P
Pete_1
Guest
Is the CCC Infalliable?
- Status
W
w_stewart
Guest
It is not infallible.
S
Stillkickin
Guest
The CCC contains both doctrine and dogma.
There is a difference between doctrine and dogma. Doctrines are official teachings of the Catholic Church. They are not necessarily infallible teachings. A doctrine that is taught as infallible is called a dogma. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. Doctrines may change but dogmas are always true and will never become untrue. This does not mean that the way dogmas are stated does not change.
Stillkickin
There is a difference between doctrine and dogma. Doctrines are official teachings of the Catholic Church. They are not necessarily infallible teachings. A doctrine that is taught as infallible is called a dogma. All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. Doctrines may change but dogmas are always true and will never become untrue. This does not mean that the way dogmas are stated does not change.
Stillkickin
V
VociMike
Guest
It is an authoritative compilation by the Church Magisterium, of Catholic doctrine and dogma.
Is there some mistake you believe the CCC contains?
Is there some mistake you believe the CCC contains?
C
clmowry
Guest
I take it a step further and say that no “document” is infallible.
Anytime something is written down and then read we have to opportunity to loose something between what was meant by the writer and what is understood by the reader (especially when we start translating the statement into different languages.)
So, IMHO, even when a Pope intends to make an infallible pronouncement, there is always the danger of the document containing that pronouncement being misunderstood by the reader.
Once it becomes clear that some portion of the Church develops an inappropriate understanding of that pronouncement then the Church may need to come back again with another document further clarifying the point.
I think a good example would be John Paul’s statement on ordination of women (though technically its not an infallible pronouncement since it was simply a restatement of something already decided.)
It “seems” to me that he clearly intended to put the issue to bed once and for all. But the reading of the same document by those in favor of ordination of women yields an entirely different result.
It’s not a matter of Faith and Morals and therefore would never be an “infallible statement” but, quite frankly I think if the Pope wrote: “The sky is blue.” Somebody would come back and say, SEE, look the pope is not infallible clearly there are times when the sky has clouds in it that are grey or white or black, and what about sunsets, pinks and purples and yellows, and what about at night…See! Look! He’s wrong! Obliviously the pope is not infallible.
So now he has to write: “The sky is blue during the day when there are no clouds in the sky and you are not looking directly at the sun and there is no obstruction so you can actually see the sky and you are not color blind and you actually know the color blue is actually blue.”
To which someone will find an objection and the process continues.
If I can do this with the “obvious fact” that the sky is blue, imagine what we can do with a document, no matter how carefully crafted, that is trying to explain a “mystery” of faith and morals (that gets written in Latin and then translated into a couple dozen other language so we can argue about it.)
Chuck
Anytime something is written down and then read we have to opportunity to loose something between what was meant by the writer and what is understood by the reader (especially when we start translating the statement into different languages.)
So, IMHO, even when a Pope intends to make an infallible pronouncement, there is always the danger of the document containing that pronouncement being misunderstood by the reader.
Once it becomes clear that some portion of the Church develops an inappropriate understanding of that pronouncement then the Church may need to come back again with another document further clarifying the point.
I think a good example would be John Paul’s statement on ordination of women (though technically its not an infallible pronouncement since it was simply a restatement of something already decided.)
It “seems” to me that he clearly intended to put the issue to bed once and for all. But the reading of the same document by those in favor of ordination of women yields an entirely different result.
It’s not a matter of Faith and Morals and therefore would never be an “infallible statement” but, quite frankly I think if the Pope wrote: “The sky is blue.” Somebody would come back and say, SEE, look the pope is not infallible clearly there are times when the sky has clouds in it that are grey or white or black, and what about sunsets, pinks and purples and yellows, and what about at night…See! Look! He’s wrong! Obliviously the pope is not infallible.
So now he has to write: “The sky is blue during the day when there are no clouds in the sky and you are not looking directly at the sun and there is no obstruction so you can actually see the sky and you are not color blind and you actually know the color blue is actually blue.”
To which someone will find an objection and the process continues.
If I can do this with the “obvious fact” that the sky is blue, imagine what we can do with a document, no matter how carefully crafted, that is trying to explain a “mystery” of faith and morals (that gets written in Latin and then translated into a couple dozen other language so we can argue about it.)
Chuck
F
Fidelis
Guest
You are asking the wrong question.
A written document cannot be “fallible” or “infallible.” Fallible implies that a certain object or person can fail or succeed at some task or action. Since the written word cannot take action on it’s own, it is incapable of this.
This goes for Sacred Scripture too, BTW. Scripture cannot be called infallible, as it is erroneously often called, but it **is **inerrant, meaning that it contains no error.
For example, we say that the Pope can make infallible statements about faith and morals under very specific circumstances (we don’t say that *he himself *in infallible in all things). That implies he is taking some kind of action, in this case, teaching infallibly under specific circumstances.
So your question should be, perhaps: **Does the Catechism contain infallible teachings? **
Yes it does, where those teachings can be defined as such by the required criteria. But more importantly, the entire Catechism represents the Ordinary Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. Catholics are beholden to hold this Ordinary teaching just as they are beholden to assent to Extra-Ordinary Magisterial teachings like the occasional infallible pronouncement.
It is one of the great errors of our day to think that Catholics only have to believe infallible statements, and can pick and choose the rest.
Does that help?
P
Pete_1
Guest
yup thanks 
- Status