Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itsjustdave1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

itsjustdave1988

Guest
Dutch had said on another thread:
People are confused about the limits of the Church’s infallibility. It is really simple: They are only infallible in matters of faith and morals. NOT DISIPLINE
It has been argued that formal disciplines of the Church ARE secondary objects of faith and morals.

The Church has condemned the proposition that the Church can establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is “useless … burdensome … harmful … dangerous.”

Furthermore, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article “Eccesiastical Discipline”, the author calls the thesis that ecclesiastical disciplines are indirectly infallible as being held “unanimously” by Catholic theologians, and, rightly understood, is “undeniable.”

Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:
The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.
(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

I also refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Here’s an excerpt…
Disciplinary Infallibility
] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.
What are your thoughts on the thesis that established Eccesiastical Disciplines are infallible? Do you disagree with the author of the above Catholic Encyclopedia article? If so, why? If the proposition that the Church can establish discipline that is “uselfess … burdensome … harmful … dangerous” has been condemned, what do you suppose that implies with regard to the infallibility of these disciplines?

God bless,

Dave
 
I agree the church is partly a human institution and can make errors in judgement. History testifies to this, i.e.:western schism; children’s crusade; papal states; bishops not living in their diocese; indulgence abuse,… etc.
 
All those things that you cited are not established disciplines in the sense that the article is referring to (e.g., canon law, liturgy, etc.). I agree the Church is not infallible in its policy making. However, can the Church establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is against the will of God (ie. sinful, harmful, dangerous, sacreligious, etc)?

God bless,

Dave
 
Right, I agree the church can’t make a discipline that is contrary to the faith. But, a lack of discipline can cause harm. For instance, the church mandates that we only go to confession once a year. They could make it once every 10 years. That doesn’t make it contrary to the faith. Also, the church has changed it’s disciplines many times. Pius X changed the first communion age to the age of reason. Priests could be married, now they can’t. The new rite of exorcism is supposidly worthless. But it isn’t contrary to the faith.
 
However, I think this is mis-leading …

“For instance, the church mandates that we only go to confession once a year.”

It sounds as if I can only go once a year. The precept states “at least” once a year (canon 989).

God bless,

Dave
 
Infallable or not, shouldn’t we try to stick with the church

I have seen several threads that seem to bounce back in forth as optional things the church has spoken on. We all must remember that we must support the church as the disciplinary authority in all areas or we weaken it in all areas. Examples:
A celebate priesthood
The Trindentine Mass
The Novus Ordo (or whatever we call it)
The Charismatic Renewal
Receiving communion in hand or the tongue
Kneeling from the prayer of Consecration to the end of the Amen
etc.
etc.
etc.

We Americans already have a bad enough reputation as cafeteria Catholics. I never knew until this forum opened that they existed across the whole spectrum from liberal to traditionalists.

Thank you justdave1988 for your thread.
 
pnewton,

I agree. I think there’s danger in thinking that canon law can be in any possible way contrary to the Catholic faith. The suggestion by many, the Dutch quote I provided above being just an example, seems to be that it is possible for the Church to establish a canon law or liturgical discipline that might actually be harmful or dangerous to the faith. This is simply erroneous, and was condemned as such in the 1700s.

I’m studying Catholic Moral Theology and have begun looking at probabilism. It is the methodology employed by both liberals and schismatic traditionalists to justify disobedience to what the Church insists is binding upon all Catholics.

According to Fr. John Hardon:

"PROBABILISM. The moral theory that holds that a law against whose existence or application there stands a solidly probable argument does not bind. It is based on the principle that a doubtful law does not bind. It then excludes other theories as either too strict or too lax about the degree of doubt or probability that would exempt one from the obligation of a doubtful law. (Etym. Latin probabilis, likely, credible.)"

The classic example is that of one who has a doubt of law concerning whether or not it is permissible to miss Mass on Sunday if they have a flu. Is the law that obligates Sunday Mass attendance obligatory under such doubt? The answer is no.

However, many Catholics seem to misuse probabilism to justify, not a valid doubt of law, but dissent. If there is a doubt of law, and there’s sufficent opportunity to resolve the doubt by seeking clarification from authentic authority, then we are bound to do so. We may not persist in dissent and claim probabilism as an excuse. An authentic judgment on the matter from the magisterium provides certitude, which removes any claim to doubt.

If a valid doubt exists, one ought to send a dubium to the Holy See, requesting a *Responsum ad Dubium. *See example here: cin.org/cdfrad.html.

Even when the above Responsum ad Dubium was sent, some persists in claiming it to be theologically flawed. Clearly, many so-called Catholics continue to misuse probabilisim as an excuse to disobey canon laws and the clear judgment of the Catholic Church. Instead, Catholics ought to understand that when the Church makes clear its position on a matter of faith, morals, or discipline, universally decreed through the ordinary magisterium, that we owe our religious assent, whether the matter is defined infallibly or not (assent of faith on matter de fide).

God bless,

Dave
 
My understanding is that disciplines may change (say, for instance, receiving under only one Species vs. both), but at the bottom, it is the Church who has the authority to make these rules.

