Teaching infallible?

[cialovesyou]

This is where I believe there to be error on the definition of infallibility presented here. Stubborn refusal on the part of those theologians to see what is manifestly evident does not mean it is fallible. To have this many people (especially theologians) being pro-contraception is a relatively new phenomenon. For a time, I too was very stubborn about it. That doesn’t mean that the Truth wasn’t right in front of me. It was because of my own pride that I refused to see it.

Why do you assume theologians are doing anything other than trying to explain exactly, and precisely what the church is teaching?
Is it the theologians with an agenda, or yourself?
Theologians put each other under critical pressure all the time, more than any other group in the church.
A lawyer can tell you speeding is against the law without changing that advice based on his personal opinion, but you dont think people who have devoted their lives to seeking the truth of the faith can?
The issue is firstly does HV contain any infallible definitions? The answer is no.
Now, how enthusiastic you me, or anyone is for the teaching is a matter of opinion.
You are required to give the ‘religious submission’ to it, so no catholic should imagine for a second that non-infallible doctrines are the ‘optional’ ones.

 

[Janet_S]

“contraception teaching infallible?”

No, I think it’s misguided. Population control and planned parenthood are necessary and moral, in as much as they contribute to the well-being of the common good. Overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies compound the human plight.

You’re deceived. Planned Parenthood is incompatible with Catholicism. It is neither necessary nor moral and contributes only the the Culture of Death.

 

[Janet_S]

Why do you assume theologians are doing anything other than trying to explain exactly, and precisely what the church is teaching?
Is it the theologians with an agenda, or yourself?
Theologians put each other under critical pressure all the time, more than any other group in the church.
A lawyer can tell you speeding is against the law without changing that advice based on his personal opinion, but you dont think people who have devoted their lives to seeking the truth of the faith can?
The issue is firstly does HV contain any infallible definitions? The answer is no.
Now, how enthusiastic you me, or anyone is for the teaching is a opinion.
You are required to give the ‘religious submission’ to it, so no catholic should imagine for a second that non-infallible doctrines are the ‘optional’ ones.

We can’t judge the motives of moral theologians, maybe they have the best intentions, but certainly they can and do fall into error. Bad philosophy leads to bad theology. The encyclical Veritatis Splendor is a good explanation of both the need for “moral theology” (as a theological science) and its errors.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

1. The Church’s moral reflection, always conducted in the light of Christ, the “Good Teacher”, has also developed in the specific form of the **theological science called "moral theology ", a science which accepts and examines Divine Revelation while at the same time responding to the demands of human reason. ***Moral theology is a reflection concerned with “morality”, with the good and the evil of human acts and of the person who performs them; in this sense it is accessible to all people. But it is also “theology”, inasmuch as it acknowledges that the origin and end of moral action are found in the One who “alone is good” and who, by giving himself to man in Christ, offers him the happiness of divine life. *

*The Second Vatican Council invited scholars to take “special care for the renewal of moral theology”, in such a way that “its scientific presentation, increasingly based on the teaching of Scripture, will cast light on the exalted vocation of the faithful in Christ and on their obligation to bear fruit in charity for the life of the world”.45 The Council also encouraged theologians, “while respecting the methods and requirements of theological science, to look for a more appropriate way of communicating doctrine to the people of their time; since there is a difference between the deposit or the truths of faith and the manner in which they are expressed, keeping the same meaning and the same judgment”.46 This led to a further invitation, one extended to all the faithful, but addressed to theologians in particular: “The faithful should live in the closest contact with others of their time, and **should work for a perfect understanding of their modes of thought and feelings as expressed in their culture”.47 *

The work of many theologians who found support in the Council’s encouragement has already borne fruit in interesting and helpful reflections about the truths of faith to be believed and applied in life, reflections offered in a form better suited to the sensitivities and questions of our contemporaries. **The Church, and particularly the Bishops, to whom Jesus Christ primarily entrusted the ministry of teaching, are deeply appreciative of this work, and encourage theologians to continue their efforts, inspired by that profound and authentic “fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom” (cf. Prov 1:7). **

At the same time, however, within the context of the theological debates which followed the Council, there have developed certain interpretations of Christian morality which are not consistent with “sound teaching” (2 Tim 4:3). Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one. Nevertheless, in order to “reverently preserve and faithfully expound” the word of God,48 the Magisterium has the duty to state that some trends of theological thinking and certain philosophical affirmations are incompatible with revealed truth.49

 

[LittleDeb]

Why do you assume theologians are doing anything other than trying to explain exactly, and precisely what the church is teaching?
Is it the theologians with an agenda, or yourself?

