Identify Documents by the Pope that are infallible

[davidv]

I am sorry but I have always found questions lke this one perplexing from a non-Catholic point of view. How can you have a infallible authority and not know what has been infallibly defined? I note the thread on Outside the Church there is no salvation. For example if people are unsure what that means how does infallibile teaching authority help? Does it not in reality result in personal interpretation once removed? You have the infallible teaching but then you have to interpret exactly what it means.

IMHO - the circumstances usually require less interpreting and more defending. The declarations like the Immaculate Conception and the Assuption of Mary are actual quite plain and straight forward. However, unfortunately, not easily accepted by some.

 

[mrteachersir]

IMHO - the circumstances usually require less interpreting and more defending. The declarations like the Immaculate Conception and the Assuption of Mary are actual quite plain and straight forward. However, unfortunately, not easily accepted by some.

I agree with you, particularly on Humanae Vitae and the pronouncement reiterating constant Christian teaching that outside the Church, there is no salvation, but that God, may through His Grace bring others to see the beautific vision.

The fact that Humanae Vitae is “God’s Law, not man’s law” is conveniently overlooked by many.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am more confused now than I was before I read this thread!

Why do you think its confusing? Do you not believe Jesus gave authority to Peter. “Whatever you bind on earth will bind in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.”

 

[clmowry]

I think the biggest problem is everybody is looking for a “simple” answer to a complex question.

Pick any given Dogma of the Catholic Church. It would represent a statement of “Truth” infallibly revealed by the Church, in one of several ways.

All of these Dogmas have been “approved” or “infallibly” “proclaimed” by a Pope in one way or another, very seldom is that “way” an Ex Cathedra pronouncement from the Pope, and even in those cases, I don’t think you could declare any particular document in its entirety to be “infallible”.

Here’s what the CCC has to say on the subject:

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility
extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command. They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith “endowed with the authority of Christ.”
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in
Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi Guys,

Is there just a list (of the infallible teachings)that a simple minded NCC could just pull up read and totally understand?

Thanks for the few already spoken of:thumbsup:

I have a question If something is taught in the CC but not taught infallibly, can one then exercise freedom in intrepreting it?

There is a collection of Infallible statements, it’s called Denzinger and is available in printed as well as electronic form.

 

[Genesis315]

Why is this so confusing for so many Catholics. To understand papal infallibility, you have to understand the reasons for it.

Anything the Pope definitively states must be either held or believed by the whole Church–if he binds the whole Church to hold or believe something, it is infallible.

This is because we are bound to obey these judgments, but if they were wrong, we would sin. Likewise, since these judgments are irreformable, the truth would be lost for future generations. On the other hand, because these are infallible, all Popes have access to them.

Many people mistakenly only apply this to dogmatic definitions–things that must be believed with a divine and Catholic faith. But these also apply to tenenda, things that most only be held. John Paul II’s definition concerning only male ordinantion is one of these. The definition by Benedict XII concerning the Beatific Vision is one that is a dogma.

There’s no list because it would be so long. Popes have been definitively judging doctrines on faith and morals since day one. In fact, the bishop in charge of explaining the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I said they had done so “thousands and thousands” of times. He was probably using hyperbole, but the point remains–it’s been a lot.

In fact, some bishops wanted to limited the definition to only apply when the Pope uses certain phrases or follows certain procedcures–but they couldn’t do this since so many Popes have used many different phrases and procedures.

Just think of it this way:

If the Pope definitively says we all have to believe something or hold something (and for that matter, if an ecumenical council or the universal magisterium says this) than it is infallible. It’s very simple.

Those who try and limit it to the two Marian dogmas are those who are ashamed of the dogma of papal infallibility as it scandalizes those who refuse to be fed by Peter.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Why is this so confusing for so many Catholics. To understand papal infallibility, you have to understand the reasons for it.

Anything the Pope definitively states must be either held or believed by the whole Church–if he binds the whole Church to hold or believe something, it is infallible.

This is because we are bound to obey these judgments, but if they were wrong, we would sin. Likewise, since these judgments are irreformable, the truth would be lost for future generations. On the other hand, because these are infallible, all Popes have access to them.

Many people mistakenly only apply this to dogmatic definitions–things that must be believed with a divine and Catholic faith. But these also apply to tenenda, things that most only be held. John Paul II’s definition concerning only male ordinantion is one of these. The definition by Benedict XII concerning the Beatific Vision is one that is a dogma.

There’s no list because it would be so long. Popes have been definitively judging doctrines on faith and morals since day one. In fact, the bishop in charge of explaining the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I said they had done so “thousands and thousands” of times. He was probably using hyperbole, but the point remains–it’s been a lot.

In fact, some bishops wanted to limited the definition to only apply when the Pope uses certain phrases or follows certain procedcures–but they couldn’t do this since so many Popes have used many different phrases and procedures.

Just think of it this way:

If the Pope definitively says we all have to believe something or hold something (and for that matter, if an ecumenical council or the universal magisterium says this) than it is infallible. It’s very simple.

