Catechism "infallible?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter montanaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

montanaman

Guest
I did a search on this and surprisingly came up with nothing.

Perhaps “infallible” is the wrong word to be using for an inanimate object, but you get the drift. Does it rise to the level of something like an ex cathedra statement?

Thanks much,
MM
 
I Dunno, I’m not Catholic. But I’d search for inerrant instead.
 
The Catechism is as near as it gets to being infallible without being official.

But it is not infallible, i.e like the bible, which is God Breathed.

So, your catechism might have a few theological unknowns, or lack of definition, but its a summary of our faith, and we should trust it.

Now, someone will say “What about previous catechisms and limbo?”

This proves the point. The catechism represents the teaching of the time. Some things like limbo, which are only theories, may get included, but they are not a part of the deposit of faith. Just theological speculations on that which God has not explicitly told us.

Peace and God bless.
 
This question has been answered, i think by the Holy See or by the Cardinal who edited the Catechism, but i can’t find the reference right now. Anyway, the Catechism itself has the level of authority of the Ordinary non-infallible Magisterium, however, many of its doctrines are infallible, not merely because they are in the Catechism, but because they fall under one or another of the three ways that the Magisterium teaches infallibly.

Ron Conte
 
The CCC carries a “Imprimi Potest” from Cardinal Ratzinger, which means “it can be printed”. This means the book is free from doctrinal error.

I am pretty sure I read the CCC is not inerrant however (note - people are infallible, books are inerrant). You can see that by the fact a set of errors/omissions was published several years after the original CCC was published. The CCC is full of footnotes to councils, papal writings, Scripture etc., and those are the inerrant sources.
 
Interesting question. If there was something that differed in the USCCB Catechism from the CCC or was added, would it have any level of infalibility? My guess is not, since the USCCB acting alone and not in concert with the Pope and other bishops is not the ordinary Magisterium. Am I on the right track?
 
Let’s get our words straight - people are infallible, books are inerrant.

That said, my guess is if the USCCB added in a book something new, it would not be declared inerrant but it could be approved as teaching the doctrine of the Church (imprimatur, etc.) . A group of bishops without the Pope, outside of a council, have no power to make new infallible statements.

So that means it could actually be inerrant, as I can write an inerrant sentence:

Jesus is God.

But I suspect no one would ever say so, and there is no “inerrant” tag applied to the CCC that I have ever seen (and I have looked).

I think this is right unless I have it wrong - the only part of this answer that is inerrant is “Jesus is God” 😃
 
The declaration that a book is free from doctrinal errors is itself not infallible.

Councils and papal documents are only infallible in solemn definitions; when they exercise the ordinary magisterium, even the Pope or a Council is non-infallible.

Any individual Bishop or group of local Bishops can exercise the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.

The only book that is inerrant is the Bible.

papal documents and Concilar documents may have particular teachings that are infallible, but the documents as a whole are not infallible or inerrant.

documents or books under the ordinary Magisterium are not inerrant or infallible.

Ron
 
I have a couple of questions. Why is it seemingly so important to a lot of folks to be able to hang the “infallible” label on things that the Church has taught seemingly forever? Isn’t something as reliable as the CCC good enough in itself or are we seeking loopholes or a club to hold over someones head who might disagree with us?
 
rwoehmke said:
I have a couple of questions. Why is it seemingly so important to a lot of folks to be able to hang the “infallible” label on things that the Church has taught seemingly forever? Isn’t something as reliable as the CCC good enough in itself or are we seeking loopholes or a club to hold over someones head who might disagree with us?
Click to expand...
It came up in a question from a former Catholic friend of mine.
 
In my opinion, there are three charisms of certainty given as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church:
  1. the charism of certain truth - infallible teachings
  2. the charism of certain salvation - non-infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium, which may have errors on certain points, but never to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation
  3. the charism of certain fruitfulness - the meditations of the faithful, and in particular of theologians, seeking new insights into the deposit of Faith; errors of almost any kind might be present, but the Spirit guarantees fruitfulness.
Ron Conte
 
Hello montanaman from mdcpensive1.
The doctrine of Infallibility is from the late 1800’s and was defined at Vatican I. It states that the Church cannot doctrinally teach error in matters of faith and morals. This is because “he who hears you hears Me”. What the Church proclaims in doctrine has to be true if the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be put into a situation of having something false.
Mdcpensive1
 
mdcpensive1 said:
Hello montanaman from mdcpensive1.
The doctrine of Infallibility is from the late 1800’s and was defined at Vatican I. It states that the Church cannot doctrinally teach error in matters of faith and morals. This is because “he who hears you hears Me”. What the Church proclaims in doctrine has to be true if the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be put into a situation of having something false.
Mdcpensive1
Click to expand...
That is not accurate. Vatican I defined papal infallibility, but it limited the infallibility of papal teachings to those which meet certain criteria. Other teachings of the Pope fall under the ordinary Magisterium and are a sure path to salvation, but do not exclude all possible error.

