Bp W Column, 5.30.09
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE...

Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*."  (Ibid. p. 223)
The quote from Cardinal Franzelin concerning interregnum is completely irrelevant. It does absolutely nothing by way of proving that there is currently an interregnum,

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
No, neither the Pope nor the Church can teach to the faithful any error in faith and morals. This does not mean all of this teaching is infallible, as you continually suggest. You are saying that there can be errors in faith and morals...that is contrary to the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. It is heretical.
The grievous mistake that yourself and newschoolman make is to confuse and conflate the Extraordinary Magisterium infallibly defining what must be believed in faith and morals with its mere transmission by way of the Ordinary and Authentic Magisterium.

When the Ordinary Magisterium, be it papal or ecclesial, faithfully transmits dogma that has been infallibly defined or other doctrine held universally by Tradition it is infallible. The infallibility lies in the faithful transmission of what has been infallibly defined or universally believed by the Church as a matter of Faith.

Should the Ordinary Magisterium, papal or ecclesial, not faithfully transmit doctrine the novelty of whatever is transmitted in its stead carries no protection of infallibility. It retains authenticum, something to which assent is normally demanded under pain of sin because its origin is from lawful authority but it carries no guarantee of infallibility.

Vatican II makes no claim of defining anything. Just the opposite. Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, as well as the current pontiff when he was Cardinal, all state categorically that there was no intent or fact of Vatican II defining doctrine or binding the Church in anything.

The Vatican I dogma of papal infallibility concerns definitions of faith and morals, not the faithful transmission thereof. Here it is, below:

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. "

You have already been shown that Dr. Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that: "With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable".

Are you claiming that he is making an heretical statement?

Quote:Posted by newschoolman
It is not heresy and neither is it erroneous.  I simply asserts that love of God and love of neighbor are so closely connected that you can't have one without the other.
Of course it is erroneous. Even a child can see that merging two Commandments into one, "love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment", and placing love of man upon the same level as love of God is certainly erroneous. It is hideous.

Our Blessed Lord taught that "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.  This is the first and greatest commandment.  The second is like to this:  Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:35-40)

He did not teach that they are the same Commandment. He made the crucial distinction that they are two separate Commandments.

He did not teach that love of God and man is the first and greatest Commandment. He taught that love of God is the first and greatest Commandment.

He did not teach that we should love our neighbour with "thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind". He taught that we should love "thy neighbour as thyself", not as God!

Or is it all much the same to you, newschoolman?
Reply
(06-05-2009, 05:21 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote:
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE...

Therefore, although *truth even then is in the Church*; but if CONTROVERSIES OVER THE FAITH AND RELIGION SHOULD ARISE, *THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CHURCH* which is without a head on earth *WILL NOT BE AS CERTAIN*."  (Ibid. p. 223)
The quote from Cardinal Franzelin concerning interregnum is completely irrelevant. It does absolutely nothing by way of proving that there is currently an interregnum,

I didn't post it to "prove" anything. It explains the proper distinction between the see and the seated.

"PoG" Wrote:
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
No, neither the Pope nor the Church can teach to the faithful any error in faith and morals. This does not mean all of this teaching is infallible, as you continually suggest. You are saying that there can be errors in faith and morals...that is contrary to the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. It is heretical.
The grievous mistake that yourself and newschoolman make is to confuse and conflate the Extraordinary Magisterium infallibly defining what must be believed in faith and morals with its mere transmission by way of the Ordinary and Authentic Magisterium.

When the Ordinary Magisterium, be it papal or ecclesial, faithfully transmits dogma that has been infallibly defined or other doctrine held universally by Tradition it is infallible. The infallibility lies in the faithful transmission of what has been infallibly defined or universally believed by the Church as a matter of Faith.

Should the Ordinary Magisterium, papal or ecclesial, not faithfully transmit doctrine the novelty of whatever is transmitted in its stead carries no protection of infallibility. It retains authenticum, something to which assent is normally demanded under pain of sin because its origin is from lawful authority but it carries no guarantee of infallibility.

You have no source for this.

"PoG" Wrote:The Vatican I dogma of papal infallibility concerns definitions of faith and morals, not the faithful transmission thereof. Here it is, below:

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. "

Here is Scheeben explaining:

"Scheeben" Wrote:SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Concil. Vat., sess. iv., cap. 4).

II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.

The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide. From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations. 4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases,


"PoG" Wrote:You have already been shown that Dr. Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that: "With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable".

Van Noort discusses the mutability of disciplinary laws.

