Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:49, 15 March 2006

Let me point out that the Catholic Encyclopedia online, for all its usefulness, was published in 1911. It does not represent the Catholic position given once and for all -- that in itself is a misunderstanding of the Catholic ideal of the "development of doctrine". I am not at all sure that a NPOV means "give a link from two sides of an argument", as though there are only two positions. For instance, to take one NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON misunderstanding, popes does not practice infallibility habitually. MOST statements by the papacy are not taken by anyone, even the most rigid Roman Catholics, as infallible. --MichaelTinkler

New to this list - but great to see the response. Created a page about The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility to go with the "UNOFFICIAL" Pope John Paul II at: http://zpub.com/un/pope/

Here are the comments people have added about Papal Infallibility since August 6, 1998 http://www.greenspun.com/com/zpub/un/pope/infal.html

... I welcome the responses and the chance to participate in this project. - rp

The 'critique' is a tad - ahem - chip-on-the-shoulderish in tone (and spelling). NPOV does demand that wikipedia should present other views, but this one is going to have to be (a) researched (e.g., what bishop said what?) and (b) edited. --MichaelTinkler

Link http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/papal.htm don't work for me. Could somebody correct this ?

This bishop was Joseph Georg Strossmayer iirc. --Taw

Merge

This article needs a history merge with Papal Infallibility and end up here. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Vatican I

Your list of criteria from Vatican I is merely your own ideas which have no support in the documents of Vatican I. Therefore, I have replaced it with a list of criteria which is nothing but quotes from Vatican I. --Ronconte 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

The definition of papal infallibility given in this article includes criteria never mentioned by the First or Second Vatican Councils. The article is factually and substantially in error and should be rewritten. --Ronconte 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Vatican I and Vatican II did not teach in vacuums. They used technical theological terms that included a lot of meaning in them. If you read the debates at Vatican I and Vatican II, you will see that the bishops gathered there understood exactly what these terms meant, and chose their words very carefully.

Since we cannot assume that Misplaced Pages's audience understands these terms, they need to be explained in detail. Therefore a short phrase in a council document becomes a long description on this page. While I wouldn't have phrased the five bullets in the Papal infallibility#Conditions for papal infallibility in exactly the way they appear here, all of these are indeed required conditions. In fact, there are additional conditions that aren't listed -- such as the need that the pope be freely exercising his judgment (not held at gunpoint). Lawrence King 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I edited this section to clarify some points, and remove redundancies. Lawrence King 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the section on the criteria for papal infallibility, using only quotes from Vatican I and II to list the criteria. You can then add whatever commentary or explanation you think is needed. --Ronconte 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error - The criteria listed in this article is not the criteria listed by Vatican I or Vatican II. The criterial listed by those councils did not include mention of the Pope's intention, nor of duress.

This point was addressed by my response above.

You have worded the criteria in your own words, according to your own unique ideas. I am rewriting it with nothing but quotes from Vatican I and II. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What you call "my unique ideas" are exactly the conditions for infallibility that you will find in Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", Francis Sullivan's "Magisterium", and any other standard theology textbook. Lawrence King 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error - the claim that the Pope can declare something infallible other than what has been revealed. Vatican II specifically stated the limits of papal infallibility: “And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”.

You truncated this sentence. The rest of the sentence has often been interpreted to include non-revealed matters. THat is in fact how the CDF interprets it in this document signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998: . Section 6 addresses this issue explicitly and section 11 gives several examples of infallible statements in this category. (Non-revealed truths that are taught infallibly are called the "secondary object of infallibility", and are discussed in "paragraph two" of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei to which Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary refers.)

I read that reference. It clearly says the exact opposite of what you claim. The truths that cannot be said to be divinely-revealed are 'to be held definitively' which is a phrase specifically used to describe adherence to non-infallible teachings. This article is Lawrence King's own opinions and interpretation. It is not an encyclopedic description of what Catholic's believe or what the Catholic Church teaches. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Read it again. Pay attention to the parts I have put in bold:

The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks "ex cathedra" or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda". Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.

Factual error - the claim that canonization is an example of an infallible teaching or infallible statement. Lists of infallible papal statements, including one by Cardinal Raztinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, do not include any canonizations as infallible statements.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Again, see the document I linked to. Section 11 specifically lists "the canonization of saints" as falling within the secondary object of infallibility.

Again, I read that section. It clearly says 'to be definitively held' which is used to refer to the type of assent given to non-infallible teachings. This article is about papal infallibility. No theologian claims that canonizations are an example of papal infallibility. Ratzinger himself gives a list of infallible papal teachings and he does not include canonizations. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"To be definitively held" does refer to infallible teachings, as is clear in the passage I have quoted. If you look at section 10 you will see that the assent required by non-infallible teachings is "religious submission of will and intellect". Lawrence King 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten. Also, the section on dissent is too long.

I agree that it seems excessive to include separately "what Methodists believe", "what Reformed churches believe", etc. But I don't feel strongly on this issue either way.

