Somebody has their authority order mixed up.

[Josiah]

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

The RC Denomination cannot BOTH insist that it itself alone - uniquely, individually - is INFALLIBLE (in formal, doctrinal proclaimations AT LEAST)... when IT itself alone speaks ergo God agrees ..... all these as foundational, the obsessive point of the whole denomination for itself.... and ALSO admit "I was wrong." No matter how convinced it itself may (secretly!) be about that, the entire house of cards would come CRASHING down.

But there's an even more simple reason why that can't happen. Catholics (form the Pope to the last baby baptized) is one who DOCILICLY holds and parrots WHATEVER the individual, singular RC Denomination currently says (in formal, official doctrine AT LEAST). It's unquestionable. It's unaccountable. It's GOD speaking. Would GOD say, "Oops, I told you a doctrine and I was wrong?" Would you expect God to? In the Catholic mindset (DRILLED in from birth..... I know..... ) the situation you are presenting is absurd, unthinkable, totally off the radar. Now..... lesser issues (politics, non-dogmas, practices, etc.) sure, there the RCC itself admits that it itself even as a denomination can (and has) been wrong or done wrong (it's even officially apologized and repented) but this has nothing to do with Dogma and other OFFICIAL, FORMAL, BINDING things.



- Josiah

 

[visionary]

From what I understand, the Church's stance on papal infallibility only applies to faith and morals.

To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #891 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

ex-cathedra

The currently used definition comes from First Vatican Council (1869-1870):

"When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra...as the pastor and teacher of all Christians [and] defines a doctrine of faith and morals that must be held by the Universal Church, he is empowered, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, with the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed to endow his Church."

Here is where it gets interesting. The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma: that of petrine supremacy of the pope, and his authority as the ruling agent who decides what is accepted as formal beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church. The use of this power is referred to as speaking ex cathedra. The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I took place on 18 July 1870. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

On 18 November 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull Unam sanctam[a] which some historians consider one of the most extreme statements of Papal spiritual supremacy ever made. The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Catholic Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order.

In recent times, the Church has recognized that its teaching about the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation has been widely misunderstood, so it has "re-formulated" this teaching in a positive way. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins to address this topic: "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body" (CCC 846). http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

For the Jews

Vatican City, Dec 11, 2015 / 06:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Though it “is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery,” Jews can participate in salvation without confessing Christ explicitly, a Vatican committee said in a document released on Thursday. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...ion-of-salvation-for-the-jewish-people-65742/

For the Muslims

Lumen Gentium, (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH), POPE PAUL VI, November 21, 1964, section 16:

16. ... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

NOSTRA AETATE, (DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS), POPE PAUL VI, October 28, 1965, section 3:

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

So, according to the Catholic Catechism, Muslims and Jews will be saved despite their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Savior (839-841), and the ignorant can be saved despite their ignorance of Jesus Christ (847), but Protestant Christians who are dedicated Christians that know and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, yet stubbornly and "knowingly" refuse to become Catholics, are heretics and cannot possibly be saved!

So from all this I have come to see the even papal infallibility can have an "except" added later as needed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

So, according to the Catholic Catechism, Muslims and Jews will be saved despite their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Savior (839-841), and the ignorant can be saved despite their ignorance of Jesus Christ (847), but Protestant Christians who are dedicated Christians that know and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, yet stubbornly and "knowingly" refuse to become Catholics, are heretics and cannot possibly be saved!

So from all this I have come to see the even papal infallibility can have an "except" added later as needed.

I commend you for posting accurately from catholic.com magazine articles and from the CCC on the matter of papal infallibility and on the adage Extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is translated into English as Outside the Church there is no salvation. On these matters you did well but the concluding paragraphs in your post - the paragraphs shown in the quote above - are incorrect. As touching the possibility of salvation for Muslims and Jews the Catholic Church teaches this:

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",[SUP]328[/SUP] "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."[SUP]329[/SUP]

840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .​

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.​

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.

328 ⇒ Rom 9:4-5.
329 ⇒ Rom 11:29.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

So, according to the Catholic Catechism, Muslims and Jews will be saved despite their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Savior (839-841), and the ignorant can be saved despite their ignorance of Jesus Christ (847), but Protestant Christians who are dedicated Christians that know and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, yet stubbornly and "knowingly" refuse to become Catholics, are heretics and cannot possibly be saved!

