Something I don't understand

[ae22]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

In Familiaris Consortio, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that the divorced and remarried could not receive Holy Communion. If, in the Holy Father’s upcoming apostolic exhortation, this is even partially contradicted (meaning that those who are divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without living as brother and sister, even in limited circumstances), what would that mean for papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium?

The way I understand it, the indissolubility of marriage is not negotiable. Adultery being grave matter is not negotiable. Persons who are in a state of mortal sin being excluded from the sacraments other than Baptism and Penance, and priests being unable to give absolution to those in irregular unions until their situation is regularized, is not negotiable.

This has caused me great anxiety over the past month or so. I am hopeful that someone with a greater understanding of theology than I have can explain this to me.

 

[DaveBj]

Sometimes it seems to me that those who need this explained to them are those with the perceived greater understanding of theology

 

[angell1]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

In Familiaris Consortio, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that the divorced and remarried could not receive Holy Communion. If, in the Holy Father’s upcoming apostolic exhortation, this is even partially contradicted (meaning that those who are divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without living as brother and sister, even in limited circumstances), what would that mean for papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium?

The way I understand it, the indissolubility of marriage is not negotiable. Adultery being grave matter is not negotiable. Persons who are in a state of mortal sin being excluded from the sacraments other than Baptism and Penance, and priests being unable to give absolution to those in irregular unions until their situation is regularized, is not negotiable.

This has caused me great anxiety over the past month or so. I am hopeful that someone with a greater understanding of theology than I have can explain this to me.

for what it’s worth, I don’t think Pope francis is going to say anything of the sort.

in fact, infallibility of the magisterium and protection of the holy spirit suggests that he can’t change that.

 

[dmar198]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

In Familiaris Consortio, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that the divorced and remarried could not receive Holy Communion. If, in the Holy Father’s upcoming apostolic exhortation, this is even partially contradicted (meaning that those who are divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without living as brother and sister, even in limited circumstances), what would that mean for papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium?

The way I understand it, the indissolubility of marriage is not negotiable. Adultery being grave matter is not negotiable. Persons who are in a state of mortal sin being excluded from the sacraments other than Baptism and Penance, and priests being unable to give absolution to those in irregular unions until their situation is regularized, is not negotiable.

This has caused me great anxiety over the past month or so. I am hopeful that someone with a greater understanding of theology than I have can explain this to me.

I think the short answer is no, apostolic exhortations are not infallible, unless the pope “(1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church.” source

My understanding is that the pope’s words are only infallible under those four conditions. In an ordinary apostolic exhortation, it is my understanding that #1 and #2 are both unfulfilled. If the pope did something explicit in the upcoming document to fulfill those conditions, that would make it an unusual apostolic exhortation, which are ordinarily not meant to teach but to exhort, and are not meant to carry the supreme authority of the pope’s office (unless I’ve misunderstood something).

Two additional thoughts come to mind: first, I don’t think the pope is going to change the discipline because he has stated several times that he won’t. See #21 at this link. Second, even if the pope did change the discipline, that would not automatically imply a change in teaching. We would be faced with a discipline that seems to contradict a Church teaching. In such a case, I think we ought to pray that the discipline change in order to comply with the Church’s doctrine, but the doctrine itself would not be changed by merely instituting a contrary discipline – not unless I’ve misunderstood something, which is always possible.

Please let me know if that is helpful. God bless!

 

[dans0622]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

…

Hello,

An “apostolic exhortation” is a category of document issued by the Pope. If one attempts to rank papal documents, it is of lesser importance than an apostolic constitution, apostolic letter, encyclical, bull… The type of document, though, doesn’t matter as much as the content. Certainly, an apostolic exhortation can contain infallible truths of the faith. If a pope were to officially declare something to be an infallible truth, he would *not *use an apostolic exhortation to do so. As the title states, it is a document which exhorts. That’s the basic idea, anyway.

As to the content of your post, *Familiaris consortio *does give some conditions which are to be met before administering Communion to those who are in “second marriages.” So, it’s possible to absolve and administer Communion even while the person is still in an “irregular marriage.” In my opinion, *Familiaris consortio *allows all that is possible in that regard.

