Infallible versus non-infallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:
  1. solemn definitions of the Pope
  2. solemn definitions of an Ecumenical Council
  3. non-defining acts of the Universal Magisterium (also called the ordinary and universal Magsiterium)
All other teachings of the Magisterium are authentic authoritative teachings, but are non-infallible.

Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith.

Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect.
**
Pope John Paul II:**
This task of achieving an ever deeper understanding of the content of faith belongs to every member of the Church. But the Second Vatican Council assures us that the “task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church”.

This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific carisma veritatis certum, which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church’s infallibility…

With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.

Cardinal Ratzinger:
Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms.
 
I don’t know where you get that the Popes teachings must be a
“solemn” definition.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says
891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.

While the Popes may use a solemn definition, it is certainly not necessary.
Thus in their encyclicals or even oral teachings, they can teach infallible when they proclaim by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:
  1. solemn definitions of the Pope
  2. solemn definitions of an Ecumenical Council
  3. non-defining acts of the Universal Magisterium (also called the ordinary and universal Magsiterium)
All other teachings of the Magisterium are authentic authoritative teachings, but are non-infallible.

Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith.

Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect.
**
Pope John Paul II:**
This task of achieving an ever deeper understanding of the content of faith belongs to every member of the Church. But the Second Vatican Council assures us that the “task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church”.

This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific carisma veritatis certum, which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church’s infallibility…

With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.

Cardinal Ratzinger:
Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms.
Click to expand...
Ok…so…your question is? You want to discuss what?
 
diggerdomer said:
Fast and abstinence on particular days.
Click to expand...
No, that is an example of discipline, rather than doctrine. Discpline is under the temporal authority of the Church. Doctrine is under the spiritual authority of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium).

Non-infallible teachings include every teaching that does not fall under one of the three types of infallibility. Most of the teachings of the Pope in various papal documents is non-infallible. Even Ecumenical Councils sometimes teach non-infallibly. Much of what Vatican II taught is non-infallible.

The teaching of any individual Cardinal, Bishop, Congregation of the Holy See (including the CDF), and Bishops Conference is non-infallible – unless that teaching is part of a teaching under the Universal Magisterium.

There are far more non-infallible teachings than infallible teachings in the Church.

The assertion in Veritatis Splendor of a list of intrinsically evil acts (see Cardinal Dulles’ commentary on this point in First Things, Oct. 2005, Development or Reversal?).

Most of what Vatican II taught is non-infallible, except whatever also falls under the Universal Magisterium, or was previously taught infallibly in other ways.

Most of the social doctrine of the Church is non-infallible, such as the teachings in the recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI.

The teachings in the Catechism are non-infallible, except those that have been established as infallible by papal infallibility, an Ecumenical Council, or the Universal Magisterium.
 
How could anyone possibly know that a teaching is infallible? You can believe it by an act of faith, but you can never know for sure. Even the people who claim to teach infallible doctrine cannot truly say those teachings are infallible.
 
**How to recognize what is and isn’t infallible **

If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads: Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.

In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines “Jesus Christ is God” and “women may not be ordained to the priesthood” because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads: By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.

Notice the explicit “we define” here? Notice that it is addressed to “anyone,” not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don’t believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.

In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not “the red dog runs at night.” This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted “de fide.” (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, “Is Enclyclical X infallible?” need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven’t been strictly defined.

All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.

Summary:
  • Always been taught and believed: infallible
  • Solemnly defined by Pope or Council: infallible
  • Other teachings: fallible, but owed religious assent unless they prove harmful, lead to sin, etc.
FISHEATERS: INFALLIBILITY
 
Brian_Culliton said:
How could anyone possibly know that a teaching is infallible? You can believe it by an act of faith, but you can never know for sure. Even the people who claim to teach infallible doctrine cannot truly say those teachings are infallible.
Click to expand...
It is true that we adhere to infallible teachings by faith, not by mere human knowledge. But the surety of faith is greater than the surety of human knowledge. So faith is a type of knowing.
 
