Non-infallible teachings

[Ron_Conte]

(The other thread on this subject was hijacked, so I’m starting a new thread.)

The Magisterium teaches either infallibly, or non-infallibly.
Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith (theological assent).
Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect (religious assent).

“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.”

Even when the Pope or the Bishops are not exercising the Magisterium infallibly, their teaching requires assent. This religious assent is a different type and degree of assent than theological assent. But the idea that only infallible teachings require assent is false.

Non-infallible teachings are reformable, because they are subject to a limited possibility of error. But this possibility of error is limited, and can never reach to such an extent as to lead us away from the path of salvation. And it is not possible to live the Catholic faith by infallible teachings alone. We need the non-infallible teachings (and fallible theological opinion as well) in order to live the Faith. Therefore, the Church can require assent to non-infallible teachings.

 

[NHInsider]

Ron-

I wasn’t sure and so didn’t respond to the other thread, and am still not sure, quite what “question” you are proposing for discussion?

Let me try via an example?

Let us say that, as a scholar, it is not clear to me that the ordination of women is incompatible with the teaching of Christ. But Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “definitively” states that the Church cannot ordain women, so as an obedient Catholic I assent to that position. But that is a different kind of assent than believing, say, that Jesus is Truly God and Truly Human - which I believe, not simply accept. Is that what you are trying to get at? Or am I missing something?

 

[NHInsider]

Ron-

I wasn’t sure and so didn’t respond to the other thread, and am still not sure, quite what “question” you are proposing for discussion?

Let me try via an example?

Let us say that, as a scholar, it is not clear to me that the ordination of women . . .

Bad example, since that’s an example of teaching infallibly.

Hmm. Trying again - something like the teaching on capital punishment? That it is immoral unless there is no other way for the state to protect people from the criminal? *Evangelium Vitae *did not invoke ex cathedra the way Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did, but is still binding but in a different way? So whether or not I agree with the teaching that capital punishment is immoral I am obliged to uphold it/assent to it?

As you can see I’m still not sure I know what the thread is meant to explore . . .

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Non-infallible teachings are reformable, because they are subject to a limited possibility of error. But this possibility of error is limited, and can never reach to such an extent as to lead us away from the path of salvation. And it is not possible to live the Catholic faith by infallible teachings alone. We need the non-infallible teachings (and fallible theological opinion as well) in order to live the Faith. Therefore, the Church can require assent to non-infallible teachings.

So what happens if a person does not assent to a non-infallible teaching? Have they sinned?
If so, what if later that teaching is changed? Have they not sinned since the teaching was later changed?
Or have they still sinned for not assenting when assent was required?
If so, how can it be that one has sinned for not assenting to a teaching (now) but another has not sinned (later)?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Bad example, since that’s an example of teaching infallibly.

Hmm. Trying again - something like the teaching on capital punishment? That it is immoral unless there is no other way for the state to protect people from the criminal? *Evangelium Vitae *did not invoke ex cathedra the way Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did, but is still binding but in a different way? So whether or not I agree with the teaching that capital punishment is immoral I am obliged to uphold it/assent to it?

As you can see I’m still not sure I know what the thread is meant to explore . . .

The thread explores the distinction between infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings, and the difference between the types of assent required.

Examples:
(1) The CCC has numerous teachings that are non-infallible. What is the difference between our required assent for these teachings, and for any infallible teachings in the CCC or elsewhere? The difference is that the non-infallible teachings allow for a certain limited faithful dissent. The assent required is different in type and degree from the assent required of infallible teachings. And so, religious assent allows for some faithful disssent, to a limited extent, from a non-infallible teaching. This dissent should be based on Tradition, Scripture, and teachings of the Magisterium of greater authority than the non-infallible teaching.

Many Catholics treat the CCC as if the full assent of faith were required for every sentence. But the Church teaches two different types of assent, not only one.

(2) The Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus taught:
the death and resurrection of the Virgin Mary – non-infallible teaching
the Assumption of the Virgin Mary – infallible teaching

We are not free to believe whatever we wish concerning the death and resurrection (or lack thereof) of the Virgin Mary. It is a non-infallible teaching, to which we should assent.

