13 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat? I thought that Jesus could do anything. He turned water to wine and raised the dead. There were Chinese people in the world, weren't there? Surely it would be possible for Jesus to choose one.
Since no Chinese people are found in the the scripture in relation to Jesus' ministry, it can only be assumed that they weren't present in his ministry. He couldn't choose them.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThat's right. From what can you infer that Jesus intended the Pope to drive around in a souped up SUV, especially when Jesus went humbly by foot or donkey?
What should the Church err on the side of banning the ordination of priestesses simply it *cannot be inferred* from Christ's words or deeds that He intended them to be ordinated?
Surely, there are a lot of things that *cannot* be inferred from Christ's words or deeds. Should they all they banned?
13 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KMy comment was mainly directed at those who choose to look upon an encyclical as an "infallible ex-cathedra pronouncement". It is not. Thanks for your comment though.
I am not saying that the teaching is not infallible, I am only illustrating that Humanae Vitae is perceived to be ambiguous. As I said in my frist post to you.
It is however wrong to suggest that condoms are impermissable. As I highlighted before high level clergymen do accept the use of condoms if absolutely necasarry for the protection from transmissi ...[text shortened]... hat there is a certain amount of casuistry and inconsistency in what Pius' Humanae Vitae means.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeGenerally, the answer would be "no".
Are encyclicals viewed as infallible teachings by the Magisterium of the Church in the way "ex cathedra" statements are infallible ?
Many encyclicals (not all) simply reiterate constant teachings of the Church that are part of the ordinary universal Magisterium. As such, they repeat teachings that have been infallibly taught by the entire body of Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome.
13 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeDoes 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?
Are encyclicals viewed as infallible teachings by the Magisterium of the Church in the way "ex cathedra" statements are infallible ?
(I'm referring, of course, to Papal statements, not Councils).
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KI believe this first paragraph is wrong. Authoritative teachings of the RCC must be followed by the faithful - their consciences aren't merely to be informed by it. An infallible teaching can't be altered while an authoritative teaching could be (by the Church), but while the latter is being taught by the Church it remains binding.
An encyclical is not a proclamation of an infallible teaching. It does not bind the conscience of the Catholic faith. It is more an authoritative declaration. Catholics are expected to consider it and have their conscience's informed by the encylical.
I agree that it would undermine the authority of the Pope to reject ex cathedra teachings of morals. Th ...[text shortened]... eve Humanae Vitae to have been an infallible teaching, the infallibility of it seems equivocal.
I've dealt with the second paragraph.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt cannot be inferred from Christ's words or deeds that, even if you believe he intended the papacy, he intended popes to live in castles full of riches while telling everyone else to take care of the poor. All the translations I've read of the Bible seem to agree that he was more invested in simplicity, poverty, reliance on God, and servanthood.
It's not irrelevant simply because you say so. The Church teaches that it has no authority to ordain priestesses because it cannot be inferred from Christ's words or deeds that he intended that to be the case. It does, however, have the authority to ordain Chinese men because that can be inferred from the Great Commission.
How many Greek apostles were there? There were certainly Greeks in the area at the time. Samaritans too. Ditto Romans. Since he only had Jewish men apostles, I guess his intent was that only Jewish men be priests.
13 Mar 07
As regards Conrau K's assertion that authoritative statements of Church doctrine need not be obeyed by the faithful, I quote Humanae Vitae:
4. This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.
No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)
I'm not sure how the Pope could have made it any clearer without resorting to "Simon says" as Doctor Scribbles states.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEr... Contraception? This is worse than Lets Make A Deal.. its so hard to choose just one.
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
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH:
It is -- whether Humanae Vitae was ex cathedra or not (IMO, it is).
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 teachings of HV (and any/all other encyclicals)
are necessarily binding to the practicing Roman Catholic.
If the answer to this question is 'yes, HV's moral teachings are infallibile
and they are necessarily binding...,' on what basis do you assert this 'yes'
and how do you respond to Conrau who obviously disagrees with this
assertion.
I always thought that HV's teachings were considered infallibile by
the Church, for my part.
Nemesio
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerTheir purposes are different, no? Generally, encyclicals are for the
Generally, the answer would be "no".
Many encyclicals (not all) simply reiterate constant teachings of the Church that are part of the ordinary universal Magisterium. As such, they repeat teachings that have been infallibly taught by the entire body of Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome.
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 pronouncements, things that may not have existed as world-wide
Church doctrine (like the Immaculate Conception).
Do I have this right more or less?
Nemesio