Hello Fellow Catholics,

I've been browsing some of the threads here and have seen many different ideas on what exactly Papal(and Church) Infallibilty is and when it applies.

I'd like to discuss the difference between ex cathedra statements and other Papal Writings such as encyclicals/statements by conferences and regional groups of bishops.

It is only when the pope offically speaks ex cathedra, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of the Universal Church, and to that universal Church, proclaiming by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals; only then that the pope speaks infallibly. There have been VERY FEW infallible teachings. In fact, the last infallible pronouncement was made by Pope Pius XII on 1 November, 1950 after a consultation with the Bishops of the World concerning the Assumption of Mary.

All other statements such as papal writings on birth control, social justice and other matters are NOT ex catherdra statements by the pope. However, because these documents are the Church's teachings all faithful catholics give these writings full consideration when forming their consciences on the topics.

-- Michael William Beyer (C06Michael.Beyer@usafa.edu), September 11, 2003

Answers

Catholics are morally bound not merely to "give full consideration" to the church 's official teaching in forming their consciences, but in fact are bound to form their consciences IN FULL ACCORD with the official teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals, whether such teachings are defined ex cathedra or not. Few of the Church's teachings are defined ex cathedra. This does not mean that all other teachings are open to personal interpretation (a euphemism for personal rejection). The personal conscience of an individual is rightly formed when it presumes the infallibility of all official teaching on faith and morals, trusting in the promise of Our Lord to Peter, "WHATSOEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven", not "whatever you define ex cathedra". Any attempt to impose one's personal interpretations onto Church teaching on the grounds that a given teaching is not defined ex cathedra is at best misguided, at worst essentially dishonest and insincere. The Church's teaching on birth control, for example, while not the type of doctrinal matter that is typically defined ex cathedra, is absolutely binding on all Catholics. Failure to form one's conscience in full accord with this essential and binding teaching results in an erroneous conscience, de facto. In fact, no strictly moral teaching has been defined ex cathedra. This fact does not render the entire scope of morality thereby totally subjective. On the contrary, moral questions are NEVER subjective in nature. Valid moral decisions can be made ONLY by reference to objective standards, and for a Catholic the objective standards to which the personal conscience MUST submit and conform are the moral teachings of the Church, ex cathedra or not.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 11, 2003.

Paul,

I am not implying that the Church's teachings be disregarded or disrespected or that Catholics are free to form their consciences in direct opposition to the Church. What I am teaching is that because these Papal Writings (On Social Issues) are not expressed Ex Catherdra there is the possibility for human error. It is the high of ignorance to believe that HUMANS occupying positions in the infallible Holy Mother Church suddenly become free from error. That divinity is accorded only to Jesus Christ Himself.

-- Michael William Beyer (C06Michael.Beyer@usafa.edu), September 11, 2003.

It is the height of ignorance to believe that humans occupying NO position in the infallible Holy Mother Church, ordinary rank and file Catholics with NO training in moral theology, are in a position to critique the teaching of the Magisterium, and determine which portions of it are not applicable to them. Therefore, given the EXTREMELY high liklihood of error on the part of such Catholics, relative to the remote possibility of error on the part of the Universal Church, the ONLY responsible course of action for such individuals is to regard ALL the official teachings of the Church as infallible (which they may or may not be), and fully binding on themselves (which they in fact are).

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 11, 2003.

Paul,

Although you continue to write with scorn and disrespect, I refuse to be lowered to that level. I have yet to Critique a single one of the Church's Teachings. What I am doing is critique those LAYPERSONS who assert that their PERSONAL beliefs are backed up by infallible church teachings; when in fact the Holy See doesn't make such claims on those types of issues. Perhaps one with (such as yourself) bountiful knowledge and years of education can show me where in the Church's teachings they claim infallibility in all Papal Declarations. Also, I am curious as to where you earned your Degrees in Theology.

It is possible to be civil without making thinly veiled attempts to belittle a person that you have a PRECIEVED disagreement with. I made my original post to help people understand the doctrine of papal infallibility and if I have an incorrect notion I would like help in finding the best places to contemplate and study Church doctrine.

-- Michael William Beyer (C06Michael.Beyer@usafa.edu), September 12, 2003.

Hello, Paul and michael, little paul here to poke his head in on yet another debate.

perhaps, michael, you have failed to realize one simple thing which turns a fallable document into one which can not be disobeyed. That is to say, you have forgotten your Bible. the teachings on birth control are indeed not ex cathedra, however, they serve as CLARIFICATIONS of text from the Bible which is infallible and therefore fully binding to all catholics. infact, every point you bring up is either clearly known to be either a recommendation (non manditory, such as we SHOULDNT have the death penalty) or a clarification of existing infallible text (such as murder IS wrong, and abortion is a form of MURDER, therefore it is wrong as well... blanket statement under a verse in the Bible).

okay, im ready for you to call me scornful now, but i do hope that you will sink to my level and remember that the moral documents you speak of are clearly addressed in the Bible which you seem to have forgotten.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 12, 2003.

Hi Michael.

Please continue. The true teaching of the Catholic Church on this topic needs to be understood better by the faithful Church militant.

All too often a distorted understandings of issues surrounding infallibility and the excercise of magisterial authority in relation to the Deposit of the Faith are used to flog and berate well-meaning laity who only wish to adhere to truth and live it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

indeed.

The Lord will be with our Church until the end of time, so perhaps we can discount total destruction of our Church, but that does not mean that the Church will every now and then get it a little wrong (or a lot).

look, for example, at the miracle of Fatima. if the final part of the message of Our Lady really referred to JP's shooting, why is he not dead? but the Church teaches, as far as i can discern, that this is all there was left in the prophesy. strange.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 12, 2003.

The final mystery of the Fatima aparition had NOTHING to do with the shooting of John Paul II, nor did it have anything to do with conspiracies between the vatican and russia. get your facts straight if your going to try and attack the church.

michael, its pretty sad that youve got a catholic deacon against you, and the schismatic is the only one who supports you because if he doesnt it just shows how removed from the church he really is.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 12, 2003.

paul, You stated that the final mystery of the Fatima apparition had NOTHING to do with the shooting of John Paul II or with Russia. Yet is was on June 26, 2000, when at a press conference, the Vatican presented a published text that described a vision in which the Pope (a "bishop in white") is killed by a band of soldiers who shoot him down while he is kneeling at the foot of a large wooden cross atop a hill after having traversed a half-ruined city filled with corpses. In his portion of the commentary, Cardinal Ratzinger specifically stated that the Pope's escape from death in 1981 was depicted in the vision of the Pope being killed. Regarding Russia, in L'Osservatore Romano (May 19, 1982) Pope John Paul II explained why he did not specifically consecrate Russia, declaring that he had "tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances." Also, according to the Italian Catholic bishops' newspaper Avvenire, the Pope prayed at St. Peters (just three hours after consecrating the world) and asked Blessed Mother to bless "those peoples for whom You Yourself are awaiting our act of consecration and entrusting."

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 12, 2003.

Dear Michael,

Please don't take personally any "scorn and disrespect" that I may have projected. However, a layperson doesn't have to "assert that their personal beliefs are backed up by infallible church teachings". That is exactly my point. All a layperson, or any other member of the Church. needs to know is that their personal beliefs are in line with, and in submission to, the official teaching of the Church. Period. I don't see how you interpret my comments as an effort to "belittle" you personally, unless you personally identify with the erroneous approach to Church teaching that you described. I do indeed belittle such an approach; in fact I condemn it, because it is a fact that those who emphasize the infallibility vs. fallibility of various Church teachings are invariably those who are seeking justification for their personal dissent from binding Church teachings. To a Catholic who is committed to following the teaching of the Church, it doesn't matter which of those teachings are defined ex cathedra and which are not.

I don't see that the identification of my alma mater is relevant to this discussion.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

"it doesn't matter which of those teachings are defined ex cathedra and which are not"

of course it does. if it is ex-cathedra, we know it to be from the Holy Spirit. if not, we know that human error is very possible.

that is a very basic and obvious distinction, unless you do not believe that ex Cathedra = infallible.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 12, 2003.

I see. So therefore we must conclude that 98% of the Church's teaching is "very possibly" false? How does that relate to the promise of Christ to His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide it to "all truth"? You think it is "very possible" that priests cannot actually forgive our sins, since this has not been defined ex cathedra? You think that there are only a half dozen or so doctrinal teachings of the Church that can be trusted? If so, why belong to the Church at all? I trust in the promises of Jesus Christ to His Church, and therefore I KNOW with certainty that ALL of its doctrinal teachings are true and correct, by virtue of the fact that the Church teaches them. I do not consider it "very possible" that the Holy Spirit has failed in His mission to guarantee the truth of the Church's teaching. In fact, I consider such a notion "impossible"!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

no way Jose, that i most certainly do not believe; but there must be a difference between an infallible statement and a fallible one. otherwise why the difference? isn't that the question you should be asking/answering? why did the Lord give St Peter the power to loose and bind if the Church already had it? pls explain.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 12, 2003.

or, IOW:

"I am not implying that the Church's teachings be disregarded or disrespected or that Catholics are free to form their consciences in direct opposition to the Church. What I am teaching is that because these Papal Writings (On Social Issues) are not expressed Ex Catherdra there is the possibility for human error......."

ie see Michael's post above.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 12, 2003.

so, Ian,

of course it does. if it is ex-cathedra, we know it to be from the Holy Spirit. if not, we know that human error is very possible

what your saying then, is that when a statement or document from the church is not made ex cathedra, yet is fully backed by the Bible, we must consider that there is possibility for error in the BIBLE??? do you know how mad that sounds? the point I was trying to make is that a statement does not need to be ex cathedra in order to be followed if it is clearly and fully supported in the Bible.

Second, the tarses, get your facts right, the third mystery is only one of the claims you made it to be (getting shot OR pray for the consecration of russia to the immaculate heart of mary). NOTE: i stated that the third mystery was NOT about the pope getting shot or about conspiracies between rome and russia. that leaves only one possibility... pray for the consecration of russia to the immaculate heart. perhaps you should actually read what others say and think about it before you respond.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 12, 2003.

"there is possibility for error in the BIBLE"

no way. but there is every scope for misinterpretation - when humans are involved. that's why protestantism exists.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 12, 2003.

..and have you listened to what Sister Lucy has said, ..

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 12, 2003.

