Question: Aren't infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

[Cecilianus]

If I could figure out a way to do it I would only be in communion with the Pope without being in communion with Rome!

If I ever get to Heaven I’m just about going to murder St. Peter for having gone to Rome rather than Constantinople.

(And don’t tell me we can’t murder in Heaven - I’m Sicilian, there’s gotta be a way…)

 

[SouthpawLink]

There is no assumption that everyone would be able capable of understanding all dogmas of faith.

Anything that does not oppose the dogmas of faith is acceptable. For the dogmas of faith, we have the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and the 7 early counsels and the latter 14 of the Catholic Church, including all ex cathedra definitions.

I have a list of 251 dogmas of faith, but have not verified them all, and there is no Vatican summary that I know of, although the Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith can answer dubiums on them.

As we saw at the Union of Brest, the approach is one of acceptance, for things outside the tradition of a ritual Church, for example, article 5, Union of Brest (1595/1696): “We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.”

May I make one small correction?

"We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure” (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863: Denz. 1683-84).

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php

In short, we are bound to believe - besides the infallibly-defined dogmas – what the ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches as belonging to the faith (which includes what the common consent of theologians holds as de fide), even if she hasn’t solemnly defined these particular doctrines; we are also to accept the decisions of the Roman Congregations and the Church’s theological truths and conclusions (e.g., Christ was impeccable), held by the common and constant consent of her theologians.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If I could figure out a way to do it I would only be in communion with the Pope without being in communion with Rome!

Interesting Perspective, John VIII!!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If I ever get to Heaven I’m just about going to murder St. Peter for having gone to Rome rather than Constantinople.

(And don’t tell me we can’t murder in Heaven - I’m Sicilian, there’s gotta be a way…)

I can’t see how----seeing as to how The AllMighty would be right there “watching” us up close and personal all the time…

But heck…“Where there’s a Will, There’s a Way,” I guess.

 

[Vico]

May I make one small correction?

"We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure” (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863: Denz. 1683-84).

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php

In short, we are bound to believe - besides the infallibly-defined dogmas – what the ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches as belonging to the faith (which includes what the common consent of theologians holds as de fide), even if she hasn’t solemnly defined these particular doctrines; we are also to accept the decisions of the Roman Congregations and the Church’s theological truths and conclusions (e.g., Christ was impeccable), held by the common and constant consent of her theologians.

Yes.

My comment was not very precise, “For the dogmas of faith, we have the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium …”, because I did not distinguish the universal and ritual church, nor the fallible from the infalible doctrines.

Because Ludwig Ott’s 251 are “de fide definita” and “fides ecclesiastica” and would not cover all the teachings of the ordinary magisterium, such as ordinary teachings of the eastern Catholic churches also, applicable to their ascribed faithful, deriving from a distinctive theology and discipline from that of the Latin Church.

Ott classification, number 6 is tolerated by the Church:

Final:

1. Divine infallible: de fide definita
2. Church infallible: fides ecclesiastica
   True:
3. Proximate, but not final: sententia fidei proxima
4. Certain, but not final, conclusions: sententia ad fidem pertinens
   Free Opinions:
5. Common (generally accepted by Theologians): sententia communis
6. Pious Opinions: sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata

 

[dcs6f4]

…ordinary teachings of the eastern Catholic churches also, applicable to their ascribed faithful, deriving from a distinctive theology and discipline from that of the Latin Church.

Vico… or anyone else,

**Could you please provide some examples of where the “dividing line” is between Eastern Catholics and the Latin Church in reference to the quote above? **

I’m am trying to focus in, for my own interest, on the differences particularly as they relate to necessary obedience/submission of “mind and will” (not just infallible teachings) to the Pope as well as the ordinary Magisterium.

This post from JohnVIII has me curious about when the Pope is actually “only speaking to Roman Catholics” as the Bishop of Rome. What are some examples of this?

*"The part I like is the “teacher of all the faithful”. So in the case where the Pope is speaking only to Roman Catholics then he is not speaking to ALL the faithful. Roman Catholics are a sub-set of all the faithful. So if he is not speaking to the faithful in the East as well as the West then he speaks only as the bishop of Rome and not as St Peter and therefore there’s no promise of infallibility.

So if someone where to say that such-n-such is infallible only to Roman Catholics, but not to Eastern Catholics, what there are really doing is using the term “infallible” incorrectly. Perhaps a better word to use would be unreformable."*

It was always my impression that the Pope is always speaking to not only Roman Catholics, but the entire church. However, I am new to this topic and quite intrigued. Thank you.

Pax,
Dave

 

[mardukm]

The infallible authority of the Pope in doctrine and morals is an appellate authority. It is utilized in response to the concerns of the Church through local bishops.

