Infallibility?

[Tyrel]

I have already submitted my question in the “Ask an apologist” section. However, until it is answered, I figured maybe I would throw it out here more generally for the community to deal with.

My question concerns the theological difference between that which is infallible so as to demand the religious assent of Catholics, and that which is infallible so as to demand the assent of faith. I note this distinction appears in Paragraph 892 of the Church’s Catechism.

I ask this question both because I, as a convert to Catholicism and something of an apologist, have wondered about this distinction myself. However, more practically my evangelical professor of theology has heard me taking issue with Catholics who step out of line with the Church’s formal teachings. He has challenged me to write an essay in defense of maintaining a broader infallibility than is adhered to by those Catholic teachers and theologians who would argue that contraception, an exclusively male priesthood, the inerrancy of Scripture, the origin of the human community from two first parents, and such-like beliefs are open to theological dissent.

Catholic Encyclopedia outlines three organs of infallibility;

Three organs have been mentioned:
• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.

The first seems to be that which Pope Pius XII refers at the outset of Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
~ Humani Generis

I note also that Vatican I said clearly: “And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
~ Vatican I Pastor Aeternus

However, does this apply only to judgments of the Roman Pontiff which are Ex Cathedra, or does this apply to statements which are infallible by reason of the ordinary organ of infallibility? (my instinct tells me that it applies to both, but I would like some corroboration).

Can a belief which requires religious assent without the assent of faith ever be in doubt? Can it change? Is it of another kind of infallibility? If not, why does the Church’s vocabulary make this distinction between religious assent and the assent of faith?

Thank you for your time, my essay is due Tuesday, so I do hope somebody on here can set me straight.

Cheers

 

[spockrates]

I have already submitted my question in the “Ask an apologist” section. However, until it is answered, I figured maybe I would throw it out here more generally for the community to deal with.

My question concerns the theological difference between that which is infallible so as to demand the religious assent of Catholics, and that which is infallible so as to demand the assent of faith. I note this distinction appears in Paragraph 892 of the Church’s Catechism.

I ask this question both because I, as a convert to Catholicism and something of an apologist, have wondered about this distinction myself. However, more practically my evangelical professor of theology has heard me taking issue with Catholics who step out of line with the Church’s formal teachings. He has challenged me to write an essay in defense of maintaining a broader infallibility than is adhered to by those Catholic teachers and theologians who would argue that contraception, an exclusively male priesthood, the inerrancy of Scripture, the origin of the human community from two first parents, and such-like beliefs are open to theological dissent.

Catholic Encyclopedia outlines three organs of infallibility;

Three organs have been mentioned:
• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.

The first seems to be that which Pope Pius XII refers at the outset of Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
~ Humani Generis

I note also that Vatican I said clearly: “And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
~ Vatican I Pastor Aeternus

However, does this apply only to judgments of the Roman Pontiff which are Ex Cathedra, or does this apply to statements which are infallible by reason of the ordinary organ of infallibility? (my instinct tells me that it applies to both, but I would like some corroboration).

Can a belief which requires religious assent without the assent of faith ever be in doubt? Can it change? Is it of another kind of infallibility? If not, why does the Church’s vocabulary make this distinction between religious assent and the assent of faith?

Thank you for your time, my essay is due Tuesday, so I do hope somebody on here can set me straight.

Cheers

Did you ever get an answer to your question?

 

[cjforJesus]

As far as I can discern papal infallibility is in regards to the declaration of a dogma.

Infallibility of the church magesterium is always in union with the pope,the successor of Peter.

 

[Tyrel]

No, I haven’t gotten an answer yet.

Does anyone here want to take an actual shot at it?

Remember that the question revolves around this apparent distinction between something requiring religious assent (which is an extension of the assent of faith) and something which actually requires the assent of faith.

 

[cjforJesus]

You seem to be asking the difference between religious assent and the assent of faith. According to that paragraph religious assent is in regards to teachings regarding faith and morals which are not dogmatically defined,whereas assent of faith is in regards to an infallible dogma which is accepted on the faith that the Pope speaks with infallibility ex cathedra.

