List of Infallable papal proclamations

[De_Maria]

Sorry, when I encountered this on the internet, I didn’t realize it was such an old message. However, I believe the subject matter remains pertinent therefore, I hope this renews the discussion.

It is not correct doctrine to say that everything that is true is infallible

Yes, it is. Truth is absolute and therefore infallible.

The Magisterium has many true teachings in its ordinary non-infallible teachings which are true but non-infallible.

Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is true and infallible. There is no such thing as a “non-infallible” teaching of the Catholic Church.

You are confusing special or extra-ordinary definitions with the term infallible. Let me give you an example. Before the Church defined extra ordinarily, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, they were already infallible doctrines.

They did not gain infallibility simply because they were extra-ordinarily defined.

If all that is true is infallible, then all that is non-infallible would have to be false.

That is absolutely true.

Everything which is true is absolute and therefore infallible. Everything which is infallible must be absolute and therefore true.

Everything which is false is fallible. Because everything which is false is fallen and has therefore proven its falsehood.

This contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium which requires the religious submission of will and intellect to non-infallible teachings.

That is a non-sequitur. The idea of the infalliblity of Catholic doctrine has nothing to do with the discipline the Magisterium requires of the submission of will and intellect to the impromptu teachings of the clergy, Bishops and Pope.

For instance, the teachings of the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II are not necessarily teachings of the Catholic Church and therefore not necessarily infallible. But we are expected to give the assent of faith.

Another example, are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, whose teachings include the idea that the soul is incarnated in the third month of the fetus. Obviously, this teaching is fallible and is not part of Catholic doctrine.

However, all doctrines of the Catholic Church have the charism of certain truth. Every single doctrine listed in the Catechism is infallible because it is based upon infalible Catholic Teaching.

It is said that the Catechism is not infallible only because error may have crept into the wording or the spelling or some other scribal problem. But the doctrines therein taught are all infallible.

Infallibility offers the faithful the gift of the charism of certain truth. Whereas the non-infallible teachings are also mostly true, but they do not have the charism of certain truth, but are reliable and generally true.

There is no such thing as “non-infalible teachings” of the Catholic Church. All doctrines of the Catholic Church are infalible.

De Maria

 

[Mickey]

Dear Mickey,

I am sorry if my post, in which I did not “explain papal infallibility”, didn’t appear comprehensible outside the Greek Orthodox quotation.

So, I’m trying to show my point this way.

I understand, correct me if I’m mistaken, that the Eastern Orthodox communion does share with the Catholic Church the belief that the Church can, under particular conditions, teach
infallibly.

The concerns Expect is showing about “papal infallibility” do not appear on the specific “papal” qualification. His real concern, if I am not wrong, is about infallibility of the Church, as such.

In other words, the question about a complete list of the statements the Church has proposed under the conditions of the infallibility ( be it with papal acceptance or with the “consent of all faithful, clergy and laity” ) should equally concern the Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Churches.

I can add that I am not sure I can understand at present the concept of “consent of all the faithful”, in particular the precise definition of “all the faithful”, and the way infallibility is exercised
through or by this body.

I hope this post will look a little less like “scholastic legalistic double talk”.

Sorry. I still do not understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Mickey]

Every single doctrine listed in the Catechism is infallible because it is based upon infalible Catholic Teaching.

And how many doctrines are listed in the CCC? Can you name them?

 

[De_Maria]

And how many doctrines are listed in the CCC? Can you name them?

Is there some mandate or doctrine of the Catholic Church that I should name all the doctrines in the CCC?

If not, why do you ask? Just for academic purposes? Or perhaps you can name every doctrine taught by the Orthodox and want to compare lists?

 

[RunningMan]

Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is true and infallible. There is no such thing as a “non-infallible” teaching of the Catholic Church. De Maria

Only “definitive and dogmatic” teachings on faith and morals are protected from error and therefore infallible by definition. Every other teaching is fallible.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility:

“In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.” newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Examples of fallible teachings on Jewish guilt, torture and coercion follow. Note that these teachings had to be “repudiated”, “rejected” or “supplanted”. This could not happen with infallible teachings.

