Roman approval = infallibility? A way forward

[vs_trumpet]

As acknowledged by liberal commentators there are “some authors who think that Roman approval of a religious institute enjoys the certitude of (one level or another) of infallibility”. Though some traditionalists have departed from such views due to certain things that transpired legislatively after Vatican II, this is the traditional view. But that would leave us with a new challenge to that view with the advent of new revelations and acknowledgements.

Read this for more explanation on the challenge to the traditional view this might present. The author suggest that such views be disfavored for the view of theological pioneers such as Avery Dulles who suggested a way forward in our understanding of infallibility, proposing what he called “moderate infallibilism.” While I do not subscribe to your creed, I offer this same suggestion to you. The interesting thing about “moderate infallibilism” is that one can apply the doctrine of moderate infallibilism to any doctrine, including that of moderate infallibilism itself. When one does that, one might find that by its own criteria, the doctrine of moderate infallibilism is not infallible. The potential for this evolution of thought gives me hope that the church may one day while still being thankful for all the good of the ages might move forward in a direction suggested by pioneers of truth. The evolved church can still be just as true just as man evolved from good to good by a process truly of G_d.

 

[theMutant]

I will try to take the time to read the links you posted, however, it should be made clear that within the concept of Catholic doctrine, “Roman approval” has never equated to infallibility. Additionally, Catholic doctrine cannot “evolve” in any way where the original sense of the doctrine does not remain intact. In other words, while we can come to a deeper understanding of a doctrine beyond that which was originally held, what was originally held will always be held. The deeper understanding can only be complementary (not contradictory) to the original. The Church cannot make up doctrine, it can only preserve what has been given to it by Christ through the Apostles.

The infallibility of the Church only pertains to matters of faith and morals, therefore, it is absurd to claim that “approval of an institute” equates to infallibility. Likewise, disapproval of an institute (or individual or pastoral decision, for that matter) does not even touch upon an issue of infallibility. Infallibility applies only to faith and morals - those universal truths that apply to all. If I am excommunicated for holding a particular view, that excommunication does not equate to an infallible declaration that my view is wrong. If my excommunication is subsequently lifted while I still hold that view, it does not equate to an infallible declaration that my view is correct. Because such declarations only concern me (or a group to which I belong), they do not meet the necessary criteria for infallibility.

Infallibility takes three forms. In each of these forms, the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit who will prevent false doctrine from being declared. Outside of these forms, the individual priests, bishops, and even popes, merely speak as private individuals and are not infallible. However, in each of these forms, the teaching must be universally binding, the declarations cannot be about specific groups or individuals, but about the universal truths to be believed.

An example of this would be the issue of abortion. The Church’s teaching that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being is infallible teaching that all Catholics must accept. The excommunication of a person for supporting abortion does not constitute infallible teaching - even if it come from Rome.

Tradition (always with a capital T): Those teachings which have always been held as true by the Church even though they have not been pronounced by a formal decree as given below. Thus, even though the teaching that the Church does not have the ability to ordain women has not bee infallibly pronounced (although I believe it was with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), this has always been taught by the Church and is part of the infallible and unchangeable deposit of faith. This includes all teachings of the ordinary Magisterium.

Decrees of an Ecumenical Council: These are extraordinary acts of the Magisterium. They must clearly define what the teaching is and bind all Catholics to that teaching. Because all declarations of an ecumenical council are not actually promulgated until they are submitted to and approved by the Pope, its teaching authority ultimately rests with him. Regarding Vatican II, it was deliberately a pastoral council and did not make declare any binding teaching other than to affirm the teachings of all previous councils.

Infallible Papal Declarations: These are similar to the decrees of ecumenical councils except that these are solely the work of the Pope as Vicar of Christ. The decrees of ecumenical councils are the work of committees of bishops. Infallible declarations of the Pope are his own work. They must clearly define the teaching to be believed and bind all Catholics to that teaching.