Infallibility and doctrine

[Cabeelibob]

I am having trouble understanding how some teachings are non-infallible and some are.

So the teaching on masturbation is infallible or not? Why is it infallible or non-infallible if it is?

What would be an example of a non-infallible teaching if there are any?

Are the theologians who dissent with infallible teachings in mortal sin? Are they going to hell?

 

[NSmith]

Infallible teachings are those that have always been believed and taught by the Body of Christ since its beginning. These may experience development insofar as they are expressed more explicitly, usually in Dogmatic Constitutions of an Ecumenical Council or Apostolic Constitutions written by the sitting pontiff. An example of this would be the Trinity, which was always taught but not explicitly defined until several Ecumenical Councils had clarified particulars.
Fallible teachings are those that are derived from infallible teachings, matters of discipline, or which have not been included in Scripture, or in any Dogmatic Constitution, or in any Apostolic Constitution. An example of this would be the existence of Limbo, or the list of banned books.
The reason that infallible teachings are infallible is because they are protected by the Holy Spirit. In the case of Scripture it is known to be inerrant. In the case of the Ecumenical Council, it is considered impossible that the entire Body of Christ could so fantastically err, thus deceiving all of God’s people. In the case of the Pope it is considered an expression of his special charism, which was given to Peter by Christ.
Knowingly dissenting from any de fide teaching is a sin against faith, known either as apostasy or heresy, and would result in damnation if the sinner does not repent.
The teaching on masturbation specifically is close to infallible if not actually infallible, but off the top of my head I don’t remember if it has ever been condemned dogmatically. Possibly. Even if it has not been dogmatically proscribed it is such a long-standing teaching on sexual morality that I think it is not controvertible. The very earliest Church Fathers condemn it, and there is an unbroken teaching against it up to the modern day.

 

[Anesti33]

Non-infallible teachings include:
The existence of Limbo, a part of Hell where unbaptized infants go and experience natural happiness.
The death of the Blessed Virgin Mary prior to her Assumption into Heaven.

These are teachings which have been debated and even validly contradicted but never defined.

 

[1ke]

I am having trouble understanding how some teachings are non-infallible and some are.

That’s because teachings aren’t infallible, people are. There is no such thing as an infallible teaching.

1. Specifically the Pope is infallible when he exercises his teaching authority ex cathedra.
2. The Magisterium (the bishops in union with the pope) teach infallibly through the Extraordinary Magisterium through solemn definitions in Ecumenical Councils.
3. The Magisterium teaches infallibly through the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium when they teach something is to be held definitively as revealed.

There are certainly things that have been defined dogmatically through one of these methods, but many more things that have not. Those things fall under the ordinary and universal Magisterium, but not as solemnly defined and therefore not taught infallibly. That does not mean they aren’t true.

 

[annad347]

So what makes one teaching infallible and another not if they are taught by the same people?

Can we use smaller words, I failed my SATs.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Are the theologians who dissent with infallible teachings in mortal sin? Are they going to hell?

It depends on their knowledge and intent in “dissenting”. Presumably, theologians are knowledgeable people, so I would say that intent is likely the deciding factor. If their intent is to turn people away from Church teaching, that might be mortal. If their intent is to genuinely bring the Church more in line with Christ’s teaching, that might not be mortal.

As for “are they going to Hell”, that’s between them and God. How would we know?

I really hope you’re not looking for some way to get out of the Church teaching on masturbation because a few misguided theologians are trying to find ways to make it okay.

 

[goout]

Frequently the search for infallibility is the search for the minimum requirement, or the attempt to reduce what ought to be an intensive lifetime faith journey to easy doctrinal sound bites.
What part of the Gospel and the Church’s teaching are you required to accept? ALL OF IT. When you’ve accepted one part of it, don’t get too comfortable because challenges are always right around the corner.

 

[Cabeelibob]

I often think of priestly celibacy. That’s a common debate still?

 

[goout]

I often think of priestly celibacy. That’s a common debate still?

Celibacy is a discipline. Infallibility really has nothing to do with celibacy.

