On the importance of understanding infallibility

[thistle]

Such naïveté. Is it from among the starving and the impecunious that subversion and contradiction arise against the Magisterium, and doctrine, or is it from the Karl Rahners, the Richard McBriens, the Hans Kungs and the many dissenters who have written and subverted the faith and morals of Catholics in developed countries?

The need for thinking Catholics to understand is emphasised by none other than Bl John Paul II when he specifically issued Ad Tuendam Fidem to make a difference for thinking Catholics.

The CCC #88 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) (Canon #750.1).

A category two 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). So both the dogmas and the infallible (definitive) doctrines that are secondary truths, require an assent of faith, though there is a distinction between theological faith and ecclesial faith.

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

by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

That is precisely why the 1983 revision of Canon Law replaced in Canon 749:3 “dogmatically (‘dogmatice’) declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”. This removes any occasion for equating “infallible” with “dogmatic”, an equation which unduly limits papal infallibility. Such a limitation is clearly not contained in the Vatican I dogma on papal infallibility.

Thus the three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
[ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM]](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM])

Catholics are bound by all teachings so it does not matter to the masses which teaching is which, and in fact it is hardly possible to know which is which, certainly not from the CCC. If it was so important for all Catholics to know which teachings are infallible or non-infallible why does the Church not have a list of infallible teachings or even state in the CCC which ones are infallible. That would be very simple to do. Please answer that.

Then I notice you ignored my other question. How do you propose to inform all 1.2 billion Catholics in the world as the Church does not have a list of infallible teachings to hand out?

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #20
who says that the definition of Papal infallibility is itself infallible teaching?
I don’t think it actually qualifies.

Really?

From post #6:
*Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I, the teaching:
Chapter 3.
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff … we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma…. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The conclusion:
“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 9)

So although this Council was confirmed by the Vicar of Christ, the selfist knows better than the Vicar of Christ! What a farce do some make by trashing the reality of Catholicism for as CCC 1816 emphasises: “The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it:” Some example!

It was taught by an Ecumenical Council, but we didn’t have “rules” for how Councils teach infallibly until Vatican-2 (V-1 was limited to Papal infallibility only).

Really? As though the development of doctrine is something new, when St Vincent of Lerins could describe this in the fifth century.

It is vital to know also that Bl Pope John XXIII declared in opening Vatican II: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling. One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, *Creed and Catechetics, Msgr E Kevane P 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century.

In Mysterium Ecclesiae, (CDF, 1973, #5): “For this reason also it often happens that ancient dogmatic formulas and others closely connected with them remain living and fruitful in the habitual usage of the Church, but with suitable expository and explanatory additions that maintain and clarify their original meaning. In addition, it has sometimes happened that in this habitual usage of the Church certain of these formulas gave way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the Sacred Magisterium, presented more clearly or more completely the same meaning.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

Absolutely – which is very different from Ambrose’s “that it is merely an extension of Church Infallibility,” because the Pope holds the undisputed primacy over the Church as well as the reality that the “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

I did much research on Vatican I by reading the official relatio behind the council definition. While the Pope does have special primacy, the phrase “not by consent of the Church” seems to be more of a juridical statement––i.e. that the Pope’s definitive statement does not need additional Magisterial approval after he makes it. Prior to making a definition, however, the relatio reveals a discussion that holds a certain moral obligation or “rule” that the Pope should consult the sources of revelation, including the work of the Spirit in the early Church or preceding statements of Magisterial voices. In other words, he doesn’t act as an island. So just some clarification.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In simpler times, the Church was infallible, and the Pope by his office shared in that infallibility. There were not all of these doctrinal quibbles…I am just stating facts

This is where I disagree. I do not think the above is “fact.” I think doctrinal quibbles have existed from the beginning, widespread and vehement oftentimes. There is no era of simpler times and doctrinal quibbles before-and-after Vatican I. My opinion.

