K
KevinK
Guest
It seems the Church has only ever made two “infallible” doctrinal teachings. What is the practical difference to a lay Catholic between an infallible teaching and all other teachings of the Church?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vico
Guest
No, there are hundreds of dogmas of faith which are infallible.It seems the Church has only ever made two “infallible” doctrinal teachings. What is the practical difference to a lay Catholic between an infallible teaching and all other teachings of the Church?
S
Spyridon
Guest
Somebody posted a similar question yesterday.
Here’s my response:
"Ex Cathedra statements are not the only infallible levels of the Magisterium.
There are two levels of Extraordinary Magisterium which are Infallible - ex Cathedra Papal pronouncements and teachings of an Ecumenical Council. Examples of these are the teaching of the Assumption of Mary, and the documents of Vatican II.
Next there is another level of infallible Magisterium classed as Ordinary - the Pope and all the Bishops in the world teaching in unison on something. An example of this would be certain Papal encyclicals and the Catechism.
These three upper levels of Infallible Magisterium require the full assent of faith of all the People of God.
The next two levels are the Ordinary Magisterium - Papal teaching such as Encyclicals and Bulls.
These require a religious assent - that is, a religious assent of the mind, intellect, and will. These are not strictly infallible, however, but they are authoritative.
The final level is the teaching office of every Bishop, which has the same level as the Ordinary Papal teaching - it is authoratative but not strictly infallible and requires religious assent.
There is a common misconception that Catholics can simply ignore the teaching of Popes and Bishops that they don’t like if they aren’t infallible - but I’ve illustrated that that is wrong.
So, there are two levels of Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium, and three levels of Ordinary Magisterium - one is infallible, the other two are authoratative but not infallible.
From highest to lowest, most authoritative and infallible to least and non-infallible:
Extraordinary and Infallible:
Ecumenical Councils
Papal ex Cathedra
Ordinary and Infallible:
Papal teachings in union with all the Bishops
Ordinary and authoratative but technically not infallible:
Papal teachings
Bishops teachings"
Here’s my response:
"Ex Cathedra statements are not the only infallible levels of the Magisterium.
There are two levels of Extraordinary Magisterium which are Infallible - ex Cathedra Papal pronouncements and teachings of an Ecumenical Council. Examples of these are the teaching of the Assumption of Mary, and the documents of Vatican II.
Next there is another level of infallible Magisterium classed as Ordinary - the Pope and all the Bishops in the world teaching in unison on something. An example of this would be certain Papal encyclicals and the Catechism.
These three upper levels of Infallible Magisterium require the full assent of faith of all the People of God.
The next two levels are the Ordinary Magisterium - Papal teaching such as Encyclicals and Bulls.
These require a religious assent - that is, a religious assent of the mind, intellect, and will. These are not strictly infallible, however, but they are authoritative.
The final level is the teaching office of every Bishop, which has the same level as the Ordinary Papal teaching - it is authoratative but not strictly infallible and requires religious assent.
There is a common misconception that Catholics can simply ignore the teaching of Popes and Bishops that they don’t like if they aren’t infallible - but I’ve illustrated that that is wrong.
So, there are two levels of Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium, and three levels of Ordinary Magisterium - one is infallible, the other two are authoratative but not infallible.
From highest to lowest, most authoritative and infallible to least and non-infallible:
Extraordinary and Infallible:
Ecumenical Councils
Papal ex Cathedra
Ordinary and Infallible:
Papal teachings in union with all the Bishops
Ordinary and authoratative but technically not infallible:
Papal teachings
Bishops teachings"
K
KevinK
Guest
My question is what separates the hundreds of dogmas from the two official infallible teachings in terms of authority?
G
Genesis315
Guest
The Church teaches the entire deposit of faith infallibly through her constant handing on of the faith in every age. There are also certain extraordinary acts that are infallible in and of themselves–namely when the supreme authority of the Church–exercised by the whole college of bishops (in council or spread throughout the world) or the head of the college alone (the Bishop of Rome aka Pope) makes a definitive judgment for the whole Church confirming that faith.
There’s a common misconception that the two relatively recent extraordinary definitions of Marian dogmas are the only two, most because they were extra extraordinary in their own right, being carried out with much fanfare.
When the dogma of papal infallibility was discussed at the First Vatican Council only one of those Marian definitions had been made, and yet the relator noted to the Council Fathers that they were dealing with “thousands and thousands” of such definitions. Granted, this was likely a bit hyperbolic, but it is way more than two. Anytime a Pope declares a doctrine of faith or morals for the whole Church and his declaration admits of absolutely no dissent (ie it is definitive), then it is infallible.
