Papal infallibility (Merged threads)

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #20
only those teachings which are declared as divinely revealed are to be regarded as infallible (that’s what “divinely revealed” means - ONLY that which is “divinely revealed” can be regarded as infallible, since anything else is, umm, not “divinely revealed” and thus possibly subject to error, as God alone (and teachings that he reveals) can be infallible).

Catholics should know that from Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I that ‘the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility expressly said that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) - a general term which covers both dogmas and the secondary, related truths. Also, *Pastor Aeternus *speaks of the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be “held” (tenendam) by all the faithful, not only what must be “believed” (credendam). If the latter word had been used, this might have suggested that only what is an object of faith in the strict sense (i.e., revealed truth) can be infallibly taught. Furthermore, Vatican II, in *Lumen Gentium *25, concurs with Vatican I that infallibility is not limited strictly to what is divinely revealed. Rather, it affirms that this deposit of divine revelation has to be “devoutly guarded and faithfully expounded” (sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum), so that infallibility extends as far as may be necessary for doing precisely that.’ [My emphasis].
See Fr Brian Harrison, O.S. on Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità, 1986, by Fr Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html ]

Thus the error lies in imagining that only what is “divinely revealed” can be infallible!

Readers should know by now that some try to ignore Bl John Paul’s Motu Proprio which empathically states the reality that it is NOT “only those teachings which are declared as divinely revealed are to be regarded as infallible” (David Filmer, post #20). The reality is that Bl John Paul II has taught clearly in his Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, that the assent of divine and Catholic faith is required to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1); and 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 including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

Thus:
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.

Readers can rest assured that no one can overrule the CDF in defining that truths to be held definitively include the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts).

 

[Starrsmother]

How does one discuss papal infallibility, ex-cathedra/ cathedra without it sounding like this is a scape goat for papal infallibility. If the pope was truly infallible why would he not always be infallible when he spoke about the faith, but only when he speaks ex-cathedra?

When the post speaks ex-cathedra/cathreda you will know it–he will leave no doubt as to the fact that whatever he is teaching is to be accepted by Catholics as infallible truth.

Other than at those specific times, the pope is a man and a priest. He is perhaps a very good and holy man, a very educated and wise man–but he is still a man and speaks as such. I think that this is at least a portion of the hullabaloo surrounding Pope Francis’ press conferences. In these interviews, the pope spoke as a priest and pastor and as the leader on earth of the Catholic church—but he never claimed to be speaking infallibly.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ah, I had not thought the Church had officially addressed whether canonization of Saints is to be regarded as infallible. This statement settles the question beyond all doubt - Canonizations are NOT regarded as infallible.

I don’t think that the mention of “the canonization of saints” as an example in the doctrinal commentary for Ad Tuendam Fidem “settles the question beyond all doubt”. An infallible teaching of the Church on any question would be needed to settle the question beyond all doubt. Non-infallible teachings are subject to limited licit theological dissent. But I doubt that this mention in Ad Tuendam Fidem constitutes even a non-infallible teaching.

Unfortunately, in contentious debates online, any mention in a magisterial document that seems to support one point of view or the other tends to be represented as if it were a dogma. But a temperate assessment of the current evidence on the question leads me to the conclusion that the question is still open. The majority opinion of theologians does not place canonizations under dogmatic facts. And there is no clear and specific teaching on that point from the Magisterium.

Certainly, a list of examples in a commentary by the CDF on another document is not itself an exercise of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and it is doubtful that it constitutes, in and of itself, a non-infallible teaching. An example from the documents of the Councils of Florence and of Trent proves this point.

Each Council infallibly defined the Canon of Scripture. In referring to the letter to the Hebrews, each Council attributed its authorship to Paul. And Trent, in referring to the letters of John attributed these to John the Apostle. The Canon was thus infallibly defined. But the Councils did not intend to infallibly declare the authorship of each book. So when they stated the common opinion as to authorship, this has never been understood by the Church as definitive. Catholics are still free to hold that Hebrews was written by someone other than Paul (perhaps a disciple of his), and that the John of the Epistles was different than John the Apostle.

So the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger mentions the canonization of Saints as an example of dogmatic facts does not establish that answer to the question as definitive.

 

[Abu]

Ron Conte #23
I doubt that this mention in Ad Tuendam Fidem constitutes even a non-infallible teaching.
the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger mentions the canonization of Saints as an example of dogmatic facts does not establish that answer to the question as definitive.

Against such ramblings belittling the CDF and Cardinal Ratzinger for the musings of dissenters, we have the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., similarly citing the Magisterium: “The papal infallibility defined by the Church refers not only to the occasional exercise of the Pope’s prerogative to proclaim such dogmas as the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin, or such dogmatic facts as the canonization of saints.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 231].

Notice that this was well before even the 1983 revision of Canon Law which 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.

