F
fineca
Guest
Dear all,
There has been a lot of discussion on infallibility and it almost always comes back to the question on an infallible list of infallible dogmas. My question is, why is there not such a thing? Wouldn’t it do so much good to the Church if the Magisterium just made it clear once and for all what teachings are infallible, it would do away with all the confusion and a lot of dissent too.
There was some discussion on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis here lately, and it seems to me that JP2 intended it to be an infallible pronouncement judging by the text, but yet I never see it mentioned along with the two Marian dogmas declared ex cathedra - why is that?
What about morals - are doctrines about moral issues infallible and in what sense and by what definition? Now there is talk about the Pope considering permitting condoms in marriages where one of the spouses has AIDS, and he has asked many theologians to present different views so that he could then judge. WHat does this mean in light of Casti Connubi and Humanae Vitae?
What about the canon of the Bible? In 382 when it was decided by the Pope, it wasn’t declared infallible, that happened only in Trent. Does that mean that before Trent Catholics couldn’t know with certainty that the canon is infallible - that the canon could’ve theoretically been changed still?
Also, in what way is Sacred Tradition infallible, and where is Sacred Tradition? I mean, how do we know what is in Sacred Tradition? It seems to me that it’s the Church that tells us, so Tradition seems to be reduced to infallible Magisterial/Papal pronouncements regardless of the amount of patristic/historical evidence we have that the particular doctrine goes back to the apostles. That would basically mean that Tradition doesn’t exist in itself as a source of revelation entrusted to the whole Church as it’s supposed to be…again we don’t have a list of what is in Tradition and what are traditions with a small t that can be changed. I’d appreciate your help in such a complicated question. Thanks! E
There has been a lot of discussion on infallibility and it almost always comes back to the question on an infallible list of infallible dogmas. My question is, why is there not such a thing? Wouldn’t it do so much good to the Church if the Magisterium just made it clear once and for all what teachings are infallible, it would do away with all the confusion and a lot of dissent too.
There was some discussion on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis here lately, and it seems to me that JP2 intended it to be an infallible pronouncement judging by the text, but yet I never see it mentioned along with the two Marian dogmas declared ex cathedra - why is that?
What about morals - are doctrines about moral issues infallible and in what sense and by what definition? Now there is talk about the Pope considering permitting condoms in marriages where one of the spouses has AIDS, and he has asked many theologians to present different views so that he could then judge. WHat does this mean in light of Casti Connubi and Humanae Vitae?
What about the canon of the Bible? In 382 when it was decided by the Pope, it wasn’t declared infallible, that happened only in Trent. Does that mean that before Trent Catholics couldn’t know with certainty that the canon is infallible - that the canon could’ve theoretically been changed still?
Also, in what way is Sacred Tradition infallible, and where is Sacred Tradition? I mean, how do we know what is in Sacred Tradition? It seems to me that it’s the Church that tells us, so Tradition seems to be reduced to infallible Magisterial/Papal pronouncements regardless of the amount of patristic/historical evidence we have that the particular doctrine goes back to the apostles. That would basically mean that Tradition doesn’t exist in itself as a source of revelation entrusted to the whole Church as it’s supposed to be…again we don’t have a list of what is in Tradition and what are traditions with a small t that can be changed. I’d appreciate your help in such a complicated question. Thanks! E