What is not strictly infallible, are individual acts by individual bishops, including acts by the Bishop of Rome that are not intended to be definitive. This still deserve the proper respect for the authority doing the teaching (since bishops are authorized by Christ Himself to teach in His name).
(EDIT: if the link above does not take you directly to what I was quoting, it is on page 51)
There’s a common misconception that the two relatively recent extraordinary definitions of Marian dogmas are the only two, most because they were extra extraordinary in their own right, being carried out with much fanfare.
When the dogma of papal infallibility was discussed at the First Vatican Council only one of those Marian definitions had been made, and yet the relator noted to the Council Fathers that they were dealing with “thousands and thousands” of such definitions. Granted, this was likely a bit hyperbolic, but it is way more than two. Anytime a Pope declares a doctrine of faith or morals for the whole Church and his declaration admits of absolutely no dissent (ie it is definitive), then it is infallible.
What is not strictly infallible, are individual acts by individual bishops, including acts by the Bishop of Rome that are not intended to be definitive. This still deserve the proper respect for the authority doing the teaching (since bishops are authorized by Christ Himself to teach in His name).
(EDIT: if the link above does not take you directly to what I was quoting, it is on page 51)
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
See my post above as regard to your misconception on the “two” official teachings. But a dogma is a truth revealed by God that we must believe with divine and Catholic faith. They all have equal authority–God Himself. The Church hands them on in a variety of ways, but those truths always have the same authority.
K
KevinK
Guest
Then why have a separate designation “ex cathedra”?
V
Vico
Guest
The hundreds of dogmas which are infallible are all official teachings. There are three categories. The first is ex cathedra and the second is conciliar. Not covered in these two, but similar to conciliar, is the third, the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. For ex cathedra, the Supreme Pontiff must in moral conscience refer to the other bishops, it is not in isolation, not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.My question is what separates the hundreds of dogmas from the two official infallible teachings in terms of authority?
From the Official Relatio of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser delivered at the First Vatican Council:
030. But some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind – of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
That strictly relates to particular papal acts that are infallible. The Pope is a sinner like us all. Nor is he never personally mistaken. “Ex cathedra” is a shorthand way of saying he is making a definitive judgment for the whole Church on a particular doctrine by virtue of his office as chief teacher. Those acts of his are infallible, not other acts of his.
Remember, infallibility regards to persons or acts, not the content of propositions. Propositions are either true or false. If they are true, they are true. If they are false, they are false. Now, take my post right here. I am attempting to convey a truth. Since I am fallible, I may do so or, I may instead convey an error. Certain acts of the Pope, on other hand, have no possibility of error–it is those acts that are infallible.
Remember, infallibility regards to persons or acts, not the content of propositions. Propositions are either true or false. If they are true, they are true. If they are false, they are false. Now, take my post right here. I am attempting to convey a truth. Since I am fallible, I may do so or, I may instead convey an error. Certain acts of the Pope, on other hand, have no possibility of error–it is those acts that are infallible.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
It doesn’t really matter if a teaching is infallible or non-infallible as we Catholics are bound by both so there is no practical difference.It seems the Church has only ever made two “infallible” doctrinal teachings. What is the practical difference to a lay Catholic between an infallible teaching and all other teachings of the Church?
In simplistic terms the difference between the two is that infallible teachings are beyond all doubt while non-infallible teachings are beyond all reasonable doubt.
This is not true. Every doctrinal pronouncement by an ecumenical council is infallible, e.g. “If any man says that (insert heresy here), let him be anathema” is infallible. The Council of Trent and preceding Councils have a lot of these.It seems the Church has only ever made two “infallible” doctrinal teachings. What is the practical difference to a lay Catholic between an infallible teaching and all other teachings of the Church?
What you are referring to is the Papal infallibility wherein the Pope has a singular charism where if in his role as the Supreme Teacher of the Church, he makes a definition to be definitively held by the faithful in matters of faith or morals, he is protected from error. It makes his pronouncement dogma, but it’s not the only dogma. And when you say two, you are only thinking of two of the four Marian dogmas that were infallibly defined in this manner (Immaculate Conception and Assumption). But there are other dogmas as well that have been defined in a similar way. Two examples are Unam sanctam (1302, “necessary for every human person to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”) and Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994, “the Church has no power to confer priestly ordination upon women.”).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.