Infallible Papal Bulls

[TertiumQuid]

Greetings,

I am familiar with Mr. Akin’s article here. Based on his opening comment, “Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t,” is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?

Thanks.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am not aware of a Magisterial-given list of which statements are infallible, James.

When one encounters statements like “we define and declare…” on an issue of faith or morals one can be sure it’s infallible. A lot of Catholics aren’t aware of that. Still, a Catholic should respect the authority of any teaching on faith or morals the Church has posited.

 

[davidv]

Greetings,

I am familiar with Mr. Akin’s article here. Based on his opening comment, “Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t,” is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?

Thanks.

For most faithful Catholics, whether a teaching is infallible or not, is not material to our life. The Church has been put in a position of authority over us by Jesus. We are bound under penalty of sin to obey her teachings.

 

[JeffScott]

For most faithful Catholics, whether a teaching is infallible or not, is not material to our life. The Church has been put in a position of authority over us by Jesus. We are bound under penalty of sin to obey her teachings.

For apologetics though, it is very material. As a protestant considering whether the Catholic faith might be true, I have found the very strong Catholic claims of teaching authority in general, and Papal infallibility specifically, to be a big stumbling block.

Protestant apologists sometimes try to undermine the claim of infallibility by showing that two infallible teachings (usually separated by many years of time) are contradictory. The Catholic defender usually takes one of two tacks. Either he tries to show that given a proper understanding of both claims there is no contradiction, or else that one of the claims (usually the earlier) was not taught infallibly.

I am OK with either of these responses in theory. However, with the second it sometimes looks to me like the Church is trying to have it both ways. By your own comment above, it is clear that Catholics, for all practical purposes, are to treat many, many teachings as if they are infallible. But if future Church teaching on a point changes and it has not been clearly declared infallibly, then the Catholic apologist can just claim that the teaching was never intended to be infallible.

Again, I see that this works find from inside the Church. But it just looks fishy from the outside. I say this as someone who is married to a Catholic, has attended mass regularly for 20 years, has studied Catholic apologetics in some depth, and really wants to be convinced that converting is the right thing to do.

 

[Ahimsa]

When one encounters statements like “we define and declare…” on an issue of faith or morals one can be sure it’s infallible.

Even such a statement is not guarantee of infallibility. Take a look at Unam Sanctam:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

According to CCC, it is not true that someone must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, in order to be saved. So, there are other criteria one must use to judge infallibility, other than a simple “we define and declare”.

 

[James224]

Greetings,

I am familiar with Mr. Akin’s article here. Based on his opening comment, “Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t,” is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?

Thanks.

Denzinger’s is the best known source for a list of doctrines. Also, there is another small book that’s interesting: “Catholic Beliefs: The Bottom Line” by Father William Most. I think the reason why it’s not always discernable what is infallible is due to the Church being a living body. It’s teaching everyday and the Church is more able, through the centuries, to state a doctrine in a more precise way. Dogma develops (this doesn’t mean “Invention”) which means our understanding of the same doctrine becomes deeper and the wording more precise or more full.

 

[excubitor]

As laymen we should consider all decrees, proclamations, bulls and canons issued by the Holy Church and especially he Holy See as being infallible and binding upon us, except where it can be shown that the said decree has been abrogated by the Church by an equal or greater authority.

In fact the US has a history of ignoring papal documents. In earlier times this malaise of the US church was called Americanism, but today we call it modernism.
It’s a blight on the US church which has spread to Australia and Europe to the point that many nations have become Catholic basket cases.

The only way we can turn this around is by obeying even the desires of the Pope and not just his direct commands and turning our hearts to the Fathers and obeying all of their commands, encyclicals and decrees.

 

[Ahimsa]

The only way we can turn this around is by obeying even the desires of the Pope…

Careful. Some Popes have been of extremely questionable morality.

 

[MarcoPolo]

According to CCC, it is not true that someone must be subject to the Roman Pontiff

That’s incorrect. The CCC says it is possible that a non-formal member of the Church could be saved. The CCC also says everyone who is saved is saved through the Church, even if by some extenuating fashion (#846 “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body”). And the ministerial head of the Church is the Pope. So whether such a person is conscious of it or not, he is part of the Church over which the Pope presides sacerdotally.