So from all this I have come to see the even papal infallibility can have an "except" added later as needed.

Continuing where my previous post ended I move on to the consideration of the incorrect remarks in the above quote regarding Protestants.

Concerning Protestants and the denominations, independent groups, and meetings that arose from them the Catholic Church says this:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[SUP]336[/SUP]​

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[SUP]337[/SUP]​

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."[SUP]338[/SUP]

336 LG 14; cf. ⇒ Mk 16:16; ⇒ Jn 3:5[ETML:C/].
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. ⇒ Heb 11:6; ⇒ 1 Cor 9:16.​

Of particular note and applicability is the teaching of the Catholic Church specifically about membership in the Catholic Church and its meaning for Protestants.

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God.... and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."​

 

[psalms 91]

In other words only the Cathol;ics count and have it right. Glad you can sit on that high horse

 

[MoreCoffee]

In other words only the Cathol;ics count and have it right. Glad you can sit on that high horse

It's the truth

But you would never admit it.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #10 on Page 1, MoreCoffe’s stated:

It is not obvious where one can find the truth.

Well, I would beg to differ on that.

I submit instead that God's Holy and Inspired Revelation in its completeness ("the whole counsel of God", Old and New Testaments combined), when every part is considered in its correct context, is where truth lies, and where it can be found.

On what proven authority are post-apostolic teachings of men, for which retrospective support was (and still is) sought in the form of out-of context Scripture (and when that was lacking, the documented perversion of Scripture to give support) – on what proven authority are those teachings to be considered originating from God?

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

If the Bible, as dictated by God (when each part is read and understood in its correct context, with known abberations removed) is not the sum total of God's truth as revealed to us – if the Bible needed additions and other modifications, and still needs out of context quoting, to make it agree with "God-given truths revealed in post-apostolic times", then there is no absolute source of authority in existence. None whatever.

If the unadulterated Bible is not the ultimate source of authority with respect to things spiritual, then I conclude that the Reader's faith is vain. (As would be mine.)

If there is no authoritative revelation to mankind from the God that is supposed to exist, how can we even be sure that he exists at all?

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

Roman Catholic (RCC) doctrine is still evolving. Much Protestant doctrine surfaced in relatively recent times. Orthdox doctrine parallels much of the post-apostolic RCC doctrine.

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

So either the Bible is sufficient, or it is deficient.

If sufficient, then tradition goes out the door.

If deficient, then on what believable authority are the thoughts of Man – those specific thoughts which led to current deplorable jumble that constitutes observable Christendom – on what believable basis can those thoughts be deemed more representative of the true God, than thoughts (“revelations”?) that have led to any other identifiable system of faith that worships a single God and displays the reasonably expected God-inspired unity that Christendom lacks?

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

I cast my vote for the sufficiency of God’s Holy Revelation as penned in the Old and New Testaments in unison.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

In Post #10 on Page 1, MoreCoffe’s stated:


Well, I would beg to differ on that.

I submit instead that God's Holy and Inspired Revelation in its completeness ("the whole counsel of God", Old and New Testaments combined), when every part is considered in its correct context, is where truth lies, and where it can be found.

On what proven authority are post-apostolic teachings of men, for which retrospective support was (and still is) sought in the form of out-of context Scripture (and when that was lacking, the documented perversion of Scripture to give support) – on what proven authority are those teachings to be considered originating from God?

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

If the Bible, as dictated by God (when each part is read and understood in its correct context, with known abberations removed) is not the sum total of God's truth as revealed to us – if the Bible needed additions and other modifications, and still needs out of context quoting, to make it agree with "God-given truths revealed in post-apostolic times", then there is no absolute source of authority in existence. None whatever.

If the unadulterated Bible is not the ultimate source of authority with respect to things spiritual, then I conclude that the Reader's faith is vain. (As would be mine.)

If there is no authoritative revelation to mankind from the God that is supposed to exist, how can we even be sure that he exists at all?

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

Roman Catholic (RCC) doctrine is still evolving. Much Protestant doctrine surfaced in relatively recent times. Orthdox doctrine parallels much of the post-apostolic RCC doctrine.