I don’t assume the theologians are doing anything malicious. We seem to be talking past each other so I will attempt to clarify. My point is that the there is currently a shift in thinking patterns. Yes, many theologians currently believe that the teaching condemning contraception is not infallible. But those theologians 200 years ago would argue the opposite. If they argued and by majority assent back then said it was infallible, then what changed other than current thinking? 200 years ago it was “manifestly evident” to the theologians. But the argument now seems to be that it isn’t because there are many who disagree. Infallibility doesn’t go away just because many people disagree.

The issue is firstly does HV contain any infallible definitions? The answer is no.

I disagree. The issue is firstly, “Is the teaching condemning contraception infallible?” HV is just one of many documents addressing (and readdressing) the issue on contraception. One of the simplest ways to address infallibility is to see if the Church has ever taught something to the contrary.

An even more current example would be that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Over 2000 years it has never been taught that marriage was anything other than one man and one woman. Until recently that one was assented to by nearly 100% of theologians. It would have been thought ludicrous that this teaching was not infallible. But again we are seeing a shift in thinking. How many ‘winds of change’ affecting the thinking patterns of theologians are acceptable?

I might be mis-reading you but it sounds like you are arguing that only dogmatic doctrines are infallible. Please correct me in that if I am misunderstanding you. Please show me a non-dogmatic doctrine that you hold to be infallible and the reasoning behind it so I can better understand your point of view.

 

[Janet_S]

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913):
Infallibility
Having established the general doctrine of the Church’s infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. **We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter’s successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, ****or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. **Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium (“ordinary magisterium”) and confine our attention to ecumenical councils and the pope.

 

[cialovesyou]

You may be referring to the sensus fidelium, although you didnt use that term. But the sensus fidelium is never “manifest”, it is never explicated. It is an infalliblility of believing, not of expression.

An infallible definition is another matter.
The definition part is essential for us to consider a particular teaching at the supreme level of infallible. That is, an infallible definition must be explicit, and manifestly exercising this supreme priveledge of the magisterium, which is the charism of infallibility.
If there is no definition, there is no “infallible definition”. Hence, for any doctrine to be pointed to with certainty, and binding the ‘assent of faith’, we require both a definition of the doctrine (that is, a particular statement, made by the magesterium in a particular document), and also, that that definition is clearly (manifestly) exercising the supreme priveledge of infallibility.

This latter is what is lacking in HV. The definition of doctrine is there, but the claim to be exercising the charism of infallibility is not manifested.

It is not enough to point to a teaching and say “that has always been believed and so is infallible”. This would be to use a secular use of the word “infallible”, and not the scientific theological use of the word. It may well be “true”, 100% true even, but when you use the word “infallible definition”, you are presenting something very specific to the faithful which requires all sorts of obligations which otherwise would not be there.

Is there any infallible definition regarding ABC by the magisterium? Not at this stage.

Now we must point out that you are still required to observe HV with the ‘religious submission’. However, you dont have to smile about it until such time as it is ‘infallibly defined’, at which point you require the ‘assent of faith’. Then you do need to smile.

 

[fix]

The document provided footnoted the very level of teching which is not infallible. Did you follow the citations?

Simple. As enthusiastic as I might be for Humanaw Vitae is not the question. The question is not whether it is right or wrong. The question is whether it is an infallible definition. Answer: No.

Infallibility is a complex area, and the very fact that catholics on this forum are telling people Humanae Vitae is, or as I have seen on other threads ‘the catechism is infallible’, displays that it is not clearly understood.

Infallibility is a scientific definition, which is in fact very rare in the Church. It is a complex matter. And your next point displays this.I see a lot of confusion about infallibility, yes. I see people who try to tell me the Catechism is an infallible document. (which of course it is not, although it contains references to infallible teaachings)

Now you have moved from the theological definition of infallibility to a broader definition of truth. Stick to the issue. Infallible is a level of teaching within the Church which is very rare in its exercise. It is not enough that it be implicit within the historical teaching, it must be explicitly and formally pronounced otherwise it is not manifest.(cf. Can 749)

No, do I need to? This was never my contention. Someone asked if HV was an infallible teaching. It is not. This is simply a statement of fact. Are you implying that I am somehow against HV? That by truthfully answering the question I am doing a dis-service to the Church? I think those who dont answer this question truthfully do a dis-service to the church actually, because one day the Pontiff may reverse a teaching on some matter which was never infallible, but which many ‘always thought’ was infallible. This is the seeds of resentment, and leaving the communion of the church for that individual. We have a lot at stake here.
I doubt the teaching will be reversed if you want my opinion. But why would you seek my opinion on that? I think you are breaking into a sweat trying to find my ‘agenda’ behind this. (cia wants to undermine HV, cia practices birth control, cia has a problem with the magesterium; none of which are true) That is not the issue here. The issue is that cia’s ‘agenda’ is to make sure catholics are accurately informed on the faith.

