CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group

CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group (http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/index.php)
-   Teaching Series - dogmatic theology (http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   Papal Infallibility in Vatican I (http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4145)

Ron Conte 24th April 2010 11:29 AM

Papal Infallibility in Vatican I
 
The first Vatican Council infallibly taught the conditions under which a Pope teaches infallibly.

“And so, adhering faithfully to the tradition known since the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and for the salvation of Christian peoples, 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 discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole Church, he possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, not from the consent of the Church.”

The teaching of the First Vatican Council on Papal Infallibility can be conveniently summed up with a list of criteria:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

When these conditions are met, the teaching is infallible. When these conditions are not met, in a teaching of the Papal Magisterium, the teaching is non-infallible. Personal opinions of the Pope, and judgments of the prudential order are fallible.

Ron Conte 26th April 2010 10:46 PM

On the Beatific Vision of God
Benedictus Deus
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

Does the teaching in this constitution of Pope Benedict 12 fall under papal infallibility?
Does it meet each of the five conditions?

Truthseeker 27th April 2010 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Conte (Post 32499)
On the Beatific Vision of God
Benedictus Deus
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

Does the teaching in this constitution of Pope Benedict 12 fall under papal infallibility?
Does it meet each of the five conditions?


Yes Ron I think all the criteria for an infallible teaching have been met in this constitution.

Ron as regards contraception and birth control is the teaching infallible ?

Ron Conte 27th April 2010 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker (Post 32502)
Yes Ron I think all the criteria for an infallible teaching have been met in this constitution.

Ron as regards contraception and birth control is the teaching infallible ?


The teaching of the Magisterium against contraception is infallible under the Universal Magisterium. Some theologians have argued that Humanae Vitae falls under papal infallibility, but it is not a strong argument (in my opinion).

Truthseeker 27th April 2010 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Conte (Post 32503)
The teaching of the Magisterium against contraception is infallible under the Universal Magisterium. Some theologians have argued that Humanae Vitae falls under papal infallibility, but it is not a strong argument (in my opinion).


So it still has to be regarded as an infallible teaching by Catholics ?

Ron Conte 27th April 2010 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker (Post 32505)
So it still has to be regarded as an infallible teaching by Catholics ?


Yes.

Pontifical Council for the Family: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
(Vademecum ['Go with me'] for Confessors concerning some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 2-4.)

Intrinsically evil acts are always voluntary i.e. deliberately chosen, intentionally chosen. So when the text above says 'intentionally rendered unfruitful' the term intentionally refers, not to the first font of intention (the intended end), but to the second font of an intentionally chosen act whose moral object is the deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual relations.

Truthseeker 27th April 2010 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Conte (Post 32507)
Yes.

Pontifical Council for the Family: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
(Vademecum ['Go with me'] for Confessors concerning some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 2-4.)

Intrinsically evil acts are always voluntary i.e. deliberately chosen, intentionally chosen. So when the text above says 'intentionally rendered unfruitful' the term intentionally refers, not to the first font of intention (the intended end), but to the second font of an intentionally chosen act whose moral object is the deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual relations.


Thanks Ron. I did not know that this was an infallible teaching of the church and that it was considered definitive and irreformable by the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Who is the Pontifical council for the family Ron ?

Ron Conte 27th April 2010 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker (Post 32508)
Who is the Pontifical council for the family Ron ?


They are a department of the Holy See.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...051996_en.html

Truthseeker 27th April 2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Conte (Post 32507)
Yes.

Pontifical Council for the Family: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
(Vademecum ['Go with me'] for Confessors concerning some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 2-4.)

Intrinsically evil acts are always voluntary i.e. deliberately chosen, intentionally chosen. So when the text above says 'intentionally rendered unfruitful' the term intentionally refers, not to the first font of intention (the intended end), but to the second font of an intentionally chosen act whose moral object is the deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual relations.



Ron NFP used to space up births also involves intentionally rendering an act unfruitful in my opinion. I don't see this distinction. Also can you explain more what do you mean here about the second font of an intentionally chosen act? Thanks very much for your answers. I have big confusion in my mind on this topic. Not easy to understand.

Ron Conte 27th April 2010 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthseeker (Post 32510)
Ron NFP used to space up births also involves intentionally rendering an act unfruitful in my opinion. I don't see this distinction. Also can you explain more what do you mean here about the second font of an intentionally chosen act? Thanks very much for your answers. I have big confusion in my mind on this topic. Not easy to understand.


the three fonts:
1. intention or purpose for which the act was chosen
2. the act itself, with its inherent moral meaning, as determined by the moral object
3. the circumstances, especially the consequences

The second font is the type of act intentionally chosen by the person, not the intended end (purpose). Acts have inherent moral meanings, called the moral nature or moral species of the act. This is the type of act in terms of morality.

NFP allows each and every marital act to retain the procreative meaning.
Contraception deprives the marital act of the procreative meaning.

The deprivation of the marital or unitive or procreative meanings from any sexual act causes the moral object to be evil, and the intentionally chosen act (which is inherently directed at that moral object) to be intrinsically evil.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.