Replies

piusv:

Well, then you should have stated it that way, rather than be so cryptic. The Pope can issue an Apostolic Letter and define a Dogma, as the case with the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, or the Church can define a Dogma/Doctrine via a Council such as Nicea in 325AD [contra-Arianism].

Canon 749.1 says that by virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff teaches infallibly when he proclaims, by a definitive act, a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. That is the relevant canon, and As I said, the last time something met this test was the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus issued in 1950.

“…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith” (44-45).

In 1854, Pope Pius IX issued the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, in which he declared that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was an article of Catholic faith. The language used in this decree is very, very, similar to the words used to define the Assumption:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

You should be aware or maybe you actually are aware, that the Formative definition of Papal Infallibility was not itself defined until Vatican I in 1870 so what Papal statements prior to 1870 met the strict standard defined in 1870 is a matter for theologians to debate, you and me debating it or Catholics debating it with Protestants is really just a waste of time when it gets into I am right and you are wrong polemical score card. If someone is genuinely trying to discern the truth, that is a different question.

Every theologian that I have read or articles written on the question above agree that the Papal Bull issued regarding the Immaculate Conception was an infallible teaching, not because it was issued via a Papal Bull, but because of the language used and how the teaching was defined.

I will stop right there but I will just state every papal bull issued prior to the 1854 one [in fact most of them] were not infallible teachings of faith and morals definitively. For example, you will see numerous papal Bulls on slavery going back to the 15th century that tried to stop the slave trade, then later ones allowed it as long as the slaves were treated well and taught Christianity [if they were pagans who needed to hear about Christ], it they were Muslim Turks, then slavery was not condemned, etc, etc. All of these Papal Bulls were teachings in the context of the time, but none were definitive and taught to be binding for all eternity.

There were Papal Bulls issued that suppressed the Jesuits, then ones that “eased the suppression of the Jesuits” then papal Bulls that removed the suppression of the Jesuits and allowed them full canonical status to function in the Church. Pope John Paul II came very, very, very, close to suppressing them again in the early 1980’s, but rather than suppress the entire order he did by a papal act “suspend their Constitution” and he picked the Jesuit Superior and gave him orders to clean up the extreme Liberation theology.

So no I am not incorrect and do understand Papal infallibility quite well, what it is and what it is not.