"Van Noort" Wrote:By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church. The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Reply
Quote:The quote from Cardinal Franzelin concerning interregnum is completely irrelevant. It does absolutely nothing by way of proving that there is currently an interregnum,
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
I didn't post it to "prove" anything. It explains the proper distinction between the see and the seated.
Then it has absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Quote:The grievous mistake that yourself and newschoolman make is to confuse and conflate the Extraordinary Magisterium infallibly defining what must be believed in faith and morals with its mere transmission by way of the Ordinary and Authentic Magisterium.

When the Ordinary Magisterium, be it papal or ecclesial, faithfully transmits dogma that has been infallibly defined or other doctrine held universally by Tradition it is infallible. The infallibility lies in the faithful transmission of what has been infallibly defined or universally believed by the Church as a matter of Faith.

Should the Ordinary Magisterium, papal or ecclesial, not faithfully transmit doctrine the novelty of whatever is transmitted in its stead carries no protection of infallibility. It retains authenticum, something to which assent is normally demanded under pain of sin because its origin is from lawful authority but it carries no guarantee of infallibility.
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
You have no source for this.
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the Oecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
"For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,  but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Vatican Council: Canon on Faith and Reason
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Here is Scheeben explaining:
It is an explanation of exactly what I wrote above. The infallibility of teaching concerning faith and morals lies in definition, universal Tradition, and its faithful transmission.
"I. ... by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.”

II. ... Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith ... It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine ... The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.”

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so..."


Quote:You have already been shown that Dr. Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that: "With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable".
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Van Noort discusses the mutability of disciplinary laws.
We are not discussing disciplinary laws, neither is Ott, and you neglected to answer the question.

Here is what he states once again, with more context to make it plainer that his statement is concerned with doctrine relating to faith and morals.
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible."

I repeat: Are you claiming that he is making an heretical statement?







Reply
(06-06-2009, 07:53 PM)PilgrimageofGrace Wrote:
Quote:The quote from Cardinal Franzelin concerning interregnum is completely irrelevant. It does absolutely nothing by way of proving that there is currently an interregnum,
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
I didn't post it to "prove" anything. It explains the proper distinction between the see and the seated.
Then it has absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Quote:The grievous mistake that yourself and newschoolman make is to confuse and conflate the Extraordinary Magisterium infallibly defining what must be believed in faith and morals with its mere transmission by way of the Ordinary and Authentic Magisterium.

When the Ordinary Magisterium, be it papal or ecclesial, faithfully transmits dogma that has been infallibly defined or other doctrine held universally by Tradition it is infallible. The infallibility lies in the faithful transmission of what has been infallibly defined or universally believed by the Church as a matter of Faith.

Should the Ordinary Magisterium, papal or ecclesial, not faithfully transmit doctrine the novelty of whatever is transmitted in its stead carries no protection of infallibility. It retains authenticum, something to which assent is normally demanded under pain of sin because its origin is from lawful authority but it carries no guarantee of infallibility.
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
You have no source for this.
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the Oecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
"For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,  but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Vatican Council: Canon on Faith and Reason
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Here is Scheeben explaining:
It is an explanation of exactly what I wrote above. The infallibility of teaching concerning faith and morals lies in definition, universal Tradition, and its faithful transmission.
"I. ... by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.”

II. ... Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith ... It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine ... The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.”

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so..."


Quote:You have already been shown that Dr. Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that: "With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable".
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Van Noort discusses the mutability of disciplinary laws.
We are not discussing disciplinary laws, neither is Ott, and you neglected to answer the question.

Here is what he states once again, with more context to make it plainer that his statement is concerned with doctrine relating to faith and morals.
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible."

I repeat: Are you claiming that he is making an heretical statement?

No, I am saying that YOU don't understand infallibility...of the Pope nor of the Church. Ott is not saying what you think he is here. I suspect you read it that way because are trying to defend the position that the Church can err in faith and morals because if you didn't you'd have to be a sede vacantist, right?

"Van Noort" Wrote:The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals.

"Van Noort" Wrote:Sequel

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. © It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

Scheeben Wrote:2. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: (a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; © the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ; (f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.
Reply
Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Ott is not saying what you think he is here.
Does he speak in riddles? Thanks for putting me straight.

Lets see if I can understand it now;
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church..." The context is not doctrinal teaching after all, but something else. Disciplinary, perhaps?

"... it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable..." Hmm, I think I've got it now. He is not writing in regard to doctrinal teaching, as we saw above, and he is also not writing of the Teaching Authority of the Church in regard to faith and morals. He is actually writing in secret code about something else. Where Ott states that not all of this doctrinal teaching on faith and morals is infallible and irrevocable, Ott really means that all of it is infallible and irrevocable.

"... Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839)... " Ah, I think I may have got it at last! Infallible teaching is not, after all, only those binding matters that emanate from General Councils and Ex Cathedra definitions (and Tradition), but everything is infallible if it touches upon faith and morals. Even if a pope or council explicitly state that something concerning faith and morals is not infallible and, therefore, not binding, it actually is infallible and binding. It doesn't matter what they say!

"... The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible." Right, got it at last. What Ott is secretly stating is that the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible.

Thanks for straightening us simple Catholics out, lamentabili.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili
[Van Noort] This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals.
Yes... and... ?

Is there a point that you are attempting to make?


Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium... It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine.
"... infallible in safeguarding and presenting". That means faithfully transmitting, lamentabili. The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when faithfully transmitting.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Scheeben
2. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: (a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; © the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ; (f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.
Yes... and ...? Do you have a point that you want to make?













Reply
(06-04-2009, 09:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: No, neither the Pope nor the Church can teach to the faithful any error in faith and morals. This does not mean all of this teaching is infallible, as you continually suggest. You are saying that there can be errors in faith and morals...that is contrary to the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. It is heretical. 

1838 [Definition of infallibility]. But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the apostolic duty is especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority, We deem it most necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the Only-begotten Son of God deigned to enjoin with the highest pastoral office.
1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.
1840  [Canon]. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php
Reply
"PoG" Wrote:
"lamentabili sane" Wrote:The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium... It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine.
"... infallible in safeguarding and presenting". That means faithfully transmitting, lamentabili. The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when faithfully transmitting.

Are you serious? Infallibility is a charism that PROTECTS and SAFEGUARDS Christ's Doctrine. Infallibility is the cause of the faithful transmission of Christ's doctrine. This could not be accomplished by mere men.

You are reading this as follows: The Church is infallible only when She faithfully transmits Christ's Doctrine. That is wrong.

Here is a famous and recent example of the teaching of the inerrancy of the ordinary magisterium:

Pius XII, Humani Generis" Wrote:20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Reply
Quote:Posted by lamentabili
Are you serious?
Yes, I'm extremely serious.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili
Infallibility is a charism that PROTECTS and SAFEGUARDS Christ's Doctrine. Infallibility is the cause of the faithful transmission of Christ's doctrine. This could not be accomplished by mere men.
That is correct.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
You are reading this as follows: The Church is infallible only when She faithfully transmits Christ's Doctrine.
That is correct.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
That is wrong.
No, that is correct. That is precisely why a pope or Oecumenical Council in union with the pope will judge and infallibly define a matter of doctrine of great importance to the Faith that there has been theological dispute about. The solemn definition is infallible and binding.

Quote:Posted by lamentabili sane
Here is a famous and recent example of the teaching of the inerrancy of the ordinary magisterium:
Pope Pius XII
"For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"" - The pope is teaching that one must normally give assent to everything that his Teaching Authority provides simply because of his authority. That is all. He is not teaching that everything that a pope writes or says carries the guarantee of infallibility.

He even explains in the preceding sentence (and paragraphs) that the teaching that is to be given consent is that which is not subject to him using the supreme power of his teaching authority, i.e. infallibility. He writes "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority."

The pope has made the distinction between what is authenticum in his Ordinary Magisterium, i.e that which normally demands consent because of his authority, and that which is infallibly taught from the Extraordinary Magisterium, i.e. his "supreme power ".

If you still fail to understand then perhaps you should ask yourself why there is an Extraordinary Magisterium, which teaches infallibly, as well as an Ordinary Magisterium. If the Ordinary Magisterium always teaches infallibly in matters of doctrine, why do you think it is necessary to have an Extraordinary Magisterium? Why is it necessary for the pope to occasionally settle a disputed point of doctrine by infallible Ex Cathedra definition if his Ordinary and Authentic Magisterium is always infallible?

You would do well to go back and read what the Catholic Encyclopedia explains about papal infallibility and definitions.

Explanation of papal infallibility
"... infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree ... the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible... "

Theological definition
"...It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful." No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense..."

Reply
PoG" Wrote:He even explains in the preceding sentence (and paragraphs) that the teaching that is to be given consent is that which is not subject to him using the supreme power of his teaching authority, i.e. infallibility. He writes "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority."

The pope has made the distinction between what is authenticum in his Ordinary Magisterium, i.e that which normally demands consent because of his authority, and that which is infallibly taught from the Extraordinary Magisterium, i.e. his "supreme power ".

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority."

This very clearly states that it CANNOT be said that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not demand consent, simply because in such letters the Popes "do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority."

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?
Reply
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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)