If the Church/Pope claim to be absolutely infallaible, why has it altered teachings/contradicted itself?

[adamhovey1988]

Balaco.
I might suggest that you are confusing the word infallible with the word impeccable. Karl Keating’s book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, The Attack on the Roman Church by Bible Christians" (I think that is the title, I might be a little off), gives a good explanation of infallibility. My understanding is that infallible means the Church (and the Pope), guided by the Holy Spirit, will not teach error in matters of faith and morals. (Papal opinions about economics, world affairs, and other matters are personal opinion as other posters have cited)

Infallible means not preaching error. Impeccable means one is absolutely right (or correct). They are quite different.

Keating gives a very interesting example. It is, if the pope were infallible in mathematics (I think he used trigonometry for an example) and you gave the pope an examination with twenty five questions, how many correct answers will the pope have to write down and remain infallible.
His answer - 0
Keating went on to say that the Holy Spirit would guide the pope to not put down an incorrect answer (error). But if the pontiff didn’t do his homework, he might not know the right answer. An answer sheet with twenty five blanks in the answer block might not get a passing grade, but it did not contain an an erroneous answer. Hence it could be considered infallible.
I found Mr. Keating’s explanation interesting. As to future developments in matters of faith and morals, that is, I believe, the purview of revelation, something the church believes is ongoing.
One caveat - I cite Mr. Keating’s writing from memory, I am not looking currently at the text. It is what I took away from my reading.

I have the book if anyone is curious also a good read would be Patrick Madrid’s “Pope fiction”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What type of slavery is the Council of Gangra addressing? Is it forced servitude? Or is it indentured servitude, which was also called slavery from early history through the middle ages?

The Council makes no distinction and in its history the Church has not made that distinction. It’s slaves in general. At the time the Church was fine with the Portuguese taking the people of the Canary Islands so long as they didn’t take ones that converted to Christianity. The Synod of Melfi had the children of priests made slaves (followed later by wives and concubines of priests). None of these people were in any way indentured servants.

 

[Gorgias]

You might be saying, “So what? There were a lot of councils.”

Nope. I have two distinctly different questions:

It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian

Does an emperor speak infallibly on doctrine?

We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils

Is an assertion on slavery a ‘doctrinal decree’? After all, ‘infallibility’ is relative only to doctrine, and not to decree.

Answer carefully – your argument hinges on saying ‘yes’ to both of these…

 

[pablope]

Directly from the document you’re evidently not interested in reading:

This is the statement you posted in #44:

Of course. Do you think a Catholic writer who gets his paycheck from the church, and is planning on getting an Imprimatur/nihil obstat is going to come out and say “lol the church totally changed its position on slavery.”

So my question again…can you provide the proof that the writer of the book gets his paycheck from the Catholic Church?

And where is the document, as you stated is this found?

Page 3 of your link states the books was sponsored by the Anti Slavery society…so again, can you prove your statement that the writer gets his paycheck from the Catholic Church?

Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat mean that you can’t simply dismiss this document as some kind of anti-Catholic propaganda.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Does an emperor speak infallibly on doctrine?

Every commentary I’ve seen shows that the bishops are the ones who are affirming that the previous councils are still accurate and are to be upheld (for example here under the Canons heading). The quote of the emperor is not to say that it is the emperor who says the previous Canons are still in force but is quoted by the bishops for truth.

If you can find something that contradicts what the commentaries say, and that it is in there for reasons other than the bishops wanted it there please present it.

Is an assertion on slavery a ‘doctrinal decree’? After all, ‘infallibility’ is relative only to doctrine, and not to decree.

The fact that those going against these pronouncements are anathema should be more than enough to say this is doctrinal. That’s not even considering the moral implications of the two acts that I quoted.

 

[pablope]

The Council makes no distinction and in its history the Church has not made that distinction. It’s slaves in general. At the time the Church was fine with the Portuguese taking the people of the Canary Islands so long as they didn’t take ones that converted to Christianity. The Synod of Melfi had the children of priests made slaves (followed later by wives and concubines of priests). None of these people were in any way indentured servants.

Ah…the synod of gangra is around 325Ad or so…the county of portugal was not established till around 900 to 1000, and did not become a world power till around the middle ages…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Ah…the synod of gangra is around 325Ad or so…the county of portugal was not established till around 900 to 1000, and did not become a world power till around the middle ages…

Yes. It’s clear I didn’t say or even suggest that at the same time the Synod of Gangra was out that Portugal was plucking the citizens of the Canary Islands from their homes with approval of the Church. No, my response was to the standard response that there is so-called good biblical slavery and bad “chattel slavery”. Gorgias is suggesting that in the Synod of Gangra they were making that distinction (despite no such words being in the text of the Synod). I showed that no distinction was made and that if we check on events in history we see where the Church was fine with slaves who were not indentured servants.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is the statement you posted in #44:
So my question again…can you provide the proof that the writer of the book gets his paycheck from the Catholic Church?
And where is the document, as you stated is this found?