 

[Abu]

Marco Polo #23
Prior to making a definition, however, the relatio reveals a discussion that holds a certain moral obligation or “rule” that the Pope should consult the sources of revelation, including the work of the Spirit in the early Church or preceding statements of Magisterial voices. In other words, he doesn’t act as an island.

Absolutely correct, while possessing and exercising finally his undisputed primacy.

#24
I think doctrinal quibbles have existed from the beginning, widespread and vehement oftentimes. There is no era of simpler times and doctrinal quibbles before-and-after Vatican I.

Again, a fact. Such realistic contributions are appreciated.

We have only to look at the problems St Peter had to deal with and his “firsts”:
Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter initiated the election of the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

“So great fear came upon all the Church and upon all who heard these things. And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.” (Acts 5:11-13).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

 

[DavidFilmer]

We have only to look at the problems St Peter had to deal with and his “firsts”: Peter this, blah blah blah, Peter that, etc]

You seem to be confusing the Catholic idea of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope with the idea of Papal infallibility. The two have NOTHING to do with each other. The Pope could possess universal jurisdiction without possessing infallibility (there’s no theological reason why one requires the other). If the Pope DOES have universal jurisdiction then he really does not NEED infallibility. And, indeed, the Church got by quite well for more than eighteen centuries without a SINGLE Papal teaching (or Council teaching) being defined as infallible.

If you want to claim that universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is important then you will have no argument from me (and this is really the source of the rift between Latins and Orthodox). But you need to understand that universal jurisdiction and infallibility are not the same thing, and are not actually related in any way whatsoever. I don’t think you really understand that concept, because you seem to cite things that support universal jurisdiction, while you cite nothing that supports infallibility.

Years ago, when I was as ignorant as you, I made a post on this forum demanding a list of infallible teachings, or a cogent explanation of why no such list could ever be made (because many other threads asked for this list, and everybody said that no such list was possible, which seemed ludicrous to me at the time). That was back in the days when I agreed with you, that infallibility is important. If it’s important, then the Church ought to at least be able to give us a list of such teachings. I learned that there is no such list, and no such list can be made, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY MATTER (so I retract my challenge that you provide such a list, as such a list cannot be compiled. It was a trick). My original demand for this list was based on my assumption that infallibility DID matter. My assumption was wrong. If it DOES matter (for specific doctrines), then the Church could give us a definitive list of infallible doctrines. The Church gives us nothing of the kind. If it DOES matter, then it would be the ONLY doctrine that the Church teaches which She cannot (or will not) actually define and enumerate.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This is where I disagree. I do not think the above is “fact.” I think doctrinal quibbles have existed from the beginning, widespread and vehement oftentimes. There is no era of simpler times and doctrinal quibbles before-and-after Vatican I. My opinion.

What I meant was doctrinal quibbles on Papal infallibility. Of course it was debated in theological circles, but the faithful and other Christians just thought of it as but one Chruch teaching among many. Now everything has been turned upside down, in a sense. Now everything begins first of all by deciding the infallibility of the teaching before the teaching is even accepted. This was not how things were in simpler times.

The REAL problem is how negatively it has impacted the Catholic Faithful. It has become a focus of constant deliberation about EVERYTHING the Pope says or does. It has also caused much misunderstanding, as I said earlier, to the point where it is assumed that the Pope is the source of infallibility. People want a list of all infallible doctrines. IOW, people won’t assent to a teaching unless it is somehow stamped infallible. Otherwise it becomes optional. People are constantly trying to understand Papal infallibility as if that is ALL the Church teaches. Indeed, in their minds, no belief is possible without that knowledge.

You may disagree with my view, and that is understandable, but I am just stating facts as I see and experience them. Perhaps you have surveys and studies which contradict what I am saying. If so I would be interested to learn of them.

 

[jimmy]

What I meant was doctrinal quibbles on Papal infallibility. Of course it was debated in theological circles, but the faithful and other Christians just thought of it as but one Chruch teaching among many. Now everything has been turned upside down, in a sense. Now everything begins first of all by deciding the infallibility of the teaching before the teaching is even accepted. This was not how things were in simpler times.