Dan

 

[ae22]

I think the short answer is no, apostolic exhortations are not infallible, unless the pope “(1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church.” source

My understanding is that the pope’s words are only infallible under those four conditions. In an ordinary apostolic exhortation, it is my understanding that #1 and #2 are both unfulfilled. If the pope did something explicit in the upcoming document to fulfill those conditions, that would make it an unusual apostolic exhortation, which are ordinarily not meant to teach but to exhort, and are not meant to carry the supreme authority of the pope’s office (unless I’ve misunderstood something).

Two additional thoughts come to mind: first, I don’t think the pope is going to change the discipline because he has stated several times that he won’t. See #21 at this link. Second, even if the pope did change the discipline, that would not automatically imply a change in teaching. We would be faced with a discipline that seems to contradict a Church teaching. In such a case, I think we ought to pray that the discipline change in order to comply with the Church’s doctrine, but the doctrine itself would not be changed by merely instituting a contrary discipline – not unless I’ve misunderstood something, which is always possible.

Please let me know if that is helpful. God bless!

I guess it would depend whether it was simply a discipline (or some sort of exception to doctrine, like how in danger of death a lot more things are permissible), or actual infallible dogma.

Like I said in my original post, it seems to me that there are four major roadblocks here, things which are absolutely essential to the faith, and one of them would have to be altered in some way, those being:

1. Marriage is indissoluble; those in a civil marriage subsequent to their original, sacramental marriage (if the person they originally married is still alive) are committing adultery.
2. Adultery is always grave matter.
3. Unless a person who is divorced and civilly remarried plans to immediately leave their second marriage or choose to live in complete continence, they are thus not fully repentant for their sin and cannot be given absolution.
4. A person who has not been to confession and received absolution (unless, in rare circumstances, they made an act of perfect contrition and had no opportunity to confess) cannot be admitted to Holy Communion.

The only way I could see it, and this would be a quite a stretch, is if in certain situations, a person would have committed a venial sin rather than a mortal sin by entering a subsequent civil marriage due to not having full consent of the will (e.g. being pressured into it). But, like I said, that’s probably quite a stretch.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

Anything that the Magesterium teaches might be infallible (and the Church may define a teaching as infallible regardless of how long ago it was promulgated). Vatican-1 described the conditions under which a Pope (but not an Ecumenical Council) teaches infallibly, but it is not up to us to get out our Kaptian Katholik Vatikan-1 Klicklist and decide for ourselves if the criteria are fulfilled.

If the Church intends for us to accept a teaching as infallible, the Church will make this clear:

Can. 749§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

This has happened, ahem, exactly twice. Other teachings clearly meet the V-1 criteria (for example, Pope Paul-6’s Humanae Vitae), but we ought to not go around saying they are infallible because the Church has not said so (FWIW, I personally think Humanae Vitae is infallible).

 

[dmar198]

Anything that the Magesterium teaches might be infallible (and the Church may define a teaching as infallible regardless of how long ago it was promulgated). Vatican-1 described the conditions under which a Pope (but not an Ecumenical Council) teaches infallibly, but it is not up to us to get out our Kaptian Katholik Vatikan-1 Klicklist and decide for ourselves if the criteria are fulfilled.

If the Church intends for us to accept a teaching as infallible, the Church will make this clear:

This has happened, ahem, exactly twice. Other teachings clearly meet the V-1 criteria (for example, Pope Paul-6’s Humanae Vitae), but we ought to not go around saying they are infallible because the Church has not said so (FWIW, I personally think Humanae Vitae is infallible).

If we get out our Vatican 1 checklist (so to speak), look up a document, and check to see if the criteria match up, does that really count as deciding for ourselves, in your view? Are you saying we should ask someone at the Vatican to look it up For us?

