Non-Infallible Teachings?

[Inquiringperson]

I have heard the term non-infallible teachings before. I thought everything the Church teaches is infallible. Are they real? If so, what are some examples?

 

[DavidFilmer]

All teachings of the Church are authoritative and binding upon all Catholics. Whether a particular teaching is “infallible” is pretty much irrelevant to the average Catholic layman (it is mainly of interest to theologians).

The Pope can teach infallibly, but he often does not. The Bishops can teach infallibily (usually in an Ecumenical Council) but often do not (even in Council). They have always had this ability, but it was not formally defined until Vatican-1 (in 1870).

We cannot know for sure if any particular teaching is infallible unless the Church tells us so. After Vatican-1 formally defined the criteria for infallibility, some people made “checklists” and tried to determine if prior teachings had been promulgated infallibly (and people still do so today). This is a futile exercise - it proves nothing (it is merely an opinion).

For example, the encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued by Pope Paul-6 in 1968 (this encyclical is best known because it defines artificial birth control as intrinsically sinful). Some people get out their Vatican-1 checklist and determine that Humanae Vitae was promulgated infallibly because it appears to meet all of the criteria. That’s their opinion. The Church has not said it’s infallible, so we can’t say it’s infallible. (but the Church could declare any day that Humanae Vitae is infallible - which would actually mean that it was always infallible but we just didn’t know it for sure until now.)

But it doesn’t matter to Catholics if it is infallible or not. Even if the Church took the unprecedented step of declaring that Humanae Vitae was NOT infallible, it would not matter one bit to Catholics - we still couldn’t use birth control. It would, however, open the remote possibility that some aspects of it could be changed - something that cannot ever happen to infallible doctrine.

 

[thistle]

I have heard the term non-infallible teachings before. I thought everything the Church teaches is infallible. Are they real? If so, what are some examples?

I read one way to explain the difference between infallible and non-infallible is that infallible means beyond all doubt and non-infallible beyond all reasonable doubt.
However, as DavidFilmer has stated it really doesn’t matter if a teaching is infallible or non-infallible because Catholics are bound by both.

 

[Inquiringperson]

All teachings of the Church are authoritative and binding upon all Catholics. Whether a particular teaching is “infallible” is pretty much irrelevant to the average Catholic layman (it is mainly of interest to theologians).

The Pope can teach infallibly, but he often does not. The Bishops can teach infallibily (usually in an Ecumenical Council) but often do not (even in Council). They have always had this ability, but it was not formally defined until Vatican-1 (in 1870).

We cannot know for sure if any particular teaching is infallible unless the Church tells us so. After Vatican-1 formally defined the criteria for infallibility, some people made “checklists” and tried to determine if prior teachings had been promulgated infallibly (and people still do so today). This is a futile exercise - it proves nothing (it is merely an opinion).

For example, the encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued by Pope Paul-6 in 1968 (this encyclical is best known because it defines artificial birth control as intrinsically sinful). Some people get out their Vatican-1 checklist and determine that Humanae Vitae was promulgated infallibly because it appears to meet all of the criteria. That’s their opinion. The Church has not said it’s infallible, so we can’t say it’s infallible. (but the Church could declare any day that Humanae Vitae is infallible - which would actually mean that it was always infallible but we just didn’t know it for sure until now.)

But it doesn’t matter to Catholics if it is infallible or not. Even if the Church took the unprecedented step of declaring that Humanae Vitae was NOT infallible, it would not matter one bit to Catholics - we still couldn’t use birth control. It would, however, open the remote possibility that some aspects of it could be changed - something that cannot ever happen to infallible doctrine.

So the teaching of artificial birth control could be changed?

 

[fames]

So the teaching of artificial birth control could be changed?

Nope, it’s infallible.

**PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE**

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.

 

[FightingFat]

Nope, it’s infallible.

Oh dear, that was a great answer!

I see this like a map. There are mountains, stuff that is huge and foundational, like Jesus is the Son of God. That’s dogma. Then as you get nearer, you see the rivers and trees and smaller details. That’s doctrine.

Some stuff, like priestly celibacy for example, are a discipline, not a doctrine, and therefore open to change. Indeed, priests did marry in the past and still do in the East. Stuff like teaching on ABC or women priests cannot change, because it is not possible to change it: it is a reality.

Our faith is Apostolic, is is a deposit of faith from the Apostles. It develops in the context of modern life (that is, it faces new challenges etc) but the mountains can never change.