Infallibility of the Catholic Church

[Timi_Celcer]

I know the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra… But i have some questions about his infallibility.

1)How do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
2)Is the teaching of the Church always infallible?
3)What is the difference between saints, blessed and venerated? If the Church proclaimes a person a saint, is that infallible? What about if the Church proclaimes someone blessed or venerated? Is this also infallible?
4) Is the cannon law infallible?
5) Is the Cathecism infallible?
6) Did the pope speak ex-cathedra when calling a crusade? Was the pope’s teaching that crusade is a good thing infallible?
7) Are all Ecumenical councils infallible? If yes, how is it possible that all votes of the bishops were not for the newly accepted doctorine? Didn’t the Holy spirit make them vote for the right doctorine? Why did some bishops vote against the divinity of Christ if the Holy Spirit is not allowing the council to error?
8)Did the Church use to teach that burning heretics at the stake is good? If yes how can this be? How could God’s Church teach an immoral thing?

Im just looking for answer as i don’t understand everything in my Church. Thank you for help in advance.

 

[Brendan]

I know the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra… But i have some questions about his infallibility.

1)How do we know when he speaks ex cathedra? When he binds all the faithful to a particular teaching

2)Is the teaching of the Church always infallible? When the faithful are bound to believe a teaching, yes. There are matters of discipline, such as what color vestments to wear, those are neither infallible, in that they can be changed at any point, nor are the fallible, in that there is nothing immoral about a priest wearing green vestments in Ordinary time.

3)What is the difference between saints, blessed and venerated? If the Church proclaimes a person a saint, is that infallible? What about if the Church proclaimes someone blessed or venerated? Is this also infallible? Saints - Yes it is infallible, The person, via the miracles performed via their intercession has been show to be definitively in Heaven. Veneralble, or Blessed, that the Church has examined their life and they have ben show to have lived ‘Heroic Virtue’. it is infallible in that it is not sinful to invoke their intercession

1. Is the cannon law infallible? Depends on which Canon. Some have to do directly with Sacraments, and those are infallible, but not due to their presence in Canon Law, but because the Church teaches correctly in regards to the Sacraments. Those that are matters of Disciple are not, by definition, doctrinal, so ‘infalliblilty’ does not apply
2. Is the Cathecism infallible? The Teachings presented as Doctrine are infallible. The Catechism as a document is not.
3. Did the pope speak ex-cathedra when calling a crusade? Was the pope’s teaching that crusade is a good thing infallible? The 1st Crusade was a application of Just War would be a prudential judgement on an infallible teaching. The 1st Crusade, for example, WAS an attempt to repel an invasion of the Holy by Turks and Arabs, and thus no more unjust than D-Day would have been.
4. Are all Ecumenical councils infallible? If yes, how is it possible that all votes of the bishops were not for the newly accepted doctorine? Didn’t the Holy spirit make them vote for the right doctorine? Why did some bishops vote against the divinity of Christ if the Holy Spirit is not allowing the council to error? The Holy Spirit does not make anyone vote one way or the other. An Ecumenical Council is not an independent means of declaring doctrine, it is another expression of Papal infallibilty. For example, in a Council, if every single bishop votes against a teaching, but the Pope votes in favor and publishes the teaching and binds the faithful to it, it is infallible. Conversely, if every bishop votes in favor of a teaching, and the Pope against it, it is not a teaching of the Church.

8)Did the Church use to teach that burning heretics at the stake is good? If yes how can this be? How could God’s Church teach an immoral thing? Because it is not, of itself immoral. It falls under the teaching of Self Defense and Justice. As Aquinas noted (parapharase) , a murder can only kill your body, a heretic can kill your soul, so which is more dangerous? In addition, the crime of heresy was generally punished by the civil authorities. The role of the Church was to determine of the teaching of the person was, in fact, heretical. The role of the Church, then was to determine the facts of the case, and the civil authority tried the person under civil authority and punishment

Im just looking for answer as i don’t understand everything in my Church. Thank you for help in advance.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I know the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra… But i have some questions about his infallibility.

