Can RCC document be Fallible?

[JillianRose]

I realize the RCC says that God is the “Editor” of extra writings of the Roman Catholic Church, but then isn’t that Scripture or equal to it? What are magisterial documents? I would assume the Pope? I believe the Bible is and can be the only infallible writings because they were the only writings directly from Him…you know “all scripture is God breathed…” Any other documents outside of God’s word are fallible since they are written by sinful, imperfect man, not just the RCC, but all of the errors in any denomination’s writings or doctrine. I know the RCC says God keeps the error out, but then I could say that about something I wrote too and Jo Shmo down the road. I guess it’s whether or not you personally think the canon is closed or still open, meaning do you think the Bible can be added onto or do you think the books that the council chose to be in the canon are the right ones and sufficient. If the council (according to the RCC) was acting infallibly in what books they chose for the canon of scripture, then why would they need to add with it additional “infallible” writings? The Bible should be sufficient. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Corki]

Even Scripture was written by “sinful, imperfect men” under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We don’t believe in the “magic pencil” theory of divine inspiration.

In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

(Dei Verbum)

Infallibilty can be exercised by the ordinary magisterium, not just by the Pope. This is the case when a document or declaration comes from a council. It is also the case when a non-ex cathedra document comes from the Pope alone if it meets certain conditions.

I don’t know if it is gramattically correct to call the document infallible. Rather, the Pope or council may have used to document to convey infallible teaching.

 

[JRKH]

When you ask, “can an RCC document be fallible”, you are asking a very broad question since RCC documents encompass a huge variety of things at a great number of levels ranging from doctrine, to discipline, to general instruction, to itineraries and instructions for the running of the Vatican museums…

Of course I know that you are referring to teaching documents but even with these there are matters such as translation as well as interpretation that can effect how the teaching is understood.

Another aspect is how we might understand the term “infallible” as apposed to another, similar term, inerrant. I’ve been involved in discussions over this and know that different people understand “infallible” and inerrant in different ways. Personally, where written documents are concerned I prefer the term “inerrant” since this term indicates that the document is without error. Fallibility or infallibility, on the other hand, requires more…It requires that the person reading the document understand it correctly.

So - RCC documents are inerrant, and those who read them honestly, prayerfully, in the light of all Church teaching and in submission to the Holy Spirit, will be properly guided without fail.

As to how these later documents relate to the books contained in the Bible, they are all God breathed for they come from God’s Holy Church with His promise of Spirit Guidance. However, the Books of the Bible are special because of their position in time, who they are attributed to and their unique revelation as “source documents”. And remember taht it was by the good offices of the Church that the books contained in the Bible were codified.
Later works and documents do not rewrite these books but rather build upon them, opening them up and explaining/expounding upon the Truths they contain.

Peace
James

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is certainly not a Traditional Roman Catholic subject but the bible is NOT sufficient in itself. Remember that St. John writes that there is much more to Christ’s life and what he said than is what is written in the bible. It would take volumes upon volumes. The bible, in reality, captures about 5 consecutive weeks of Christ’s words and actions if you were to lay them out in a timeline. Certainly, you would not argue that the remainder of Christs 151 weeks of public ministry were unimportant or not worthy of mention. So where do you find them? You find them in the Deposit of Faith of The Catholic Church in the verbal teachings and writings of the apostles, popes, and council’s of the church - which form the Magisterium.

And finally, the books that comprise the bible were chosen by the Catholic Church and “canonized” as the bible around 400 years after Christ’s death. Christians prior to that had ONLY the Magisterium. And knowing our human frailties, Christ gave us the successor of St. Peter to act as the sole arbiter of dogma (i.e., infallible teachings). And it is up to the Pope to decide which documents he gives the charism of infallibility to.

 

[thistle]

I realize the RCC says that God is the “Editor” of extra writings of the Roman Catholic Church, but then isn’t that Scripture or equal to it? What are magisterial documents? I would assume the Pope? I believe the Bible is and can be the only infallible writings because they were the only writings directly from Him…you know “all scripture is God breathed…” Any other documents outside of God’s word are fallible since they are written by sinful, imperfect man, not just the RCC, but all of the errors in any denomination’s writings or doctrine. I know the RCC says God keeps the error out, but then I could say that about something I wrote too and Jo Shmo down the road. I guess it’s whether or not you personally think the canon is closed or still open, meaning do you think the Bible can be added onto or do you think the books that the council chose to be in the canon are the right ones and sufficient. If the council (according to the RCC) was acting infallibly in what books they chose for the canon of scripture, then why would they need to add with it additional “infallible” writings? The Bible should be sufficient. Where do you draw the line?

In the first place the Canon is CLOSED. Its not up to anyone’s personal opinion on that.

Second, documents per se are not infallible or non-infallible. It is the Church teachings that are infallible and non-infallible (but in both cases must be believed).

Third, there is no infallibility outside the Church.

 

[clmowry]

I don’t know if it is gramattically correct to call the document infallible. Rather, the Pope or council may have used to document to convey infallible teaching.

I believe you are correct. There is no such thing as an infallible document. (Including the bible.)

Chuck

 

[JillianRose]

In the first place the Canon is CLOSED. Its not up to anyone’s personal opinion on that.

Second, documents per se are not infallible or non-infallible. It is the Church teachings that are infallible and non-infallible (but in both cases must be believed).

