Catechism and infallibility/authoritative text

[fakename]

(1) I forgot, but only some parts of the catechism is infallible right? And the whole document is not infallible?

(2) how do we tell which parts of the text are infallible? And is there a difference between authoritative and and infallible? And if so, what obligations of morality and belief does “authoritativeness” impose on a person?

 

[Trebor135]

Thanks for posing these questions. I unfortunately don’t have the answers, but a third point to add:

(3) A Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest I was speaking to on Saturday told me that, as an adherent of an Eastern Church in communion with Rome, he does not have to accept purgatory and indulgences, because these doctrines are not part of the Eastern heritage. I pointed out that the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I had the impression was intended as the standard and official reference on the Church’s doctrine, propounded purgatory and indulgences. In response, the cleric stressed the character of the document as a work based in Latin theology, implying that he did not consider the CCC as binding on his conscience in certain areas. How, if at all, can this view be harmonized with the doctrines of infallibility and teaching authority propounded by the Catholic pope and magisterium?

 

[DavidFilmer]

(1) I forgot, but only some parts of the catechism is infallible right? And the whole document is not infallible?

The Catechism is a combination of infallible teachings, man-made rules (such as the precepts of the Church) and theological speculation (such as the fate of unbaptized babies).

(2) how do we tell which parts of the text are infallible?

That’s hard to do. You can look at the source of the teaching (in the footnotes), but unless you are somewhat familiar with these sources that won’t tell you much. You can always ask here

And is there a difference between authoritative and and infallible?

All Catholic teaching is authoritative, but only a tiny bit is recognized as infallible. Infallible means that the teaching belongs to the Deposit of Faith and thus may never change under any circumstances.

Popes and Ecumenical Councils MAY teach infallibly, but they often do not.

And if so, what obligations of morality and belief does “authoritativeness” impose on a person?

As far as the typical layperson is concerned, there is practically no difference. Infallible teachings bind more strongly - but not much more.

 

[Uzziah1]

(1) I forgot, but only some parts of the catechism is infallible right? And the whole document is not infallible?

(2) how do we tell which parts of the text are infallible? And is there a difference between authoritative and and infallible? And if so, what obligations of morality and belief does “authoritativeness” impose on a person?

The Church has expressly or implicitly declared very little doctrine to be infallible.

I think that virtually EVERYTHING the Church teaches is authoritative, and we are morally bound to follow it, unless we can point to an “articulable rationale” for opposing the teaching.

For example, I believe that I can point to an “articulable rationale” for denying that Original Sin, AS the thing which caused all humans to be conceived with “the stain of Original Sin” on their souls, was an incident in history, and I believe that I can point to an “articulable rationale” for denying that Adam and Eve, AS two people who at first were immune to death, and who only became subject to death after an incident in the history of man, ever existed.

I also believe that I can point to an “articulable rationale” for denying that Mary was a “virgin in partu,” The Church expressly taught in the 7th century that Mary’s virginity was so constant that the “integrity” of her person remained intact even in the act of giving birth. In other words, to the present day the Church teaches that Mary’s body somehow did not “open” to give birth to Christ.

 

[Viola_Incognita]

Here’s the Good News

Everything the Church teaches on faith and morals is infallible.

Jesus left the Church His Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. We can be assured that what the Church teaches on faith and morals is true.

Infallibility in the Church’s teaching does not depend on formulas or definitive definitions.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on infallibility:

"The teaching office

…]

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

"890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

“891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

“892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

For an easier read on infallibility, see “Catholicism for Dummies” pg 27 – 32.

Peace be with you.

 

[bmonk]

Here’s the Good News

Everything the Church teaches on faith and morals is infallible.

Jesus left the Church His Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. We can be assured that what the Church teaches on faith and morals is true.

Infallibility in the Church’s teaching does not depend on formulas or definitive definitions.

Not quite. What is taught infallibly must be in the area of faith and morals, but not all matters of faith and morals are taught infallibly.

When it comes to the question of distinguishing what is infallible, it helps to be a very good scholar, to look at the sources of the teachings and how it was taught. And also to look at what was believed and taught, “always, everywhere, and by everyone,” in St. Vincent of Lerins’ formulation.

 

[Viola_Incognita]

Not quite. What is taught infallibly must be in the area of faith and morals, but not all matters of faith and morals are taught infallibly.

When it comes to the question of distinguishing what is infallible, it helps to be a very good scholar, to look at the sources of the teachings and how it was taught. And also to look at what was believed and taught, “always, everywhere, and by everyone,” in St. Vincent of Lerins’ formulation.

Not all individuals teach infallibly – in this you are correct. However, this thread is about the teaching authority of the Catechism.

The Catechism is a reliable source of infallible truth. We do not need a scholar, nor do we need to vet sources. The authority of the Church and the Holy Spirit have done that for us.

We check the scholar’s teaching by comparing it to the Catechism, not the other way around.