BTW your remark reminds me of this clever paragraph by Bl. John Henry Newman when he was defending the Syllabus of Errors:

“Who is its author? Some select theologian or high official doubtless; can it be Cardinal Antonelli himself? No surely: anyhow it is not the Pope, and I do not see my way to accept it for what it is not. I do not speak as if I had any difficulty in recognizing and condemning the Errors which it catalogues, did the Pope himself bid me; but he has not as yet done so, and he cannot delegate his Magisterium to another.” source

(Note: lest anyone misinterpret that who is looking for info on the Syllabus, that kind of makes it sound like Cardinal Newman didn’t accept the Syllabus, but that’s not what he is saying. In context, he defends the Syllabus. He is merely saying that it itself is not an act of the pope, it is a summary made by someone at the Vatican of things the pope had said in other documents. And Cardinal Newman was just saying that we have to go to the original papal documents named in the Syllabus in order to get at the real dogmatic material.)

 

[angell1]

Anything that the Magesterium teaches might be infallible (and the Church may define a teaching as infallible regardless of how long ago it was promulgated). Vatican-1 described the conditions under which a Pope (but not an Ecumenical Council) teaches infallibly, but it is not up to us to get out our Kaptian Katholik Vatikan-1 Klicklist and decide for ourselves if the criteria are fulfilled.

If the Church intends for us to accept a teaching as infallible, the Church will make this clear:

This has happened, ahem, exactly twice. Other teachings clearly meet the V-1 criteria (for example, Pope Paul-6’s Humanae Vitae), but we ought to not go around saying they are infallible because the Church has not said so (FWIW, I personally think Humanae Vitae is infallible).

ok,now I’m confused, if this is true then what’s stopping doctrine being changed?

 

[dmar198]

what’s stopping doctrine being changed?

For one thing, Jesus. He is the one in charge. He won’t let doctrine change because He promised His Church would never fall.

Also, what DavidFilmer is describing does not automatically imply that the Church can just declare anything ever to be infallible. He is assuming that the Holy Spirit protects the Magisterium from making a mistake when it formally declares a dogma.

 

[ae22]

For one thing, Jesus. He is the one in charge. He won’t let doctrine change because He promised His Church would never fall.

Also, what DavidFilmer is describing does not automatically imply that the Church can just declare anything ever to be infallible. He is assuming that the Holy Spirit protects the Magisterium from making a mistake when it formally declares a dogma.

If something was never infallible in the first place, then a change wouldn’t automatically be a bad thing, depending on what exactly was changed and why. But, I’m not sure exactly what that would apply to.

 

[DavidFilmer]

ok,now I’m confused, if this is true then what’s stopping doctrine being changed?

That would be the Holy Spirit.

The Church’s doctrine is not protected by infallibility. The Church didn’t even define infallibility until the 1860s, and She has STILL not defined how infallibility works for an Ecumenical Council - many suspect it has the same criteria as Papal teachings, but nobody knows for sure - yet. But, as of now, the Church has not told us that one single teaching of any Ecumenical Council is infallible. Does that mean they’re not? Absolutely not. It just means we cannot claim that they are infallible.

The Church doesn’t need to understand infallibility to teach. There was no such understanding for a very long time. Infallibility should not matter to the guy in the pew. It is a seriously wrong idea that Catholics are bound to accept only doctrine which has been acknowledged as infallible. We are expected to accept ALL Church teaching.

 

[DavidFilmer]

If we get out our Vatican 1 checklist (so to speak), look up a document, and check to see if the criteria match up, does that really count as deciding for ourselves, in your view?

Yes. I believe that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are infallibly promulgated. It clearly fulfills the conditions of V1, and (having been written after V1’s definition) seems to be deliberately constructed by the Holy Father to satisfy those conditions (and I could make a good argument that this constitutes “manifestly evident” teaching).

But can I assert that it IS infallible? Can I state that as a fact?

I’m pretty sure I can’t do that. I’m pretty sure that only one guy can do that (and it ain’t me).

 

[dmar198]

Yes. I believe that the teachings of Humanae Vitae are infallibly promulgated. It clearly fulfills the conditions of V1, and (having been written after V1’s definition) seems to be deliberately constructed by the Holy Father to satisfy those conditions (and I could make a good argument that this constitutes “manifestly evident” teaching).

But can I assert that it IS infallible? Can I state that as a fact?

I’m pretty sure I can’t do that. I’m pretty sure that only one guy can do that (and it ain’t me).