Precisely! And that is also why the one true Church founded by Christ has NOT fragmented into conflicting denominations - because it is kept free of error in its doctrinal teaching by the power of the Holy Spirit, IN SPITE of the fallible men who serve as its ministers, just as Christ promised. Therefore, we can accept the teaching of the Church as true and reliable, regardless of whether some heretical attack in centuries past caused the Church to make a formal ex cathedra statement regarding a particular doctrine, or not.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

Paul,

You are absolutely correct when you say,"[The Church] is kept free of error in its doctrinal teaching by the power of the Holy Spirit, IN SPITE of the fallible men who serve as its ministers, just as Christ promised."

However, I am of the impression that Papal statements on issues such as the Death Penalty, War on Iraq, etc. are not protected under its infallible doctrinal teaching authority.

-- Michael William Beyer (C06Michael.Beyer@usafa.edu), September 12, 2003.

Michael, little paul again,

However, I am of the impression that Papal statements on issues such as the Death Penalty, War on Iraq, etc. are not protected under its infallible doctrinal teaching authority

nobody ever claimed that these statements constituted anything infallible. in fact there are some catholics here who obviously believe differently than the vatican's statements. HOWEVER, things such as abortion which are clearly shown to be wrong in the Bible dont need an ex cathedra stamp for them to be correct, provided they obviously are fully supported by the Bible.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 12, 2003.

Dear Michael,

That is correct. Such statements do not constitute "official teaching of the Church on matters of faith or morals, binding on all the faithful". Therefore such statements are not infallible, and need not be accepted as such. The problem lies with matters which ARE the official teaching of the Church on matters of faith or morals, binding on all the faithful, but which some of "the faithful" attempt to reject anyway, on the excuse that the particular doctrines in question were not defined ex cathedra. This is never valid. ALL official teaching of the Church on matters of faith or morals MUST be accepted by every Catholic, which means that IN PRACTICE such teaching must be regarded as infallible, even though technically MOST of the Church's teaching has never been defined ex cathedra.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

On the third secret of Fatima, didn't some nuts in the sspx take it upon themselves to "consecrate" Russia?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 12, 2003.

The Consecration sure aint gonna be done by the pope and bishops... so somebody's gotta give it a go.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 12, 2003.

Terry,

I guess you missed the irony. Our 3 schismatics have for more than a year have been saying, "oh no, we're not schismatic" but then go out and do something like this without Papal approval! You want proof that the SSPX is schismatic and don't trust the word of the Pope in Ecclesia Dei? Well here it is, straight from the actions of the sspx themselves.

Schismatics, without a doubt, "by their fruit shall you know them".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 12, 2003.

This is deeper and complicated that I thought. I just found it simple to live according to the words of out Lord specified in the bible, and by follwing good priests who teach us. I have never seen anything in the church teachings or from the pope so far which is against the bible. In many of the issues like violence and birth control, the views of even non catholics - those good at heart but different religions such as hindus, muslims, buddhists and whatever, are the same as what catholics believe. Naturally those really good at heart will tend to the good side instead of the bad side. It shouldn't be so hard for us the catholics to understand the words of the bible and the teachings of the church, and to see that there is no difference at all. Then why should it be so complicated?

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), September 12, 2003.

Don't mean to offend anyone, but sspx mass is recognized as fulfilling sunday obligations by rome. Disobedient, yup, but schismatic, never!

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 12, 2003.

The fact that a schismatic priest is still validly ordained, and can therefore celebrate a valid, though illicit, Mass, does not negate the fact of schism. Schism is defined as denial of the authority of the Vicar of Christ, and SSPX does so regularly, as do all so- called "traditionalist" "Catholics".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2003.

OK Paul. here's the distinction between infallible teaching and non- infallible teaching. these common Catholic mistakes/errors in beliefs were pointed out by Pius IX many, many moons ago. this was done infallibly.

"Divine Revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason”.

"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

"Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church”.

now this is teaching that Catholics must obey, right? but compare it to recent teaching on the salvific quality of other churches. any subsequent teaching cannot be infallible. it therefore takes effect subject to Pius IX.

so, isn't that why the Holy Spirit speaks in certain circumstances? to ensure that we get it right (and that we can spot subsequent or prior human error)?

our Church has provided plenty of examples of human error. Honorius, Vigilius. we cannot completely trust other human beings as we are all weak sinners in the end.

furthermore, there is nothing wrong in asking questions about the faith. how otherwise does one strengthen one's faith -- or is faith only for those who will believe anything? questioning can be painted as dissent or protestantism or apostasy, and sure we are all guilty of that one.

what we do know is that the infallible statements of the Church stand for ever. similarly we know about our tradition -- we can trace Real Presence right back in the history books. we also have Scripture, provided that we do not err in interpretation.

the rest indeed we must question, especially if it appears to contradict Tradition, Sctripture or infalible teaching. recap: St Thomas needed to insert his fingers in the side of Christ before he would believe and he was around at the time. does Our Lord set higher standards for a sinner like me?

the Fatima message is one case where the Church has made a real mess of things. again, recap, Our Lady appeared and gave us a message; how much more do you want. over 50,000 witnessed a miracle. the prophesies, or the ones that have not been spun by Ratzinger, have proven to be true.

why all the secrecy and the spin.

answer -- human error.

did you see the Pope in Czechslovakia. he's in a terrible way. real power in the Church rests more than ever with the politicos such as Ratzinger.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 13, 2003.

Ian, there may still be hope for you. COnsider that YOU the armchair internet layman, with a 3 year olds understanding of infallibilty are attempting to explain this to a Deacon of the Church. Give us a break mate, what have we all done to deserve this drivel from you? Even worse you decide to pick and choose which Church teachings you will obey based on your retarded understanding of infallibilty.I havent read this thread but suspect you were encouraged by others(with similarly imbecilic level of understanding) sideline cheering, they love it when others are lead so badly astray from the Church.

Start here as a begining point for infallibilty, the author is a well known orthodox defender of the Faith, DAve ARmstrong. You will then be in a position to ask respectful questions without making more of a fool of yourself.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM

The other issue you raise:

"furthermore, there is nothing wrong in asking questions about the faith. how otherwise does one strengthen one's faith -- or is faith only for those who will believe anything? questioning can be painted as dissent or protestantism or apostasy, and sure we are all guilty of that one."

Dave Armstromng again responds well, . Please read it. DO what the traditionalist cannot... "learn and grow". God Bless

I think it is normal and ethical (and quite Catholic) to indignantly respond to the petulant, pompous, and presumptuous tone of so many "traditionalist" statements about recent popes. If they can speak so cavalierly and arrogantly about popes (I had far more respect for them as a Protestant than they do), then surely I can wax indignant at them doing so, without being "rude." That gets us back to the fundamental problem we have here. When one can't see the obvious, then a certain sharpness of tone is called for, and quite properly so. One is not awakened by a soft voice.

Are you more orthodox than His Holiness John Paul II? If so, how? And why should we believe this if you assert it? Simply by your great wisdom and self-anointed authority?

"Traditionalists" can give their opinions till they are blue in the face (it's a free country with free speech, and God gives us free will, and we are free to say stupid things), but if such opinions are clearly pompous, arrogant, presumptuous, sophomoric, and so forth, it is our duty as Catholics and brothers in Christ to call these folks on it. This stuff is poisonous, and they hurt themselves as much as anyone else by spouting it. Therefore, love demands that they be rebuked, for their sake and that of others. Since when does the duty to rebuke depend on the expected response? The loving thing is to speak the truth, about ethics and charitability and Catholic submission, as well as about doctrine and orthodoxy. A conscientious Catholic can only hear so much of this petulant hogwash without speaking out against it.

It is not so much the "OPINION" per se on popes which many "traditionalists" express, as it is the SPIRIT, SEVERITY, FREQUENCY, and DEGREE of such opinions, and what it appears to indicate about the person making it - about how they view Catholic authority, submission, humility, prudence, and so forth. Nor is it a personal attack to point this out. Rebukes are always regarded as attacks by those who do not or cannot hear them.

If I were to compare the rebukes of popes by St. Bernard, St. Catherine, and the typical so-called Catholic "traditionalist" today, perhaps I could be forgiven if I might perceive but a slight difference of authority and seriousness.

An instance of rebuking them(Popes) ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned the Saints. Many "traditionalists" make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

Even if they are right about some particulars, they ought to express their opinion with the utmost respect and with fear and trembling, grieved that they are "compelled" to severely reprimand the Vicar of Christ.

There is much more going on here than you in your resplendent "armchair poping" can see. John Paul II has been called a "mixed bag" by many "traditionalists." Do they mean to pronounce on his lack of holiness? If they aren't in his shoes, and don't know what he does, and don't possess his charism, how can they even pronounce on his disciplinary decisions? Who are they to presume what they do? What are their exalted credentials, whereby they feel so free to sit and condemn entire papacies with one-sentence salvoes?

My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be "bad" (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many "traditionalists" make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

Even if they are right about some particulars, they ought to express their opinion with the utmost respect and with fear and trembling, grieved that they are "compelled" to severely reprimand the Vicar of Christ. St. Paul showed more deference even towards the Jewish high priest than such people do to popes (Acts 23:1-5). After saying to Ananias "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall," he stated in v. 5:

". . . I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.' " (NRSV)

Even immediately before His scathing rebuke of the Pharisees, Jesus told His followers to: ". . . do whatever they teach you and follow it . . . " (Matthew 23:3)

Why? Because "the Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; THEREFORE do whatever they teach you . . ." (23:2-3) Well, the pope occupies the Chair of Peter, and is the Supreme Head of the Church. Pope-bashing "traditionalists" don't strike me as being willing to "do whatever they teach you and follow it" (including disciplinary stuff, liturgical details, etc.). But the popes certainly have as much authority as non-Christian scribes and Pharisees.

Nor does this mean that one can never criticize the pope, or that if they do, that their responsibility to submit in obedience is somehow lessened. For Jesus went on to denounce their hypocrisy, even calling them "blind guides," "blind fools," "whitewashed tombs . . . full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth . . . full of hypocrisy and lawlessness," "snakes . . . brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" (23:16-17,27-28,33)

So we have both St. Paul and our Lord Jesus expressing the most vehement criticisms of appointed religious leaders, yet Paul showed quite considerable deference when he found out who he was criticizing, and Jesus commanded obedience to the very same people whose hypocrisy He excoriated. This is all consistent with the traditional, orthodox Catholic (and what is called the "neo- conservative") view.