Third, there is no infallibility outside the Church./QUOTE)

So are you saying the bible is fallible? It is GODS word written thru people.

 

[Ignatius]

I realize the RCC says that God is the “Editor” of extra writings of the Roman Catholic Church

The Catholic Church says no such thing. The Catholic Church’s position is that only Sacred Scripture is Inspired.

BTW, Sacred Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all of the other writers of Sacred Scripture werewritten by sinful, imperfect men.

You need to stop swallowing everything that your Protestant friends are trying to feed you. They also are written by sinful, imperfect men and, if you let them, will separate you from the Great Gift of belonging to The Church that Jesus Christ founded, The Catholic Church.

 

[JRKH]

thistle;8188493:

In the first place the Canon is CLOSED

. Its not up to anyone’s personal opinion on that.

Second, documents per se are not infallible or non-infallible. It is the Church teachings that are infallible and non-infallible (but in both cases must be believed).

Third, there is no infallibility outside the Church.

So are you saying the bible is fallible? It is GODS word written thru people.

What is being said is that fallibility is not a characteristic of an inanimate object, which is what “words on paper” are. The Bible contains no error…Therefore it is “inerrant”.
However -
The inerrant words of the Bible can be rightly understood by one person and wrongly understood by another…Just look at the whole “Rapture” thing…
Same Bible, Same words, different understandings…

The Church, God’s representative on Earth is the infallible teacher and guardian of the inerrant writings of Scripture.

Does that help?

Peace
James

 

[JillianRose]

James -

You are correct. I found information. THANKS for being so nice and not a fanatic when people have actual questions.

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/infallibility/page2

 

[JRKH]

James -

You are correct. I found information. THANKS for being so nice and not a fanatic when people have actual questions.

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/infallibility/page2

You are welcome.
I struggled with this issue too and ultimately had it explained to me, more or less, as I explained it to you. Now that you understand better, you might be able to help someone else in the future…It’s great that we are able to help each other in this way…

Peace
James

 

[promethius]

Hi Jillian,

Let’s back up to basics before we start. Church teaching is based on three things:

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition
3. Magisterial Teaching

I realize the RCC says that God is the “Editor” of extra writings of the Roman Catholic Church, but then isn’t that Scripture or equal to it?

No, the specific writings of the early church fathers are not inerrant nor are they equivalent to scripture. That is not what is meant by “Sacred Tradition”. Sacred Tradition as a leg of Church teaching is actually an unrecorded body of knowledge, of which evidence is contained in the early writings of church fathers as well as records of early christian practice. For example, we know the mass today is almost identical to the second century mass because of the writings of a Roman (then pagan, who later became christian) observer writing to his authorities.

Sacred Tradition is infallible and equal in authority to Sacred Scripture. It will always agree with an never contradict Sacred Scripture. However, there is no single document which is “Sacred Tradition” and none of the early church writings are guarunteed to be inerrant.

However, I should note, it is entirely possible to create an inerrant document, even today. I can write on a page “God is great” and create an inerrant document by doing so.

What are magisterial documents? I would assume the Pope?

Magisterial teaching is the third “leg” of Catholic Teaching and authority. It comes from the Holy Spirit, from whom we are taught all truth. A magisterial teaching (not necessarily in the form of a document, it could also come as an oral teaching) occurs when the pope:

1. Intends to teach on the matter of faith and morals
2. Intends the teaching to be for the whole church and all time
3. Intends for the teaching to be binding
4. Intends directly for it to be an infallible teaching.

This has occured rarely throughout history to clarify doctrinal confusion (hence why we don’t have the massive number of denominations like protestantism)

I believe the Bible is and can be the only infallible writings because they were the only writings directly from Him…you know “all scripture is God breathed…” Any other documents outside of God’s word are fallible since they are written by sinful, imperfect man, not just the RCC, but all of the errors in any denomination’s writings or doctrine.

Here I’m going to come back and point out that it is entirely possible to create an inerrant document TODAY: Take that piece of paper and write on it “God is great”.

That’s an inerrant document. Write down “God is Love”. That’s an inerrant document. The sacred Scriptures are inerrant because the ideas, concepts, and teachings contained therein are magisterial. It is not the act of writing down these truths that make them true… rather they were written down BECAUSE they were already true.

That’s an important distinction to understand: the church is the one that certifies that the Scripture is without error. The only reason we HAVE a bible is because the church infallibly and magisterially determined that the words recorded came from TRUTH.

I know the RCC says God keeps the error out, but then I could say that about something I wrote too and Jo Shmo down the road. I guess it’s whether or not you personally think the canon is closed or still open, meaning do you think the Bible can be added onto or do you think the books that the council chose to be in the canon are the right ones and sufficient. If the council (according to the RCC) was acting infallibly in what books they chose for the canon of scripture, then why would they need to add with it additional “infallible” writings? The Bible should be sufficient. Where do you draw the line?

I hope I’ve answered this question in the above rantings and ravings! The Canon most certainly IS closed on what constitutes public revelation of NEW doctrine (and, as a result, on what constitutes scripture), but the body of Truth which is revealed by the three methods of Catholic teaching is not bound simply by one of those forms (such as Sacred Scripture). Rather those forms (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium) illuminate the doctrinal truth of God.