R
Randy_Carson
Guest
thistle, wouldn’t this be because so much IS considered to be infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium (I think) that it would be difficult to produce such an extensive list?
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
The question for the alternative magisteria here is, simply:
If the relevance and importance of infallibility is completely irrelevant, why has Christ endowed His Church with this charism which was clarified by definition at a time of great crisis to meet and defeat the error of Gallicanism in the nineteenth century, and denial of which incurs excommunication – **“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)?
If the relevance and importance of infallibility is completely irrelevant, why has Christ endowed His Church with this charism which was clarified by definition at a time of great crisis to meet and defeat the error of Gallicanism in the nineteenth century, and denial of which incurs excommunication – **“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)?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This is how I see it.
The Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. Period.
Occasionally, something is highlighted by an ex cathedra statement which serves to finalize or emphasize a point, but generally, EVERYTHING is understood to be infallibly taught.
A
Abu
Guest
The fact that many millions may not, or don’t know what is infallible or not, is irrelevant, for the purpose of infallibility is to protect against error being taught to them, and to assist in ensuring that those who are entrusted with their formation know what is true and what is not, and to enable the correction and/or censure of those who imbibe and teach error whether concerning worship or in the daily lives in their marriages, families and society.
For the myopic, post #17 specifically refers to “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.”
Refer to post #17.
On Bl Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998:
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
For the myopic, post #17 specifically refers to “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.”
False.
Refer to post #17.
On Bl Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998:
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
T
thistle
Guest
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Try almost all Catholics and not just many millions.
That is what we have being saying all along. It makes no difference to the faithful which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible because we are bound by both. The Church obviously does not think it important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible or non-infallible otherwise they would publish a list and ask the faithful to read it.
I would be willing to bet that nobody in these forums, including you, knows every infallible teaching. However, if I am wrong and you have a list from the Church we would be interested in seeing it.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
“Considered” by whom? Aquinas? Rumble? Carty? Ott? Keating? You? Me?
These theologians might agree on many points, but that hardly constitutes the infallible doctrine of the Church. Because, today, we have TWO types of doctrine: infallible and (by process of elimination) fallible doctrines. The Church never had “fallible” doctrines until She had defined the idea of “infallible” doctrines. With that definition, the Church established a “hierarchy of truth” in which nearly EVERY Catholic Doctrine could be categorically identified as “fallible.” This definition immediately rendered EVERY prior Papal teaching, and EVERY Ecumenical Council teaching, to the de-facto status of “fallible” (which means "maybe true, maybe false).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First, you might be interested in this: “What is the Magisterium?” by Thomas Storck.
Second, the rule of what we must believe as Catholics was defined by the First Vatican Council thus:
Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching [magisterium], proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.
So, there are three levels apparently:
Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra and ratified councils)
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
Ordinary Magisterium
And then, as Abu right noted (and I was mistaken) there is:
Dogma
Infallible Doctrine
Doctrine
I’m actually beginning a study of infallibility today, so when I have figured it all out, I will get back to you with an infallible explanation.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
You are correct about #3 - my bad for overlooking that, and I was in error when I stated that everything is infallible. It would be more accurate to say that everything in these three categories must be believed.
A
Abu
Guest
Dear Randy
The facts that you have from Bl John Paul II’s *Ad Tuendam Fidem *illustrates the importance of understanding the meaning of the great gift of infallibility which Christ conferred on His Church through St Peter.
As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out:
“The real irritant here, as before, is the Church’s teaching authority in the moral sphere. And the familiar ploy is to play down to the point of removing the infallibility of the Church’s universal but ordinary Magisterium, while playing up the extraordinary Magisterium in solemn definitions of the popes or ecumenical councils.”
But with the Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, we find that it has six emphatic parts:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance,
a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,
in virtue of our ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32)
we declare that
the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women
and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
These six emphatic parts of the doctrine each contributes to the gravity and significance of this doctrine and together reveal it as ex cathedra. “The Holy Father declares a divine thing (or an act of Christ) and he declares that this thing is definitive tenendam.” (Br Ansgar Santogrossi, O.S.B.).
Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Ignatius Press, February 1999
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: A definition ex cathedra
By Ansgar Santogrossi
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=835
The facts that you have from Bl John Paul II’s *Ad Tuendam Fidem *illustrates the importance of understanding the meaning of the great gift of infallibility which Christ conferred on His Church through St Peter.
As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out:
“The real irritant here, as before, is the Church’s teaching authority in the moral sphere. And the familiar ploy is to play down to the point of removing the infallibility of the Church’s universal but ordinary Magisterium, while playing up the extraordinary Magisterium in solemn definitions of the popes or ecumenical councils.”
But with the Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, we find that it has six emphatic parts:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance,
a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,
in virtue of our ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32)
we declare that
the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women
and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
These six emphatic parts of the doctrine each contributes to the gravity and significance of this doctrine and together reveal it as ex cathedra. “The Holy Father declares a divine thing (or an act of Christ) and he declares that this thing is definitive tenendam.” (Br Ansgar Santogrossi, O.S.B.).
Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Ignatius Press, February 1999
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: A definition ex cathedra
By Ansgar Santogrossi
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=835
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
In your defense Randy, I would also add, that the reason everything that the Church teaches should be (at the very least) given a “loyal submission of the will and intellect,” is BECAUSE the Church is infallible.
Now to be more specific. Let’s go back to our earlier example of the death of the Virgin Mary. Here we have Blessed Pope JPII explicitly teaching that the Virgin Mary did in fact die.
This would fall into the third category:
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.
But does this doctrine get a loyal submission of the will and intellect? NO! The clergy are teaching in opposition to the Pope, Liturgical texts, ancient and continuous teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, and saying instead, that because it is NOT INFALLIBLY DEFINED, it is totally optional to believe or disbelieve.
