Non-infallible teachings?

[mathematoons]

I came across this quote on another thread:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (inafllible and non-infallible) and disciplines and it has footnotes with references to Scripture and other Church documents which support the Church teachings. Catholics MUST accept all the teachings therein.

I spoke with my priest about this very issue, and he said that Catholics are allowed to dissent from the non-infallible teachings with sufficient moral reason, and that only the beliefs listed in the Apostles’ Creed must be believed by all Catholics. He says infallibility has only been invoked twice. We didn’t have the chance to go very deeply into it, but is this true? If so, where does the concept of mortal sin fit in?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I came across this quote on another thread:

I spoke with my priest about this very issue, and he said that Catholics are allowed to dissent from the non-infallible teachings with sufficient moral reason, and that only the beliefs listed in the Apostles’ Creed must be believed by all Catholics. He says infallibility has only been invoked twice. We didn’t have the chance to go very deeply into it, but is this true? If so, where does the concept of mortal sin fit in?

Everything contained in the Catechism is the infallible teaching of the Church, and therefore a required belief of all Catholics. The charism of infallibility does not only apply to ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope, of which there are two:

1. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2. The Assumption of Mary

Infallibility also applies to the teachings of the Magisterium (which includes ex cathedra pronouncements). This is where the teaching authority of the Church resides, and it is most often embodied in Church councils (such as Vatican I and II or the Council of Nicea, from which we get the Nicean Creed). The teachings of these councils are also infallible.

Infallibility stems from Christ’s promises to Peter and the Apostles that “the gates of Hell” would not triumph over the Church, and that He would send another (the Holy Spirit) to guide the Church to the truth. Thus, all Church teachings – ALL of them – regarding faith and morals are binding on all Catholics, because all of them are true.

The only place we are free to form our own opinion is on matters other than faith, morals, and discipline (e.g., not eating meat on Fridays). An example would be when the Pope expresses his opinion on our duty as stewards of the earth by agreeing with the “climate change” movement. Although we are obligated to form our opinions within the context of Catholic morality and would be well advised to give serious considerations to the Pope’s thoughts, we are not bound by his personal opinions.

In a way, the priest of whom you spoke is correct: everything you need to believe IS contained in the Apostle’s Creed, which says in part “I believe in…the Holy Catholic Church”. Belief in that Church means belief in Christ’s establishment of that Church and His gift of authority to it. Unfortunately, it sounds like the priest is suggesting that anything that is not explicitly stated in the Creed is subject to personal preference, and that’s just not the case.

Peace,
Dante

 

[mathematoons]

Thank you. That was what I thought.

 

[thistle]

Everything contained in the Catechism is the infallible teaching of the Church, and therefore a required belief of all Catholics. The charism of infallibility does not only apply to ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope, of which there are two:

1. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2. The Assumption of Mary

Infallibility also applies to the teachings of the Magisterium (which includes ex cathedra pronouncements). This is where the teaching authority of the Church resides, and it is most often embodied in Church councils (such as Vatican I and II or the Council of Nicea, from which we get the Nicean Creed). The teachings of these councils are also infallible.

Infallibility stems from Christ’s promises to Peter and the Apostles that “the gates of Hell” would not triumph over the Church, and that He would send another (the Holy Spirit) to guide the Church to the truth. Thus, all Church teachings – ALL of them – regarding faith and morals are binding on all Catholics, because all of them are true.

The only place we are free to form our own opinion is on matters other than faith, morals, and discipline (e.g., not eating meat on Fridays). An example would be when the Pope expresses his opinion on our duty as stewards of the earth by agreeing with the “climate change” movement. Although we are obligated to form our opinions within the context of Catholic morality and would be well advised to give serious considerations to the Pope’s thoughts, we are not bound by his personal opinions.

In a way, the priest of whom you spoke is correct: everything you need to believe IS contained in the Apostle’s Creed, which says in part “I believe in…the Holy Catholic Church”. Belief in that Church means belief in Christ’s establishment of that Church and His gift of authority to it. Unfortunately, it sounds like the priest is suggesting that anything that is not explicitly stated in the Creed is subject to personal preference, and that’s just not the case.

Peace,
Dante

Actually the CCC contains a summary of all Church teachings (both infallible and non-infallible) plus disciplines.
Whether they are infallible or non-infallible they must be believed. The difference is that infallible teachings must be believed beyond all doubt while non-fallible teachings must be believed beyond reasonable doubt.
Rejecting an infallible teaching would be heresy (a sin of grave matter) while rejecting a non-infallible teaching would not be heresy but would still be a sin of grave matter.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Actually the CCC contains a summary of all Church teachings (both infallible and non-infallible) plus disciplines.

And it contains some pure speculation (such as the fate of unbaptized babies).

 

[StrawberryJam]

And it contains some pure speculation (such as the fate of unbaptized babies).

I am a patient person. That was one of the things I had wondered about as an early seeker of the Catholic faith, and later found that part to be one I wished was made clearer in some way after taking the time to know that was the position.

This may or may not be on topic, but on matters of speculation of theology, I wonder if it would be more transparent to just put a footnote on those things. What do you think?

