Infallibility

[Catholic2003]

AlanFromWichita:

I suggest we look at “infallibility” in the sense that the pope is the boss, period, with no rights to appeal.

Your post and itsjustdave1988’s post brought to mind a saying I once heard:

100% of what the Church teaches infallibily is true, and 99.9% of what the Church teaches non-infallibily is true, so we might as well just accept it all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic2003:

Priests don’t participate in the Magisterium, which is the living teaching authority of the Church. Bishops do, when they teach on a matter of faith and morals in the name of Jesus Christ. Individual bishops are not infallible, however.

Priests are supervised by Bishops – and they do teach. You are correct that they do not have a direct participation in the Magisterium as formulators of doctrine.

Catholic2003:

Canon law defines the individual episcopal magisterium, and the religious submission required to it by their flock:

That’s correct. But while priests aren’t bishops, they do much of the face-to-face teaching, while bishops are more remote from the average Catholic.

There is “teaching” and “teaching.” One relates to the formulation of doctrine and its promulgation, the other to the mundane classroom work.

 

[Catholic2003]

AlanFromWichita:

Can you imagine the kniption fits some people must be having for even having women as lectors or altar servers? If they grew up believing everything the Church taught was infallible, then as far as they’re concerned the Church has disappeared.

This would explain the SSPX, and Mel Gibson.

I guess those who believed (with the virtue of faith) that women were not permitted in the sanctuary really had to rethink their faith when the Church changed the rules.

As far as matters of morals go, faithful Catholics can just believe all Church teachings with the virtue of faith. But as far as matters of faith go, perhaps faithful Catholics would be well advised to distinguish between infallible teachings (which are therefore dogma) and non-infallible teachings (which are therefore discipline).

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic2003:

Your post and itsjustdave1988’s post brought to mind a saying I once heard:

100% of what the Church teaches infallibily is true, and 99.9% of what the Church teaches non-infallibily is true, so we might as well just accept it all.

Sounds like a relativistic attitude to me.

It’s ok to be wrong as long as you’re only a fraction of a percent wrong.

Alan

 

[Catholic2003]

AlanFromWichita:

Sounds like a relativistic attitude to me.

It’s ok to be wrong as long as you’re only a fraction of a percent wrong.

I don’t quite see this. What’s wrong with saying the Church is made up of fallible, imperfect people who love the Lord very much, but who very occasionally get things wrong when they aren’t given the charism of infallibility by the Holy Spirit?

And that despite their imperfection and occasional error, they nonetheless have the authority to lead the Church?

After all, Pope John Paul II never once exercised his personal charism of infallibility via an ex cathedra proclamation.

P.S. I’m going to start another thread to list the infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

 

[YinYangMom]

Just for the record…infallibility in teachings on faith and morals is a big deal to me because it is the reason I hold true to Catholicism.

The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching non-truths with regard to faith and morals - isn’t that what infallibility is all about? Jesus’ promise that by selecting Peter to head the Church He also granted protection from error to him?

Because of that protection I have been able to speak the Truth as it has been revealed to me from the Church to others. Time and time again I get the same response from others as Jesus did from Pilate -TRUTH? WHAT IS TRUTH?

Well, heck…if it doesn’t matter which teachings are infallible, then no Catholic would ever be able to respond with the confidence of Christ and the Holy Spirit that the Catholic Church’s teachings are THE TRUTH.

Yes, for us faithful, we don’t need to nitpick about it - bottom line - follow the Pope and the Church in good faith and we’ll be ok, as best as our free will allows. But when it comes to evangelizing to others and protecting ourselves and our children from false teachings of other churches, then YES it matters to be able to recognize heresy when one is up against it.

It’s unacceptable, imo, to sit back and say the concept is convoluted and only a few learned theologians can really grasp it. It can’t be that difficult. Jesus gave us His word. From there we follow the development of the Church and Her teachings and trust all that is revealed through Her.

Seems to me, bottom line is if a teaching stemmed from the Pope himself, and/or the Pope and a body of bishops (not individual bishops acting on their own), then the teaching is protected by infallibility of one or the other of the forms available.

I have not read yet anything to suggest A bishop alone can teach infallibly if the teaching itself is not something already covered under infallible teaching of the Church Herself.

Where it really gets muddled for me, and others, is when a Bishop teaches infallible teachings of the Church - with HIS OWN SPIN on the teaching, relying on HIS interpretation of what the Church guidelines are. By doing so, the faithful under his diocese trust and follow only to find out when they move to another diocese that the new Bishop teaches something contrary to what the other taught. That’s when the bricks of the foundation begin to crumble and we lose a lot of Catholics.

So, yeah…it matters to know what teachings are absolute truth because people will always try to tell us there is no SINGLE truth out there, but there is. Isn’t there???

 

[JOHNYJ]

Not that much is infalible, some people would like o make a lot of things infalible.For something to be infalible it must be absolutly so stated in very specific lanuage .

 

[Catholic2003]

YinYangMom:

Seems to me, bottom line is if a teaching stemmed from the Pope himself, and/or the Pope and a body of bishops (not individual bishops acting on their own), then the teaching is protected by infallibility of one or the other of the forms available.

