Infallible only Twice?

[mlchance]

"Catholic scholars are totally untrustworthy"

Someone said that was a ridiculous statement that I made. OK, name a single Catholic Scholar in whom I can trust everything he teaches to be true.

First, there’s the unsupportable assertion that Catholic scholars are totally untrustworthy, and now it’s a demand to name a Catholic scholar who is always truthful in what he teaches. Those two aren’t the same thing, and it is silly to equate them.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Ignatius]

I have been engaged on some other Catholic blogs and I have heard that the Church has only defined two doctrines infallibly: The Immaculate Conception and The Assumption.

Then, at a class I took at my parish, taught by a candidate for the diaconate, based on his diocesan education, he reiterated that those were the only two infalible teachings of the Church.

I was under the impression that things like councils, and encyclicals were infallible when they taught on faith and morals.

That is correct. There are only two Papal declarations which are ex-cathedra and infallible. The canons of Ecumenical Councils are also infallible. Confirming infallibly declaired and existing Church teaching on faith and morals is not a new declaration.

The debate that first started this was women’s ordination, which I thought had been closed infallibly. I don’t want to get into that specific subject, but I need to know if those are the only two infallible doctrines of the Church and how close to certain the other theologically defined doctrines are?

Pope John Paul the Great stated that it has been an infallible teaching from the very beginning. There have never been priestesses in the Catholic Church nor in the Hebrew before that.
That is a confirmation of the teaching of The Church from the very beginning. It is not a new infallible declaration.

This thread certainly has turned into a mess from my original question. I didn’t realize it was so complicated.

Let me summarize what I’ve learned:

Councils are Infallible, so is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as well as Papal Pronouncements so long as they meet certain criteria.

The only two Papal Pronouncements that are expressly infallible are the one’s dealing with the Blessed Virgin.

The pope ended debate on an infallible teaching of Sacred Tradition.

Precisely.

 

[w_stewart]

Thanks SK.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

Good clarifying post other than the underlined section, I believe. You’ll have to cite your source for that one.

I’ve already posted an exact quote from Ratzinger stating that JPII’s declaration in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” was “not in itself infallible” (this if for no other reason than because it had already been defined by the Church) and yet this declaration was one of the ones on your list in post 15 as having been suggested by then Cardinal Ratzinger to be infallible.

OS meets all of the conditions for papal infallibility. Those conditions do not include a requirement that the Pope know he is using papal infallibility, nor that he subsequently affirm that the statement falls under papal infallibility, nor that the CDF give subsequen confirmation.
See the subsection on OS in this article:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/three-charisms.htm

The list I gave is not Ratzinger’s list, but a list of various papal teachings that various persons have suggested fall under papal infallibility.

Ratzinger’s list, can’t find the reference right now; it usually comes up in this kind of discussion. He was writing as a private theologian, but even as a private theologian, his writings carry weight (but are not an act of the Magisterium).

 

[VociMike]

Does a teaching have more authority if it is infallible? Is it more binding upon Catholics if it is infallible?

 

[SilentKnight]

OS meets all of the conditions for papal infallibility.

Save one, yeah. (More in my next post?)

Those conditions do not include a requirement that the Pope know he is using papal infallibility, nor that he subsequently affirm that the statement falls under papal infallibility, nor that the CDF give subsequen confirmation.

Right.

The list I gave is not Ratzinger’s list, but a list of various papal teachings that various persons have suggested fall under papal infallibility.

Oh, ok.

Ratzinger’s list, can’t find the reference right now; it usually comes up in this kind of discussion. He was writing as a private theologian, but even as a private theologian, his writings carry weight (but are not an act of the Magisterium).

Right.

Sssooooo…Are you suggesting that he was right or wrong in his analysis?

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Does a teaching have more authority if it is infallible? Is it more binding upon Catholics if it is infallible?

To be “infallible” is to be “unable to err”. So, yes. Infallible teachings of the Church are “more binding” on Catholics than most non-infallible teachings by virtue of the fact that there is to be absolutely no doubt that they are true. We can be certain with infallible statements that it is God Himself who is speaking (through the Church).

SK

 

[VociMike]

To be “infallible” is to be “unable to err”. So, yes. Infallible teachings of the Church are “more binding” on Catholics than most non-infallible teachings by virtue of the fact that there is to be absolutely no doubt that they are true. We can be certain with infallible statements that it is God Himself who is speaking (through the Church).

SK

Where does the Church teach this?

 

[SilentKnight]

Which part of “this”? The whole thing?

SK

 

[VociMike]

Which part of “this”? The whole thing?

SK

Where does the Church teach that infallible teachings are more authoritative, are more binding on Catholics than other teachings of the Church?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Where does the Church teach that infallible teachings are more authoritative, are more binding on Catholics than other teachings of the Church?

