Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Papal Bulls and Papal Encyclicals  (Read 426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Olive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Reputation: +90/-0
  • Gender: Female
Papal Bulls and Papal Encyclicals
« on: December 11, 2015, 01:47:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How can one tell whether a papal bull or a papal encyclical is infallible?  Is there a specific formula that must be used to indicate infallibility?  
    Thank you.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5567/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Papal Bulls and Papal Encyclicals
    « Reply #1 on: December 11, 2015, 02:11:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church teaches infallibly when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and the bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.

    The Church, as the representative or substitute of Jesus Christ on earth, is infallible, and speaks with His own words: "This is why I was born, and why I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth" (John 18:37).

    When the Church makes an infallible pronouncement, we are not to suppose that a new doctrine is being introduced. For instance, when the Holy Father in 1854 defined the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception as an article of faith, the infallible definition was not a proclamation of a new doctrine, but was merely an announcement of an article of faith true from the very beginning, and publicly defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church.

    Another example is the definition of the Holy Father's infallibility, made in 1870 by the Vatican Council. The dogma was true from the very beginning, and had been universally held. But as in recent times many objections were being made against it, the Bishops in the Vatican Council thought it best, in order to make clear the stand of the Church, to make an infallible definition.

    The Church makes infallible pronouncements on doctrines of faith and morals, on their interpretation, on the Bible and Tradition, and the interpretation of any part or parts of these. The dogma of the Inmaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was an interpretation of a long-standing Tradition in the Church.

     
    Read more here.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline CathMomof7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1049
    • Reputation: +1271/-13
    • Gender: Female
    Papal Bulls and Papal Encyclicals
    « Reply #2 on: December 11, 2015, 05:20:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Papal infallibility is just one area of infallibility and it isn't often used.

    However, there is the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

    I think this is very confusing to a great many people because they only consider that infallibility only applies when a pope asserts his papal infallibility.

    Pope Pius IX wrote this in the Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I:

    Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.


    What does the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium mean, then?

    It means that whatever the Pope and the bishops throughout the world teach and believe is infallible and we are under pain of mortal sin to believe it.  Under this category would be birth control and women priests.  Papal bulls could fall under this category if the content of such bull is taught universally.

    I could be very wrong, but this is how it has been explained to me.