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

[PRmerger]

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?

 

[cjaubert]

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?

Do you care to give us a specific example of what you are talking about? That might help the discussion. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you care to give us a specific example of what you are talking about? That might help the discussion. Thank you.

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon. The excuse is given that there was never any solemn, formal proclamations from the Magisterium that this was actually forbidden, yet it was rather hard to find a priest who would marry an interracial couple in the U.S. in the '60’s.

Another example: St. Thomas Aquinas advocated banishing a woman for adultery.* I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one.*
newadvent.org/summa/506201.htm

I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

Regarding attitudes in the Church towards mental illness: Mental . . . illnesses were attributed as much to overwork, overeating, and overindulgence in sexual activity as to climactic conditions, magic spells, and demonic possession" (1973, p. 281). However, such illnesses were still viewed as products of sin; counsel provided by priests, repentance, and even exorcism were considered the most efficacious remedies. Penitential literature, voluminously produced during this period, played a large role in mental healing. These works discussed a wide variety of indiscretions and prescribed specific acts of penance.
socwel.ku.edu/candagrant/Papers/Catholic.htm

Again, I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

 

[kleary]

INFALLIBLE teaching that you must believe as a Catholic is simple for a Catholic to understand-

We must believe without doubt anything concerning faith and morals decreed by any Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church or the Roman Pontiff when he speaks “Ex Cathedra” as defined by Ecumenical Council Vatican I.

I hope this helps you to understand.

Ken

 

[NotWorthy]

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon. The excuse is given that there was never any solemn, formal proclamations from the Magisterium that this was actually forbidden, yet it was rather hard to find a priest who would marry an interracial couple in the U.S. in the '60’s.

If the priest were acting by the direction of the Pope or the College of Bishops, then you’ve got a point. If a priest is a prejudiced racist, then that doesn’t reflect on the teacings of Rome, does it?

Another example: St. Thomas Aquinas advocated banishing a woman for adultery.* I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one.*
newadvent.org/summa/506201.htm

Where does the Church teach that Thomas Aquinas was infallible? No where. It’s simply the Pope when teaching on faith and morals that infalliblity applies, or the college of bishops in agreement with the Pope.

 

[NotWorthy]

Regarding attitudes in the Church towards mental illness: Mental . . . illnesses were attributed as much to overwork, overeating, and overindulgence in sexual activity as to climactic conditions, magic spells, and demonic possession" (1973, p. 281). However, such illnesses were still viewed as products of sin; counsel provided by priests, repentance, and even exorcism were considered the most efficacious remedies. Penitential literature, voluminously produced during this period, played a large role in mental healing. These works discussed a wide variety of indiscretions and prescribed specific acts of penance.
socwel.ku.edu/candagrant/Papers/Catholic.htm

Again, I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

What this looks like, after reading the article, is that the Vatican was silent on the causes of mental health, until they finally understood it. This is one of the limits of infallibility. The Vatican can not present infallible statement on things they don’t understand. They can only speak infallibly when they know the truth, and not a moment sooner.

 

[catholicbudgie]

Maybe because teachings can and do change. I remember a friend of mine who spent much time in South Africa. As a red haired fair skinned Aussie he got on alright. He didn’t say much about appartheid then, but it always bothered him: the majority of the Boers and other white people professed faith in Jesus Christ, and yet thought it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of colour.

He eventually figured it out - there was a passage in Scripture (Daniel I think but I cannot remember) that talks of shunning those with black hearts. The rationale was black skin = black heart therefore the bible supported racism.

So, the religious leaders there, mostly, (with some outstanding exceptions of course) would teach that. We now know the policy to be abhorrent.

What am I trying to say? At the time they were right. And as such teaching infallibility remains. But time and knowledge have overtaken us and new teachings replace the old.

 

[Church_Militant]

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon. The excuse is given that there was never any solemn, formal proclamations from the Magisterium that this was actually forbidden, yet it was rather hard to find a priest who would marry an interracial couple in the U.S. in the '60’s.

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.

The fact is that with the racial climate the way it was in the U.S, at that time, priests were often very careful to make sure that the couple knew exactly what they were getting into before they got married, but your statement is inaccurate.
I know…I lived there at that time.
Pax tecum,

 

[FCEGM]

Maybe because teachings can and do change. I remember a friend of mine who spent much time in South Africa. As a red haired fair skinned Aussie he got on alright. He didn’t say much about appartheid then, but it always bothered him: the majority of the Boers and other white people professed faith in Jesus Christ, and yet thought it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of colour.

He eventually figured it out - there was a passage in Scripture (Daniel I think but I cannot remember) that talks of shunning those with black hearts. The rationale was black skin = black heart therefore the bible supported racism.

So, the religious leaders there, mostly, (with some outstanding exceptions of course) would teach that. We now know the policy to be abhorrent.