It is not consistent with much "traditionalist" behavior. Perhaps their personal beliefs, if probed enough, can be synthesized with this outlook, but the routine displays of cavalierly lambasting popes in the broadest, most sweeping terms certainly cannot be. If they reply, "well look at what Jesus and Paul said!," I reply in turn that Jesus was God incarnate and Paul was an Apostle. And they are?: well, too often, a (relatively young) layman with some experience on the Internet. And that gets back to my point about WHO is doing the rebuking.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

Kiwi... *sigh* Go splash thyself with holy water and begin anew. lol!!!

Be good to Ian; he said nothing wrong. Remember, this Dave Armstrong highly risks becoming a self-styled pope unto himself as well as for others just as quickly as anyone else could. If you rest too heavily on Armstrong, then one could conceivably finger you for making the same mistakes as the ones Armstrong believes he sees in others.

Far better than anything is to call upon the Mother of God; no internet connection necessary for this. She will impress Catholic truth on anyone who asks to truly know the Catholic Church as she knows it and lives it. Ave Maria! Say it. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

Ok I could cool down a bit, and I take your point on Armstrong, hes not infallible. But its not a matter of just shrugging our shoulders and turning a blind eye while saying "whatever Ian" youre doing ok, just keep asking questions. It brings no one any joy to see Catholics fight like this when there is a whole pagan culture out there to connect with. Yet youre not intrested, all you care about is YOU, YOU YOU, and youre majoring on the minors IMO. Ian needs to be told the truth about our faith, at the moment hes a long long way off understanding infallibilty, and his current understanding is not only erronous but dangerous. Theology is full of apparent paradoxes(sp) and it takes a great deal of time, many many years to appreciate the considerable nuance, and the complex balances involved. Im not there of course not, and neithe rare you, but I tell you what, Pope John Paul II is a million times closer than any of us. WHen he speaks on matters of faith and morals authoritively no one at this forum is anywhere near the position to publically express an alternative opinion. Ive come to realise this only through the stern correction of others in regard to morality. WHile I hold private doubts, Ill keep them to myself until the truth is revealed to me. WHy cant you and the others do the same on matters of faith you dont understand. Wait in a community of faith.God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

Hello!

Does this help?

The authority of encyclicals was stated by Pius XII in the encyclical "Humani generis" Aug. 12, 1950:

"Nor must it be thought that what is contained in encyclical letters does not of itself demand assent, on the pretext that the popes do not exercise in them the supreme power of their teaching authority. Rather, such teachings belong to the ordinary magisterium, of which it is true to say: `He who hears you, hears me' (Lk. 10:16) (1); for the most part, too, what is expounded and inculcated in encyclical letters already appertains to Catholic doctrine for other reasons." The Second Vatican Council declared:

"Religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the documents (one of which could be an encyclical), from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, No. 25).

Sincerely yours, Adrian

-- Adrian Lowe (adrianmlowe@yahoo.com), September 13, 2003.

common sense directs that the Church is hardly going to publish teaching and demand that Catholics disobey it, or offer it as one possible viewpoint. of course, the Church is going to demand that the faithful adhere to teaching. But the key point is that such teaching is not Divinely Inspired in the same way as an ex-Cathedra statement. it is human inspiration and humans are 100% fallible. and the law of averages says that, at some point, it will be wrong. plain and simple.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 13, 2003.

There is NO difference between the source of inspiration of ex cathedra doctrinal definitions and the rest of the deposit of faith. The source of inspiration of ALL Church doctrine is one and the same Holy Spirit. Apparently many people have a defective, or at least inadequate, view of just what an ex cathedra statement is and does. First, keep in mind that an ex cathedra statement does not introduce new doctrine. It merely references and defines a pre-existing doctrine. This pre-existing doctrine MUST have been DIVINELY INSPIRED, ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND BINDING on the faithful BEFORE the ex cathedra statement was made; otherwise such a statement could not have been made! An ex cathedra statement does not MAKE a given doctrine true and binding on all the faithful; rather, it reaffirms in precise terms that a particular doctrine IS true and binding on all the faithful, usually in direct response to an overt attack upon the doctrine in question. This is why most of the Church's doctrines have not been defined ex cathedra - NOT because they are any less divinely inspired or any less true or any less binding on the faithful, but because they have never come under attack or called into question in a manner that demanded such special clarification.

Nothing about a doctrine is changed by ex cathedra definition! It is still the SAME doctrine it was before. It is no more inspired, no more true and no more binding on the faithful than it was previously! Therefore, every element of the deposit of faith is a potentially ex cathedra doctrine, and would become an ex cathedra doctrine if the Church determined that such a definitive clarification was called for. Therefore, each and every element of the deposit of faith is to be regarded as equally inspired, absolutely true, and equally binding on all the faithful, whether the Church has defined it ex cathedra (yet), or not.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

Jmj

Not that he needs my endorsement, but I heartily endorse EVERYTHING that Paul has said on this thread. He has presented the clearest and most convincing mini-essays on a certain aspect of infallibility that I have ever seen. I strongly recommend, Ian, that you study and accept what Paul has written, because it is exactly what the pope would say to you if you could sit down and chat with him.

Up to now, Ian, I had thought that you were an orthodox Catholic. But things you have said on this thread have me worried that you have been negatively influenced by schismatic materials (SSPX or other). The schismatics -- a good bit like Catholic dissenters who slide towards or into protestantism -- typically have a serious misunderstanding of infallibility and the need to assent to all official teachings (as explained by Paul).

Borrowing some words of another person (to make them useful), I would say that schismatics and ex-Catholics often have "distorted understandings of issues surrounding infallibility and the exercise of magisterial authority in relation to the Deposit of the Faith." Even worse than their having these "misunderstandings" is the fact that they think that they can sermonize to Catholics about what we must hold (assent to) versus what is not binding. They do this because they are "cafeteria believers," picking and choosing what they want to believe.

If you really are reading SSPX-style materials, Ian, I urge you to set them aside permanently.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

There is NO difference between the source of inspiration of ex cathedra doctrinal definitions and the rest of the deposit of faith.

Of course not, but I don't think any true Catholic would disagree with that. The contention, not to speak for Ian or anyone else, is that the modernist's angle is to affirm the above statement, and then proceed to either change doctrine in some subtle way or to marginalize it... to cast a haze of oblivion and non-realness over it. It's like a salesman saying "relax, I'm not here to sell you anything. Put away your checkbook". Facial expressions of non- conviction ensue.

"The source of inspiration of ALL Church doctrine is one and the same Holy Spirit. Apparently many people have a defective, or at least inadequate, view of just what an ex cathedra statement is and does."

I think that some people have a defective view in that they are crediting things to the Holy Ghost that they cannot and should not. Does the Holy Ghost act in real time? In the lives of people, sure; there's enough evidence in Church history and in the ancient prayers of the Catholic Church to show this, but what it is imho is the lights that the Saints talk about all the time; little promptings or graces to move people to understand truth and make changes to draw them on to eternal salvation.

But it is an error to believe that the Holy Ghost is moving the Church in a new direction. The Church has always been in existance for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to move people in the direction of eternal salvation. This will never change. The Holy Ghost acts to preserve the Deposit of the Faith towards this end, not to clomp us on the head with extraneous knowledge which detracts from this end.

"First, keep in mind that an ex cathedra statement does not introduce new doctrine."

Of course not; it's meant to clarify something that there's has been debate over. The truth of the doctrine is eternal and unchanging whether people had it in their heads or not, or whether it was clearly understood in their heads or not.

I agree pretty much with the rest of what you say, but you know what, it really doesn't address the question though. The question at hand is the whether novelties in doctrine which have been expressed of late bind the faithful via the true nature of the magisterium. That's the question.

I say your outlay of it is wrong, and that it's modernist.

The case made by the modernist is either that

1. We don't need to listen to anything that is not ex-cathedra, which is a statement which is false and completely inconsistant with Catholic teaching, or

2. We are bound by everything the pope, cardinals and bishops say or do.

After strategy number one, which was to question into an oblivion everything the Faith taught, the modernists were toasted to a crisp by Pope St. Pius X. Having gone underground, it seems as if they've re-emerged with the second and opposite strategy.

In no way whatsoever are the Faithful bound by anything coming from anywhere in the Church that is in opposition to defined doctrine and the Deposit of the Faith. These are the times in which we live, which Pope Leo XIII warned of when he composed the St. Michael prayer.

The second stategy is particularly oppressive, as it is a horrible distraction to the soul in the pursuit of holiness.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

Let me illustrate my point by asking you a question Paul.

People always use this blunt instrument (and it's always the laity, mind you):

"You don't follow the teachings of Pope John Paul II!"

"You don't follow the teachings of Vatican II!"

So naturally, I would ask: could you write up a small skeleton of exactly what those teachings are? iow, what does Pope John Paul II teach that is binding besides what Catholics have always known?

Or, what new things does Vatican II teach that bind the Faithful under pain of damnation/separation?

You should be able to come up with a small list for each, but I'm absolutely positive that you can't.

If you can, then from there we can debate whether they are really honestly NEW things, and if so, whether they are binding.

I doubt you could produce the shortlist though.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 13, 2003.

I Fell Into A Burning Ring Of Fire I Went Down, Down, Down And The Flames Went Higher

And It Burns, Burns, Burns The Ring Of Fire The Ring Of Fire

-- J Cash (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

It burns us... burns us. We be nice to them if they's be nice to us!

-- Gollum (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Hey i thought you wanted to get depressed! Only trying to help!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Oooh! Why didn't you say so?

Dang, I blew it.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Paul, Why did you delete my followup comment to Michael's question regarding the relevancy of your alma mater. You do come across as a self-professed, self-styed minister, as infallible as the Pope himself. while I stand corrected with paul regarding his comment about the final mystery of Fatima, I do find that the vast majority of writings presented by you, paul, John, etc. on this chatline are based on the New Theology and are no more Catholic than those that were presented by the six Protestant ministers in creating the New Mass (Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian) at Vatican II. Pope St. Pius X warned us Catholics about wicked scholars...such lying experts who will applaud each other and when attacked close the circle and refuse to listen to reason or faith. As Sister Lucy stated: "Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility." Remember your Act of Contrition. "...because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell..." No comments required.

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 14, 2003.