Those who try and limit it to the two Marian dogmas are those who are ashamed of the dogma of papal infallibility as it scandalizes those who refuse to be fed by Peter.

Another catholic here said the list isnt that long–so which is it:shrug: I think catholics have such a difficult time with it because the CC is making it a bit difficult for the average Joe to understand.

Ive heard other catholics say that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra–right? So, why wouldnt the CC take notes when this happens so as to not cause confusion? Seems logical to write it down so people know what rules they have to follow—right? Just like taking notes in class so you know what to study for for the test (probably a bad comparison )

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Bears repeating. . .

Actually, a lot of time the infallible teaching is ‘right there’ so to speak and is understood as ‘infallible’ teaching. . .until there starts to be a ‘question’ about it. Then the first response is to ‘reiterate’ the teaching to be quite clear it is legitimate teaching. Only if there becomes a HUGE problem with people refusing to accept the clear ‘reiteration’ does there normally come about the ‘official, ex-cathedra’ approach.

For example, the Assumption of Mary was not made up out of whole cloth in 1950. It was not practiced in ‘many different ways’. It did ‘develop’ over time but at no time did the Church teach, say, at one time that Mary was ‘assumed’ and at another that ‘she was not’. The idea of ‘how’ she was assumed is still unknown but the fact that she WAS assumed is considered until now the ‘moot’ point. No doubt if knowing the ‘way’ in which she was assumed will become germane to salvation, the Holy Spirit will guide us to the ‘answer’.

So there is no ‘need’ for a ‘guide to infallible statements’.

We have: 1. The Bible. 2. The Church itself, its leaders, and its magesterium which has assembled throughout its history the Bible, many teachings of varying types which it can use–or not–when necessary and guided by the Spirit for any ‘questions’. 3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains the Scriptural and Traditional wherewithal of ‘what’ we believe.

If you ever have a question of what the Church teaches, may I suggest that you first consult the Catechism, and (since most teachings are footnoted to the germane Scripture) the Bible, and if still uncertain, come to us and we’ll help you research what documents and writings there may be which help to explain WHY the teaching is what it is.

In the final analysis, there will be times when (considering God’s word can NEVER be ‘fully understood’ by us as we are NOT God) we simply have to take The Holy Spirit’s ‘word’ for it on a given subject. God ‘has answered’ our questions.

 

[SyCarl]

Another question I have is “If the Pope can be infallible, why would he ever teach otherwise?” If he has the authority to make infallible statements, why would he ever risk making a wrong statement, even in a personal capacity, that could result in someone believing something erroneously?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sy, you do not understand that the charism of infallibility is not something which is used in the course of ‘ordinary’ life. It isn’t a magic charm.

Please read my post to understand more of what ‘infallible teachings’ are and why and when there might be a need for a documented testamental ‘infallibility’ pronouncement from the Church. . .

 

[SyCarl]

Bears repeating. . .

Actually, a lot of time the infallible teaching is ‘right there’ so to speak and is understood as ‘infallible’ teaching. . .until there starts to be a ‘question’ about it. Then the first response is to ‘reiterate’ the teaching to be quite clear it is legitimate teaching. Only if there becomes a HUGE problem with people refusing to accept the clear ‘reiteration’ does there normally come about the ‘official, ex-cathedra’ approach.

For example, the Assumption of Mary was not made up out of whole cloth in 1950. It was not practiced in ‘many different ways’. It did ‘develop’ over time but at no time did the Church teach, say, at one time that Mary was ‘assumed’ and at another that ‘she was not’. The idea of ‘how’ she was assumed is still unknown but the fact that she WAS assumed is considered until now the ‘moot’ point. No doubt if knowing the ‘way’ in which she was assumed will become germane to salvation, the Holy Spirit will guide us to the ‘answer’.

So there is no ‘need’ for a ‘guide to infallible statements’.

We have: 1. The Bible. 2. The Church itself, its leaders, and its magesterium which has assembled throughout its history the Bible, many teachings of varying types which it can use–or not–when necessary and guided by the Spirit for any ‘questions’. 3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains the Scriptural and Traditional wherewithal of ‘what’ we believe.

If you ever have a question of what the Church teaches, may I suggest that you first consult the Catechism, and (since most teachings are footnoted to the germane Scripture) the Bible, and if still uncertain, come to us and we’ll help you research what documents and writings there may be which help to explain WHY the teaching is what it is.

In the final analysis, there will be times when (considering God’s word can NEVER be ‘fully understood’ by us as we are NOT God) we simply have to take The Holy Spirit’s ‘word’ for it on a given subject. God ‘has answered’ our questions.

If questioning about a matter is an occasion for consideration of making an infallible statement, why wasn’t the Immaculate Conception declared until 1854 even though there were arguments about it in the 1200-1400 period between Fransiscans and Dominicans?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You must be joking.

“every time a person or group questions something” is not necessarily an occasion for having to make something ‘officially’ pronounced. How many Protestants were around in 1200? What was the actual proportion of those ‘questioners’ then of whom you speak and did they actually attempt to deny the teaching?

