How can the 'ordinary magisterium' be considered infallible on morals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious_Convert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious_Convert

Guest
Hello everybody.

I understand Christ’s promises of infallibility to His Church. I understand how this is expressed through the ‘extraordinary magisterium’ (i.e. defined dogmas regarding faith and morals declared by an ecumenical council in union with the pope, or by the pope himself when speaking ex cathedra). I don’t think I need any clarification about any of that.

What I am having trouble grasping is he concept of infallibility of the ‘ordinary magisterium.’ You know, the idea that all the bishops across the world are infallible when they are in union with the pope and teach what the church has ‘always believed’ regarding faith and morals. How can this idea mesh with the fact that the Church has changed stances on many things that it ‘has always believed’?

I understand the concept of ‘doctrinal development’ and know that there have been many obvious cases of this in the Church’s history. However, I don’t think it is intellectually honest to call the following ‘developments’ instead of ‘changes’: acceptance of usury (provided it is not ‘too much’ interest), condemnation of slavery of any sort, discouraging the death penalty in practically every situation, discouraging the use of torture in interrogation, political duty to ensure religious freedom (instead of duty to protect the ‘true religion’ and silence heresy as in the past), now considering protestants & orthodox as ‘separated brothers’ instead of heretics and schismatics, discouraging the preaching of Christ to the Jewish people as an organized missionary effort, etc…

I am NOT saying that I disagree with all of these ‘changes’ (or ‘developments’ if that euphemism sounds better to you) and I am not interested in debating them. I am asking how they can be reconciled with the concept of ‘infallibility of the ordinary magisterium’ concerning faith and morals. It seems to me that the Church has changed it’s moral teachings in the past when changes in society had made it appear appropriate to do so.

Any insights or sources would be greatly appreciated, as this is something that I want to believe, but am having a lot of trouble with!

Thanks and may God bless you.
-Curious
 
Welcome to CAF!

I need to explain the new stance in order to show how Church teaching remains the same, but also develops, so I am sorry to look like I am debating!
  1. acceptance of usury (provided it is not ‘too much’ interest): when money became a commodity, some compensation for “renting” the money was allowed
  2. condemnation of slavery of any sort: when slavery was a way to deal with debt or prisoners of war, it was not the same sort of institution as chattel slavery, which was condemned
  3. discouraging the death penalty in practically every situation: tricky issue, Church teaching has not changed, the dicta against the DP do not rise that high
  4. discouraging the use of torture in interrogation: can’t do don’t know enough about it
  5. political duty to ensure religious freedom (instead of duty to protect the ‘true religion’ and silence heresy as in the past): This is a big one. What happened was that a whole philosophical development occurred and during V2 one of the goals was to recast Church teaching in a way that lined up with the newer philosophical terms, etc. Where once we had obligations, now others have rights, etc.
This idea of religious freedom is a *civil *right, not a *moral *right, and it extends only so far. It is the flip side of our obligation to refrain from forcing conversions. Obviously if we have an obligation not to force a conversion, the other has a “right” not to be converted, or to religious freedom.

The document which discusses this change is Dignitatis Humanae, and if you are looking for it, it is very clear.
  1. now considering protestants & orthodox as ‘separated brothers’ instead of heretics and schismatics: This is because those who are protestant and Orthodox now are generally raised that way and did not themselves choose the separation. The individuals are not guilty of heresy and schism, since they are not the ones who left.
  2. discouraging the preaching of Christ to the Jewish people as an organized missionary effort: don’t know about this one either.
So you see that in many cases it is not an actual change of the teaching itself but a change in the circumstances described, or in the purpose of the action which changed it nature.

And ***if ***you are reading ultra-Traditional stuff by people outside the Church, I suggest you stop. I wasted 2 years trying to sort that out and my spiritual life is still recovering.
 
The ordinary and universal magisterium teaches infallibly:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” LG 25

Otherwise, the teachings of the ordinary magisterium are non-infallible. Some of the examples you give of teachings of the ordinary magisterium that have changed may have been non-infallible. Either that, or it is a question of a different expression of the same teaching.

When a doctrine is taught infallibly by the Magisterium, it is a formal dogma. Previous to its infallible expression by the Magisterium, the same idea was a material dogma in Tradition and Scripture. New definitions of doctrine are not really new; they were always found, at least implicitly in Tradition and Scripture.
 
Thanks for the responses so far.

To clarify, some (or maybe all) of my examples of ‘changes’ could refer to teachings that were widespread among the previous popes and bishops, but not necessarily considered infallible (Hence, later changes were never out of the question to begin with)?

I can buy that, but if that is the case, how does the ordinary magisterium distinguish between the infallible teachings regarding faith and morals and the non-infallible from among the teachings they have ‘always believed’? If there is no formal process, than the classifications of infallible and non-infallible would appear to mean nothing in terms of the ordinary magisterium…
 
You may want to review the doctrinal development in Acts 15 and 16, when the apostles gathered in Council to consider the matter of gentiles keeping the prescriptions of mosaic law in the manner of jewish observance. These were long-standing prescriptions. Were they changed? Indeed. The gentiles were given a lighter observance, wherein they were simply advised to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood and from what is strangled, and from immorality. (16:29) This decision was stated in verse 28, as “The Holy Spirit and WE have decided …” indicating the infallibility of their ruling.

