CathInfo.com

Reminds me of this story from the Decameron. Summary ahead in case you don't want to get it spoiled.

Yes, I thought about this also, and almost mentioned it, but then decided to address the assertion that it's borderline-blasphemous somehow.

... there are more granular lines that confuse people all the more

-01 Infallible Solemn Definitions of Ecuмenical Councils
-02 Infallbile Solemn Definitions in Papal Bulls (or other instruments, possibly even Encyclicals - see below)
-03 Infallbile OUM
-04 Universal Discipline of the Church
-05 Expository Sections (and Obiter Dicta) within Ecuмenical Councils
-06 Expository Sections (and Obiter Dicta) in Papal Bulls that also include Solemn Definitions
-07 Core Propositions of Papal Teaching addressed to Universal Church (e.g., Encyclicals)
-08 Expository Sections (and Obiter Dicta) in Papal Teaching addressed to Universal Church
-09 Authentic Magisterium directed at Particular Churches or to Particular Bishops
-10 Authentic Magisterium in other forms (e.g., Alllocutions)
-11 Prudential Judgments (Executive Actions) of the Pope as Pope
-12 Decrees of the Holy Office or Other Offices as Approved by the Pope
-13 Non-Magisterial Teaching of Private Person (Private Theologian) ... sermons, audiences, books, interviews, posts on social media
-14 Pope's Private Life (private opinions, moral life, behavior in general)

This failure to discern the line is also where the "Bad Dad" and "Faith is Greater than Obedience" maxims become logical fallacies.

01 to 03 are certainly infallible (and it would be heretical to deny them) but ...

whether or not any given proposition belongs to 03 can be contested and does not often enjoy the certainty of faith

01 and 02 (whether they are in play) will be almost certain since Vatican I, because the Popes will almost inevitably use the language of Vatican I to make sure it's known that their definitions are intended to be infallible

01 and 02 (whether they are in play) can be contested or dispute in teachings prior to Vatican I, but many are certainly infallible, such as when anathemas are attached, or the language is so solemn that no one in good faith could doubt that the teachings in question had been infallibly defined ... but there are some contested edge case where some think yes, some no

04  Theological Consensus is practically unanimous in favor of 04, but this hasn't been defined, so not heretical to deny, but very harmful to the Church and almost certainly a grave sin

05 ... while not strictly defined at Vatican I, I should think that it would be nearly impossible for there to be error in anything of substance, and perhaps only in minutiae, especially when supporting reasons are being given for why the core teaching is true

06 ... same as 05, but with just a bit less certainty, where it might be slightly more possible for there to be errors in substantial propositions, but nothing harmful to faith

07 ... Core Propositions in a "series of Encyclicals" should be considered to have an extremely low probability of being erroneous, but certainly cannot be gravely in error where they would militate against the faith or do harm to souls, with the change of error increasing somewhere if the teaching were contained only in a single Encyclical, for instance

-------- EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST "INTERNAL RELIGOUS ASSENT" (as properly defined, not as commonly misunderstood by Trads today), with 01 to 03 requiring absolute assent with the certainty of faith when it's certain that any given teaching falls within the category, but "Internal Religious Assent" otherwise

08 ... some chance of error, but again nothing gravely harmful to souls

09 and 10 ... error possible (and may be respectfully questioned)

11 may be in error

12 generally not Magisterial, but must be obeyed unless serious reasons suggest they should not be

13 - 14 ... should be judged for what they are, though without causing scandal by being excessively disrespectful of the pope.  Being excessively disrespectful undermines the dignity of the office, but then so does attempting to condone actions that are themselves undermining the dignity of the office.  Both those extremes can undermine the dignity of the office.  Both ... "that guy's an idiot [when he says something wrong or stupid, but not against the faith]" and "it's OK for popes to fornicate" harm the office and cause scandal.