It’s in the Catechism, but it’s also present in a number of documents, including Lumen Gentium (n. 25 i think). There is the full assent of faith due to solemn definitions of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council or of the Universal Magisterium. Then there is the lesser standard of religious submission of will and intellect due to non-infallible teachings. I think I put some quotes from JP2 and Cardinal Ratzinger in a post above.

 

[SilentKnight]

First and foremost, I would say that it’s taught by logic:

That which is “absolutely true beyond the shadow of a doubt” naturally holds greater sway than that which is “true”. That which is “true” holds greater sway than that which is “probably true”. That which is “probably true” is naturally much more binding than that which is “possibly true”. Etc.

Right?

SK

 

[VociMike]

It’s in the Catechism, but it’s also present in a number of documents, including Lumen Gentium (n. 25 i think). There is the full assent of faith due to solemn definitions of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council or of the Universal Magisterium. Then there is the lesser standard of religious submission of will and intellect due to non-infallible teachings. I think I put some quotes from JP2 and Cardinal Ratzinger in a post above.

According to the Catechism, the two standards are

“must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”
and
“are to adhere to it with religious assent”

And I have no idea how these two differ. In particular, based on the language, I don’t see that we are allowed to disbelieve those items in the second category.

I think this question is quite important, because I cannot believe that every Catholic is under obligation to know each and every infallible teaching and to somehow give those teachings “more” assent than all the other teachings of the Church. I think such a scheme would place an impossible burden on the faithful.

 

[VociMike]

First and foremost, I would say that it’s taught by logic:

That which is “absolutely true beyond the shadow of a doubt” naturally holds greater sway than that which is “true”. That which is “true” holds greater sway than that which is “probably true”. That which is “probably true” is naturally much more binding than that which is “possibly true”. Etc.

Right?

SK

Are we Catholics to consider the teachings of the faith that are not clearly infallible pronouncements (and how are we supposed to know?) to only be probably true or maybe true? Or are we obligated to consider them simply as true?

 

[SilentKnight]

Are we Catholics to consider the teachings of the faith that are not clearly infallible pronouncements (and how are we supposed to know?) to only be probably true or maybe true?

I was afraid you might venture in this direction, based on what I posted. No.

Or are we obligated to consider them simply as true?

Yes. Basically…Ehhh…This is where things get a little bit “sticky”.

Taking a deep breath and long pause to contemplate the best way to put this…

…I guess what I want do is to simplify this by saying that, for layman’s purposes, Catholics need to accept and live the Catholic faith. End of story. I would encourage about 99% or so of Catholics to not worry about the differences. It would only be for those that really weant to “go deep” into their faith (theologically, not spiritually) for whom it would really matter…

Basically…

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

According to the Catechism, the two standards are

“must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”
and
“are to adhere to it with religious assent”

And I have no idea how these two differ. In particular, based on the language, I don’t see that we are allowed to disbelieve those items in the second category.

I think this question is quite important, because I cannot believe that every Catholic is under obligation to know each and every infallible teaching and to somehow give those teachings “more” assent than all the other teachings of the Church. I think such a scheme would place an impossible burden on the faithful.

Indeed. A scheme in which all Catholics knew exactly what level of faith a given teaching or belief belonged to would be quite an exercise. (In part because, indeed, there are several more levels of certainty than the ones you posted above.)

Don’t worry about, though. Generally speaking, there is no need for the exercise. Just be Catholic. The only reason you would need to make the distinctions is if you were inclinced to become a theologian, say, or were particularly concerned about “issue x” and felt compelled to find out just how “certain” the Church really was about its teaching because you hold a prominent role in the community and…sayyyyy…a decision that you have to make about a certain policy and its compatibility with your faith is at stake. Orrrrr…Something of an alternately significant nature.

For those that absolutely must have a study of the varying levels of certainty, you can read section 8 (“Theological Grades of Certainty”) of the Introduction to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok, never having been one for “just doing it” (I’ve always, always had to ask “Why???”), I am uncomfortable with my last couple responses as they stand.

So, here are sections 7 & 8 of Fundamentals. When you are done reading, no doubt you will have greater appreciation for my exhortation to “just do it” (just live the Catholic faith and don’t worry about what particular level any given teaching might be at).


Introduction to "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma":

§ 7. Theological Opinions

   Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.). 

   A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical "Humani generis" (1950): "When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians" (D 3013).

**
§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty**

1.    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."

2.    Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3.    A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

4.    A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5.    Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6.    Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. 
   
