In Catholicism, what is the difference between a [Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Nicene_Creed) , an [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical) , a [Decretal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretal) , a [Canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea#Biblical_canon) and a [Papal Bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull) ? Are there any other decrees or formal or informal outlines of official church doctrine used by the Catholic church and are any excluded from or exclusively used for inerrant revelation from God by the Pope?

There are some online sources, that say, that in Venezuela, capybara is "allowed" during Lent, because it's classified as a fish with a Papal bull. [In Atlas Obscura](https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/capybara-venezuela) > Sometime between the 16th and 18th centuries (accounts vary), Venezuelan clergymen wrote to the Vatican with a special request. They had discovered an animal that lived in water, had webbed feet, and tasted like fish. With Lent approaching, they asked the Vatican to grant the animal the status of fish, so they might eat it during the upcoming days of meat-free fasting. By letter, the Catholic Church agreed, and the capybara—the largest living rodent in the world—became a coveted addition to many Lenten dinner tables. [In this blogpost](https://www.cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/did-a-pope-conclude-a-rodent-was-a-fish-for-lent/) , citing a biology book > “In 1784 and after several attempts at obtaining a Vatican license, a Papal Bull (decree) allowed the consumption of capybara flesh during Lent…” – Capybara: Biology, Use and Conservation of an Exceptional Neotropical Species, by José Roberto Moreira, Katia Maria P.M.B., Springer Aug 15, 2012, page 307 [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/world/americas/21rodent.html) > Legend has it that eating capybara, known here as chigüire (pronounced chee-GWEE-reh), got a boost in the 18th century when the local clergy asked the Vatican to give capybara the status of fish. [Sun Sentinel](https://web.archive.org/web/20150219020316/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-03-18/news/0303170443_1_rodents-lenten-capybara) > The missionaries reported back to Rome that they had encountered an animal that was hairy and scaly and spent more of its time in the water than on land. They asked whether their new converts could continue to eat capybara at Lent, a time when Catholics traditionally avoid meat. > > With no clear idea of what the capybara was or looked like and concerned a ban would lead to indigenous communities starving during Lent, the Vatican immediately ruled that the semi-aquatic mammal was in fact a fish. This claim is also repeated on Wikipedia, but also citing just biology books. > After several attempts a 1784 Papal bull was obtained that allowed the consumption of capybara during Lent. > > López de Ceballos, Eduardo (1974). Fauna de Venezuela y su conservación. Venezuela: Editorial Arte. > > Herrera, Emilio A.; Barreto, Guillermo R. (2012). "Capybaras as a Source of Protein: Utilization and Management in Venezuela". In Moreira, J.; Ferraz, K.; Herrera, E.; Macdonald, D. (eds.). Capybara: Biology, Use and Conservation of an Exceptional Neotropical Species. Springer New York. pp. 305–320 The second source is then citing the first source (Ceballos 1974); that book is not available online. (edit: I have removed this claim from Wikipedia Capybara article now.) However, I cannot find any actual bull or any actual Catholic source. (I don't speak Spanish.) Is this an urban legend and capybara is canonically not a fish?

In the Papal Bull, *Sanctissimus Dominus Noster,* of March 13, 1625, Pope Urban VIII instructed Catholics not to venerate the deceased or represent them in the manner of Saints without the sanction of the Catholic Church. I have not located a copy of this letter. I would like to read it, as well as determine what are the penalties on those who violate its dictates. QUESTION: (i) Where may I obtain (preferably online) a copy of the document; and, (ii) What are the penalties imposed for its violation? Thank you.

This post is a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103903/on-the-papal-bull-sanctissimus-dominus-noster-of-urban-viii On pg. 4 of St. Alphonsus Liguori's [*Glories of Mary*](https://ia801301.us.archive.org/25/items/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft.pdf) , we find, for example, the following "Protest of the Author"--- And, according to the Wikipedia biography of Pope Urban VIII found [*here*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII) , we read under "Policy on Private Revelation": In light of Geremia's answer in the aforementioned post, it seems that Wikipedia *may* have been wrong in their citation of the ``papal bull Sanctissimus Dominus Noster of 13 March 1625.'' It has been my observation that a "Protost" such as the one above by St. Alphonsus Liguori is not uncommon---with all professing their obedience to the decrees of Pope Urban VIII regarding the veneration (or representation in the manner of Saints) of individuals whose sanctity has not been officially recognized by the Catholic Church. QUESTION: Can anyone shed some light (with references and/or verifiable examples) of what exactly these "Decrees of Urban VIII" are? Is there a papal bull in which they are contained or where they promulgated in some other fashion? Thank you.

According to Pope Boniface VIII's bull *Unam sanctam * (1302), > Indeed, at the time of the flood there was one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, **made complete in one cubit** [*Una nempe fuit diluvii tempore arca Noe, unam Ecclesiam praefigurans, quae **in uno cubito consummata***] (Denzinger-Hünermann 870) What does it mean that the arc was "made complete in one cubit"?

**Does the Catholic Church consider all encyclicals infallible?** > Although the term "encyclical" originally simply meant a circulating letter, it acquired a more specific meaning within the context of the Catholic Church. In 1740, Pope Benedict XIV wrote a letter titled *Ubi primum*, which is generally regarded as the first encyclical. The term is now used almost exclusively for a kind of letter sent out by the pope. > > For the modern Roman Catholic Church, a papal encyclical is a specific category of papal document, a kind of pastoral letter concerning Catholic doctrine, sent by the pope and usually addressed especially to patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops who are in communion with the Holy See. The form of the address can vary widely and may concern bishops in a particular area, or designate a wider audience. Papal encyclicals usually take the form of a papal brief because of their more personal nature as opposed to the formal papal bull. They are usually written in Latin, and like most papal documents the title of the encyclical is usually taken from its first few words (its incipit). - [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical)

I have extracted the following from https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html (Papal approval) ``No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine. (…) In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him... I have searched on and off for over a year to find the document containing Pope Gregory's aforesaid approbation---but I have not found it. If I had a title of the document, it would be much easier, but the author of the above paragraph does not provide it. QUESTION: Does anyone know which document of Pope Gregory XVI contains this approbation he bestowed on the writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori? Also, would such an approbation be equivalent to an *imprimatur*? Thank you.

If I understand correctly, Cantate Domino is a papal bull by Pope Eugene IV which is in some way affiliated with the Council of Florence. I have heard it claimed that the writing of Cantate Domino was an instance of *papal infallibility*, but if I understand correctly, there are very few instances in which it is widely agreed that a pope spoke ex cathedra, and Cantate Domino is not one of them. That being said, the Council of Florence is an ecumenical council. My understanding is that some but not all aspects of ecumenical councils are infallible. Was the writing of Cantate Domino an instance of the *infallibility of ecumenical councils*? What is the precise relationship between Cantate Domino and the Council of Florence? If not, is Cantate Domino nevertheless a product of the (infallible) Sacred Magisterium? Or is it merely a product of the (fallible but authoritative) Ordinary Magisterium?

Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Papal bull entitled, *Unam Sanctam *. In it, he speaks of two swords: the spiritual sword (*gladius spiritualis*) and the temporal sword (*gladius temporalis*). >We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. >*In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur.* Did this Papal bull authorize Christian aggression by the sword (i.e., offensive military action), or does it simply implore Christians to defend themselves against the aggression of others? Or, none of the above? And, is this Papal bull still in force today?

I need a list of papal encyclicals/bulls in which both Jews and Freemasons are mentioned in the same document.