Thanks for your private interpretation of what is Catholic and what is not. However, the folly of private interpretation has been clearly demonstrated by Protestantism. Your private interpretations are no more valid than theirs. Where Peter is, there is the Church. I follow the Pope and the Magisterium. There is no other way to be Catholic. If you choose to be the Pope of your own church, so be it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Paul, You constantly provide YOUR private interpretations as an apparant Protestant minister/deacon, which you do not deny being (either Minister/Deacon or Protestant). Therefore, YOUR private interpretations are no more valid anyone else's. I wouldn't brag about following this Pope (who is nothing more than an actor).

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), September 14, 2003.

I don't brag about following the Pope's teaching. I simply do so, out of obedience to God. One cannot be Catholic otherwise.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Dear Emerald,

Huh? Seems to me YOU should be the one to come up with the list of teachings where His Holiness differs from the traditional teaching of the Church! You are right - I have NO such list! Which is why I have NO problems whatsoever with the teaching of the Holy Father and the Magisterium! Obviously the Pope has NOT introduced any new doctrines - no-one but a "traditionalist" would claim otherwise! I'm afraid I don't understand what you are looking for here?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Obviously the Pope has NOT introduced any new doctrines - no-one but a "traditionalist" would claim otherwise!

I'd disagree with this. It is "traditional" to obey the Pope and Magesterium, which these people do not. I personally would say "no one but a Schismatic would claim otherwise".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 14, 2003.

Again, obey what, Frank. List away!

What, under pain of what?

It's my job to keep the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless fromula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like ERRORS, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science." (The dates for the two Popes are the years they reigned as Sovereign Pontiffs. Eugene 4th and Boniface 8th.

Somehow and some way those outside the Church are saved??? Not so!

Ecumanism never could or would save one soul. Evangelism does.

Who has the correct answer? Eugene 4th, Boniface 8th, Innocent 3rd, Paul 4th, or Vatican 2? The current new enlightenment thing does not fly. That is just plain Modernism, which will send many souls to hell.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 14, 2003.

"In no way whatsoever are the Faithful bound by anything coming from anywhere in the Church that is in opposition to defined doctrine and the Deposit of the Faith."

Correct ... and (for about the 1,368th time) the only person capable of authoritatively determining what is "in opposition to defined doctrine and the deposit of the Faith" is the supreme pontiff -- not some left-coast, half-brain-dead protestant layman like the one besieging this once-beautiful forum.

Send him packing, dear Moderator. Show some guts, at long last! Show that you care about the rest of us, if you can't do it for yourself.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

"Correct ... and (for about the 1,368th time) the only person capable of authoritatively determining what is "in opposition to defined doctrine and the deposit of the Faith" is the supreme pontiff..."

If only the Pope can do this, then people shouldn't be going around saying that tradition Catholics are in schism or are heretics.

That follows.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 14, 2003.

That's the point Emerald, in Ecclesia Dei the Pope DID define who was a schismatic, those in formal adherence to Lefebvre's schism. It is then the duty of Catholics to mentally warn themselves when they see people who are attacking the faith, like y'all.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 14, 2003.

dear JFG

everything i have posted is orthodox and cosistent with tradition apart from one error (that actually does not change the overall message). if you will indulge me, i will try to prove this when i have more time on my hands.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 15, 2003.

Hello, Ian.

You don't need my indulgence/permission. You are a free man at this forum -- free to speak your mind. However, before you invest the time and effort, please know that whatever you say that contradicts Paul's statements, above, is not going to hold up under scrutiny. Instead of trying to convince orthodox Catholics to begin believing schismatic ideas, you would be far better off studying what Paul wrote and praying for the grace to believe it.

-------------------------------

Me (last time): "the only person capable of authoritatively determining what is 'in opposition to defined doctrine and the deposit of the Faith' is the supreme pontiff..."

SFB (in response): "If only the Pope can do this, then people shouldn't be going around saying that traditional Catholics [sic] are in schism or are heretics."

Me (this time): Two points...
----- I am a "traditional Catholic," as are all orthodox Catholics. Those whom we call schismatic or heretical are not Catholic of any stripe (much less "traditional Catholics").
----- Notice that I spoke of the one who is "capable of determining what is" unacceptable. We at this forum do not "determine" things. We only apply to individuals' errors the things that have already been determined at the highest level. Therefore the complain has no merit. In fact, we SHOULD "be going around saying that" schismatics and heretics are what they are. We need to call a spade a spade, so that (1) he will be reminded of his need to convert to Catholicism, and so that (2) lurkers will not be led astray by beguiling birdbrains.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 15, 2003.

"We only apply to individuals' errors the things that have already been determined at the highest level."

That's the promise, but it never gets delivered on.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 15, 2003.

It has been determined at the highest level,{ 4 times}, that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That makes ecumanism a futile waste of time and effort. Nowhere does the pope preach. {on his many journeys ], that the they will surely perish if they remain outside. John the Baptist would have been the most popular man of his time, if he spoke like John Paul. The pope is continuing to put millions of souls into hell. This is not what the Vicar of Christ is supposed to do.

"Go and preach the gospel to all nations"! That is the mssage.

There is no time to go around "buttering them up" with niceties.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 15, 2003.

Pope Clement I, (90-100)

"And we also, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom or understanding or piety, nor by the works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through the faith by which Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning." (To the Corinthians, IV:32, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome)

Athanasian Creed

"Whoever wishes to be save must, above all, keep the Catholic faith: for unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever... This is the Catholic faith: everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly, otherwise he cannot be saved." (D. 39-40) Pope St. Leo the Great, (440-461)

"Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18) …These words are the words of life and just as they raise up to Heaven those who confess them, so do they plunge down into Hell those who deny them." (Sermon 83, PL54:429; SS vol. III: 267-268

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 15, 2003.

aghhhh it seemed amusing at the time, but not a good idea , not a good idea, not appropriate at all. Im no angel, what can I say, sorry Terry.

Emerald of course past popes words are true but we have to be able to comprehend what they meant. I know what they mean, as do all Catholics, sadly on the evidence provided Terry lacks even the most basic of comprehension skills

"That makes ecumanism a futile waste of time and effort. Nowhere does the pope preach. {on his many journeys ], that the they will surely perish if they remain outside. John the Baptist would have been the most popular man of his time, if he spoke like John Paul. The pope is continuing to put millions of souls into hell. This is not what the Vicar of Christ is supposed to ."

No truth there. If you think thats the "truth", stop skirting around the issue and put your money where your mouth is. Rather than asking us to "ponder this or that" be transparent about what youre trying to say, make a stand. There is at least some integrity, and honesty in the postion people like Terry and Jake make.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 16, 2003.

Terry,

It has been determined at the highest level,{ 4 times}, that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That makes ecumanism a futile waste of time and effort. Nowhere does the pope preach. {on his many journeys ], that the they will surely perish if they remain outside.

This has been posted on MANY times before. Why not read the old threads before starting a new one?

I can't remember if you are the one Jake said "hi Glen" to or not, but if so, he could point you to them. Actually, I just posted this to Emerald yesterday:

1. We all know there is no salvation outside the church.

2. Everyone but you knows, and you SHOULD know that the church allows for the possibility that someone in invincible ignorance will be in some fashion be able to "join" the church in some fashion at death so as to not suffer eternal damnation for never having been exposed to Catholicism during life. (piux ix)

"they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments".

On the last part of your post:

that the they will surely perish if they remain outside.

The reason the Pope doesn't say this is it's either a true, or a NOT true statement depending on what you mean. While the only way to salvation is through the Catholic church we do NOT know what options people are given at the time of their death, whether to embrace or reject Catholicism. Could a Muslim be offered the chance to embrace Catholicism at the end of their life? Maybe. But you have no authority to say they DON'T, and the word of Popes to say they MIGHT. you therefore can NOT say that any non-Catholic in life is doomed to Hell, it just isn't true.

That's why you need to quit looking at schismatic websites such as the sspx or whereever it is you guys pull these quotes from. You are deviating away from what the church teaches, and remember someone who dies in schism will ALSO burn in the lake of fire. Frank

P.S. I do think that to carry the same logic through though, even schismatics like Lefebvre and the Gang of Four will be offered the chance to return to the church at death, although I've no documents to prove that. It just seems to make sense. OTOH, perhaps God is more strict on people who have fallen away from the church than those ignorant of it. That's his call though, not mine.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Frank, did you know that LeFebvre agreed with your position?

Are you sure you even understand the essence of this discussion?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 16, 2003.

No Emerald,

LeFebvre's personal *beliefs* do not agree with mine, at least I hope to God not. LeFebvre was excommunicated for refusing to obey a direct Papal command, resulting IMO from his faulty ideas of what it means to be a Catholic, and refusing to listen to the Pope and Magesterium on the leadership of the faithful. He was EXCOMMUNICATED Emerald, not a role model!

Another thing that shouts "schismatic" is thinking someone who's been EXCOMMUNICATED by the church is a Catholic role model! Again, sheesh. How can anyone really believe that being excommunicated is the sign of a great catholic? Do you use the same thing in baseball? "Well, he was cut from the team, so he must be the best player". Sheesh.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Paul,

You shouldn't have deleted my post for giving my mind to Kiwi. He put a picture that said "God SAYS FU.. YOU".

This was a disgrace. How can one put that "filth" in Gods' mouth?

-- . (David@excite.com), September 16, 2003.

Dear David,

I deleted your post for two reasons -

First, that offensive post was not from Kiwi, but from an imposter (though I would have deleted it regardless of who it was from), and ...

Secondly, when I delete an offensive post I usually delete subsequent posts which refer to the offensive post. A post which says "how could you post something so awful" doesn't mean much once the "awful" material has been deleted.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 16, 2003.

Paul,

A few days ago, I deleted a couple of posts from the same source on the same day impersonating you. Forgot to post a line on the forum about it. This only makes the second time I've deleted anything since you've been on board (the first being pornography) but these were obscene. I've kept a copy of them on my computer with their IPs if you want them for your records.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Thanks, Paul.

Sorry Kiwi. I should of known something was "up".

-- . (David@excite.com), September 16, 2003.

Just out of courosity Kiwi. Why did you apologise to Terry now that we know you didn't post that?

-- (David@excite.com), September 16, 2003.

I'm confused also. Someone posts as Courtenay (Kiwi) but not from his normal IP address. Then Kiwi apologizes as if he did post it. And this post must be legit as Paul left it in.

I'm sorry, but with this imposter, these threads are hard to follow. But actually, I only need to read one thread each day as every thread gets turned into a Traditional debate!

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), September 16, 2003.