It seems very clear to me but maybe I am not reading it correctly

 

[spockrates]

No, I haven’t gotten an answer yet.

Does anyone here want to take an actual shot at it?

Remember that the question revolves around this apparent distinction between something requiring religious assent (which is an extension of the assent of faith) and something which actually requires the assent of faith.

Not quite sure what you mean by “something requiring religious assent…and something which actually requires the assent of faith”. Please explain how religious assent is different from the assent of faith. I’m thinking (perhaps wrongly) that they are one and the same.

 

[NHInsider]

My question concerns the theological difference between that which is infallible so as to demand the religious assent of Catholics, and that which is infallible so as to demand the assent of faith. I note this distinction appears in Paragraph 892 of the Church’s Catechism.

I think “religious assent” means “accepting it because you are being obedient to the Church’s authority” where “assent of faith” means actually believing something. So I can give religious assent to a teaching that I am not persuaded of, simply because I acknowledge the Church’s authority to teach me. Kind of like when your kid has to do what you tell them, even when they think you’re just being MOM (mean old mom/man)

I ask this question both because I, as a convert to Catholicism and something of an apologist, have wondered about this distinction myself. However, more practically my evangelical professor of theology has heard me taking issue with Catholics who step out of line with the Church’s formal teachings. He has challenged me to write an essay in defense of maintaining a broader infallibility than is adhered to by those Catholic teachers and theologians who would argue that contraception, an exclusively male priesthood, the inerrancy of Scripture, the origin of the human community from two first parents, and such-like beliefs are open to theological dissent.

I think you might do well to discuss the question of accepting authority while disagreeing (“loyal dissent”) vs rejecting the Church’s authority (disloyal dissent?) without necessarily getting into the examples, particularly as the list you’ve given includes some frequently mis-understood teachings and you don’t need to muddy the waters. For example, the question of whether women can be ordained to the priesthood has been expressly put into a category of “no argument allowed” without any formal declaration - thus religious assent is required, at least of theologians, regardless of the presence or absence of the assent of faith. Inerrancy of Scripture is often interpreted to mean something other than what the Church’s own statements say it means. Same for the origins discussion. Since it is quite likely that your professor may not be aware of the distinctions, it might be better to focus on that and not get into the related issues you mentioned, or others like them.

I note also that Vatican I said clearly: “And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
~ Vatican I Pastor Aeternus

However, does this apply only to judgments of the Roman Pontiff which are Ex Cathedra, or does this apply to statements which are infallible by reason of the ordinary organ of infallibility? (my instinct tells me that it applies to both, but I would like some corroboration).

Your instinct would seem to contradict Pius’ statement which you cited. He is making a distinction between his “ordinary” statements (“ordinary” in theology seldom means “regular,” it generally means “in connection with ordination”). It seems to me that he is saying "although my ordinary statements do not reach the level of a declaration (which would in your essay’s terms demand assent of faith) they still demand acceptance because of my office (religious assent).

Can a belief which requires religious assent without the assent of faith ever be in doubt?

I think so. I think the implication is that one accepts it as a religious obligation despite ones doubts.

Can it change?

In theory the theology could develop further and so the results/application might change.

Is it of another kind of infallibility? If not, why does the Church’s vocabulary make this distinction between religious assent and the assent of faith?

Because many teachings are related to discipline, which is important but not essential for salvation? Because we recognize a hierarchy of truths? Because Jesus is more inclusive than exclusive, and so we should be as well, but the successors to the Apostles hold the awesome obligation to “teach them to obey all that I commanded”?

Thank you for your time, my essay is due Tuesday, so I do hope somebody on here can set me straight.

I fear you may get a variety of answers that leaves you more confused rather than less. I have little doubt someone will disagree with me.

 

[cjforJesus]

Religious assent seems to be based more on the illumination of human reason whereas the assent of faith is of Divine illumination and therefore unquestionable.