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

So either the Bible is sufficient, or it is deficient.

If sufficient, then tradition goes out the door.

If deficient, then on what believable authority are the thoughts of Man – those specific thoughts which led to current deplorable jumble that constitutes observable Christendom – on what believable basis can those thoughts be deemed more representative of the true God, than thoughts (“revelations”?) that have led to any other identifiable system of faith that worships a single God and displays the reasonably expected God-inspired unity that Christendom lacks?

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

I cast my vote for the sufficiency of God’s Holy Revelation as penned in the Old and New Testaments in unison.

Quoting without context leads to misunderstanding. Your post misunderstands the snippet from my post that you quoted.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #10 on Page 1, MoreCoffe’s stated:

It is not obvious where one can find the truth.

In response to my related comments in Post #27 on Page 3, which proposed that the "whole counsel of God", the unadulterated Old and New Testaments in unison represent God's truth regarding spiritual matters, MoreCoffe replied (Post #28 on Page 3):

Quoting without context leads to misunderstanding. Your post misunderstands the snippet from my post that you quoted.

OK.

MoreCoffee's whole Post 10 was:

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.

That was in response to my question, based upon what appeared to be MoreCoffee's avoiding the issue of definitive RCC authority for beliefs (Post #7 on Page 1):

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

If I quoted out of context, if I misunderstood the snippet from the post I quoted, I invite MoreCoffee to distinctly clarify what both the context and the misunderstanding were.


Does the Reader think I was guilty as accused? Check Post #27 out, and see.

==============================================================================================

Below is the sequence of posts, in case it is of interest.

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee 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."

Pedrito in Post #7 on Page 1:
"Just what are we supposed to believe, then? And when? And on what basis?"

MoreCoffee in Post #10 on Page 1:
"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."

Pedrito in Post #13 on Page 2:
"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 Post #14 on Page 2 [underlining and italics added]:
"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 in Post #15 on Page 2:
"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."

MoreCoffee in Post#18 on Page 2:
"Common sense is sufficient. If some comment made by a pope or on his behalf is silly then I think of it as silly."

Pedrito in Post#20 on Page 2:
"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."

(There has been no response to that yet.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is no response because you pose the question today and my last response was on 29th-Oct-2016.

I do not know every papal statement made in the last 10 to 20 years so I cannot provide a list of silly statements. One that seemed silly from the reports in new media was one made by Benedict XVI about condoms and their efficacy in preventing the spread of HIV. But since I didn't check his statement from original sources and heard only the media reports about it I cannot testify that the statement was silly, only that the reportage about it was silly.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #30 on Page 3, MoreCoffe’s stated:

There is no response because you pose the question today and my last response was on 29th-Oct-2016.

That was in response to Pedrito's (In Post #29):

Pedrito in Post#20 on Page 2:
"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."

(There has been no response to that yet.)

So Pedrito initially made the comment in Post #20 on Page 2. That was on 21st-Oct-2016, before MoreCoffee's mentioned post of 29th-Oct-2016.

Pedrito understands that it is easy to miss detail as one reads through other people's posts in multiple threads. That would tend to be particularly so of a person who is engaged in the penning of multiple posts themselves.

However, the actual identification of the original post from which the information was repeated, might have provided a clue. ("Pedrito in Post#20 on Page 2")

==============================================================================================

With respect to the Pope's statements regarding condoms and HIV, Pedrito asks MoreCoffee (in a low-key fashion), assuming the two apparently conflicting statements made by the Pope on the subject were reported accurately:
- Which of those two statements does MoreCoffee consider silly (based on "common sense")?
- Would he consider both to be silly (based on "common sense")?
- Is there any mechanism for the Pope to be censured for making apparently "silly" statements?
- Were MoreCoffee to label one of those statements "silly", only to have that statement officially ratified later on, where would that leave MoreCoffee with respect to, say:

Pedrito in Post #15 on Page 2:
"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."

MoreCoffee in Post#18 on Page 2:
"Common sense is sufficient. If some comment made by a pope or on his behalf is silly then I think of it as silly."

Pedrito thinks a number of people would be interested in MoreCoffee's response. The importance of the subject seems to justify a thorough examination. Does it not?