Ron_Conte said:
It is true that we adhere to infallible teachings by faith, not by mere human knowledge. But the surety of faith is greater than the surety of human knowledge. So faith is a type of knowing.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your intelligent response, and understanding that my question is a fair one.

I agree with you 100%. But how does one possess a surety of faith by simply accepting the authority of those over them? Shouldn’t what that authority teaches be challenged by the faithful? And what if I, as a Catholic, had a legitimate concern over a doctrine that was introduced as infallibly true? Do I not have a right to disagree with it, and more importantly, why does the church think they have the right to tell me I am acting against God’s will by not accepting the their doctrine?

This scenario is exactly what put me on the road out of the Catholic Church.
 
Brian_Culliton said:
Thank you for your intelligent response, and understanding that my question is a fair one.

I agree with you 100%. But how does one possess a surety of faith by simply accepting the authority of those over them? Shouldn’t what that authority teaches be challenged by the faithful? And what if I, as a Catholic, had a legitimate concern over a doctrine that was introduced as infallibly true? Do I not have a right to disagree with it, and more importantly, why does the church think they have the right to tell me I am acting against God’s will by not accepting the their doctrine?

This scenario is exactly what put me on the road out of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Catholicism is the belief that Jesus gave to the world the gift of truth as well as the gift of salvation. And that truth is found in infallible Sacred Tradition, infallible Sacred Scripture, and in the Magisterium, which sometimes teaches infallibly but otherwise teaches non-infallibly. The non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium are subject to possible error and reform, to a limited extent; so the faithful reasonable Catholic is able to disagree, to that same extent.

What would be the basis of a concern that an infallible teaching is in error? Faith says that the teaching is not in error, if it is infallible. You would be putting reason above faith.

But infallible teachings are subject to interpretation, and so you might faithfully and reasonable interpret that teaching in another way.

The Magisterium teaches not only by authority, but by ability given by the Holy Spirit. So it is not by authority alone, but by the Spirit of Truth, that the Magisterium teaches.
 
Ron_Conte said:
What would be the basis of a concern that an infallible teaching is in error? Faith says that the teaching is not in error, if it is infallible. You would be putting reason above faith.
Click to expand...
The concern would be that the teaching goes against Scripture and tradition.

Take the assumption of Mary for example; in his Apostolic Constitution, Pius XII quoted Peter Canisius as follows,

“This teaching has already been accepted for some centuries, it has been held as certain in the minds of the pious people, and it has been taught to the entire Church in such a way that those who deny that Mary’s body has been assumed into heaven are not to be listened to patiently but are everywhere to be denounced as over-contentious or rash men, and as imbued with a spirit that is heretical rather than Catholic.”

That is a clear signal from the leader of the Catholic Church that the dogma must be accepted, even though there is no mention of it in the canon, no apostle ever taught it and no early Christian ever heard of it. There is no good reason to believe that what they are teaching is the truth. Both the doctrine and the demand to believe it are far from the precepts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
Brian_Culliton said:
Thank you for your intelligent response, and understanding that my question is a fair one.

I agree with you 100%. But how does one possess a surety of faith by simply accepting the authority of those over them? Shouldn’t what that authority teaches be challenged by the faithful? And what if I, as a Catholic, had a legitimate concern over a doctrine that was introduced as infallibly true? Do I not have a right to disagree with it, and more importantly, why does the church think they have the right to tell me I am acting against God’s will by not accepting the their doctrine?

This scenario is exactly what put me on the road out of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
It comes down to the authority and mission Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors the Pope and the Bishops…“he who hears you hears me”…

one of the reasons I entered into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Read in order…each is rather short… but rich

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060322_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060329_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/index_en.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060426_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060503_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060517_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060524_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060607_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060614_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060906_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061025_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061122_en.html

these are but a few… i did not want to give them all for there are many…but my hope is that they can be read slowly and not rushed thru…they touch on some of this subject…
 
Ron_Conte said:
No, that is an example of discipline, rather than doctrine. Discpline is under the temporal authority of the Church. Doctrine is under the spiritual authority of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium).

