What Binding Authority Did/Do These Have?

Started by Baldrick, January 18, 2016, 12:15:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baldrick

Can anyone tell me what was/is the authority of these three "documents" (2 encyclicals and one "decree"?) - and to what degree were/are they binding upon the faithful? 

1.  Pascendi Gregis

2.  The Oath Against Modernism

3.  The Twenty-four Thomistic Theses

[and, for that matter, the Syllabus of Errors too]

If you have a reliable resource to direct me to, that would be fine. 

Thanks!   :)


Gardener

#1
You might find the series "Getting Along With The Pope" interesting:

http://www.olmcfssp.org/

# 1 is a bit below, from 8/11/15

It covers stuff like this.
----

Gah, the link was a one-time thing I think.

Anyway, follow short link and then scroll down to the search box and type in "pdf" and then go.

Look for the series titled Getting Along With The Pope.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Gardener

^ updated w/ info since original link was bad.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Chestertonian

Quote from: Gardener on January 18, 2016, 12:42:34 PM
You might find the series "Getting Along With The Pope" interesting:

http://www.olmcfssp.org/

# 1 is a bit below, from 8/11/15

It covers stuff like this.
----

Gah, the link was a one-time thing I think.

Anyway, follow short link and then scroll down to the search box and type in "pdf" and then go.

Look for the series titled Getting Along With The Pope.
saved for another time

i want to join your church they give out free furniture
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Baldrick

Quote from: Gardener on January 18, 2016, 05:20:19 PM
^ updated w/ info since original link was bad.

Thanks Gardener. 

In Humani Generis, Pope Piux XII addresses this specifically.  Of course, there's a bit of our presuming the very thing that we're asking....lol. 

Also, this:  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm


LouisIX

Generally encyclicals are not spoken of as infallible, but as binding upon the faithful, meaning that they ought to be assented to in nearly every case.
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

INPEFESS

Quote from: LouisIX on January 21, 2016, 07:18:07 PM
Generally encyclicals are not spoken of as infallible, but as binding upon the faithful, meaning that they ought to be assented to in nearly every case.

This is exactly correct.

Something else that should also be pointed out, though controversial, is that when they, by their authoritative nature, bind the consciences of the faithful of the universal Church on matters of faith and morals--even though not infallible--they cannot be harmful to faith and morals. This follows from the Church's mark or sanctity, whereby she can not authoritatively and universally approve, permit, prescribe, or recommend to her children that which is spiritually harmful or dangerous without defecting from and abandoning her divinely-constituted mission.

So while encyclicals are not necessarily infallible, they are--and must be, according to their authority over the religious assent of the entire corpus of the Church--infallibly safe.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<


LouisIX

I mostly agree, although I should point out that I think there may be some disagreement between INP and myself over what exactly constitutes harm. For example, I believe that there are real tensions between Aeterni Patris and Fides et Ratio regarding the status of the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas, but this does not lead me to posit the invalidity of the latter. I do not wish to speak for INP but I suspect that he may disagree with that conclusion.
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

INPEFESS

Quote from: LouisIX on January 27, 2016, 01:24:50 PM
I mostly agree, although I should point out that I think there may be some disagreement between INP and myself over what exactly constitutes harm. For example, I believe that there are real tensions between Aeterni Patris and Fides et Ratio regarding the status of the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas, but this does not lead me to posit the invalidity of the latter. I do not wish to speak for INP but I suspect that he may disagree with that conclusion.

No, I don't disagree. I would say that concerns its status of infallibility more than its status of infallible security.

Still, even if it did concern the latter, I would say that this would only further evidence the doubt of the revolutionaries' authority.
I  n
N omine
P atris,
E t
F ilii,
E t
S piritus
S ancti

>))))))º> "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time" (II Peter 1:10). <º((((((<