Catechism and infallibility/authoritative text

[davidv]

(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?

Your pastor has authority over you. Your bishop has authority over you. Your archbishop has authority over you. The Pope has authority over you. When they provide instruction to you about how to practice Catholism. These are authoritative, whether infallible, or not.

 

[fakename]

Your pastor has authority over you. Your bishop has authority over you. Your archbishop has authority over you. The Pope has authority over you. When they provide instruction to you about how to practice Catholism. These are authoritative, whether infallible, or not.

What do you mean by instruction though? We’re allowed to disagree with prudential issues and (I think) with fallible pronouncements, so what else does that leave regarding our obligations regarding authoritativeness?

 

[davidv]

What do you mean by instruction though? We’re allowed to disagree with prudential issues and (I think) with fallible pronouncements, so what else does that leave regarding our obligations regarding authoritativeness?

By instruction I mean its common meaning.

the act or practice of instructing or teaching; education.

The Church’s Catechism is authoritative.

 

[fakename]

By instruction I mean its common meaning.

The Church’s Catechism is authoritative.

But then that means that any advice is binding when it comes from a bishop but that is not true.

For underneath “instructions on how to practice Catholicism” is included advice and suggestion and we are not necessarily supposed to follow prudential instructions. Also, I don’t think we have to follow fallible pronouncements either so show me where my fallacy lies, and answer if and why we should follow less than at least non-infallible teachings?

 

[davidv]

But then that means that any advice is binding when it comes from a bishop but that is not true.

For underneath “instructions on how to practice Catholicism” is included advice and suggestion and we are not necessarily supposed to follow prudential instructions. Also, I don’t think we have to follow fallible pronouncements either so show me where my fallacy lies, and answer if and why we should follow less than at least non-infallible teachings?

Your fallacy is declaring, without evidence, that “non-infallible teachings” are not authoritative. The CCC instructs us that all teachings are to be obeyed.
I would suggest the you carefully study the CCC section on the fourth commandment.

 

[PenitentGrace]

Your fallacy is declaring, without evidence, that “non-infallible teachings” are not authoritative. The CCC instructs us that all teachings are to be obeyed.
I would suggest the you carefully study the CCC section on the fourth commandment.

I’m so confused… So the CCC says that all teachings are to be obeyed- but the CCC itself is not considered infallible. So “all teachings must be obeyed” is not even an infallible statement?? I think I do need to get Catholics for Dummies.

Also can someone explain “prudential” teaching and why we don’t have to agree with them? I mean if we have to follow ALL teachings- wouldn’t that include “prudential” as well?

 

[davidv]

I’m so confused… So the CCC says that all teachings are to be obeyed- but the CCC itself is not considered infallible. So “all teachings must be obeyed” is not even an infallible statement?? I think I do need to get Catholics for Dummies.

Also can someone explain “prudential” teaching and why we don’t have to agree with them? I mean if we have to follow ALL teachings- wouldn’t that include “prudential” as well?

That the Church should be obeyed is supported in the Bible, via the 4th commandment and Jesus’ statement that those hear the Church hear Him. Infallability is a red herring with regard to the subject of obedience to legitimate authority. It has no bearing on whether obedience is required.

I think “prudential teaching” is a term the other poster made up. I have not found it in any of the Church’s teachings. He may have confused understanding of prudential judgement and applied it to teaching.

 

[PenitentGrace]

Thanks for your answer. I think I understand but why does the Church distinguish between infallible and fallible? Why not just say- “follow all the Church’s teachings” and leave it at that? Why was it necessary to proclaim the Mary Dogmas ex cathedra if we are bound to follow those teachings anyway? Saying that some teachings are fallible means they can contain error right? Well saying that a teaching can contain error logically leads people to assume they can disagree with or at least question a teaching that is fallible. But apparently Catholics are bound to follow all teachings- even if they might turn out to be wrong? CAN a Catholic teaching ever be wrong? And if a Catholic teaching CAN’T be wrong then how can some be labeled fallible. I’m sure the Church has a good reason to distinguish between fallible and infallible but it creates a lot of confusion.

Thanks again for you answers. I’m still learning- sorry if I seem really dense about this- it’s always been hard for me to wrap my head around.

 

[thistle]

But then that means that any advice is binding when it comes from a bishop but that is not true.

For underneath “instructions on how to practice Catholicism” is included advice and suggestion and we are not necessarily supposed to follow prudential instructions. Also, I don’t think we have to follow fallible pronouncements either so show me where my fallacy lies, and answer if and why we should follow less than at least non-infallible teachings?

Although you may disagree with disciplines you must follow them.
For example, fasting at least one hour before receiving Communion is a discipline (not a teaching) which you must follow.