   With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

 

[dcdurel]

From the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

Unfortunately Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is not infallible.  There is no Church teaching that says,

“The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible”
That is Ott’s personal opinion. Again, if all Catholics must assent in mind and will to ordinary teachings and an ordinary teaching was wrong, then the whole Church would be wrong, and that is impossible. Or Jesus would be requiring all Christians to believe false teaching, and that would be impossible also.

The whole book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” is based based on an error, that is, on false assertion that the writings of the Fathers and the writings of scripture are “proof” of Church teachings.
This is false. They are only the witness to Church teachings, not the source and proof of Church teachings. One cannot prove what is handed in Tradition by writings, because by definition, Tradition is not written.
Just as I cannot “prove” by writings that I learned the name of clouds, grass, etc, from my parents. My parents never wrote down these when they taught these things. But, since I was raised only by them, then that is proof enough I learned these things from them, even though there are no writings.
Since the apostles learned directly from Jesus, and they were not scholars before, then all they taught beyond the basics of what they knew as Jews had to come from Jesus. Jesus publicly chose them to learn His Gospel. Thus, the teachings that they handed down in Tradition come from God, though there are no explicit writings to prove each and every doctrine. Thus no one can prove Church teachings by writings of the Fathers of the Church and by scripture. The Church seldom says scripture is a proof of some teaching and the most the Church ever says is the WITNESS of scripture is proof of a teaching.

 

[SilentKnight]

Hm! An interesting and unexpected perspective, Dc. One by one…

Unfortunately Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is not infallible. There is no Church teaching that says, “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible”. That is Ott’s personal opinion.

There is and it’s not. If in no other location, it’s implicitly found in Vatican I’s declaration on papal infallibility, which states:

"…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that 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.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

dcdurel:

Again, if all Catholics must assent in mind and will to ordinary teachings and an ordinary teaching was wrong, then the whole Church would be wrong, and that is impossible. Or Jesus would be requiring all Christians to believe false teaching, and that would be impossible also.

Right. But let’s be conscious of a couple important facts:

1. “fallible” does not equal “wrong” or “in error”. It equals “able to err” or “able to be in error”. So stating that something is wrong and that something is fallible are two different things.

That said…

1. Just because something in theology is not infallibly declared does not automatically mean there is a chance that it is wrong.

Note carefully what Fundamentals says about the 4th category of Christian teaching:
Fundamentals:

1. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

This is not the first or second, or even the third, but the fourth level of Christian teaching we’re talking about and Ott explains here that it even this 4th level is guaranteed to be free from error.

The whole book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” is based based on an error, that is, on false assertion that the writings of the Fathers and the writings of scripture are “proof” of Church teachings.

This is false. They are only the witness to Church teachings, not the source and proof of Church teachings. One cannot prove what is handed in Tradition by writings, because by definition, Tradition is not written.

Just as I cannot “prove” by writings that I learned the name of clouds, grass, etc, from my parents. My parents never wrote down these when they taught these things. But, since I was raised only by them, then that is proof enough I learned these things from them, even though there are no writings.

Since the apostles learned directly from Jesus, and they were not scholars before, then all they taught beyond the basics of what they knew as Jews had to come from Jesus. Jesus publicly chose them to learn His Gospel. Thus, the teachings that they handed down in Tradition come from God, though there are no explicit writings to prove each and every doctrine. Thus no one can prove Church teachings by writings of the Fathers of the Church and by scripture. The Church seldom says scripture is a proof of some teaching and the most the Church ever says is the WITNESS of scripture is proof of a teaching.

I understand what you’re getting at, but have to disagree with your conclusions for a few different reasons:

First, note that the proper definition of “Tradition” does not, in fact, exclude that which is written. (“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” 2 Thess. 2:15)

Subsequently, yes, it was oral Tradition that came before Scripture. However, much (not all) of that tradition is now faithfully embedded in Scripture. The Church’s clear and unquivocal teaching is that Scripture is God’s word. (No, not in its entirety, but “partially”.) Thus, it is now proper for someone to suggest that the proof for a given Church teaching can be found in Scripture because Scripture, for its part, is equivalent to apsotolic teaching. So while the teaching itself may have come before what is written, because what is written (in Scripture) has been declared by the Church to be the 100% error free word of God, it is entirely proper to cite Scripture as proof of this, that, or the other theological position.
From chapter 6 of the Church's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation::

1. Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation. By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. (3) By the same word of Scripture the ministry of the word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and flourishes in a holy way.

For further reading:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

SK

 

[cazayoux]

The church is failable.

So is the Pope.

The church is fallible?
The one that Jesus founded?
The one for which Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it?
The one that is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
The one that should have probably died out within the first 3 hundred years, but miraculously survived?
THAT church is fallible?

I didn’t know that … I must be reading the wrong book.
(sarcasm blaring)

michel