What am I trying to say? At the time they were right. And as such teaching infallibility remains. But time and knowledge have overtaken us and new teachings replace the old.

No, infallibility is not a matter of the Church moving into a correct position with the changing of the times, it is about preserving the faith received by the Apostles from Our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Such preservation certainly allows for development of understanding, but not for an about-face where doctrines of Faith and Morals are concerned.

 

[PRmerger]

INFALLIBLE teaching that you must believe as a Catholic is simple for a Catholic to understand-

We must believe without doubt anything concerning faith and morals decreed by any Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church or the Roman Pontiff when he speaks “Ex Cathedra” as defined by Ecumenical Council Vatican I.

I hope this helps you to understand.

Ken

Has any Ecumenical Council or the pope made any solemn, formal decrees on the current issues of the day, such as stem cell research, or homosexual unions?

 

[thistle]

Has any Ecumenical Council or the pope made any solemn, formal decrees on the current issues of the day, such as stem cell research, or homosexual unions?

Homosexuality is not a current issue of the day. It is forbidden clearly and unambigously in both the Old Testament and the New Testament and as our Church teaching is based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition this teaching can never be changed.

 

[PRmerger]

Homosexuality is not a current issue of the day.

I should have made it clear I meant legalization of homosexual unions

It is forbidden clearly and unambigously in both the Old Testament and the New Testament and as our Church teaching is based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition this teaching can never be changed.

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

(These are just 2 examples of issues that are currently being addressed from the pulpit. I don’t necessarily want to discuss homosexual unions or ESC research, per se…only how authoritative are the teachings on current issues if no solemn and formal proclamations have been declared.)**

 

[gogogirl]

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:

1. Q. Does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all?
   A. The Church does forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all.

1. Q. Why does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all?
   A. The Church forbids the marriage of Catholics with persons who have a different religion or no religion at all because such marriages generally lead to indifference, loss of faith, and to the neglect of the religious education of the children.

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:

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a nonbaptized person) requires even greater circumspection.

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

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:

The Catholic party may resist this evil influence for a time, but will, if not very steadfast in the faith, finally yield to it, and, tired of numerous disputes in defense of religious rights, will become more and more indifferent, gradually give up the practice of religion, and probably terminate with complete loss of faith or apostasy from the true religion.

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

 

[Church_Militant]

GGG,
That is not a doctrinal change but possibly a discipline and therefore is not really relevent to the issue of infallibility.
Pax tecum,

 

[gogogirl]

GGG,
That is not a doctrinal change but possibly a discipline and therefore is not really relevent to the issue of infallibility.
Pax tecum,

What is the difference between doctrine and discipline?

 

[corvidae]

Doctrine is what we believe
Discipline is how we show it

 

[PRmerger]

Posts #13 and #14 illustrate my quandary quite well! It’s why I posed the original question. If a changed teaching is pointed out, the defense is either: it was never formally and solemnly proclaimed by the Magisterium, or, it was a disciplinary issue.

So with regard to current ethical and moral issues, are we as Catholics bound to follow Church teaching? I’ve not seen any solemn, formal decrees from the Magisterium regarding, for example, embryonic stem cell research. Certainly, the voice from the pulpit in our churches is quite clear…but no Ecumenical Council has made any formal declarations on this issue.

 

[Elzee]

What is the difference between doctrine and discipline?

My understanding is doctrine cannot change - officialteachings of the Church by either the Pope or the Pope in conjunction with the Bishops. I’ve heard these called ‘dogma’ before - are they the same?

Disciplines are just that - practices we must follow because the Church believes it is helpful to us at a particular time - they ‘discipline’ us to become holier (not eating meat on Friday, determining what days are holy days of obligation, etc.). We are obligated to follow the disciplines because we must submit to the authority of the Church, but they can change.

Is this correct?

Perhaps the next logical question is…how do we know what is doctrine and what is discipline - especially when it comes to the Catechism? What tells us in the Baltimore Catechism that the quote from GGG is a ‘discipline’? What, in the current Catechism is doctrine versus discipline? Some will say it doesn’t matter, but it does when I’m talking with my Protestant friends and trying to explain the difference.

 

[prv]

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

This is a matter of church law and discipline. The Church still does discourage people from marrying outside of the Church, albeit people want to ignore its warnings. This is shown by the requirement of episcopal permission before marrying non-Catholics, and more serious, the non-baptized. Recognizing the freedom of people, it permits mixed marriages provided that people know of the responsibilities thereof. The Church recognizes very gravely the seriousness of the matter of marriage, between Catholics, Catholics and non-Catholics, and between Catholics and non-baptized. Italics are my own empahsis.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.[135] In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.[136] This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.[137]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Yes. It has never been Catholic teaching that we are only bound to believe infallibly defined teachings. Obedience is not dependent upon infallibility, but upon authority. See Heb 13:17. It is an exercise of the virtue of charity.