-01 Infallible Solemn Definitions of Ecuмenical Councils
-02 Infallbile Solemn Definitions in Papal Bulls (or other instruments, possibly even Encyclicals - see below)
-03 Infallbile OUM
-04 Universal Discipline of the Church
-05 Expository Sections (and Obiter Dicta) within Ecuмenical Councils
-06 Expository Sections (and Obiter Dicta) in Papal Bulls that also include Solemn Definitions
-07 Core Propositions of Papal Teaching addressed to Universal Church (e.g., Encyclicals)
-08 Expository Sections (and Obiter Dicta) in Papal Teaching addressed to Universal Church
-09 Authentic Magisterium directed at Particular Churches or to Particular Bishops
-10 Authentic Magisterium in other forms (e.g., Alllocutions)
-11 Prudential Judgments (Executive Actions) of the Pope as Pope
-12 Decrees of the Holy Office or Other Offices as Approved by the Pope
-13 Non-Magisterial Teaching of Private Person (Private Theologian) ... sermons, audiences, books, interviews, posts on social media
-14 Pope's Private Life (private opinions, moral life, behavior in general)

This failure to discern the line is also where the "Bad Dad" and "Faith is Greater than Obedience" maxims become logical fallacies.

01 to 03 are certainly infallible (and it would be heretical to deny them) but ...

whether or not any given proposition belongs to 03 can be contested and does not often enjoy the certainty of faith

01 and 02 (whether they are in play) will be almost certain since Vatican I, because the Popes will almost inevitably use the language of Vatican I to make sure it's known that their definitions are intended to be infallible

01 and 02 (whether they are in play) can be contested or dispute in teachings prior to Vatican I, but many are certainly infallible, such as when anathemas are attached, or the language is so solemn that no one in good faith could doubt that the teachings in question had been infallibly defined ... but there are some contested edge case where some think yes, some no

04  Theological Consensus is practically unanimous in favor of 04, but this hasn't been defined, so not heretical to deny, but very harmful to the Church and almost certainly a grave sin

05 ... while not strictly defined at Vatican I, I should think that it would be nearly impossible for there to be error in anything of substance, and perhaps only in minutiae, especially when supporting reasons are being given for why the core teaching is true

06 ... same as 05, but with just a bit less certainty, where it might be slightly more possible for there to be errors in substantial propositions, but nothing harmful to faith

07 ... Core Propositions in a "series of Encyclicals" should be considered to have an extremely low probability of being erroneous, but certainly cannot be gravely in error where they would militate against the faith or do harm to souls, with the change of error increasing somewhere if the teaching were contained only in a single Encyclical, for instance

-------- EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST "INTERNAL RELIGOUS ASSENT" (as properly defined, not as commonly misunderstood by Trads today), with 01 to 03 requiring absolute assent with the certainty of faith when it's certain that any given teaching falls within the category, but "Internal Religious Assent" otherwise

08 ... some chance of error, but again nothing gravely harmful to souls

09 and 10 ... error possible (and may be respectfully questioned)

11 may be in error

12 generally not Magisterial, but must be obeyed unless serious reasons suggest they should not be

13 - 14 ... should be judged for what they are, though without causing scandal by being excessively disrespectful of the pope.  Being excessively disrespectful undermines the dignity of the office, but then so does attempting to condone actions that are themselves undermining the dignity of the office.  Both those extremes can undermine the dignity of the office.  Both ... "that guy's an idiot [when he says something wrong or stupid, but not against the faith]" and "it's OK for popes to fornicate" harm the office and cause scandal.

I've seen you talk about this a few times and I get it but I ask this earnestly, couldn't something be said about not resisting, just not really caring?

Take Miranda Prorsus for example, we don't believe this is how it was written


we can all recognize it's mainly Pacelli's and some other people from the Curia's thoughts on new forms of communication.

Couldn't someone rightly say "I'm not resisting Pius XII, I just don't think I'll ever read him / there's just other Catholic treatments on television and radio which I'd prefer reading / I just apply what the approved moral theologians say on art and modesty". Especially given that ready access to papal docuмents is quite a historical novelty. Quas Primas acknowledges this when it says feasts are important because only a very few select people ever read papal docuмents.

That's why when someone brings up in a conversation some obscure letter from Pius XI to the bishop of Berlin I wouldn't say it's resisting the popes when you say "Okay I guess? It's not like that settles it"

I get that the days of "Just ask your priest" are over and we all gotta piece together stuff by looking online and whatnot but still. I think for example if someone wants to know marital bed ethics IMO he'd be much better served looking at a manual from the 50s than reading Casti Connubi.

This also really stuck with me, a whole Ecuмenical Council (II Lateran) said "We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on." and people didn't ever seem to care or follow it. The papal condemnation of bull fighting suffered a similar fate here and was eventually lifted. In both cases it's condemned in the strongest terms as something satanic and hateful to God. So I don't know what you make of that.