Somebody has their authority order mixed up.

[visionary]

According to RCC, an apostolic exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine. It is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical, but higher than other ecclesiastical letters, Apostolic Letters and Other Papal Writings.

In other words Church doctrine is over Apostolic letter [aka scriptures]. Now that is messed up.

 

[MoreCoffee]

According to RCC, an apostolic exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine. It is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical, but higher than other ecclesiastical letters, Apostolic Letters and Other Papal Writings.

In other words Church doctrine is over Apostolic letter [aka scriptures]. Now that is messed up.

Neither an exhortation nor an encyclical has binding authority. Any more than advice given by a wise counsellor is binding on its recipient. Dabbling in Catholic teaching is going to confuse anybody whose purpose is to find fault with it.

 

[psalms 91]

According to RCC, an apostolic exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine. It is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical, but higher than other ecclesiastical letters, Apostolic Letters and Other Papal Writings.

In other words Church doctrine is over Apostolic letter [aka scriptures]. Now that is messed up.

Yeah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeah

no, not 'yeah'. Visionary got it wrong. No papal writing is holy scripture except the writings of saint Peter that are included in the canonical holy scriptures.

 

[psalms 91]

no, not 'yeah'. Visionary got it wrong. No papal writing is holy scripture except the writings of saint Peter that are included in the canonical holy scriptures.

Ok but isnt the decrees by the pope considered infallable even though over the centuries the positions have changed in some cases

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ok but isnt the decrees by the pope considered infallable even though over the centuries the positions have changed in some cases

Decrees made by a Pope are usually not accounted to be infallible truth. Thinking that anything decreed by a Pope is infallible is getting it wrong. No Catholic teaching says that. If the reason one is reading Catholic documents is to find fault then the reader will be confused by their reading because they bring too much hostility to it to hear what it says.

 

[Pedrito]

MoreCoffe made an interesting statement in Post #6 on Page 1:

Decrees made by a Pope are usually not accounted to be infallible truth. Thinking that anything decreed by a Pope is infallible is getting it wrong. No Catholic teaching says that.

Just what are we supposed to believe, then? And when? And on what basis?

 

[Josiah]

The RC Denomination is obsessed with the issue of POWER (what it chooses to call "Authority"). Everything in that denomination seems to come to that, boil down to that - the unmitigated, unaccountable, divine (read: "just like GOD") lordship of it itself individually, exclusively to lord it over others as the Gentiles do. "I insist that when I'M speaking, ergo GOD HIMSELF is." "I insist that I'M the Mouth of God." "I insist that I'M individually and exclusively incapable of being wrong (in formal doctrine, at least) so God MUST agree with ME or else God would be wrong and He's not." "I'M insisting that I'M incapable of being wrong so I'M incapable of being wrong about being incapable of being wrong." "All are to be in 'docilic' submission to ME exclusively as unto God Himself." "I'M insisting to hear ME is to hear GOD and to hear GOD is to hear ME."

It's so appropriate that this denomination is often called "The ROMAN Catholic" denomination. When I was an undergrad, the university required certain core classes and one option was a history course. Normally, some lower division course was taken for this but I got the prof's permission to take an upper division class, one that focused on ancient Greece and Rome. Anyway, while the class was a bit of a disappointment to me, one thing I did take away from it was Rome's incredible OBSESSION with power, control, centrality, lordship. And when it created a denomination for itself in the 4th Century, it seems obvious to me that it did so in its own image.

There is much to be admired in the RC Denomination but sadly, tragically at times, this very Roman obsession with POWER, Lording it over all has been it's downfall. All institutions, IMO, tend to fall into self-promotion, self-perservation but the RC Denomination IMO is probably the worse example of all. At times, it's just absurd; laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

Decrees made by a Pope are usually not accounted to be infallible truth.

