Are all Papal wriitngs infallible?

[Lormar]

Hi,
I was wondering what exactly makes a Papal teaching or document infallible or not? I was specifically wondering if Humanum Genus, In Eminenti, and Quanti Cura meet the criteria for being infallible teachings?
Thanks,
Matt

Matt, I am glad you have asked this question. Someone recently told me that Quanta Cura is an infallible document and that the Vatican II documents (which one, I do not know) contradict it almost word for word.

I, too, would appreciate help understanding this.

 

[Sirach2]

Matt, I am glad you have asked this question. Someone recently told me that Quanta Cura is an infallible document and that the Vatican II documents (which one, I do not know) contradict it almost word for word.

I, too, would appreciate help understanding this.

Lormar, nice to see you again. I’m wondering if you read Quanta Cura? It is really long, but section 5 is so well stated that it would be impossible to believe someone could find a document in V-II that contradicts it. Here are some excerpts that should be apparent to anyone who reads it.

1. Others meanwhile, reviving the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church’s laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power’s sanction and approbation,

…that the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful in regard to their use of temporal things;

For they repeat that the “ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power’s essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church.”

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.

That last paragraph is a lulu! It clearly objects to the notion that some may – without sin – refuse their assent and obedience when the Holy See issues teachings that fall outside the realm of dogma. Anathema!

 

[po18guy]

Hi,
I was wondering what exactly makes a Papal teaching or document infallible or not? I was specifically wondering if Humanum Genus, In Eminenti, and Quanti Cura meet the criteria for being infallible teachings?
Thanks,
Matt

That Something is a sincere wish to be saved from my sins and serve God in His beatitude for eternity. I can’t do that if I am constantly unsure what is dogma, what is doctrine, and what is mere theological opinion.

Do either or both of you have a copy of Catholicism for Dummies? It is an excellent resource that teaches the Catholic faith and the reasons for those beliefs - all in an easily read and understood format. I learn something about the faith each time I read my copy. Highly recommended.

 

[po18guy]

I note here that dogma is declared normally in response to heresy - to end the argument. It sets doctrine, which is unchangeable in its content, into stone. Doctrine holds just as much authority, but has not been set by formal declaration in stone. We must remember also that the canon of New Testament scripture was not set for almost 400 years. The Arian heresy, among others, forced the Church to act. Later, when the reformation declared seven books of sacred scripture to be non-inspired, the Church was -]against/-] again pushed into a corner and forced to act. Trent was a response to heresy.

 

[Lormar]

Lormar, nice to see you again. I’m wondering if you read Quanta Cura? It is really long, but section 5 is so well stated that it would be impossible to believe someone could find a document in V-II that contradicts it. Here are some excerpts that should be apparent to anyone who reads it.

That last paragraph is a lulu! It clearly objects to the notion that some may – without sin – refuse their assent and obedience when the Holy See issues teachings that fall outside the realm of dogma. Anathema!

I guess whoever told me that either glossed over or ignored Section 5!

 

[Lormar]

Do either or both of you have a copy of Catholicism for Dummies? It is an excellent resource that teaches the Catholic faith and the reasons for those beliefs - all in an easily read and understood format. I learn something about the faith each time I read my copy. Highly recommended.

I have a copy of it (appropriately enough ).

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[po18guy]

I have a copy of it (appropriately enough ).

Thank you for the suggestion.

Oh, that was intended for MattofTexas and Classicist… Still, good that you have a copy.

 

[DavidFilmer]

David, please excuse me, but this doesn’t appear to make sense. What’s the point of an infallible magisterium if 1. it almost never exercises its infallibility, 2. if it almost never defines what’s explicitly infallible, 3. if it can’t even be sure of itself until after the fact?

To add to catholictiger’s comments -

The Church can (and does) teach infallibly without formally recognizing the infallible nature of the teaching. Most theologians believe that most doctrine is infallibly taught. All doctrines that have been recognized as infallible were taught for centuries before being thus recognized. The Church only makes this distinction when there seems to be a good pastoral reason for it (which is not very often).

To the guy in the pew, it doesn’t matter if a teaching is recognized as infallible. We Catholics are bound by ALL Magesterial teaching. Infallible teaching binds more strongly, but it’s kinda like the difference between being tied up with chains or ropes. As long as they’re properly secured, we can’t escape from either one. The fact that chain has a higher tensile strength doesn’t really matter. They both bind us equally well.

The Church is never required to recognize any teaching as infallible. There’s never a situation that requires such recognition.