Is the Catechism infallible?

[anruari]

The easiest way to interpret this is as follows:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a document prepared by the Bishops acting together with the intention of teaching the Faith and Morals of the Universal Church. It is intended and stated the intent to be a definitive statement of those teachings.
This meets 2 of the criteria for infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
It was published by the direct order of a Pope, with the same intent stated above.
This therefore meets 2 of the criteria for Papal infallibility.

however: it does not claim infaliblity. Id does not include a statement requiring all the faithfull to give their definitive assent to the entire contents.
As such it does not meet one of the required criteria for either papal infallibility, or the infalibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

It contains re-statements of a huge amount of Doctrine including all the infallibly defined Dogma. It does not make clear distinctions between the Doctrine, and the infallibly defined dogma’s in it’s main text.

My approach: If I have no intention to research more deeply into a topic, I would treat the contents within the Catechism as being the formal, unquestionably valid teaching of the church on that topic.
If I felt I needed further clarification of a specific topic I would start with the included cross references, and then use a search of other vatican and church documents to see if there was any further information.

Remember: a topic will only be defined infallibly if there is a pastoral need to do so.
The Pope does not need to make an new infallible statement on the Divinity of Christ as there is no argument in the modern church on that topic (such arguments are going on, but not inside the church)
However the argument about the possible ordination of Women did elicit an infallibly defined response form the Magisterium and from the Pope. The infallibility of that statement was then subsequently re-affirmed following a request to do so from the US bishops.

Before that infallible statement the validity of any attempt to ordain a woman was in no way valid… the issue was defined infalibly to draw a line under the arguemnt which had arisen… the truth had been there since the inception of the Church.

In the same way… specific topics in the Catechism which have not been infalibly defined should not be assumed to be invalid or incorrect just beacuse there has not been an infallible pronouncemnt on that topic… they should be assuemd to be a clear statement of the Truth, about whcih there has never been sufficient arguemnt for it to be necessary to weild the trudgeon of an infallible pronouncement.
It should not be considered to be within the remit of an uneducated rank-and-file catholic to question these issues without very good cause… and modern cultural perceptions do not constitute good cause.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The CCC contains some infallible teachings, but these are infallible because they were previously taught infallibly under:

1. Papal Infallibility, or
2. Conciliar Infallibility, or
3. the ordinary and Universal Magisterium

I don’t think that a majority of the content of the CCC is infallible. Many of the teachings in the CCC are non-infallible, having been taught by the ordinary Magisterium, but not universally.

Also, the CCC contains some material on discipline, not doctrine, and that type of content is not a teaching, but a rule or ruling or a practice (e.g. liturgical form, some of Canon law).

An ordinary teaching in the CCC might be infallible under the Universal Magisterium, with the teaching of the CCC participating in that type of exercise of the magisterium.

 

[Ron_Conte]

First Vatican Council: “Therefore, by** divine and Catholic faith** all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

The term “solemn judgment” refers to Papal Infallibility and Conciliar Infallibility.
**
First Vatican Council:** "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, 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.

“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

Canon Law:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses **infallibility **in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses **infallibility **in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

The rejection of the truth that the Pope, an Ecumenical Council, and the ordinary universal Magisterium are each able to teach infallibly is material heresy.

Formal heresy is the knowing choice to adhere obstinately to material heresy, and it carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well here I go into plain “heresy” as many here will (and have) condemned me: I don’t think there is a Human Being or any document thereof that is "infallible’ as I believe it impossible for any Human to know the mind of God, let alone comprehend His purpose which, by the way, can be terrifying to consider.

You have not accurately described infallibility.

 

[aemcpa]

Bl. John Paul II:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.

What shall we make of this Apostolic Constitution by which John Paul II promulgated the CCC?

 

[Bergon]

Well here I go into plain “heresy” as many here will (and have) condemned me: I don’t think there is a Human Being or any document thereof that is "infallible’ as I believe it impossible for any Human to know the mind of God, let alone comprehend His purpose which, by the way, can be terrifying to consider.

Of course no one knows the mind of God. That demonstrates a lack of understanding.

Christ promised that the Church will not err. God sends the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. No one is suggesting that the Pope is contacted directly by God, “OK, Francis this is what is happening this week”. I’m not being sarcastic or insulting you. I’m emphasising it’s not like you imply.

The Holy Spirit works mysteriously, beyond our human comprehension. The Holy Spirit leads the hierarchy into making the right decisions.

Do you believe Christ lied when he promised that the Church would never err?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Do you believe Christ lied when he promised that the Church would never err?