Everyone but me knows about invincible ignorance. Where does it say that "officially" except in your minds?

Here is what it says officially.

It has been defined three times that only those who die as Catholics can be saved:

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216: Ex cathedra: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303: Ex cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. 1431-1447: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, or heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

Two of these definitions, are from Holy and Venerable Ecumenical Councils. The Church has always held that all of the ecumenical councils are ex cathedra, infallible; (Vatican II is an exception as the Pope chose that it be only a pastoral Council; Paul VI stated that he did not promulgated it as ex cathedra; that is however the only exception to the rule.)

We can see this from the ex cathedra teaching of Vatican I. When papal infallibility was defined, the Council said the following:

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, 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. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." (Denz. 1839)

So, when a pope "defines" something "to be held" it is "ex cathedra". But, in the run up to this, the Vatican I also defined:

"Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, according to the dictates of time and circumstances, sometimes by calling ECUMENICAL COUNCILS or asking the opinion of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes through particular synods, sometimes by using other means which divine providence supplied, DEFINED those things which MUST BE HELD and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions." (Denz. 1836).

So, prior to Vatican I, popes "defined", things which "must be held" - and called ecumenical councils to prepare for this. But, as we just saw, when he does that, it is ex cathedra. Therefore, we may see from the teaching of Vatican I that there have been many ex cathedra definitions prior to Vatican I - particularly those which came upon the invocation of ecumenical councils.

Further, Pius IX renewed in his Profession of Faith at Vatican I, the condemnation of everything contrary to all "transmitted, defined and declared" by the "ecumenical councils" - and he stated that "no one" can be saved outside of {belief in) that faith:

"I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely: [...] Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the Church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God". (Denz. 1000)

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 16, 2003.

Terry,

Give it up Terry, we're Catholics here, not Lefebvrists. We obey the Pope and Magesterium, not the twisted views of whatever schismatic blows in to town.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Try obeying this pope for starters;

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 16, 2003.

Like I said, we're Catholics here terry, we agree with that. You're wasting your time.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Let me try this again, Frank.

"Give it up Terry, we're Catholics here, not Lefebvrists. We obey the Pope and Magesterium, not the twisted views of whatever schismatic blows in to town."

You see, Lefebvre himself believed the same as your position, and I mean your own position on baptism and salvation.

So when Terry talks about the salvation/baptism issue, and you call him a Lefebvrite, it clearly shows me that you don't really understand what's going on. Just to be blunt.

Why is that important? Well, seems to me if you don't understand your supposed opposition, then you should refrain from calling them schismatics or heretics, or non-Catholics.

Leave that to the magisterium. And I'm not talking about an issue of ordaining four bishops; I'm talking about disciplines non-existant over points of liturgy and points of doctrine.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 16, 2003.

Meanwhile, totally unrelated to anything, someone sent this to me:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. amzanig huh?

A little diversion for all my monotonous trouble I cause thee.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 16, 2003.

Boy, taht eamil msut be maknig the runods, beucsae I got taht one, aslo.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 16, 2003.

Yaeh, I fgiured you all wuold hvae seen tihs one by now; seevral peolpe have snet this to me alreday in the last cuople hours.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 16, 2003.

If I remember correctly didn't JPII declare that papal documents were infallible too because of their nature as teaching faith and morals. Why would the Holy Spirit just protect the church when it speaks ex cathreda? God and his infinite wisdom would hopefully protect the church even when the church is not speaking ex cathreda. God isn't going to leave us out to dry just because the Pope doesn't declare something using ex cathreda.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), September 16, 2003.

Emerald,

I'm willing to learn. Could you post a link or writing of the late Lefebvre showing that he understood the following three things:

1. There is no salvation outside the church and

2. Someone who is not a Catholic in life may be saved (we are assuming that they are given a chance to convert to Catholicism around the time they become post-styxian by God).

3. Someone who dies in a state of excommunication will suffer in the lake of fire.

I'd like to see it Emerald, I would. I don't think you'll be able to find all three though. My experience from you guys is that you can't get past #1 (so that should be an easy one), and so have a very niggardly concept of God's grace. But hey, if you can post something from Lefebvre showing he understood #2 and #3, I'll sure read it!

If you can't of course, it's wrong of you to say that he shared my views. You might also ask yourself WHY he would prefer going to Hell to accepting the lawful authority of the Pope. What an idiot.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 16, 2003.

Frank, I read it in a book I found in the bookshelf of the local perpetual adoration chapel. Christ is present there in the Blessed Sacrament, but they give him this hideous post-conciliar modern architectured room with absolutely nothing signifying our faith whatsoever on the walls or anywhere, just bare concrete. There's a bookshelf, a rack of bad books on Catholicism... bad because they lay waste to our Faith and depose it to the level of phsychology and stupid feelgood garbage, and outright heresy. There's one or two or three good books there: St. Louis De Monfort's Secrets of the Rosary is one of them. On top, there's this prayer intentions notebook where people write in their requests. It's sad to read. Intentions about worldly stuff... please, get me out of this, let me get that. Hey, I can't complain, right? At least they show up. At least they do that! But there's more to understand and more to do.

Anyway, that's where I found the book on Lefebvre, and I found that Archbishop Lefebvre had a real grasp of many-pronged modernist attack on the Holy Catholic Church. I agree with the majority of what he says in that book I found.

None of the things he says about modernism has been condemned by the Church. They are all in union with the heart and mind of the great Popes against modernism, the ones that forwarned the Faithful of what to be on guard against.

Regarding salvation, what I found in there in that book was pretty much the gist of what I quickly find on the net here, from an address in France in 1972:

"The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: 'Outside the Church there is no Salvation'... This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error."

See, that's the same as your position. Do I think he was wrong? Yeah. Innocently. What we are up against right now is so flippin' heinous I can't blame anyone for being off a lot or a little here and there in finding their way home to the Catholicism that always was and always will be. It ain't what the casual Sunday Mass-goer thinks it is, I can tell you that. Most of them don't even believe in the Real Presence.

I'm so very glad he fought for the survival of the Tridentine Mass. He was not excommunicated for this, you know. He was not excommunicated for being a traditionalist. His excommunication is not as clear cut as people like to believe, either. It's not even formal, as you can see by reading it; it's latae sentencia and it's implied. There's all sorts of anomalies surrounding it, and I am absolutely in no way convinced that he passed on to eternal demise.

In one or another respect about various things I disagree with other Catholics, ones you would call traditionalists but who are really just real Catholics, including this issue. But let me tell you something... if these good people thought I was in error, they would do nothing less than pray for me for clarity on my part, out of charity. Likewise I for them. Closer union is inevitable as the ranks pull together to fight a common demon; Our Lady will see to it. The deviance of a traditionalist is closer to the truth than the utter devastation of all sense of the divine found in the post- conciliar Catholic's earth-bent mind.

I expect nothing less from everybody than absolute patience and charity when dealing with their fellow Catholics in areas of disagreement. I demand it.

If you want souls to be saved, to come to the truth, to enter the Church, you have to pray for that and sacrifice for that. You have to have charity alongside a willingness to speak the truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 17, 2003.

Hey Frank, St. Athanasius also died "cut from the team" yet he is now considered one of "the best players" we've ever had...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 17, 2003.

Kiwi,

Glenn and I are still confused. Why did you apologise if you didn't put Jesus up with "crude" vulgarity cursing at Terry?

Could it be you where posting from two different computers? I know I'm slow to catch on, but this doesn't make sense?

Where you playing on your younger brothers computer over at Mom and Dad house?

-- . (David@excite.com), September 17, 2003.

Emerald,

O.K., I've got to admit you've given me a conundrum that I can't get out of. Here it is: You obviously know that no one is saved outside the church BUT ALSO know that someone who has never even HEARD of Catholicism can be saved through God's grace as well, right? If this is the case, WHY do you keep posting thread after thread on "no one outside the Church can be saved"? You know this is at best a half- truth and misleading, since you know that the church recognizes those who are not Catholic *in life* might also be saved. Are you *trying* to mislead people, or what? Why do you keep posting one-half of the story on this?

Regina,

Hey Frank, St. Athanasius also died "cut from the team" yet he is now considered one of "the best players" we've ever had...

My understanding from the Catholic Encyclopedia is that St. A. died in his bed, surrounded by clergy after having been returned to his see. Is this incorrect? If he did NOT die anathema, there's no contradiction, is there? If he DID, how do you reconcile his being proclaimed a saint with the knowledge that he should be in the lake of fire for being cut off from the church?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 17, 2003.

Hi Frank

My understanding from the Catholic Encyclopedia is that St. A. died in his bed, surrounded by clergy after having been returned to his see. Is this incorrect?

St. Athanasius, in the fourth century, did not obey Pope Liberius who was favoring the Arian heresy, and for this reason the Pope excommunicated him. Both the order given to him and the excommunication were of no value. However, he *did* die "excommunicated."

As for him being surrounded by clergy while on his deathbed, it's possible that these clergymen were the very few supporters Athanasius had.

If he DID, how do you reconcile his being proclaimed a saint with the knowledge that he should be in the lake of fire for being cut off from the church?

Because (as is the case with Archbishop Lefebvre) the "excommunication" was bogus. Like Lefebvre, Athanasius held fast to Tradition and rebuked novelty and heresy. The erroneous excommunication of St. Athanasius demonstrates that excommunications *are* subject to error. So obviously any one who has been excommunicated unjustly and/or erroneously will not face the lake of fire. The conservation of the Faith and the salvation of souls are the supreme law of the Church (canon 1752). Being the supreme law, all the other laws are subject to it. Both Athanasius and Lefebve followed the supreme law to the letter.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 17, 2003.

"Novelty and heresy"! Now there's an interesting juxtaposition of unrelated concepts. Rather like "apples and tractors". Athanasius took a heroic stand against overt heresy, in spite of the fact that Liberius waffled on the issue (though he never actually made any statement supporting the false doctrines of Arianism). Lefebvre, in stark contrast, actively opposed and arrogantly disobeyed legitimate directives of the Pope and the Magisterium, in a situation where no hint of heresy was involved, though schism was involved - HIS!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 17, 2003.

Regina,

Before we get into the second part of your post, can you point me somewhere reputable that shows St. Athanasius actually died while excommunicated? The reason I ask is that he was reinstated to his see, and it doesn't seem reasonable that the church would have him leading the faithful while excommunicated.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 17, 2003.