The REAL problem is how negatively it has impacted the Catholic Faithful. It has become a focus of constant deliberation about EVERYTHING the Pope says or does. It has also caused much misunderstanding, as I said earlier, to the point where it is assumed that the Pope is the source of infallibility. People want a list of all infallible doctrines. IOW, people won’t assent to a teaching unless it is somehow stamped infallible. Otherwise it becomes optional. People are constantly trying to understand Papal infallibility as if that is ALL the Church teaches. Indeed, in their minds, no belief is possible without that knowledge.

You may disagree with my view, and that is understandable, but I am just stating facts as I see and experience them. Perhaps you have surveys and studies which contradict what I am saying. If so I would be interested to learn of them.

I have noticed the same thing. People’s perception of the faith has changed. Now what matters is what has been infallibly defined. Everything else is irrelevant and up for grabs. Christianity is reduced to a few declarative sentences. They have traded tradition for infallibility.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #27
People are constantly trying to understand Papal infallibility as if that is ALL the Church teaches. Indeed, in their minds, no belief is possible without that knowledge.
Jimmy #28
They have traded tradition for infallibility.

On the contrary, the fact that assent to truth, judged by the much reduced attendance at Sunday Mass compared with up to Vatican II, has been largely cast aside, indicates that there is little interest in any truths of faith much less infallibility in a majority of “Catholics”, now, with relativism and secularism rampant and producing the contraceptive mentality.

What is ignored is the fact that:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against *Humanae Vitae *by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have noticed the same thing. People’s perception of the faith has changed. Now what matters is what has been infallibly defined. Everything else is irrelevant and up for grabs. Christianity is reduced to a few declarative sentences. They have traded tradition for infallibility.

When I was a quasi-Catholic protestant (traditional Anglican), I was under the impression that Catholics were required to believe only teachings that had been declared infallible, and they were free to accept or reject all other teaching. I learned about Catholic teaching by reading Ott, and imagined that the doctrines that he labels “de Fide” (infallible) were actually defined by the Church as such. I was shocked to learn that almost NOTHING has been defined as infallibly taught, and this was merely Ott’s opinion. I think he got it right (as if I’m qualified to judge Ott), but that just means my opinion agrees.

I just noticed another thread posted today in which someone is asking if Humani Generis is taught ex Cathedra. One wonders why the OP would care one way or another. Like 99% of Papal teaching, the answer is “we don’t know. The Church has not said. And it doesn’t matter anyway”

 

[Abu]

The simplistic feeling, the monotonous and erroneous mantra with the air of infallibility – that “infallibility doesn’t actually matter” is the petard on which some are hoist – the double whammy of not knowing the practicality of Christ’s gift to His Church as well as playing parallel magisterium.

The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out the results of the loss of infallibility in the thousands of sects: “in the 16th century, when whole nations broke with Catholic unity and, as a result, were deprived of many of the treasures of infallibility….treasures of grace, locked up in the Catholic Church’s assurance of truth.” The Teaching Church In Our Time, in How Infallible Is The Teaching Church?, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 110].

 

[thistle]

I see you haven’t responded to David’s post or my question already asked more than once.

I’ll ask again. When the Church does not publish a list anywhere of infallible teachings how do you propose to inform the 1.2 billion Catholics which teachings are infallible.

 

[tdgesq]

In the Apologetics thread Is the lumen fidei an infallible document?, DavidFilmer contended that:
Such an error concerning a document of the importance of a papal Apostolic Epistle (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) explains the poster’s confusion.
With that attitude, such “laypeople” will never be able to understand, explain or defend Christ’s charisma of infallibility to His Church, protected by the Holy Spirit.

David’s comment is correct. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an exercise of the infallible papal teaching Magisterium, as priestly ordination of men only had already been infallibly defined by the ordinary and universal teaching Magisterium. Pope Benedict, then Joseph Ratzinger, affirmed that this is the case here:

Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.Letter Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Looks like you owe David an apology.

