Infallibility is confined to the properly defined theological dogmas proclaimed within an official Church Council. There is a situation called ex cathedra which also has stringent guidelines developed in recent times.Why is it that infallibility is confined to issues of faith & morals while inerrancy is not? Conversely, why is it that inerrency is not limited to matters of faith & morals but infallibility is? Why the inconsistency?
So then would Papal encyclicals be infallible? If not, why not?Infallibility is confined to the properly defined theological dogmas proclaimed within an official Church Council. There is a situation called ex cathedra which also has stringent guidelines developed in recent times.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
Encyclicals, in and of themselves, are not necessarily infallible, although some parts of them may be. One must look at the wording of the documents.So then would Papal encyclicals be infallible? If not, why not?
While Christ’s Church possesses infallibility, the expression of this infallibility is confined to definitions on faith or morals of Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope, or papal definitions similarly.grannymh
Infallibility is confined to the properly defined theological dogmas proclaimed within an official Church Council. There is a situation called ex cathedra….
No document is infallible – the defined dogmas and doctrines within are infallible.sardegnr
So then would Papal encyclicals be infallible? If not, why not?
Absolutely correct Abu, but try telling that to some regular posters on CAF. Now woulkd you say a definition and declaration by the Pope as head of the Holy Office is covered by the ordinary magisterium?While Christ’s Church possesses infallibility, the expression of this infallibility is confined to definitions on faith or morals of Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope, or papal definitions similarly.
Infallibility is NOT confined to dogmas.
No document is infallible – the defined dogmas and doctrines within are infallible.
It is vital to know when papal infallibility is exercised.
Vatican I (1870) in *Pastor Aeternus *proclaimed the dogma on papal infallibility and this was reiterated in Vatican II (*Lumen Gentium *25).
Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.
So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation.
I think you are simply trying to hijack the thread so that it becomes only about your geocentrism v heliocentrism.Absolutely correct Abu, but try telling that to some regular posters on CAF. Now woulkd you say a definition and declaration by the Pope as head of the Holy Office is covered by the ordinary magisterium?
No thistle, I am simply contributing to a thread entitled Inerrancy v. Infallibility. It has absolutely nothing to do with geocentrism v heliocentrism. It has nothing to do with the Church supposedly ruling on scientific matters. If you do not understand that then cease contributing to threads such as this. It has to do with the authority of a pope defining something - ANYTHING - formal heresy that churchmen now claim had no authority at all. It has to do with Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics, the same system of interpretation and classification that gave the Church all the dogmas Catholics are bound to hold if they profess to be Catholic. Both these matters are crucial to the subject of Inerrancy v. Infallibility.I think you are simply trying to hijack the thread so that it becomes only about your geocentrism v heliocentrism.
The Church has NOT declared infallibly that geocentrism prevails and it has NOT declared infallibly that heliocenrism is wrong.
The Church would be foolish to rule on scientific matters.
Catholics do NOT have to believe the earth is the centre of the universe and that it does not orbit the sun. To say otherwise is nonsense.
A Pope has no authority to infallibly define/declare anything outside faith and morals and, as an example, in your case (geocentrism) they most certainly did not infallibly declare this. Nothing scriptural about this anyway, otherwise you might also argue the earth is flat!!No thistle, I am simply contributing to a thread entitled Inerrancy v. Infallibility. It has absolutely nothing to do with geocentrism v heliocentrism. It has nothing to do with the Church supposedly ruling on scientific matters. If you do not understand that then cease contributing to threads such as this. It has to do with the authority of a pope defining something - ANYTHING - formal heresy that churchmen now claim had no authority at all. It has to do with Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics, the same system of interpretation and classification that gave the Church all the dogmas Catholics are bound to hold if they profess to be Catholic. Both these matters are crucial to the subject of Inerrancy v. Infallibility.
Oh and the same goes for you Abu.
Now either you want to address these questions or not.
The ignorance shown on this subject is almost beyond belief. Why on earth do Catholics come on Catholic forums if they haven’t a clue what they are talking about? What you suggest here above is that the Holy Office of the Church didn’t know what they were giving judgement on, something atheists and agnostics will delight with coming from a couple of Catholics…A Pope has no authority to infallibly define/declare anything outside faith and morals and, as an example, in your case (geocentrism) they most certainly did not infallibly declare this. Nothing scriptural about this anyway, otherwise you might also argue the earth is flat!!
The Magisterium is the teaching authority.grannymh
…what exactly is the “ordinary magisterium”.
Thank you.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
This is correct. The Pope can invoke the charism of infallibility only when speaking in the areas of faith and morals.I write this in charity.
There is a suggestion here, and in other places, that a Pope cannot define a doctrine if it falls outside of an ambiguous category of “faith and morals”.
No, not foolish. Just speaking without the charism of infallibility.Some have even gone so far as to suggest the Holy Father would be foolish to define some truth outside of this box.
Look at all the areas in Scripture in which our first pope spoke on many areas outside of faith and morals. It was not infallible. He was speaking without the charism of infallibility.That he has spoken seems to me evidence enough that this doctrine concerns faith and morals.
If I am wrong, correct me with Scripture or Church documents.
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. CCC 891
Indeed.The Catechism does not define what, exactly, pertains to faith or morals. The boundaries of this category of truths are not clear.
Now, this is a curious assertion indeed!Any truth I can imagine could pertain to faith or morals.
Perhaps. And if one pictures a Venn diagram, there may be a few issues in which science/faith/morals might ntersect.Certainly any issue regularly considered by scientists could concern faith or morals.
How do you understand this to be true?That a Pope declares or defines something means it does concern these, not that you are free to reject the Pope’s teachings if you feel the definition doesn’t.
Indeed!The documents of the first Vatican Council do not seem to be limiting the Pope, but rather describe a quality of the Pope’s ex cathedra teaching. How could you limit the Holy Spirit?
This is an interesting concept, Whiggamore. If this were to occur, then we would listen to the words of Holy Mother Church in how to understand this. Clearly, it would not be presented without commentary.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. Some might say, “But this is a question for science, it doesn’t concern faith or morals,” but that wouldn’t make it so. The Pope might be generous enough to explain why this pertains to faith or morals, but I don’t think he’d have to, and we’d still have to believe the definition.
Ok.This is a quality of these kinds of teachings, a similar quality to that of Scripture, all of which is for the sake of our salvation, even those parts we wouldn’t personally categorize as being so.
I don’t know. Let me know what you find out!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.