I would suspect that the Jews were not very pleased with that decision, just as some of our Catholics are upset with the leniency seemingly extended to Protestants today.

Regarding doctrinal development, there is no need today to circulate an encyclical about abstaining from blood, or things sacrificed to idols. We often eat meat that is rare without being under condemnation. Yet some could conceivably damn to hell anyone who eats meat with blood under that old apostolic ruling that no longer applies to present society.

Hope this is somewhat helpful. I cannot think of any other examples at the moment.
 
Thanks, I understand ecumenical councils and the binding and loosing of disciplines such as dietary laws.

It is easy to see how the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium works, since it leaves a paper trail. I am still trying to understand how the ‘ordinary magisterium’ knows which teachings that have ‘always been believed’ are infallible and which are not. .

In my first post I gave examples of teachings that changed with the changing times. Recent popes have appealed to the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium in matters such as abortion and women’s ordination. I accept both of these teachings as infallible, but I don’t understand why they an be considered free from the possibility of error while other teachings that have ‘always been held’ were not free from the possibility of error
(hence they were changed with changing times).

Further clarification would be much appreciated…
 
But this is more than just a change in dietary laws. The big issue with the first Council I cited to you in Acts was circumcision. It was etched in stone - always a requirement mandated by God for centuries upon centuries since Abraham. Yet with the guidance of the Spirit, this was no longer a prescription required for the gentiles. Therefore, some previously infallible issues may be set aside, as the Lord leads His Church.

It may be a good idea to review what infallibility is, for you seem to have the idea that once proclaimed, it can never be undone. That would be what we call Ex Cathedra, not ordinary infallibility. Ex Cathedra pronouncements may **never **be set aside. There were only two, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary. As such, they are required for Catholics to believe.

This probably is a far-fetched notion, but even the age-old requirement of males for the priesthood could possibly be set aside in a matter of extraordinary emergency. Suppose there is a world war where males are slaugtered to the point that the Church is not able to serve God’s people. In such a dire need, I can envision that the Spirit would open the door to females, because the promise of Jesus tells us He will never leave us orphans and will be with His Church until the end of time. Please understand, I am not a proponent for female ordinations.
 
Sirach, the example that you give is an example of how the apostles used their authority in an ecumenical council to replace some of the old covenant customs for the sake of the new covenant. Perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see how this initial apostolic age example is relevant to the everyday teaching office of the ‘ordinary magisterium’ (which does not refer to ecumenical councils or ex cathedra statements), which the Church teaches is infallible (free from the possibility of error) in teaching things that have ‘always been believed’ in union with the pope. Being free from the possibility of error entails that the teaching stands for all time. Sure if can be understood more deeply in time, but not changed or contradicted. Church disciplines (such as fasting, holy days, penance, clerical celibacy, etc…) never fall into this category.

If you check out Ludwig Von Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, you will see that there have been many infallible statements in the form of defined dogmas by ecumenical councils in union with the pope. These make up the vast majority of the Church’s infallible teachings by the ‘extraordinary magisterium.’ The other infallible teachings by the ‘extraordinary magisterium’ are the ex cathedra statements that you mentioned. These are not what is meant by the infalibility of the ‘ordinary magisterium’.

I appreciate your attempt, but my question remains:

How does the ‘ordinary magisterium’ know which teachings that have ‘always been believed’ are infallible and which are not?
 
Sirach2 said:
This probably is a far-fetched notion, but even the age-old requirement of males for the priesthood could possibly be set aside in a matter of extraordinary emergency. Suppose there is a world war where males are slaugtered to the point that the Church is not able to serve God’s people. In such a dire need, I can envision that the Spirit would open the door to females, because the promise of Jesus tells us He will never leave us orphans and will be with His Church until the end of time. Please understand, I am not a proponent for female ordinations.
Click to expand...
Really?

So the idea of Priestesses can be valid if “Ex Cathedra” is invoked?
 
Curious_Convert said:
Hello everybody.

I understand Christ’s promises of infallibility to His Church. I understand how this is expressed through the ‘extraordinary magisterium’ (i.e. defined dogmas regarding faith and morals declared by an ecumenical council in union with the pope, or by the pope himself when speaking ex cathedra). I don’t think I need any clarification about any of that.

What I am having trouble grasping is he concept of infallibility of the ‘ordinary magisterium.’ You know, the idea that all the bishops across the world are infallible when they are in union with the pope and teach what the church has ‘always believed’ regarding faith and morals. How can this idea mesh with the fact that the Church has changed stances on many things that it ‘has always believed’?