 

[Abu]

Mathematoons, #1
I spoke with my priest about this very issue, and he said that Catholics are allowed to dissent from the non-infallible teachings with sufficient moral reason

False. There is no licit dissent.

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1).

A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

The category 3 truths are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

So you see that intellectual assent is mandated for non-infallible doctrine. Christ did not leave His Church as an orphan, but protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So you see that intellectual assent is mandated for non-infallible doctrine. Christ did not leave His Church as an orphan, but protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

This Abu guy is really good. He is ABSOLUTELY correct. I had considered responding to the “lawful dissent” claim, and I am really glad that Abu responded before me, because his response is excellent - and better than any that I would have made.

I will expand on his excellent answer to define the concept of “intellectual assent” because I think this concept may not be well understood.

The Church recognizes two levels of assent to Her doctrine - assent of the heart, and assent of the mind. Assent of the heart is when we sincerely and genuinely believe this to be true. Assent of the mind is when our intellect finds the teaching questionable, but yet we believe because we have confidence in the teaching authority of the Church.

Some believe that intellectual assent forces us to suspend scientific reason. Yet, science imposes similar teachings upon most of us whose understanding of the topics are limited. For example, quantum physics teaches that a subatomic particle may disappear from one physical location and immediately appear in another (this is called “quantum shift”). It teaches that we cannot observe a subatomic particle without changing its properties (this is called the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”). I am not a quantum physicist, so I accept these (strange) concepts because the people who advocate them are experts in this field, and they are very united in their teaching, and there is no credible opposition.

Yet, Jesus never promised that quantum physicists would never teach error.

 

[thistle]

And it contains some pure speculation (such as the fate of unbaptized babies).

That is not speculation. That is the Church saying it does not know what happens to unbaptised babies and it leaves it to the mercy of God.

 

[thistle]

Dogmas and Doctrines

Doctrine - any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.

The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or decision of an ecumenical council, or this teaching may be taught ordinarily in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.

The difference in Dogmas and Doctrines is the level of certainty with which the magisterium teaches. Dogmas are taught with absolute certainty (beyond all doubt whatsoever), whereas doctrines are taught with moral certainty (similar to beyond reasonable doubt).

Dogmas require the assent of faith, meaning that obstinate doubt or denial of the truth of the dogma is the sin of heresy–a sin against the virtue of faith.

Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will. Refusal to submit to doctrines of the Church is not a heresy, not a sin against faith, but a sin against charity. We are called to “obey our leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). To dissent with doctrine is incompatible with humility, loyalty, and charity. It is a matter of placing one’s own fallible intellect and will above that of the mind of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[Petergee]

The charism of infallibility does not only apply to ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope, of which there are two:

1. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2. The Assumption of Mary

No, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ex cathedra pronouncements by Popes (or by Ecumenical Councils ratified by popes). In other words pronouncements by which the pope, speaking as the sucessor of Peter and wishing to confirm his brethren in the faith, proposes a doctrine for belief by all Catholics for all time. The most recent doctrine for which this was done for the first time was the proclamation by Blessed Pope John Paul that Catholics are obliged to believe that the Church has no power or ability to confer the priesthood on a woman.

Practically speaking, unless you are studying for a degree in theology, the average Catholic does not need to know which doctrines are formally infallibly defined and which are not. All you need to know is that you must believe what your pope, and (unless he contradicts the pope) your bishop, and (unless he contradicts your pope or bishop) your parish priest, teaches. And obey all their legitimate commands.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

No, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ex cathedra pronouncements by Popes (or by Ecumenical Councils ratified by popes). In other words pronouncements by which the pope, speaking as the sucessor of Peter and wishing to confirm his brethren in the faith, proposes a doctrine for belief by all Catholics for all time. The most recent doctrine for which this was done for the first time was the proclamation by Blessed Pope John Paul that Catholics are obliged to believe that the Church has no power or ability to confer the priesthood on a woman.

Practically speaking, unless you are studying for a degree in theology, the average Catholic does not need to know which doctrines are formally infallibly defined and which are not. All you need to know is that you must believe what your pope, and (unless he contradicts the pope) your bishop, and (unless he contradicts your pope or bishop) your parish priest, teaches. And obey all their legitimate commands.

No, these are the only ones that have been formally pronounced by a Pope speaking “from the throne of Peter”. There are hundreds that have the same effect, but only these two qualify as truly ex cathedra statements.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Actually the CCC contains a summary of all Church teachings (both infallible and non-infallible) plus disciplines.
Whether they are infallible or non-infallible they must be believed.** The difference is that infallible teachings must be believed beyond all doubt while non-fallible teachings must be believed beyond reasonable doubt.**
Rejecting an infallible teaching would be heresy (a sin of grave matter) while rejecting a non-infallible teaching would not be heresy but would still be a sin of grave matter.

Can you kindly point me to an authoritative source that gives us the freedom of a “reasonable doubt”?

Also, please give some examples of “non-infallible” teachings contained in the Catechism.