1)How do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
2)Is the teaching of the Church always infallible?
3)What is the difference between saints, blessed and venerated? If the Church proclaimes a person a saint, is that infallible? What about if the Church proclaimes someone blessed or venerated? Is this also infallible?
4) Is the cannon law infallible?
5) Is the Cathecism infallible?
6) Did the pope speak ex-cathedra when calling a crusade? Was the pope’s teaching that crusade is a good thing infallible?
7) Are all Ecumenical councils infallible? If yes, how is it possible that all votes of the bishops were not for the newly accepted doctorine? Didn’t the Holy spirit make them vote for the right doctorine? Why did some bishops vote against the divinity of Christ if the Holy Spirit is not allowing the council to error?
8)Did the Church use to teach that burning heretics at the stake is good? If yes how can this be? How could God’s Church teach an immoral thing?

Im just looking for answer as i don’t understand everything in my Church. Thank you for help in advance.

Looking for answers and you found them (see Brendan’s post above, which is excellent.) Te Deum laudamus!

 

[Timi_Celcer]

What is the difference between saints, blessed and venerated? If the Church proclaimes a person a saint, is that infallible? What about if the Church proclaimes someone blessed or venerated? Is this also infallible? Saints - Yes it is infallible, The person, via the miracles performed via their intercession has been show to be definitively in Heaven. Veneralble, or Blessed, that the Church has examined their life and they have ben show to have lived ‘Heroic Virtue’. it is infallible in that it is not sinful to invoke their intercession.

So to summarize, pronouncing saints is infallible, while pronouncing blessed and venerated is not?

Did the pope speak ex-cathedra when calling a crusade? Was the pope’s teaching that crusade is a good thing infallible? The 1st Crusade was a application of Just War would be a prudential judgement on an infallible teaching. The 1st Crusade, for example, WAS an attempt to repel an invasion of the Holy by Turks and Arabs, and thus no more unjust than D-Day would have been.

I agree there is nothing unjust about the defensive wars, but, crusades were also about conquering territory, either those previously lost to muslims, or the Holy Land. We can all agree that we can go to heaven without these lands, so conquering those lands was completely unneceseary and sinful.

)Did the Church use to teach that burning heretics at the stake is good? If yes how can this be? How could God’s Church teach an immoral thing? Because it is not, of itself immoral. It falls under the teaching of Self Defense and Justice. As Aquinas noted (parapharase) , a murder can only kill your body, a heretic can kill your soul, so which is more dangerous? In addition, the crime of heresy was generally punished by the civil authorities. The role of the Church was to determine of the teaching of the person was, in fact, heretical. The role of the Church, then was to determine the facts of the case, and the civil authority tried the person under civil authority and punishment

So you are saying that i can kill a protestant preacher when i see one?

 

[Brendan]

So to summarize, pronouncing saints is infallible, while pronouncing blessed and venerated is not?

That is correct. What IS infallible is the when the Church declares that is not a sinful act to seek the intercession of a Blessed or Venerable.

I agree there is nothing unjust about the defensive wars, but, crusades were also about conquering territory, either those previously lost to muslims, or the Holy Land. We can all agree that we can go to heaven without these lands, so conquering those lands was completely unneceseary and sinful.

Was D-Day about conquering France?, which had been previously lost to the Germans.
or was it about driving out an invader. The English and Americans could certainly have gone to Heaven without having seen Paris. But the correction of an injustice is an act of Justice, which is a Virtue. God, and his Church, desire the practice of Virtue, do you not agree?

So you are saying that i can kill a protestant preacher when i see one?

Individuals do not have the authority to inflict Capital Punishment, that belongs to the State. Even then, only when there is a danger to well being of the people that the punishment alone would prevent, and after the facts are established with certitude.

 

[esieffe]

So you are saying that i can kill a protestant preacher when i see one?

This question makes me wonder about your intentions. I apologize profusely if I am wrong. There is nothing wrong with a lively debate, but we are held to a lofty standard here, and rightly so. Things would get quite messy fast otherwise, and from time to time, still do.

Your rhetorical question seems to cross that line, at least IMHO. Perhaps we can chalk this up to cultural differences? Certainly not religious ones. You are after all Catholic.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

This question makes me wonder about your intentions. I apologize profusely if I am wrong. There is nothing wrong with a lively debate, but we are held to a lofty standard here, and rightly so. Things would get quite messy fast otherwise, and from time to time, still do.

Your rhetorical question seems to cross that line, at least IMHO. Perhaps we can chalk this up to cultural differences? Certainly not religious ones. You are after all Catholic.

Ok sorry if it did, it was a rhetorical question, not meant to be read literally. I was just wanting to ask if that was what he meant with the answer. I have nothing against protestant, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

Was D-Day about conquering France?, which had been previously lost to the Germans.
or was it about driving out an invader. The English and Americans could certainly have gone to Heaven without having seen Paris. But the correction of an injustice is an act of Justice, which is a Virtue. God, and his Church, desire the practice of Virtue, do you not agree?

But the Holy land wasn’t ours for a long time, as far as i know there were almost no Christians left there. And even if there were some Christians there, they could of gone to heaven without being under Christian government. So it was just unneceseary killing. Or?

Individuals do not have the authority to inflict Capital Punishment, that belongs to the State. Even then, only when there is a danger to well being of the people that the punishment alone would prevent, and after the facts are established with certitude.

But still, if that rule applies, than the state has God given authority to delete anything un- Catholic and force conversions to the Church just so people would go to heaven. Didn’t the Church infallibly said, that freedom of religion is something that is moral and a must do for states? If a heretic founds his own religion, doesn’t he have a right to practice it, according to the Church? Or should he be killed by the government, who would do the opposite to the Church’s infallible doctorine?

 

[Brendan]

But the Holy land wasn’t ours for a long time, as far as i know there were almost no Christians left there. And even if there were some Christians there, they could of gone to heaven without being under Christian government. So it was just unneceseary killing. Or?

Define ‘ours’. It was Christian and Greek. The invasion was ongoing, as the Turks continued to press against Byzantium, taking their lands. Such lands could be defended, and yes, even reclaimed.

But still, if that rule applies, than the state has God given authority to delete anything un- Catholic and force conversions to the Church just so people would go to heaven.

Logically contradictory. The Church recognizes that Faith is a Free Will decision, that it cannot be made or mandated for anyone; so the very act of ‘forced conversions’ would be un-Catholic and the such a State would have to get ‘delete’ it.

Didn’t the Church infallibly said, that freedom of religion is something that is moral and a must do for states? If a heretic founds his own religion, doesn’t he have a right to practice it, according to the Church? Or should he be killed by the government, who would do the opposite to the Church’s infallible doctorine?

See above. But there is also the caveat that there is a decided difference between Freedom and License. God for example, has complete Freedom. But God cannot chose to do evil. ‘Freedom’ is the ability to make a choice to do good. It is NOT the ability to choose or to do evil. That is license.

 

[manualman]

Read “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott.

It’s the gold standard on the subject of discerning how much authoritative weight is assigned to what teachings and how to comprehend the level of authority assigned.

Heavy duty bedtime reading!

 

[markomalley]

I know the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra… But i have some questions about his infallibility.

1)How do we know when he speaks ex cathedra?
2)Is the teaching of the Church always infallible?
3)What is the difference between saints, blessed and venerated? If the Church proclaimes a person a saint, is that infallible? What about if the Church proclaimes someone blessed or venerated? Is this also infallible?
4) Is the cannon law infallible?
5) Is the Cathecism infallible?
6) Did the pope speak ex-cathedra when calling a crusade? Was the pope’s teaching that crusade is a good thing infallible?
7) Are all Ecumenical councils infallible? If yes, how is it possible that all votes of the bishops were not for the newly accepted doctorine? Didn’t the Holy spirit make them vote for the right doctorine? Why did some bishops vote against the divinity of Christ if the Holy Spirit is not allowing the council to error?
8)Did the Church use to teach that burning heretics at the stake is good? If yes how can this be? How could God’s Church teach an immoral thing?

Im just looking for answer as i don’t understand everything in my Church. Thank you for help in advance.

First of all, papal infallibility was defined as a doctrine of the Universal Church in the First Vatican Council.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• that is, when,
  1. **
  2. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  3. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  4. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,**
  5. he possesses,
  6. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  7. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  8. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
  This has not actually been exercised but a handful of times as a matter of doctrine (the canonization of saints, as an exception). For example,
  
  [Ineffabilis Deus (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm) (defining the Immaculate Conception). Here is the infallible language:
  
  Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the **authority **of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
  Or, for example, [Munificentissimus Deus (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM), defining the assumption:
  
  by 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.

 

[Abu]

This helps to convey reality.

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”
tinyurl.com/n2nhu3a