I am opening this thread more as a harvesting-place for ideas than for me to sound off.  I have always assumed that when the Pope speaks about faith and morals in an encyclical, it is infallible.  This assumption came from secondhand research, such as reading the Bellarmine Forums, as well as from my own readings of former papal encyclicals, which are indeed without any error on faith or morals.  

You can just instinctively tell, when you're reading a bull, what must be believed with the assent of faith and what is mere papal opinion.  Leo XIII speaking of social issues and fair play between laborers and owners is not infallible, although he should be given intellectual assent if not supernatural faith; if the Pope says that St. Jerome is the greatest expositor of the Bible who ever lived we do not have to agree, and might prefer someone else; but when a Pope says flatly, "Professing the faith of Abraham, together with us, Muslims worship the one and merciful God" a proposition about the faith is stated as fact by the Pope.  If the Pope were not infallible when speaking like this, there would be no trust anywhere, and the papacy would be reduced to something that could be sifted and ignored except when it serves us.  It would become not only advisable but mandatory to mistrust the Pope.  This is the end of all faith.

You will often hear St. Augustine and other Fathers saying that when a decision must be made, we go to the Pope.  This was always understood by Catholics everywhere -- the Pope makes the final decision.  By this final decision, are we to understand that ONLY an ex cathedra decree suffices?  

The Vatican Council One is beginning to intrigue me.  Because of the schism of the Old Catholics, the impression has been engendered that it was a very Ultramontane, conservative Council, and that its dogma of papal infallibility re-asserted the rights of the Pope in an unquestionable, stern, and all-powerful way.  We think of stuffy, severe 19th century men as being the architects of this Council.  Yet this is also the Council where the heresy that someone can be saved despite invincible ignorance was almost pushed through by the bishops.  These men were not as far from the later generation that created Vatican II as most people think.  In fact, the entire era was steeped in liberalism, and Pius IX himself, when elected, was considered to be a shocking choice due to what was perceived as his own liberalism.  

What is hitting me right now is that the Vatican One Council did not really give the Pope any more power than he already had.  It was already one of the clearest and most obvious dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium that the Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra, except people may not have used the word "infallible" before.  They'd have just said "When he speaks ex cathedra, you better believe it, or you're a heretic."  

A lot of people read the Vatican Council One and take the exact wrong impression away from it.  They think "Okay, sincewe must now believe that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, therefore he is not infallible when speaking on faith and morals from the Ordinary Magisterium."

So unless I'm mistaken, this Council -- despite its ultramontane appearance -- by putting such emphasis on the ex cathedra declarations of Popes, had the unfortunate result of diminishing the papacy in the minds of Catholics, due to the lack of emphasis placed on the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as well as just the plain old Ordinary Magisterium.

Yet it did say this --

"8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

Why did the VI authors go on to define dogmatically that the solemn Magisterium and not that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible?  Did they just stop halfway through, or does this section prove that the ordinary and universal magisterium is in fact infallible, although it doesn't get the star billing of the Solemn Magisterium?

Knowing more about Vatican Council One, the Old Catholic schism makes no sense to me.  Are you telling me these people thought that declaring the Pope infallible when speaking EX CATHEDRA, which he only did ONCE in the entire 19th century, was to give the Pope too much power?  Now that is liberal!  No wonder they have gone beyond even Vatican II in liberalism in our time, with women priests and the acceptance of artificial birth control.

Didn't everybody always believe the Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra anyway?  Didn't pretty much everybody believe much more than that, that the Pope is infallible when speaking in an encyclical on faith and morals?  Why would Honorius be lambasted as a heretic for a sin of omission in a LETTER if the standards of the papacy are so incredibly lax that we only have to listen to him when he's speaking ex cathedra?  The idea that lots of trads have, that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, which they erroneously but understandably believe was taught by Vatican One, does not square with what has always been believed by Catholics everywhere.

Even SSPX agrees with me here.  I just found this from Si Si No No:

"The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

The infallible and non-infallible papal teachings are easily separated, and I did so above.  He is infallible WHENEVER he teaches on faith and morals; fallible whenever he gives his opinions about society, about another person, what have you.  An example of the former type of infallible teaching would be "Catholics and Protestants substantially agree on justification."  This has the note of infallibility, because it is proposing a matter of faith to be consented to by the faithful, yet is false and cannot be promoted by a true Pope.  On the other hand, an example of a fallible teaching would be "We believe that St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, never set a foot wrong in his teachings."  That is opinion.

