Infallible, you say?

[Jaime]

[quote]You've raised an interesting issue. Are you saying that definitive statements made by the pope before it was discovered that the pope could make ex cathedra statements were not therefore infallible? In short, that papal infallibility began with Vatican I? If so, Wow! Is that new doctrine or what! biggrin.gif[/quote]

Ok so its going to be that way eh?

Alrighty then... Lets play "Which Statement is Quotable to hot stuff"?

1. The Dogma of ex cathedra started with Vatican I
2. LittleLes is making a serious attempt at an intellectual conversation about ex cathedra
3. I have a semi platonic crush on Katie Couric

hint (avatar)

Give me a break Little les.. I thought we might actually engage in a conversation.

silly me

PS Cam let the smiley faces ensue

[Cam42]

:unplugged: :angel: :jesus:

And Himey...... not a church music make, although explains Peter, but then again so does

Finally, this is what I think of hot stuff,

El Cam-ino

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 9 2005, 11:20 AM'] Really? But I'm afraid that's not exactly a Catholic view.[/quote]
Since you are an expert in these matters, I am sure that you already know that when reading Magisterial documents it is vital that one see them in the light of the Tradition of the Church as a whole, while also paying attention to the way in which the Pope -- or the Magisterium in general -- proposes a particular doctrine. The Holy Father himself has pointed out several times that the different doctrines taught by the Magisterium must be understood within the overall context of the [i]depositum fidei[/i]; and moreover, he has indicated that it is essential that one ascertain the degree of authority behind a specific Magisterial intervention in order to judge it properly, bearing in mind always that the documents issued by the Pope, and the Roman Curia, must be understood ". . . according to his manifest mind and will." [Vatican II, [u]Lumen Gentium[/u], no. 25]

But that being said, I have some questions for you ([i][b]the following questions are for LittleLes only[/b][/i]):

(1) How long have you been a Catholic, and what qualifies you as a judge in relation to the topic at hand?

(2) Where did you study Catholic theology?

(3) What qualifications do you have to show that you are an expert on the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium?

(4) Will you please explain the distinctions to be made between the different modes of operation of the Church's Magisterium.

(5) How does the diachronic nature of the Magisterium affect the development of doctrine over time?

(6) When did the term "ex cathedra" come into use in theological writings?

(7) How does the [u]Official Relatio[/u] delivered by Bishop Gasser at the First Vatican Council explain the relationship between the infallibility of the Pope as a public person, and the infallibility of the Church as a collective whole?

(8) How does the particular tradition of the Roman Church relate to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as a public person in Bishop Gasser's [u]Official Relatio[/u]?

(9) How is the supreme authority of the Pope safeguarded in relation to the authority of the college of bishops in the teaching of [u]Lumen Gentium[/u]?

(10) What did the Second Vatican Council propose as definitive teaching on the nature of episcopacy?

Please answer the following questions at your leisure.

God bless,
Todd

[Winchester]

Les,
You are taking a novel position on the document; there's no controversy among scholars about this being a part of the Depositum Fidei.

You is out on a limb, my friend. Perhaps you should move to a tenable position. Attack an actual dogma that is apparently contradicted by another actual dogma. Ex CAthedra statements are often not fully resolved until a Council comes along (Peter's primacy being an example)

[LittleLes]

Lets take an early example of a Papal Bull. Fortunately as short one.

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

1. Does this satisfy Vatican I's (infallible) criteria for an ex cathedra papal definition and is therefore infallible of itself?

2. Is it still to be believed by Catholics?

LittleLes

[jasJis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 10 2005, 06:25 PM'] Whoa Jamie,

You've raised an interesting issue. Are you saying that definitive statements made by the pope before it was discovered that the pope could make ex cathedra statements were not therefore infallible? In short, that papal infallibility began with Vatican I? If so, Wow! Is that new doctrine or what!

The Holy Ghost just changed his mind one day, is that what you are saying? Not a doctrine, then suddenly a doctrine.

I don't think the CDF is going to buy that one.

LittleLes [/quote]
Oops. Les, you just showed (yet again) you don't understand the difference between Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline, (much less the types of each).

This is getting so boring.

[LittleLes]

But I'm afraid I do. A dogma is a formally defined doctrine.

A "discipline" as in "only a discipline" is what some dogmas and doctrines become when they are found to have been in error and they have to be gotten rid of.

Somebody claimed that Exsurge's thesis #33 on the requirement that we believe it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake was "only a discipline" while all the other theses in Exsurge were infallible.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Somebody claimed that Exsurge's thesis #33 on the requirement that we believe it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake was "only a discipline" while all the other theses in Exsurge were infallible.[/quote]

That is certainly novel spin. It is patently untrue. The only person on this thread to claim that Exsurge Domine is infallible is you. And you have given no proof to show that it is infallible.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM"]Exsurge Domine[/url]

Exsurge Domine #33 states:
[quote]That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. (Exsurge Domine #33)[/quote]

This is a statement that is clear. Simply put, the civil execution type of burning is not of the will of the Holy Spirit. Pope Leo X was making a statement about the injustice of burning at the stake. You are misreading the statement.

And again, Exsurge Domine is not an infallible document. It never has been an infallible document, and I am certain that it will never be an infallible document. Perhaps if you read the document, you might come to a greater understanding of the document.

