Papal Documents:\u00a0Judging<\/i><\/b> their<\/i> infallible<\/i> nature<\/i> <\/b><\/p>\n
and<\/i><\/b> the<\/i> assent<\/i> they<\/i> are<\/i> due<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a9 Copyright 2010, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author\u2019s<\/i>.)<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n
As the lay canonist Dr. Cyril Andrade observed in 1975, \u201cA question arises out of the reversal of Encyclical teachings: Whether or not popes exercise the supreme teaching authority when they expound in Encyclical Letters? In his Encyclical, Humani Generis (Aug 12, 1950), Pope Pius XII declared that \u2018\u2026 such matters as treated in Encyclicals are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which, it is true to say: \u2018He that heareth you heareth Me.\u2019 Generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already for other reasons, appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered open to discussion among theologians.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo, Encyclicals, Bulls, Decrees, Constitutions, etc., all come under the mantle of the Magisterium, the teaching authority, guided and protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching anything of faith-and-morals harmful to the faithful. What is puzzling is that Pope Pius XII wrote (Mediator Dei) in 1947, yet, within less than eighteen years, the very things he officially deplored have since been officially embraced by the \u2018Church.\u2019 What really happens to the Magisterium in such cases? Such vacillation could never be attributed to the Holy Ghost. Scripture says: \u201cFor I am the Lord and I change not.\u201d (Matt. 3:6.) The problem is compounded by the words of the Encyclical, Humani Generis, of Pope Pius XII when he declares: \u2018\u2026 that such matters that are treated in Encyclicals are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: \u2018He that heareth you heareth Me,\u2019(Luke 10:16).\u201d (\u201cIs There a Time Limit to Encyclical Teaching?\u201d)<\/p>\n
The new Catholic Dictionary by Revs. Conde Pallen and John Wynne tells us that the Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS) was established in 1908 by Pope St. Pius X as a monthly publication \u201cby the Constitution \u2018Promulgandi\u2019 as the official journal of the Holy See; its authoritative and official character is reasserted in Can. 9 of the Code. Decrees and decisions published therein are thereby officially promulgated and become effective three months from date of issue.\u201d Official documents are always recorded in the Acta, (AAS). Probably the clearest and most authoritative assessment of those documents entered into the AAS can be found in Rev. J.C. Fenton\u2019s \u201cInfallibility in the Encyclicals,\u201d (American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1953). Fenton writes: \u201cDocuments\u2026promptly entered into the Acta of the Holy Father are thus indirectly sent, as normative documents, to the entire world\u2026Those allocutions and other papal instructions, which, although primarily directed to some individual or group of individuals, are then printed in the Acta Apostolica Sedis as directives valid for all of the Church Militant.<\/i> We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical \u2018Humani Generis,\u2019 the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta must be accepted as normative by all theologians. This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff\u2019s ordinary magisterium.\u201d<\/p>\n
So given that there is no doubt that theologians writing in Pope Pius XII\u2019s day held such pontifical pronouncements as at least acts of the ordinary magisterium, as Rev. Fenton duly notes, why would anyone today dare question something that was authoritatively proclaimed and firmly held during this same pope\u2019s pontificate? As Dr. Andrade points out, we know that the action of the Holy Ghost is positively absent anytime such previous papal proclamations are either minimized or disregarded in any way, as they have been since the death of Pope Pius XII. And this is just as true of self-proclaimed (false bishops and) popes today as it was when Dr. Andrade applied it to the false V2 popes several decades ago. What those wishing to be counted as true Catholics today must understand is that the enemy never sleeps; a perpetual shape-shifter, Satan and his demons forever assume new forms and invent new ruses to continue deceiving the elect. In the past 50 years, some of the elect have been moved from rejecting the V2 imposters to believing that certain laymen, or clerics of some description created outside the Church of Pope Pius XII could assume ascendancy in the Church. Over and over again it has been proven that because of \u201cHumani Generis\u201d and previous infallible teaching, any attempts at this time to re-establish apostolic succession are impossible. And any pretending to occupy the Holy Seat, by casting down \u201cHumani Generis\u201d and other infallible declarations issued by Pope Pius XII, are only a continuation of that vast Great Apostasy, the deception even of the elect, so long ago foretold in Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n
In their relentless efforts to confuse and mislead, those whose \u201cauthority\u201d is threatened by the infallible decision on encyclicals and other documents made by Pope Pius XII in \u201cHumani Generis\u201d have again raised numerous and specious objections to the binding nature of this encyclical. In what follows below, Rev. Fenton\u2019s evaluation of this great encyclical will shatter those objections.<\/p>\n