 

[Ahimsa]

The CCC also says everyone who is saved is saved through the Church, even if by some extenuating fashion (#846 “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body”).

I point to the idea of being “subject to the Roman Pontiff”, which, in the bull, implies subjection in the present life. The bull implies that someone who is never subject to the Roman Pontiff in this life, may not be saved.

You seem to be saying that someone may, after death, choose to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and thus be saved, but I’m not sure if the Pontiff’s jurisdiction crosses into the afterlife.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You seem to be saying that someone may, after death, choose to be subject to the Roman Pontiff

No, that is not what I was saying. The Catechism says no matter who is saved, that person must be joined to the One Church, in either a formal or an extenuating, more mystical way.

I should also clarify my first response to James in post #2. The language of “define, declare” is a way one can identify infallible statements. But as you brought up Unam Sanctum, I think the reason some people do not know if it’s infallible or not is because the phrase “subject to the Roman Pontiff” can fairly be considered non-specific. In what way? Bishop Gasser pointed out that what is defined must be easily understood and clear, which should be obvious, but he is right to point that out. For instance, Mary was conceived w/o original sin is a concrete statement, whereas “subject to Pope” is a little nuanced. It is clear that Mary immaculately conceived is infallibly defined.

Mind you, I do not think the statement in Unam Sanctum is incorrect because being part of the One Church (in any way) means one is under the sacerdotal headship of the Pope. So please do not think I am trying to dismiss his comment. Pope Boniface’s comment is correct. I am only saying there are reasonable people who could argue the statement did not meet all the criteria to be classified as “infallible.” As a couple folks pointed out in the thread, lay Catholics are not obligated to determine whether a statement is technically “infallible.”

 

[Ahimsa]

No, that is not what I was saying. The Catechism says no matter who is saved, that person must be joined to the One Church, in either a formal or an extenuating, more mystical way.

OK, so someone can be subject to the Pontiff in a mystical way? I can see that.

I am only saying there are reasonable people who could argue the statement did not meet all the criteria to be classified as “infallible.”

I would agree.

 

[grannymh]

For apologetics though, it is very material. As a protestant considering whether the Catholic faith might be true, I have found the very strong Catholic claims of teaching authority in general, and Papal infallibility specifically, to be a big stumbling block.

Protestant apologists sometimes try to undermine the claim of infallibility by showing that two infallible teachings (usually separated by many years of time) are contradictory. The Catholic defender usually takes one of two tacks. Either he tries to show that given a proper understanding of both claims there is no contradiction, or else that one of the claims (usually the earlier) was not taught infallibly.

I am OK with either of these responses in theory. However, with the second it sometimes looks to me like the Church is trying to have it both ways. By your own comment above, it is clear that Catholics, for all practical purposes, are to treat many, many teachings as if they are infallible. But if future Church teaching on a point changes and it has not been clearly declared infallibly, then the Catholic apologist can just claim that the teaching was never intended to be infallible.

Again, I see that this works find from inside the Church. But it just looks fishy from the outside. I say this as someone who is married to a Catholic, has attended mass regularly for 20 years, has studied Catholic apologetics in some depth, and really wants to be convinced that converting is the right thing to do.

In my humble opinion, this is a better explanation for development of dogma. For example, it took centuries for the true, deeper meaning of John Chapter 6 to be stated clearly. Yet, Jesus was truly present in the very first Eucharists.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,

paragraph 66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Link to Catechism www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[MarcoPolo]

James Swan (the original poster) is commenting on this thread with his peers over at his blog. Even though no Catholic here answered his question this way, here is what Swan concluded:The truth is, the infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements exists nowhere within what Rome calls her three sources of revelation: the Bible, the Magisterium, and Tradition, leaving the faithful to struggle through this issue, groping blindly on their own. In fact, their own teachers will not and cannot tell them.*Did anyone in this thread say they were “groping blindly”? Was there any mention that the average lay person is not obligated to identify which statements are technically infallible? Was there any mention that Catholics make an assent to authoritative statements on faith or morals whether or not they are technically “infallible”? No, no, and no.