This is not a debate, it is an encyclopedic description of an idea. --Ronconte 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now it's an encyclopedic description of an idea and the impact it has had on the world. This impact includes reactions to the idea. I don't see why this isn't encyclopedic. Lawrence King 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)\

It is not encyclopedic because no other Catholic in the world has this same view that you are expressing. You have taken your own unique understanding and made it an article in an encyclopedia. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I have taken the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, now the current pope. I am reverting your changes. Lawrence King 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid edit war

Before we get into a full-blown edit war, please read the entire document that I linked to: . You will see that Cardinal Ratzinger very carefully and systematically divides doctrines into three categories:

1. Definitive teachings that are part of revelation. Theologians usually call these dogmas. These are discussed in Paragraph One of the Professio Fidei, and in sections 5 and 8 of the CDF document I linked to. These are infallible, as Ratzinger states in section 5. Catholics must accept these teachings with "the assent of theological faith".

2. Definitive teachings that are not included in revelation. Theologians usually call this the secondary object of infallibility. These are discussed in Paragraph One of the Professio Fidei, and in section 6, 7, and 8 of the CDF document I linked to. These are infallible, as Ratzinger states in section 6 (see my quote above). Catholics must accept these teachings with "firm and definitive assent". In section 8, Ratzinger reminds the reader that although # 1 and # 2 differ in the kind of faith involved, "there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings".

You have completely misunderstood what he is saying in that document. No truth outside of revelation can be taught infallibly. The phrase 'firm and definitive assent' is only applied to things that are non-infallible. The reason for the different type of assent is that it is non-infallible.

Another problem is that you are basing your assertions on only one document. It is much more likely that you have misunderstood when you have only one source. You are unable to cite another source that says that the Magisterium can teach infallibly outside of Divine Revelation. Please stop citing the same document from the CDF again and again.

I am looking at many documents, as you know because we have discussed this already. I will list more of them here:

* The "Professio Fidei" itself, which every Catholic teacher on this planet is required to swear to.

* The CDF commentary on the Professio Fidei which I linked to above.

* A commentary published by Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, when he was Secretary of the CDF: “Theological Observations by Archbishop Bertone,” L’Osservatore Romano, Italian edition 12/20/1996, English edition 1/29/1997.

* The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 88 says that the "fullest extent" of the church's teaching authority is used when either defining a matter in revelation or when defining something that "has a necessary connection" with revelation. These are, respectively, the categories called # 1 and # 2 above.

*The near-unanimous consensus of Catholic theologians. For example:

* Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (the most important pre-Vatican II textbook)

* Francis Sullivan's Magisterium and Creative Fidelity (he was a professor at the most important Catholic university on the planet, the Gregorian University, from 1956 to 1992, serving under five popes as the acknowledged expert in ecclesiology)

* The writings of conservative theologians who study infallibility, such as Germain Grisez, Lawrence J. Welch, Livio Melina, Mark Lowery, Avery Dulles

* The writings of liberal theologians who study infalliblity, such as Hermann J. Pottmeyer, Richard R. Gaillardetz.

All of these sources agree that truths outside of revelation can be taught infallibly. For example, Article 6 of Pope Alexander VII's bull Ad Sacram Beati Petri Sedem (1656) taught infallibly that the propositions listed in Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione really were in Cornelius Jansen's book, a matter of fact (not revelation) that the Jansenists had disputed.

You are right that if I "only had one source" I might be misunderstanding it. Are all these theologians misunderstanding it? Was Poe Alexander VII misunderstanding it? Lawrence King 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If a teaching is found only in one document of the CDF, and nowhere else, it cannot be a teaching of the Church.

That is false. What do you think the CDF is? It is the Vatican's doctrinal office. Their job is to release doctrinal pronouncements, and there is an entire section on the Vatican website devoted to their documents. This is how the church teaches most of the time. Papal encyclicals are rare.

Furthermore, the idea that canonizations fall under papal infallibility is absurd. Many theologians have written on the subject of papal infallibility, not a single one makes such a claim. The Catholic faithful in general do not believe that papal infallibility extends to canonizations. The Catechism makes no such claim. The canonization documents themselves do not use any of the language that you yourself say is associated with infallible papal teachings. Neither Vatican I nor Vatican II makes any such extension of papal infallibility to canonizations or to anything beyond the Deposit of Faith.

An encyclopedia article on this topic should state what is generally agreed upon. Some of your points are not, they are, at best, controversial interpretations of magisterial documents. We should keep the article to what is clearly Catholic teaching. --Ronconte 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am doing. You are the one who insists on taking a passage from Vatican I, a passage from Vatican II, and interpreting them yourself without looking at any other facts. Lawrence King 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Non-infallible teachings. These are discussed in Paragraph One of the Professio Fidei, and in section 10 of the CDF document I linked to. Although these are not infallible, Catholics must accept these teachings with "religious submission of will and intellect.".

In section 11, there are examples of each of these kinds of teachings. Canonization of saints is included among those of type # 2, and are therefore (according to Ratzinger) infallible. Lawrence King 20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the teaching of the Church about infallibility. You have based your claims on one document only from the CDF, not on any document from Popes, Ecumencial Councils, or the Catechism. The document you cite is fallible, not infallible. This article should not contain your own interpretation of one document from the CDF, nor the particular opinions of certain theologians. It should be a general statement about Catholic belief on papal infallibility. --Ronconte 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read anything I wrote above. I cited the Catechism, several CDF documents, documents from two popes, and nine different theologians. If you aren't going to be reasonable then I have two choices: an edit war, or abandoning this page. I choose the latter. This page is yours; feel free to edit it however you want. Lawrence King 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Views of Reformed Churches

The whole part about the Pope being the Antichrist has been removed from the Reformed version of the Westminster Confession for some time now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.131.181 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 February 2006.

You should update that section, then! Lawrence King 04:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)