Peace be with you.

 

[James224]

(1) I forgot, but only some parts of the catechism is infallible right? And the whole document is not infallible?

(2) how do we tell which parts of the text are infallible? And is there a difference between authoritative and and infallible? And if so, what obligations of morality and belief does “authoritativeness” impose on a person?

Denzinger’s is a good source for a list of the dogmas of the Church. It’s online so you should be able to find it. Dogmas are usually shown in a brief statement and then usually followed by a theological explanation. The theological explanation isn’t considered infallible. What makes infallible Catholic Doctrine hard to distinguish is, in my opinion, the fact that the Church is a living organism. What I mean by that is everyday the Church is teaching through the Ordinary Magisterium which is infallible. The Church distinguishes the everyday teaching through the level of documents. The highest levels are when the Pope speaks “Ex Cathedra” on a doctrine or when a Council of Bishops speak on a doctrine in union with the Pope. Of course, the reason for all this is preserve the teachings of the church for all time. It’s for the unity of the faith.

 

[fakename]

The Catechism is a combination of infallible teachings, man-made rules (such as the precepts of the Church) and theological speculation (such as the fate of unbaptized babies).

That’s hard to do. You can look at the source of the teaching (in the footnotes), but unless you are somewhat familiar with these sources that won’t tell you much. You can always ask here

All Catholic teaching is authoritative, but only a tiny bit is recognized as infallible. Infallible means that the teaching belongs to the Deposit of Faith and thus may never change under any circumstances.

Popes and Ecumenical Councils MAY teach infallibly, but they often do not.

As far as the typical layperson is concerned, there is practically no difference. Infallible teachings bind more strongly - but not much more.

So what’s the essential difference between authoritative and infallible? Is the former simply non-infallible or is it also fallible?

 

[thistle]

(1) I forgot, but only some parts of the catechism is infallible right? And the whole document is not infallible?

(2) how do we tell which parts of the text are infallible? And is there a difference between authoritative and and infallible? And if so, what obligations of morality and belief does “authoritativeness” impose on a person?

It doesn’t matter whether a teaching is infallible or non-infallible Catholics must accept them all.

Rejecting an infallible teaching is both heresy and a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).
Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).

 

[thistle]

From an older thread:

Dogma and Doctrines

The two categories of Magisterium are “extraordinary”, and “ordinary universal”.
The question of doctrine and dogma:
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp, or the Vatican Library) for anyone with the will to know what Christ’s Church is teaching, like most of the documents of Vatican I, and the papal documents before and since Vatican II

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Ad Tuendam Fidem
A category 1 truthThe CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1).
Such would be the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Vatican I dogma on papal infallibility.

A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.
Such as in the Encyclicals Casti Connubii (1930) and Humanae Vitae (1965) against contraception, and in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on male-only priests.

The category 3 truths are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith.

In Summary.
The three levels of teaching are:

1. Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2. Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3. Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl JPII]

 

[Swiss_Guy]

(1) I forgot, but only some parts of the catechism is infallible right? And the whole document is not infallible?

(2) how do we tell which parts of the text are infallible? And is there a difference between authoritative and and infallible? And if so, what obligations of morality and belief does “authoritativeness” impose on a person?

1. Correct.
2. Authoritative you are required to submit to with religious submission of will and intellect (I think I got that right). Infallible you must believe with supernatural faith.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It doesn’t matter whether a teaching is infallible or non-infallible Catholics must accept them all.

Rejecting an infallible teaching is both heresy and a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).
Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).

Accept what the Catechism says.

 

[fakename]

1. Correct.
2. Authoritative you are required to submit to with religious submission of will and intellect (I think I got that right). Infallible you must believe with supernatural faith.

So authoritative is equivalent to “non-infallible” (like those teachings called the CST)?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

So authoritative is equivalent to “non-infallible” (like those teachings called the CST)?

Not necessarily. Non-infallible teachings can be authoritative (in the Catechism they are), but they don’t have to be. Infallible teachings are always authoritative.

 

[fakename]

Not necessarily. Non-infallible teachings can be authoritative (in the Catechism they are), but they don’t have to be. Infallible teachings are always authoritative.

What is an example of a non-infallible teaching that is not authoritative?

I thought only fallible teachings were not authoritative?

 

[TrueLight]

Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).

Is this correct?

 

[thistle]

Is this correct?

Yes.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

What is an example of a non-infallible teaching that is not authoritative?

I thought only fallible teachings were not authoritative?

Well, I guess technically unless a bishop says something that is contrary to the Catholic faith everything is authoritative in a sense.

That’s correct.

 

[fakename]

Well, I guess technically unless a bishop says something that is contrary to the Catholic faith everything is authoritative in a sense.

That’s correct.

(1) so even fallible pronouncements from a bishop are authoritative?

(2) and yet if fallible pronouncements are not authoritative, then only infallible and non-infallible are authoritative as I said earlier?