Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Aquinasfan
It's my understanding that the addition of "except future popes" at the end is understood and therefore left out.

I am not aware of the unwritten exception. I understood that a confirmation by a Pope of an ordinary Magisterium teaching is considered infallible and belongs to the deposit of faith. I believe that some theolgians disagree on the binding force of these decrees, and those arguments are obviously based on the differences in opinion between liberal and traditional theologians. I stand with the traditionalists.

43 posted on 05/02/2002 6:51:04 AM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Orual
I understood that a confirmation by a Pope of an ordinary Magisterium teaching is considered infallible and belongs to the deposit of faith. I believe that some theolgians disagree on the binding force of these decrees, and those arguments are obviously based on the differences in opinion between liberal and traditional theologians. I stand with the traditionalists.

You're right about dogmatic teachings. But I think this situation is analagous to "no fish on Fridays." It would be like the current pope saying, "I decree that no one should eat fish on Fridays and let no one rescind this decree." In this case it's obviously a pastoral decision that the pope himself could withdraw or that a future pope could withdraw.

I'm pretty sure about it because someone called into Karl Keating or James Akin on Catholic Answers with this question. I trust them. Unfortunately, I don't know the date or program.

You could call them to get an answer.

47 posted on 05/02/2002 6:58:10 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: Orual
. I understood that a confirmation by a Pope of an ordinary Magisterium teaching is considered infallible and belongs to the deposit of faith. I believe that some theolgians disagree on the binding force of these decrees, and those arguments are obviously based on the differences in opinion between liberal and traditional theologians. I stand with the traditionalists.
Orual,

The confirmation by a Pope of an ordinary Magisterium teaching making things infallible is limited to matters of faith and morals. The liturgy, while it reflects these things, is not generally understood that way. Because it reflects faith and moral teachings it is often used to demonstrate that the Church has always taught this, but the form of the Rite itself is not a formal faith and morals teaching. From Vatican 1, on infallibility:

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
Two things are lacking here. The faith and morals aspect, and the universal aspect. Briefly, on the latter part (universal), you note that the document itself clearly makes an exception for other Rites. You will not see anything similar in Papal documents widely recognized as declaring something infallibly. When Pope Pius XII formally declared the assumption he did not say to be believed by all except those who haven’t believed it for the last 200 years.

On faith and morals, the liturgy doesn’t qualify. Don’t take my word for it, read Mediator Dei from Pope Pius XII. Some excerpts:

22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, . . . Thenceforth the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function.

. . .

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]

. . . .

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

54 posted on 05/02/2002 8:00:24 AM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson