Can infallible teachings change?

[una_fides]

It seems that since Vatican II people are starting to question more intently whether dogmas, which were previously understood to be infallible or always understood by the Church to be true, could then later be reinterpreted to mean something different. I’ve also encountered people who are claiming that the Church could “unbind” or “loose” these dogmas as a part of her Magisterial authority. I personally see no merit to such claims whatsoever, as the definition of infallibility means that the Church is preserved from teaching error regarding these matters. If the Church were to claim that a dogma that she previously declared to be infallibly true was in fact in error, then that would negate the Church’s entire claim to authority. The Church claims that declarations she makes infallibly are “irreformable” and must be understood in eodem sensu (in the same sense) as the Church has always understood them (see Vatican I: piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason).

I am hoping this thread can be a discussion on the nature and history of infallibility and answer some questions such as:

• When was infallibility first claimed (implicitly and explicitly) by the Church?
• What is the nature of infallibility?
• What constitutes and infallible declaration and how can someone be sure that a particular teaching is infallible?

And also perhaps someone could help me understand the logic and theology for those who try to argue that infallible dogmas could change or later could no longer be required to be believed or could later be admitted to be error. (i.e. Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Real Presence, Inerrancy of Scripture, etc.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve also encountered people who are claiming that the Church could “unbind” or “loose” these dogmas as a part of her Magisterial authority.

Defined dogma cannot be “unloosed” because a defined dogma is something that is true. And something that is true cannot become “untrue.” If someone is telling you that the Church can or will “reverse” a defined dogma, they are mistaken.

Doctrine can develop, however. For example, the Church understood there to be no salvation outside the Church. Yet more clearly in recent centuries, the Church has understood there are extenuating means beyond formal membership, by which one can be united to the Church. So you see, the original truth still stands, yet what developed is the understanding of how one can be united to the Church. (of course even from Scripture and as early as Augustine at least, this development already had its seeds).

 

[ConallCernach]

The definition in this sense is this:

Infallible- Roman Catholic Church. immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.

This would imply that at its conception, the Church claimed infallibility.

An infallible teaching, in and of itself, cannot change. The morality of murder is something that does not change over time. For something to change that was infallible, it wouldn’t have been infallible if it could be changed.

I hope this helps.

Pax

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

Infallibility is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood doctrines of the Church.

Some doctrines are infallible, and popes, councils and the church as a whole are able to teach infallibly.

This is a grace given by the Holy Spirit so that the Church may teach with authority-- in other words, it is really the Holy Spirit that is infallible, and the Holy Spirit works through the pope, councils and the Church to teach.

By definition the infallible doctrines are not able to change. As you suggest, that is silly-- it is a contradiction. Infallible teachings are those given to the Church by the Holy Spirit, through the medium of the pope, or a council… in the same way that the it is the Holy Spirit through the holy writers of the Bible that we have infallible teaching in scripture. The Holy Spirit does not change his mind on these teachings, unless God changes his mind- which is yet another issue. (the only way that a person can say that what was once infallible is now not infallible would be if god changes his mind, the idea that god can change his mind is considered heretical, but if god can change his mind then maybe someday it won’t be heretical… there is just no arguing with some people)

What people are usually confused about is when a teaching is taught infallibly-- there are different levels of Church teaching, and not all of them are are infallible-- indeed, most are not. Low levels of Church teaching can change— customs for instance within the mass have changed and can change. Dogmas cannot change- these are taught infallibly. The most recent I can think of is the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There are probably more.

Also just because something is taught by the Church (with authority but not as infallible) she still knows better than we do whether something is right or wrong, morally or theologically, so it is best never to dissent from the Church, even if she may modify her teaching in the future. In matters of faith and morals (not just customs) the Church very rarely changes teaching.

I hope that helps.

Peace.

 

[diggerdomer]

Infallibility is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood doctrines of the Church.

I agree. I’m replying to this message because it’s the most recent–my intent is to add to the Thread not just to reply to Jessi Thomist’s message, just using this most recent message as a “springboard”–hope you’ll understand.

Some doctrines are infallible, and popes, councils and the church as a whole are able to teach infallibly.

Strictly speaking, I’d say that some doctrines are taught infallibly.

This is a grace given by the Holy Spirit so that the Church may teach with authority-- in other words, it is really the Holy Spirit that is infallible, and the Holy Spirit works through the pope, councils and the Church to teach.

I agree. Well said.

By definition the infallible doctrines are not able to change.

I’d differ: doctrines that are taught infallibly are free from error.

This may not be a difference to some, as opposed to saying they are not able to change, but I think there’s a difference, especially if one equates “change” with “development” or “have more added to it” or “able to be expressed in a different context without denying the truths originally expressed” and so on.

What people are usually confused about is when a teaching is taught infallibly-- there are different levels of Church teaching, and not all of them are are infallible-- indeed, most are not. Low levels of Church teaching can change— customs for instance within the mass have changed and can change. Dogmas cannot change- these are taught infallibly. The most recent I can think of is the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There are probably more.

Yes, people are confused. The only two that I’m aware of that are universally agreed upon are the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption (1950).

I reiterate my concern about using “change”-- infallible does not mean irreformable.

so it is best never to dissent from the Church, even if she may modify her teaching in the future.

It’s not just “best” to not dissent, the Church teaches that Catholics are obliged to assent to Magisterial teachings whether or not they are taught infallibly (the vast majority of which, of course, are not clearly taught infallibly).

 

[una_fides]

I’d differ: doctrines that are taught infallibly are free from error.

This may not be a difference to some, as opposed to saying they are not able to change, but I think there’s a difference, especially if one equates “change” with “development” or “have more added to it” or “able to be expressed in a different context without denying the truths originally expressed” and so on.

Please comment after reading the following infallible declaration from Vatican I:

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, **in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. **
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

I reiterate my concern about using “change”-- infallible does not mean irreformable.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• that is, when,
  1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  4. he possesses,
  5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  7. **Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. **
  piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason
  
  To clarify, the teachings cannot change. Development must be understood as different than “change.” The two natures of Christ could be understood as a development of dogma. Through piecing together knowledge of Christ and his divinity and humanity, the Church was able to clarify that Christ had two distinct natures and wills but was one person. The Church never understood contrary concerning Christ nor was this understanding an innovation or something that was not already part of the sacred deposit. These teachings were drawn from the sacred deposit and pieced together, like someone who puts together a puzzle. The Church however never understood Christ as only having one nature or one will or being two persons and then later discovered a more profound understanding. Furthermore, the Church never believed that Christ has one divine-human nature and then later realized these two natures were two distinct rather than qualities of one. Lastly, the Church could absolutely never reform an infallible teaching, as Vatican I infallibly stated. So the Church for example could never say that the Eucharist is not really the Real Presence of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) but is rather merely a symbol of Christ’s presence around us, for such understanding would be a different sense than that which the Church has always understood.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

It’s not just “best” to not dissent, the Church teaches that Catholics are obliged to assent to Magisterial teachings whether or not they are taught infallibly (the vast majority of which, of course, are not clearly taught infallibly).

depending upon the level of teaching a person may dissent without sinning; dissent is probably a rather strong word, but I think of two people Janet Smith and Kevin O’Rourke who teach trying to correct the Church’s position on embryo adoption and artificial nutrition and hydration, respectively. They are both in full communion with the Church and write prolifically. But they are experts in their fields and the teaching which they are dissagreeing with are recent and not doctrinal.

Don’t dissent, but the members of the Church’s body are the ones who help her to develop teaching, especially in morals related to technology. That does not mean that you act against the Church, and only at the lowest level of teaching may you even teach against her.

Peace.

 

[diggerdomer]

Please comment after reading the following infallible declaration from Vatican I:

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, **in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. **
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• that is, when,
  1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  4. he possesses,
  5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
  piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason
  
  To clarify, the teachings cannot change. Development must be understood as different than “change.” The two natures of Christ could be understood as a development of dogma. Through piecing together knowledge of Christ and his divinity and humanity, the Church was able to clarify that Christ had two distinct natures and wills but was one person. The Church never understood contrary concerning Christ nor was this understanding an innovation or something that was not already part of the sacred deposit. These teachings were drawn from the sacred deposit and pieced together, like someone who puts together a puzzle. The Church however never understood Christ as only having one nature or one will or being two persons and then later discovered a more profound understanding. Furthermore, the Church never believed that Christ has one divine-human nature and then later realized these two natures were two distinct rather than qualities of one. Lastly, the Church could absolutely never reform an infallible teaching, as Vatican I infallibly stated. So the Church for example could never say that the Eucharist is not really the Real Presence of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) but is rather merely a symbol of Christ’s presence around us, for such understanding would be a different sense than that which the Church has always understood.

• 
  Ok, I may need to reconsider using “irreformable” though I think this would end up getting us hopelessly lost in semantics about “development” vs. “change.” I think for the most part I understand and agree with you. Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough response.
  
  Although, given the topic of the thread, I would ask: who says the teaching of Vatican I is infallible? Meaning, how do we know for sure it was taught infallibly? “Definitively” is not the same…or is it?
  
  That Council defined infallibility, but only as exercised by the Pope ex cathedra. It would not be until Vatican II that the other means the Church has to teach infallibly would be addressed.

 

[una_fides]

Ok, I may need to reconsider using “irreformable” though I think this would end up getting us hopelessly lost in semantics about “development” vs. “change.” I think for the most part I understand and agree with you. Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough response.

Although, given the topic of the thread, I would ask: who says the teaching of Vatican I is infallible? Meaning, how do we know for sure it was taught infallibly? “Definitively” is not the same…or is it?

That Council defined infallibility, but only as exercised by the Pope ex cathedra. It would not be until Vatican II that the other means the Church has to teach infallibly would be addressed.

Vatican I taught infallibly because the Church teaches that General Councils when they intend to definitively teach or define a dogma, they do so infallibly. Vatican I was a General Council and contained dogmatic definitions. Therefore, Vatican I was infallible.
I am interested to see when in history the Church first explicitly used the word “infallible” to explain her teaching authority. I have not dug that far in the development of this teaching just yet… The Church always taught infallibly, but when she explicitly defined her teachings as such is of interest to me.

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican I taught infallibly because the Church teaches that General Councils when they intend to definitively teach or define a dogma, they do so infallibly. Vatican I was a General Council and contained dogmatic definitions. Therefore, Vatican I was infallible.
I am interested to see when in history the Church first explicitly used the word “infallible” to explain her teaching authority. I have not dug that far in the development of this teaching just yet… The Church always taught infallibly, but when she explicitly defined her teachings as such is of interest to me.

Ok then by that reasoning (which I tend to agree with) I’ll argue that Vatican II taught infallibly. It was a General Council. It published Dogmatic Constitutions. Ergo…infallible.

Regarding the history–yes that would be fascinating. My understanding is that part of the teaching evolved more explicitly, at least regarding the Popes’ teaching as individuals, to protect one Popes’ teaching from being reversed by a following Pope. That’s where the key term (which as I noted before I need to use more carefully in this thread) of “irreformable” came into play.

 

[Just_Lurking]

And also perhaps someone could help me understand the logic and theology for those who try to argue that infallible dogmas could change or later could no longer be required to be believed or could later be admitted to be error. (i.e. Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Real Presence, Inerrancy of Scripture, etc.)

Karl Rahner is one source on the relativity of dogma. From here:

Christ’s Historicity and the Relativity of Dogma

Through his seemingly endless probing into the meaning of the traditional christological doctrines, Rahner became a thorny reminder to his church that, despite its claims to possess the so-called fullness of truth in a “deposit of unchanging teachings” duly preserved from error, it too is historical and limited in its ability to express truth. All its sacred formulations can never be viewed as perfect expressions of the faith. They too are conditioned by the same historicity that demands for the sake of life that statements of truth be continually questioned and allowed to grow into contemporaneity through clearer formulation, more insightful interpretation, and more critical assessment of meaning. This is the process he traces in his essay entitled “Current Problems in Christology,” where he cautions the church to take seriously Christ’s own historicity when it formulates truth:

The clearest formulations, the most sanctified formulas, the classic condensations of the centuries-long work of the church in prayer, reflection, and struggle concerning God’s mysteries: all these derive their life from the fact that they are not end but beginning, not goal but means, truths which open the way to the–ever greater–truth. … Anyone who takes seriously the “historicity” of human truth (in which God’s truth too has become incarnate in revelation) must see that neither the abandonment of a formula nor its preservation in a petrified form does justice to human understanding.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Karl Rahner is one source on the relativity of dogma. From here:

Christ’s Historicity and the Relativity of Dogma

Through his seemingly endless probing into the meaning of the traditional christological doctrines, Rahner became a thorny reminder to his church that, despite its claims to possess the so-called fullness of truth in a “deposit of unchanging teachings” duly preserved from error, it too is historical and limited in its ability to express truth. All its sacred formulations can never be viewed as perfect expressions of the faith. They too are conditioned by the same historicity that demands for the sake of life that statements of truth be continually questioned and allowed to grow into contemporaneity through clearer formulation, more insightful interpretation, and more critical assessment of meaning. This is the process he traces in his essay entitled “Current Problems in Christology,” where he cautions the church to take seriously Christ’s own historicity when it formulates truth:

The clearest formulations, the most sanctified formulas, the classic condensations of the centuries-long work of the church in prayer, reflection, and struggle concerning God’s mysteries: all these derive their life from the fact that they are not end but beginning, not goal but means, truths which open the way to the–ever greater–truth. … Anyone who takes seriously the “historicity” of human truth (in which God’s truth too has become incarnate in revelation) must see that neither the abandonment of a formula nor its preservation in a petrified form does justice to human understanding.

I don’t see Rahner here arguing for what the OP is asking, i.e. can a dogma later be considered in “error.” This author describes Rahner’s position rather vaguely, that the formulation of dogma is “limited in its ability to express truth” and that they are just not “perfect expressions” of the faith.

For the sake of the OP and everyone else, it should be noted that in the above book’s link and elsewhere, Rahner also has his share of critics. For instance:"[Rahner’s] was a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance. For my part, my whole intellectual formation had been shaped by Scripture and the Fathers and profoundly historical thinking." (Cardinal Ratzinger, “Milestones”, Ignatius, 1998, p 128)Father John Hardon also has some criticism’s of Karl Rahner’s theology of centering prayer and Transubstantiation.

 

[una_fides]

Ok then by that reasoning (which I tend to agree with) I’ll argue that Vatican II taught infallibly. It was a General Council. It published Dogmatic Constitutions. Ergo…infallible.

Regarding the history–yes that would be fascinating. My understanding is that part of the teaching evolved more explicitly, at least regarding the Popes’ teaching as individuals, to protect one Popes’ teaching from being reversed by a following Pope. That’s where the key term (which as I noted before I need to use more carefully in this thread) of “irreformable” came into play.

Vatican II did not teach infallibly because according to the pope who presided over the Council, it did not invoke infallibility in defining any dogmas of the faith. Vatican II was a pastoral council that was supposed to only be teaching the same things the Church had always taught just in newer ways and also changes some disciplinary norms. No heresies were dealt with or any dogmas declared as necessary to be believed. The Council never invoked the infallibility that it had the potential to.

Teachings of the Catholic faith cannot “evolve.” In fact, to say they can has been explicitly condemned as a modernist heresy.

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican II did not teach infallibly because according to the pope who presided over the Council, it did not invoke infallibility in defining any dogmas of the faith. Vatican II was a pastoral council that was supposed to only be teaching the same things the Church had always taught just in newer ways and also changes some disciplinary norms. No heresies were dealt with or any dogmas declared as necessary to be believed. The Council never invoked the infallibility that it had the potential to.

So we should take “dogmatic” constitutions as … not dogmatic?