It looks to me like you are saying you can establish the premises, but not draw the conclusion.

Premise 1: Any papal communication that fulfills the conditions of V1 is infallible.
Premise 2: “Humanae Vitae…clearly fulfills the conditions of V1.”
Conclusion: Oh, I can’t say this part…

Consider the book “On the True and False Infallibility of the Popes” by Bishop Fessler. It was specially approved by Bl. Pius IX, the pope whose council defined papal infallibility in the first place. And the book largely consists of the author getting out his Vatican 1 checklist and going through various documents, such as Unam Sanctam and others, to see if they match up with the checklist. See especially this chapter. He points out that some do and some don’t, and that the ones that match up are consequently infallible. As he remarks in the preface: “not only all future but all earlier utterances of Popes, if they have been made ex cathedra in the sense already explained, have a claim to the privilege of Infallibility…[for] no one whatever in the Vatican Council has been guilty of the theological absurdity of wishing to define that only Pius IX, and his successors were infallible, to the exclusion of all former Popes.” “[T]he definition upon the Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff comprehends all former as well as all future Popes.” source

Consequently, I think it is perfectly fine to get out our Vatican 1 checklist and match up various documents according to the criteria. Heck, we might even get praised for it, as Bishop Fessler did. If we can draw the premises then we can draw the conclusion: we can tell people the conditions, we can tell them whether such and such documents fulfill them, and we can then draw the consequence whether such a document is infallible. But always reserving our judgment for future correction, since there’s always a chance that we could be misinterpreting something.

 

[ProVobis]

No mention of Divine Law which has seemingly been violated?

 

[ae22]

No mention of Divine Law which has seemingly been violated?

No mention of Divine Law by whom, and when, where, and by whom has it seemingly been violated?

 

[dmar198]

No mention of Divine Law by whom, and when, where, and by whom has it seemingly been violated?

I think he means it would be violating divine law if this change was made.

And that is an important point. I mentioned earlier that it would violate Church doctrine, but if the pope exhorted people to Violate Church doctrine (which I doubt he will do) that would not be the same thing as Changing Church doctrine. Same with divine law: if the pope, God forbid, exhorted people to violate divine law, that would not be the same thing as changing divine law, which is impossible.

 

[ProVobis]

I think he means it would be violating divine law if this change was made.

And that is an important point. I mentioned earlier that it would violate Church doctrine, but if the pope exhorted people to Violate Church doctrine (which I doubt he will do) that would not be the same thing as Changing Church doctrine. Same with divine law: if the pope, God forbid, exhorted people to violate divine law, that would not be the same thing as changing divine law, which is impossible.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[ae22]

So in other words, not only would such a proposed change in our current practice of prohibiting the reception of Holy Communion be imprudent and make little sense from a practical standpoint, but it would be completely incompatible with the very existence of the Catholic Church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church started by Jesus Christ, as it would see a Pope contradict another Pope when both were talking about faith or morals, in the exact same manner and circumstance.

Right?

 

[Vico]

Are apostolic exhortations infallible?

In Familiaris Consortio, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that the divorced and remarried could not receive Holy Communion. If, in the Holy Father’s upcoming apostolic exhortation, this is even partially contradicted (meaning that those who are divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without living as brother and sister, even in limited circumstances), what would that mean for papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium?

The way I understand it, the indissolubility of marriage is not negotiable. Adultery being grave matter is not negotiable. Persons who are in a state of mortal sin being excluded from the sacraments other than Baptism and Penance, and priests being unable to give absolution to those in irregular unions until their situation is regularized, is not negotiable.

This has caused me great anxiety over the past month or so. I am hopeful that someone with a greater understanding of theology than I have can explain this to me.

In 1994 the Congragation for the Doctrine of the Faith published LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL

Stating:

1. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion”(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.
   …
2. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.
   …
3. In inviting pastors to distinguish carefully the various situations of the divorced and remarried, the Exhortation Familiaris Consortio recalls the case of those who are subjectively certain in conscience that their previous marriage, irreparably broken, had never been valid(17). It must be discerned with certainty by means of the external forum established by the Church whether there is objectively such a nullity of marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html