Jesus did not promise that the Church would never err. Church teaching does not claim that all magisterial teachings are infallible. For example, the Vatican I teaching on Papal infallibility says that the Pope’s teaching is only infallible if it meets certain criteria. These criteria were reiterated by Vatican II, and have been much discussed by theologians. But no one interprets Vatican I or II as teaching that the Pope, or the Church, never errs.

teachings of the ordinary Magisterium are non-infallible and non-irreformable, and so they can err, to a limited extent, but never to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation. Decisions of the temporal authority of the Church are not teachings at all, and might err.

 

[KrazyKat]

Jesus did not promise that the Church would never err. Church teaching does not claim that all magisterial teachings are infallible. For example, the Vatican I teaching on Papal infallibility says that the Pope’s teaching is only infallible if it meets certain criteria. These criteria were reiterated by Vatican II, and have been much discussed by theologians. But no one interprets Vatican I or II as teaching that the Pope, or the Church, never errs.

teachings of the ordinary Magisterium are non-infallible and non-irreformable, and so they can err, to a limited extent, but never to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation. Decisions of the temporal authority of the Church are not teachings at all, and might err.

This !

 

[Bergon]

Jesus did not promise that the Church would never err. Church teaching does not claim that all magisterial teachings are infallible. For example, the Vatican I teaching on Papal infallibility says that the Pope’s teaching is only infallible if it meets certain criteria. These criteria were reiterated by Vatican II, and have been much discussed by theologians. But no one interprets Vatican I or II as teaching that the Pope, or the Church, never errs.

teachings of the ordinary Magisterium are non-infallible and non-irreformable, and so they can err, to a limited extent, but never to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation. Decisions of the temporal authority of the Church are not teachings at all, and might err.

See what Fr Serpa says here on CAF.

 

[Ron_Conte]

See what Fr Serpa says here on CAF.

He’s right: Sacred Tradition is infallible; it can never err. The same is true for Sacred Scripture. Tradition and Scripture together constitute the one Word of God, the infallible Sacred Deposit of Divine Revelation.

But when the Magisterium teaches from Tradition and Scripture, magisterial teaching is not entirely always infallible. Some teachings are infallible; other teachings are non-infallible.

Every individual Bishop can exercise the Magisterium. But the individual Bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility. And the infallible definition of Vatican I clearly teaches the conditions needed for a papal teaching to be infallible. This implies that not all papal teachings are infallible.

The term non-infallible does not mean “not infallible” or “fallible”. It indicates an exercise of the Magisterium that can possibly err, but only to limited extent.

 

[Bergon]

He’s right: Sacred Tradition is infallible; it can never err. The same is true for Sacred Scripture. Tradition and Scripture together constitute the one Word of God, the infallible Sacred Deposit of Divine Revelation.

But when the Magisterium teaches from Tradition and Scripture, magisterial teaching is not entirely always infallible. Some teachings are infallible; other teachings are non-infallible.

Every individual Bishop can exercise the Magisterium. But the individual Bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility. And the infallible definition of Vatican I clearly teaches the conditions needed for a papal teaching to be infallible. This implies that not all papal teachings are infallible.

The term non-infallible does not mean “not infallible” or “fallible”. It indicates an exercise of the Magisterium that can possibly err, but only to limited extent.

Please allow me to seek clarification.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are infallible.

The laity cannot interpret Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are interpreted by the Sacred Magisterium.

You are saying that in interpreting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition the Sacred Magisterium can make mistakes.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Please allow me to seek clarification.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are infallible.

The laity cannot interpret Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are interpreted by the Sacred Magisterium.

You are saying that in interpreting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition the Sacred Magisterium can make mistakes.

The laity are called to learn directly from Tradition and Scripture, but our understanding and interpretation is not authoritative. Also, we must understand Tradition and Scripture in the light of the Magisterium.

The Magisterium can err, when the Pope or the body of Bishops led by the Pope are not exercising infallibility, but then only to a limited extent. This non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium is called “ordinary”. It is a very clear teaching of the Church that the Magisterium is not always infallible.

 

[Bergon]

The laity are called to learn directly from Tradition and Scripture, but our understanding and interpretation is not authoritative. Also, we must understand Tradition and Scripture in the light of the Magisterium.

The Magisterium can err, when the Pope or the body of Bishops led by the Pope are not exercising infallibility, but then only to a limited extent. This non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium is called “ordinary”. It is a very clear teaching of the Church that the Magisterium is not always infallible.