The papal magisterium comes in two forms: the extraordinary papal magisterium (i.e., ex cathedra), and the ordinary papal magisterium (i.e., everything else). The Church teaches that the extraordinary papal magisterium is infallible, but the Church does not teach that the ordinary papal magisterium is infallible.

Some ordinary papal teaching reconfirms what is already infallible via the ordinary and universal magisterium, e.g., the impossibility of ordaining women priests.

Some ordinary papal teaching reconfirms what has been extensively taught throughout Church history, but which may or may not be infallible, e.g., the immorality of contraception.

Some ordinary papal teaching introduces novel ideas which therefore cannot be infallible via the ordinary and universal magisterium, e.g., that the moral use of the death penalty requires that bloodless means are insufficient to defend human lives against the aggressor.

 

[Matt16_18]

JOHNYJ:

For something to be infalible it must be absolutly so stated in very specific lanuage .

Not true.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

For example, can you point to the infallible councilar statement or papal ex cathedra statement that placed inerrancy of sacred scripture among the infallible dogma of the Catholic Church? Cardinal Ratzinger lists it among infallible immutable Catholic dogma, no?

It looks like this comes from Vatican II; see post #7 of my thread on the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The specific references for this teaching are:

Cf. DS 3293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 11.
The next time I’m in the library I will look up Denzinger to see if DS 3293 points to Vatican II or to some other source.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003:

It looks like this comes from Vatican II; see post #7 of my thread on the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The specific references for this teaching are:

Cf. DS 3293; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 11.The next time I’m in the library I will look up Denzinger to see if DS 3293 points to Vatican II or to some other source.

Yes, but Vatican II did not establish any new dogma, as it was a pastoral council. Thus, Vatican II only re-asserted already existing dogmas pastorally.
The documents prior to Vatican II that pertain to inerrancy are all papal encyclicals (Dei Verbum, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Spiritus Paraclitus, Providentissimus Deus) Prior to that, it was expressed by early church fathers such as St. Augustine.

If you look at each document of the Church that addresses inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, it does not meet the conditions of an ex cathedra definition of infallible dogma as defined by Vatican I. The first ecumenical council to address inerrancy was Vatican II, which did not do so definitively, but did express an infallible truth non-definitively.

Thus, it can only be said to be infallible and immutable (as Cardinal Ratzinger insists that it is, here CDF Doctrinal Commentary - Professio fidei) by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium.

PS. DS 3293 is Providentissimus Deus.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but Vatican II did not establish any new dogma, as it was a pastoral council. Thus, Vatican II only re-asserted already existing dogmas pastorally.

Thanks for looking up DS 3293. I’m afraid I’m going to disagree with you on Vatican II, however.

All ecumenical councils are infallible, whether quote-unquote pastoral or quote-unquote dogmatic. Vatican II was an ecumentical council, so it is part of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church.

Also, an act of the extraordinary magisterium can infallibly reconfirm something that is already infallible via some other mode, e.g., the ordinary and universal magisterium. For example, Pope John Paul II could have made Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an ex cathedra proclamation if he had wanted to. The fact that the impossibility of women priests was already infallible via the ordinary and universal magisterium would not have prevented him from making an ex cathedra proclamation. Neither would it prevent a future ecumenical council from infallibly reasserting the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.

So I believe that all existing dogmas that Vatican II reasserted were in fact infallibly reasserted, including the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003:

So I believe that all existing dogmas that Vatican II reasserted were in fact infallibly reasserted, including the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

I’m not saying that Vatican II did not infallibly re-assert Catholic dogma. I’m saying that Vatican II did not decree any de fide dogma definitively (de fide definita) by exercise of the solem magisterium. The word “definitive” in dogmatic theology means something very specific. Which is why theolgians assert that the canon of Scripture, for example, was not “definitive” until the Council of Trent, although it was asserted non-definitively before Trent at the Ecumenical Council of Florence.

Thus, Paul VI stated

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document" (General Audience, 12 January 1966).

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

I’m not saying that Vatican II did not infallibly re-assert Catholic dogma. I’m saying that Vatican II did not decree any de fide dogma definitively (de fide definita) by exercise of the solem magisterium.

I don’t understand the distinction that you are trying to make in these two sentences. The second sentence describes the only way that an ecumenical council can teach infallibly (c.f. Lumen Gentium 25). Thus, if you are saying that your second sentence did not happen at Vatican II, then you must be saying that Vatican II did not infallibly re-assert Catholic dogma.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003:

I don’t understand the distinction that you are trying to make in these two sentences. The second sentence describes the only way that an ecumenical council can teach infallibly (c.f. Lumen Gentium 25). Thus, if you are saying that your second sentence did not happen at Vatican II, then you must be saying that Vatican II did not infallibly re-assert Catholic dogma.

There’s a difference in re-asserting something infallibly and pronouncing something definitively. Catholic theology makes a distinction between, for example, de fide catholica, de fide definita, and de fide divina.