(3) There are also implications for theology. Some Catholics incorrectly think that the theologian should never disagree with a non-infallible teaching. But to treat all non-infallible teachings as if they were infallible would be contrary to the teaching of the Church on assent. Theologians should sometimes disagree with non-infallible teachings.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So what happens if a person does not assent to a non-infallible teaching? Have they sinned?
If so, what if later that teaching is changed? Have they not sinned since the teaching was later changed?
Or have they still sinned for not assenting when assent was required?
If so, how can it be that one has sinned for not assenting to a teaching (now) but another has not sinned (later)?

Dissent from a non-infallible teaching is not heresy; it can be either a doctrinal error, or, if the dissent is based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, (TSM) it may be faithful dissent. Dissent from an infallible teaching, or from the non-infallible teachings as a body, is heresy.

Dissent would be sinful if you have no legitimate basis in TSM for disagreeing. If it later turns out that you were correct, you still sinned because you did not really know that you were correct. Similarly, if you assert that something is true when you believe that it is false, you have sinned by lying; if it turns out that your assertion was true (though you did not know it at the time), you still sinned.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Dissent from a non-infallible teaching is not heresy; it can be either a doctrinal error, or, if the dissent is based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, (TSM) it may be faithful dissent. Dissent from an infallible teaching, or from the non-infallible teachings as a body, is heresy.

Dissent would be sinful if you have no legitimate basis in TSM for disagreeing. If it later turns out that you were correct, you still sinned because you did not really know that you were correct. Similarly, if you assert that something is true when you believe that it is false, you have sinned by lying; if it turns out that your assertion was true (though you did not know it at the time), you still sinned.

So, as long as you have legitimate basis in TSM it isn’t a sin.
Of course that raises the question of : How do you know if the dissent based on TSM is legitimate or not?
If it is not legitimate, then it seems like a no-win situation: dissent is a sin and lying is a sin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So, as long as you have legitimate basis in TSM it isn’t a sin.
Of course that raises the question of : How do you know if the dissent based on TSM is legitimate or not?
If it is not legitimate, then it seems like a no-win situation: dissent is a sin and lying is a sin.

We can disagree to a limited extent with particular non-infallible teachings, or with decisions of the temporal authority of the Church, or with the prudential judgments of the Pope or the Bishops. It is difficult to say what the limits are. You know if the dissent is based on TSM if the person who dissents can give a theological argument based on TSM. Of course, a person could be mistaken in such dissent.

But the same problem of the lack of surety occurs with infallible teachings – you cannot be absolutely certain that you have correctly understood the infallible teaching.

We should not expect absolute surety in this life. Not until we have the Beatific Vision of God will we have absolute surety in our knowledge.

 

[Astrochemist]

(The other thread on this subject was hijacked, so I’m starting a new thread.)

The Magisterium teaches either infallibly, or non-infallibly.
Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith (theological assent).
Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect (religious assent).

“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.”

Even when the Pope or the Bishops are not exercising the Magisterium infallibly, their teaching requires assent. This religious assent is a different type and degree of assent than theological assent. But the idea that only infallible teachings require assent is false.

Non-infallible teachings are reformable, because they are subject to a limited possibility of error. But this possibility of error is limited, and can never reach to such an extent as to lead us away from the path of salvation. And it is not possible to live the Catholic faith by infallible teachings alone. We need the non-infallible teachings (and fallible theological opinion as well) in order to live the Faith. Therefore, the Church can require assent to non-infallible teachings.

Let’s take the example of Galileo. At one time, the Church taught that the sun traveled around the earth. Would it have been wrong at that time to refuse assent to this teaching?

If so, why would it be wrong to believe the truth?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Let’s take the example of Galileo. At one time, the Church taught that the sun traveled around the earth. Would it have been wrong at that time to refuse assent to this teaching?

If so, why would it be wrong to believe the truth?

