Pope can't be infallible

[jfoges]

I think the thesis that Humanae Vitae is merely a “personal opinion” of the pope which can be licitly dissented with has lost all credibility among the Catholic faithful, clung to only by notoriously dissident theologians.

Dave,

I never said that Humanae Vitae is merely a personal opinion of the Pope. I am well aware that it is the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, and that according to Roman theology, it is therefore infallible.

My argument is that the Magisterium is not infallible in the first place. Christ promised to remain with the Church through all time. He never promised that dogmatic pronouncements by the Pope and Bishops would be free from error. Infact, it’s not even possible that propositions can be free from error, since it is impossible to express an idea perfectly with a proposition, see Wittgenstein.

Dogmatic propositions can therefore be nothing more then pastoral guidelines which at best can help to define the faith for each generation and inform the faithful the demarcation between Christianity and the harmful ideas of their generation, or at worst it they can be divisive and harmful teachings that cause unnecessary division and crisis of conscience among the faithful.

I disagree with Humanae Vitae because the natural law argument in the encyclical is philosophically unsound, and I therefore disagree with the conclusions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty that is used to rationalize ignoring teachings of the Magisterium. Take Humanae Vitae for instance. This ban on contraception is taught by the pope, and bishops. It was taught by the pope and bishops in the recent past. Therefore, it is an infallibe teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. Catholics who don’t want to follow it can either disagree with the Magisterium, admitting it is not infallible, or they can rationalize their actions by making the argument that Humanae Vitae is not infallible, or that subjective factors excuse their actions.

Even though I believe it is clearly infallible, even if it were merely *sententia certa *(certain doctrine), it demands Catholic assent. Obstinate refusal to obey canon 751 is just as grave a sin for Catholics as heresy, so the dissidents’ argument for disobedience is untenable.

 

[estesbob]

jfoges,

Even if Vatican I had never defined the individual infallibility of the pope, it would not make a difference in the matters you seem concerned with.

Such teachings as the evil of contraception and the inability of the Church to ordain women are among those that have been part of the Tradition from the beginning. Papal writings like Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis are exactly the sort of “defense of the existing Tradition” you agree the Magisterium should be performing.

Usagi

It is interesting that those who reject the infalliblity of the Pope never follow up by saying therefore I don’t believe in the Trinity, or the Resurrection, or the divinity of Jesus or any other core doctrines of the church. It’s always therefore I don’t believe their teachings on abortion or homosexuality or contraception or , female priest, etc. etc… It appears h many believe in the infallibility of the Pope until his teachings conflict with their social views

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My argument is that the Magisterium is not infallible in the first place.

I understand. The Nicean Creed was not infallible, but just an opinion. Nothing in Christian teaching can be considered absolutely certain to belong to the unerring deposit of faith, not even the contents of Sacred Scripture. Nothing can be considered irrevocable. In fact, Kung’s thesis leads to conclusion that everything is just an opinion, nothing can be considered absolutely as belongs to the revelation of God.

Yet, even the Eastern Orthodox believe the Church is infallible. The reason the Monophysites are heretics, according to Eastern Orthodoxy, is because they refuse to give the assent of faith to the inerrant articles of faith as decreed by an Ecumenical Council of the Church.

Kung’s thesis is not only contra-Catholic, but also contra-Orthdoox, contra-Christian. Without infallible dogma, truth cannot be known to be “of faith” with absolute certainty, sufficient to give the assent of faith to anything. If one disagrees with dogma, that’s ok, since it is only the opinion of the Church anyways. We are free to hold a contrary opinion to any Ecumenical Council and be “Catholic.” I’m sure that’s what Paul, Athanasius, Leo I, et. al. meant when they continuously affirmed “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid .”

The consequence of Kung’s thesis is to re-define dogma as no longer divine revelation, but instead a temporal opinion of the Church, able to be denied without sin, freeing the Church from the possibility of “heresy.” If nothing can be considered “of faith” (de fide), than nobody can be considered a heretic.