"Novelty and heresy"! Now there's an interesting juxtaposition of unrelated concepts. Rather like "apples and tractors".

Not really. A novelty can be heretical, can it not? For instance, the Church has always allowed for the possibility of honest "invincible ignorance" (in this day and age it's almost impossible for *anyone* be completely unaware of Christ's Church, but that's a discussion for a different day.) Now, we have a Cardinal (and a priest on EWTN's Q&A website) who says the Jewish religion is still a path to salvation every bit as much as the Catholic Church. That's a novel heresy. There's the example of the late Cardinal O'Connor who, on national television, blessed an ex-Catholic who converted to Judaisim (sp?) adding that he believed, "God is smiling down on the whole thing."

Lefebvre, in stark contrast, actively opposed and arrogently disobeyed legitimate directives of the Pope and the Magisterium, in a situation where no hint of heresy was involved

Because he saw a Pope who embraces people of other religions without rebuking their errors nor reminding them that they must convert (Assisi). He saw a Pope who leans strongly towards the Theory of Evolution. He saw a Pope who embraces the heretical teachings of Teilhard de Chardin.

The Archbishop opposed: An ecumenical notion of the church, divided in it's faith - a notion which is condemned in the Syllabus, No. 18. He opposed a collegial government and a democratic orientation in the church - this notion was condemned in particular by Vatican I (*an infallible council*, if I'm not mistaken). He opposed a false notion of the natural right of man which clearly appears in the document of religious liberty, which was also condemned by Quanta Cura (Pius IX) and Libertas Praestantissiumum (Leo XIII). Lefebve opposed a Protestant notion of the Mass and the sacraments - notions which were condemned by the Council of Trent, Session XXII.

though schism was involved - HIS!

Nope. No schism. Had Lefebvre established a parallel church and gave the newly consecrated Bishops jurisdiction, that would have been schism. He didn't do this. He didn't want to leave his seminarians "orphaned" and knew that since priests can't make priests, Bishops would be necessary to do this after his death. In short the Archbishop acted out of what he believed was "grave nececcesity" for the proper formation of priests so that the Traditional Mass, sacraments and theology wouldn't die with him. When one acts out of "grave necessity" the laws which would apply to one who acts out of a spirit of intentional rebellion (as is the case with the "catholic" church in China) don't apply in this case.

Question for you, Paul: There are a few prelates, Canon Lawyers, and theological experts who have admitted that the excommunication was not valid and that no schism occured. There are some who have said that Mass attendance at an SSPX chapel does fufill the Sunday obligation (I can post these quotes if you need to see them). Obviously you wouldn't call them "schismatic" or "heretical," right? If so how do they escape your judgment of schism, but we are called "schismatics" for *agreeing* with them?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 17, 2003.

Again, I see that the non-traditionalists on these threads, still go for that invincible ignorance thing. While several Ex-cathedra statements can bea quoted,{which are completely silent on invincible ignorance], they continue to spout this heresy as a dogma. When you ask them for proof, the best they can come up with is an encyclical by Pius 9th, which almost in an offhanded way, mentions it among many other things.

I,[though an attendee at SSPX], disagree with their belief of invincible ignorance, and baptism of desire. Unfortunately, Msgr Lefebvre, a brave and noble bishop, still has fallen into that trap, of the last 150 years.

Did the people who walked no more with Christ, suffer from invincible ignorance, or was it a lack of faith?

Do the protestants,[who do not accept the real presence]], suffer from invincible ignorance? They also refuse to walk with Him.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 17, 2003.

Regina,

Now, we have a Cardinal (and a priest on EWTN's Q&A website) who says the Jewish religion is still a path to salvation every bit as much as the Catholic Church. That's a novel heresy.

Probably not *novel*, but could be heresy, for sure. However, a liberal heretic does not excuse a conservative one. If your neighbor is a murderer that doesn't mean YOUR murder goes scott free, rather you both should be punished.

though schism was involved - HIS!

Nope. No schism. Had Lefebvre established a parallel church and gave the newly consecrated Bishops jurisdiction, that would have been schism. He didn't do this. He didn't want to leave his seminarians "orphaned" and knew that since priests can't make priests, Bishops would be necessary to do this after his death. In short the Archbishop acted out of what he believed was "grave nececcesity" for the proper formation of priests so that the Traditional Mass, sacraments and theology wouldn't die with him.

Completely schism. That's why he was excommunicated. There was no "grave necessity" for him to renege on his agreement with the Pope, he did it on his own for his own reasons. Sorry, but it's true. Also, since these priests are excommunicated, their marriages and pennances are meaningless, right? What do you do about your mortal sins if your sspx "priest" can't absolve you?

Question for you, Paul: There are a few prelates, Canon Lawyers, and theological experts who have admitted that the excommunication was not valid and that no schism occured. There are some who have said that Mass attendance at an SSPX chapel does fufill the Sunday obligation

Sigh, we've been through this too many times. It doesn't matter what their opinions are, the Pope has the authority to excommunicate someone by name, and he has done so. Are they schismatics too? I don't know, but if they claim to be in adherence to Lefebvre's schism then they are definitely in schism, as defined by the Pope.

What's the point of this? The issue has been decided, the church continues to obey the Holy Spirit, and a few dissenters were shaken off the tree. The Protestants out there aren't saying "well, gee, we were wrong, the Catholic Church was correct", so I don't expect you to return to the church either, but seriously, try and step away from the situation for a second. This isn't like AD 400 with some huge political battle, and equally defended camps over a very basic issue of the faith, whether Christ is Divine. In this case the whole church has gone in one direction over a simple thing, a change in rite of the mass, and only a few splinter groups went the other (trying to dredge up whatever strawmen they can to gather support). No comparison. Schism.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 17, 2003.

No man is infallible. Period.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 17, 2003.

Hey doofus "anti-Bush" ...
The pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching the whole Church anything erroneous in matters of faith and morals.
You, on the otherhand, are protected by your stupidity from writing anything correct on any subject whatsoever.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 17, 2003.

"There's the example of the late Cardinal O'Connor who, on national television, blessed an ex-Catholic who converted to Judaisim (sp?) adding that he believed, 'God is smiling down on the whole thing.'"

This completely inaccurate account, propagated by anti-Catholics, has already been debunked on the forum. It is typical of the half-truths and inaccuracies posted at this forum by the growing gang of goofballs who are in dire need of being banned.

Above we have the O'Connor canard.
Then we've had the "Quo primum" pratfall.
Then we've had the "invincible ignorance" ignoramuses.
Then we've had the "Lefebvre-is-a-hero-though-a-heretic" schismatics.
And the list could go on.

If it weren't so sad and sickening (involving the potential loss of their souls), it would be hilarious. The only thing worse than their behavior is that orthodox Catholics continue to "dignify" their existence by debating them and failing to ban them.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 17, 2003.

Frank, I hate to say it, but you didn't get what I said right... lol!

John:

"The pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching the whole Church anything erroneous in matters of faith and morals."

This in not correct... it's when he makes dogmatically defines a matter of faith and morals. There's a big difference between the two statements.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 17, 2003.

Emerald,

You are sadly mistaken. The pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from officially teaching ANYTHING doctrinally or morally binding on the universal Church - and that goes FAR beyond dogma.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 17, 2003.

Paul, you are sadly mistaken. That's not the teaching of the Church, as evidenced by what Regina posted about Athenasius, and there are many, many more examples.

It is in fact possible for a Pope to promulgate errors. What can't and won't happen, and what falls under the protection of the Holy Ghost, is that any reigning pontiff would promulgate ex cathedra any error.

Take the time to read the doctors of the Church on the matter; Robert Bellarmine is a good place to start.

None of this is put forward with the intention of instilling a needless doubt or disdain for any pope; it's put forth for the sake of clearer understanding of the Faith and hopefully so that people remember to pray for the Supreme Pontiff.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 18, 2003.

btw, I don't mean to construe it such that we blow off anything that's not ex cathedra.

As an example, there was some irritation in some circles that the Church's stance on birth control was NOT made Ex Cathedra. Some thought it should have been. Regardless, though, we all know that birth control is intrinsically evil, and if someone were to go use it upon the basis that it "wasn't ex cathedra, and I don't have to listen to it", it won't stand on judgment day. Clearly, birth control is against the moral law of the Church and always has been, defined ex-cathedra or not.

But it always has been. Dogmatic definitions settle disputes about "what always has been" accepted as the teaching of the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 18, 2003.

David and Glenn I don’t know what the story is about the IP address thing, I did indeed post that picture to Terry and from the same computer. If the moderator wishes to take further action in regard to this issue I have no problem with that, I admit I deserve it.

Terry, again apologies. OK here is a deal. Lets call it this mission of yours “Hope and Light”

You provide one (1) quote at a time you are having trouble understanding. Perhaps if after a week of posting these “contradictions” you find we have been able to “reconcile” each and every one you will then put aside your difficulties, deal with them in private and join us in unity. Failing that please leave us in peace and google your way back from whence you came.

Lets start with this one, .

“Try obeying this pope for starters; Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."”

Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to understand the meaning of the word “anathema”. Failure is not an option, as you will have many here willing to help you on your mission, including trained clergy and seminarians, so ask away if you get lost. Good Luck !!!

Hi Emerald

Clearly, birth control is against the moral law of the Church and always has been, defined ex-cathedra or not.

Similarly not only birth control but all other teachings on matters of faith and morals are true and binding on all Catholics. It is of course true that the Church can by exercise of the ordinary magisterium arrive at a final and infallible decision although understanding how this can be proved conclusively is no easy matter. It is a matter Im starting to look into but admit I don’t fully understand (the difference between a theologian and an internet apologist like ourselves is becoming far clearer to me). Given this I guess its best if we just deal with infallibility as ex cathedral statements and ecumenical councils. I guess the important point is the one you make above which is that it is clear that even if a teaching of the Church is not infallible, it is still binding ,on the faithful, it requires even interior assent, and may not be disagreed with publicly. Do we agree on that much?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Ian

here is some information off the link I proivded up thread that may help.

IV. FOUR LEVELS OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING

Fr. William G. Most

First level:

A) Solemn definition. LG 25: No special formula of words is required in order to define. Wording should be something solemn, and should make clear that the teaching is definitive. Councils in the past often used the form: Si quis dixerit. . . anathema sit. That is: If someone shall say. . . . let him be anathema. But sometimes they used the formula for disciplinary matters, so that form alone does not prove. Further, they also could define in the capitula, the chapters. Thus Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 538) spoke of such a passage of Vatican I (DS 3006 -- saying God is the author of Scripture) as a solemn definition . . .