Correct. This is a critical point few Protestants understand. Protestants look at one of the divisive, defining, unique de fide dogmas of the individual, exclusive RC Denomination - the Infallibility of the Pope (1870) - and conclude that the Pope can just declare something into dogma. Not so. The OBSESSION of the RC Denomination on the extreme, God-like POWER of it itself exclusively wouldn't never permit that, not even from one it itself chooses from among the clergy of it itself pledged to uphold the power and doctriens and claims of it itself. Nope. The individual RC Denomination insists that the Pope can ONLY offiically declare something a dogma IF it is in agreement with it itself. For example, the last time this happened (in 1950), the Pope of the individual RC Denomination declared the Assumption of Mary to be a dogma of highest certainty possible, highest importance possible, greatest necessity of belief possible - and he did so by his own God-like fiat. BUT, it was binding ONLY because the RC Denomination itself had been teaching EXACTLY what the Pope said for years, the Pope was simply echoing verbatim what the Denomination had been saying, the Pope was just being an obedient, submissive robot, puppet of the Denomination - submitting to it itself alone. THAT the RC Denomination permits.... demands..... even of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ for even Christ on Earth submits to the POWER and AUTHORITY of the individual RC Denomination.




- Josiah

 

[Rens]

Josiah are you a Catholic?
Just kidding.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffe made an interesting statement in Post #6 on Page 1:


Just what are we supposed to believe, then? And when? And on what basis?

You will believe as your conscience dictates. You ought to believe what is true. The basis can only be the truth. These are obvious things. It is not obvious where one can find the truth. Some say "here" and others "over there". Be careful who you follow.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah are you a Catholic?
Just kidding.

Former Catholic. Now catholic. I hope you understand the difference.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Former Catholic. Now catholic. I hope you understand the difference.

For some there's nothing as aggravating as something formerly believed but later decried as false.

 

[Pedrito]

In the light of MoreCoffe’s Posts #6 and #10 on Page 1, and my intervening Post #7:

Decrees made by a Pope are usually not accounted to be infallible truth. Thinking that anything decreed by a Pope is infallible is getting it wrong. No Catholic teaching says that.

Just what are we supposed to believe, then? And when? And on what basis?

You will believe as your conscience dictates. You ought to believe what is true. The basis can only be the truth. These are obvious things. It is not obvious where one can find the truth. Some say "here" and others "over there". Be careful who you follow.

I just have to ask MoreCofee, on what specific criterion or criteria does he decide whether a decree made by the Pope (for instance) is to be given credence, or is to be taken with a grain of salt?


I don't think he can judge that question unreasonable.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the light of MoreCoffe’s Posts #6 and #10 on Page 1, and my intervening Post #7:



I just have to ask MoreCofee, on what specific criterion or criteria does he decide whether a decree made by the Pope (for instance) is to be given credence, or is to be taken with a grain of salt?


I don't think he can judge that question unreasonable.

A statement on matters of faith and morals made by a pope or his representative that is spoken/written as bishop of all the faithful and that is deliberately stated to be "excathedra" is accounted as infallible truth. Its infallibility is derived from its truth. In matters of faith and morals truth is usually not objectively verifiable so a statement of the authority to be associated with a doctrine or moral teaching is needed so that the faithful can evaluate it more accurately. In matters that can be verified no statement regarding the matter's truth need be made since it is verifiable; thus observing that the Earth's sun is far away does not need an excathedra credential to establish it as truth because one can verify the distance from Earth to the sun by ordinary means using ordinary instruments. This is not the case with religious doctrine and morals.

 

[Pedrito]

MoreCoffe Post #6 on Page 1, Me Post #7 on Page 1, MoreCoffee Post #10 on Page 1, Me Post #13 on Page 2, MoreCoffee Post #14 on Page 2 [lowlighting added]:

Decrees made by a Pope are usually not accounted to be infallible truth. Thinking that anything decreed by a Pope is infallible is getting it wrong. No Catholic teaching says that.

Just what are we supposed to believe, then? And when? And on what basis?

You will believe as your conscience dictates. You ought to believe what is true. The basis can only be the truth. These are obvious things. It is not obvious where one can find the truth. Some say "here" and others "over there". Be careful who you follow.