 

[jimmy]

Like 99% of Papal teaching, the answer is “we don’t know. The Church has not said. And it doesn’t matter anyway”

I have made a similar point before. Infallibility doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether a doctrine is declared infallibly, because a Christian/Catholic has faith. Infallibility gets in the way by making people question everything but what was declared infallibly. An example is on the question of whether Mary died. The whole tradition says Mary died, and even the document that declared the Assumption says so. But people doubt it because it isn’t included in the sentence that declared the Assumption. It is almost as if people have lost faith and become doubters, except when they are told they aren’t allowed to doubt. Infallibility has become an excuse to be a minimalist.

 

[jimmy]

Catholics are bound by all teachings so it does not matter to the masses which teaching is which, and in fact it is hardly possible to know which is which, certainly not from the CCC. If it was so important for all Catholics to know which teachings are infallible or non-infallible why does the Church not have a list of infallible teachings or even state in the CCC which ones are infallible. That would be very simple to do. Please answer that.

Then I notice you ignored my other question. How do you propose to inform all 1.2 billion Catholics in the world as the Church does not have a list of infallible teachings to hand out?

If it is irrelevant to the people then why was it declared? What good does it do to make infallible declarations if we don’t need to even know what is infallibly declared?

 

[DavidFilmer]

It is almost as if people have lost faith and become doubters, except when they are told they aren’t allowed to doubt. Infallibility has become an excuse to be a minimalist.

Agreed. I think it would be better if the Church had never defined the nature of infallible teaching (or, perhaps, defined it, but never designated anything as infallible - it would be like “saving a seat” in the hierarchy of truth).

For eighteen centuries, the Church had only ONE hierarchy of truth. It was what the Church taught. Now we have two. It has contributed nothing, and it has led to much confusion.

If we examine Vatican-1 (which defined how Popes teach infallibly) and Vatican-2 (which defined how Ecumenical Councils and the dispersed Bishops teach infallibly) in the light of the Code of Canon Law #749 (which defines how we are to understand which doctrines have been classified as infallible by the Church), we are forced to conclude that the Church has infallibly taught exactly three doctrines (ironically, the doctrines that defined how these doctrines can be infallibly defined (the First and Second Vatican Councils) have not themselves been identified as infallible).

But, of course, that’s absurd. We are forced to conclude that NO Ecumenical Council ever produced anything that we can label “infallible.” Trent becomes “opinion” in the minds of many. Yeah, Trent tossed out anathemas left and right, but Vatican-2 (which defined how Ecumenical Councils teach infallibly) does not say that a Council exercises the charism of infallibility by issuing anathemas. So NOTHING that Trent says can be termed infallible today, even if we get out our Vatican-2 checklist and attempt to apply it to Trent. Just so we’re clear - this includes transubstantiation. Trent is the ultimate “dogmatic Council,” but nothing it taught can be definitively called dogmatic today.

Ridiculous! No Catholic theologian on earth would contest that transubstantiation is infallibly taught. But the Church has not said so. Before the Church defined infallibility (of Popes and Ecumenical Councils) and codified it into Canon Law, nobody could contest that transubstantiation is doctrine. And nobody can do so today. So, what’s the difference today? It is this question: Is transubstantiation infallible doctrine? 200 years ago, someone would have responded to that question with another question: “Is it what?” Because the question would not have made sense 200 years ago. But it (and similar questions) are asked all the time today. And, usually, asked for the wrong reasons.

The question should never be asked. It is the doctrine of the Church, and it must be accepted by all faithful Catholics. Whether it has been defined as infallible is irrelevant. Whenever it (or any similar) question is asked, the “real” question is almost always, “do I HAVE to believe this to be a faithful Catholic?”

Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine. Whether it is infallible is completely irrelevant.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

DavidFilmer:

Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine. Whether it is infallible is completely irrelevant.

