|
0 members (),
558
guests, and
105
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,533
Posts417,711
Members6,185
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I have begun a new thread because this matter deserves to be treated independently of the question of Infallibility itself. This thread is intended primarily for Catholics who believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter and that he, in fact, can teach infallibly. The issue at hand is whether Humanae Vitae is among these infallible teachings. The spring board for this discussion is the comment below which is from the thread, “Trying to Understand the Authority of the Pope.” Binding is not the same as Infallible.
I would definitively regard Humanae Vitae as Binding, but not as Infallible.
Paul VI was merely giving "his reply" (his own opinion), not a universal, definitive infallible and irreformable teaching. I agree that binding may not be the same as infallible. I maintain, however, that Humanae Vitae is both. Moreover, I maintain that the rejection of this teaching as infallible is the primary reason for the disintegration of Christian life in the modern Church. Since most men and women in their Christian vocations are called to be fathers and mothers, and since grace builds on nature, human love, if it is to be authentic and truly reflective of the life-giving love of the Trinity must be open to human life in each and every act of conjugal love. What is an infallible teaching? Here again is the relevant passage regarding infallibility from Vatican I: Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, 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. In Humane Vitae, Paul the VI is not speaking in his own person. Rather, he uses the “royal” “We.” He states: “We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.” He is clearly speaking in virtue of the mandate given to him by Christ. He is teaching as the Church’s shepard and teacher in virtue of his apostolic authority and he is speaking to the whole Church on a matter of morals. In paragraph 20 of the document he states, “The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.” His teaching, therefore is, infallible and irreformable. Moreover, I would finally add that this teaching brings great joy! lm (father of nine) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 37
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 37 |
An interesting thread - I'm interested to see what everyone's thoughts are. Rather, he uses the “royal” “We.” In order to use that as a basis for argument, Popes would have to commonly use the singular - which I'm pretty sure is rarely (never?) done (I'm not an expert, but I've never noticed it. I took a survey class about 8 years ago as an undergrad that forced me to read everything major from Trent forward, I think that would have stuck out). Does anyone know of situations where post-Vatican I Popes have used the singular when referring to themselves in "official" writing (encyclicals, bulls, etc). Books, lectures, homilies, and like don't count. I have some other thoughts I'll add once I reread Humanae Vitae and Vatican I - which won't be tonight.  Justin
Last edited by Justin Oelgoetz; 09/23/08 12:00 AM. Reason: Fixed fragment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
I think in these questions we often get the cart before the horse, trying to determine the truth of a teaching based on its infallibility quotient. Rather, all true teachings are infallible.
So, the question is, is the declaration of the evil of contraception true?
I'm convinced it is, and find it also a teaching that brings great joy, but I think arguing from infallibility to truth is probably not the best way to go.
Best,
P-A
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
I do not think that Humanae Vitae was an instance of the Pope exercising his charism of infallibility as defined at Vatican I. The use of the royal "We" is not a qualification of this charism - just about all encyclicals written by popes before the 1960's used the royal "We", but not all of them are infallible!
However, I do think that the teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception is an infallibly true teaching. One of the problems with Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility, in my opinion, is that it has led Catholics of all stripes to reduce the charism of infallibility to specific papal pronouncements. Traditional Catholics try to turn many papal documents into infallible pronouncements, and "liberal" Catholics try to support their heretical views by stating that there is no papal infallible document against them. But papal documents are not the totality of this important charism of infallibility. Beliefs that have been held as true by the faithful throughout the 2,000 years of the church are also infallible, by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. In practice, this is especially true of moral teachings.
For example, there is no papal or conciliar document declaring infallibly that abortion is a grave evil. However, this is an infallible teaching of the church, as it has been held by the faithful for 2,000 years. Likewise, there is no need to have a papal or conciliar document declaring infallibly that only men can be priests for this to be an infallible teaching - it has been held by the faithful for 2,000 years, and is thus infallible.