It was found in the document I provided a link to in my earlier post. In that document, you will notice that the author thanks his bishop for allowing him to pursue research instead of parochial duties, and he lists his current address as a church. Now perhaps he took a vow of poverty and does not receive a paycheck per-se, but the man was clearly dependent on church support for his livelihood.

No…your understanding is flawed.

I said that the Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat means that the information is not anti-catholic propaganda, not that it is 100% accurate. You said I was wrong, and that these things mean that some Catholic official has certified that they correctly present Catholic teaching. So it seems to me that you’re suggesting that it is possible for anti-catholic propaganda to correctly present Catholic teaching, and not be problematic for faith and morals.

Now, it IS a Catholic teaching that the church’s teachings are infallible and cannot change. Therefore if the author had tried to put “the Catholic teachings changed” in the introduction, I have a hard time seeing this book getting these seals of approval as you have described them.

 

[Gorgias]

Every commentary I’ve seen shows that the bishops are the ones who are affirming that the previous councils are still accurate and are to be upheld

Aah, but you’re missing the distinction that’s present in the quote you yourself provided, aren’t you? Let’s look at the quote you provided again: “We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws.”

In other words, they’re setting up a distinction between ‘doctrinal decrees’ and ‘canons’; the former are honored ‘as [is] Scripture’, whereas the canons (that are not doctrinal decrees) are honored ‘as [are] laws’.

Catholics would call doctrines part of the Deposit of the Faith, and therefore, are proclaimed infallibly; we would call laws of the Church as things to be held… but are not infallible statements.

There’s something very important to be gleaned from this quote you’ve provided: not every word found in a council’s text is doctrine, nor is it infallible. It’s important to be able to make the distinction, so that you don’t run amok and make claims that just aren’t true. You know – like the claim you made from Gangra, about slavery? Yeah… that’s not doctrine. In fact, the quote you provided also highlights that fact! “As, however, most of the synods whose canons were received into the collection… were certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, … the confirmation of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules”

In other words, you can’t look at Gangra and say “doctrine!”; the Church Fathers of Chalcedon are making that point explicitly. However, they’re saying that, since Chalcedon is an Ecumenical Council, and the others were not, they therefore need to pick and choose and decide which laws shall be held by the Church. Laws, mind you … not doctrine. Laws can change; doctrine cannot.

The fact that those going against these pronouncements are anathema should be more than enough to say this is doctrinal. That’s not even considering the moral implications of the two acts that I quoted.

Actually, you have it backwards. In fact, the anathemae are a clear indication that this is a legal decree, not doctrine. An anathema (which today would be the canon law penalty of excommunication) is a legal pronouncement of punishment. It’s not a declaration of belief; rather, it’s the identification of a transgression and the punishment associated with it.

I’m glad you brought these up. It’s important to understand the difference between “doctrine” and “law”, as well as to realize that not every word spoken or written at a council has the force of doctrine (and the attached implication of infallibility).

Hope this helps…

 

[Gorgias]

It was found in the document I provided a link to in my earlier post. In that document, you will notice that the author thanks his bishop for allowing him to pursue research instead of parochial duties, and he lists his current address as a church. Now perhaps he took a vow of poverty and does not receive a paycheck per-se, but the man was clearly dependent on church support for his livelihood.

In other words, you cannot believe the man’s arguments based on who he is? Umm… ad hominem much?

I said that the Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat means that the information is not anti-catholic propaganda, not that it is 100% accurate. You said I was wrong, and that these things mean that some Catholic official has certified that they correctly present Catholic teaching. So it seems to me that you’re suggesting that it is possible for anti-catholic propaganda to correctly present Catholic teaching, and not be problematic for faith and morals.

Oddly enough, that is the implication. Practically speaking, though, if an author completely trashed the Church in his book, but did not make any erroneous assertions about Church teaching, then technically speaking, he could get an imprimatur. Not that he’d be interested in it, of course… and not that there’d likely be a bishop out there who would want his name associated with such a publication… but technically speaking, yeah, it could happen.

Now, it IS a Catholic teaching that the church’s teachings are infallible and cannot change. Therefore if the author had tried to put “the Catholic teachings changed” in the introduction, I have a hard time seeing this book getting these seals of approval as you have described them.

It depends. He would have to be making the assertion that Church doctrine and/or dogma changed, in order for him to be making a statement contrary to Church doctrine. If, on the other hand, he merely pointed out that the Church has modified her stances on non-doctrinal assertions, then he’s not saying anything counter to what the Church says about herself.

p.s., thanks for the pointer to the book… it looks like an interesting (albeit dense!) read…!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In other words, you cannot believe the man’s arguments based on who he is? Umm… ad hominem much?

I was not suggesting that the writer was untrustworthy, just that in his venue and circumstances, the opinions he is allowed to express are limited.

He made basically no argument to back up his “the church hasn’t changed its position” opinion, he just stated it. He then proceeded to provide a bunch of well sourced and researched information that suggest the church did change its position. Distinguishing between those kinds of statements is something you learn in “How to do Research 101.”

 

[Gorgias]

JapaneseKappa:

I was not suggesting that the writer was untrustworthy, just that in his venue and circumstances, the opinions he is allowed to express are limited.

Are you sure that this is all you’re suggesting?

JapaneseKappa:

you will notice that the author thanks his bishop for allowing him to pursue research instead of parochial duties… the man was clearly dependent on church support for his livelihood.

JapaneseKappa:

Do you think a Catholic writer who gets his paycheck from the church, and is planning on getting an Imprimatur/nihil obstat is going to come out and say “lol the church totally changed its position on slavery.”

No, it’s pretty clear that you’re calling him “untrustworthy” – you’re insinuating that, if he were honest, he would say “the church changed its position”, but that he didn’t do that because he “was clearly dependent on church support for his livelihood.”

In other words, an ad hominem attack.

 

[Gorgias]

my response was to the standard response that there is so-called good biblical slavery and bad “chattel slavery”. Gorgias is suggesting that in the Synod of Gangra they were making that distinction (despite no such words being in the text of the Synod).

Huh? I am? Maybe you could show me where I referenced slavery…?

I was just pointing out what appeared to be an error in your argumentation – you were suggesting that Gangra asserted infallible doctrine, and I was helping you understand the nuances of the distinctions in councils, canons, doctrine, and law.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Are you sure that this is all you’re suggesting?

No, it’s pretty clear that you’re calling him “untrustworthy” – you’re insinuating that, if he were honest, he would say “the church changed its position”, but that he didn’t do that because he “was clearly dependent on church support for his livelihood.”

In other words, an ad hominem attack.

Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

What I’m saying is that he had strong incentives to say that the church didn’t change his position regardless of whether or not he actually believed it. Therefore, the fact that he does say it doesn’t constitute strong evidence for its accuracy.

Its like if a tobacco-industry lobbyist writes a publication that says there is no link between cigarettes and cancer. The huge incentives he has to publish that conclusion mean that we would expect the no-link conclusion ahead of time. So when the “no link” publication comes out, its not surprising and it doesn’t give us much new information: it simply met our expectations. This doesn’t mean that we think the lobbyist is a liar or a fraud or a bad person, we are simply making this judgement: “That this conclusion was reached by someone heavily incentivized to reach this conclusion is not strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.”

 

[pablope]

It was found in the document I provided a link to in my earlier post. In that document, you will notice that the author thanks his bishop for allowing him to pursue research instead of parochial duties, and he lists his current address as a church. Now perhaps he took a vow of poverty and does not receive a paycheck per-se, but the man was clearly dependent on church support for his livelihood.

There are lots of things you would not know about the person…but you stated he received a paycheck…

So what are you insunuating that he sought permission from his bishop?

I said that the Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat means that the information is not anti-catholic propaganda, not that it is 100% accurate. You said I was wrong, and that these things mean that some Catholic official has certified that they correctly present Catholic teaching. So it seems to me that you’re suggesting that it is possible for anti-catholic propaganda to correctly present Catholic teaching, and not be problematic for faith and morals.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The bishop’s authorization “is an essentially negative judgment of non-offensiveness.”[3]

I’m glad we agree.

 

[steve_b]

Go ahead and take a look at this:
anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf
which bears an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
See especially pages 79 - 88, up to the section labeled
Especially
and

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, JPII used very specific language (making an infallible decision/definition) because he intended to put to an end any further discussion on the topic of women ordination to the priesthood #36

there is no confusion here.
from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis JPII (all emphasis mine)

1. 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 which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 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.
   vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html
   What is underlined, is an infallible definition. Case closed.

Look at the language from Vat I #36

 

[JapaneseKappa]

there is no confusion here.

I’m not sure what your long post about the ordination of women has to do with my post about the evolution of Catholic teaching on slavery.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not sure what your long post about the ordination of women has to do with my post about the evolution of Catholic teaching on slavery.

My bad

for some reason I got you confused with **Usagi, ** #48

 

[Gorgias]

Upton Sinclair:

What I’m saying is

No matter who you quote, an ad hominem attack is still an ad hominem attack.

… and by its very nature, it’s a logical fallacy. Sorry.

that he had strong incentives to say that the church didn’t change his position regardless of whether or not he actually believed it. Therefore, the fact that he does say it doesn’t constitute strong evidence for its accuracy.

So then, disprove the argument, but don’t attack the one who argues it. Sorry. It just doesn’t work as a valid rebuttal.

Its like if a tobacco-industry lobbyist writes a publication that says there is no link between cigarettes and cancer.

In that case, you would rebut the argument. The identity of the author is immaterial. If his argument holds up, then fine. If you can refute the argument, fine. The one thing you can’t do, and retain your integrity, is simply to say “I don’t like the argument because of the guy who argues it.” His argument stands or falls regardless of his identity or affiliations.