“Much of the alienation between Christian and Jew found its origins in a certain anti-Judaic theology which over the centuries has led not only to social friction with Jews but often to their oppression. One of the most hopeful developments in our time, powerfully assisted by Nostra Aetate, has been the decline of the old anti-Judaism and the reformation of Christian theological expositions of Judaism along more constructive lines. 9. The first major step in this direction was the **repudiation **of the charge that Jews were and are collectively guilty of the death of Christ.” usccb.org/seia/statement_catholic-jewish.pdf

"The culmination of the church’s **rejection **of the Augustinian doctrine of the use of the sword for spiritual ends, and with it the **repudiation **of torture, came in the Great Jubilee of the year 2000. John Paul II’s initiatives illuminate the religious underpinnings of contemporary Catholic teaching on torture. On the first Sunday of Lent that year, the pope held an extraordinary penitential service in Saint Peter’s Basilica in which he and leading curial cardinals prayed for forgiveness for “the errors of Christians in every age.”

In preparation for this momentous event, when the church asked forgiveness for the sins of the previous millennium, a number of studies were produced by special commissions of scholars. The study group on the Inquisition eventually published its report in 2003. In the concluding essay of that volume, the author describes the teaching of Augustine and those who followed him as “a counter-witness and scandal.” Thus, under Pope John Paul II, the rejection of physical coercion reached its high point. Not only was the doctrine supplanted, it was confessed to be the source of many sins."
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4995

 

[Alethiaphile]

Is there some mandate or doctrine of the Catholic Church that I should name all the doctrines in the CCC?

If not, why do you ask? Just for academic purposes? Or perhaps you can name every doctrine taught by the Orthodox and want to compare lists?

I belive his point is that if you belive, as you say you do, that every doctrine taught in the Catechims is taught infallibly, you should be able to name them. Otherwise, you would be in ignorance of some infallible doctrines, which wouldn’t be a good thing.

 

[kepha1]

Infallibility is defined as a charism that prevents the Church from teaching doctrinal error on matters of faith and morals. To clear things up, I’ve compiled a list of erroneous Catholic teachings:

 

[kepha1]

The Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. Of course we cannot disagree with an Ex Cathedra statement. This is why it becomes important to know what is infallible and what is not. Otherwise, there is nothing the Pope says that we can ever disagree with.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible, surely you agree with that. I’ve read the entire thread, and I would like to address a question you raised that never got answered. While surfing the internet I noticed that the Fourth Lateran Council is a favorite for anti-Catholics trying to prove the Church was an anti-Semetic power hungry controlling monster. Even certain encyclopedias reveal a shameless bias against the Church.

*Before examining the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Jews in the Middle Ages, it would be worthwhile to state an obvious yet often overlooked fact: The Middle Ages were, well, medieval. It is a fallacy (one that historians call presentism) to judge the past by the standards of the present. In a modern, post-Enlightenment world, religious belief is merely a personal preference, like a favorite color. But in most premodern civilizations, religion is a central, if not predominant, aspect of one’s personal and collective identity. To seek to corrupt or defame a culture’s religion would therefore be the equivalent of treason in the modern era. In both cases the crimes were thought to be severe enough to warrant the death penalty. *

Pope Gregory I (590-604) spelled out Church policy toward the Jews in his decree Sicut Iudaeis Non*. As might be expected, it was a synthesis of Roman law and the philosophies of St. Paul and St. Augustine. Gregory wrote, “Just as the Jews should not in their synagogues be free to do anything not permitted by law, so also in those things granted them they should have no infringement of their rights.” During his pontificate, he put these words into practice, intervening to protect Jews from violence and insisting that Jewish rituals be tolerated…*

*Pope Alexander II specifically forbade anyone from equating holy wars against Muslims with violence against Jews. He wrote, “The matter of the Jews is entirely different from that of the Muslims: the latter actively engage in war against Christians; the former are everywhere ready to remain peaceful.” *
**

Nevertheless, many Jews were killed in the Crusades. During the First, Second, and Third Crusades, there were misguided, misinformed, or cynical attacks on Jews. The Church actively opposed these attacks, and local clergy often came to the defense of Jews in their community.