You are, perhaps, mixed up on the difference between “dogma” and “doctrine”. A dogma is a formally defined truth; a doctrine is not formally defined, but is still a true teaching. Both are taught infallibly by the Church.

For example: Although the Church has always taught the inherent evil of abortion, it is not a formally defined dogma of the Church. Nevertheless, we are assured of the truth in this doctrine, because the Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals.

Although doctrine may develop over time, the truth at its heart does not change because it is guaranteed to be true.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Abu]

DanteAlighieri
The Immaculate Conception of Mary, The Assumption of Mary
only these two qualify as truly ex cathedra statements.
thistle
Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will.

Both of the above are incorrect.

Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility.

“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, 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.”

Thus:

1. As shepherd and teacher of all Christians – his supreme apostolic authority (ex cathedra)
2. He defines a doctrine of faith or morals for the whole Church

Thus any infallible papal definition is ex cathedra – against contraception, in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and in *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI, 1965).

As post #7 shows, Blessed John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, clarifies:

1. A dogma requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith in belief (#750.1).
2. An infallible doctrine “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) must be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2).The assent required for these doctrines is just as full, unreserved and irrevocable, without the supernatural (theological) virtue of faith for a dogma.

 

[DianaCC]

…the non-infallible teachings with sufficient moral reason…

In practice this usually means “anything you disagree with, for any reason or none”.

Pardon my cynicism :hey_bud:

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Thus:

1. As shepherd and teacher of all Christians – his supreme apostolic authority (ex cathedra)
2. He defines a doctrine of faith or morals for the whole Church

I stand corrected. Perhaps it would’ve been more accurate for me to say that the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were the only ex cathedra pronouncements of dogma, whereas countless other examples exist of defining doctrine. Yes?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DavidFilmer]

That is not speculation. That is the Church saying it does not know what happens to unbaptised babies and it leaves it to the mercy of God.

The speculation is the “hope” mentioned in CCC 1261,

Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

Previous theological though had insisted there WAS no such hope (and theologians speculated about a place called Limbo - a place of complete natural happiness, but not the supernatural happiness of salvation) - which reconciled the hopelessness of salvation for unbaptized babies with the Mercy of God).

Various older catechisms had taught this speculative teaching of Limbo. The current Catechism does not mention Limbo, but speculates on a hope of some “way of salvation” that we know nothing about. Both Limbo and a “hope of salvation” are pure speculation. The fate of unbaptized babies is not part of the Deposit of Faith, and the Church cannot authoritatively teach on this subject.

 

[thistle]

The speculation is the “hope” mentioned in CCC 1261,

Previous theological though had insisted there WAS no such hope (and theologians speculated about a place called Limbo - a place of complete natural happiness, but not the supernatural happiness of salvation) - which reconciled the hopelessness of salvation for unbaptized babies with the Mercy of God).

Various older catechisms had taught this speculative teaching of Limbo. The current Catechism does not mention Limbo, but speculates on a hope of some “way of salvation” that we know nothing about. Both Limbo and a “hope of salvation” are pure speculation. The fate of unbaptized babies is not part of the Deposit of Faith, and the Church cannot authoritatively teach on this subject.

I don’t agree with you. Hope of salvation is not speculation.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t agree with you. Hope of salvation is not speculation.

But the possibility of hope IS. Jesus said, “unless you are baptized of water and the Holy Spirit, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Jesus did not mention the word “except.” Historically, Catholic theologians (including many Popes) have taken this teaching literally - there is NO HOPE for unbaptized babies to realize full salvation. That’s what the whole idea of Limbo is all about. In recent history, respected theologians such as Ludwig Ott and Joesf Ratzinger have speculated there MAY YET be some unknown divine plan for salvation that is not taught in the Deposit of Faith. Both ideas (Limbo and salvation) are pure speculation - neither belong to the Deposit of Fatih. If we take the Gospel at its literal and ultimate meaning, unbaptized babies are burning in hell. This is why the great Calvinist preacher, Jonathan Edwards (a very literal Biblical guy), grimly (and firmly) concluded that* “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized babies.”* That is what the Bible clearly seems to teach. If we don’t wish to speculate on some other possible fate (which is supported neither in Scripture nor in Doctrine), we must agree with Edwards.

 

[Abu]

DanteAlighieri
the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were the only ex cathedra pronouncements of dogma, whereas countless other examples exist of defining doctrine. Yes?

They are the relatively recent ones. Pope Leo I in 449 declared the Divinity of Christ.
Questions People Ask, Fr Leslie Rumble, MSC, STD, Chevalier Books, 1975, p 163].
While not ex cathedra (papal), readers might recall that Ecumenical Councils also declare dogmas – such as in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I.

tinyurl.com/3av8cts
**Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 03-10-2009 (EWTN):**Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of “Ad tuendam fidem” by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]

Examples given:

The articles of faith of the Creed
The various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas
The doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace
The doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration
The foundation of the Church by the will of Christ
The doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff
The doctrine on the existence of original sin
The doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death
The absence of error in the inspired sacred texts
The doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.

Therefore, a dogma is a doctrine “to be believed by divine and Catholic Faith” that has been proposed by the Church to be “divinely and formally revealed.”