain non-Catholics it is looked upon as an unjust restraint by which some learned theologians are prevented from pursuing their science. And, although this sacred magisterium, in matters of faith and morals, should be the proximate and universal norm of faith to any theologian, inasmuch as Christ the Lord entrusted the entire deposit of faith to it, namely, the Sacred Scriptures and divine "tradition," to be guarded, and preserved, and interpreted; yet its office, by which the faithful are bound to flee those errors which more or less tend toward heresy, and so, too, "to keep its constitutions and decrees, by which such perverse opinions are proscribed and prohibited,''* is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. There are some who consistently neglect to consult what has been set forth in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs on the character and constitution of the Church, for the reason that a certain vague notion prevails drawn from the ancient Fathers, especially the Greek. For the popes, as they repeatedly say, do not wish to pass judgment on those matters which are in dispute among theologians, and so there must be a return to the early sources, and the more recent constitutions and decrees of the magisterium are to be explained from the writings of the ancients.

Even if perchance these things seem to have been wisely said, yet they are not without error. It is true that, in general, the Pontiffs grant freedom to theologians in those matters which are disputed with varying opinions, but history teaches that many things, which formerly were subject to free discussion, later cannot permit any discussion.

It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Right, you may not withold assent from what is said in encyclical letters...
Exactly. These things carry authenticum and may not be questioned without extremely good reason.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
PERIOD.
Whoops. Not quite there, yet.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Not because they are infallible definitions, but because they are the ordinary teaching of the Pope.
Exactly. Things that are written in encyclicals may well be 100% true but some of these things are not covered by the Ex Cathedra guarantee of infallibility. They carry the pope's authenticum which demands religious assent. Other things contained in encyclicals are surely infallible because they are merely a transmission of doctrine infallibly defined by pope or Council previously, or otherwise held in Tradition as being of the belief of the Church.

Welcome aboard!
(06-09-2009, 02:50 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Right, you may not withold assent from what is said in encyclical letters...
Exactly. These things carry authenticum and may not be questioned without extremely good reason.

"without extremely good reason"? Really? Where does Pius XII say that or even imply it?

Quote:
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
PERIOD.
Whoops. Not quite there, yet.
No, I think you just made up the caveat above.

Quote:
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Not because they are infallible definitions, but because they are the ordinary teaching of the Pope.
Exactly. Things that are written in encyclicals may well be 100% true but some of these things are not covered by the Ex Cathedra guarantee of infallibility. They carry the pope's authenticum which demands religious assent.

But you just said above that they could be questioned if one has a "extremely good reason".

Quote:Other things contained in encyclicals are surely infallible because they are merely a transmission of doctrine infallibly defined by pope or Council previously, or otherwise held in Tradition as being of the belief of the Church.

How do you know what the "other things" are? You are really confused.

Quote:Welcome aboard!

Strange. We're on two different ships. Oh, maybe you think those two distinct ships are just two different forms of the same ship...I see.

Now let me clarify, as I don't want to be misunderstood. On THIS ISSUE we are on two different ships. On THE CRISIS in the Church we are united. The latter is the most important, but the former must not be thought to be of no consequence.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16