How is something declared infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter turboEDvo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

turboEDvo

Guest
So, the thread ‘Can the Church Change It’s Teaching’ (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=420832) got me wondering how a pope declares something infallible.

Is there a process for declaring something infallible?

Does a teaching need to span more than one pope to be declared infallible?

I suppose I’m interested in understanding how dogmas can be created without the threat of corruption. It seems to me that the Church would want some ‘safeguards’ against a pope who might declare something infallibly for the wrong reasons (though I would of course hope that a pope wouldn’t do this and don’t mean to imply this or call out some doctrine I don’t agree with, I acknowledge that people in positions of power have been known to abuse it).

Thanks
Eamon
 
When the Pope is speaking infallibly certain conditions must be met which safeguard us against dodgy dealings.🙂 These conditions were laid down by the first Vatican council

They are:
That the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (that is when he is discharging his office by virtue of the supreme apostolic authority granted to Peter and his successors).
That he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals.
And that he then says this dogma must be must be held by the whole Church.
Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4]

It doesn’t necessarily have to span more than one pope to be infallible, but generally as with Pope Pius XII’s infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, it is something which has been held for quite a while.

He couldn’t just decide the sky was green and we all had to believe it as this would clearly fall outside the realm of faith or morals, also it doesn’t mean that the Pope cannot commit sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma of infallibly applies.

Hope that’s a help
 
Theophorus’ post is very helpful. When you want to identify something infallibly stated, first you will have to recognize whether it’s a statement of faith or morals, and then see if the statement is preceded by the words, “We define, declare” or other similar paraphrase. The statement can also be reinforced if a person taking the contrary position is considered anathema.

If you still find it confusing, I would recommend getting Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma which describes all matters of the faith and labels them with a demarkation of “de fide” or other levels of certainty. :o
 
Note that the very definition of papal infalliblity is essentially negative, that under certain circumstances the Pope is preserved from error.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Theophorus’ post is very helpful. When you want to identify something infallibly stated, first you will have to recognize whether it’s a statement of faith or morals, and then see if the statement is preceded by the words, “We define, declare” or other similar paraphrase. The statement can also be reinforced if a person taking the contrary position is considered anathema.
Click to expand...
The pronouncement has to be made “ex cathedra,” I believe. But you’re right, it has to be a clear definition and binding forever for the entire church and cannot be overturned by a later Pope.

But does that mean if a later Pope tries to overturn it or even redefine it, it wasn’t infallible in the first place even though people before the time of the overturning it believed it was infallible? Obfuscating situation, to say the least.
 
turboEDvo said:
So, the thread ‘Can the Church Change It’s Teaching’ (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=420832) got me wondering how a pope declares something infallible.

Is there a process for declaring something infallible?

Thanks
Eamon
Click to expand...
Even though you prefaced with the Pope, just to cover the bases, Ecumenical Councils, certain long standing Traditions of the Church, and the ordinary teachings of the bishops united with the Pope are also infallible from what I read.

The Ecumenical Councils does say everything in their writings are infallible, but they usually have a formula that says what we say here let no know deny… or* in regards to ], we condemn…* . Those are my layman wording of the formula; the actually words are much more precise and fancy.

I am told that the male priesthood is an example of an infallible Tradition passed down from the Apostles and emphasized by 2000 years of liturgical worship.

I do not have an example of the last category =).
 
StillWondering said:
I am told that the male priesthood is an example of an infallible Tradition passed down from the Apostles and emphasized by 2000 years of liturgical worship.

I do not have an example of the last category =).
Click to expand...
I believe then-Cardinal Ratzinger put the male priesthood into the infallible category in the 90’s. There is debate today whether it has reached actual true infallibility or not. But either way, it’s BINDING for the entire Church.
 
ProVobis said:
The pronouncement has to be made “ex cathedra,” I believe. But you’re right, it has to be a clear definition and binding forever for the entire church and cannot be overturned by a later Pope.

But does that mean if a later Pope tries to overturn it or even redefine it, it wasn’t infallible in the first place even though people before the time of the overturning it believed it was infallible? Obfuscating situation, to say the least.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, infallible statements are on morals and doctrine which are not judicial or administration statements. Because of this, technically no one can “overturn” because they are not canons or rules.

As for a new pope making a statement claimed to be infallible contradicting the previous elaboration of faith, as faithful Catholics we would know this is impossible since the Holy Spirit would prevent it. That’s part of faith, else Papal Infallibility and the two Marian Dogmas that recently were promulgated are awash.

Dogmas of the faith, from what I understand, are literally just statements of the Truth. So an example could be that humans do not have gills and therefore are able to breath untreated water directly. This is not morals nor doctrine so it would never be an infallible statement from the pope. But assume for a sec that it is a moral statement.
Now any successor to the Chair of Peter wishing to contradict the statement would be saying that humans can breath untreated water directly. This would be absurd as we know.