[quote]A "discipline" as in "only a discipline" is what some dogmas and doctrines become when they are found to have been in error and they have to be gotten rid of.[/quote]

No. That is an incorrect assumption. Would you please show proof as to the authenticity of that position.

Cam42

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 11 2005, 05:24 AM']Lets take an early example of a Papal Bull. Fortunately as short one.

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

1.  Does this satisfy Vatican I's (infallible) criteria for an ex cathedra papal definition and is therefore infallible of itself?

2.  Is it still to be believed by Catholics?

LittleLes[/quote]
The answer to number (1) is, yes, the definition in "Unam Sanctam" is a dogma; and the answer to number (2) is, yes, Catholics still believe that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Now, if a man knows that he must be in communion with the Pope and then fails to act upon that knowledge, it follows that he condemns himself, but if he is invincibly ignorance of this truth of the faith, it follows that the error in question is not imputable to him as a moral agent. In order for an action to be mortally sinful, three things are necessary, (1) the action must be gravely disordered (and the rejection of the authority of the Pope is grave matter), (2) the man must have full knowledge of the gravity of the offense, and (3) he must give complete consent to the act performed. If any one of these three elements is missing, the act in question is only venially sinful at the subjective level, and depending upon the case may not even be imputable to the moral agent. God alone can determine the extent of culpability in a matter of this kind. Thus, objectively the act in question is gravely sinful, but subjectively it may not be imputable to the moral agent, and this teaching on the nature of acts within the moral order has always been held by the Church. God, who alone sees the secrets of the heart, judges justly and will only condemn a man who knowingly and deliberately rejects the truth.

LittleLes, I still await your answer to the ten questions I have asked, because based on your comments to this point in this thread, it is clear to me that you do not know what you are talking about.

[Antonius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 11 2005, 09:29 AM']LittleLes, I still await your answer to the ten questions I have asked, because based on your comments to this point in this thread, it is clear to me that you do not know what you are talking about.[/quote]

[LittleLes]

Sorry Apotheoun,

You are attempting the old "apologetic two-step" claiming that Boniface really didn't mean to include in his pronouncement those invincably ignorant of the need to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

Please note the plain meaning of Boniface's words "every human being." He didn't make any exceptions at all. But, of course, to avoid an admission of error, apologists have to reform what he said. But the fly in the ointment is that you can't reform an infallible statement!

And I'm afraid that you, like CAM, are not going to have your questions answered for the same reason.

But I will tell you this. Most people who do quite well driving automobiles don't have Ph.D's in automotive design. Do you think we should pull their driving licenses?

LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Please note the plain meaning of Boniface's words "every human being." He didn't make any exceptions at all. But, of course, to avoid an admission of error, apologists have to reform what he said. But the fly in the ointment is that you can't reform an infallible statement![/quote]

"The Father is greater than I".

Now, Protestants would be the first to scramble to explain this verse when a Jehovah's Witness or Sabellian cites it to "prove" that Jesus is not equal to the Father. Of course, Jesus does not say, "The father is greater than I, except in nature or majesty", anymore than Boniface says "obedience to the authority established by God is necessary for salvation, but the Lord weighs the heart and ignorance of persons in his judgement". Abiding by your logic of inscrutable interpretation, we would be forced to conclude that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father, and thus not truly God. But there is an operative element when people speak, and it is the assumed proposition. Jesus did not have to clarify what he said, because he spoke with the assumption of his equality with the Father, and was not trying to give an exhaustive treatment on the life of the Holy Trinity; neither was Boniface giving an exhaustive treatment on salvation. He was speaking to a Catholic world, where most everyone operated with the assumed proposition that the Bishop of Rome was vested with divine authority, and so he had no need to temper his statement with discourses on the full panorama of salvific truths.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

Furthermore, just to address Unam Sanctum specifically, yes it was infallible, and yes it has enduring validity. Like any other Magisterial document, however, it is not to bee seen isolation of the entire breadth theological truth, which fits together as links on a chain. Those who are invincibly ignorant are truly in submission to the Roman Pontiff, as they are in submission to the true God, for they obey the truth as best they know it, and thus have not willfully spurned what God has established. They are akin to the Gentiles spoken of by Paul in his epistle to the Roman, who while not circumcised, were truly Jews in spirit, and fulfillers of the law.

[Cam42]

[quote]And I'm afraid that you, like CAM, are not going to have your questions answered for the same reason.[/quote]

Because there is no rebuttal for the truth.

[LittleLes]

Sorry, Ememite. In the theory of papal (or any) infallibility, the Holy Spirit is suppose to be the source. And the wording is to be interpreted just as written.

If exceptions were to be allowed, the wording might be "that human creatures be subject." But it wasn't. The precise wording is "that EVERY human creature be subject."

But thank you for acknowledging that Unam Sanctam meets the criteria for an infallible statement.

And when Jesus said, "This is my body" would you allow us to interpret that as meaning "This symbolizes my body"? In short, that Jesus was speaking metaphorically? I'm afraid that when specific statements are made, but you then claim a different meaning, you're starting down a slippery slope.

How about something like "assumed into heaven" really meaning "symbolically assumed into heaven"? Would you allow a qualification here as well?

You do realize that the real purpose of Unam Sanctam was to establish papal supremacy over kings, don't you? But we can explore the development of papal authority as a separate thread after infallibility.

LittleLes