Church infallibility: talking out of both sides of her mouth?

[PRmerger]

QUOTE=Rosalinda;1522073]Where did you get “banishing” from? Is it possible you are confused with the expression “to put away” ? What point were you trying to make with this example? How does it contradict the Church’s teaching on marriage today?

Hello, Rosalinda! I do assume that “to put away” means to banish someone.I cited it as an example which does not illustrate a very loving attitude towards women.

 

[PRmerger]

itsjustdave1988:

Nonetheless, as of yet I am not convinced the earth is immovable. Nor do I believe it to be presented by the magisterium as sententia certa, so it doesn’t appear to be something to which I owe my religious assent.

Whoa…now I’m really confused. Again. Doesn’t this illustrate my quandary–we must believe the Church, even when she’s mistaken vs believe only things that are sententia certa

I am not an uneducated person–certainly not right off the boat (although I did “get off the boat” here 40 years ago!) and I don’t get at all this pontification regarding

“common teaching” (sententia communis) and “certain teaching” (sententia certa). Catholics are bound to give their religious assent to sententia certa. Sententia communis is considered free opinion in Catholic dogmatic theology, which Catholics are not canonically bound to assent to. We can know the difference by looking at the context of the teaching, how is was presented, the words used to present it.

I certainly cannot tell the difference between common teaching" (sententia communis) and “certain teaching” (sententia certa) regarding current issues such as stem cell research and homosexual unions…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Whoa…now I’m really confused. Again. Doesn’t this illustrate my quandary–we must believe the Church, even when she’s mistaken vs believe only things that are sententia certa

Sententia certa is not infallible or immutable. De fide dogmas are. thus, you still have to distinguish the teaching into two categories. However, the categories are NOT infallible and fallibe. Instead the two categories are 1) doctrine or 2) speculative theology.

You must give your religious assent to the non-infallible doctrines (sententia certa) of the Catholic Church. You must give your assent of faith to those doctrines which are also dogmas (de fide) of the Catholic Church. The difference is that the lack of religious assent is a sin against charity, and lack of assent of faith is a sin against faith. It’s a rather academic theological difference, as both require the assent of intellect and will. Whether it is a sin against charity of a sin a faith…it is still a sin.

Nonetheless, theologians also engage in speculative theology, which is often also presented by the Teaching Church, to which we are not bound to give our religious assent. We can discern that which is speculative to that which is certain from the context of the teaching, the manner it which it was taught, and the words used in teaching it.

For example, the Jesuits taught me the one theory of the understanding of grace, freewill, and predestination. However, the Dominicans teach a different theory. Both are in accord with Catholic doctrine, yet each theory disagrees with the other. I am not bound by ecclesiastical discipline to assent to one or the other, or either. Some Church teachings are simply “common teaching” (sententia communis) which are still within the field of free opinion.

The other example I gave earlier was St. Augustine’s view that those who die in original sin only would suffer both pain of torment (peona sensus) and loss of the Beatific Vision of God (poena damni), while St. Thomas Aquinas taught that only the loss of Beatific Vision occurs, and they actually life in natural happiness without torment, yet still consisting of the lack of supernatural Beatific Vision of God. These are among the common teachings of the Church, but are not among the certain teachings which are doctrinal, properly so-called.

I am not an uneducated person-…I certainly cannot tell the difference between common teaching" (sententia communis) and “certain teaching” (sententia certa) regarding current issues such as stem cell research and homosexual unions…

That’s why we have a **living magisterium . **We are not left to our own private lights to understand what is doctrine and what is not. We can simply ask our pastor, our bishop, our pope. They can tell you if teaching X is speculative or binding doctrine or dogma. That’s why they went to seminary. Have you discussed this with your pastor or bishop yet? If so, what did they tell you?

Now, there are not a small number of dissenting clergy, so you still have the personal responsibility to listen to your pastor, and if he is teaching you something contrary to your bishop, then you might seek clarification from your pastor and bishop. Likewise regarding your bishop, if he should teach something contrary to Pope Benedict XVI. In the final analysis, you have recourse to a living magisterium and need not rely upon your ability to understand and apply the principles of Catholic dogmatic theology with regard to ecclesial texts , for which you probably have not been taught.

Regarding homosexual unions and stem-cell research…

Find out what your pastor and bishop teach, and the manner in which they teach it. Is it presented as certain teaching, or do they say “some assert this, some assert that…?”