It is largely the action of the bishops themselves which determine whether the Pope will be acting in his capacity “from the Chair of Peter” or merely as the Patriarch of the Latin Church.

So two questions you could answer for yourself to make such a determination would be:
(1) Who called the Pope to action?
(2) What is the subject of the appeal?

The ruling of the Pope himself will indicate if it is intended for the universal Church, or a local Church.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Vico… or anyone else,

**Could you please provide some examples of where the “dividing line” is between Eastern Catholics and the Latin Church in reference to the quote above? **

I’m am trying to focus in, for my own interest, on the differences particularly as they relate to necessary obedience/submission of “mind and will” (not just infallible teachings) to the Pope as well as the ordinary Magisterium.

This post from JohnVIII has me curious about when the Pope is actually “only speaking to Roman Catholics” as the Bishop of Rome. What are some examples of this?

*"The part I like is the “teacher of all the faithful”. So in the case where the Pope is speaking only to Roman Catholics then he is not speaking to ALL the faithful. Roman Catholics are a sub-set of all the faithful. So if he is not speaking to the faithful in the East as well as the West then he speaks only as the bishop of Rome and not as St Peter and therefore there’s no promise of infallibility.

So if someone where to say that such-n-such is infallible only to Roman Catholics, but not to Eastern Catholics, what there are really doing is using the term “infallible” incorrectly. Perhaps a better word to use would be unreformable."*

It was always my impression that the Pope is always speaking to not only Roman Catholics, but the entire church. However, I am new to this topic and quite intrigued. Thank you.

Pax,
Dave

 

[dcs6f4]

The infallible authority of the Pope in doctrine and morals is an appellate authority. It is utilized in response to the concerns of the Church through local bishops.

It is largely the action of the bishops themselves which determine whether the Pope will be acting in his capacity “from the Chair of Peter” or merely as the Patriarch of the Latin Church.

So two questions you could answer for yourself to make such a determination would be:
(1) Who called the Pope to action?
(2) What is the subject of the appeal?

The ruling of the Pope himself will indicate if it is intended for the universal Church, or a local Church.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, it was very helpful. If you happen to know of any particular examples of something from the Pope that was intended for a local Church opposed to the universal Church I think it would really help me close in on the concepts here.

Pax,
Dave

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dave,

Thanks, it was very helpful. If you happen to know of any particular examples of something from the Pope that was intended for a local Church opposed to the universal Church I think it would really help me close in on the concepts here.

To be more specific, if the appeal was from an Eastern or Oriental source on an issue within a particular Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church, then the bishop of Rome would be acting in his capacity as Pope to rule on a matter in that Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church. This is really only theoretically possible once for any Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church - it occurs at the time of a request for entry into the Catholic communion. From that point onward, Eastern and Oriental CC’s govern themselves as to their own theological Traditions, and guardianship of our theological heritage rests with our Synods.

If the appeal was from a Western source on an issue within the Latin Church, he would only be acting in his capacity as Patriarch of the Latins. Such was the case on the matter of Limbo.

If the appeal was from any source on an issue involving another Church sui juris, he would be acting in his capacity as Pope. This happened a lot in the early Church.

As stated, it is not only the source of the appeal, but also the subject of the appeal that determines the matter. Such, for instance, was the case with issue of women priests and contraception. Though the source of the appeal was the Latin Church, the subject matter had universal application. So the bishop of Rome was acting in his capacity as Pope in those instances.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcs6f4]

Dear brother Dave,

To be more specific, if the appeal was from an Eastern or Oriental source on an issue within a particular Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church, then the bishop of Rome would be acting in his capacity as Pope to rule on a matter in that Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church. This is really only theoretically possible once for any Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church - it occurs at the time of a request for entry into the Catholic communion. From that point onward, Eastern and Oriental CC’s govern themselves as to their own theological Traditions, and guardianship of our theological heritage rests with our Synods.

If the appeal was from a Western source on an issue within the Latin Church, he would only be acting in his capacity as Patriarch of the Latins. Such was the case on the matter of Limbo.

If the appeal was from any source on an issue involving another Church sui juris, he would be acting in his capacity as Pope. This happened a lot in the early Church.

As stated, it is not only the source of the appeal, but also the subject of the appeal that determines the matter. Such, for instance, was the case with issue of women priests and contraception. Though the source of the appeal was the Latin Church, the subject matter had universal application. So the bishop of Rome was acting in his capacity as Pope in those instances.

Blessings,
Marduk

Perfect. thank you.

Pax,
Dave

 

[sidbrown]

Question: Aren’t infallible teachings infallible for all Catholics?

I am not sure about this, since it looks like Melkite Catholics do not accept Vatican I as an ecumenical council. In fact, I think that they hold with the Eastern Orthodox, in that they accept only the first seven councils as ecumenical.