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

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

Yes - I rather agree with you It is methodologically impossible to disprove the dogma, not because it really is absolutely exceptionless, but because it is possible to justify it to one’s own satisfaction, if to no one else’s.​

The important thing is that it is possible to believe it - this takes priority over applying it to particular decisions & utterances: the belief is the constant, the things it is applied to are the variables. What is essential is that it should be possible to conclude that the dogma is true - the reasons for the conclusion can vary, & do.

That’s MO

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I just want to add a comment with regards to teachings that have changed over time. Mixed marriages at one time were strictly forbidden by the church. If you look at the Baltimore Catechism it states:

You can view it in its entirety at: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-m.htm

Now, if you look at the current catechism, it allows mixed marriages. Here is what the current catechism states regarding mixed marriages:

There is clearly a difference in teachings between these two Catechisms. The Baltimore Catechism takes a very negative attitude towards non-Catholics in regards to marriage, it even goes so far as to say that non-Catholics are an evil influence:

This quote is in regards to why they did not allow mixed marriages. The current catechism has relaxed the rules and stated that a difference of religion “does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage”.

I clearly see a conflict between what was officially taught then versus what is officially taught now. These teachings are clearly conflicting. I am sure there are other teachings that have changed over time by I do not have the time nor the energy to sit down and compare each and every catechism.

For anybody that wants to compare the different catechisms to see what was taught then versus what is taught now, you can find them at: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm

The current code of Canon Law seems to still say the same thing.

Can. 1086~1 A marriage is **invalid **when one of the two persons was baptised in the
catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, and the
other was not baptised.

 

[Taliesin]

To quote James White, this is an example of Sola Ecclesia. The Church is infallible when she’s right. If she speaks error, it’s because she wasn’t speaking infallibly. Or she wasn’t exercising her teaching office.

Now you see the logic?:whacky:

 

[awantz]

To quote James White, this is an example of Sola Ecclesia. The Church is infallible when she’s right. If she speaks error, it’s because she wasn’t speaking infallibly. Or she wasn’t exercising her teaching office.

Now you see the logic?:whacky:

I have a question. How do you know when someone, like the Pope is speaking infallible and when he is not?

 

[NotWorthy]

I have a question. How do you know when someone, like the Pope is speaking infallible and when he is not?

He makes the claim that he is speaking “Ex-Cathedra”. This has not been done very often.

 

[awantz]

He makes the claim that he is speaking “Ex-Cathedra”. This has not been done very often.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

[bobzills]

I don’t know where you got this bunk from, but I can attest to the fact That I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama during that time and there was indeed a priest who was shot to death on the front steps of his rectory because he married an interracial couple, so you are dead wrong here.,

And I think that in Brazil, which has a large Catholic population, racial intermarriage is common.

 

[Taliesin]

I have a question. How do you know when someone, like the Pope is speaking infallible and when he is not?

That’s more of a relevant question for Catholics. Papal Infallibility is so preposterous (in that it’s unscriptural) that the burden of proof is on those who hold to it. So I would say I always know when he’s speaking infallibly (never) or fallibly (always).