*De fide divina *pertains to immediately revealed truths, the belief due to them is based on the authority of God revealing it. (ie. infallible truth directly from God Himself)

De fide catholica pertains to that subset of de fide divina that the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authroity of the Infallbile Teaching Authroity fo the Church. (ie., infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium)

De fide definita pertains to that subset of de fide catholica that the Church, by a solemn judgement of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, vouches for the fact that it is contain in Revelation, one’s certainly is then also based upon this solemn definitive decree. (ie. infallible teaching of the solemn or extraordinary magisterium)

Vatican II re-asserted de fide catholica and de fide definita, but did not make a solemn definition.

That’s what is meant when Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s Bishops)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The second sentence describes the only way that an ecumenical council can teach infallibly

I disagree. And so did Paul VI, appearantly (see quote from him above). He asserts that the Council “***avoided any extraordinary [ie. solemn] statements of dogmas.” ***Thus, the Council made only ordinary statement of dogmas, thereby it “provided its teaching with the Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.”

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

There’s a difference in re-asserting something infallibly and pronouncing something definitively.

There is some kind of miscommunication going on here. Let me try again.

There is a difference between (1) “infallibly reasserting something” and (2) “non-infallibly reasserting something infallible”. In (1), an infallible act of teaching has taken place. In (2), a non-infallible act of teaching has taken place, even though the particular teaching is infallible. For example, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis falls into category (2).

I think we can all agree that (2) occurred in Vatican II. My question to you is whether you think (1) occurred in Vatican II.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003,

Yes, I’m thinking we are in violent agreement.

Let’s review…this was my claim that you said you disagreed with:

Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988
Yes, but Vatican II did not establish any new dogma, as it was a pastoral council. Thus, Vatican II only re-asserted already existing dogmas pastorally.

This was no different than what Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger said, as supported by the quotes I gave above. In what way do you disagree with it?

Notice what I asserted: dogmas were re-asserted pastorally. That is, solemn statements of faith were intentionally avoided by the Council (definitions). This does not imply that the Vatican II was was not infallible in its decisions.

I believe that "conciliar decisions are infallible in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted" (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997))

Yet, my original claim had nothing to do with this, positively or negatively. I was merely stating that nothing from Vatican II developed dogmatically from de fide catholica to de fide definita.

Thus whatever was de fide catholica before (eg. inerrancy of Sacred Scripture), remains de fide catholica after Vatican II. Paul VI asserted the Council taught with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly, when it teaches truth that has been taught “everywhere, always, and by all” by the Catholic magisterium.

“**Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church… Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds [Trent and Vatican I] and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms… to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council.” **(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, 1985, pg 28-31)

Vatican II, consequently, was infallible in all its councilar decisions. Not because it made any solemn judgement of faith (definitions), but because it correctly taught in accord with the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition which came before it.

Now, I don’t believe it is even possible to “non-infallibly reassert something infallible.”

Such a thing is an impossibility by defintion. If it is known to be infallible, then in what way can there be any error in reasserting it? The only way would be to re-assert something different from “it.” Consequently, it is an impossibility to non-infallibly re-assert something that is in fact, objectively infallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003,

I think where we disagree is that you assert Vatican II as an exercise of the solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium. I do not. I agree with Paul VI that it was an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office in pronouncing a solemn definition. This can be exercised in two ways: (1) the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given, or (2) When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition which is approved by the Pope.

If no solemn definition is pronounced, no exercise of the extraordinary magisterium has occurred.

Yet, the ordinary magisterium can teach infallibly as well, so merely stating the the Council was not an exercise of the solemn magisterium does not imply that it was not infallible.

From Fr. John Hardon:

**MAGISTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY. **The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or of ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magisterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.
(Catholic Pocket Dictionary)

MAGISTERIUM, ORDINARY. The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible. (ibid)

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

This was no different than what Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger said, as supported by the quotes I gave above. In what way do you disagree with it?

I believe the statementThus, Vatican II only re-asserted already existing dogmas pastorally.should readThus, Vatican II only re-asserted already existing dogmas infallibly.
I believe that Vatican II did not define any new dogma infallibly, but it did reassert existing dogma via infallible acts of teaching, i.e., via the extraordinary magisterium.

itsjustdave1988:

Now, I don’t believe it is even possible to “non-infallibly reassert something infallible.”

Such a thing is an impossibility by defintion.

From Archbishop Bertone:

Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching.

Since “infallibility” describes the act of magisterial teaching, an individual bishop teaches non-infallibly even when reasserting an infallible truth. This is because individual bishops have no charism of infallibility.

An ecumenical council, on the other hand, could use its charism of infallibility to reassert an already infallible truth. Or it could decide not to invoke its charism of infalliblity, and merely reassert an already infallible truth in a non-infallible manner. (Just as Pope John Paul II had the option to use either the ordinary papal magisterium or the extraordinary papal magisterium in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.)

So, to my mind, the question becomes, which did Vatican II do? Based on the strong language used in the text of Dei Verbum, I believe it exercised the extraordinary magisterium:

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

Another place where Vatican II exercised its extraordinary magisterium is in Orientalium Ecclesiarum:

1. History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church. The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.