Inerrancy v. Infallibility

[grannymh]

When the Pope speaks ex cathedra his words are truth, and how a modernist might categorize the subject matter is irrelevant.

The difficulty is that Ex Cathedra does not apply to everything the Pope speaks.
The category of faith and morals is-- period. At least that is the way it is in the Catholic Church.

Those who are interested in the Catholic Church should check out this link.
V. What Teaching is Infallible?

To learn about Ex Cathedra, use this link.
**newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm **

To learn about Papal Infallibility, use this link
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

Please note;
The words in these links which are in a different color are links to additional information.

 

[grannymh]

I understand that not everything a Pope says is infallible, but when he speaks ex cathedra, his words are. If the Pope were to define the first day of Creation as beginning at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, then you would have to believe that, or be anathema.

Please.
The Pope of the Catholic Church is not dumb.

 

[Whiggamore]

grannymh, neither was James Ussher and neither am I. There are many intelligent, extremely intelligent, individuals who believe the Earth is young. But that’s not what this thread is about.

The articles you link to do not define the category of “faith and morals”. What concerns faith and morals is ambiguous. As I said before, there are certain truths, the age of the Earth, the Earth’s place in space, etc. that could concern faith and morals. Documents from the second Vatican Council say, “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” But how far does the deposit of Revelation extend? It extends exactly as far as God wills it, and if God reveals some truth that’s right now discussed in science textbooks to the Pope, and the Pope teaches it and says anybody who doesn’t believe it is anathema, then they are anathema. They’re anathema even if they think that was a matter for Science.

PRmerger, my argument is that what concerns faith and morals is unclear. I can see a statement on Church government or discipline not being infallible (I did not consider that before), but a Pope certainly could define some truth that Scientists find objectionable.

 

[Whiggamore]

And before you say, “Did you read the article on faith? On morals?” Yes, I did. They only made me more convinced.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, neither was James Ussher and neither am I. There are many intelligent, extremely intelligent, individuals who believe the Earth is young. But that’s not what this thread is about.

The articles you link to do not define the category of “faith and morals”.
What concerns faith and morals is ambiguous. As I said before, there are certain truths, the age of the Earth, the Earth’s place in space, etc. that could concern faith and morals.

if God reveals some truth that’s right now discussed in science textbooks to the Pope, and the Pope teaches it and says anybody who doesn’t believe it is anathema, then they are anathema. They’re anathema even if they think that was a matter for Science.

If you are saying what I think you’re saying, then I bet 83% of Catholics cannot adequately explain why that won’t happen in the Catholic Church. If you are not saying what I think you are saying then I will give you time to explain yourself and most likely I will revise my percentage figure downward.

I would think that the 17% will probably be using infallibility as a reference point since you are using the word anathema. From reading posts, I know that there are some CAF people who could explain why your scenario would not happen in the Catholic Church. I look forward to their response.

 

[grannymh]

PRmerger, my argument is that what concerns faith and morals is unclear. I can see a statement on Church government or discipline not being infallible (I did not consider that before), but a Pope certainly could define some truth that Scientists find objectionable.

Emphsis mine.

While I am waiting for a response to post 44, I will end this page of posts by bringing you up to speed. Proper Church Councils have already defined truths which some scientists, have found objectionable.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[thistle]

PRmerger, thank you again for your reply.

Have Popes ever attached, “… let him be anathema,” to teachings involved discipline? If they have, I will change my argument a little. I will look myself later.

Disciplines are not doctrines (infallible or non-infallible) and as such they can be changed.
Whether a particular discipline is likely to be changed or not is a separate issue but the bottom line is that they can be changed.

 

[Abu]

Whiggamore
I understand that not everything a Pope says is infallible, but when he speaks ex cathedra, his words are…if God reveals some truth that’s right now discussed in science textbooks to the Pope, and the Pope teaches it and says anybody who doesn’t believe it is anathema, then they are anathema…What concerns faith and morals is ambiguous.

Please refer to post #25 – speaking as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians (ex cathedra) does NOT alone express infallibility – that requires as well, defining to the whole Church a matter of faith or morals. Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Empirical science is certified knowledge of observable reality as such. Philosophical science is certified knowledge of natural reality beyond the merely material. Historical science is certified knowledge of past reality as such. And theological science is certified knowledge of revealed reality as such. The Pope does not teach empirical science such as physics or chemistry for instance, and his infallibility extends only to faith and morals.

What concerns “Faith” is hardly “ambiguous”, as it is a supernatural gift of God by which we believe without doubting whatever God has revealed.

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554
“Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.”

Faith is what we have to believe, morals what we have to do, in order to obtain eternal life. Both faith and morals are parts of the deposit which Christ left for the guidance of His Church; so far as the obligation of assent is concerned, there is no difference between them.