I understand the concept of ‘doctrinal development’ and know that there have been many obvious cases of this in the Church’s history. However, I don’t think it is intellectually honest to call the following ‘developments’ instead of ‘changes’: acceptance of usury (provided it is not ‘too much’ interest), condemnation of slavery of any sort, discouraging the death penalty in practically every situation, discouraging the use of torture in interrogation, political duty to ensure religious freedom (instead of duty to protect the ‘true religion’ and silence heresy as in the past), now considering protestants & orthodox as ‘separated brothers’ instead of heretics and schismatics, discouraging the preaching of Christ to the Jewish people as an organized missionary effort, etc…

I am NOT saying that I disagree with all of these ‘changes’ (or ‘developments’ if that euphemism sounds better to you) and I am not interested in debating them. I am asking how they can be reconciled with the concept of ‘infallibility of the ordinary magisterium’ concerning faith and morals. It seems to me that the Church has changed it’s moral teachings in the past when changes in society had made it appear appropriate to do so.

Any insights or sources would be greatly appreciated, as this is something that I want to believe, but am having a lot of trouble with!

Thanks and may God bless you.
-Curious
Click to expand...
If you believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and that Jesus Christ is God, and that he gave all of his authority to the Church to teach on his behalf, I don’t know why you would even think to question whether her teachings are infallible. Trust that God can keep his promises. By the way, I’m a convert to the Catholic faith, too. 🙂
 
livingwordunity said:
If you believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and that Jesus Christ is God, and that he gave all of his authority to the Church to teach on his behalf, I don’t know why you would even think to question whether her teachings are infallible. Trust that God can keep his promises. By the way, I’m a convert to the Catholic faith, too. 🙂
Click to expand...
I understand your sentiment, and just so you know, I personally accept everything that is written in the catechism. However, I often engage in apologetic discussions with non-Catholics where issues such as this are brought up quickly and eventually I have no answer as to why some teachings are infallible and why some are not, and why we have no actual objective criteria or list as to what is and what is not infallible. I serve as a catechist, so I would like to understand what the church means when she teaches me about her infallibility.

The lack of clarification on this issues has also allowed dissident theologians, bishops, and priests to create havoc within the Church by spreading dissent in the name of ‘following conscience’. This dissent has entered into my own family. I think every catholic should be concerned about the much needed clarification that is needed on the many issues that divide the church today.

It is really pretty simple if you back up and think about it: If we are told that some things are infallible and some are not, we should be able to tell the difference. Right? Otherwise, why mention infallibility in the first place?

(remember, you are talking with someone who accepts everything in the catechism, I am not ‘looking for loopholes’ so I can go do and belief whatever I want.)
 
Curious Convert,

Part of your problem here is the assumption that Catholic moral teaching has “changed.” When it comes to morality, sometimes Catholic teaching really deals with a principle that underlies an act, and sometimes the nature of the act changes such that the underlying principle no longer applies to that act. For example, in relation to usury, the underlying moral principle of the Church is “don’t take unfair advantage of another in need.” At one point, charging interest was taking unfair advantage of another, and was therefore immoral. As economies matured and the nature of money changed, charging interest came to be seen as a legitimate way to compensate the lendor for the time-value he lost on the money he loaned (among other things). Therefore, charging interest was no longer an act that took unfair advantage of another, and that underlying moral principle no longer applied to charging interest (it still does apply, however, to charging excessive (i.e., unfair) interest).

Contrast that with, say, homosexual activity. We cannot expect that the Church’s teaching will ever change on the immoral nature of the homosexual act, because the underlying moral principle (that a moral sex act is unitive and procreative and takes place within the context of marriage) will always apply to that act. We know this because the nature of the homosexual act itself can never change. Unless the homosexual act somehow becomes unitive and procreative and unless the nature of marriage changes to include two members of the same sex, such an act will never be moral.

The fact is that Catholic moral teaching has never “changed.” Only the nature of some acts have changed such that the underlying moral principle no longer applies to that act, at least not in the same way.

In terms of understanding which teachings of the Church are infallible or not, the only place to go on that issue is the Catechism. It was intended to be an accounting of the Church’s teachings, both from the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium. I understand and can sympathize with your experience of family members and friends using this question to weasel around teachings they find difficult to agree with intellectually or to live with, but the fact is, whether any given teaching is infallible or not is really the wrong way to look at the issue (I did my fair share of weaseling on my road to the Church, so I get the impulse). We trust the Church and the teachings (ordinary and extraordinary) of the Magisterium because the Church is the expert on matters of faith and morals. If your friends went to the doctor and the doctor told them to lose some weight, we could expect them to try to lose weight, not wait until the doctor told them they need to lose weight or they will die within the year. We can and should expect reasonable people to recognize expertise and authority and defer to those who have it. We do this all the time. We order dishes recommended by our waiter. We take legal actions recommended by our attorney. We decide which movies to go to depending upon critics’ reviews. Heck, we even buy things online based upon the recommendations of people we don’t even know! Why is it then so difficult to listen to the teachings of a Church that was established by the Son of God and has been thinking about, praying about and contemplating God and our relationship with Him for 2000 years? It’s really very simple. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, who promised she would never lead us astray. The educated, intelligent, reasonable person will listen to His Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top