 

[diggerdomer]

My question concerns the theological difference between that which is infallible so as to demand the religious assent of Catholics, and that which is infallible so as to demand the assent of faith. I note this distinction appears in Paragraph 892 of the Church’s Catechism.

One distinction that may help: only God is infallible.

The Catholic Church has the charism, from God, of teaching infallibly. No one teaching or person is infallible.

Catholic Encyclopedia outlines three organs of infallibility;

Three organs have been mentioned:
• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.

Yes, these are the three ways the Church may teach infallibly, except your point #3 is not completely accurate. The Pope never acts separately from the Church and the College of Bishops. He only teaches infallibly when teaching as head of the universal Church and in communion with the College of Bishops.

 

[diggerdomer]

The first seems to be that which Pope Pius XII refers at the outset of Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
~ Humani Generis

Yes, Encyclicals are typically considered authoritative (binding) teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Yet, they are not typically considered as being taught infallibly.

 

[diggerdomer]

I note also that Vatican I said clearly: “And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
~ Vatican I Pastor Aeternus

However, does this apply only to judgments of the Roman Pontiff which are Ex Cathedra, or does this apply to statements which are infallible by reason of the ordinary organ of infallibility? (my instinct tells me that it applies to both, but I would like some corroboration).

Vatican I did not address how the Church might teach infallibly apart from Papal “ex cathedra” teachings. So your question can only be answered by considering Church teachings subsequent to Vatican I.

 

[diggerdomer]

I
Can a belief which requires religious assent without the assent of faith ever be in doubt? Can it change? I

yes to both

 

[Tyrel]

Alright, there are some interesting answers from some of you I’d like to engage or push a little further.

Spokrates thought that religious assent and the assent of faith are the same, but I note as I did above that the Catechism says that religious assent is an extension of the assent of faith, and is also required.

However, some of you have gone to the other extreme, I note the example of Diggerdomer most recently.

cjforJesus, your suggestion is interesting. I had started to think maybe the distinction between the religious assent and the assent of faith is that one exists, in the vocabulary of the Church, in a creedal or propositional form, whereas that which requires religious assent is not something the Church has proposed in the form of a creed, but maintains as a matter of the deposit of faith under the broad species of “Tradition”.

NHInsider - I appreciated your response most of all. Thank you. If you don’t mind, I’d like to push the point a bit.

I think “religious assent” means “accepting it because you are being obedient to the Church’s authority” where “assent of faith” means actually believing something… I think so. I think the implication is that one accepts it as a religious obligation despite ones doubts. In theory the theology could develop further and so the results/application might change. Because many teachings are related to discipline, which is important but not essential for salvation? Because we recognize a hierarchy of truths?

It seems to me that there are a couple of problems with this. The first is perhaps a practical one - what contracted form of cognitive dissonance is required to assent intellectually to something you don’t understand the sense of? Of course, if religious assent is never the response to propositional beliefs and merely practices, then I could understand the sense in that, but I note that the problem is that what is included in this domain of that which requires the assent of faith includes propositional beliefs. These are not a matter of discipline, it seems to me. Take the example I brought the encyclical up for: is it not true that there was a first man and a first woman? This doesn’t seem to be a matter of practice or discipline, but a matter of belief, it has the form of an article of faith.

The greater problem, of course, is that the Church still treats these propositional beliefs as not only requiring belief, but as having been delivered by one of the three organs of infallibility. Thus, the propositional belief is itself infallible. Can it change? Truth obviously cannot change. Thus, we are stuck saying either that these teachings aren’t infallible and thus are somehow not issued from that first organ of infallibility, or else that they are infallible, and yet require a different kind of assent than the creeds do.

Your instinct would seem to contradict Pius’ statement which you cited. He is making a distinction between his “ordinary” statements (“ordinary” in theology seldom means “regular,” it generally means “in connection with ordination”). It seems to me that he is saying "although my ordinary statements do not reach the level of a declaration (which would in your essay’s terms demand assent of faith) they still demand acceptance because of my office (religious assent).