I am glad we have agreed the Bishop is the individuals authoratative teacher on the faith. But why the second question? If I believed the bishop was going to give a wrong answer, I wouldnt be sending people off to the bishop. I just spent all this time trying to explain why it isnt infallible, because I wanted the gentleman(or lady) who started this thread to recieve an accurate answer.

Are you implying after all these posts that my agenda is anything other than trying to accurately explain the faith to the person ?

It seems you think the ordinary and universal magisterium cannot teach infallibly?:

the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

The particular of a teaching of the papal Magisterium that is meant merely to confirm or repropose a certitude of faith already lived consciously by the Church or affirmed by the universal teaching of the entire Episcopate can be seen not in the teaching of the doctrine <per se,> but in the fact that the Roman Pontiff formally declares that this doctrine already belongs to the faith of the Church and is infallibly taught by the ordinary, universal Magisterium as divinely revealed or to be held in a definitive way…

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone

 

[fix]

This is where I believe there to be error on the definition of infallibility presented here. Stubborn refusal on the part of those theologians to see what is manifestly evident does not mean it is fallible. To have this many people (especially theologians) being pro-contraception is a relatively new phenomenon. For a time, I too was very stubborn about it. That doesn’t mean that the Truth wasn’t right in front of me. It was because of my own pride that I refused to see it.

If we had polled the theologians 200 years ago most of them would have said that the teaching condemning contraception was indeed infallible. As I stated earlier, the document of HV doesn’t stand up to dogmatic declaration because of lack of assent. However it does not undo the infallible teaching it contains.

Very true and that would apply to bishops as well:

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

Truth is not determined by the number who assent or dissent in any given age.

 

[BillP]

Very true and that would apply to bishops as well:

Truth is not determined by the number who assent or dissent in any given age.

Actually it is, at least in teh case on the ordinary magesterium and infallibility. For the ordinary magesterium to teach infallibly there has to be a consensus, that is, no significant dissent.

 

[fix]

Actually it is, at least in teh case on the ordinary magesterium and infallibility. For the ordinary magesterium to teach infallibly there has to be a consensus, that is, no significant dissent.

The link I provided disagrees.

Again:

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

 

[cialovesyou]

It seems you think the ordinary and universal magisterium cannot teach infallibly?

Where on earth did you get this idea from?
That was never my contention.

 

[LittleDeb]

The link I provided disagrees.

Again:It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

Thanks fix! This is exactly my point. If everyone consented before, current dissent doesn’t change previously established infallibility. And the reference you gave about including all of Church history is so important too. The amount of current dissent might seem big, but it is really teeny tiny compared to 2000 years of assent.

As your other references show HV was just another in a long line of affirmations that the teaching has never changed. It doesn’t matter if that particular document holds up to individual infallibility or not. The teaching it contains has never wavered.

I agree. It still seems that the argument against the teaching being infallible is a rejection of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

 

[cialovesyou]

I agree. It still seems that the argument against the teaching being infallible is a rejection of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

Then you are not understanding the issue. Where is the infallible definition? If there isnt such a definition, it does require the faithful hold it with certainty, as truthful as it might be. Once we have a definitive act (statement), then you can oblige catholics to the ‘assent of faith’. You can even technically describe teaching to the contrary of such a definitive infallible act is heresy.

Is the definitive act necessary? Yes.Because the Church also teaches this…
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.(cf.CJC 749)
Hence, to say something is infallibly defined, we need to point to specific manifestation of it.That is, a proposal.

The danger of the opposing view can be easily demostrated. How many of our previous magisterium would of been quite certain Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Does that make it infallible? I hope not, since you wouldnt be able to find more than a handful of scholars to agree with that position unless you went to the annual muffin drive at the ‘Four Square Gospel Church of South Alabama.’

Hence, the manifestation must be pointed to as a statement of word, (or action I would say, such as liturgy, but that is an essay in itself), which we consider manifesting infallible definition.

Hence, we are at the point of ‘religious submission of will’. In other words, you need to follow it anyway, but you dont need ‘assent of faith’. Personally, I think I can give the underlying issue ‘assent of faith’, but thats my position.

 

[LittleDeb]

Then you are not understanding the issue. Where is the infallible definition? If there isnt such a definition, it does require the faithful hold it with certainty, as truthful as it might be. Once we have a definitive act (statement), then you can oblige catholics to the ‘assent of faith’. You can even technically describe teaching to the contrary of such a definitive infallible act is heresy.

Is the definitive act necessary? Yes.Because the Church also teaches this…
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.(cf.CJC 749)
Hence, to say something is infallibly defined, we need to point to specific manifestation of it.That is, a proposal.

The danger of the opposing view can be easily demostrated. How many of our previous magisterium would of been quite certain Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Does that make it infallible? I hope not, since you wouldnt be able to find more than a handful of scholars to agree with that position unless you went to the annual muffin drive at the ‘Four Square Gospel Church of South Alabama.’