Do you have a problem with what “concerns” morals?

 

[PRmerger]

It extends exactly as far as God wills it, and if God reveals some truth that’s right now discussed in science textbooks to the Pope, and the Pope teaches it and says anybody who doesn’t believe it is anathema, then they are anathema. They’re anathema even if they think that was a matter for Science.

This, IMHO, shows an impoverished understanding of the nature of the Church and the nature of God’s revelation.

God’s revelation is complete, Whiggamore. It was complete and entire* before a single word of the NT was ever written.* IOW, He will not “reveal some truth” to the Pope.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, neither was James Ussher and neither am I. There are many intelligent, extremely intelligent, individuals who believe the Earth is young. But that’s not what this thread is about.

The articles you link to do not define the category of “faith and morals”. What concerns faith and morals is ambiguous. As I said before, there are certain truths, the age of the Earth, the Earth’s place in space, etc. that could concern faith and morals.

Whiggamore,

Please accept my sincere apology.

While I recognized the name of James Ussher (from a post in a science discussion sometime back), I should have immediately gone to his biography.

If I had done my homework, I would have found this link mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/ussher_james.html

One of the things which remained with me from my high school class in Catholic Church history was the integrity of the majority of people who left the Catholic Church during the Renaissance. With this in mind, I will work to better understand just where your position regarding the category of faith and morals being ambiguous is coming from. Understanding the source, no matter how far it goes back in time, is valuable.

You do need to remember that I learned the Protestant Reformation more than a half century ago so if I make a mistake, hopefully someone will correct me. What I recently learned is that a number of people still pronounce the word Protestant with the accent or emphasis on “Protest”. In my humble opinion, protest is the key. Even in the economic battles of the times, there was still the sense of protesting.

The other thing you should consider is that many Catholics grow up with the teachings of Catholicism. Of course, they understand the world, but their view is from the Catholic position. This is very reasonable and should not be held against Catholics. Nonetheless, it would be most helpful if everyone would realize that a lot of current Christian ideas, good and bad, come from the era of Henry VIII and following. Remember Henry VIII received the title of Defender of the Faith because at an early point, he defended Catholicism.

Hopefully, Whiggamore, we can start over and explore why “faith and morals” belongs in the infallible category of the Catholic Church. I know that some posters go way back in history when looking at science and philosophy. I prefer to go back to go back to the Renaissance period but am happy to learn more about previous centuries.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[brb3]

What a very important thread - and post -I find here. Given that this subject is at the heart of the infamous Galileo case, and that most threads on the Galileo case are shut down before the question of inerrancy V infallibility is developed,

So if the Bible says the roof was red, then it was red, and not a colour inserted in the Bible by a ill sighted person.

Finally, if a pope defines and declares a ceretain interpretation of Scripture, no matter what about, **he is infallible **if done as an official act of the Church. If however, another pope tell the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that he thinks it was pink, then he speaking unofficially outside the Church is very fallible.

So … Did the Pope / Church make a mistake or mispeak on Galileo issue ? Seems the Church has recently made some revision acknowledgment statements with regards to Galileo.

But, I’m interested in your opinion on whether it was minor verses major category ‘infallibility’ matters.

 

[Whiggamore]

Thank you all for your replies.

grannymh, your comment in post forty-five is more or less my point. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you all for your replies.

grannymh, your comment in post forty-five is more or less my point. I’ll leave it at that.

It is actually my post 49 which changes the playing field.

Unfortunately, I am on and off the computer for a couple of days. Nonetheless, I am sincere in post 49, last paragraph.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Whiggamore]

grannymh, no, I mean what you said in post 45 is what I am saying. That is my point.

 

[grannymh]

So … Did the Pope / Church make a mistake or mispeak on Galileo issue ? Seems the Church has recently made some revision acknowledgment statements with regards to Galileo.

But, I’m interested in your opinion on whether it was minor verses major category ‘infallibility’ matters.

In my observation of the miles of posts on Galileo, the question is whether the judicial decrees issued in connection with the local trail are actually properly defined dogma which would be considered infallible.

Unfortunately, some of the people who believe in geocentrism are trying to use the local trial of Galileo to prove that geocentricism is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Geocentricism as well as heliocentrism are not part of the Catholic faith no matter how many people living at the time of Galileo used the four-letter word heresy.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[brb3]

In my observation of the miles of posts on Galileo, the question is whether the judicial decrees issued in connection with the local trail are actually properly defined dogma which would be considered infallible.

Unfortunately, some of the people who believe in geocentrism are trying to use the local trial of Galileo to prove that geocentricism is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Geocentricism as well as heliocentrism are not part of the Catholic faith no matter how many people living at the time of Galileo used the four-letter word heresy.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

Someone earlier in this thread has quoted Augustine on matters of the earth/stars, etc. Augustine made some very wise comments on science vs Christian beliefs … vis-a-vis scripture.