I am a post-graduate student in theology, so I am somewhat familiar with the principles of Catholic dogmatic theology. Consequently, with regard to Catholic teaching on stem-cell research and homosexual unions, we can further discuss these using the magisterial texts and it may become more clear the certainty of the teaching given the manner in which the teaching has been promulgated, and context, frequency and words used to teach it.

As for immovable earth and it’s place in Catholic teaching. I have never seen or heard my pastor, my bishop, or my pope assert such a thing. If it is Catholic doctrine, they are doing a good job of keeping it a secret.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

PRmerger,

With regard to homosexual unions…

Without any having any knowledge of the principles of Catholic dogmatic theology, does the following teaching by my bishop and the Holy See seem to be “speculative” in the words they uses, or does there seem to be a certainty about their teaching?

Bishop Michael Sheridan, Diocese of Colorado Springs:

“In the face of this newest threat to the sanctity of marriage Pope John Paul II not only has reiterated that homosexual unions are not marriages of any kind and that homosexual activity is gravely sinful, he has called upon Catholic legislators and other Catholic officeholders to stand against the destruction of marriage and family life.” (Second Vatican Council and Theology of the laity, 3 Sep 2003)

Likewise, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, …The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. source]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices (CCC 2396)

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
(CCC 2357)

Even without formal education in the principles of dogmatic theology, it doesn’t seem difficult to discern that, it is the certain teaching of the Catholic Church that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, and that homosexual activity is gravely sinful, and that under no circumstances can homosexual activity be approved.

This has been the constant teaching of my pastor, my bishop, and my pope, using words which indeed confirm certainty, not speculation.

The question should not be, “is it infallible?” The question ought to be, “is this a certain teaching of my pastor, bishop, or pope?” This is easily discernable through the normals skills of communication. If in doubt, simply ask them if this is merely speculative or binding doctrine. It’s not as difficult as you imagine.

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger answered:

I do assume that “to put away” means to banish someone.I cited it as an example which does not illustrate a very loving attitude towards women.

newadvent.org/summa/506201.htm

The expression which has confused you “to put away” does not mean banish rather it means to divorce. Jesus said, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” Mt.19:9; Mt.5:32 It is the translation which is confusing you. Try the New American Bible, revised edition.

To conclude, your example that the Church is inconsistent in her teachings is a straw man which fails to stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, your answer shifts the discussion to “loving attitudes”. Let’s have more specificity and clarity of thought so that everyone may benefit from this discussion if you would be so kind, PR. :yawn:

 

[itsjustdave1988]

PRmerger,

I’m a military officer. I am often given guidance from the officers appointed over me, as well as orders from them. It’s not difficult to determine, through the use of normal commuication skills, which are orders and which is guidance. Yet, if I ever was in doubt, I can simply ask them to clarify!

Likewise, I’m a father to two teenagers. I give them both advice, (not binding) and direction (binding). They know from my tone of voice, the context, the words in which I use, the manner in which I communicate whether it is binding upon them or not. It’s not rocket science.

Embryonic stem-cell research is instrinsically sinful because it destroys innocent human life. Does the Church present this as mere speculation, or is it clear from the manner in which the teaching is communicated that the Church is adamantly opposed to the destruction of innocent human beings, even in the earliest stage of embryonic development?

For more, see here:

Drawing the Line: The Church’s Teaching on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Male and Female He Created Them: The Church and ‘Same-Sex Marriages’

 

[PRmerger]

itsjustdave1988:

It’s not rocket science.

I get that. It is simple.

Yet, it also must be quite complex, otherwise why the lengthy (and enlightening) explanations?

Also, there must be lots out there like me who are confused by this issue; and Post #23: do you have an actual quote from a dogmatic Church document that prohibited interracial marriage? without such a citation there is nothing to discuss contributes to the confusion.

 

[Rosalinda]

St. Thomas on the issue of Church authority had the following to say:

“I answer that, the custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence, we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or Jerome or of any doctor whatsoever.”
Summa,II-II10:12

He submitted all his writing to the scrutiny of Holy Mother Church on his deathbed in 1274. It is no different today. We are all called to submit in obedience, regardless of whether we understand or not, though there is little reason one would not understand as the teachings have never been more easily available. Download the documents from the Internet and read for yourself.

:getholy: Pray to the Holy Spirit before you study and experience tears of joy and gratitude for the wonderful gift Jesus has left us with “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Mt. 16:19

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I get that. It is simple.