Hence, the manifestation must be pointed to as a statement of word, (or action I would say, such as liturgy, but that is an essay in itself), which we consider manifesting infallible definition.

Hence, we are at the point of ‘religious submission of will’. In other words, you need to follow it anyway, but you dont need ‘assent of faith’. Personally, I think I can give the underlying issue ‘assent of faith’, but thats my position.

I am trying to understand your POV, I really am. I am not being obstinate just to be right. That is why I asked for an example of something that you hold to be infallible that has not been dogmatically defined. A concrete example of what is presented in the first and second paragraphs here would be really helpful.

BTW, “went to the annual muffin drive at the 'Four Square Gospel”

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No, the current teaching on contraceptive techniques has never been proclaimed ex cathedra. There is still room for personal conscience in the matter.

Matthew

Exactly.

 

[LittleDeb]

No, the current teaching on contraceptive techniques has never been proclaimed ex cathedra. There is still room for personal conscience in the matter.

Matthew

No, this only means it is not dogma. No one here has claimed it is a dogma. The only thing being discussed is whether it is doctrine. Ex Cathedra is rare and when declared proclaims that a doctrine is also dogmatic.

No the teaching against contraception is not dogma. We are discussing if it is doctrine. Even cialovesyou, while debating it is not doctrine, doesn’t appear to be advocating NOT submitting to the teaching.

The “personal conscience” dance proposed by the priest in OP is what seems to be causing the most confusion.

 

[cialovesyou]

Dogma can be used, and has been used in the Church in different ways, so the word is a bit loose. However, today I would say the common understanding is ‘that which has been infallibly declared by a definitive act’.
In short, I consider those statements of the Church infallible, which meet the scientific criteria.

Do you need to follow Humanae Vitae?
Yes. Even non-infallible teachings of the Church must be adhered to. This is called ‘religious submission’. One should try to achieve ‘assent of faith’ as the grace of God moves you. But we cant call you a heretic if you dont.(cf.Can 751)

Can you avoid giving the ‘assent of faith’? Yes, but be careful. The Church doesnt make doctrines willy-nilly(a doctrine is simply a teaching; not necessarily infallible, for instance we have the teaching on IVF as a doctine, but not infallible), so always keep reading when you find yourself at odds with the Church.

Can you openly say it’s wrong? If you are officially teaching for the catholic church; a teacher in high school for instance, you are likely to get the episcopal whack across the head with your local ordinaries crook. So no, you have no authority to teach other than the catholic teaching.

Can you personally express the view?

“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”(CJC)

The key question is ‘submission of the intellect and will’. I should say we need to follow it is what this is saying. But that we can personally disagree with the teaching whilst still following it, and so we can express this opinion. (only after doing the duty of expressing the Church teaching first). You will likely be asked by the Lord when you see Him, so maybe prepare your answer now.

This is getting into Canon law a bit so I dont want to be too definate.
I am not a canon-lawyer. Theology is my game.

 

[fix]

Then you are not understanding the issue. Where is the infallible definition? If there isnt such a definition, it does require the faithful hold it with certainty, as truthful as it might be. Once we have a definitive act (statement), then you can oblige catholics to the ‘assent of faith’. You can even technically describe teaching to the contrary of such a definitive infallible act is heresy.

Is the definitive act necessary? Yes.Because the Church also teaches this…

What about this?:

… the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as either by a or by a First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). …

 

[aaronjmagnan]

There is a CD I listened to that provides pretty good arguments for the fact that the opinions expressed in Humanae Vitae ARE infallible because of their relation to faith and morals. Now I would listen to it before jumping into canon law, etc. It gives more of a basis on the spiritual principal behind infallability.

It is worth the $5.

omsoul.com/catalog/index.php?target=products&product_id=430

However, this standpoint is more accessible through reasoning than through its obvious or “natural-law” nature.

Along this line, I know of people who were raised and educated for twenty years as Catholics, but with a poor understanding of scripture, theology, and Church teaching.

Do you think it is a case, then, of people not-receiving communion although they don’t understand it. So while they may not agree, and may not be culpable in the mortal sense because of education, they at least could respect the Church’s teaching?

We do have a moral obligation to not remain in the dark when it comes to our conscience. To investigate and try to come to terms with the teachings.

God bless,
Aaron Magnan

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

It seems you think the ordinary and universal magisterium cannot teach infallibly?:

[Some posts from #122 to #133 being particularly long, heavy and complex]
Forgive me, but I have a few questions on a simpler plane, but not enough time in the week to wallow and slog through such masses of complex intellectualizations. Shall I ask a few basic questions here or start another thread, or shall I contact each of you individually with PMs? My questions are on topic, OK?
(Re: contraception teaching infallible?)
Sincerely, Marilyn