Here, perhaps I was misunderstood. I recognize that this is what the Pope is saying, and I do recognize that ordinary has a loaded meaning. What I am asking is whether this ordinary teaching qualifies as issuing from that first of the three organs of infallibility. If it is, then to have religious assent instead of the assent of faith needs to be explained.

The question can be broken down clearly at this point. First, do the Pope’s Encyclicals under certain or any conditions qualify them as requiring religious assent? Second, is religious assent required of infallible teachings which are issued in the ordinary way, or with the first the three organs.

It seems to me, to lay my presuppositions bare, that the Pope’s Encyclicals qualify the core teaching(s) of any of them as infallible not according to ‘Ex Cathedra’ necessarily, but at least according to the ordinary organ of infallibility.

I fear you may get a variety of answers that leaves you more confused rather than less. I have little doubt someone will disagree with me.

I’m a big boy, I can handle disagreement. I also like a challenge, so I will stick to writing the essay with this particular focus in mind.

 

[Tyrel]

I found a much older thread which is related to this one.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=248946

and I note that everyone who participated in that thread two years ago spoke about religious assent as though it was not assent to an infallible teaching. However, it still seems to me to be the case that the teachings in encyclicals are issued as infallible in the ‘ordinary’ way, so as for it to be the presumption of a Catholic that the teachings therein are indeed infallible, even if not promulgated officially as such in an extra-ordinary way.

I also find it troubling that some people still find contradiction between Vatican II and what came prior. However, putting that aside…

Am I just mistaken? If anyone thinks so, please give me a single example of an infallible teaching of the Church issued by the first of the three organs outlined, which is somehow qualitatively different from that which the Popes issue in Encyclicals.

Anyone?

 

[NHInsider]

Tyrel - the key to this is, I think, understanding that the context of a particular teaching is significant.

the Pope has multiple hats. He is Bishop of Rome, and so has a particular relationship with the people of his own diocese. He is patriarch of the Church universal, and so has a different relationship with all the faithful (including, obviously, those of his own diocese). Similarly, he is the head of the college of bishops, which means both that he leads and instructs them (Jesus told St. Peter “strengthen your brothers” Lk.22:32) but also, in a different context, speaks for them (Acts 15). When he speaks FOR them, the promise of infallibility which Jesus gave to the Apostles accrues to him. When he speaks TO them (which is what an encyclical is), his teaching is not a declaration of doctrine. Nevertheless it must be received with respect for his office.

One way to compare the difference might be to look consider the declaration of the Assumption of Mary, which was promulgated by Apostolic Constitution in 1954 but had been previously discussed in an encyclical in 1946. If there were no “qualitative difference” then the 1954 ex cathedra statement would have been unnecessary, right?

In 1946 a Catholic bishop who did not believe that Mary was taken up bodily into Heaven would have been obligated not to teach his belief - he would have been expected to assent to the teaching as a matter of Church authority, without necessarily accepting it. In 1954 he would have been expected to accept it as true.

On that note, you asked

what contracted form of cognitive dissonance is required to assent intellectually to something you don’t understand the sense of?

Not for nothing are the words of the desperate father recorded in Scripture “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24) Or Peter’s “Where would we go?” when Jesus asked if the Apostles, too, would leave over the inexplicable notion that they should eat His flesh and drink His blood. (John 6:68-69)

Beginning with the proposition that Jesus is True God and True Man, we accept on faith things that we can’t understand (in fact you can make the case that if we can understand it, it doesn’t require faith).

 

[mardukm]

From my understanding, religious assent is the level of belief we are to give our bishops individually, while assent of faith is the level of belief we are to give to infallible teachings of the Church.