I have always assumed that when the Pope speaks about faith and morals in an encyclical, it is infallible.  This assumption came from secondhand research, such as reading the Bellarmine Forums, as well as from my own readings of former papal encyclicals, which are indeed without any error on faith or morals.

 


Hi, I do agree with this. Although there are some theologians, such as Salaverri who says the Pope is not infallible in the encyclicals.
Since you quote Bellarmine Forums, I`ll do it too.

I know you don`t like Fenton but nevertheless I think this is a good issue http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=319

You will often hear St. Augustine and other Fathers saying that when a decision must be made, we go to the Pope.  This was always understood by Catholics everywhere -- the Pope makes the final decision.  By this final decision, are we to understand that ONLY an ex cathedra decree suffices?  

I think some distinctions are needed.
This is the way I see this subject.

The Universal Church is Infallible both in its Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. (This was always believed)

The Pope may teach also in a double way, Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium. I believe he is infallible in both cases too.
That the Pope is infallible in its Extraordinary Magisterium was defined by Vat.I and regarding the Ordinary Magisterium I believe, following some theologians, it is implicit in Vat. I and explicit in Pius XII (Humani Generis).  

What is hitting me right now is that the Vatican One Council did not really give the Pope any more power than he already had.  It was already one of the clearest and most obvious dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium that the Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra, except people may not have used the word "infallible" before.  They'd have just said "When he speaks ex cathedra, you better believe it, or you're a heretic."

Any proof? If it would have been a dogma then all those who denied it would have been heretics, such as Cardinal Newmann (cfr. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=913 )

A lot of people read the Vatican Council One and take the exact wrong impression away from it.  They think "Okay, sincewe must now believe that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, therefore he is not infallible when speaking on faith and morals from the Ordinary Magisterium."

Good question. Fenton says there are several theories on this.

The question is if "Ex-Cathedra" is the same as "Extraordinary", many believe so, but in this I follow Fenton (see the article quoted above).

So unless I'm mistaken, this Council -- despite its ultramontane appearance -- by putting such emphasis on the ex cathedra declarations of Popes, had the unfortunate result of diminishing the papacy in the minds of Catholics, due to the lack of emphasis placed on the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as well as just the plain old Ordinary Magisterium.

I don`t think so. What the Council did was to define, against Gallicans, that the Pope was infallible alone, without the need of confirmation by the Universal Church. The thing is that the "Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope" is something rather new in theology, there is one official explicit docuмent which names it and it`s the Humani Generis, whereas one of the firsts theologians was Dublanchy (19 Cent.). So it was understandable that theologians had focused on the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope...

Nevertheless some authors believed that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope was in the mind of the Fathers of the Council, because:

Major: the definition of the infallibility sait "the Pope has the same infallibility that the Church".

Minor: The Church is infallible on its Ordinary as well as Extraordinary Magisterium.

Ergo.



Yet it did say this --

"8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

If I`m not wrong this is about the infallibity of the Church and not The Pope`s.

Knowing more about Vatican Council One, the Old Catholic schism makes no sense to me.  Are you telling me these people thought that declaring the Pope infallible when speaking EX CATHEDRA, which he only did ONCE in the entire 19th century, was to give the Pope too much power?  Now that is liberal!  No wonder they have gone beyond even Vatican II in liberalism in our time, with women priests and the acceptance of artificial birth control.

All depends if Ex Cathedra is the same as Extraordinary. Fenton says no, and even others authors such as Billot, who identify Ex Cathedra with Extraordinary, say that Vat. I didn`t talk about all the ways the Pope may be infallible but rather just one part, the extraordinary one.

Didn't everybody always believe the Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra anyway?

Not till Vat I

Didn't pretty much everybody believe much more than that, that the Pope is infallible when speaking in an encyclical on faith and morals?

Some theologians denied that such as Salaverri...

Well, let´s see where this discussion lead us!

Wait for your answer!

In Domino et Domina

Cristian