Compare to the proportion of those who not only ‘questioned’ the teaching in the 1800s but actually denied and reviled not just this teaching but the entire authority of the Catholic Church.

Come on now.

 

[SyCarl]

You must be joking.

“every time a person or group questions something” is not necessarily an occasion for having to make something ‘officially’ pronounced. How many Protestants were around in 1200? What was the actual proportion of those ‘questioners’ then of whom you speak and did they actually attempt to deny the teaching?

Compare to the proportion of those who not only ‘questioned’ the teaching in the 1800s but actually denied and reviled not just this teaching but the entire authority of the Catholic Church.

Come on now.

The most notable person who denied the Immaculate Conception was Thomas Aquinas. While he believed Mary was born without sin, she was not conceived without sin and was subject to original sin. He writes in the Summa Theologica:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.
(Part 3, Question 27, Article 2)

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

If someone of Thomas Aquinas’ stature could say this, surely it would have been important enough to correct with an infallible definition.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The most notable person who denied the Immaculate Conception was Thomas Aquinas. While he believed Mary was born without sin, she was not conceived without sin and was subject to original sin. He writes in the Summa Theologica:

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

If someone of Thomas Aquinas’ stature could say this, surely it would have been important enough to correct with an infallible definition.

He was no Pope nor he had the authority to make infallible statement.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is good that you provided the link to the ENTIRETY of the article, while you carefully present only what you think ‘supports’ your contention and ignore all the rest. . .

So here is the link: newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

Again.

Please, everyone, read the entirety of this (you’ll find the tiny, incomplete cut-and-paste buried deep within) and the REMAINDER of the teaching which indeed gives the rationale behind the ‘objections’ to the teaching and the ANSWERS to the objections.

 

[SyCarl]

It is good that you provided the link to the ENTIRETY of the article, while you carefully present only what you think ‘supports’ your contention and ignore all the rest. . .

So here is the link: newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

Again.

Please, everyone, read the entirety of this (you’ll find the tiny, incomplete cut-and-paste buried deep within) and the REMAINDER of the teaching which indeed gives the rationale behind the ‘objections’ to the teaching and the ANSWERS to the objections.

The rest of the article from Aquinas does not change the statement I quoted showing that Aquinas felt Mary was subject to original sin. That is contrary to the later definition of the infallible declaration. The quote was Aquinas’ answer to an objection. It gives one of his reasons for rejecting the Immaculate Conception as subsequently defined.

 

[Atemi]

There has been a great confusion amongst some Catholics, and Protestants to identify what statements made the popes are infallible.

As this thread makes plain, even the most well catechised Catholic cannot answer this question.

If the Magisterium would just come out and tell us all which papal pronouncements or statements in the last 2000 years have been infallible, this would be a little less an issue.

Granted, it has been 2000 years and such basic information is still forthcoming. I don’t suppose any of us can expect anything different for the future.

Why is it that the only ones that can sort all this out still refuse to do so?

…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

As this thread makes plain, even the most well catechised Catholic cannot answer this question.

If the Magisterium would just come out and tell us all which papal pronouncements or statements in the last 2000 years have been infallible, this would be a little less an issue.

Granted, it has been 2000 years and such basic information is still forthcoming. I don’t suppose any of us can expect anything different for the future.

Why is it that the only ones that can sort all this out still refuse to do so?

…

Did you not read my post?

 

[Mannyfit75]

As this thread makes plain, even the most well catechised Catholic cannot answer this question.

If the Magisterium would just come out and tell us all which papal pronouncements or statements in the last 2000 years have been infallible, this would be a little less an issue.

What the Magisterium teaches is within the guidlines based on Scriptural basis, as well with the guidance of th Holy Spirit.

The Encyclical of Humanae Vitae. One of the statements of this Encyclical states,

Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation.

No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared,

Note the Pope takes into account the changes noted in this world. Pope Paul the Sixth, said the Church as whole has the authority to interpret the moral law. As you know this document contains a more explicit condemnation of the use of contraception.

Granted, it has been 2000 years and such basic information is still forthcoming. I don’t suppose any of us can expect anything different for the future.

Why is it that the only ones that can sort all this out still refuse to do so?

…

What the Church teaches stems from the authority given to Her from her Spouse, Jesus Christ. Jesus told Peter, “Whatever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.”

You know well enough that our modern world changes with the advent of advance technologies, and medicine. Humanity has develop means to produce clones, in which the Catholic Church quickly condemned. The Church also condemn the use of embryonic stem cell research because these by themselves allow for the destruction of embryos.

The Church has a duty appointed to her by Jesus to grant Christians to live a life that God intended for us all. Without it, there will be a moral decay, if the issue of morality is not address by Church.

Second, I trust God to preserve the Church from errors and lead us into a life holy worthy enough for us all to gain eternal salvation.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has been infallibly defined. Here is a section from Women and the Priesthood (This Rock: November 2003):

In 1994, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter that pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

Of course, there are some that will NEVER recognize this :banghead: