Another Q on V2

[Aloysius]

yep, basically, EXCEPT I believe 4 (d) would be something disciplinary. religious orders are sometimes approved, sometimes later suppressed, even sometimes re-approved (i.e. jesuits)

also, this statement: “all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could be made about them.” to me seems to very clearly describe dogma, not all those things you have listed under there, just dogma. I would think there would be a third category; first those things revealed, then those things so closely connected that we wouldn't understand things revealed without them, and THEN issues of faith and morals which are important to the faith but without which we would not confuse the revealed deposit of faith.

i.e. revealed truths, then dogma, THEN plain old doctrine

[Guest catholic06]

whoops, didn't mean to post here.

Edited June 21, 2006 by catholic06

[goldenchild17]

okie, so then Mass and Sacraments... They fall under disciplines?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1009681' date='Jun 21 2006, 03:18 AM']
okie, so then Mass and Sacraments... They fall under disciplines?
[/quote]
Yes, because those are methods and actions. For example, the sign of peace expresses reconciliation with our brother before we recieve Holy Communion. This can be at the beginning of Mass, where it is now or could be moved after the Gospel before the second part of the Mass begins.
Same with the Sacraments, the Church determines the formula based on Tradition and need.

I am frustrated still with you trying to determine if one document contradicts the other.
The church assures us it doesn't, and neither you nor I are qualified to decide if it did. I understand the desire to reconcile all things and understand every last detail, but I think you are missing the point on faith. The Holy Spirit keeps the ship on course thru time in spite of us.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1009728' date='Jun 21 2006, 06:39 AM']
I am frustrated still with you trying to determine if one document contradicts the other.
The church assures us it doesn't, and neither you nor I are qualified to decide if it did. I understand the desire to reconcile all things and understand every last detail, but I think you are missing the point on faith. The Holy Spirit keeps the ship on course thru time in spite of us.
[/quote]

Cmom, please try to be patient. He seems to be genuinely confused and looking for answers. That is not a bad thing. I know you worry about what he will try to do with those answers, but it is more pleasing to God if we give him the Truth and pray that the Holy Spirit will move him to acceptance and understanding. Please don't let the label under his name drive out your charity.

Goldenchild, in response to your question: it depends on what you mean by "Mass and Sacraments." Clearly, the sacraments themselves - as unique modes of Grace instituted by Christ, most certainly are matters of faith and morals. However, the rites (and, in the case of Most Holy Eucharist, Liturgy) that surround the Sacraments are not matters of faith and morals, but rather, matters of discipline. Referring again to the very good explanation given above, disciplines refer to how the faith is [i]presented[/i] while "faith and morals" refer to the [i]content[/i] itself. Thus, a particular liturgy or rite surrounding a sacrament may be subjectively (or even objectively) better at presenting the Truth of the Faith within a given cultural and temporal context (this is why liturgy and devotion undergoes organic development), but the truth of the Sacrament itself is untouched and unchanged.

Perhaps a helpful way to think about it is to use the idea of an ornate frame that surrounds an Icon. The content (the images and their corresponding heavenly prototypes) remains unchanged, though the frame may become more or less ornate, more or less elaborate, more or less beautiful, over time. The disciplines surrounding the Sacraments are not infallible, and thus can change, but the Sacraments themselves do not and cannot.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

Its not a bad frustration Jeff , its more like anxious concern, like when I worry and fret over my children.
It justs leads me to do more praying to the Holy Spirit to pour out abundant grace for the person's understanding and enlightenment. Its a mom thing.

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, well in that case, I take it back: fret as much as you want (provided it doesnt cause you undo stress) - you're imitating the Blessed Virgin

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1009728' date='Jun 21 2006, 06:39 AM']
Yes, because those are methods and actions. For example, the sign of peace expresses reconciliation with our brother before we recieve Holy Communion. This can be at the beginning of Mass, where it is now or could be moved after the Gospel before the second part of the Mass begins.
Same with the Sacraments, the Church determines the formula based on Tradition and need. [/quote]
Hmm, okay.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1009728' date='Jun 21 2006, 06:39 AM']I am frustrated still with you trying to determine if one document contradicts the other.
The church assures us it doesn't, and neither you nor I are qualified to decide if it did. I understand the desire to reconcile all things and understand every last detail, but I think you are missing the point on faith. The Holy Spirit keeps the ship on course thru time in spite of us.
[/quote]

Actually I'm trying my durndest to see that they reconcile with each other believe it or not. But I just wanted to know where the Church placed encyclicals on the whole matter of infallibility. If they are to be considered infallible then that makes things much easier for me than it was before, so thanks.

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1009753' date='Jun 21 2006, 07:44 AM']
Cmom, please try to be patient. He seems to be genuinely confused and looking for answers. That is not a bad thing. I know you worry about what he will try to do with those answers, but it is more pleasing to God if we give him the Truth and pray that the Holy Spirit will move him to acceptance and understanding. Please don't let the label under his name drive out your charity.

Goldenchild, in response to your question: it depends on what you mean by "Mass and Sacraments." Clearly, the sacraments themselves - as unique modes of Grace instituted by Christ, most certainly are matters of faith and morals. However, the rites (and, in the case of Most Holy Eucharist, Liturgy) that surround the Sacraments are not matters of faith and morals, but rather, matters of discipline. Referring again to the very good explanation given above, disciplines refer to how the faith is [i]presented[/i] while "faith and morals" refer to the [i]content[/i] itself. Thus, a particular liturgy or rite surrounding a sacrament may be subjectively (or even objectively) better at presenting the Truth of the Faith within a given cultural and temporal context (this is why liturgy and devotion undergoes organic development), but the truth of the Sacrament itself is untouched and unchanged.

Perhaps a helpful way to think about it is to use the idea of an ornate frame that surrounds an Icon. The content (the images and their corresponding heavenly prototypes) remains unchanged, though the frame may become more or less ornate, more or less elaborate, more or less beautiful, over time. The disciplines surrounding the Sacraments are not infallible, and thus can change, but the Sacraments themselves do not and cannot.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]


Okay, that makes good sense. Thank you.

[goldenchild17]

What might you guys think of the following(no I am not insinuating anything at all, I don't even have any actual conclusion out of this yet :

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:
“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .
“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1010823' date='Jun 22 2006, 11:42 PM']
What might you guys think of the following(no I am not insinuating anything at all, I don't even have any actual conclusion out of this yet :

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:
“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .
“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
[/quote]

It seems that within the quote he is equivocating back and forth between what we really mean by "discipline" and what is actually a matter of faith and morals. Perhaps I can try to illustrate with some examples:

Many people feel that the faith is better transmitted when the liturgy is done [i]ad orientum[/i]. Admittedly, I am one of those people. However, the orientation of the Mass is not a matter of faith and morals, but rather, it is a discipline that can vary in degree with regards to how well it transmits the faith. Thus, I can humbly submit my opinion that saying the Mass [i]ad populum[/i] is not as beneficial as saying the Mass [i]ad orientum[/i], but as it is not a matter of faith and morals, just because the one orientation may or may not be "better" does not protect it from change.

On the other hand, the liturgy could never be changed in such a way as to, for example, include a prayer to Satan, or to teach theological error. The prayers said during Mass that concern matters of doctrine are [i]not[/i] disciplines, but rather, they teach faith and morals. As such, they participate in the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium and cannot be in error. If anyone claims that heresy is taught in the Mass, that person is necessarily wrong in his or her interpretation of the section of the Mass in question.

It seems to me that the theologian you quoted above fails to differentiate between those aspects of the Mass and rubrics that teach on matters of faith and morals and those aspects that are truly disciplines. The former will neither be contradicted nor in error, while the latter can be changed for better or for worse.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[qfnol31]

I guess since this is a major interest that I have, the infallibility and authority of the Magisterium, I might just get involved. We'll see.

Also, I hope to be doing a research project with a professor at my school on one of the more influential encyclicals, Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII. The professor holds that the matter is not an [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statement, as I would too, and so this will be very interesting to look up. I don't really want to start a debate on this, but I do bring it up because it itself is an encyclical.

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

This is very interesting because it follows the formula (more or less) used in the two [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements we have today, the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. However, there are hints that it cannot be taken as such even in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

[quote name='"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"']This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mar016.htm#16"]Mark 16:16[/url]). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm"]Kingdom of God[/url] ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat018.htm#17"]Matthew 18:17[/url]). St. Paul is equally explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). [b]The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, [i]Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus[/i]. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable.[/b] It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition[/quote]

An [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statement, as set forth by Vatican I:

[quote](Source:http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.
%20On%20the%20infallible%20teaching%20authority%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff)
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter [list]
[*][b]not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,[/b]
[*][b]but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the [b]apostles[/b].[/b]
[/list] Indeed, their apostolic teaching was [list]
[*]embraced by all the venerable [b]fathers[/b] and
[*]reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox [b]doctors[/b],
[/list] for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].[/quote]

Background information says that it's not to give new doctrine, but to expound on that which is already there.

[quote]we [i]teach and [b]define[/b][/i] as a divinely revealed dogma that [list]
[*]when the Roman pontiff speaks [b]EX CATHEDRA[/b],[list]
[*]that is, when,[list=1]
[b] [/b]
[*][b]in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, [/b]
[*][b]in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [/b]
[*][b]he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, [/b]
[/list]
[/list]
[/list] he possesses,[list]
[*]by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
[/list] <li> that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.<li>[i]Therefore[/i], such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.[/quote]It is only when he speaks [i]Ex Cathedra[/i], which means he is defining an already-taught doctrine, that the Pope is infallible.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Papal infallibility is as follows:

[quote][b]B. The Pope[/b][center] [/center]
[b]E[size=-2]XPLANATION OF[/size] P[size=-2]APAL[/size] I[size=-2]NFALLIBILITY[/size][/b]

The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm"]Vatican Council[/url] has defined as "a divinely revealed [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm"]dogma[/url]" that "the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm"]Roman Pontiff[/url], when he speaks [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm"]ex cathedra[/url] -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm"]Christians[/url] he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm"]blessed Peter[/url], possessed of that infallibility with which the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm"]Divine Redeemer[/url] wished His [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm"]Church[/url] to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature ([i]ex sese[/i]) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that: [list]
[*]what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under [url="http://www.newadvent.org/#I"]I[/url]).
[*]the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm"]ex cathedra[/url] teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
[*]infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm"]ex cathedra[/url] teaching; and the conditions required for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm"]ex cathedra[/url] teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: [this was posted above][/quote]
[/list]This is how the encyclopedia treats Papal infallibility. There is no level of ordinary Papal infallibility, but rather all his infallible statements will always be extraordinary.

Lastly I mention [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i]. The Pope set forward in this encyclical that only men can be Priests. It is an infallible teaching, but not by [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] as Cardinal Ratzinger explained:

[font="Times"][size=3]Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[/size][/font][/quote]

[quote name='http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm'](Couldn't find this on the Vatican site today, though I know it's there.[b][font="Arial"] CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[/font][/b] October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli[/quote]


This then is supposed to be a response to what infallibility lies in encyclicals of the Popes.


If anyone wants to check out the links, I have edited the two long ones to take up two lines so it wouldn't distort this page.

Edited June 23, 2006 by qfnol31

[goldenchild17]

Okay thanks you guys. I'll take a break now. I got answered what I started this thread for so anything more at this point would be going too far with the rules.