Infallible, you say?

[LittleLes]

According to Vatican I, which claimed infallibility, an EX CATHEDRA teaching cannot be reformed. Adding to it would reform or change it.

For example, if the church were to declare that all ex cathedra teaching now had to be written in Latin, that would be adding to and reforming the original definition.

What you are describing are new teachings. That's something different.

Little Les

[Guest Eremite]

Little Les,

The word "reformed", used in the context of Pastor Aeternus, means changed into a contrary proposition. It is dealing with the nature of a particular doctrine as irreformable, that is, something which is assuredly true. It can't be "turned around" (reformed) to mean something else. A development of a particular irreformable doctrine does not make it a contrary proposition than it previously was; it simply expands. The Church's condemnation of usury is an appropriate example here. It was not rescinded; it was simply developed to address modern economic realities. Modern economic realities did not exist back then, and so it was not addressed in the condemnation. The Church, as a living organism, takes the doctrine she received, and examines it in light of today, to see if there are any new points that can be brought out. They are not "new doctrines", but part of the natural growth of the previous doctrine, just like a rose petal is not a new object, but part of the growth of the entire flower.

Writing a dogma in Latin has nothing to do with faith or morals, btw.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Eremite

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 07:35 PM'] According to Vatican I, which claimed infallibility, an EX CATHEDRA teaching cannot be reformed. Adding to it would reform or change it.

For example, if the church were to declare that all ex cathedra teaching now had to be written in Latin, that would be adding to and reforming the original definition.

What you are describing are new teachings. That's something different.

Little Les [/quote]
Less,

I suggest Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." It would definitely help you understand what Vatican I truely means.

Reforming or changing the docrine is bad, but adding to it is developing it, not reforming or changing it.

[LittleLes]

Yes, indeed. I have long ago read Neuman's "The Development of Doctrine" and was struck by the conflict between what he and Pius X's wrote in condemning the Modernist heresy.

A frutitful topic for another post.

LittleLes

[Jaime]

So which Ex Cathedra statement do you want to discuss?

We don't have a lot of them to deal with

[Aloysius]

we don't have a lot of extraordinary use of the magisterium for an ex cathedra statement, because when popes still had temporal power they didn't need to do it extraodrdinarily the ordinary was unquestioned.

but ordinary proclamations from the chair of Peter are many. anything a pope has said in his petrine ministry on a matter of faith or morals is infallible ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 08:32 PM'] Yes, indeed. I have long ago read Neuman's "The Development of Doctrine" and was struck by the conflict between what he and Pius X's wrote in condemning the Modernist heresy.

A frutitful topic for another post.

LittleLes [/quote]
Interesting. You see no difference between development and change from a doctrinal standpoint?

Although I really see no point at all in this since you don't acknowledge the canon of the Bible to be infallible. Since you don't acknowledge that of course you would have problems with Papal infallibity.

[Scofizzle]

^ very true!!!

[Archangel]

Papal infalliblity has its roots 2000 years ago when Jesus founded His church on Peter. For some reason, non-believers think that it only started with Vatican I ...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:30 PM'] I looked over the URLs and realized that they really don't deal with ex cathedra statements, the thread under consideration.

I'm familiar with the material including the error presented. We may deal with it under a separate thread.
[/quote]
My essays are about the infallible Magisterium, both in its Extraordinary mode of operation (i.e., Papal Ex Cathedra pronouncements and Solemn Conciliar definitions) and in its Ordinary and Universal mode of operation (i.e., the common daily teaching of the Pope and the bishops dispersed throughout the world).

Moreover, it is important to remember that the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium is not limited to the Extraordinary solemn acts of the Papal Magisterium, and to think that it is limited in this way shows a complete lack of understanding as it concerns the nature of this important Catholic doctrine.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:30 PM'] Incidently, the Prefession of Faith is not a Papal writing, It comes from the Confrerternity for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Office of the Holy Inquistiion, Ratzinger's group.
[/quote]
You are in error on this point. The documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith participate in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, and so they are his teaching.

This is true of all the documents issued by the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and especially of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because no document can be published by that Congregation without the Pope's express approval. As the Instruction [u]Donum Veritatis[/u] says: "The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. [i]Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the Ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter[/i]." [CDF Instruction [u]Donum Veritatis[/u], no. 18; cf. Pope John Paul II, [u]Pastor Bonus[/u], nos. 7-14; cf. [u]Code of Canon Law[/u], canons 360 and 361]

Your understanding of the authority of the Church's Magisterium is too limited, and so your position does not reflect accurately the teaching of the Catholic Church.

[Jaime]

[quote]Papal infalliblity has its roots 2000 years ago when Jesus founded His church on Peter. For some reason, non-believers think that it only started with Vatican I[/quote]

You are correct on that Archangel (of course) but when the phrase Ex Cathedra comes into the conversation, that does infer the 19th century council.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 01:16 PM'] Please note that the thread is dealing with ex cathedra statements not infallibility in general. It's important to stay focused.

Littleles [/quote]
The infallibility of the Church's Extraordinary Magisterium cannot be separated from the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, because the Catholic faith is a holistic reality, and so it must be treated as such. The approach promoted by the originator of this thread betrays a Protestant or rationalist understanding of the Christian religion that is completely foreign to Catholicism.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 10:56 AM']Hi Appy,

I don't object to URL's if the poster summarizes his point and then gives the URL for further reading. What I find very objectional is someone in effect saying "here is the answer" and then merely posting a URL.

I'm sometimes tempted to reply, "No it's not, it's here" and then posting the URL for the Encyclopedia Britiannica or Catholic Encyclopedia.

In short, I don't count a URL reference as a response or an assertion, and I suspect those who use URL's in this fashion haven't really thought through or understand the reference (or its limitations) they are posting a URL for. 

LittleLes[/quote]
You are free to your own opinion on the matter, but since I wrote all the essays that appear on my website, I see no point in summarizing the information.

God bless,
Todd

[Archangel]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 8 2005, 07:30 PM']
You are correct on that Archangel (of course) but when the phrase Ex Cathedra comes into the conversation, that does infer the 19th century council.[/quote]
True that, hot stuff. The problem with LittleLes' understanding is his definition of irreformable.