I don’t think that the sun traveling around the earth was even a non-infallible teaching. But one could have taken the position that such a conclusion is not the correct interpretation of Scripture. Such a position does not contradict any infallible teaching, and does not reject the body of non-infallible teachings.

 

[Astrochemist]

I don’t think that the sun traveling around the earth was even a non-infallible teaching. But one could have taken the position that such a conclusion is not the correct interpretation of Scripture. Such a position does not contradict any infallible teaching, and does not reject the body of non-infallible teachings.

I don’t want to derail this topic by arguing whether the Church actually taught this or not (though I believe it did); that discussion would be better held somewhere else.

Instead, my question is this:

If non-infallible teaching is never in error, what differentiates it from infallible teaching?

If non-infallible teaching can be in error, and if a person disagrees with it, then are there cases where it is wrong to believe what is true?

 

[Ron_Conte]

If non-infallible teaching is never in error, what differentiates it from infallible teaching?

If non-infallible teaching can be in error, and if a person disagrees with it, then are there cases where it is wrong to believe what is true?

Non-infallible teachings have a limited possibility of error. They cannot err to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from salvation. But there is some possibility of error, and some possibility that the teaching will be reformed.

It is never wrong to believe what is true. The problem here is that, in a conflict between what you think is truth and what the Magisterium teaches, non-infallibly, is true, who is more likely to be correct? Non-infallible teachings are generally very reliable, whereas the reasonings of individual sinners often go far astray. So you might sin by arrogance if you adhere to your own ideas in contradiction to a non-infallible teaching, even if it seems to you that your ideas are truth. Even so, if you dissent in prayerful humility, based on the teachings of TSM, then you might dissent without sin.

 

[Astrochemist]

Thank you for providing your explanation about the difference between non-infallible and infallible Magisterial teachings.

It is never wrong to believe what is true. The problem here is that, in a conflict between what you think is truth and what the Magisterium teaches, non-infallibly, is true, who is more likely to be correct?

It would depend on the field. In anything directly theological, the Magisterium would most likely be correct. In anything astronomical or biological, either I or another astronomer or biologist would more likely be correct.

As such, if the Magisterium ever taught that the sun travels around the earth, and Galileo had humbly, but publicly, dissented from such a teaching, Galileo’s dissent would be without sin. Would this be a correct understanding of your position?

 

[Ron_Conte]

It would depend on the field. In anything directly theological, the Magisterium would most likely be correct. In anything astronomical or biological, either I or another astronomer or biologist would more likely be correct.

Even though non-infallible teachings may err, they are more reliable than the sciences, because they are drawn from Divine Revelation and have the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

As such, if the Magisterium ever taught that the sun travels around the earth, and Galileo had humbly, but publicly, dissented from such a teaching, Galileo’s dissent would be without sin. Would this be a correct understanding of your position?

I don’t think that the Magisterium ever taught that position as a doctrine. But if so, then yes, he could dissent without sin.

 

[Nita]

A good example of a current non-infallible teaching has to do with the nature of angels. At present, many Catholic theologians/philosophers hold that each angel is his own species. But this is not an infallible teaching and is open to personal opinion/dissent. (Am not sure, but this may even have been the position of St. Thomas Aquinas - which would mean the teaching has been around for awhile.)

 

[Astrochemist]

Even though non-infallible teachings may err, they are more reliable than -]the/-] other sciences, because they are drawn from Divine Revelation and have the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

I hope you forgive my edit. I consider sciences should be judged based on their object, as opposed to their accuracy. As such, theology is the superior science. As I am intellectually incapable of doing what I would consider “good theology”, I will happily just read Pope Benedict’s, Aquinas’s and other writings in the matter, and pretty-much take their word for it.

My purpose is not in stating that I consider my field to be superior, but that I consider my knowledge in this humble little field to be greater than the Magisterium’s knowledge. As such:

I don’t think that the Magisterium ever taught that position as a doctrine. But if so, then yes, he could dissent without sin.

I would likewise dissent, if there were a clear contradiction between what the Magisterium taught about my field and what I myself have discovered in my field.

Within the realm of theology proper, I am content simply to assent to any teaching that flows from the Magisterium; I am incapable of doing any better.