B) Second level: LG (Lumen Gentium) 25:

Although the individual bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility, they can yet teach Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves, and with the successor of Peter, they concur in one teaching as the one which must be definitively held.

This means: (1) The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when it gives things as definitively part of the faith, (2) If this can be done when scattered, all the more can it be done when assembled in Council. Thus Trent (DS 1520) after "strictly prohibiting anyone from hereafter believing or preaching or teaching differently than what is established and explained in the present decree," went on to give infallible teaching even in the capitula, outside the canons.

To know whether the Church intends to teach infallibly on this second level, we notice both the language -- no set form required - and the intention, which may be seen at times from the nature of the case, at times from the repetition of the doctrine on this second level.

C) Third Level: Pius XII, in Humani generis:

Nor must it be thought that the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves require assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, about which it is also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears me.' [Lk 10. 16]. . . If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion among theologians.

We notice: (1) These things are protected by the promise of Christ in Lk 10. 16, and so are infallible, for His promise cannot fail . . . (2) Not everything in Encyclicals, and similar documents, is on this level - this is true only when the Popes expressly pass judgment on a previously debated matter, (3) since the Church scattered throughout the world can make a teaching infallible without defining - as we saw on level 2 -then of course the Pope alone, who can speak for and reflect the faith of the whole Church, can do the same even in an Encyclical, under the conditions enumerated by Pius XII. Really, on any level, all that is required to make a thing infallible is that it be given definitively. When a Pope takes a stand on something debated in theology and publishes it in his Acta, that suffices. The fact that as Pius XII said it is removed from debate alone shows it is meant as definitive.

In this connection, we note that LG 12 says: The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. This means: If the whole Church, both people and authorities, have ever believed (accepted as revealed) an item, then that cannot be in error, is infallible. Of course this applies to the more basic items, not to very technical matters of theological debate . . .

D) Level 4: LG 25:

Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking.

We note all the qualifications in the underlined part. The key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is infallible, as on level 2. He may be giving a decision on a previously debated point - as on level 3, then it falls under the promise of Christ in Lk 10. 16, and so is also infallible. Or it may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case like that envisioned in Canon 752 of the New Code of Canon Law:

Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of Bishops [of course, with the Pope] pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act.

If they do not mean to make it definitive, then it does not come under the virtue of faith, or the promise of Christ, "He who hears you hears me." Rather, it is a matter of what the Canon and LG 25 call religious submission of mind and of will. What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates. This cannot be the absolute assent which faith calls for - for since this teaching is, by definition, not definitive, we gather that it is not absolutely finally certain . . .

If one should make a mistake by following the fourth level of Church teaching, when he comes before the Divine Judge, the Judge will not blame him, rather He will praise him. But if a person errs by breaking with the Church on the plea that he knew better - that will not be easily accepted.

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted. Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.

V. THE HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS AND THE TRUTH

Fr. William G. Most

. . . Sadly, not a few Catholics who consider themselves orthodox, fall into the error of saying that if a thing is not defined, it is free matter: we can take it or leave it as we will. Not so, says the new catechism, echoing Vatican II. in # 891 we read:

The Roman Pontiff chief of the college [of Bishops] actually enjoys this infallibility when, as supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, in charge of confirming his brothers in the faith, proclaims by a definitive act, a point of doctrine on faith or morals.

Before continuing, let us note that word definitive. It means a teaching that is presented as final, with no change possible. But there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that specifies what wording the Pope must use in order to make a teaching definitive. All that is needed is that in some way, whatever way he may choose, he makes clear that a teaching is definitive. So this section of the new catechism does not add the words ex cathedra. Rather, it refers to LG #25 . . .

All that is required for something to be infallible is that it be taught definitively. But the things described by Pius XII are taught definitively. So what he said was not any new teaching; it was a repetition of what the Church has always done and believed.

Some have thought that a Council would have to use the formula: Si quis dixerit... anathema sit, in order to make something infallible. The same persons thought then that only things in the Canons, the Si quis dixerit sections would be infallible, while the capitula, the bordering sections could not be. But Pius XII in his great Scriptural Encyclical, Divino afflante Spiritu, of 1943, spoke of a statement from Vatican I as a solemn definition, even though not given in a Canon:

In our day Vatican Council I... declared that these same books of Scripture must be considered 'as sacred and canonical' by the Church' not only because they contain revelation without error, but because... they have God as their author. ' But when Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine... had dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals... our predecessor... Leo XIII... rightly and properly refuted those errors. (EB 538. Cf. DS 3006)

What emerges here? Vatican I had taught that God is the Author of Scripture, and that hence all of Scripture is free of error. Pius XII told us that this teaching of Vatican I was a solemn definition, even though not put in the usual wording for such a definition. All that was needed was what we have been speaking of, namely, that it make clear that a teaching is presented as definitive. So any wording that will make that fact clear, that a teaching is definitive, suffices for an infallible teaching. Incidentally, when something is taught repeatedly on the ordinary magisterium level, that very repetition makes clear that it is intended as definitive . . .

But there is still more: The catechism explains in # 889:

To maintain the Church in the purity of the faith transmitted by the Apostles, Christ willed to confer on His Church a participation in His own infallibility, that of Him who is the Truth. By the 'supernatural sense of the faith' the People of God, adheres indefectibly to the faith' under the guidance of the living Magisterium of the Church.

This repeats what Vatican II said in LG #12: The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. In other words, if the whole Church, people as well as Pastors, has ever accepted something as revealed, that cannot be in error. This is often called passive infallibility. Imagine how many things it covers, e.g., the whole Church from the start has believed there are angels. So those who deny or doubt their existence, deny not just some ordinary teaching, but one that is infallible . . .

We hope Charles Curran is listening. Not only things taught as definitive, but even things not taught that way require even internal assent of the mind. With infallible statements, the assent is based on the virtue of faith; with noninfallible things it is based on the virtue of religion.. . .

[The] Magisterium can tell us so many things. Among others, it can tell us that even though some truths are closer to the center of the hierarchy of truths than others, yet all those presented to us by a divinely protected Magisterium must be believed.

So yes, there is a hierarchy of truths -- but it can never lead us to go against the hierarchy of the Church.

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted. Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

The story of Stephen Dubner’s journey from Catholicism to the Jewish faith appeared in several Catholic publications including a report by Dr. Thomas Droleskey that appeared in the January 21, 1999 issue of The Wanderer and also one by by John Vennari, in the May 1999 issue of Catholic Family News.

Stephen Dubner’s parents, Paul and Veronica, were both Jews who had converted to Catholicism before Stephen’s birth. Their 8 children were raised in the Catholic faith. In 1974, Stephen’s father died suddenly in Church.

Eventually Stephen decided to leave the Catholic faith and convert to Judaism. In 1996 he wrote an article about his conversion to Judaism that appeared in Time magazine.

New York’s Cardinal John O’Connor, who had been inspired by what Dubner had written about his mother, quoted from the article at Christmas Mass 1996 in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Dubner then sought a private meeting with the Cardinal.

On Christmas night, 1998, ABC’s Nightline told Stephen’s story. Nightline, within the same Christmas broadcast, spoke to Cardinal O’Connor about this meeting. The Cardinal said:

"He [Dubner] clearly had something going on his heart, in his mind, his conscience."

O’Connor felt Stephen had come looking for his blessing to become a Jew. Nightline’s John Donovan asked the Cardinal if he had his blessing. His Eminence responded:

"Oh yes. Oh yes. He doesn’t need it, but he has my blessing, if we’re going to call it such, because I believe that’s what the Church teaches… Christ came into the world as a Jew. Ethnically, religiously, a Jew. We believe He was the Son of God. But He came for everybody...I would be keenly disappointed if there are Christians, and most particularly Catholics, who watch this at Christmas time and have animosity towards Stephen, towards what has happened. If they want to have animosity, I'd rather they have it toward me…. If they want to consider me wrong, that's fine. But I think that he is happy in his choice. I think that his mother is peaceful in his choice, and I think God is smiling on the whole thing."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 18, 2003.

"However, a liberal heretic does not excuse a conservative one. If your neighbor is a murderer that doesn't mean YOUR murder goes scott free, rather you both should be punished. "

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 18, 2003.

Amen Regina, I saw that show, on that evening, and you are absolutely correct. Cardinal O' Connor, while a very compassionate man, was talking heresy that night. He did a disservice to that man and to himself.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 18, 2003.

It is in fact possible for a Pope to promulgate errors. What can't and won't happen, and what falls under the protection of the Holy Ghost, is that any reigning pontiff would promulgate ex cathedra any error.

Please list all the teaching errors that have been promulgated by each pope throughout history. Please start with the earliest error and work forward.

We Catholics who have been following all papal teachings of all times deserve to know which ones are errors, so that we can stop following them. We want a COMPLETE list.

-- PGD (Please@Give.Details), September 18, 2003.

Jmj

The original statement, above, was this:
"There's the example of the late Cardinal O'Connor who, on national television, blessed an ex-Catholic who converted to Judaism ... adding that he believed, 'God is smiling down on the whole thing.'"

The implication, in this unjust smear of a saintly man, is that he approves of convinced Catholics converting to Judaism. That is why I referred to the above as "inaccurate," "propagated by anti-Catholics" [i.e., rabid schismatics/heretics], and a "half-truth." The subsequent response to me proves nothing, because it too leaves out a major part of the information needed for a person to make a fair and objective judgment of the event.

I said last time that the true and complete account was given here in the past. Schismato-heretics, just seek out that thread and learn from it. [Most pitiful of all is Terry's statement, since he -- despite having all the facts from watching the interview -- STILL couldn't even figure out that the Cardinal did nothing wrong. It takes a tremendously low level of smarts or a tremendously high level of prejudice for a guy to screw up the way Terry did.]

Thank you so much, Kiwi, for posting those extracts from the works of the amazing Fr. William Most (with whom I had the privilege of dining one day before he died). For several days now, I have wanted to post a message presenting that same kind of information, but I could never find enough free time to compose it. I'm glad that I didn't, because I could never have done anything nearly as good as Fr. Most did. Now, what he has written (and you have quoted) will be very helpful to Catholics. They will more clearly understand what is to be considered "defined infallibly," "taught (and therefore requiring assent)," etc..