Kung was so over-zealous regarding false “ecumenism” that he wanted the Church to overturn the dogmas of all her ecumencial councils to prepare the path towards false unity. This is why Kung and his kind have little influence on Catholic theology today. He’s the “crazy uncle” nobody listens too anymore. He will eventually fade away in Catholic history as nothing more than another footnote among others who reject the unerring dogmas of Ecumencial Councils.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is interesting that those who reject the infalliblity of the Pope never follow up by saying therefore I don’t believe in the Trinity, or the Resurrection, or the divinity of Jesus or any other core doctrines of the church. It’s always therefore I don’t believe their teachings on abortion or homosexuality or contraception or , female priest, etc. etc… It appears h many believe in the infallibility of the Pope until his teachings conflict with their social views

I used to belong to the “Universalist Unitarian Church” when I was a young man. I can tell you that the UU’s foundational system is a rejection of dogma. They say, “We don’t believe in ‘dogma,’ but instead we believe in ‘principles.’” In fact, I’d say they are downright “dogmatic” with regard to their “principles.”

They didn’t start out that way. UUs used to claim belief in Jesus Christ and the Bible. However, recent polls indicate that most UUs no longer consider themselves Christian, and many claim to be atheists, pagans, spiritualists, animists, wiccan, etc. At their request, I met with the UUs in my city to give the Catholic understanding of the Trinity. Once I got there, they didn’t let me speak on that topic, but instead sprayed me with questions about abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, contraception, our “Nazi” pope, etc. etc. The irrationality of this group was astonishing.

They told me that one of their “principles” is that human beings do not have just “two” sexes, but there is a continuum of sexuality. In other words, contrary to conclusions of biological science, humans are not dimorphic. After our discussion, they asked me if I learned anything. I told them no, and I think they were a bit offended by my answer. However, I explained that I had been a member of the UU many decades ago, so their “principles” seem very much the same kind of “Shirley McClain” reincarnation stuff I’d been exposed to already. After our discussion, I joined them in the UU “service,” where they spoke of humanism and never prayed to God. No surprise. They wouldn’t want to offend the significant number of atheists in the pews.

The dogmatic “principles” of the UU is is the “Kung theory” in its final evolution. Been there, done that…got the scars on my soul to prove it.

 

[jfoges]

I
The consequence of Kung’s thesis is to re-define dogma as no longer divine revelation, but instead a temporal opinion of the Church, able to be denied without sin, freeing the Church from the possibility of “heresy.” If nothing can be considered “of faith” (de fide), than nobody can be considered a heretic.

Kung was so over-zealous regarding false “ecumenism” that he wanted the Church to overturn the dogmas of all her ecumencial councils to prepare the path towards false unity. This is why Kung and his kind have little influence on Catholic theology today. He’s the “crazy uncle” nobody listens too anymore. He will eventually fade away in Catholic history as nothing more than another footnote among others who reject the unerring dogmas of Ecumencial Councils.

It is interesting that you say that the consequence of Kung’s argument is conclude that dogma is not divine revelation. Well actually , dogma isn’t divine revelation, according to the Magisterium. Revelation ended with the Apostles, as we discussed earlier. Dogma is only teaching what was already revealed.

Also, I am not against the idea of a Magisterium or Church authority, like the unitarians probably are. I am not against having dogma. I am just against the idea that dogma is infallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is interesting that you say that the consequence of Kung’s argument is conclude that dogma is not divine revelation. Well actually , dogma isn’t divine revelation, according to the Magisterium.

Dogma has various definitions, depending upon the context. In the context I was intending, Dogmas are “truths contained in divine Revelation.” (CCC 88). When the Church “defines dogma” (ibid.), “it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, **truths contained in divine Revelation **or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (ibid.).

In other words, “according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition**, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Dogma).

In a less strict sense, dogma can also include that which is not yet formally proposed by the Church as an article of faith. This kind of dogma is described by Dr. Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Domga) as “material dogma,” (dogmata materialia) which in the authentic development of dogma, can be “raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.”

Kung’s thesis taken to its logical conclusion is that the Church cannot define in any way obliging an “assent of faith” the truths contained in divine Revelation. The Kungian view is that when the Church has in the past attempted to do so, it may have defined dogma (truths contained in divine Revelation) erroneously, and therefore dogmas are never irrevocable. Thus, the faithful, under Kung’s thesis, can indeed be bound upon earth to assent to an article of faith which is NOT bound in heaven, since the Church does indeed demand the assent of faith regarding that which is dogma. In other words, Kung’s thesis makes Heb 13:17 (“obey our prelates and submit to them”) an occasion of a damnable sin even if one were to give their assent of faith to the proposition, “God is love,” (1 John 4:16) since that proposition (among all others) may very well be erroneous, as it is merely a doubtful decree of the Church.

