Infallibility?

[Hegesippus]

We know from Vatican I definition of papal infallibility that the pope is infallible when certain criteria are met. Now I remember reading that the ordinary magisterium is also infallible. Does this mean that there are different levels of infalliblity?

 

[Loy]

We know from Vatican I definition of papal infallibility that the pope is infallible when certain criteria are met. Now I remember reading that the ordinary magisterium is also infallible. Does this mean that there are different levels of infalliblity?

“Levels” is not the way to look at it. Infallible means infallible, and one type is not more infallible than the other.

This is the way I view it, and I openly welcome others to criticize or add to it.

The teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium (formal papal and conciliar definitions of dogma) are explicit. Common lay persons can easily discern the infallibillity of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Common lay persons can also easily discern the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium when the Church reïterates the teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

But outside of those situations, it is difficult to discern whether or not a teaching belongs to the infallible charism of the Ordinary Magisterium. A teaching may appear to fall into the category of infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, but the lay person does not have authority to determine whether a teaching is actually Christian doctrine or not. Common lay persons are dependent upon the Magisterium to confirm for certain whether or not a teaching is infallible.

 

[Hegesippus]

Can statements that were never promulgated as dogmas be considered infallible? For example, Christ rose bodily from the dead. Is that an infallbile statement.

 

[Hegesippus]

So by its nature, the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, but it does reiterate infallible statements.

 

[CatholicNick]

So by its nature, the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, but it does reiterate infallible statements.

fisheaters.com/papolatry.html - good article on Infallibility, aimed somewhat at Prots… but very good for the Catholic to read aswell.

 

[Loy]

Can statements that were never promulgated as dogmas be considered infallible? For example, Christ rose bodily from the dead. Is that an infallbile statement.

Technically speaking, it is not the statements themselves that are infallible, but rather the person who speaks or writes Christian doctrine. It’s also important to remember that a person who possesses the charism of infallibility does not always speak infallibly, but only under certain circumstances.

Thus, for example, the evangelists wrote infallibly when writing scripture. Also:when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra,that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.But getting back to your question, the Magisterium can speak infallibly, even when not proclaiming dogma. As to your example, whenever the Magisterium states that “Christ rose from the dead”, the Magisterium is speaking infallibly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We know from Vatican I definition of papal infallibility that the pope is infallible when certain criteria are met. Now I remember reading that the ordinary magisterium is also infallible. Does this mean that there are different levels of infalliblity?

Catholic dogmatic theology does not describe it as “different levels” of infallibility. Instead, all Catholic dogmas are inerrant, and are described as de fide (of faith) by virtue of an infallible teaching authority. Thus, the teaching authority is infallible, the teaching is inerrant.

The manner in which we come to know what is de fide varies. There is de fide definita and de fide catholica and de fide divina.

de fide definita are de fide by virtue of a definition of the infallible solemn magisterium.

de fide catholica are de fide by virtue of the teaching of the infallible ordinary universal magisterium.

de fide divina are de fide by virture of our infallible God through inerrant Divine revelation.

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if 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 authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So by its nature, the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, but it does reiterate infallible statements.

By their own nature, no human or group of humans teach infallibly. Nonetheless, by a special charism of God, any human or group of humans can teach infallibly.

Fr. John Hardon explains:

**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.

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.

[Fr. John Hardon, *Pocket Catholic Dictionary

]

 

[Loy]

So by its nature, the ordinary magisterium is not infallible, but it does reiterate infallible statements.

I’m sorry if my statements seem confusing, but infallibility can sometimes be difficult to explain.

By its very nature, the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible. But sometimes the pope, bishops and theologians constitute the Magisterium, and at other times they act merely as ordinary individuals, that is, without the charism of infallibility.

The Ordinary Magisterium does not need to reïterate the teaching Extraordinary Magisterium in order to be infallible, it’s just more obvious that the teachers of the Church are speaking infallibly when they reïterate the teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Let’s try this comparison. A pregnant woman is a pregnant whether she is one day or 8 ½ months. However, it is much more obvious to the average person when she is 8 ½ months along. Although it might take an expert to determine whether a woman is pregnant in her early stages, she is pregnant whether the expert can determine it or not. Likewise, the Magisterium is infallible whether acting in the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Ordinary Magisterium. But the Extraordinary Magisterium is more obvious. It might require an expert theologian to determine whether the pope or bishops are acting as the Ordinary Magisterium, or acting without the charism of infallibility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…By its very nature, the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible…

I disagree. This is neither true of the ordinary nor the extraordinary magisterium. the extraordinary magisterium can excercise merely pastorally teaching authority, thereby not teach infallibly. The ordinary magisterium can only be infallible if it is an authentic exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. Even then, you would have to clarify what you mean by “nature” of this teaching authority. None of these men by nature teach infallibly, but only by supernatural charism from God.

 

[Loy]

Loy;1545836:

…By its very nature

, the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible…I disagree. This is neither true of the ordinary nor the extraordinary magisterium. the extraordinary magisterium can excercise merely pastorally teaching authority, thereby not teach infallibly. The ordinary magisterium can only be infallible if it is an authentic exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. Even then, you would have to clarify what you mean by “nature” of this teaching authority. None of these men by nature teach infallibly, but only by supernatural charism from God.

I had overlooked the Magisterium teaching in a disciplinary or pastoral capacity. It’s already afternoon and I haven’t had my coffee yet.

Hegesippus, please disregard my statement: “By its very nature, the Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible.”

For the time being, what is important is that under certain circumstances, the Ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly, and not merely when reïterating the teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

 

[Loy]

Now that I think about it, someone on the web came up with a clever chart that outlined when the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium were acting infallibly, and when they were not. I don’t know if it is accurate, but if anyone remembers where to find it, I’d like to take another look.