The Church herself has never taught that all her doctrines on faith and morals are infallible. Infallibility has always been limited. Why have an Ecumenical Council and its solemn definitions if every Bishop, and if the Pope in every teaching on faith and morals is already infallible?

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, but the charism of certain truth applies only to the Church’s infallible teachings, not to its ordinary teachings, which have a different charism, that of a certain path to salvation.

What you are saying is not the teaching of the Church.

Ron
 
You are correct in the analysis. I am sorry that I was too short in my answer. Thank you for the correction and I will try to be more accurate in the future. My answer was just too simplistic.
Mdcpensive1
 
Ron_Conte said:
In my opinion, there are three charisms of certainty given as a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church:
  1. the charism of certain truth - infallible teachings
  2. the charism of certain salvation - non-infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium, which may have errors on certain points, but never to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation
  3. the charism of certain fruitfulness - the meditations of the faithful, and in particular of theologians, seeking new insights into the deposit of Faith; errors of almost any kind might be present, but the Spirit guarantees fruitfulness.
Ron Conte
Click to expand...
Could you provide the source (or sources) of the above ?

Thanks.
 
as my post says, it is my opinion that there are three charism of certainty.

However, the first level, the charism of certain truth, ‘carisma veritatis certum’ (i.e. infallibility) is the teaching of the Magisterium.

the second level is my understanding and my way of phrasing something that the Magisterium generally teaches, i.e. that its non-infallible teachings are not entirely irreformable and not entirely without error, but is a sure guide to salvation. Since its my phrasing, one might disagree with the wording or the specific idea, but the general idea that the Magisterium does teach non-infallibly and that such teaching is non-irreformable is, to my mind, clear.

concerning the third level of certainty and the way of organizing these ideas, this is speculative theology, although I doubt that anyone would want to argue that the Holy Spirit working among the faithful would not be certain to produce fruit.

Ron
 
Ron_Conte said:
abut the general idea that the Magisterium does teach non-infallibly and that such teaching is non-irreformable is, to my mind, clear.
Click to expand...
Thank’s for your answer… I do agree that some of what the church teaches is reformable.
concerning the third level of certainty and the way of organizing these ideas, this is speculative theology, although I doubt that anyone would want to argue that the Holy Spirit working among the faithful would not be certain to produce fruit.
Click to expand...
We can have our opinions, if that is what you mean. We can discuss. Yes. Our discussion will be fruitful because The Holy Spirit guide us into truth. We believe that certainly The Holy Spirit is guiding us into truth. We hope errors are wiped away in such discussions. We want to find more and more truths. Errors will lead us away from the truth. So we pray that we are led by God the Holy Spirit, so we believe with certainty that we are approaching the truth.

I don’t know whether we can calll those discussions as “speculative theology” though. Hmm…
 
montanaman said:
I did a search on this and surprisingly came up with nothing.

Perhaps “infallible” is the wrong word to be using for an inanimate object, but you get the drift. Does it rise to the level of something like an ex cathedra statement?

Thanks much,
MM
Click to expand...
The Catechism contains infallible truth, however it isn’t inspired (greek theoknuestos means God breathed). It does not contain all dogma throughout it though e.g., the Blessed Mother Mary being the mediatrix hasn’t been dogmatically declared nor defined. Mary is our mediatrix, however to what extent she is hasn’t been formally explained by the Magisterium; and may never be. It is a title that we invoke for her for our personal piety and prayer. Even sacred oral apostolic Tradition is not inspired but is still infallible.

CCC
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

All all of our personal bibles aren’t inspired, which may shock some of you. All scholars agree, both Catholic and Protestant, that only the original scrolls of scripture were actually “inspired.” Don’t worry though, our Bibles contain infallible truth, even more so since we have the deuterocanonicals. We can also be reasured since the Catholic Church authoritatively recognized those inspired books; we know we are in good hands 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top