Yet, it also must be quite complex, otherwise why the lengthy (and enlightening) explanations?

Although it is simple, it seems people have not been well taught as to how simple it is.

Vatican I was cut short and much of what it wanted to teach on ecclesiology had to be deferred until Vatican II. Thus, in the 60s, there was much ambiguity and various contradictory theories of what was called by some, “legitimate dissent.” The Church has since clarified her ecclesiology and has rejected the “dissent” theories of the 60s and 70s. This is one of the factors which add to the “complexity.”

Also, there must be lots out there like me who are confused by this issue; and Post #23: do you have an actual quote from a dogmatic Church document that prohibited interracial marriage? without such a citation there is nothing to discuss contributes to the confusion.

I think the response you received in post #23 was an attempt to determine a source for your claim.

If interracial marrage was ever prohibited by the Catholic Church, I am not aware of it, nor can I find anything about it within the various resouces I have.

 

[Philthy]

Regarding infallibility of Church teaching, I must respectfully state that I think the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

On one side she claims, “this is Church teaching”, yet when history has borne out an error, apologists will maintain, “that was never formally and solemnly proclaimed by the Magisterium” or “that was a disciplinary concern, not dogmatically defined.”

I have a hard time reconciling what was once taught, but never formally defined, with Church teaching on infallibility.

Anyone care to comment?

When asked to provide examples, you gave this…

PRmerger:

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon…

This was never a clear, infallible teaching. It’s very simple. Prevailing attitudes do not constitude dogma.

PRmerger:

Another example: St. Thomas Aquinas advocated banishing a woman for adultery…
I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

Ibid. Being an “advocate” of something does not constitute dogma. The Church is allowed to express an opinion even if the Church cannot state infallibly that something is dogma. It is part of her function. Once again you haven’t come up with a formal declaration that the Church has reversed itself on…

PRmerger:
Regarding attitudes in the Church towards mental illness: Again, I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

Yes, again, you have provided an example in which the Church has expressed an opinion without a formal declaration. Do you have a problem with the ambiguity of what constitutes an infallible declaration or would you rather, in the absence of certainty, that distinguished members of the Church absolutely remain silent?

 

[PRmerger]

Philthy;:

The Church is allowed to express an opinion even if the Church cannot state infallibly that something is dogma. It is part of her function. Once again you haven’t come up with a formal declaration that the Church has reversed itself on…

I have never questioned whether the Church has ever reversed itself on solemn, formal declarations.

Do you have a problem with the ambiguity of what constitutes an infallible declaration or would you rather, in the absence of certainty, that distinguished members of the Church absolutely remain silent?

Of course I don’t believe the Church should remain absolutely silent! I simply wondered how authoritative the teachings on current issues were, if no solemn and formal proclamations have been declared.

Even though no solemn and formal proclamation has been issued, must we believe Catholic teaching on, for example, the immorality of homosexual unions and embryonic stem cell research?

However, thanks mostly to itsjustdave1988’s enlightening posts, my confusion has cleared greatly.

It just does seem, however, that the Church says, “Listen to me!” but then when Church teaching has been found wanting, then the Church says, “Well, we never formally decreed that!”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…It just does seem, however, that the Church says, “Listen to me!” but then when Church teaching has been found wanting, then the Church says, “Well, we never formally decreed that!”

I understand that this is a common perception, but every time I look into it, the magisterium has actually never responded like that. Not every perception is accurate, when tested.

Take slavery for example. Some have claimed the Church reversed her teaching on slavery, but when you study what was taught, when it was taught, and what it teaches now regarding slavery, I don’t find that claim convincing. See here: Was Catholic moral doctrine on slavery erroneous?

 

[PRmerger]

Take slavery for example. Some have claimed the Church reversed her teaching on slavery

Or take the Church’s proclamation “outside the Church there is no salvation”.

While the Church decrees this still holds true, that understanding has relaxed. (The Church which saves us may not be the *visible *Church, but the *mystical *Church.) However, I heard on the radio today a ex-Catholic woman who maintained that the priests and nuns told her that her non-Catholic father would “burn in hell” unless he converted. I have no doubt that this was the common understanding of the day and that it was proclaimed from the pulpits.

How does a Catholic respond to this?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Or take the Church’s proclamation “outside the Church there is no salvation”.

While the Church decrees this still holds true, that understanding has relaxed. …

This is another good example indeed.

