Any infallible statements on infallibility?

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

Maybe you could explain how we determine what is infallible.

For instance, I see three possibilities with VII:

1. All that VII taught had previously been taught by the Church always and everywhere, and thus it is infallible
2. VII taught some things which are new and defined and thus are infallible - this seems not to have happened
3. VII taught some things which are new and contradict that which was taught in the past

Would new things taught in a council fall under infallibility simply by virtue of their being new, or would it be required that they be taught using some formula? (Side note - If it were that the mere fact that a teaching is new declared it infallible, then it would seem that #3 would be a disproof of infallibility.)

Another question I have is this: being that VII falls under the Ordinary Magisterium, which would be case #1 above, does this not simply mean that whichever way we read the documents of VII, it must be in such a way so as to make sure that they are consistent with the previous teachings of the Church?

In such a case, what would this mean for the reading of, for instance, Lumen Gentium 16? Is the current teaching of the Church truly in line with what was taught always and everywhere in regards to a lighter reading of EENS?| How do we know infallibly which is correct?

Firstly, I’d like to know why you are anxious about what is infallible and what is not. From my perspective, only geeky theologians should care, and for merely academic reasons. The only others who seem to care are those looking to dissent.

Catholics are to hold to ALL doctrines of the authentic magisterium, whether they are infallbile or not. Thus, for what reason are you struggling to discern what is infallible? Are you looking for a reason to dissent with something? If so, what? Perhaps that’s the thing we ought to be discussing.

As for how one determines whether something is infallbile or not, the authentic magisterium, not private judgment , is required. We must submit such questions for the determination of the living magisterium. They are the only authority ordained by God to make such a judgment. Other than their judgment all we have are speculative opinions.

For example, some Catholics on Catholic Answers argue that Scripture is not inerrant. I’ve asserted that such rubbish contradicts de fide (infallible, immutable) dogmas of the Church. To support my claim, I quote from the Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei by the Hoy See, which includes “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as among the infallible dogmas of Catholicism.

Absent a similar magisterial judgment, Catholics can discuss it amongst ourselves while also requesting further magisterial guidance from the local Ordinary and the Holy See.

We reject *sola traditio *just as surely as we reject *sola Scriptura, *because Catholic dogma and doctrine are not determined by private judgment, but by the lawful pastors of the Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of truth.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

itsjustdave1988:

Firstly, I’d like to know why you are anxious about what is infallible and what is not. From my perspective, only geeky theologians should care, and for merely academic reasons. The only others who seem to care are those looking to dissent.

Catholics are to hold to ALL doctrines of the authentic magisterium, whether they are infallbile or not. Thus, for what reason are you struggling to discern what is infallible? Are you looking for a reason to dissent with something? If so, what? Perhaps that’s the thing we ought to be discussing.

As for how one determines whether something is infallbile or not, the authentic magisterium, not private judgment , is required. We must submit such questions for the determination of the living magisterium. They are the only authority ordained by God to make such a judgment. Other than their judgment all we have are speculative opinions.

For example, some Catholics on Catholic Answers argue that Scripture is not inerrant. I’ve asserted that such rubbish contradicts de fide (infallible, immutable) dogmas of the Church. To support my claim, I quote from the Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei by the Hoy See, which includes “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” as among the infallible dogmas of Catholicism.

Absent a similar magisterial judgment, Catholics can discuss it amongst ourselves while also requesting further magisterial guidance from the local Ordinary and the Holy See.

We reject *sola traditio *just as surely as we reject *sola Scriptura, *because Catholic dogma and doctrine are not determined by private judgment, but by the lawful pastors of the Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of truth.”

I am trying to understand because, more or less, I am a geeky theologian. I’m trying to understand things very deeply, and am also, above all, trying to see how certain things do not contradict. It’s not that I believe they do, it’s that I can’t see how they don’t.

For example, there is the statement of Florence that all those who die in only original sin go to hell, as compared to the statement CCC 1037 that personal mortal sin is necessary.

I want very much to believe things that are taught now, and I do give my assent to the Magisterium, but at the same time it is driving me nuts trying to figure it out.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

I am trying to understand because, more or less, I am a geeky theologian. I’m trying to understand things very deeply, and am also, above all, trying to see how certain things do not contradict. It’s not that I believe they do, it’s that I can’t see how they don’t.

The book Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium by Francis Sullivan gives precise and detailed answers to all of your questions on infallibility, and should be read by any geeky theologian. However, since Fr. Sullivan isn’t a member of the magisterium, there are legitimate opposing viewpoints to his work, even if they are in the minority of academic thought.

Fr. Sullivan also has another book on your specific contradiction, Salvation Outside the Church: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response, which I know nothing about, but I hope to be reading it soon. (Edited to add: Oops, this book appears to be about EENS, not Limbo.)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

Maybe you could explain how we determine what is infallible.

OK…geeky theologians unite!!!

In our discussion, we ought try to be more precise about what we mean by “infallibe,” because it appears to have various senses depending upon the situation or context.

For example, ecclesiastical discipline is “infallible” in a sense, but not “immutable.” (cf. Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallibe?) This is the sense I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger uses the term “infallible” from the quote I cited above:

“… it is clear that conciliar decisions are infallible in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997))”

Not every decision of an ecumenical council is an infallible dogmatic definition (ie. establishing an immutable dogmatic formula), but all conciliar decisions are infallible, even if no dogmatic formulation is intended or pronounced.

All ecumenical councils prior to Vatican II appear to have been both pastoral and dogmatic. Some decisions were “dogmatic” because there were statements (dogmatic formulas) that were defined with the intent that those that contradicted the teaching (actual intent of the teaching as promulgated) of those formulas were “anathema” or accursed or opposed to what was pronounced as binding upon all Catholics to be held as definitively part of Divine Revelation.

The Church often used a negative approach to teaching truth, (e.g. believe this or be accursed, those that teach this heresy are anathema).

Yet, each Ecumenical Council is “Pastoral” in the sense that the council pronounced the truth in a manner appropriate for that point in history, using a positive approach. There were statements affirmed that did not also have “anathema” language associated with it, or that had language which made manifest that a certain doctrine was definitively to be believed with the assent of faith as belonging to Divine Revelation.

For example, the Council of Florence affirmed the same canon of Scripture which Trent affirmed. However, Florence did not make it clearly a dogmatic definition (anathema and/or dogmatic language), whereas Trent did. Thus, the canon of Scripture was taught “pastorally” at Florence to the Church universal, while at Trent it was taught “dogmatically”. This is why you will see theologians state that it was not until Trent that the canon of Scripture was “dogmatically defined.” Florence also taught some things dogmatically. Thus, every council appears to have been both dogmatic and pastoral excepting Vatican II, which was strictly pastoral (pastoral it that it taught authentic Catholic doctrine but in a manner suited to contemporary situations).

Yet, that’s using the word “defined” in a narrow sense. The canon of Sacred Scripture was surely defined at Florence for the universal Church, and infallibly so, but not in a “dogmatic” manner (anathema or “must be held definitively as an article of Catholic faith” language).

So, when one asks the question, “Is this doctrine infallible?” it should always be coupled with the question, “In what sense?”

Dogmatic formulas infallibly pronounced differ from infallible teachings which no dogmatic formula has been defined. Scripture is inerrant (de fide catholica), for example, but no dogmatic formula describing this doctrine has been pronounced by the Church (de fide definita).