This is the state of affairs we have now in the USA.
IOW, even the clergy (by that I mean parish priests -and not all of course) do NOT understand the doctrine of infallibility, and are spreading their ignorance daily. If they did understand, they would not say things like it is totally optional, instead they would reinforce the doctrine that we have been handed down, not just from Bl. Pope JPII, but also the Liturgy and the Ordinary Magisterium.Lumen Gentium 25:
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
And that’s the problem.
It was fine when Ludwig Ott and other theologians categorized Catholic dogma according to their own “hierarchy of truth.” The problem comes when the Catholic Church establishes such a hierarchy. The Church established (in the mind of the Faithful) a fanciful idea that only “top shelf” (infallible) doctrines are binding. After all, why would such a distinction exist in the first place? The Church has “infallible” dogma, which (by process of elimination) means that ALL OTHER DOGMA is “fallible.”
Nonsense. The Church admits no such thing as “fallible” dogma. But Vatican-1 (and Canon Law) creates an entire body of “fallible” dogma.
The modern Church ought to be busy in defining EVERY infallible Dogma as infallibly taught.
A
Abu
Guest
False. Only dissenters rile against Vatican I and Canon Law and their selfism warrants the strictures of Vatican I:
“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)
The pathetic constant whimpering against the Magisterium by a few is confined to those who are wrapped up in their own feelings, not in accord with the teaching of the Church.
Bl Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 teaches the truths of faith:
**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
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Whether infallible or fallible all I know is go with what the Catholic Church teaches and you have a chance at going to Heaven–go against the teaching of the Catholic Church and you have a chance at going to Hell!
C
clmowry
Guest
I think this hits the nail on the head.
If I can get the list of 3 things that have been infallibly defined, then I can ignore everything else at my own discretion, because it could change, because it hasn’t been “infallibly” defined.
For some reason this thinking seems to be closely tied to the issue of the ordination of women.
The Church puts out a long document on why it has no authority to do so i.e. it will never happen, but if I can say this was not an “infallible” teaching then I can continue to argue about it because the Church might change its mind???
Chuck
C
clmowry
Guest
Yep.
I think the real issue folks try to tackle with “infallibility” is whether or not something is a changeable discipline or unchangeable dogma.
Otherwise, it doesn’t really matter whether something was taught “infallibly” or not.
Chuck
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I think you are missing the point. What everyone is basically saying is that in the popular Catholic mind (say in the US) infallibility is grossly misunderstood. This is after more than a hundred years of its definition. Therefore I think it is unfair to characterize those who do not properly understand it as dissenters. In fact, they probably think of themselves as knowledgeable Catholics, and they are probably backed up by their parish priest!
So what a lot of us are saying is that rather than trying to catechize the Faithful in all of the degrees and nuances of infallibility as defined by Vatican I, and further enlarged by Popes and Theologians since then, we try to return to the previous understanding (which has NOT changed) that because the Church is infallible, we should believe ALL that is taught by the Church. Let those with the desire to know everything there is to know about infallibility learn it, but do not make it a grueling over-emphasized doctrine for the Faithful at large. That is how we got into this mess in the first place!
A
Abu
Guest
- “The point” is to listen, learn and obey the Church through the Keeper of the Keys. Vatican I, Vatican II, Ad Tuendam Fidem.
- “What everyone is basically saying”– as Msgr George A Kelly pointedly reminds: “The *sensus fidei *of the Catholic Church calls for Catholics to ‘think with the Church’…” *Battle for the American Church (Revisited), *Ignatius, 1995, p 33].
- If the “popular Catholic mind” misunderstands, what are they and you doing to help others to know and assent to the truth.
- When the Vicar of Christ solemnly pronounces “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), and the studied, ad nauseam pontificating against that stricture is ‘*Vatican-1 (and Canon Law) creates an entire body of “fallible” dogma’ *(DavidFilmer) what is “unfair” about the correctly identifying such a dissenter?
- *Donum Veritatis *(CDF, 1990) completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia [1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called ‘dissent’, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I’m not sure where this hostility you express comes from. Have I somehow offended you in some other thread?
I have not said that the Church should not have defined the nature of infallible teaching. I have questioned the wisdom of officially categorizing ANY teaching as infallible. It’s one thing to define what infallibility looks like, and it is quite another thing to categorize ANY teachings as infallible. Which, according to my list, would mean that the Church has infallibly taught exactly three Doctrines. Which is nonsense (and you have not proposed a more inclusive list, and I know that you cannot, so I absolved you of the challenge to provide it, although if you COULD do so, it would be quite an accomplishment).
OK, you claim to be Catholic. Can you show me (in the terms of Vatican-1 and Vatican-2, and as codified by the Code of Canon Law (#749)) that the doctrine of transubstantiation has EVER been infallibly defined? Can you even show me that the DIVINITY OF JESUS has EVER been infallibly defined?
Of course, you cannot,unless you resort to the “no duh” defense. 99% of Catholic dogma cannot be categorically termed “infallible” (which means it must be fallible). Nonsense.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I wonder that too. It’s as if he is channeling some rogue Ultramontane spirit!
T
thistle
Guest
I am repeating my post from #44. Why will you not answer my question/points or are you unable to?
**Try almost all Catholics and not just many millions.
That is what we have being saying all along. It makes no difference to the faithful which teachings are infallible and which are non-infallible because we are bound by both. The Church obviously does not think it important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible or non-infallible otherwise they would publish a list and ask the faithful to read it.
I would be willing to bet that nobody in these forums, including you, knows every infallible teaching. However, if I am wrong and you have a list from the Church we would be interested in seeing it.**
- Status