I know the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

What do you see as being the purpose of the ordinary Magisterium? As a lay man I don’t attempt to make my own interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition. I defer to the Church but, why, if the Church can get it wrong?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I know the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

What do you see as being the purpose of the ordinary Magisterium? As a lay man I don’t attempt to make my own interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition. I defer to the Church but, why, if the Church can get it wrong?

Because, while I’m sure you are the smartest guy you know, the Church happens to be a little older and a little wiser and a little more clearheaded.

 

[Bergon]

Because, while I’m sure you are the smartest guy you know, the Church happens to be a little older and a little wiser and a little more clearheaded.

First of all I see no reason for your sarcasm. It’s rude and totally uncalled for. Secondly, if you had read what I wrote before jumping to the wrong conclusion I said, and I have never said otherwise, that the Church is the one who interprets the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. If you took the trouble to read the entire thread instead of taking my comments out of context you would understand why I posed the question in my previous post.

It would be smart, courteous and charitable to know what the discussion is about rather than jumping in halfway through and making inapprorpiate comments.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

First of all I see no reason for your sarcasm. It’s rude and totally uncalled for. Secondly, if you had read what I wrote before jumping to the wrong conclusion I said, and I have never said otherwise, that the Church is the one who interprets the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. If you took the trouble to read the entire thread instead of taking my comments out of context you would understand why I posed the question in my previous post.

It would be smart, courteous and charitable to know what the discussion is about rather than jumping in halfway through and making inappropriate comments.

I not only read the entire thread, I have already posted earlier on it. I was trying to be a little lighthearted and obviously offended you. I am sorry. For the record I AM the smartest person I know. My wife can attest I am sure. My point is that we rely on the Church not only because of some issue of infallibility but rather because She is more aquainted with the affairs of God and men than we will ever be. But in this day and age most “infallibility” arguments are boiled down to the idea that we know better. There is no need to make it any more complicated than that. And there is certainly no need to jump down my throat. I am new here. Yes. But no need to jump on me just because. What we have here is a misunderstanding and perhaps a trigger that was pulled too quickly. Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you could see that I have been following it. Thank you.

Lets just try to be polite. (A rare occurrence online) But one that should be expected on this site sir.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I know the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

What do you see as being the purpose of the ordinary Magisterium? As a lay man I don’t attempt to make my own interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition. I defer to the Church but, why, if the Church can get it wrong?

The ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible. But the Magisterium is exercised by individual Bishops, local Bishops’ conferences, offices of the Holy See, (and even at times by the Pope) in a way that is **not **an exercise of the infallibility of the Magisterium. This exercise is termed “the ordinary non-infallible magisterium” or simply “the ordinary magisterium”.

Why should we defer to the Church, if her non-infallible teaching can err? Because the non-infallible teachings can never err to the extent of leading us away from the path of salvation, and at the same time those non-infallible teachings are useful. For how would any Bishop, other than the Pope, teach his flock if he could only teach points of doctrine that had been infallibly defined? Or is the Pope prohibited from teaching unless he is exercising infallibility?

Pope John XXIII once said “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly, but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” He taught under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium; he apparently decided not to exercise his ability to teach infallibly.

Pope John Paul II: “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.” [Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops from the United States on their ‘Ad Limina’ visit, 15 October 1988, n. 5.]

Cardinal Ratzinger also mentions the non-infallible and non-irreformable teachings of the Magisterium in Donum Veritatis.

 

[Bergon]

The ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible. But the Magisterium is exercised by individual Bishops, local Bishops’ conferences, offices of the Holy See, (and even at times by the Pope) in a way that is **not **an exercise of the infallibility of the Magisterium. This exercise is termed “the ordinary non-infallible magisterium” or simply “the ordinary magisterium”.

Why should we defer to the Church, if her non-infallible teaching can err? Because the non-infallible teachings can never err to the extent of leading us away from the path of salvation, and at the same time those non-infallible teachings are useful. For how would any Bishop, other than the Pope, teach his flock if he could only teach points of doctrine that had been infallibly defined? Or is the Pope prohibited from teaching unless he is exercising infallibility?

Pope John XXIII once said “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly, but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” He taught under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium; he apparently decided not to exercise his ability to teach infallibly.

Pope John Paul II: “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.” [Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops from the United States on their ‘Ad Limina’ visit, 15 October 1988, n. 5.]

Cardinal Ratzinger also mentions the non-infallible and non-irreformable teachings of the Magisterium in Donum Veritatis.

This leads me to my final question: where do we differ? I see no where that we differ. I say the Church cannot err. You say the Church can err but to no extent that it ever matters. There is no difference here.