Perhaps more to the point–who said the Pope had to make some official declaration for an ecumenical council to teach infallibly? If you read Lumen Gentium para 18-25, where Vatican II discussed how the Church teaches infallibly, there’s nothing there saying an ecumenical council teaches infallibly only when the Pope says so. Ditto for the Catechism.

Maybe another way of asking my question: how would we know if any ecumenical coucncil DID invoke the infallibility it has the potential to? Have any of them?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Infallible teachings cannot and will not change because they are what they are: incabable of error. The truth does not change. The whole body of Dogma has been delivered to the Church. Public Divine Revelation has ended with the death of the last Apostle, but there has been and will be greater understanding of God’s Revelation. These truths cannot change because God is immutable.

 

[diggerdomer]

Infallible teachings cannot and will not change because they are what they are: incabable of error. The truth does not change. The whole body of Dogma has been delivered to the Church. Public Divine Revelation has ended with the death of the last Apostle, but there has been and will be greater understanding of God’s Revelation. These truths cannot change because God is immutable.

Yes, truth cannot change. That’s different than saying teachings can’t change (or develop, or be added to, or be more fully understood, or evolve, or be better expressed to a certain age or culture).

 

[una_fides]

Yes, truth cannot change. That’s different than saying teachings can’t change (or develop, or be added to, or be more fully understood, or evolve, or be better expressed to a certain age or culture).

Oath against modernism (all bishops, priests, and teachers of the Catholic faith were obligated to take this oath as part of their office.) Here is the relevant section:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the * heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously*. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Please also see Vatican I’s teachings on this matter, which I posted earlier.

Hopefully this helps clarify the Church’s teaching. At this point one can either humbly accept that dogmas do not change or evolve or reject the Church’s definitions on these matters.

 

[una_fides]

So we should take “dogmatic” constitutions as … not dogmatic?

Perhaps more to the point–who said the Pope had to make some official declaration for an ecumenical council to teach infallibly? If you read Lumen Gentium para 18-25, where Vatican II discussed how the Church teaches infallibly, there’s nothing there saying an ecumenical council teaches infallibly only when the Pope says so. Ditto for the Catechism.

Maybe another way of asking my question: how would we know if any ecumenical coucncil DID invoke the infallibility it has the potential to? Have any of them?

Whether it made a definitive and binding declaration concerning faith and/or morals. Such definitions would be infallible. Such is my understanding. If a General Council merely restates former infallible teachings, then did that Council itself invoke infallibility? For example, if I quote from a former infallible declaration, that does not make me infallible, just the former, and if I restate an infallible declaration, same thing applies, I’m not infallible, the original document was. I think that’s the nuanced difference. But either way, Vatican II was a binding Council. I just personally do not believe it was infallible because Paul VI said that it did not invoke infallibility. I share his opinion on this matter. Are you saying that both he was wrong and that I would be wrong for agreeing with him?

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican II was a binding Council.

I am certainly NOT saying Paul VI was wrong (which of course considers much more of what he said/taught than the isolated excerpt you provided). I am still unfortunately not clear on where exactly Paul VI said VII did not invoke infallibility…but that may or may not be worth following up here.

If you agree with everything Paul VI taught along with the entire Tradition of the Church than of course I would never say you’re wrong either.

Vatican II was a binding Council.

Thanks! I completely and wholeheartedly agree with that!

Peace.

 

[diggerdomer]

Oath against modernism (all bishops, priests, and teachers of the Catholic faith were obligated to take this oath as part of their office.) Here is the relevant section:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the * heretical*’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Please also see Vatican I’s teachings on this matter, which I posted earlier.

Hopefully this helps clarify the Church’s teaching. At this point one can either humbly accept that dogmas do not change or evolve or reject the Church’s definitions on these matters.

Vatican I was cut short. It was left unfinished. The only way to authentically understand and interpret Vatican I is to include Vatican II (note the name chosen!).

I fully accept and adhere to the teachings of Vatican I. But not without also accepting and adhering to the teachings of Vatican II (and of course all teachings of the Magisterium).