The Crusades were bad for European Jews because the religious enthusiasm that they engendered often spilled over into popular attacks on the “infidels” at home. But the purpose of the Crusades was never to kill Jews.

The Fourth Lateran Council held in 1215 is often cited for its anti-Jewish decrees. It is true that the council excluded Jews from various public offices, yet this was merely a restatement of existing Roman law. More troubling from the modern point of view was the requirement that all Jews were identifying badges. This naturally conjures up images of German Jews forced to wear cloth badges by the Nazis. But the clergy of the 13th century were unfamiliar with the atrocities of the 20th. The medieval badges were part of a larger attempt to avoid sinful behavior in Christian society. The same council also required clergy to wear distinctive dress, so that they too could be immediately identified. This, they hoped, would head off lewd or sinful behavior toward, or on the part of, priests. By the same token, the Jewish badges were meant to warn Christians who might otherwise unknowingly become intimately familiar with a Jew — something also forbidden by Roman law.

The Church And The Jews In The Middle Ages

 

[kepha1]

Even so, it is my understanding that we may still respectfully disagree. For example, the Pope says capitol punishment is always wrong. As far as I know, the Church does not say that we must follow that teaching. The Pope also said the Iraq ware was not just. As far as I know, we don’t have to follow that teaching either.

Sure, disagree all day. Just don’t rebel.

I would submit the Apostles Creed as a list of infallible statements that Catholics are not free to disagree with.

1. Having this infallible list of decrees would undermine the rest of the papal teaching of encyclicals that are not neccessarily infallible and in fact Pius XII says are expoundings of teachings of the ordinary magesterium, which are in fact infallible.

1. No infallible list of infallible decrees can be put out by the Church for several reasons:

-First of all infallibility is on faith and morals. Thus specific listing of papal decrees would not be an issue of infallibility.
-Infallible teachings were always taught by the Church.
-A list of infallible decrees could not have always been taught by the Church.

• An infallible list of infallible decrees would not be infallible any more if another infallible decree were added. Neither would it always be infallible in the past when there were fewer of these decrees. Thus it cannot meet the criteria for infallibility and is not “irreformable”.
  http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=2623

Infallibility is a charism, a gift from God, not a legislation.

 

[RunningMan]

Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is true and infallible. There is no such thing as a “non-infallible” teaching of the Catholic Church.

A concise (and manifestly evident) refutation of this proposition is found in Canon 749 §3;

“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

In fact most doctrine is “non-infallible”. From New Commentary on Canon Law 749.3:

"Nearly all of the vast amount of papal teaching, i.e., encyclicals, exhortations, letters, addresses, homilies, etc., is non-infallible. That is, most of the time the pope makes no pretense of teaching definitively, of defining doctrines. The charism of infallibility is not only most rarely employed (twice in the last century and a half), but it is restricted by all of the conditions stated in the first paragraph of the canon.

Similarly, even when the college of bishops teaches solemnly, as it did at the Second Vatican Council, it does not exercise its infallible authority. If it wished to teach infallibly within or outside of an ecumenical council, the college would have to do so quite explicitly, that is, with the expressed intention to act infallibly and the agreement that an opinion is to be definitively held (tamquam definitive tenedam).” books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&lpg=PA913&ots=GI7NJFDv3l&dq=commentary%20canon%20law%20infallibility&pg=PA913#v=onepage&q=commentary%20canon%20law%20infallibility&f=false

Quote:
If all that is true is infallible, then all that is non-infallible would have to be false.

I suggest that your reply is not true. Most doctrine, while non-infallibly taught, is most likely true.

Everything which is infallible must be absolute and therefore true.

Agreed.

However, all doctrines of the Catholic Church have the charism of certain truth. Every single doctrine listed in the Catechism is infallible because it is based upon infallible Catholic Teaching.

The first statement is refuted above (assuming by “certain truth” you mean infallible). Since the Catechism is a compendium of doctrine (both infallible and non-infallible) and most doctrine is non-infallible (as noted above) the Catechism, by inference, would contain mostly non-infallible teachings.

