1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is a dicussion going on in the RC Church whether Encyclicals are "infallible" or not.
Does the Pope ever explicitly say "This statement is ex cathedra" or some such words of art? Or must it always be argued that a particular statement is ex cathedra or not?
(I'm referring, of course, to Papal statements, not Councils).
I do not look upon them that way, but that does not mean that a Roman Catholic simply can ignore them. In my view they dó have authority and they are certainly binding, but they do not contain revealed Truth in the same way dogmas do.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou piss in your Church? Is this a new Catholic rite I didn't get the memo on? What's with the kneeling and popping back up every 5 seconds? Why not kneel for the whole thing or lie down perhaps? A good face down spread eagle seems like the best approach.
Originally posted by NemesioLet's see if I can clarify things. There are two issues here:
LH:
I don't mean to be obtuse here, but I must persist and get a direct
answer to my question.
I'm not asking you if it's your opinion whether or not the moral teachings
of HV (including the fact that contraception is sinful) are infallible. I'm
asking whether or not it is the case; that is, whether the Church
says explicitly: The moral te ...[text shortened]... teachings were considered infallibile by
the Church, for my part.
Nemesio
(A) Whether the moral teaching of HV is infallibly taught by the Magisterium
(B) Whether the document HV was an ex cathedra proclamation
Now, the truth of (B) implies the truth of (A) but the converse is not necessarily true. These are two distinct (though not completely independent) issues.
I don't mean to be obtuse here, but I must persist and get a direct
answer to my question.
I did give you a direct answer.
I'm not asking you if it's your opinion whether or not the moral teachings of HV (including the fact that contraception is sinful) are infallible.
I'm not answering that, either. To put my answer from previous posts into the framework established here:
(A) is true
(B) may or may not be true (IMO it is)
Does that clarify things for you?
I'm asking whether or not it is the case; that is, whether the Church says explicitly: The moral teachings of HV (and any/all other encyclicals) are necessarily binding to the practicing Roman Catholic.
You need to distinguish clearly between the moral teaching and the document that is the vehicle for that moral teaching. A "fallible document" (i.e. one whose composition does not include the special protection of the Holy Spirit that is the charism of infallibility) may convey "infallible doctrine" (i.e. doctrines that have been infallibly taught previously).
If you (and Conrau) get this distinction, then you will see that the ex cathedra status of Humanae Vitae is not the point on which the teaching hinges.
Originally posted by NemesioAn encyclical is a type of document. An ex cathedra proclamation is a type of statement. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Their purposes are different, no? Generally, encyclicals are for the
clarification or elaboration of existing moral standards, right? The
Church asserts, for example, that it has always had reverence for
life from the moment of conception, or that contraception has always
been taught as a moral evil. Ex cathedra statements are reserved for
major pron ...[text shortened]... ch doctrine (like the Immaculate Conception).
Do I have this right more or less?
Nemesio
An ex cathedra statement can be made in an encyclical, an apostolic exhortation, a circular, even a television interview.
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo repeat an unanswered question:
An encyclical is a type of document. An ex cathedra proclamation is a type of statement. The two are not mutually exclusive.
An ex cathedra statement can be made in an encyclical, an apostolic exhortation, a circular, even a television interview.
Does the Pope ever say a certain statement is ex cathedra in so many words or in a particular formulation?
Originally posted by lucifershammerHey LH,
A "fallible document" (i.e. one whose composition does not include the special protection of the Holy Spirit that is the charism of infallibility) may convey "infallible doctrine" (i.e. doctrines that have been infallibly taught previously).
Just a question: How does a Roman Catholic know if a given document/encyclical (e.g., HV)
has the special protection you mention? That is, take Deus Caritas Est: is this an infallible
teaching of the Church? If so, how do you know? And, are all encyclicals (say of the modern era
following Vatican I) infallible? And, if so, how does a Roman Catholic know this to be true?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNumber one and Five are the silliest.
What do you think it is?
1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church