This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from Magisterium was copied or moved into Pastor aeternus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from Papal primacy was copied or moved into Pastor aeternus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a picky point. Both words in Lumen Gentium are capitalized but they are both nouns. In Pastor aeternus, "aeternus" is an adjective. Does it matter? --Richard (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
What does "the dogmatic revelation of a Truth about the Papal Magisterium" mean? A dogma is by definition the formal definition of a revealed Truth; it is not in and of itself a means of divine revelation. All truth required for salvation is contained in the Sacred Scriptures, i.e., revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. I assume what the author intended to write was "the dogmatic definition of a revealed Truth about the Papal Magisterium."
Why does this web-site have no section dealing with Pope Honorius I or at least a link to the pope? The fact that Honorius I was condemned for teaching Monothelitism by the Sixth, the Seventh and the Eighth Ecumentical Councils does not constitute a very good historical supoort for the argument that prior to 1870 papal infalliability was a 'de fact' assumption of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo II also condemned his predecessor for 'permiting the purity of the teaching of Apostle tradition to be polluted.' So who got it right, Leo II and the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Counciles or Pius IX and the First Vatican Council?