Non-infallible teachings include every teaching that does not fall under one of the three types of infallibility. Most of the teachings of the Pope in various papal documents is non-infallible. Even Ecumenical Councils sometimes teach non-infallibly. Much of what Vatican II taught is non-infallible.

The teaching of any individual Cardinal, Bishop, Congregation of the Holy See (including the CDF), and Bishops Conference is non-infallible – unless that teaching is part of a teaching under the Universal Magisterium.

There are far more non-infallible teachings than infallible teachings in the Church.

The assertion in Veritatis Splendor of a list of intrinsically evil acts (see Cardinal Dulles’ commentary on this point in First Things, Oct. 2005, Development or Reversal?).

Most of what Vatican II taught is non-infallible, except whatever also falls under the Universal Magisterium, or was previously taught infallibly in other ways.

Most of the social doctrine of the Church is non-infallible, such as the teachings in the recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI.

The teachings in the Catechism are non-infallible, except those that have been established as infallible by papal infallibility, an Ecumenical Council, or the Universal Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Glad you agree with me.
 
kepha1;6316836**Summary: [/quote said:
  • Always been taught and believed: infallible
  • Solemnly defined by Pope or Council: infallible
  • Other teachings: fallible, but owed religious assent unless they prove harmful, lead to sin, etc.
FISHEATERS: INFALLIBILITY

You’re missing a key point as Canon Law requires that infallible teaching must be made “manifestly evident” as such.
Click to expand...
 
Brian_Culliton said:
The concern would be that the teaching goes against Scripture and tradition.
Click to expand...
There are many teachings of the Faith that are implicit in Tradition and Scripture.
The Holy Spirit teaches these truths through the Magisterium.
The faithful participate in the Magisterium by seeking and finding new insights into the Deposit of Faith, which the Magisterium eventually teaches with authority.

[John]
{14:26} But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will suggest to you everything whatsoever that I have said to you.

{16:12} I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now.
{16:13} But when the Spirit of truth has arrived, he will teach the whole truth to you. For he will not be speaking from himself. Instead, whatever he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
{16:14} He shall glorify me. For he will receive from what is mine, and he will announce it to you.
 
Ron_Conte said:
There are many teachings of the Faith that are implicit in Tradition and Scripture.
The Holy Spirit teaches these truths through the Magisterium.
The faithful participate in the Magisterium by seeking and finding new insights into the Deposit of Faith, which the Magisterium eventually teaches with authority.

[John]
{14:26} But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will suggest to you everything whatsoever that I have said to you.

{16:12} I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now.
{16:13} But when the Spirit of truth has arrived, he will teach the whole truth to you. For he will not be speaking from himself. Instead, whatever he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
{16:14} He shall glorify me. For he will receive from what is mine, and he will announce it to you.
Click to expand...
I think you are making a huge assumption that what Jesus told his disciples transfers directly to your magisterium. You also seem to be implying that the Holy Spirit is teaching your magisterium new doctrines 1,920 years after Jesus spoke those words. At the very least, the faithful should be highly suspicious of such doctrines and test them by Scripture and tradition.

How do you reconcile your implicit interpretation with the Apostle John’s explicit declaration written directly to the faithful as follows?

“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Jhn. 20:30-31)

Based on that, what authority does anyone have to demand we believe what they teach when what they teach is not explicit in Scripture?
 
I always had a problem with the fact that in the 19th century, a Pope (Pius IX) decided to infallibly declare that the Pope of Rome speaks infallibly when speaking on matters of faith and morals ex-catherdra. :hmmm:
 
Mickey said:
I always had a problem with the fact that in the 19th century, a Pope (Pius IX) decided to infallibly declare that the Pope of Rome speaks infallibly when speaking on matters of faith and morals ex-catherdra. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
I was told that it was an Ecumenical Council that did that. And as for the Pope’s role, as I understand it, a council is not Ecumenical without the approval from the Pope. So if you wanted the Council to declare it without the pope, it would not have been an Ecumenical council without the pope. Thus it would have not authority on such matters. Unless the Pope Piux IX literally declared it infallibly and the Council literally did not, I think something is amiss with what you wrote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top