For example, I am an Oriental Catholic in the Coptic Tradition. I accept the dogma of Purgatory (that there is a Purgatory where souls are perfected by God and which are helped by our prayers and the Sacrifice of the Mass). A Latin Catholic, if his or her bishop explicitly teaches the concept of Purgatorial fire, is bound by religious assent to accept that teaching. But my own bishop does not teach the concept of Purgatorial fire, so I am not bound by religious assent to accept it. I am bound by religious assent to accept all that my bishop teaches (i.e., doctrine), and must accept with an assent of faith all that the Church teaches universally (i.e., dogma).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have already submitted my question in the “Ask an apologist” section. However, until it is answered, I figured maybe I would throw it out here more generally for the community to deal with.

My question concerns the theological difference between that which is infallible so as to demand the religious assent of Catholics, and that which is infallible so as to demand the assent of faith. I note this distinction appears in Paragraph 892 of the Church’s Catechism.

I ask this question both because I, as a convert to Catholicism and something of an apologist, have wondered about this distinction myself. However, more practically my evangelical professor of theology has heard me taking issue with Catholics who step out of line with the Church’s formal teachings. He has challenged me to write an essay in defense of maintaining a broader infallibility than is adhered to by those Catholic teachers and theologians who would argue that contraception, an exclusively male priesthood, the inerrancy of Scripture, the origin of the human community from two first parents, and such-like beliefs are open to theological dissent.

Catholic Encyclopedia outlines three organs of infallibility;

Three organs have been mentioned:
• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.

The first seems to be that which Pope Pius XII refers at the outset of Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
~ Humani Generis

I note also that Vatican I said clearly: “And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
~ Vatican I Pastor Aeternus

However, does this apply only to judgments of the Roman Pontiff which are Ex Cathedra, or does this apply to statements which are infallible by reason of the ordinary organ of infallibility? (my instinct tells me that it applies to both, but I would like some corroboration).

Can a belief which requires religious assent without the assent of faith ever be in doubt? Can it change? Is it of another kind of infallibility? If not, why does the Church’s vocabulary make this distinction between religious assent and the assent of faith?

Thank you for your time, my essay is due Tuesday, so I do hope somebody on here can set me straight.

Cheers

 

[Tyrel]

Thank you for your interesting responses, I didn’t know that about the assumption of Mary.

One way to compare the difference might be to look consider the declaration of the Assumption of Mary, which was promulgated by Apostolic Constitution in 1954 but had been previously discussed in an encyclical in 1946. If there were no “qualitative difference” then the 1954 ex cathedra statement would have been unnecessary, right?

In 1946 a Catholic bishop who did not believe that Mary was taken up bodily into Heaven would have been obligated not to teach his belief - he would have been expected to assent to the teaching as a matter of Church authority, without necessarily accepting it. In 1954 he would have been expected to accept it as true.

I note however, the following from Donum Veritatis:

When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.
When the Magisterium proposes “in a definitive way” truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.
This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.
Donum Veritatis No. 23

Beginning with the proposition that Jesus is True God and True Man, we accept on faith things that we can’t understand (in fact you can make the case that if we can understand it, it doesn’t require faith).

This is not very relevant, but it deserves, to my mind, a firm response. St. Augustine says rightly: “I believe in order to understand.” Further, I cannot see the sense in believing in something like a square circle, since such a thing cannot be understood in any sense, and thus cannot be believed in any sense. I note of the Trinity that St. Bonaventure outlines it quite clearly in his commentary on the sentences. It is unfathomable, but not beyond any propositionally proximate understanding. God is not fathomable, but we don’t need to take recourse to negative theology alone (all the creeds are positive).

I note of those beliefs which all Catholics, Latin or not, are bound to assent to with religious assent that Pope Pius tells us that these are not open for discussion, and are true:
“For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and… cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
~ Humani Generis

He who hears you hears me - can the Church then in discharge of this ordinary magisterial infallibility which requires religious assent be in error? Can such propositions themselves ever be changed?

If a belief which required religious assent was in fact in error then what of the Catechism Par. 890 here:
"It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth "

I note that the Canon of Scripture requires religious assent - can it be wrong?