Yet, I disagree that the authentic understanding of this teaching has relaxed at all, but has been faithfully maintained. Many have certainly misunderstood this teaching, and still do. However, the authentic understanding was traditioned to us from the apostles…

For instance, even in the early Church, many understood and taught that those who “belonged” to the Church did not “of necessity of means” connote that one had to be joined in body and soul to the visible Church of Christ. Those who were not joined to the visible Church in body, but were indeed joined in soul were also considered within the same “ark of salvation.”

According to St. Paul:

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16).

Thus, even those who may appear as theough they do not belong to the Church in body, may very well be joined to her in soul, living according to the Divine Logos written in their hearts.

This understanding is affirmed by St. Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150):

Christ is the Logos Divine Word of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, and Heraclitus.

(Fr. William G. Most, The Holy Spirit and the Church, Notre Dame Institute Press, 1991, p. 75).

Similarly, St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) speaks of an implicit desire to be joined to the Church of Christ, according to their ability:

Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly. . . and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice (Most, ibid., p. 76).

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, writing on the occasion of his father’s death in A.D. 374, affirmed:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, p. 29).

St. Augustine too affirmed:

“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39, AD 400).

Thus, the claim that such a teaching was “relaxed” is dependent upon one’s perpective.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Throughout all of my life the teaching of the Teaching Church has been clear on this doctrine. Thus, it is astonishing how some can still misunderstand it. Observe…

Pius IX, *Quanto conficiamur moerore *(1863):

We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God. . . will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of his vineyard), cannot obtain salvation.

St. Pius X, Catechism of St. Pius X:

“If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation” (Catechism of Pius X, The Ninth Article of the Creed)

This teaching was confirmed by the letter of the Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII (August 8, 1949), against the dissent and disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the Archdiocese of Boston, here.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

However, I heard on the radio today a ex-Catholic woman who maintained that the priests and nuns told her that her non-Catholic father would “burn in hell” unless he converted. I have no doubt that this was the common understanding of the day and that it was proclaimed from the pulpits.

How does a Catholic respond to this?

I would respond by teaching what the Catholic Church has always taught regarding who is joined to the visible Church of Christ. Any Catholic, lay or clergy, who presumes to know who is in hell has certainly spoken outside their scope of authority. The person may very well have gone to hell…or he may have been forgiven and justified by God. Only God knows who will ultimately be written in the Book of Life on the last day.

Only those joined to the Catholic Church, even if by desire, may attain eternal salvation. “But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).” (Letter of the Holy Office, 8 Aug 1949, approved and promulgated by Pius XII)"

 

[PRmerger]

This teaching was confirmed by the letter of the Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII (August 8, 1949), against the dissent and disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the Archdiocese of Boston, here.

I found the article most instructive. But it makes no reference to what Fr. Feeney’s dissent was. Did he teach “no one really goes to hell”? or did he say "if you’re not Catholic you go to hell’

 

[PRmerger]

Many have certainly misunderstood this teaching,

It pains me to think of the many, many Catholics who left the Church because they were erroneously taught that unless their loved ones converted, they were doomed to hell. That this teaching was misunderstood by some *clergy *makes it more egregious.

However, I suppose some blame must be placed on these ex-Catholics. To quote itsjustdave: *“We are not left to our own private lights to understand what is doctrine and what is not. We can simply ask our pastor, our bishop, our pope. They can tell you if teaching X is speculative or binding doctrine or dogma.”*They always had access to the gift of the living magisterium. If they had so chosen, they could have asked another priest, or bishop, or the pope if they had been taught correctly regarding the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I found the article most instructive. But it makes no reference to what Fr. Feeney’s dissent was. Did he teach “no one really goes to hell”? or did he say "if you’re not Catholic you go to hell’

The error of Feeneyism, although an insignificant footnote to ecclesial history, it continues today in a small number of adherents. In short, Feeneyism claims that all who do not formally enter the Catholic Church go to hell. Thus it denied that implicit desire for baptism was efficacious in being joined to the Catholic Church. Moreover, Fr. Feeney considered the teaching of Pius IX (Quanto conficiamur moerore) heretical, calling it nothing more than Pelagianism.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for failing to obey the Holy See and explain his assertions at Rome. He reportedly reconciled with the Church before his death, but his errors have since been renewed among some of his disciples who continue to erroneously assert claims contrary to the Holy See’s letter refuting Feeneyism.

 

[PRmerger]

bump