 

[1ke]

I often think of priestly celibacy. That’s a common debate still?

that’s not a doctrine at all.

it’s a discipline of the Latin Church.

 

[1ke]

So what makes one teaching infallible and another not if they are taught by the same people?

when they teach something is to be held definitively

And again, the teaching isn’t “infallible”. The people doing the teaching are.

 

[annad347]

And again, the teaching isn’t “infallible”. The people doing the teaching are.

that’s what I’m asking, if the person who is doing the teaching is infallible - incapable of making mistakes or being wrong, then why would what one person’s teachings be infallible and another not be, if they, the person is infallible?

and how is a person incapable of making mistakes?

 

[Anesti33]

Cabeelibob:

I am having trouble understanding how some teachings are non-infallible and some are.

That’s because teachings aren’t infallible, people are. There is no such thing as an infallible teaching.

False; teachings are either infallible or fallible.

The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching - Catholicism.org

 

[Anesti33]

There are two fallible teachings: The Blessed Virgin Mary died before her assumption, and she did not die before her assumption.

There is a fallible teaching: Limbo of the Infants being a place in Hell where unbaptized babies enjoy natural happiness.

Nah we don’t have to believe all fallible teachings. As you can see, some are contradictory.

 

[1ke]

False; teachings are either infallible or fallible.

Teachings are either infallibly defined or not infallibly defined. Teachings themselves are not “infallible”.

 

[Anesti33]

Teachings can be fallible or infallible. Did you read the document I furnished? Ludwig Ott has been over and over this before.

Honestly, this is Doctrine 101. It’s like people saying we don’t pray to saints…
Catholic Encyclopedia:

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

 

[1ke]

• incapable of making mistakes or being wrong, then why would what one person’s teachings be infallible and another not be, if they, the person is infallible?

The Pope, ex cathedra, or the Pope & Bishops in union only exercise this teaching office infallibly in certain cases. When the Pope says, “I think it’s going to rain today” he is not exercising his infallible teaching office.

When does the Pope exercise infallible teaching? When the Pope does so ex cathedra-- binding all the faithful to a definitive teaching.

When does the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium exercise infallible teaching? When the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches something must be definitively held or as a solemn definition through an Ecumenical Council.

Pope, teaching infallibly ex cathedra: DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION, MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS where he says: y the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, via Ecumenical Council: Council of Ephesus declares Mary “Mother of God”.

Ordinary & Universal Magesterium, teaching office: doctrine of priestly ordination reserved only to men, Ordintio Sacerdotalis, example of reconfirming divinely revealed teaching to be held definitively by the faithful.

Teaching non-infallibly: everything else.

and how is a person incapable of making mistakes?

By the power of the Holy Spirit who prevents them from doing so.

 

[otjm]

I often think of priestly celibacy. That’s a common debate still?

In the Eastern Rites at least some of them have a history going back to time the mind of man remembereth not of having both married and celibate priests.

In the Roman rite, early on we had both celibte and married priests; eventually a law (a discipline) was put in place that priests in the Roman rite would be celibate.

that law has been partially relaxed to allow Protestant ministers who have converted to be ordained in spite of being married. The discussion has continued, but the rule has not yet been relaxed further.

 

[Anesti33]

They are indeed “teachings” according to the Holy See itself.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Holy See:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo , understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.

The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching.

But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine’s “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision ( carentia visionis Dei ), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties.[45] This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God.

They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

 

[c4csp]

These types of questions come up quite a bit, whether it be an example with masturbation, fornication, getting drunk or high, etc. They are all grave sins but they feel good. We have a concupiscence to indulge in them. They are always going to be a sin with the church and that will never change. They were directly taught by Jesus, there is no debate on the matter.

As Catholics, we are called to suffer as christ suffered. Christ said to deny ourselves, pick up our crosses and follow Him. God wills suffering for us because it allows us to become holy and ultimately be with Him in heaven. We should thank God daily for the crosses He has given us to carry because it is His divine will.