However, Kiwi, I have to warn you that what you have quoted will simply be piddled upon by the schismatics and heretics that litter this forum. Why? Because Fr. Most, to build up his explanation, relies on Vatican II and other documents (wrongly considered by the ex-Catholics to contain major flaws). They will simply tell you that Fr. Most's comments are simply his opinion, no better than their own! See how they try to wriggle off the hook, so that they can deny truths and so that they can sin without [so they think] incurring guilt? This is why they have become misguided and misguiding SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF SATAN, polluting this site with their diabolical dung.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

I want to withdraw that final sentence ("This is why they have become misguided and misguiding SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF SATAN, polluting this site with their diabolical dung.")

It was too polemic and too easily misunderstood. Someone may think that I am claiming that these "separated brethren" of ours are intentionally seeking to please satan. I know that they are only doing it unintentionally. Sorry if I misled anyone.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 18, 2003.

Please, John. What in the world is "satanic" whether intentional or otherwise about:

Exposing an error of a Cardinal (or bishop or priest)?

Agreeing with Prelates, Canon Lawyers, who remain in good standing and haven't been corrected by the Pope etc., who say Archbishop Lefebvre incurred no schism/excommunication?

Assisting at a Mass which has never been supressed?

Offering a comparison between the NO and the Old Mass demonstrating how it wasn't merely the language of the liturgy that changed?

Arguing and demonstrating how the NO allows room for abuses?

Posting our outrage over irreverant NO liturgies (rampant in and around my diocese)?

Finding fault with a non-dogmatic council and comparing its documents to Dogmatic councils before it?

Believing that the Catholic Church isn't one of many religions, but the only one which was created by God, and therefore, the only one which pleases Him?

Applauding the Pope when he upholds the Deposit of Faith (such as his militant stance against abortion), but finding fault when his actions seem to contradict it (such as meeting and praying with pro-abort Lutherans never once admonishing their murderous "choice")?

Being opposed to blind obedience as opposed to Catholic obedience?

Being outraged at the notion that Lefebvre was a "heretic" (when his only "crime" was upholding the Faith) while real heretics such as Kasper, Mahoney, Kung, De Chardin and the Catholic Patriot Association (China's official "Catholic" church which boldly declares it's submission and loyalty to the Communist regime and refuses the authority of the Pope) remain(ed) in "good standing?"

Acknowledging and believing that the Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost only in special circumstances, but not in everything he says and does?

Arguing that while Our Lord promised that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail [triumph]" over the Church, He never told us Satan wouldn't at least try his damnest to do so? Believing and demonstrating that there are enemies within the Church - even in Her Hierarchy - doesn't mean we believe Christ reneged on His promise.

Posting statistics demonstrating the negative effect of the NO on the faithful especially the ever diminishing belief in the Real Presense?

This is all my friends, my husband and I have discussed in this forum since we began posting here over a year ago. John, if it's possible for you to do so, a respectful, honest, thoughtful reply would be most helpful. Ranting and raving insults won't. I sincerely don't see the influence of Satan with regard to the topics I mentioned. If you do, please explain how. You're being given a golden opportunity to help me, and if you can give me a charitable, thoughtful, respectful reply sans any insults, I promise I'll consider it and pray about it.

P.S. I can't recall which recent thread it was, but I remember you referring to the chapel jake and I attend and it's pastor "schismatic." Just so you know, in all the correspondence jake (and many of the parishoners from our chapel)has exchanged with the Archbishop of our diocese (and his predecessor) never once did either Archbishop refer to the chapel or it's priest as "schismatic." That being the case, I'm sure you would agree that neither you nor anyone else has the authority to say otherwise.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 19, 2003.

A classic reply Regina. You have statd it perfectly. I have taken note, that since I have posted here, the traditionals suppy facts,dogma, encyclicals etc. The other side supplies, schmismatics, heretics, devils, etc. Fact against rhetoric. It must be frustrataing for them. They see their churches closing, while traditionalists, have no trouble recruiting priest and nuns.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 19, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Regina.

That was a very interesting list you provided. If you could show that I have been guilty of one of the following two things, then I would consider myself corrected and chastised:

(1) That I have condemned each of the items on your list as "satanic/demonic/diabolical" ... or ...
(2) That I have stated that everything that you and those of your "camp" have ever stated here is "satanic/demonic/diabolical."

I have not been guilty -- at least not intentionally -- of either of those things.

By providing the above list, I think that you performed a less than honest act, because you sought to make it seem to others as though I had condemned everything on the list as satanic/demonic/diabolical -- when I have done nothing of the sort.

In reality, some of the items on your list are entirely legitimate -- and I have posted messages about them myself. I have had no objection to your raising any of the legitimate items on the list in the past -- for legitimate reasons. But we can't let that distract us from ...
(1) your [plural] illegitimate use of legitimate items and ...
(2) any use at all of the rest of the items -- which are inherently illegitimate.
[If you want me to go through the list, being specific, I can.]

Now I'll mention why I get so "exercised" and ask for people to be banned ...
Collective actions (1) and (2), when taken together, are expressive of schism -- de facto or de jure [iure] or heresy. That is precisely why I have used such strong language -- last time saying that some people are "unintentionally" "pleas[ing] satan." Obviously, satan loves schism, dissent, and heresy. At this forum, I have seen people who call themselves "Catholic" enumerating false ideas that express (or lead others toward) separation from orthodox Catholicism, via schism, dissent, or heresy. When I see this kind of thing, I will label those actions -- which are pleasing to satan -- as "satanic/demonic/diabolical."

Please don't think that I reserve this kind of condemnation to the actions of folks who prefer the older rite of the Mass. There is even worse activity to be condemned on the other end of the "spectrum" -- what with pro-death/pro-contraception/pro-sodomy heresies and dissents, the rent-a-married-priest schism, etc. etc..

New subject:
The mere fact that an archbishop avoids using the word "schism" in correspondence is not instructive. I see it this way: The archbishop (while being aware of the schism in his private thoughts) certainly wants to reunite the priest and his chapel to Catholicism, so he chooses not to use any language that would inflame people's passion. You wrote that "neither [I, John] nor anyone else has the authority to say" that the chapel or its priest is "schismatic." Ah, but I never said that I have "authority." Authority commands, which I do not do. I am merely putting 2 + 2 together to make 4. I am observing your behaviors and statements ("2") and adding them to the Church's definitions of schism and heresy ("2") to arrive at a sum ("4").

God bless you.
John
PS: Terry, please just read, rather than post, until you learn something. You have no valid contribution to make at this point, and I guarantee that you only make things worse for the people you are trying to help.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 21, 2003.

Thank you, John, for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I just finished reading it - twice. As promised I'm going to mull it over and chew on it for a bit, as I promised I'd do.

I've got some things to do right now. I'll think about your post while doing them. I hope to back later today (or maybe this evening) to continue our discussion.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 22, 2003.

OK Johm, I'll take some time out and read. Not that I agree with you. I m just getting a little tired of being called names, and not accoplishing much.

-- Terry (abc@304.com), September 22, 2003.

Ok. I'm back.

That was a very interesting list you provided. If you could show that I have been guilty of one of the following two things, then I would consider myself corrected and chastised:

(1) That I have condemned each of the items on your list as "satanic/demonic/diabolical" ... or ... (2) That I have stated that everything that you and those of your "camp" have ever stated here is "satanic/demonic/diabolical."

John, the items on my list are the only topics my friends and I have ever discussed on this forum. I'd say about 90% of my posts alone have been followed up with posts by you claiming my posts contain "filth," "diabolical dung," "heresy," "pleasing to the Devil," "worthy of a porta-jon" and such.

By providing the above list, I think that you performed a less than honest act, because you sought to make it seem to others as though I had condemned everything on the list as satanic/demonic/diabolical -- when I have done nothing of the sort.

See above. I don't believe my above post was dishonest in any way at all.

I have had no objection to your raising any of the legitimate items on the list in the past --for legitimate reasons.

To the best of my knowledge, almost every thread where the Traditional position was discussed/debated contains post(s) from you calling for us to be banned, referring to us as "servants of Satan" and the like.

But we can't let that distract us from ... (1) your [plural] illegitimate use of legitimate items and ...

Please clarify and use an example.

(2) any use at all of the rest of the items -- which are inherently illegitimate. [If you want me to go through the list, being specific, I can.]

That would be helpful, thanks.

Now I'll mention why I get so "exercised" and ask for people to be banned ... Collective actions (1) and (2), when taken together, are expressive of schism -- de facto or de jure [iure] or heresy.

I really need you to be a little more clear about your points 1 and 2 to be sure we're on the same page.

Now, since you used the word "heresy" and since you seem willing to engage me in a respectful discussion for the time being, it's crucial (again I'm asking for your help) that you tell me what is heretical about my "camp['s]" position. For the benefit of the reader, a heresy is the denial of one or more articles of Faith. I deny nothing our Faith demands.

Obviously, satan loves schism, dissent, and heresy.

Agreed. Please God, that I never fall into schism, dissent or heresy.

Please don't think that I reserve this kind of condemnation to the actions of folks who prefer the older rite of the Mass.

I'm not so sure. Until Emerald announced he would *only* attend the Old Rite, his participation was welcome at this forum. After that he became known as a "heretic." Why? What changed? What did he *ever* say at this forum that could be even *remotely* taken as "heresy."

Now, I think this is a different discussion for another day, but people who attend the Old Mass out of "preference" do so because they say "It's beautiful" or "so reverent." I agree, but I go further by saying "If the Old Mass is so beautiful and so reverent, how can you sit back and allow others to give something *less* beautiful or *less* reverent?"

There is even worse activity to be condemned on the other end of the "spectrum" -- what with pro-death/pro-contraception/pro-sodomy heresies and dissents, the rent-a-married-priest schism, etc. etc..

It's refreshing to see that you acknowledge that such things exsist.

New subject: I see it this way: The archbishop (while being aware of the schism in his private thoughts) certainly wants to reunite the priest and his chapel to Catholicism, so he chooses not to use any language that would inflame people's passion.

I would think that if he believed that members of his flock were falling into schism by assisting at Mass at our chapel, that he'd be sure to get the message across loud and clear.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 22, 2003.

Hi John.

I've bookmarked it, too.

thanks.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 22, 2003.

Regina, I've fallen behind in my reading. I'll have to get back to you when I catch up. I haven't seen any of the threads that have 09/23 posts and only half of those with 09/22 posts.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 23, 2003.