The same holds true for the immorality of artificial contraception. Humanae Vitae was a beautiful and prophetic document that supported, not established, this infallible teaching of the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I think in these questions we often get the cart before the horse, trying to determine the truth of a teaching based on its infallibility quotient. Rather, all true teachings are infallible.
So, the question is, is the declaration of the evil of contraception true?
I'm convinced it is, and find it also a teaching that brings great joy, but I think arguing from infallibility to truth is probably not the best way to go. I think Humanae Vitae does a good job of setting forth the infallible teaching and the truth of the matter. When the Pope teaches infallibly, he is at the service of truth, not in opposition to it. I am certain we agree on that. It was quite a shock to the Catholic world in 1968 when the Pope, contrary (I think) to the conclusion of the commission which we he ordered to investigate the matter, upheld the constant teaching of the Church. I do not think that Humanae Vitae was an instance of the Pope exercising his charism of infallibility as defined at Vatican I. Why not? The use of the royal "We" is only one of the conditions. It indicates that he is speaking to us as the successor of Peter, not in his personal capacity. The other conditions are also there -- speaking to the whole Church on morals. I think he spoke infallibly to cut through the confusion on the matter during the height of the "sexual revolution." While contraception had always been rejected by the Church, the teaching had never been so challenged as it was in the 1960s and there was never so much confusion about it. Unfortunately, much of the Catholic world rebelled against it. See, for example, the recent statement by Cardinal Stafford as he recalls the attempt by priests to intimidate him and others http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28720 I think the effects of the dissent with respect to this teaching remain with us and the dissent continues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
lm, I am in no disagreement with you as to the confusion that reigned in the 60's regarding contraception, nor the importance of a papal document reiterating the consistent teaching of the Church in this regard. HV was truly a prophetic and inspiring encyclical. But I do not think HV was an exercise in papal infallibility. Why not? Because nowhere in HV does he use language that suggests that he is now making infallibly binding that which was not already such. There is no section that states that the Pope "defines" or "declares" any teaching. Instead, the Pope is clear that he is simply reiterating what is already part of the deposit of faith. Not only the deposit of faith, in fact, but part of the natural law of man. This is an important point - there is no need to declare infallible something which is part of the natural law (such as the immorality of abortion and artificial contraception). They are simply part of the reality of being human; the pope can, and should, remind humanity that these things are infallibly true, but it would be inappropriate for him to use the charism of papal infallibility to do so. If he did, then it appears to become a "Catholic" issue, not one that is binding on all humanity. Thus I would say that appealing to the supposed infallibility of HV, as defined at Vatican I, weakens its impact. If we needed a pope to declare this infallibly before we were "sure" it was wrong, then it clearly is not part of the natural law, and we cannot blame non-Catholics for using artificial contraception. However, if it is part of the natural law of man, and the pope is simply reminding us of that in HV, then this teaching clearly applies to all mankind. The use of the royal "We" is only one of the conditions. It indicates that he is speaking to us as the successor of Peter, not in his personal capacity. Actually, the royal "We" was simply the form in which all papal documents were written until very recently. Nothing about the royal "We" is related to infallibility. Nevertheless, I do not dispute that the Pope was speaking in his role as successor of Peter. Most encyclicals written by the pope to the whole Church - like HV - are written in capacity. But papal infallibility is not simply invoked because the Pope is speaking as Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
The Church makes a distinction in the teachings of the Magisterium, between exercises of the "Extraordinary Magisterium" (i.e. solemn definitions on matters of Faith & Morals, by an Ecumenical Council with the concurrence by the Roman Pontiff, or by a Roman Pontiff teaching "Ex Cathedra") and the "Ordinary Magisterium" (teachings on Faith & Morals of the Pope and those Bishops in communion with him which do not rise to the level of solemnity as those of the Extraordinary Magisterium). The former are always to be regarded as possessing the charism of infallibility, whereas, this is not necessarily the case with the latter. With the latter, we are still obliged to assent to these teachings. With teachings of the "Ordinary Magisterium" the possibility of infallibilty is not precluded. Such teachings are considered to be infallibly true if they have been officially taught by the Church "always and everywhere" (at least this is the phrase I recall hearing used in a speech by the Academic Dean and head of the Moral Theology Department at St. Joseph Seminary in Dunwoodie, NY, Msgr. William Smith). Many authoritive orthodox opinions have been expressed which would put Humanae Vitae in this "always and everywhere" category.
