How to know if infallible?

[Andre1000]

You know the decisions of the ecumenical councils are written to text.
How I know a statement of this infallible, because not everything an ecumenical council says is infallible (for example chances in the mass celebrations or that the Latin ride mass was forbidden and the pope allowed the Latin mess now).

There must be some clues that tells you this statement of this council is true for all times.

 

[MarkThompson]

You know the decisions of the ecumenical councils are written to text.
How I know a statement of this infallible, because not everything an ecumenical council says is infallible (for example chances in the mass celebrations or that the Latin ride mass was forbidden and the pope allowed the Latin mess now).

There must be some clues that tells you this statement of this council is true for all times.

In general:

1. It must deal with unchangeable questions of faith and morals, not changeable practices and disciplines; and
2. They will say say something like, “We solemnly declare and define …” or “Whoever says [the opposite], let him be anathema.”

 

[Will_S]

You know the decisions of the ecumenical councils are written to text.
How I know a statement of this infallible, because not everything an ecumenical council says is infallible (for example chances in the mass celebrations or that the Latin ride mass was forbidden and the pope allowed the Latin mess now).

There must be some clues that tells you this statement of this council is true for all times.

The 2nd Vatican Council did not forbid the Latin Mass, so that’s not an issue.

In general, though, when an Ecumenical Council wishes to make an infallible statement, it anathematizes the opposite proposition. For example, here is an anathema from the Council of Trent:

If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

In this anathema, the Council of Trent stated infallibly that:

1. It is legitimate to celebrate Mass such that the canon and words of consecration are spoken quietly (such that the faithful in attendance cannot hear them).
2. It is legitimate to celebrate Mass in a language other than the vernacular language, such as Latin.
3. It is legitimate to mix water with the wine used for Mass.

In fact, the Council of Trent uses very strong language in this anathema, such that even broadly and generally questioning the above practices is unacceptable.

 

[laszlo]

If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

1./ The above Canon did not removed the control over the Liturgy from the local Ordinary. It only says that the Bishop cannot be restricted to order the canon to be recited in inaudible voice in his diocese. He can also order audible voice too, as happened in 1970

2./ as you said

3./ It is necessary yo mix water with the vine (the ‘ought not’ is anathematized.)

The Sacrosanctum Concilium (which is in effect now) took the final decision from the hand of the bishop, giving it to the Apostolic See.

This canon of Trent is not infallible because this is about changeable discipline.

 

[Ron_in_minden]

Careful now, don’t say “anathema”, you"ll scare the protestants.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

1./ The above Canon did not removed the control over the Liturgy from the local Ordinary. It only says that the Bishop cannot be restricted to order the canon to be recited in inaudible voice in his diocese. He can also order audible voice too, as happened in 1970

2./ as you said

3./ It is necessary yo mix water with the vine (the ‘ought not’ is anathematized.)

The Sacrosanctum Concilium (which is in effect now) took the final decision from the hand of the bishop, giving it to the Apostolic See.

This canon of Trent is not infallible because this is about changeable discipline.

I’m fairly certain that it was infallible, as why else would the Council enact an anathema? Is it possible for an anathema from a dogmatic council to be a fallible proclamation? I believe that it was also stated by Trent that the Missal formulated there was to be used by all parishes of the Roman Church until the end of time!

 

[JReducation]

Some things are anathema because of a particular moment in the history of the Church. When the pope is speaking to that moment and to that situation, he may well say that X is anathema. As time passes, the circumstances pass. When that happens, another pope can come along and say that X is OK. Why is it OK? It’s OK, because it’s not the same situation.

This does not apply to revealed truths. Revealed truths are what they are. Future popes can clarify, explain them more profoundly, see other details that a previous pope may have failed to mention (for whatever reason), but he’s not changing the truth. There can be 1,000 ways of explaining Transubstantiation. You can even come up with a new word for it. What cannot be changed is the truth that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The truth is eternal, even if the words used to explain it change or more is said today than was said originally.

That’s the difference here. We know that something is infallible when the Church speaks about a revealed truth.

For example, Pope John Paul said that abortion was never morally justifiable. However, if you read Evangelium Vitae, he builds up to that statement by presenting what has been revealed and accepted as infallible truth. When he reaches the climax of his argument, he makes his point. It cannot be refuted, because it’s built on the faith of the Church, which is built upon: Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

Anything that is disciplinary is not going to be infallible, even if it is followed by an anathema. The anathema usually applies to those who would deny the discipline, not to those who have the authority to change it. That’s why Pope Paul could change the missal, because the anathema does not apply to him. He had the authority to change it. It only applied to those who would dare to try to do it without having the authority to do so.

It’s not a word that is used too much in today’s ecclesial language, but it’s implied in many writings and statements.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Celticnovice]

Excellent post.

That helps me understand historic anathemas and how some *groups today misuse the term.