The Authority Of Papal Allocutions

 

The popes of the early 20th century began giving radio addresses, allocutions, and the like. What are the doctrinal implications of such speeches? Feeneyites claim that nothing  outside ex cathedra pronouncements are of any importance and they scoff at such papal talks. In 1951, Pope Pius XII made an Address to Italian Midwives in which he stated the truth of Baptism of Desire:

But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly-born, this way is not open. (Emphasis mine).

Feeneyites whine, "It's not infallible!" Likewise, apologists for the Vatican II sect will deny that Bergoglio is guilty of heresy when he says, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense," because it was not "official teaching." This post will focus on the authority of the pope to bind Catholics in allocutions, and the logical corollaries that flow from it.

  The Use of Allocutions by Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, the last true pope of the Catholic Church before the Great Apostasy, used allocutions the most, as different mediums of communication were coming out. During his reign (1939-1958), he made (excluding canonizations) two ex cathedra pronouncements, one of which was Munificentissimus Deus, defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into Heaven. Most theologians consider Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 to have been infallible, as it settled what constituted the exact matter and form for all three grades of Holy Orders, and had the definitive language of binding Catholics forever on the subject. 

What is the doctrinal value of non-infallible decrees, when the Ordinary Magisterium makes a pronouncement? Here is an important citation from the encyclical Humani Generis (1950):

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me;" and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents 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 Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (para. #20; Emphasis mine). 

In his treatise "Authentic Teaching of the Magisterium," theologian Cotter teaches:

The Pope [Pius XII] has no doubt that those Catholic theologians whom he has in mind throughout the encyclical [Humani Generis] are willing to abide by the definitive decisions of the Magisterium, those handed down, solemni iudicio, They are neither heretics nor schismatics. But he complains that they ignore papal pronouncements that come to them with less authority, such as encyclicals. If reputable theologians have disagreed in the past, that assume that nothing less than a solemn definition can settle the matter; and as long as none such is forthcoming, everyone is presumed free to construe papal documents according to his own interpretation of Tradition.

In reply, the Pope reminds them that encyclicals, besides often containing matters of dogma, may intend to settle points hitherto disputed, and that such decisions demand of themselves a positive assent on the part of the faithful, theologians included. In issuing them the popes exercise what is technically known as the Ordinary or Authentic Magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He that heareth you, heareth Me."

(As cited in Contemporary Moral Theology, [1962], 1:24-26). 

Theologian Cotter notes, though the papal statement refers primarily to encyclicals, it is not restricted to these. Rather, it covers the whole range of what is called the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. Everything that has been said, therefore, could apply to the papal radio messages and allocutions; yet, since these have played such a prominent part in papal teaching (especially under Pope Pius XII), they merit special attention. Pope Pius XII himself, made it strikingly clear that his discourses, even when given to small groups, can contain authoritative teaching for the whole Church. 

In his radio message on the education of the Christian conscience, Pope Pius XII said:

Mindful, however, of the right and duty of the Apostolic See to intervene authoritatively, when the need arises, in moral questions, in the address of 29th October last we set out to enlighten men's consciences on the problems of married life. With the self-same authority we declare today to educators and to young people also that the divine commandment of purity of soul and body still holds without any lesser obligation for the youth of today. 

According to theologian Hurth (consultor to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and a staunch anti-Modernist) papal radio addresses and allocutions have the same doctrinal value as encyclicals: they are an integral part of the ordinary teaching of the pope; and, as such, though not infallible, they require both internal and external acceptance. (Ibid, pg. 26). 

Catholics Must Assent To Non-Infallible Teachings

Having shown that even allocutions are part of the "Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Father," some pose the objection that  this is an "invention" of theologians. They have the temerity to claim that there is no positive duty to accept non-infallible teachings of the Church. Here's what the popes themselves have taught:

Pope Leo XIII:

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.

(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius IX:

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(See Quanta Cura, para. #5; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XI:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(See Casti Connubii, para. #104; Emphasis mine). 

Practical Consequences

1. Feeneyites and "Recognize and Resistors:" You must accept all that the Church teaches and submit to it--even in an address to midwives explaining Baptism of Desire, or even when "Pope" Francis, whom you accept as Vicar of Christ tells you "There is no Catholic God." 

2. Vatican II apologists: The Vatican II sect must give credence to Bergoglio's rantings that "There is no Catholic God," "Proselytism is solemn nonsense," and "Even atheists can go to Heaven." These statements are a denial of the Catholic Church as the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It also denies faith as necessary for salvation. 

The Dreaded "S-Word:" The last line of defense for those listed above is to exclaim, "He was only speaking as a private theologian!" However, that brings them to a place they don't want to be. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”(See Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232; Emphasis mine). The Feeneyite, when confronted with the Address to the Italian Midwives, must conclude Pope Pius XII wasn't pope, as he professed the "heresy" of Baptism of Desire as a private theologian. The R&R and Vatican II apologist must realize Bergoglio cannot be pope also for professing heresy. Welcome to sedevacantism. 

Conclusion

The Church is our sure guide in life. Even allocutions have doctrinal value that cannot be dismissed. In the theological periodical Clergy Review, theologian Smith summed it up well:

Catholics are bound to believe what the Church teaches. To refuse the assent of divine-Catholic faith to a dogma is to be a heretic; to refuse the assent of ecclesiastical faith to a doctrine which the Church teaches as belonging indirectly to the deposit of faith is to be more or less near to heresy; to refuse internal religious assent to the non-infallible doctrinal decisions of the Holy See is to fail in that submission which Catholics are strictly bound to render to the teaching authority of the Church.(Emphasis mine).