The above Kungian thinking is how the Universalist Unitarians ended up where they are today. There is no “rock” in Kungian theology, no “pillar and bulwark of truth,” (1 Tim 3:15) only theological opinions firmly nailed to jello.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For those not familiar with Hans Kung’s standing as a Catholic theologian, this is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared in 1979:

"In his writings, Professor Kung deviates from the complete doctrine of the faith. Therefore, he can no longer be regarded as a Catholic theologian or teach as such…

Every Catholic theologian possesses a legitimate academic freedom, which, however, should not transgress the limits set by the discipline of theology itself.

***Professor Kung disputes the infallibility of the teaching office of the Church and the normative character of the declarations of the Church. ***

In essential points of the Catholic faith, Professor Kung deviates from normative doctrine. The following are mentioned:

• the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father;
• doctrine concerning Mary
• doctrine relative to the valid consecration of the Eucharist
  Professor Kung has not responded to repeated summonses by the Congregation to strive for conformity with the normative doctrine of the Church. His futher publications have instead aggravated the contrast even more…

Professor Kung can no longer claim to teach by mandate of the Church."

[Observations on the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctine of Faith, as reported by the Chancery Office of the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, December 18, 1979, cited by *The Kung Dialogue - Facts and Documents

, United States Catholic Conference, 1980]

 

[Des]

jfoges, does your Priest know you have these views. If so, I’d think he wouldn’t allow you to recieve Holy Communion as you clearly are not in Communion with the Pope and the Church. Saying you are is only decieving yourself.

 

[Sir_Anthony]

I do believe that people get worked up a little too much over the doctrine of Papal Infalliability, considering that it is only applied when he is speaking from ex cathedra about faith and morals. In addition, numerous Councils are also held to be infallible. Encyclicals such as Humane Vitae are not considered to infallible even though it is correct and deemed free from errors in it’s teaching based on the Magisterium. The objection to Papal Infalliability today is not necessarily a theological issue (St. Thomas Aquinas did question it and the Orthodox Church holds a valid reason such as those bad Popes when the Pope was a secular ruler), but is rather a social and political kneejerk reaction since we live in a society that seriously anti-authority and people are stubborned. I am reminded of the children of Israel, who behold the wonders of God, and yet everytime Moses turned his back, they worshipped golden calves. I think most Catholics just need to mature some more and realize the Church’s positions on issues were discerned not by the minds of men, but under the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit shall keep the Church pure, even if it’s members are not. That the teachings of the Church has profound wisdom which people have rejected because their hearts are hard like Pharoah.

 

[jfoges]

Dogma

Kung’s thesis taken to its logical conclusion is that the Church cannot define in any way obliging an “assent of faith” the truths contained in divine Revelation. The Kungian view is that when the Church has in the past attempted to do so, it may have defined dogma (truths contained in divine Revelation) erroneously, and therefore dogmas are never irrevocable. Thus, the faithful, under Kung’s thesis, can indeed be bound upon earth to assent to an article of faith which is NOT bound in heaven, since the Church does indeed demand the assent of faith regarding that which is dogma. In other words, Kung’s thesis makes Heb 13:17 (“obey our prelates and submit to them”) an occasion of a damnable sin even if one were to give their assent of faith to the proposition, “God is love,” (1 John 4:16) since that proposition (among all others) may very well be erroneous, as it is merely a doubtful decree of the Church.
.

Ok, under Kung’s thesis the faithful can be bound on earth but not by heaven by the Magisterium. The second part of what you said makes no sense to me. Under Kung’s thesis assenting to any teaching of the Church is a “damnable sin”? This is not true. Under Kung’s thesis one should assent to teachings of the Church unless there is a good reason not to. That is my understanding of Kung. However, I am not Hans Kung and cannot speak for him.

 

[jfoges]

For those not familiar with Hans Kung’s standing as a Catholic theologian, this is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared in 1979:

I believe Kung himself says that the proceedings of the CDF against him were brought about because Kung wrote a, very fair, article offering critique of the Wotija Pope, and basically earned the Polish Pope’s ire.

I’m not sure how seriously we should take something that came from the vindictive personal feelings of the Polish Pope.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I believe Kung himself says that the proceedings of the CDF against him were brought about because Kung wrote a, very fair, article offering critique of the Wotija Pope, and basically earned the Polish Pope’s ire.

I’m not sure how seriously we should take something that came from the vindictive personal feelings of the Polish Pope.