Swan’s problem is that he thinks a Catholic must scruple about this issue. Can you imagine a non-Catholic Christian arguing that the Bible is fallible because someone “struggles” with a truth contained in it—thinking that a said truth is not clear enough? Is the truth something that has been fulfilled and no longer applies? How can a Christian be sure what to believe! Swan’s logic flows thusly: if the Catholic Church teaches an infallible dogma, the average person will always be able understand it without a doubt. Now do a substitution: if the Bible teaches an infallible dogma, the average person will always be able to understand it without a doubt. Not logical.

I would argue the doctrines put forth by the Catholic Church in, say, a summary for the laity like the Catechism are usually more clear than the language of Scripture itself, which self-admittedly is twisted by the unlearned and difficult to understand. Bottom line, the Church is doing Her job, receiving the movement of the Spirit, and unfolding the faith to the flock.

If I may posit, Swan’s insinuation is that if an average Catholic cannot in his own mind have metaphysical certitude that a doctrine has been stated “infallibly,” then that Catholic has a good reason to worry that the doctrine is wrong because infallibility does not operate by the rules he has ordained for it. The conclusion does not draw from the premise. He offers no mention of the Catholic’s faith in God to guide the Church on His time and terms. He offers no due time spent on the nuance of of a teaching that is potentially de fide, fides ecclesiastica, sententia fidei proxima, etc…

On a positive note, a blogger known as Scott Windsor has challenged Swan on a debate on Tradition. That challenge can be followed here.

*Swan errs here. The Church only teaches 2 sources of revelation flowing from the same “divine wellspring.” The Magisterium is the interpreter of said revelation, not its source (Dei Verbum 9-10).

 

[Doxiemom]

Forgive me but…

it just should not be this hard.

When i read some of this reasoning my eyes glaze over.

I mean no insult but really, a person can read the Holy Word, and therein lies Truth. Learned folks can go back and do word studies of the original language and get deeper understaning as well as gaining knowledge Judism and their livews and customs.

If it goes beyond Scripture and is based on tradition alone, then it is not infallible.

 

[MarcoPolo]

it just should not be this hard.

Would you say you are unsure if the Church has infallibly declared the Divinity of Christ, Consubstantiality of the Trinity, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception of Mary, for instance?

 

[Doxiemom]

I have problems with the heavenly Assumption of Mary

It is not Written. However, the concept of our bodies being taken up (yes, the catching up, the rapture ) is scriptural. If God so chose to bring her body up long before the rest of us will be called up, fine with me. But i worry in that there is no reference in Scripture that it was to happen, or happened.

As for her being the Immaculate Conception- again, it is not Written. No human being is capable of never sinning. Only the Christ was without sin. That is until all sin was placed upon Him and He cried out to Abba because the Father cannot look upon sin. All we have for this is a vision of Mary (or something that says she is mary) stating that she is the immaculate conception. Yet, i will admit that it is possible that there was a necessity that all her flesh needed to be without sin if indeed it was her egg that formed her baby. Or was it that the speck of the Christ’s body was placed into her womb.???

I have no problems with confessing your sins to a priest and that are announced forgiven under the authority of Christ. It is penence and purgatory that I have difficulty with.

Obviously, I tend towords what is Written and distance myself from tradition.

And i pray a whole lot for guidence and claity for I need His help. Alot.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have problems with the heavenly Assumption of Mary…As for her being the Immaculate Conception

I understand. But I was asking if you knew the Church taught those dogmas. And you do! See it’s not that hard to know what the Church teaches!

As for understanding them, it does involve study, so I commend you for investigating.

 

[Doxiemom]

Wow. Thanks. you are the first catholic to actually tell me it is ok to wonder and think and truely try to grasp the Truth.

I love my Lord with everything i got. Such as it is.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Wow. Thanks. you are the first catholic to actually tell me it is ok to wonder and think and truely try to grasp the Truth.

I love my Lord with everything i got. Such as it is.

You bet. Anytime I can help, give a shout. There’s some other good folks around here too.