Surely the Church fathers in the time of Galileo knew of Augustine’s writings. Did they ignore them, and express their ‘opinions’ only … that were really not of Dogmatic statue ?

Who is our CAF expert on these matters ? Which prior thread has dealt with this more completely ?

 

[grannymh]

Someone earlier in this thread has quoted Augustine on matters of the earth/stars, etc. Augustine made some very wise comments on science vs Christian beliefs … vis-a-vis scripture. Surely the Church fathers in the time of Galileo knew of Augustine’s writings. Did they ignore them, and express their ‘opinions’ only … that were really not of Dogmatic statue ?

The age of the Church Fathers ended long before Galileo. They were called “Fathers” because of when they lived and because they wrote and preached extensively preserving tradition. If you have a hard cover Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, go to the “Index of Citations” following paragraph 2865. There is a section titled “Ecclesiastical Writers” which includes the Church Fathers, along with saints and others, whose teachings have been included in the Catechism. The link which I use for the Catechism does not carry this section. Maybe the Vatican link or some other link does.

The Church Fathers wrote historically regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles and subsequent Disciples. They wrote about how “Worship” was conducted including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments. Their writings contained the spiritual and theological aspects of Church traditions. Being brilliant men, they also thought and wrote about the physical/material earth on which we live as well as the surrounding universe.

The articles you link to do not define the category of “faith and morals”. What concerns faith and morals is ambiguous. As I said before, there are certain truths, the age of the Earth, the Earth’s place in space, etc. that could concern faith and morals.

I am including Whiggamore’s concerns because I did not read them correctly. My apology is in post 49.

Cassini’s issues about infallibility at the time of Galileo are valid. He and I have been dealing with them since we both started on CAF a day apart. Since there were other issues in Cassini’s posts, many people have responded since day one.

The main issue in this thread is infallibility. There are a number of very knowledgeable posters who currently contribute to this topic. As for the CAF expert on the visible organization, that is, the protocol of the Catholic Church, which is who you are looking for due to the huge variety of written documents, I would recommend two experts.

DavidPalm. Link to his public profile
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=38247

And Masterjedi747. Link to his public profile
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=19254

When you get to the public profile, click statistics and you will get a list of their posts. Scroll down until you find the ones which deal with Church protocol involving various Church Councils, commissions and actions of individual Church officials on various levels. Statistics will also list threads which the poster has started. To get to the public profile of any poster, click their name at the top of their post. A drop down menu will appear. You most likely know all this, but some newer posters may not.

What I missed when reading Whiggamore’s concerns, was the question as to how faith and morals became a category in itself when there is so much more to life, such as our universe and how it operates. This is actually a key question especially in threads on faith/science as well as threads involving infallibility.

Hopefully, those who know the history or the “why” of the faith and morals category, also known as the realm of faith and morals or the Catholic Deposit of Faith, will reply. This will definitely help the understanding of infallibility.

As for your final question, “Which prior thread has dealt with this more completely?”
I have no clue.

I have seen many links to the Galileo case and hopefully posters will respond here with those links.

Blessings,
granny

THE HOLY EUCHARIST
IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

 

[sardegnr]

The Magisterium is the teaching authority.

Answer by Fr. Matthew Habiger (EWTN) - NFP Outreach on 07-24-2007:“Most moral teaching is given in the forum of the “ordinary Magisterium” (e.g., encyclicals, pastoral letters, sermons, etc.).”

See:
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM
Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei

So then ecyclicals are infallible then? To say, as an earlier poster did, that some are and some aren’t, that it depends on the wording used, isn’t very useful to rank and file Catholics. Have you tried actually reading an encyclical? I’ve read several from the 19th & 20th centuries. Not easy reading by any stretch, and I’ve got seven years of higher education. And there doesn’t seem to be any standard, giveaway language saying “Hey! What follows is infallible teaching.” or not. Not very helpful.

 

[PRmerger]

So then ecyclicals are infallible then? To say, as an earlier poster did, that some are and some aren’t, that it depends on the wording used, isn’t very useful to rank and file Catholics. Have you tried actually reading an encyclical? I’ve read several from the 19th & 20th centuries. Not easy reading by any stretch, and I’ve got seven years of higher education. And there doesn’t seem to be any standard, giveaway language saying “Hey! What follows is infallible teaching.” or not. Not very helpful.

It seems to me that this insistence on knowing whether something is infallible or not presents an immoderate attention to this issue.

Why does it matter so much whether the teaching on, say, the Trinity is infallible or not? Would you believe it only if it were declared to be so?

 

[Abu]

sardegnr
So then encyclicals are infallible then?

From post #25 for you: No document is infallible – the defined dogmas and doctrines within are infallible – simply that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Study post #25.