In the History of the Church, How Many Infallible Definitions Are There?

[Elizium23]

Yes, the general consensus is that the canonization of saints, the ratification of ecumenical councils, and papal elections are dogmatic facts. The Church can be confident that the Holy Spirit will protect her from being deceived in such matters for the good of the faithful.

Papal elections do not enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit in that way. Conclaves are not inspired.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI says so.

 

[twf]

Papal elections do not enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit in that way. Conclaves are not inspired.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI says so.

Not inspired, no. The pope chosen may be a bad choice. Papal elections are dogmatic facts in that we can be confident that the election is valid. The man chosen is indeed the successor of St. Peter even if the cardinals made a bad choice.

 

[thistle]

I’m a catechumen going through RCIA, and it was recently mentioned by one of the class assistants that there are only a small number of infallibly defined doctrines, in the neighborhood of 20 if I remember correctly.

Does anyone on here know where I might learn just how many infallible definitions of doctrine there are, and what they are?

Thanks!

-Frederico

For your information it doesn’t actually matter which doctrines are infallible or not as Catholics are bound by all Church doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible).

 

[FredericoBasque]

For your information it doesn’t actually matter which doctrines are infallible or not as Catholics are bound by all Church doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible).

Help me out with this one.

 

[thistle]

Help me out with this one.

The Church has infallible and non-infallible doctrines (teachings).

This might be simplifying it too much but infallible teachings are those beyond all doubt whereas non-infallible teachings are those beyond all reasonable doubt.

Infallible teachings can never be changed.
Any Catholic rejecting an infallible teaching commits a sin of grave matter and heresy.

Theoretically a non-infallible teaching could be found to be wrong and changed. However, in the entire history of the Church this has never happened.
Any Catholic rejecting a non-infallible teaching commits a sin of grave matter but does not commit heresy.

Catholics are not just bound to accept infallible teachings. We are bound to accept all teachings, both infallible and non-infallible. This is why it is not so important to know which teachings are infallible and which non-infallible.

 

[FredericoBasque]

The Church has infallible and non-infallible doctrines (teachings).

This might be simplifying it too much but infallible teachings are those beyond all doubt whereas non-infallible teachings are those beyond all reasonable doubt.

Infallible teachings can never be changed.
Any Catholic rejecting an infallible teaching commits a sin of grave matter and heresy.

Theoretically a non-infallible teaching could be found to be wrong and changed. However, in the entire history of the Church this has never happened.
Any Catholic rejecting a non-infallible teaching commits a sin of grave matter but does not commit heresy.

Catholics are not just bound to accept infallible teachings. We are bound to accept all teachings, both infallible and non-infallible. This is why it is not so important to know which teachings are infallible and which non-infallible.

Thanks for this explanation. I’ll have plenty to talk about with my parish priest at RCIA this evening!

 

[thistle]

Thanks for this explanation. I’ll have plenty to talk about with my parish priest at RCIA this evening!

I was a Methodist and went through RCIA 1991/92. Became a Catholic at Easter 1992. Never regretted it.

 

[smead2942]

The only infallible dogma proclaimed since the 1st Vatican Council, when the popes were declared to be infallible, was the Assumption.

I’m a fairly traditional Catholic, but I believe there has been at least one other instance of papal infallibility since Vatican I: the closing sentence of Pope Saint John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which reads

“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.”

 

[Genesis315]

The Church has infallible and non-infallible doctrines (teachings).

This might be simplifying it too much but infallible teachings are those beyond all doubt whereas non-infallible teachings are those beyond all reasonable doubt.

Infallible teachings can never be changed.
Any Catholic rejecting an infallible teaching commits a sin of grave matter and heresy.

Theoretically a non-infallible teaching could be found to be wrong and changed. However, in the entire history of the Church this has never happened.
Any Catholic rejecting a non-infallible teaching commits a sin of grave matter but does not commit heresy.

Catholics are not just bound to accept infallible teachings. We are bound to accept all teachings, both infallible and non-infallible. This is why it is not so important to know which teachings are infallible and which non-infallible.

I think of it this way. Their are doctrines which the Church puts forth as irreformable and those put forth as reformable–the latter are usually based on the application of irreformable principles to changeable circumstances (the first footnote of Gaudium et Spes is a good example of applying this distinction).

The Church is infallible when it teaches a doctrine as irreformable, either through it’s ordinary teaching always and everywhere or through a definitive act by the whole college of bishops or the Pope alone.

We are bound with absolute faith to those doctrines put forth by the Church as irreformable since there is no possibility for error. We are bound with religious submission to the rest based on our respect for the divinely instituted hierarchy and teaching authority of the Church, but that submission is not absolute or unqualified since there is the potential for error or imprudence. The withholding of assent in those cases, however, is an exception that should not be taken lightly at all–and we shouldn’t consider the Church to be habitually wrong either.