Let me give an example; Limbo. Limbo required religious assent at some time, and now does not. Limbo itself thus is a true belief, or else Limbo itself is not a true belief. If it is not a true belief, then the Church has pastorally led us into error.

There is a clear advantage in some truths remaining peripheral in Catholic Catechizing, but that these things are true cannot be in question if they do require or have required religious assent.

Further, I cannot think of a single counter example. A genuine example of the Church contradicting herself over time.

What think you?

 

[Tyrel]

From my understanding, religious assent is the level of belief we are to give our bishops individually, while assent of faith is the level of belief we are to give to infallible teachings of the Church.

For example, I am an Oriental Catholic in the Coptic Tradition. I accept the dogma of Purgatory (that there is a Purgatory where souls are perfected by God and which are helped by our prayers and the Sacrifice of the Mass). A Latin Catholic, if his or her bishop explicitly teaches the concept of Purgatorial fire, is bound by religious assent to accept that teaching. But my own bishop does not teach the concept of Purgatorial fire, so I am not bound by religious assent to accept it. I am bound by religious assent to accept all that my bishop teaches (i.e., doctrine), and must accept with an assent of faith all that the Church teaches universally (i.e., dogma).

That sounds right, but I note that encyclicals are precisely the Pope acting in an ordinary way, but as the bishop of the entire Church.

I also continue to note that THIS IS AN ORGAN OF INFALLIBILITY. I apologize for the caps, I just need to make that clear… if I had a neon sign, I’d use it to point to this single thing. The Catholic Church requires the assent of faith only for things which are themselves TRUE, and also makes them beyond negotiation, though it is not recognized as of yet as maintained infallibly. Something’s being maintained infallibly and something’s being entertained as infallible are distinct, and the more I look to the Church’s documents, the more I seem to reap this sense from them.

A belief requiring religious assent is itself always true and beyond negotiation, and simply hasn’t been ‘canonized’ so to speak… perhaps that’s a good analogy.

 

[NHInsider]

Tyrel-

Would it be correct to conclude that the reason you’re tackling this in your paper is because you feel passionately about it? And would it also be correct to conclude that you are among those Catholics who take a “broader” view of infallibility, and that you think there are lots of Catholic theologians and clerics who are not upholding what you understand that term to mean? I ask because it seems the tone of the conversation has shifted from a request for information/sources to a sort of challenge when the answers were not what you expected.

You quoted from Donum Veritas

This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

Precisely what I said - that I can give religious assent because I accept the authority of the Church - if that’s not “the impulse of obedience to the faith” I don’t know what is.

You also asked, after citing Pius’ Humani Generis

“For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and… cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

~

can the Church then in discharge of this ordinary magisterial infallibility which requires religious assent be in error? Can such propositions themselves ever be changed?

Hmm. If you compare Pius’ encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi with Unitatis Redintegratio I think you’ll find a fairly radical shift in presentation with regard to the status of non-Catholic Christians. Both are magesterial, neither is dogmatic. And, while I do not claim that Communion and Stewardship is infallible, it is in places a pretty dramatic shift from parts of Humani Generis. Which is not unlike the kinds of contradictory material one sees in long-ago discussions that led up to the dogmatic declarations we hold dear, such as Jesus’ nature or the canon. While a doctrine is under discussion, there are likely to be many perspectives offered. That is not rebellion unless and until Rome says “hey, you-all - shut up!” as she did wrt women’s ordination a few years back.

 

[diggerdomer]

A. Thus, we are stuck saying either that these teachings aren’t infallible and thus are somehow not issued from that first organ of infallibility, or else that they are infallible, and yet require a different kind of assent than the creeds do.

No. The Catholic Church’s teaching of infallibility does not refer to statements, teachings, propositions, doctrine, etc., but rather the the MEANS of teaching. Meaning…the Church can teach infallibly (without error). “Infallibility” refers to the act of teaching, not the specific words/formulation of such teaching.

Specific teachings are of course always open to further development, understanding, contemporary application, etc.

Hope this helps.