From The New Catechism: An Overview:

“As a compendium of Catholic doctrine, moreover, the individual doctrines which are present in the catechism have the weight and authority which they bear in the dogmatic tradition of the church. As Cardinal Ratzinger remarked, “The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess. What is important is the catechism in its totality: It reflects the church’s teaching; anyone who rejects it overall separates himself unequivocally from the faith and teaching of the church” (“The Catechism and the Optimism of the Redeemed,” 479).

The question of what authority the individual doctrines of the church possess in themselves is a complex theological issue. For centuries theologians assigned theological “notes” to the formulation of church doctrines, by which they indicated whether a particular teaching was “of divine faith,” “defined infallibly,” “theologically certain,” “Catholic doctrine,” “near to the faith” and the like. But it is not part of the church’s catechetical tradition to assign such complex theological notes to the teachings of the faith she presents to the faithful as Catholic doctrine. There are doctrines divinely revealed which have never been defined by the church’s solemn magisterium, and there are many newer teachings which apply traditional church doctrines to new developments.

In the catechism the church intends to make a presentation of all and only that which she regards as the patrimony of Catholic doctrine about faith and morals which the Christian faithful need to believe and practice as Catholics. The catechism is not the appropriate place to pursue the distinction of material into “infallible” and “non-infallible”— indeed, much of the church’s doctrinal tradition has never been formally defined as such, but is infallibly taught. Theological distinctions between “divine” faith and “ecclesiastical” faith are the work of theology, not catechesis, and would not be appropriate for the catechism. “ usccb.org/catechism/resource/lev94art.shtml#intro

It is said that the Catechism is not infallible only because error may have crept into the wording or the spelling or some other scribal problem. But the doctrines therein taught are all infallible. De Maria

Source?

 

[Alethiaphile]

From New Commentary on Canon Law 749.3:

"Nearly all of the vast amount of papal teaching, i.e., encyclicals, exhortations, letters, addresses, homilies, etc., is non-infallible. That is, most of the time the pope makes no pretense of teaching definitively, of defining doctrines. The charism of infallibility is not only most rarely employed (twice in the last century and a half),
​

So that means the teachings of Pius VI on artificial contraception and of John Paul II against the ordination of women are not infallible teachings, according to the “Commentary”, since there have only been two since 1850 and those are obviously the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Huh. That’s interesting. A lot of very eminent Catholic writiers and theologians have said otherwise. Which just goes to show how confused the whole teaching of “papal infallibility” is. Joe​

 

[RunningMan]

So that means the teachings of Pius VI on artificial contraception and of John Paul II against the ordination of women are not infallible teachings, according to the “Commentary”, since there have only been two since 1850 and those are obviously the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Huh. That’s interesting. A lot of very eminent Catholic writiers and theologians have said otherwise. Which just goes to show how confused the whole teaching of “papal infallibility” is. Joe

They have been declared infallible apart from Vatican II.

"Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on Nov. 18, 1995, a “Response” to questions concerning the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of May 1994, in which the Pope had stated that he had no authority to change the church’s tradition of ordaining only men to the priesthood. Immediately thereafter Cardinal Joachim Meisner, , the archbishop of Cologne, published an article in the German Catholic weekly Rheinischer Merkur asserting that O.S. was an infallible ex cathedra papal statement (an instance of the Pope’s extraordinary magisterium) confirming the unanimous teaching of the episcopal college (the ordinary magisterium), which is also infallible. religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=47

Also:

"With “Humanae Vitae,” Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium – that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter.

Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in “Lumen Gentium,” 25. zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

Both have been taught infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium though constant and unanimous teaching. I suppose what was stated during Vatican II was part of the unanimous constant teaching even though that teaching was not in itself definitive.

 

[joe370]

Hey BT…

Yeah…as someone who has been interested in Catholicism, it bothers me that there is not a consensus on which papal and conciliar pronouncements are infallible. many of the arguments against Protestants are rooted in Protestantism’s lack of certainty (e.g. “How are you certain which books go in the bible?”; “How are you certain your interpretation is correct?”)

How can Catholics have certainty about which teachings are infallible? (Also, how do Catholics have certainty about doctrines prior to the papal/conciliar pronouncements that are infallible?)

-BT

It seems that the CC leadership is admonished if they claim to teach infallibly and admonished if they don’t slap the word infallible on everything. Quite the catch 22…