The necessary earmarks of infallibility<\/b><\/p>\n
In his \u201cInfallibility in the Encyclicals,\u201d (American Ecclesiastical Review, March 1953), Rev. Fenton asks: \u201c[Can] a statement contained in an encyclical letter, and proposed in an authoritative manner in no other document of the Church\u2019s magisterium, be accepted as not only authoritative but infallible in character?\u201d Now keep in mind that those protesting loudly that that such an exercise of infallibility is impossible have condemned other Trad sects for holding that infallibility is reserved only to infrequent, ex cathedra statements. This is one of the objections Fenton cites to the question he poses. He answers it by observing that \u201cA good number of theologians hold firmly that there is no such thing as an infallible pontifical statement which is not an ex cathedra pronouncement. To me it seems that their position is absolutely correct. I do not believe that the Vatican Council\u2019s description of an ex cathedra pronouncement in any way excludes the possibility of such a statement in an encyclical letter or in any other act of the Holy Father\u2019s ordinary magisterium.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rev. Fenton then cites DZ 1839 concerning the earmarks necessary for infallibility. He states that a definition can be considered ex cathedra when the Holy Father fulfills the following conditions:<\/p>\n
(A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians.<\/p>\n
(B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority.<\/p>\n
(C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith and morals.<\/p>\n
(D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching.<\/p>\n
(E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.<\/p>\n
Fenton next observes that it is obvious that (A) is fulfilled in the encyclical letters, since the episcopate receives encyclicals either directly or indirectly. He goes on to comment that this also is true of other documents \u2014 allocutions and other papal instructions \u2014 even though directed to some individual or group of individuals, because they then are \u201cprinted in the Acta Apostolica Sedis as directives valid for all of the Church militant.\u201d According to \u201cHumani Generis\u201d then, \u201cAny doctrinal decision printed in the Acta must be accepted as normative by all theologians. This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff\u2019s ordinary magisterium.\u201d Article (B) is likewise verified, he says, in the case of encyclicals. These documents can be classified as ex cathedra and can contain infallible definitions. He writes: \u201cThe supreme apostolic doctrinal authority which can be exercised only by the Holy Father himself or by the apostolic collegium of which he is the divinely constituted head, is the power to issue an irrevocable and definitive doctrinal judgment on matters of faith and morals, which decision the faithful are bound to accept with an irrevocable assent.<\/p>\n
Infallible and authoritative statements: both are binding<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cIf that supreme power is exercised within the field of dogma itself, that is, by declaring that some particular truth has been revealed by God and is to be accepted by all men as a part of revelation,\u201d Fenton continues, \u201cthen the assent called for by the definition is that of divine faith itself. If, on the other hand the Holy Father, using this supreme apostolic authority, does not propose his teaching as a dogma, but merely as completely certain, then the faithful are bound to accept his teaching as absolutely certain. They are, in either case, obliged in conscience to give an unconditional and absolutely irrevocable assent to any proposition defined in this way.\u201d Rev. Fenton makes it clear in another article (\u201cHumani Generis and the Holy Father\u2019s Ordinary Magisterium,\u201d American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1951) that a dogma of faith can be found contained in \u201ceither of the two sources of Divine revelation,\u201d meaning Scripture or Tradition. The Holy Father can declare (in encyclicals, instructions and allocutions) such dogmas as de fide <\/i>or as a theologically certain Catholic doctrine, (\u201cwhich, however, is not presented precisely as revealed,\u201d Fenton comments) and in both cases his teaching must be accepted with a firm and irrevocable assent whenever these papal documents are entered in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.<\/p>\n
Based on this observation, Rev. Fenton then concludes that in actuality, condition (B) is present any time that the other four conditions exist.<\/i><\/b> In other words, anytime that the Holy Father \u201cspeaks precisely as the spiritual ruler and the supreme authoritative teacher of the universal Church militant, dealing with matters concerning faith or morals, and definitely settling some point hitherto controverted or subject to controversy, in such a way that the faithful are bound to accept this definitive decision for what it is, then certainly he is using the supreme apostolic doctrinal power he has received from the divine Head of the Church.\u201d Likewise if any of the other four elements are lacking, Fenton says, then (B) also is lacking. At one time, Rev. Fenton notes in his 1951 article, universal teaching was considered as the teaching of bishops scattered throughout the world. But since the Vatican Council defined that the Roman Pontiff enjoys the same infallibility that is enjoyed by all the bishops united with him, he himself also can define a dogma either solemnly (ex cathedra) or less solemnly, i.e., in his ordinary magisterium. And so it was that \u201cHumani Generis\u201d was written to define precisely the nature of this universal magisterium, and to point out that that magisterium indeed becomes universal anytime that a pontifical decree of any kind is published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.<\/p>\n
The Church also can command internal assent<\/b><\/p>\n
Rev. Fenton points out that Christ\u2019s Vicar speaks to the faithful \u201cin a way that they can understand.\u201d Therefore, it is obvious that if the pope is proposing something that is only morally certain, he will make it clear by the very nature of his statement that what he says is conditional. Likewise, when he makes an absolutely unqualified statement on any matter, the definitive and irrevocable nature of such a statement is equally obvious. Really, Fenton notes, there is \u201cno such thing as a teaching issued by the Holy Father in his capacity as the spiritual ruler and teacher of all the followers of Jesus Christ which is other than authoritative.\u201d He cites Pope Pius IX\u2019s \u201cQuanta Cura\u201d to demonstrate that the Church condemns the teaching that \u201cwithout sin and without any damage to a man\u2019s profession as a Catholic, assent and obedience can be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See which have as their object a reference to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, as long as this refusal does not affect dogmas of faith and morals.\u201d Rev. Fenton relates this to the Vatican Council teaching in \u201cDei Filius\u201d that not just heresy is to be avoided but also those errors which more or less approach it, (DZ 1820). Pope Leo XIII also taught in \u201cImmortale Dei\u201d: \u201cIt is necessary to hold whatever the Roman Pontiffs have taught or are going to teach as accepted with firm assent and to profess these things openly whenever the occasion requires it.\u201d And this is something that Catholics should take to heart.<\/p>\n
Rev. Fenton concludes that the Church can definitely command the faithful to accept its judgments and condemnations with an internal assent, (\u201cLamentabili sane exitu\u201d). In addressing the statement by others that Canon Law declares that \u201cNothing is to be understood as declared or defined dogmatically unless this be manifestly certain,\u201d (Can. 1323), Rev. Fenton observes that Catholic scholars accept the unqualified and authoritative judgments or decisions expressed in the encyclicals (and other documents) as absolutely true, not just as morally or practically certain. In way of example, Fenton points to the fact that prior to the issuance of \u201cMystici Corporis,\u201d Cardinal Ottaviani held as only a probable opinion that bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the Roman Pontiff. When \u201cMystici Corporis\u201d was released in 1943, Ottaviani immediately changed his teaching to reflect the definition of Pope Pius XII, that the bishops may exercise their jurisdiction only through the Roman Pontiff.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libentur<\/span><\/i><\/b>, 1863<\/span><\/i>: \u201cIt is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church\u2026It is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some other censure,\u201d (DZ 1684).<\/p>\n \u2022 Pope Pius IX\u2019s Syllabus, 1867<\/span><\/i><\/b>: \u201cThe decrees of the Apostolic See and the Roman Congregations hinder the free progress of science,\u201d (DZ 1712).<\/p>\n \u2022 Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885<\/span><\/i><\/b>: \u201cAs regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have taught or shall hereafter teach must be held with a firm grasp of mind and, as often as occasion requires, must be openly professed<\/i><\/b>. Especially in regards to the liberties so-called, which are sought after in these days \u2014 all must stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See and think as she does<\/i>\u2026and let the past be redeemed by a special obedience of all to the Apostolic See,\u201d (DZ 1880).<\/p>\n \u2022 Condemned by the decree Lamentibili, Pope St. Pius X, 1907<\/span><\/i><\/b>: \u201cThey are to be considered free of blame who consider of no account the reprobations published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by other sacred Roman Congregations,\u201d (DZ 2008).<\/p>\n \u2022 From Pope St. Pius X\u2019s motu proprio, \u201cPraestantia Scripturae, 1907<\/span><\/i><\/b>: <\/i>\u201cAll who impugn such decisions (of the Biblical Pontifical Commission and the decrees of the Sacred Congregations) which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff; and all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this count be free of grave sin; and this besides the scandal by which they offend, and the other matters for which they can be responsible before God, especially because of other pronouncements in these matters made rashly and erroneously,\u201d (DZ 2113).<\/p>\n So we have learned from Rev. Fenton that normative documents very frequently bear all the marks of infallibility and can be binding even if not made on matters concerning faith and morals. What we must now determine is how what Rev. Fenton has written applies to \u201cSix ans se sont\u201d and other documents issuing from the ordinary magisterium.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cHumani generis\u201d and the assault on papal authority<\/b><\/p>\n There is a censure attached to the type of disregard shown for the definition concerning binding statements found in \u201cHumani Generis,\u201d and that censure is levied against doctrinal minimizing. It is truly ironic that the very individuals presenting themselves as upright champions of the papacy and papal authority so clearly show their true attitudes to previous teachings of the Roman Pontiffs by de-emphasizing and watering down the very teachings that bind every faithful Catholic. As Dr. Andrade noted, this is indeed an indication of affiliation with the heretical thinking that created the Novus Ordo church. It also is an open expression of the Gallicanist notion that we are not really required to take what the popes teach all that seriously after all, because the laity themselves have a share in the hierarchy. As Rev. Fenton notes in his article \u201cHumani Generis and the Holy Father\u2019s Ordinary Magisterium,\u201d the very first statement found in the paragraph treating the normative statements of the Holy See \u201ccondemn any minimizing of the papal encyclicals which might be based on the subterfuge that that Holy Father does not use the fullness of his doctrinal power in such documents,\u201d and as, Rev. Fenton points out elsewhere, even in papal allocutions and instructions.<\/p>\n Rev. Fenton then goes on to explain in the article that teachings of the ordinary magisterium, (as stated in the Vatican Council documents and in Canon Law), are binding even when they are only indirectly addressed to the Church militant and even when they are only secondarily concerned with matters of faith and morals. \u201cIn other words, the Holy Father is empowered, not only to obligate the disciples of Jesus Christ to accept, on faith or as certain, statements within the sphere of the Church\u2019s doctrinal competence, but also to impose the duty of accepting other propositions within the same sphere as opinions\u2026Humani Generis reasserts the right of the Roman Pontiff to demand an opinionative assent. When, in his encyclicals or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the universal Church militant with anything less than his suprema magisterii potestas<\/i>, he is calling for such an opinionative judgment\u2026The theologians of the Catholic Church have always recognized the fact that an intention on the part of the Holy Father is requisite if the faithful are to be bound by the teaching contained in his official Acta. Hitherto, however, there has been too much of a tendency to consider that such an intention would have to be manifested by some sort of formula, as for instance, the use of such terms as \u2018define\u2019 or \u2018declare.\u2019 The Humani Generis has put an end to this dangerous minimism.\u201d<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n Sadly, that very minimism Rev. Fenton deplores above is very much alive today. The issue is not whether what the Roman Pontiff has to say on any given subject is de fide<\/i>, doctrinally certain or temporarily binding in nature only; the issue is whether Catholics are prepared to firmly and irrevocably accept all these judgments on such matters as certainly binding. Therefore the matter at stake here is not the actual nature of the teaching; it is instead the infallible necessity of accepting the decisions of the continual magisterium, up to the death of Pope Pius XII, as an integral and binding whole. In this sense, primarily, can it be said that these judgments must unquestionably be recognized as the exercise of the infallible teaching magisterium. And failure to recognize the absolute need to accept and obey these statements and decisions is nothing less than the contradiction of the Vatican Council\u2019s teaching concerning the Pope\u2019s full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Church as well as his ability to infallibly define matters of faith and morals. It is the denial of this infallible Vatican decree that is meant when it is said that to question the authority of any statement found in the Acta Apostolica Sedis is to deny a de fide<\/i> teaching of the Catholic faith.<\/p>\n So in essence, those refusing to accept the decisions of past Roman Pontiffs refuse to be subject to their teaching and obey their directives. So much is bandied about today concerning absolute obedience to some pastor or another who deserves no obedience because he is either not a pastor at all and\/or is outside the Church, yet none hesitate to disobey the pope and his teaching. Grave anathemas are threatened for such refusal to obey. And yet who have these \u201ceminent\u201d men themselves obeyed? Who has instructed them<\/i><\/b> in the virtue of obedience and who has trained them up in the ways of the Church and her Divine Founder? Look closely and you will see that they have obeyed no superiors, as a rule, nor have they been required to serve others in any meaningful way. Therefore it should not be surprising that they cannot give that which they never received themselves and deny the existence of sacred truths they cannot understand. Those impudently engaging in such a denial either never left the Novus Ordo church, as Dr. Andrade observed, or have simply returned to their vomit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Papal Documents:\u00a0Judging their infallible nature and the assent they are due \u00a9 Copyright 2010, T. Stanfill Benns (This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":1758,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/783"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=783"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/783\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1773,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/783\/revisions\/1773"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1758"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}