So think of infallible statements of Dogma as this. There is a Truth (i.e. God) and all truths flow from him. A statement of Dogma is to clarify for the faithful aspects of this Truth that may not be easily visible to the eye. Dogma are actually obvious statement of objective truth. But we who are blind may not be able to see it. I’m not saying popes and councils can see it clearly, but it’s objectively true and clear as day to God because they are statements about Him, Who He Is, and What He Does.
 
ProVobis said:
I believe then-Cardinal Ratzinger put the male priesthood into the infallible category in the 90’s. There is debate today whether it has reached actual true infallibility or not. But either way, it’s BINDING for the entire Church.
Click to expand...
The instruction I got about this is that as a Cardinal, our current Pope had no authority to make any statements infallible. Instead he was identifying the fact that it is infallible. So the male priesthood, was infallibly taught in an indirect way before Pope JPII made the statement or JPII made it infallible. Now looking at JP II’s statement, the Late Great Pope’s statement that he has “no authority” to change this practice is an infallible statement but not an infallible declaration. He was not declaring the male priesthood to be an infallible part of Church’s teaching, but the statement (being plain truth that he did not have the authority) is infallible by it’s own merits.

By this understanding, Pope JPII did not make a new infallible statement and then-Card Ratzinger cannot make a statement infallible. Thus the statement regarding male priesthood which is identified as an infallible teaching had to either come from the ordinary teachings of the bishops united with the pope or through the Apostolic Traditions handed down. It fits in the Traditions because back in the Acts, we can see all the bishops were male and ordained by the Apostles or their successors.
 
StillWondering said:
The instruction I got about this is that as a Cardinal, our current Pope had no authority to make any statements infallible. Instead he was identifying the fact that it is infallible. So the male priesthood, was infallibly taught in an indirect way before Pope JPII made the statement or JPII made it infallible. Now looking at JP II’s statement, the Late Great Pope’s statement that he has “no authority” to change this practice is an infallible statement but not an infallible declaration. He was not declaring the male priesthood to be an infallible part of Church’s teaching, but the statement (being plain truth that he did not have the authority) is infallible by it’s own merits.

By this understanding, Pope JPII did not make a new infallible statement and then-Card Ratzinger cannot make a statement infallible. Thus the statement regarding male priesthood which is identified as an infallible teaching had to either come from the ordinary teachings of the bishops united with the pope or through the Apostolic Traditions handed down. It fits in the Traditions because back in the Acts, we can see all the bishops were male and ordained by the Apostles or their successors.
Click to expand...
Hey, that’s pretty good. You work at the Vatican? 😃
 
I know that I am new to these forums but I have been with the church for 47 years and in the Convent 2 of those 47. What i can tell you about infallability(when the church holds something to be adhered.), is that the church holds what Christ stated to his diciples’’ what is held bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven.’’ Now if it is immoral or against the Ten commandments then we have the knowledge to know what is right from wrong. The pope is not perfect and will have to be held accountable before his God at his death just like everyone else, However if it is not immoral and is like unto a rule or a dogma to be followed then we have the obligation as His (Christ) followers to listen and follow the church per the deligates and Pontiff at hand under the guise of Saint Peter’s successor. I hope this helps and if not keep searching I am sure you will find what you need. LeeLee88
 
My understanding is that we must accept and obey all doctrines (infallible and non-infallible) and disciplines, and also Canon Law.

We must accept all but which ones must we believe and accept and which may we disagree with but nevertheless must accept?
 
thistle said:
My understanding is that we must accept and obey all doctrines (infallible and non-infallible) and disciplines, and also Canon Law.

We must accept all but which ones must we believe and accept and which may we disagree with but nevertheless must accept?
Click to expand...
From what I picked up from reading CAF, the hiearchy of truth from most important to least
  1. Dogmas, we must believe because they are the deepest truths.
  2. Doctrine, we must assent because they are true and the teachings of the Church. (Assent as in accept and proclaim as truth.)
  3. Theological opinion, we can agree or disagree but respect as learned observations.
    [There are other levels, but I do not know them and the depth of the Dogma level is already astounding.]
As for discipline and Canon Law, all canons must be obeyed and understood within it’s context to the best of our ability (i.e. layman can have an idea but you don’t have to be a scholar on it). Discipline are instructions we must submit to but we can like or dislike. In public, if we represent ourselves, we can give our opinion. But in regards to being a representative of the Church, we must proclaim the Church’s discipline.

So in the Latin right, un-married priest is the discipline. So we must live by it. We can disagree with it respectfully as an individual. But if we are a teacher or clergy acting within that authority, we must teach what the Church decides for itself. Or liturgical music. There are definite “no, no” in regards of some instruments. But the liturgical norms for musical instruments have changed over time. In modern day, organs are well respected and have a long standing tradition. However, trumpets were once part of the liturgical celebration in some early parishes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top