Fr Hardon thus clearly explains the same truth which the EWTN Q&A, by Dr David Gregson, another acknowledged faithful Catholic, enunciates 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)…”

Non-infallible teachings are subject to limited licit theological dissent.

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Bl 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].

Donum Veritatis, 1990 (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian), CDF (Cardinal Ratzinger), 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.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

The U.S. Bishops issued a document, which you can read at priests for life:
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/68-11-15humanlifeinourdaynccb.htm
or at EWTN:
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/USBPSHV.HTM
See the section subtitled “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent”, n. 49 to 54 which begins:
“There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent.”

The document goes on to describe the nature and limits of licit theological dissent from a non-infallible teaching. Anyone who disagrees with this teaching of the U.S. Bishops that some dissent from non-infallible teachings is licit is thereby dissenting from a non-infallible teaching.

My assessment that the mention of canonizations in the commentary on ATF is not a teaching per se is a legitimate consideration. Not every sentence in every magisterial document is a teaching.

And let me say, just one more time, that all citations from theologians and similar non-magisterial texts are not an act of the Magisterium, and so these citations do not prove that canonizations fall under any form of infallibility. In fact, the diversity of views as to the type of infallibility shows a lack of unanimity even among theologians. It is an open question; the faithful are free to believe any answer that does not contradict doctrine or dogma.

 

[Abu]

It should have been obvious that the CDF in 1990 in *Donum Veritatis *exposed the errors by the U.S, Bishops in 1968. The CDF has been explicit and so has Bl John Paul II: ‘There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Bl 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].

How difficult it is for some to realise and understand the teaching of the Popes and the need for fidelity, and that some bishops can and do err in being faithful to that teaching.

How Dissent Became Institutionalized in the Church in America
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
'In the minds of the bishops in 1968, these *Norms of Licit Dissent *were perhaps drawn up and included in their Pastoral Letter in order to try to re-impose some measure of episcopal control and oversight over a situation of dissent that had literally already gotten out of hand. Whatever the original intention, however, the Norms only made a bad situation worse. It was simply unreal to speak about dissent that did not “question or impugn the teaching of the Church” when it was the object of the dissent from *Humanae Vitae *to question and impugn the authority of the Church. Similarly, it was idle to attempt to require that dissent could only be expressed “with propriety,” when the favored method of the dissenters was precisely to challenge the pope’s teaching with maximum publicity, hopefully in or through the mass media.

'In short, the Norms were fundamentally misconceived and incoherent; and even if it could be shown that they were in any sense valid, they certainly did not apply to the kind of dissent the Church was facing. Virtually none of the dissent of 1968 and after was carried out in accordance with these Norms or with anything resembling them.

‘Yet the fact that such Norms could be found in an official bishops’ document served to create the illusion and the justification that, yes, dissent from Church teaching could somehow be “licit.” By admitting that dissent could ever be licit, the bishops simply invited dissenters in all cases to assert that their particular dissent was licit. Any bishop even contemplating disciplining or removing a dissenter henceforth had to admit the plea that the dissent of the latter was, after all, at least arguably licit, according to the bishops’ own criteria. In practice, virtually all dissent was thereby enabled to be considered licit.

'Tolerated dissent thus fostered widespread disloyalty to the Church. It fostered dishonesty too, since the pretence had to be maintained that those who were disloyal were not to be judged disloyal under the regime of the Norms.

‘It was in this fashion, then, that theological dissent from magisterial teaching became virtually “institutionalized” in the Church in the United States. That this was hardly the intention of the bishops does not alter the fact that it was the almost inevitable result of their unwise attempt to lay out official “Norms” for what amounted to simple rejection of the Church’s teaching.’

Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education. He has authored or coauthored nine books, as well as many articles, and is the translator of some twenty published books.
Ignatius Press - The Homiletic & Pastoral Reviewcatholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1209

No, those bishops were not consistent with Donum Veritatis precisely because they assume a “licit dissent” and “which in practice, as far as the theological community was concerned, became ‘the ‘right of public dissent’.” Battle For the American Church (Revisited), Ignatius, 1995, Msgr George a Kelly, p 73].

Not only do the U.S. Bishops’ Norms of Licit Theological Dissent, 1968, 51, not rule out public dissent from the Magisterium, but the bishops acquiesced in the public dissent of the unfaithful theologians already raging. It is the laxity in fidelity of too many bishops at that time, and the acquiescence of officials of the Vatican at that time in the subsequent Truce of 1968 in the U.S., which allowed the culture of dissent to flourish – in seminaries, parishes, schools and universities. [See George Weigel, *The Courage To Be Catholic, Chap 3: How The Crisis Happened, Basic Books 2002].

 

[tdgesq]

Ah, I had not thought the Church had officially addressed whether canonization of Saints is to be regarded as infallible. This statement settles the question beyond all doubt - Canonizations are NOT regarded as infallible.

And how exactly does that statement prove that canonizations are not regarded as infallible, as opposed to the exact opposite proposition. Read the entire document. good grief.