Or stated another way: Catholic doctrine is infallible whether or not it is infallibly declared.

jimmy:

An example is on the question of whether Mary died. The whole tradition says Mary died, and even the document that declared the Assumption says so. But people doubt it because it isn’t included in the sentence that declared the Assumption. It is almost as if people have lost faith and become doubters, except when they are told they aren’t allowed to doubt. Infallibility has become an excuse to be a minimalist.

So in the example above the death of the Virgin Mary is already infallibly taught. We already have long standing tradition, the entire Eastern Church’s teaching, Pope JPII teaching on that very subject, the Liturgies (both the Mass and Hours) teaching it and innumerable other ways the Church holds to this belief.

But as Jimmy noted it is STILL NOT BELIEVED, because there is no Papal Infallible document to that effect.

The worst of it is, that this is what THE CLERGY are teaching their flocks! By that I mean, the clergy (parish priests) are teaching that because it has not been INFALLIBLY DECLARED that the Virgin Mary died in no uncertain infallible terms, they (their flock) are free to believe anything they want!!! IOW, ignore ALL of the ordinary Magisterial teaching since it is FALLIBLE!

 

[Abu]

The simpletons’ approach, under the guise of erudition, is quite appalling when, against the Magisterial dogma, the feeling is projected ad nauseam as a selfist dogma that Christ’s gift of infallibility to His Church is “completely irrelevant” – *“Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine. Whether it is infallible is completely irrelevant.” *(The Filmer fulmination)

tdgesq #33
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an exercise of the infallible papal teaching Magisterium, as priestly ordination of men only had already been infallibly defined by the ordinary and universal teaching Magisterium. Pope Benedict, then Joseph Ratzinger, affirmed that this is the case

This is a summary of Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Pope John Paul’s letter [Apostolic Epistle], Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which appeared in the 2 July issue of La Civilta`Cattolica a theological journal published by the Jesuits in Rome

With respect to the doctrinal weight of the pope’s letter [Apostolic Epistle], the Cardinal points out: In the letter [Apostolic Epistle] it is explicitly said that which is affirmed has to be held definitively in the Church. The pope is not proposing a new dogmatic formula, but he is confirming a certainty which in the Church has been continually lived and affirmed. In technical language one would have to say: one is treating here of an act of the authentic ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, of an act therefore not definitive or solemn ex cathedra, even if the object of this act is the declaration of a doctrine taught as definitive and therefore not reformable. This means – as the Note of the Presentation of the document underscores – that it is proposed not as prudential teaching nor as a more probable hypothesis, nor as an operative suggestion, nor as a simple disciplinary disposition, but precisely as “certainly true doctrine.”
ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/RATORDSA.TXT

The ex cathedra status of the definition in O.S. is examined also by Fr Harrison in “Cardinal Ratzinger on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", in *The Priest *(Spring 1994 / Summer 1995, pp. 5-6):

‘His Eminence is right in saying that the new intervention is not a “solemn definition ex cathedra” if what he means is that there are two kinds of *ex cathedra *definition, “solemn” and “non-solemn”, and that the recent declaration is an example of the latter: that is, doctrinal but not dogmatic, definitivus but not definitorius.

‘Sadly, however, Cardinal Ratzinger’s terminology is all too liable to be taken as meaning that the new papal statement is not an ex cathedra definition of any sort, i.e., that it simply is not an exercise of papal infallibility as defined in 1870 by Vatican I. Such an impression is reinforced when His Eminence states, “here we have an act of the ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Admittedly, there is no universal agreement as to what falls into the categories of "ordinary” and “extraordinary” teaching. I personally think these theologians’ terms — not used in official magisterial documents themselves — may often be more confusing than helpful.)’

