Archangel Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Does the Pope speak infallibly on every matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 Les, It's [u]your[/u] misconception. Ex Cathedra means speaking within the requirements and privlege of their official cerical office and is done when addressing a particualr subject. It's the difference between a Supreme Court judge writing an article about his opinoin for a magazine and writing a legal opinion after hearing both sides of the argument in Courth with witness, the other Judges, etc. Dang. It seems you keep running in the buzz saw of reasonablness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus[/url] I thought you might appreciate this essay on St Irenaeus and what it says about Adversus Haerses Enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 Hi Jas Jis, I'm having trouble understading your reply to my point that infallible teachings don't have to be specified as being infallible. Perhaps the following information will help you to see that. First Vatican Council, Session 4, 18 July 1870 Chapter 4, part 9 on the criteria for a papal infallible teaching: "We teach and define as divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when: (1) in the exercise of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians, (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3) he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church... "Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable." So "infallibly" taught, there are only three conditions and these cannot be modified ( Hence, irreformable). Thus anytime these conditions were fulfilled, the papal teaching was "infallible." Interested persons might want to review papal writings, encyclicals, etc. to see which fulfilled these three irreformable conditions. In no way do they have to assert that the Pope is speaking "infallibly" or "ex cathedra." If the three conditions are fulfilled, he simply is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 That would be unneccessary since Lumen Gentium and the new Catechism have already clarified the nature of relations between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. When the Pope speaks as universal pastor and teahcer of the Church he declares it with a formal bull. This is part of the procedure LL. The nature of an encyclical prevents it being an ex cathedra statement because it is understood to be in the jurdistiction of the albeit truthful and binding ordinary magisterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 I'm afraid Papal Bulls are a thing of the past. You won't find them today. That's not to say there still isn't a lot of "papal bull" around. And the "infallibile" pronouncement on "papal infallibility" does not specify a format. Hence the procedure cannot be reformed to require a specific type of document. Technically, a verbal announcement would qualify if the three criteria were met, but it is doubtful that this wuld be done. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 LL what are you talking about? Pope Pius XII used a Papal Bull to pronounce the dogma of the Ascenscion and there have been many Bull's of canonisation in JP2's papacy all of which involved ex cathedra authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Sorry Myles, There is no excathedra statement dealing with the Ascension. And Pius XII's ex cathedra statement on the dogma of the Assumption was the Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus. Incidently, the Assumption appears nowhere in the New Testament and first apeared as a legend in the 4th or 5th century. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 The canon of the bible is not found in the bible either. It was determined by Catholic councils around 400 A.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 That's right Archangel, Around 400 A.D. the Church selected from among many writings four versions that best represented its theological views at that time. It claimed that four were selected because that was the number of the four winds, at least according to Tertullian. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Again, how do you feel about Socrates or many other historical figures? Because they do not meet your undefined criteria for reliabity does not mean they are in fact unreliable. What makes one writing reliable and the others unreliable? Should we assume that nothing is true unless they are mentioned in texts that meet your undefined criteria for reliability? You just do not trust an oral tradition. You assume that each writing has a hidden agenda. Because they love Christ they wouldn't dream of misrepresenting him, you can really only understand this if you love Christ yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 6 2005, 03:43 AM']That's right Archangel, Around 400 A.D. the Church selected from among many writings four versions that best represented its theological views at that time. It claimed that four were selected because that was the number of the four winds, at least according to Tertullian. LittleLes[/quote] When did non-Catholics determine their bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hi Archangel, The Protestant reformation was far off. Only one Christian group at that time so it got to pick and choose which writings were included in its bible. I'm actually surprised that John's gospel was includes due to his gnostic leanings. Little Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 6 2005, 05:21 PM']Hi Archangel, The Protestant reformation was far off. Only one Christian group at that time so it got to pick and choose which writings were included in its bible. I'm actually surprised that John's gospel was includes due to his gnostic leanings. Little Les[/quote] Exactly, LittleLes! The only Christian group at the time was the Catholic Church. It's been going strong for the last 2000 years. How far away off was the Protestant reformation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hi Archangle, Lets stick to the topic and discuss the Protestent reformation as a separate thread. It isn't directly related to the claim of Peterine primacy. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts