 |
| "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18) |
In recent years, there has been and continues to be much debate over which statements of the Church are to be considered "infallible."
There are many people under the misconception that there have only been two infallible declarations: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
This is incorrect (as will be shown below).
There are then others who know well that the first criteria is that it must have to do with "faith and morals," and that all such matters are infallible.
But many are then left wondering, "what does this mean? what is considered 'faith and morals?'"
Luckily and thankfully, there is still at least one resource which Neo-Cons and Traditionalists alike can agree is reliable: www.newadvent.org (Catholic Encyclopedia)
(sadly, this may be the only source since Neo-Cons call Traditionalists sola scriptura Protestants when we quote the Bible, and accuse us of disobedience when we quote past Papal writings or Doctors of the Church)
There are three questions that will be addressed (I am re-arranging the order from the web site):
1.) Who can declare an infallible (theological) definition?
2.) Who is it directed to?
3.) What are the criteria for an infallible definition?
So let's take a look at the definition for "Theological Definition" from the aforementioned:
1.) It must be a decision by the supreme teaching authority in the Church
There are two organs of supreme doctrinal authority, viz.:1.) The pope, speaking in his official capacity of pastor and teacher of all Christians, and the bishops of the Catholic Church dispersed throughout the world or assembled in a general council. The pope, as successor of St. Peter, has definitive authority, in the exercise of which he speaks neither as a private individual, nor as a mere theologian, nor as Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, nor as Metropolitan of the Roman Province, nor as Primate of Italy, nor as Patriarch of the Western Church, nor as head of any Roman Congregation, but as supreme pastor of the whole Church.
2.) The bishops of the Catholic Church assembled with the pope in a general council have the same doctrinal authority with which the pope is endowed; and so have the bishops dispersed throughout the Catholic world when, in conjunction with the pope, they teach a doctrine of faith or morals to be irrevocably held by all Christians.
These two supreme teaching authorities are the organs of active infallibility from which alone a theological definition can proceed.
2.) The decision must bind the universal Church
Decrees which bind only a part of the Church are not definitions; but only those which command the assent of all the faithful. It is not, however, absolutely necessary that the decree should be directly sent or addressed to the whole Church; it is quite sufficient if it is made clear that the supreme teaching authority means to bind the Universal Church. Thus, St. Leo addressed his famous dogmatic definition to Flavian, yet it was rightly considered as binding the Universal Church; and Pope Innocent sent his decree to the African Church alone, yet St. Augustine exclaimed: Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error! (Serm. ii, de Verb. Ap., c. vii).3a.) The decision must concern a doctrine of faith or morals
Faith means the speculative doctrines of revelation; morals, the practical doctrines of revelation. Faith is what we have to believe, morals what we have to do, in order to obtain eternal life. Both faith and morals are parts of the deposit which Christ left for the guidance of His Church; so far as the obligation of assent is concerned, there is no difference between them; the distinction is made for the sake of convenience rather than for the sake of any substantial difference between them so far as they are the objects of active infallibility.Doctrines of faith or morals which are formally revealed are called the direct object of infallibility, while doctrines which are only virtually revealed, or are only intimately connected with revelation, such as dogmatic or moral facts, are called the indirect object of infallibility. The Church has authority to issue definitions in connexion with both the direct and the indirect objects of active infallibility. It is not, however, de fide that the Church has infallible authority over the indirect doctrines of faith and morals, though it cannot be denied without theological censure.
3b.) The decision must be irrevocable or, as it is called, definitive
Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition — they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church.Two things are implied by the statement that a decree, to be a definition, must be (1) final and (2) irrevocable.
1.) The decree must be the last word of supreme teaching authority; there must be no possibility of re-opening the question in a spirit of doubt; the decree must settle the matter for ever.
2.) The decree must also, and in consequence of its final nature, bind the whole Church to an irrevocable internal assent. This assent is at least an assent of ecclesiastical faith; and in doctrines which are formally revealed it is also an assent of Divine faith. When the definition commands an irrevocable assent of Divine faith as well as of ecclesiastical faith, the defined dogma is said to be de fide in the technical sense of this phrase.
It is well to note that the definitive nature of a decree does not prevent the defined doctrine from being examined anew and defined again by the pope or a general council; what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled.
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. It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined.
So, a few things are worth noting from the above:
1.) The condemnations laid out in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors are indeed INFALLIBLE (as they have an anathema attached to them), and anything stated to the contrary of those condemnations need not be followed, regardless of who is commanding said contrary faith/morals (belief/practice).
2.) The following statement by then Cardinal now Pope Emeritus proves all the more disconcerting:
"Gaudium et Spes is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus...Since then many things have changed." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-382)
This is indeed the same man who would later, as Pope, insist upon a Hermeneutic of Continuity.
I spent a great deal more time on this in the following post:
http://tylernethercott.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-do-stanley-kubrick-and-vatican-ii.html
And for anyone who says the Syllabus is not infallible and need not be followed, that has already been dealt with as well:
Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, What is Liberalism? (Imprimatur 1899)[Liberalists] have a horror of any coercive element in faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are please to call intolerance. THE SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX IS A NIGHTMARE TO THEM, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory document, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and, if accepted, must be taken in a very modern sense.
For now, let us consider the following INFALLIBLE condemnations by Pope Pius IX along with some more "modern" quotes...and let the reader honestly and prudently decide if they jive.
_________________________________________________________________________________
All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind - CONDEMNED
Pope Pope Paul VI, Nostra Aetate, 1965, #1
Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men...
_________________________________________________________________________________
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true - CONDEMNED
Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, 1990 #8
...the Second Vatican Council replies to those concerned with safeguarding freedom of conscience: "The human person has a right to religious freedom.... All should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church - CONDEMNED
Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, #4
...government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship [toward any one religion].
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #77
In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship - CONDEMNED
Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, #4
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word...Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.
ibid, #6
If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice...It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #80
The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization - CONDEMNED
Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14
[The] meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Faith & Future, 1970, p. 26
People want to be liberated from this just as much as from the old-fashioned faith that, by its contradiction of modern knowledge, has become such an oppressive burden to them.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Pope Pius IX, The First Vatican Council, Chapter 4, Canons, #2 On Revelation, #4
If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.
ibid, Session 3, Chapter 4, #3
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.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Faith and the Future, 1970, pp. 15,17,19-20
The very first page of the Bible…is in direct contradiction of all that we know today about the origins of the universe…long before man existed, pain and death were in the world…for us, is all of this not just the ancient East...a phase in human consciousness...not the expression of divine utterance?...All the miraculous stories of the Old Testament are still there, not so much a sign of faith for us today as an obstacle to it...
ibid, p. 46
It is quite clear that the Pauline exegesis of the Old Testament follows a method that is no longer recognized as valid, so that his interpretation is almost wholly unacceptable to modern philogists and historians.
(in other words, St. Paul's words in his epistles about the Jews and the Old Testament [Covenant] are in error)
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western - CONDEMNED
Pope John Paul II, Common Christological Declaration Between The Catholic Church And The Assyrian Church Of The East, 1994
The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.
~ Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
No comments:
Post a Comment