The proceedings against Kung’s erroneous teachings began under Paul VI, so it’s absurd to think such was the consequence of anything polemical against John Paul II.

I recommend you read the letters to Kung from the CDF, and from his German Bishops and compare them to what Hans Kung wrote to them, published in The Kung Dialogue.

I found nothing other than fraternal charity in the letters of the CDF to Kung, while I did detect much self-praise in Kung’s letters. In the final analysis, the Church gave every opportunity for Kung to charitably explain how his teachings could be reconciled with Catholic doctrine. He either refuse or could not reconcile his teachings with Catholic doctrine, and as such, he lost his canonical status as Catholic theologian. He instead did an enormous amount of what we, in the military, call “quibbling.” It was conduct unbecoming a humble priest.

For those who have read Kung’s letters, they are soaked with vainglory and stubbornness. When you also read Kung’s polemical articles and other written works, then compare them to the charitable and professional responses by the CDF, it’s clear that there was nothing vindictive about how Kung was given the fraternal correction his errors demanded, over a period spanning 1967 to 1979.

Matt 18:17 “***If he refuses to listen to them [two or three witnesses], *tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

 

[RobHom]

I’m in my 20’s, don’t know if that helps.

If you ARE a Catholic…the answer to that question is a no-brainer! Your age is inconsequential.

There have been catholics who were challening the infallibility of the Pope since it was made dogma at Vatican I. Infact, numerous bishops in europe went into schism over this dogma. They formed what is known as the Old Catholic Church.

Here is some background on the issue of Papal Infallibility:

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Inasmuch as it may have been made dogma later…it was accepted universally within the Church for many many years, in fact I believe back in the mid 300’s.

There have been many over the years that have chosen different paths…but that does not make them “right”…does it? In fact, isn’t that how we ended up with “how many different Xian religions”?

Might I suggest that you curtail your mental wanderings…it seems to me that you are spending an inordinate amount of time reading the wrong materials. Sorry but that’s how I see it.

As a Catholic…I have no problems with the “infallibility” of the Pope when he speaks “ex cathedra”, and rarely have any problem with anything he says otherwise…I am permitted to have a different opinion, but that is just my opinion…

Peace!

 

[jfoges]

The proceedings against Kung’s erroneous teachings began under Paul VI, so it’s absurd to think such was the consequence of anything polemical against John Paul II. r

."

That’s not what Kung claims in his memoirs, as far as I am aware.
I’m sure Kung is an authority on the proceedings against him, since they were such an ordeal for him and caused him so much pain and difficulty.

 

[jfoges]

If you ARE
Inasmuch as it may have been made dogma later…it was accepted universally within the Church for many many years, in fact I believe back in the mid 300’s. !

Rob,

I am sorry but that is not true. No history of the Church claims that papal inffallibility was accepted universally as far back as the 300’s. I am talking about objective academic church histories that are not written with any kind of agenda or bias.

Also, if it were true that it was only accepted universally since the 300’s, then how could it be part of the deposit of faith? If it were truly part of the deposit of faith, then it would have always been accepted universally.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I am sorry but that is not true. No history of the Church claims that papal inffallibility was accepted universally as far back as the 300’s. I am talking about objective academic church histories that are not written with any kind of agenda or bias.

Scholars generally go with Brian Tierney’s Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 as the starting point for papal infallibility. However, Klaus Schatz sees Pietro Olivi’s arguments regarding Pope Nicholas III’s bull Exiit qui seminat (1279) as being a mere blip on the historical radar screen that had little influence on the later theological development of the Church’s understanding of papal infallibility.

 

[pnewton]

I am curious. If you are a Catholic, are there any other dogmas in the faith you deny?

 

[celticcrusader]

I am curious. If you are a Catholic, are there any other dogmas in the faith you deny?

Correct me if I am wrong but if you are a Latin Rite Catholic you must accept all the Church dogmas ,case closed! If you don’t then it becomes your catholic church, or if the guy next to you won’t accept a different dogma then it becomes thecatholic church according to him, ect. ect.

 

[pnewton]

Correct me if I am wrong but if you are a Latin Rite Catholic you must accept all the Church dogmas ,case closed!

You are supposed to. In this case, two dogmas are really denied. Not only is the infallibility of the Pope denied, but in doing so, the infallibility of the Church meeting in council is also denied, since it was such a council, Vatican I, that defined the dogma. That is why I was wondering if there were any more areas of dogma that were not believed.