In Christ,
Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
With teachings of the "Ordinary Magisterium" the possibility of infallibilty is not precluded. Such teachings are considered to be infallibly true if they have been officially taught by the Church "always and everywhere"... Many authoritive orthodox opinions have been expressed which would put Humanae Vitae in this "always and everywhere" category. This certainly seems true, but I still see the document as one which is ex cathedra, ie, 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, As to Francis comments, it seems that Pope did define (ie brought greater clarity and "definition" in the face of great opposition to the contrary) to the the Church's teaching. Francis suggests that Popes would never teach on moral matters because they could be known by human reason. But the doctrine of infallibility extends to matters of faith and morals . When ordinary Catholics (who may not understand from the natural moral law alone why the teaching is true) accept the teaching as infallible without quibbling about whether it is so, they then have the opportunity to seek understanding while they follow the Pope's teaching. Their consciences will not then be burdened by attempting to justify unlawful acts. Paul VI states (with all the marks of infallibiity) in Humanae Vitae: We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.
II.
DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES
7. The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects. And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed. This is what We mean to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 18
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 18 |
Humanae Vitae merely reaffirmed the latin churches stance on contraception and abortion, it was not infalliably defined by His Holiness Pope Paul the VI, Pope Pius XII held that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nbe sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:
“ It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 802 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 802 Likes: 2 |
Rather, he uses the “royal” “We.”
In order to use that as a basis for argument, Popes would have to commonly use the singular - which I'm pretty sure is rarely (never?) done (I'm not an expert, but I've never noticed it. I took a survey class about 8 years ago as an undergrad that forced me to read everything major from Trent forward, I think that would have stuck out). Does anyone know of situations where post-Vatican I Popes have used the singular when referring to themselves in "official" writing (encyclicals, bulls, etc). Books, lectures, homilies, and like don't count. Pope John Paul II is the first Pope to use the singular in "official" writing, as he does in "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" (see below): 6. I would like to rekindle this Eucharistic “amazement” by the present Encyclical Letter, in continuity with the Jubilee heritage which I have left to the Church in the Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte and its Marian crowning, Rosarium Virginis Mariae. To contemplate the face of Christ, and to contemplate it with Mary, is the “programme” which I have set before the Church at the dawn of the third millennium, summoning her to put out into the deep on the sea of history with the enthusiasm of the new evangelization. To contemplate Christ involves being able to recognize him wherever he manifests himself, in his many forms of presence, but above all in the living sacrament of his body and his blood. The Church draws her life from Christ in the Eucharist; by him she is fed and by him she is enlightened. The Eucharist is both a mystery of faith and a “mystery of light”.3 Whenever the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the faithful can in some way relive the experience of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: “their eyes were opened and they recognized him” (Lk 24:31).
7. From the time I began my ministry as the Successor of Peter, I have always marked Holy Thursday, the day of the Eucharist and of the priesthood, by sending a letter to all the priests of the world. This year, the twenty-fifth of my Pontificate, I wish to involve the whole Church more fully in this Eucharistic reflection, also as a way of thanking the Lord for the gift of the Eucharist and the priesthood: “Gift and Mystery”.4 By proclaiming the Year of the Rosary, I wish to put this, my twenty-fifth anniversary, under the aegis of the contemplation of Christ at the school of Mary. Consequently, I cannot let this Holy Thursday 2003 pass without halting before the “Eucharistic face” of Christ and pointing out with new force to the Church the centrality of the Eucharist.
From it the Church draws her life. From this “living bread” she draws her nourishment. How could I not feel the need to urge everyone to experience it ever anew?
