Levels of infallibility

[Monica4316]

I just read this link that clearly describes the levels of infallibility… fisheaters.com/papolatry.html

I had a question and I thought maybe this information could help to answer it, but I don’t have enough understanding.

what about small regional synods with Papal representatives or the Pope himself who is present there? would they be covered by infallibility? let’s say this is from the early Church and the synod only contains canons, maybe for that region. It does not attempt to define dogmas like an ecumenical council, etc.

thank you!

 

[Brendan_64]

The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra, from the chair of Peter, on issues of faith and morals, addressing the entire Church, on issues that are to be believed by everybody everywhere. Or when an dogmatic council, headed by the Pope, pronounces a matter of faith and morals to be held everywhere by everybody.

The Fisheaters article, from the link you posted, seems to be spot on.

Regional synods, whether the Pope is present or not, do not come even close.

It is also worth noting that not all ecumemical councils are dogmatic, some are pastoral. It is only when a new dogma is defined or existing dogmas restated that infallibility applies.

 

[PluniaZ]

The pope is -]only/-] infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra, from the chair of Peter, on issues of faith and morals, addressing the entire Church, on issues that are to be believed by everybody everywhere.

The word “only” does not appear in the canons of Vatican I. ewtn.com/library/councils/V1.htm

It’s important to keep this in mind when people on the internet try to argue that we only need to listen to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra.

 

[PluniaZ]

I would stay away from that website. It is one of many websites purporting to stand for “traditional” Catholicism, but instead it brazenly attacks the Vicar of Jesus Christ and encourages disobedience to him.

The Catholic faith means obedience to the Pope. It’s as simple as that. The laity are nowhere encouraged to cipher through the statements of the Pope, picking and choosing which ones they think are binding or not. We are simply to follow what the Pope tells us. Ignore anyone who says otherwise.

 

[pianistclare]

Thank you for posting this.

 

[Brendan_64]

Paul VI said the following,

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s important to keep this in mind when people on the internet try to argue that we only need to listen to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra.

Of course we should listen to the Pope whether he is speaking ex cathedra or not. He is the Pope and we should listen to him and pay him the respect due to his office (and as an individual). But that does not mean that everything a pope says is infallible.

 

[PluniaZ]

We are entitled, at times, to respectfully disagree, after of course listening respectfully and giving due consideration to what he says.

No, we’re not. Sheep are not entitled to disagree with their shepherd.

Lumen Gentium 25:

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Brendan_64]

No, we’re not. Sheep are not entitled to disagree with their shepherd.

Are you arguing that a Catholic is bound to agree with every sentence in every papal encyclical. Or with every opinion expressed by a pope, in whatever setting?

 

[PluniaZ]

Are you arguing that a Catholic is bound to agree with every sentence in every papal encyclical. Or with every opinion expressed by a pope, in whatever setting?

I’m saying Catholics shouldn’t even ask such quarrelsome questions. Rather, we should “receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” CCC 87

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM

 

[Monica4316]

Just to clarify, my question was not with the intent to pick and choose what to listen to from the Pope.

The reason I asked it is because there were some regional councils pre Schism where Papal representatives were present (at times), apparently, but these synods are now criticised in Catholic Encyclopaedia as being too permissive of some things. Particularly this was about marriage. They were Frankish national synods. One regional synod where the Pope presided, talked against remarriage “except for fornication”. I’m trying to figure out what that meant. But St Augustine and others were against remarriage after adultery and today that is what is taught. So either the synod meant something else (invalidity, after the death of the spouse* etc) or its not infallible, but could it be not infallible if the Pope was there? That’s where my question comes from…

• sometimes in the early Church they didn’t allow widows to remarry at all.

 

[Brendan_64]

but could it be not infallible if the Pope was there? That’s where my question comes from.

The mere presence of the pope does not make decisions made at the meeting infallible. Even if the pope pronounced it himself does not make it infallible. Popes can be wrong, meetings of bishops with the pope present can make wrong decisions. Humans can make mistakes.

If these meeting were not ecumenical councils (a synod is not remotely close to an ecumenical council), or the pope was not making a pronouncement ex-cathedra, or the issue discussed was not part of established magisterial teaching deemed to be infallible, then no it is not infallible. And if it contradicts Christ’s teaching in the Gospels, as it seems to in this case, then it is wrong.

Popes, bishops etc do get things wrong from time to time, but in the end the Church sorts it out (but in the Church’s timeframe, which is not always quick). If everything every pope or gathering of bishops said was deemed to be infallible, we’d be in a right mess.

 

[PluniaZ]

The mere presence of the pope does not make decisions made at the meeting infallible. Even if the pope pronounced it himself does not make it infallible. Popes can be wrong, meetings of bishops with the pope present can make wrong decisions. Humans can make mistakes.

If these meeting were not ecumenical councils (a synod is not remotely close to an ecumenical council), or the pope was not making a pronouncement ex-cathedra, or the issue discussed was not part of established magisterial teaching deemed to be infallible, then no it is not infallible. And if it contradicts Christ’s teaching in the Gospels, as it seems to in this case, then it is wrong.

Popes, bishops etc do get things wrong from time to time, but in the end the Church sorts it out (but in the Church’s timeframe, which is not always quick). If everything every pope or gathering of bishops said was deemed to be infallible, we’d be in a right mess.

You know who is wrong, almost all the time - the laity. Members of the laity should hold their tongue and humbly submit to their pastors.

 

[Reuben_J]

I would stay away from that website. It is one of many websites purporting to stand for “traditional” Catholicism, but instead it brazenly attacks the Vicar of Jesus Christ and encourages disobedience to him.

The Catholic faith means obedience to the Pope. It’s as simple as that. The laity are nowhere encouraged to cipher through the statements of the Pope, picking and choosing which ones they think are binding or not. We are simply to follow what the Pope tells us. Ignore anyone who says otherwise.

As an aside, I would include this as how to be a good Catholic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just to clarify, my question was not with the intent to pick and choose what to listen to from the Pope.

The reason I asked it is because there were some regional councils pre Schism where Papal representatives were present (at times), apparently, but these synods are now criticised in Catholic Encyclopaedia as being too permissive of some things. Particularly this was about marriage. They were Frankish national synods. One regional synod where the Pope presided, talked against remarriage “except for fornication”. I’m trying to figure out what that meant. But St Augustine and others were against remarriage after adultery and today that is what is taught. So either the synod meant something else (invalidity, after the death of the spouse* etc) or its not infallible, but could it be not infallible if the Pope was there? That’s where my question comes from…

• sometimes in the early Church they didn’t allow widows to remarry at all.

You are probably asking for the sake of academic.

Practically though, what does the Church say about it now? That should be the answer that is relevant to you because the Church, like God who gives us her, is a living Church.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

No, we’re not. Sheep are not entitled to disagree with their shepherd.

Lumen Gentium 25:

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Best post ever.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the replies! In my research I have come across explanations for these synods that put them in context for example that they would make certain things sound more or less grave due to the amount of penance that act had at the time. So there are different explanations, but is useful to know they are not necessarily meant to be infallible…

 

[Brendan_64]

You know who is wrong, almost all the time - the laity. Members of the laity should hold their tongue and humbly submit to their pastors.

That answer does not address the issue of infallibility. Nor does it address the reality that pastors can and do (like the rest of us) make mistakes (sometimes quite big mistakes).