 

[fakename]

That the Church should be obeyed is supported in the Bible, via the 4th commandment and Jesus’ statement that those hear the Church hear Him. Infallability is a red herring with regard to the subject of obedience to legitimate authority. It has no bearing on whether obedience is required.

I think “prudential teaching” is a term the other poster made up. I have not found it in any of the Church’s teachings. He may have confused understanding of prudential judgement and applied it to teaching.

(1) Well what is the principle of obedience then, that is for what reason do we obey things?

(2) prudential teaching means something like “we should not have invaded Iraq”. It’s something that a priest could teach to people and it is something that is also fallible. So my question revolves around the apparent inconsistency b/t saying we should follow all teachings and saying that prudential judgments are not to be followed -for again, in principle it seems that prudential judgments could be taught.

 

[fakename]

Although you may disagree with disciplines you must follow them.
For example, fasting at least one hour before receiving Communion is a discipline (not a teaching) which you must follow.

Is this true? Where’s the documentation supporting it, I have simply never heard about it? Is it in the CCC?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is this true? Where’s the documentation supporting it, I have simply never heard about it? Is it in the CCC?

These are man-made diciplines, and are not part of Catholic Doctrine (and thus are unlikely to be found in the Catechism). But the Canon Law of the Catholic Church (in which we may find various disciplines and rules described in detail, and which is fully binding upon all Catholics) is rather explicit:

Code of Canon Law 919 §1: One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion
CIC 191 §3: Elderly people, those who are ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast. Priests and deacons may not dispense one obligated by the Eucharistic fast unless the bishop has expressly granted such power to them.

 

[davidv]

(1) Well what is the principle of obedience then, that is for what reason do we obey things?

I have no idea what this means. Can you rephrase it? Did you mean: Why should you obey? Because it is good for you.

(2) prudential teaching means something like “we should not have invaded Iraq”. It’s something that a priest could teach to people and it is something that is also fallible. So my question revolves around the apparent inconsistency b/t saying we should follow all teachings and saying that prudential judgments are not to be followed -for again, in principle it seems that prudential judgments could be taught.

“we should not have invaded Iraq” is an opinion, not a teaching. In this case the teaching could involve explanation of the just war principles, but not the application of the principle to a specific case.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for your answer. I think I understand but why does the Church distinguish between infallible and fallible? Why not just say- “follow all the Church’s teachings” and leave it at that? Why was it necessary to proclaim the Mary Dogmas ex cathedra if we are bound to follow those teachings anyway? Saying that some teachings are fallible means they can contain error right? Well saying that a teaching can contain error logically leads people to assume they can disagree with or at least question a teaching that is fallible. But apparently Catholics are bound to follow all teachings- even if they might turn out to be wrong? CAN a Catholic teaching ever be wrong? And if a Catholic teaching CAN’T be wrong then how can some be labeled fallible. I’m sure the Church has a good reason to distinguish between fallible and infallible but it creates a lot of confusion.

Thanks again for you answers. I’m still learning- sorry if I seem really dense about this- it’s always been hard for me to wrap my head around.

You are very welcome. Keep asking questions. It is the primary way we learn.

As to your first question, it appears to me that the fallible-infallible discussion is only used when someone wants an excuse to continue in some sin without guilt. I did a quick search of the CCC and found only two uses of the word infallible and five uses of the word infallible. In my quick review of the references, they are never used with respect a specific teaching, other the teaching that the Church is protected from error (infallible) in matters of faith and morals.

I am not aware that the Church has ever labelled a teaching as fallible. The Church also avoids labelling teachings as infallible. It usually only does so if there is serious threat to the faithful because of heresy or other false teaching of others.

The bottom line is that if were follow Church teaching we will not put our soul at risk, even if it is only partially correct or it is simply a disciplinary practice, like fasting.

 

[fakename]

I have no idea what this means. Can you rephrase it? Did you mean: Why should you obey? Because it is good for you.

“we should not have invaded Iraq” is an opinion, not a teaching. In this case the teaching could involve explanation of the just war principles, but not the application of the principle to a specific case.

Why should we obey is the question. Because it’s good for us seems to be a rather question begging answer. Nor does it seem to be an essential explanation in that there many things which we do which are good for us, which are not strictly obedience so how does the explanation differentiate obedience from any other generic good?

So the question still stands. The only real reason for obedience is if we think that the people above us are better. I think we can gleam that from certain phrases in the summa
"Obedience proceeds from reverence, which pays worship and honor to a superior, and in this respect it is contained under different virtues, although considered in itself, as regarding the aspect of precept, it is one special virtue. Accordingly, in so far as it proceeds from reverence for a superior, it is contained, in a way, under observance; while in so far as it proceeds from reverence for one’s parents, it is contained under piety; and in so far as it proceeds from reverence for God, it comes under religion, and pertains to devotion, which is the principal act of religion. " newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

So obedience is given just in the case that honor exists in the superior. But honor is always given for some objective superiority or “betterness” that someone else has. Therefore it seems that obedience exists just in the case that someone better than you asks you to do something from an authority derived from his merits.