8. When I think of the Eucharist, and look at my life as a priest, as a Bishop and as the Successor of Peter, I naturally recall the many times and places in which I was able to celebrate it. I remember the parish church of Niegowić, where I had my first pastoral assignment, the collegiate church of Saint Florian in Krakow, Wawel Cathedral, Saint Peter's Basilica and so many basilicas and churches in Rome and throughout the world. I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts; I have celebrated it on altars built in stadiums and in city squares... This varied scenario of celebrations of the Eucharist has given me a powerful experience of its universal and, so to speak, cosmic character. Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world. It unites heaven and earth. It embraces and permeates all creation. The Son of God became man in order to restore all creation, in one supreme act of praise, to the One who made it from nothing. He, the Eternal High Priest who by the blood of his Cross entered the eternal sanctuary, thus gives back to the Creator and Father all creation redeemed. He does so through the priestly ministry of the Church, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Truly this is the mysterium fidei which is accomplished in the Eucharist: the world which came forth from the hands of God the Creator now returns to him redeemed by Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 147 |
Pope John Paul II is the first Pope to use the singular in "official" writing, as he does in "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" (see below): Not true. The Latin original uses the royal we. "6.Illum cup imus eucharisticum "stuporem" his Litteris Encyclicis rursus excitare, tamquam iubilarem hereditatem quam Epistula Apostolica Novo Millennio ineunte Ecclesiae commendare voluimus et cum Mariali eius consummatione in documento Rosarium Virginis Mariae. Vultum Christi contemplari, quin immo eum cum Maria contueri, est propositum seu "programma" quod illucescente tertio Millennio Ecclesiae significavimus, cum eam simul hortaremur ut in altum historiae mare cum novae evangelizationis fervore procederet. Christum contemplari idem valet ac Eum agnoscere ubicumque sese ostendit, multiplici quidem in ipsius praesentia, sed potissimum in vivo corporis sanguinisque illius Sacramento. De Christo eucharistico vivit Ecclesia, ab Eo nutrita ab Eoque illustrata. Fidei mysterium Eucharistia est ac simul "mysterium lucis" (3). Quotiens eam celebrat Ecclesia, vivere rursus quodammodo possunt fideles experientiam duorum discipulorum de Emmaus: "Et aperti sunt oculi eorum et cognoverunt eum" (Lc 24, 31)." "
Last edited by GMmcnabb; 09/25/08 11:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Humanae Vitae merely reaffirmed the latin churches stance on contraception is addressed to the whole Church, not merely the Latin Church. "TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL, ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH." Compare it to JPII's Encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, which is addressed primarily to the Episcopate: "Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, Health and the Apostolic Blessing!" http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.htmlCertainly, Humanae Vitae is at least part of the ordinary magisterium, but it has all the marks of an ex cathedra teaching.
Last edited by lm; 09/25/08 11:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I'm curious, what is the significance of making a distinction between the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium. If all teachings of the ordinary magisterium are infallible, then was does something being "ex cathedra" add?
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
All the Popes, to my knowledge, use the Royal We, including Pope Benedict and John Paul II. The Latin's always in the plural; it's the vernacular translations that have recently begun to be rendered into the singular.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
If all teachings of the ordinary magisterium are infallible... I am not sure they are. For example, the Catechism states: Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent. This is a teaching on matters of morals; it is from the ordinary magisterium; and, it is from a document approved and promlugated by the Pope in which he intends to teach the whole Church. Nonetheless, the teaching concerns a contingent matter and, therefore, can't possibly be infallible. The contingent matter is the state's "effective ability to prevent crime." Because it comes from the ordinary magisterium, however, I think every Catholic has a grave duty to attend to the teaching. Also, it seems that the Church may not want to define all of its teachings ex cathedra. There may be no grave reason to do so. On the other hand, the Pope's gift of teaching as the Universal Pastor will continually be exercised as he reminds the faithful of the constant teaching of the Church to ever changing and new challenges. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1991 to the U.S. Bishops: One can only comprehend the primacy of the Pope and its correlation to Christian conscience in this connection. The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it.
|
|
|
|
|