Sort of like as a parent, my rules for my children have changed over the years (my 10 yo is permitted to do things forbidden when he was 5yo)–not because my authority as a parent to set the rules has changed, but because he has changed, and needs different rules now compared to five years ago.

The Church’s time scale is different, of course.
 
40.png
Melissa:
My understanding is that disciplines may change (say, for instance, receiving under only one Species vs. both), but at the bottom, it is the Church who has the authority to make these rules.

Sort of like as a parent, my rules for my children have changed over the years (my 10 yo is permitted to do things forbidden when he was 5yo)–not because my authority as a parent to set the rules has changed, but because he has changed, and needs different rules now compared to five years ago.

The Church’s time scale is different, of course.
:amen:

I love the way you put this. Also, there wer things my (then) 10 year old was permitted to that her younger (7 year old) sister was not allowed. Oh and vice-versa as well.

John
 
Disciplines are not faith because they change. Truth doesn’t change. To think that the pope can manage the church infallibly is ridiculous. Look at the bureaucracy of the USCCB. People make mistakes, and the church or any other large organizations are no exceptions

The pope’s perspective is a lot bigger than we think here in the US where we blame the Vatican for every bad bishop or cardinal. He only can do so much. Generally, any kind of renewal has to start from the bottom up. Questioning lax disciplines i.e. communion in the hand, is certainly valid, as is being critical of the current catholic education system. The issue isn’t weather a discipline is contrary to the faith, which it can’t be, but weather it’s pastorally prudent.

In matters outside of faith and morals, the church requires our obedience. But as laity we have the right and duty to recommend change for the betterment of the church.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
All those things that you cited are not established disciplines in the sense that the article is referring to (e.g., canon law, liturgy, etc.). I agree the Church is not infallible in its policy making. However, can the Church establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is against the will of God (ie. sinful, harmful, dangerous, sacreligious, etc)?
I don’t think that the Church can establish any ecclesiastical discipline that is against the will of God in its nature. However, I do think that the discipline can be established in an unwise way that opens the door to an incorrect understanding and/or implementation of that discipline. This incorrect understanding or implementation does not represent a theological defect in the discipline itself. Finally, I don’t think that infallibility, as used by the Church, applies to disciplines so I wouldn’t say that they are infallible; just holy.
 
I agree that an established discipline can be approved that is imprudent, in other words, sub-optimal yet NOT harmful or dangerous to the faithful. Although, what I think is more prevalent is that a discipline becomes, over time, less meaningful either due to changes in culture or due to poor catechesis by the Church herself. Due to poor catechesis initially, or over time, people can come to neglect the significance of this or that discipline, and consequently, it carries less value.

However, the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia that I cited above does not speak of disciplinary infallibility as if disciplines were “THE BEST” as established by the Church, or as though they were immutable. It merely asserts that we can trust that the Church will not establish disciplines that are useless, burdensome, harmful, or dangerous to the faithful, a proposition condemned by Pius VI in the 18th century.

Some Catholics seem to rail against canon law and approved liturgy and approved changes to law and liturgy as though they could be as error prone as any policy decision of the Pope. I disagree. One must realize that the proposition that such disciplines can be contrary to the Catholic faith has been condemned by the Church, and to assert that disciplines are NOT infallible is to give the impression they can somehow be contrary to the Catholic faith.

A nuanced understanding of thesis of disciplinary infallibility ought to be understood in the context of Catholic tradition. In short, a Catholic can trust that the Church is being faithful when it approves changes to the Sacred Liturgy or to canon law. The change may not be the best change it could make, but it is a change that is in no way harmful to the faithful. At such times, one ought to be cautious as to how they go about dissenting with the decisions of the Catholic hierarchy.

By all means, give your opinion. But do so with reverence and charity to your superiors. FIRST by understanding that the priest, Bishop, and Pope ARE YOUR SUPERIORS. Often it seems some folks get so bent out of shape about this or that rubric that they’re opposition seems to suggest the Church is being sacriligious by approving such a discipline.

Bottomline: The Church may act imprudently in defining discipline, BUT we are to obey our superiors in all things unless their precepts are a violation of higher authority, such as Divine Law, keeping in mind that disciplines established by the Church CANNOT be contrary to Divine Law. As established, they cannot be sacriligious. If they are not harmful or dangerous to the faithful, then they are helpful and safe disciplines, even though you might believe they can be even though, in your opinion, they may be made better, made more helpful.
 
In matters outside of faith and morals, the church requires our obedience. But as laity we have the right and duty to recommend change for the betterment of the church.
ALL of canon law is binding on all Catholics, to include canons concerning discipline. To limit obedience to the Church in matters of faith and morals, but not in matters of discipline is incorrect.

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Lumen Gentium, 37: “The laity … [are] permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church. When occasions arise, let this be done through the organs erected by the Church for this purpose. Let it always be done in truth, in courage and in prudence, with reverence and charity toward those who by reason of their sacred office represent the person of Christ.”

It is true the laity have the right and duty to recommend change for the betterment of the Church, but while they recommend those changes and give their opinion, they are STILL bound to canon law and obedience to their superiors.

From St. Catherine of Sienna’s letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza:

For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.
 
Dave,

In regard to post 14, I agree with everything you say and I especially agree that there is nothing inherently against the faith in any sacred liturgy approved by the Church, but I do have a few comments. To begin with, just because there is nothing contrary to the faith in the sacred liturgy doesn’t necessarily mean that there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The proposition that you say is condemned is only that the content of the sacred liturgy is not, in and of itself, harmful. This is absolutely true. However, the arrangment of the liturgy could be such that it is difficult to follow or even to know (from the faithful’s perspective) what exactly should be contained in the liturgy. If such a thing were to occur it would render the faithful mere spectators of something in which they are supposed to participate. It also renders them, in a practical sense, unable to know when erroneous things, things which are not part of the liturgy itself, have been illicitly introduced by some liturgical director, priest, or even a bishop.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
By all means, give your opinion. But do so with reverence and charity to your superiors. FIRST by understanding that the priest, Bishop, and Pope ARE YOUR SUPERIORS. Often it seems some folks get so bent out of shape about this or that rubric that they’re opposition seems to suggest the Church is being sacriligious by approving such a discipline.
I very much agree with you on this point. We should always act with charity and reverence toward the clergy and we should always remember that, although we may be used to democratic process, such is not the nature of the Church. At the same time, I must point out that priests, bishops, and even the pope, are only inherently our superiors in the order of authority. In regards to other aspects, they are just men and are to act with the same level of humility as the rest of us. Many of these men have spent years of study which should be given credit in regarding their judgment, however the average lay Catholic is not required to accept every statement about how wonderful certain changes have been for the Church as though it were a de fide declaration; even if such a declaration were to come from the pope himself. For the pope is merely a man. He has his sources of information from which he makes these judgments and these sources are not necessarily infallible or even accurate.

If we disagree with such statements from the clergy or feel that changes to the liturgy were unwise, we are free to respectfully give our opinion and explanations and evidence to support them. These learned men are supposed to have the humility to listen and consider what we have to say. To give our opinion in such matters is not an act of disobedience or disrespect.
 
I agree the church is partly a human institution and can make errors in judgement. History testifies to this, i.e.:western schism; children’s crusade; papal states; bishops not living in their diocese; indulgence abuse,… etc.
Western Schism: not the Church’s fault that schismatics chose to leave the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Children’s Crusade: condemned by the Pope (AT THAT TIME). He told them to go home because they didn’t know what they were doing and were too young, even the most fervent anti-Catholics admit that, so I don’t know how when reading abotu it that was not mentioned.

Papal States: How is that an error??

Thank you. God bless.
 
My understanding is that infallibility is fairly limited in its scope. In whatever matter infallibility is involved, infallibility only prevents the church from teaching error. It does not guarantee that it will present the Truth in the best possible way.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I agree. I think there’s danger in thinking that canon law can be in any possible way contrary to the Catholic faith. The suggestion by many, the Dutch quote I provided above being just an example, seems to be that it is possible for the Church to establish a canon law or liturgical discipline that might actually be harmful or dangerous to the faith. This is simply erroneous, and was condemned as such in the 1700s.
(emphasis added)

The Church CAN establish certainly a liturgical discipline that is dangerous to the Faith. Hand Communion has made MOST Catholics hold the position that the Real Presence is merely symbolic and therefore not real at all. The same is true for Canon Law. The Church now allows a mere one hour fast before Communion, again showing less reverence that is at BEST dangerous to the belief in the Real Presence. Also, although canon law requires all to abstain from meat on ALL Fridays of the year (see Can. 1250 and 1251), it (and NUMEROUS other laws) are so ambiguous that even canon lawyers disagree about the meaning of this passage. Certainly something so ambiguous that the meaning cannot be deciphered would constitute dangerous to the belief. After all, how can you follow a law if you do not know what it means. (This ambiguity is common in Vatican II and subsequent documents.) God bless.
 
40.png
EENS:
The Church CAN establish certainly a liturgical discipline that is dangerous to the Faith. Hand Communion has made MOST Catholics hold the position that the Real Presence is merely symbolic and therefore not real at all.
I have to disagree with you; at least in part. Reception of Communion in the hand does not inherently teach anything against the Real Presence. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is, ipso facto, dangerous to the faith. However, at the same time, it certainly does absolutely nothing to reinforce the belief in the Real Presence or the unique function of the ordained priesthood. The same could be said regarding reception of Communion while standing instead of kneeling. It is this lack of emphasis that is harmful to the faith and not the liturgy itself. After all, with proper catechesis, Communion in the hand would not present a danger to the faith. At the same time, the liturgy is part of our on-going catechetical process and, as such, should actively reinforce the teachings of the faith instead of passively assuming that we know, understand, and accept them.

This was the basis of my last post. Just because there is nothing inherently against the faith in a change to liturgical practice doesn’t mean that it is a change that we should blithely accept if we feel that it is unwise. However, Dave is absolutely correct that our disagreement with a change should not lead to disobedience or to a lack of reverence and respect due to the office of bishop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top