So when we ask about papal authority, or any kind of authoritativeness, I think we should
ask what honor that person has, by ways of justifying our obedience.

As for the Iraq question, I was just saying that if it is possible for all the clergy to teach that the Iraq war is evil, then it would be possible for an opinion to be authoritative but this is wrong and so it is not true that anything said by the clergy is authoritative. For I think that you said that (paraphrase) “what a bishop says goes as far as how to practice Catholicism”. Obviously, to not support the Iraq war is a way to practice Catholicism so I think it would fall under the bishop’s authority.

So somehow I suppose you don’t think that the Iraq question can be made into a teaching?

 

[fakename]

Why should we obey is the question. Because it’s good for us seems to be a rather question begging answer. Nor does it seem to be an essential explanation in that there many things which we do which are good for us, which are not strictly obedience so how does the explanation differentiate obedience from any other generic good?

So the question still stands. The only real reason for obedience is if we think that the people above us are better. I think we can gleam that from certain phrases in the summa
"Obedience proceeds from reverence, which pays worship and honor to a superior, and in this respect it is contained under different virtues, although considered in itself, as regarding the aspect of precept, it is one special virtue. Accordingly, in so far as it proceeds from reverence for a superior, it is contained, in a way, under observance; while in so far as it proceeds from reverence for one’s parents, it is contained under piety; and in so far as it proceeds from reverence for God, it comes under religion, and pertains to devotion, which is the principal act of religion. " newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

So obedience is given just in the case that honor exists in the superior. But honor is always given for some objective superiority or “betterness” that someone else has. Therefore it seems that obedience exists just in the case that someone better than you asks you to do something from an authority derived from his merits.

So when we ask about papal authority, or any kind of authoritativeness, I think we should
ask what honor that person has, by ways of justifying our obedience.

As for the Iraq question, I was just saying that if it is possible for all the clergy to teach that the Iraq war is evil, then it would be possible for an opinion to be authoritative but this is wrong and so it is not true that anything said by the clergy is authoritative. For I think that you said that (paraphrase) “what a bishop says goes as far as how to practice Catholicism”. Obviously, to not support the Iraq war is a way to practice Catholicism so I think it would fall under the bishop’s authority.

So somehow I suppose you don’t think that the Iraq question can be made into a teaching?

I’m sure that honor comes from God and the sacrament of holy orders, but does this extend to anything a bishop says about how to practice Catholicism? Am I misinterpreting what you said about the power of a bishop?

 

[PenitentGrace]

I am not aware that the Church has ever labelled a teaching as fallible. The Church also avoids labelling teachings as infallible. It usually only does so if there is serious threat to the faithful because of heresy or other false teaching of others.

I see. Thank you that makes it more clear.

 

[fakename]

Why should we obey is the question. Because it’s good for us seems to be a rather question begging answer. Nor does it seem to be an essential explanation in that there many things which we do which are good for us, which are not strictly obedience so how does the explanation differentiate obedience from any other generic good?

So the question still stands. The only real reason for obedience is if we think that the people above us are better. I think we can gleam that from certain phrases in the summa
"Obedience proceeds from reverence, which pays worship and honor to a superior, newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

So obedience is given just in the case that honor exists in the superior. But honor is always given for some objective superiority or “betterness” that someone else has. Therefore it seems that obedience exists just in the case that someone better than you asks you to do something from an authority derived from his merits.

So when we ask about papal authority, or any kind of authoritativeness, I think we should
ask what honor that person has, by ways of justifying our obedience.

As for the Iraq question, I was just saying that if it is possible for all the clergy to teach that the Iraq war is evil, then it would be possible for an opinion to be authoritative but this is wrong and so it is not true that anything said by the clergy is authoritative. For I think that you said that (paraphrase) “what a bishop says goes as far as how to practice Catholicism”. Obviously, to not support the Iraq war is a way to practice Catholicism so I think it would fall under the bishop’s authority.

So somehow I suppose you don’t think that the Iraq question can be made into a teaching?

I’m sure that honor comes from God and the sacrament of holy orders, but does this extend to anything a bishop says about how to practice Catholicism? Am I misinterpreting what you said about the power of a bishop?

Anything on this?

 

[Viola_Incognita]

Why should we obey is the question.
…]
The only real reason for obedience is if we think that the people above us are better.
…]
So when we ask about papal authority, or any kind of authoritativeness, I think we should
ask what honor that person has, by ways of justifying our obedience.
…]

Obedience and the basis for authority are topics for another thread.

Peace be with you.