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

 

[thistle]

The simpletons’ approach, under the guise of erudition, is quite appalling when, against the Magisterial dogma, the feeling is projected ad nauseam as a selfist dogma that Christ’s gift of infallibility to His Church is “completely irrelevant” – *“Catholic doctrine is Catholic doctrine. Whether it is infallible is completely irrelevant.” *(The Filmer fulmination)

This is a summary of Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Pope John Paul’s letter [Apostolic Epistle], Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which appeared in the 2 July issue of La Civilta`Cattolica a theological journal published by the Jesuits in Rome

With respect to the doctrinal weight of the pope’s letter [Apostolic Epistle], the Cardinal points out: In the letter [Apostolic Epistle] it is explicitly said that which is affirmed has to be held definitively in the Church. The pope is not proposing a new dogmatic formula, but he is confirming a certainty which in the Church has been continually lived and affirmed. In technical language one would have to say: one is treating here of an act of the authentic ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, of an act therefore not definitive or solemn ex cathedra, even if the object of this act is the declaration of a doctrine taught as definitive and therefore not reformable. This means – as the Note of the Presentation of the document underscores – that it is proposed not as prudential teaching nor as a more probable hypothesis, nor as an operative suggestion, nor as a simple disciplinary disposition, but precisely as “certainly true doctrine.”
ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/RATORDSA.TXT

The ex cathedra status of the definition in O.S. is examined also by Fr Harrison in “Cardinal Ratzinger on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", in *The Priest *(Spring 1994 / Summer 1995, pp. 5-6):

‘His Eminence is right in saying that the new intervention is not a “solemn definition ex cathedra” if what he means is that there are two kinds of *ex cathedra *definition, “solemn” and “non-solemn”, and that the recent declaration is an example of the latter: that is, doctrinal but not dogmatic, definitivus but not definitorius.

‘Sadly, however, Cardinal Ratzinger’s terminology is all too liable to be taken as meaning that the new papal statement is not an ex cathedra definition of any sort, i.e., that it simply is not an exercise of papal infallibility as defined in 1870 by Vatican I. Such an impression is reinforced when His Eminence states, “here we have an act of the ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Admittedly, there is no universal agreement as to what falls into the categories of "ordinary” and “extraordinary” teaching. I personally think these theologians’ terms — not used in official magisterial documents themselves — may often be more confusing than helpful.)’

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Will you please answer the question I am now asking for the fourth time. If it is so important then why does the Church herself not have a list of all infallible teachings and how would the 1.2 billion Catholics ever get to know what teachings are infallible?

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, there weren’t “claims” defined at Vatican I, dogma was defined.

After the text of the dogma was published, Bl Newman wrote the next day, July 24, 1870, “I personally have no difficulty in admitting it.”
Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, Chevalier Books, 1975, p 160]

“Newman could not accept the validity of his * arguments against the actual definition. Even if the supporting Scripture texts were not convincing (as Newman thought they were), this did not affect the truth of the actual decisions of a Council, which alone were guaranteed…"
Ian Ker: John Henry Newman: A Biography*, probably the most comprehensive and scholarly recent biography of Newman (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988, 764 pages)

The Real John Henry Newman (First Things)
Monday, September 20, 2010
William Doino
‘Regarding Newman and the much-misunderstood doctrine of papal infallibility, which he certainly believed in, even if he disagreed with the exact timing of its definition, I think the best treatment is in Ian Ker’s biography (John Henry Newman, Oxford Univ Press, chapter 17); and also in Father Jaki, who wrote: “His (Newman’s) opposition to the advisability of the definition of papal infallibility always contained emphatic statements of his belief that the popes are infallible and therefore deserve an unreserved assent on our part to what they teach and not, to use some recent phrases of subtle evasiveness, ‘critical obedience,’ or ‘a measure of conservatism.’” In other words, Newman was committed to Catholic orthodoxy – and thus papal authority – with both feet, not one.’
firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/09/20/the-real-john-henry-newman/

“The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed dogma of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine.” [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

Wow. Somebody’s in a bad mood.

It sounds like you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post which explains why the development of the papacy is reasonable.

You might want to read it.