 

[Astrochemist]

A good example of a current non-infallible teaching has to do with the nature of angels. At present, many Catholic theologians/philosophers hold that each angel is his own species. But this is not an infallible teaching and is open to personal opinion/dissent. (Am not sure, but this may even have been the position of St. Thomas Aquinas - which would mean the teaching has been around for awhile.)

I don’t even think this is part of the Ordinary Magisterial teaching. I’m fairly ignorant in this matter, though.

My rule for theology is:
(1) Accept what St. Thomas Aquinas states unless (2) or (3).
(2) St. Thomas Aquinas makes a natural scientific claim that conflicts with modern scientific understanding.
(3) St. Thomas Aquinas makes a theological or moral claim that contradicts Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterial teaching (i.e. the Immaculate Conception).

 

[Ron_Conte]

I would likewise dissent, if there were a clear contradiction between what the Magisterium taught about my field and what I myself have discovered in my field.

It is not at all faithful dissent to make such a blanket statement, in advance of even any particular question or answer, that you would always adhere to your own understanding in your own field. Teachings on faith and morals sometimes overlap with other fields in other sciences. I would not generally consider dissent to be faithful unless there is a basis in Tradition, Scripture, or other magisterial teachings (of greater authority). You can’t put your own scientific research up against Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

So if science says that the Universe has always existed, and there is some scientific evidence to support that conclusion, we would still be obliged by faith to believe that God created the Universe and that therefore it has not always existed.

Or if science says that particles in the universe spontaeously pop in and out of existence, and that this is how the universe was created, faith obliges us to reject such an idea.

 

[Astrochemist]

It is not at all faithful dissent to make such a blanket statement, in advance of even any particular question or answer, that you would always adhere to your own understanding in your own field.

It is what I must rationally accept. I would have to be a different person to think differently.

So if science says that the Universe has always existed, and there is some scientific evidence to support that conclusion, we would still be obliged by faith to believe that God created the Universe and that therefore it has not always existed.

If there were good evidence to posit that the universe (or multiverse) always existed, something which is very far out of our grasp at this time, and appears to be contradicted by existing evidence, then this would have to be carefully considered.

If the evidence were strong, as strong as evidence for the heliocentric theory, I would conclude that the universe/multiverse physically had no beginning, but that there must have been a beginning to what is termed “heavens and earth”. Things with no beginning still require causes, philosophically, so God would still be a necessary first cause.

Or if science says that particles in the universe spontaeously pop in and out of existence, and that this is how the universe was created, faith obliges us to reject such an idea.

If this were established, this may only show how God started the universe (by particles that are produced through unknown underlying mechanisms); I would see no conflict with this idea.

The examples remind me, tangentially, of a joke:

A Jesuit, Fransciscan, and Dominican are told that the bones of Jesus has been discovered. The Dominican examines the bones, the evidence is overwhelming, and he becomes an atheist philosopher. The Fransciscan examines the bones, and weeps over the loss of hope in the world. The Jesuit examines the bones and, surprised, says “Oh, so he did exist!”

If there were strong evidence for a position contrary to some aspect of Catholic teaching (such as ex nihilo creation) I would first consider how the theologians, especially magisterially-connected theologians (such as the Pope) handle this issue; if they could not reconcile the theology with the evidence, I would either favor the evidence and abandon that particular theological teaching (or, if the teaching were essential, the whole of Catholic theology), or I would abandon my scientific work and become an engineer. I would more likely abandon the theological teaching in favor of empirical evidence.

This hypothetical situation I consider to be impossible. Truth does not contradict Truth. I do consider it possible, however, that non-infallible magisterial teaching may come into conflict with empirical science; I would, in that case, dissent.

 

[Ron_Conte]

You are not describing a limited faithful dissent from one particular non-infallible teaching or another,
but a blanket dissent that places science above faith, and that disregards the authority of the Magisterium.

Also, infallible teachings of the Magisterium, including the ordinary and universal Magisterium, do not allow for any faithful dissent, regardless of what science or reason says.