I just have to ask MoreCofee, on what specific criterion or criteria does he decide whether a decree made by the Pope (for instance) is to be given credence, or is to be taken with a grain of salt?

A statement on matters of faith and morals made by a pope or his representative that is spoken/written as bishop of all the faithful and that is deliberately stated to be "excathedra" is accounted as infallible truth. Its infallibility is derived from its truth. In matters of faith and morals truth is usually not objectively verifiable so a statement of the authority to be associated with a doctrine or moral teaching is needed so that the faithful can evaluate it more accurately. In matters that can be verified no statement regarding the matter's truth need be made since it is verifiable; thus observing that the Earth's sun is far away does not need an excathedra credential to establish it as truth because one can verify the distance from Earth to the sun by ordinary means using ordinary instruments. This is not the case with religious doctrine and morals.

So, I repeat (with some modifications for clarity), with respect to a statement relating to "religious doctrine and morals": on what specific criterion or criteria does MoreCoffee "evaluate it more accurately" and thereby decide whether any particular statement made by a pope (being not "excathedra"), or by a pope's representative, is to be given credence, or taken with a grain of salt?


I don't think he can judge this question unreasonable, either.

 

[visionary]

Has the Catholic Church ever made a proclamation ex cathedra (as in, one which it declares is infallible) that it later retracted?

 

[visionary]

You know the trouble is that there is not a clear consensus between catholics regarding how to recognize when a statement is made Ex cathedra, therefore it may easily happen a statement which might had been considered as ex cathedra at the time it was issued is classified as an ordinary statement later. See e.g. Encyclical entry in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

"As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops. Such letters addressed by a bishop to all his subjects in general are now commonly called pastorals." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffe Post #6 on Page 1, Me Post #7 on Page 1, MoreCoffee Post #10 on Page 1, Me Post #13 on Page 2, MoreCoffee Post #14 on Page 2 [lowlighting added]:







So, I repeat (with some modifications for clarity), with respect to a statement relating to "religious doctrine and morals": on what specific criterion or criteria does MoreCoffee "evaluate it more accurately" and thereby decide whether any particular statement made by a pope (being not "excathedra"), or by a pope's representative, is to be given credence, or taken with a grain of salt?


I don't think he can judge this question unreasonable, either.

Common sense is sufficient. If some comment made by a pope or on his behalf is silly then I think of it as silly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Has the Catholic Church ever made a proclamation ex cathedra (as in, one which it declares is infallible) that it later retracted?

Not to my knowledge. There are not very many infallible decrees made. They are quite rare, except perhaps in the matter of declaring a person a canonical saint.

 

[Pedrito]

MoreCoffe's statement in Post #18 on Page 2, is interesting.

It was given in response to my request for enlightenment regarding the specific criterion or criteria MoreCoffee employs to evaluate papal etc, statements with accuracy – and thereby decide whether any particular statement made by a pope (being not "excathedra"), or by a pope's representative, is to be given credence, or taken with a grain of salt.

The succession of interactive posts leading up to my initial request is given in Post #13 on Page 2. So is that initial request.

MoreCoffee's beating around the bush in response to that initial request (see Post #14 on Page 2), led to my asking an even more specific question in Post #15 on Page 2.

MoreCoffees' statement in reply to that highly specific request for detail regarding the criteria he uses, was:

Common sense is sufficient. If some comment made by a pope or on his behalf is silly then I think of it as silly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that statement of MoreCoffee's was not a mere diversionary measure, then he will have no problem listing for us some papal statements from say, the last 10 or 20 years, that he has judged "silly".

If he can provide no such statements, then his stated rating criterion ("common sense") is meaningless, because it does not serve to differentiate in the environment under discussion. And his former related statements in this thread are therefore shown to be without sensible support.

If MoreCoffee does provide some statements for consideration, then we can judge how well, and where, they fit into the moving goalposts that he has erected.


Let's see.