Teachings

[thistle]

Can anyone help me out with a few examples of non-infallible teachings.

Finding infallible teachings and disciplines is relatively easy but I got stuck when someone asked me to immediately name some non-infallible teachings. My mind went blank and I’m stuck in that mode.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Can anyone help me out with a few examples of non-infallible teachings.

Finding infallible teachings and disciplines is relatively easy but I got stuck when someone asked me to immediately name some non-infallible teachings. My mind went blank and I’m stuck in that mode.

I can understand your problem with coming up with definite answers. We all can think of papal encyclicals and the like but the hot topic is whether all of Church Councils production is infallible. I can think that there are certain topics and understandings that seem logical and valid from the point of view of philosophy like as John Hardon says “you can’t be saved without a prayer life”. There are views of when the Church started from the time Christ died on the Cross to the time the Spirit came in Acts. There is truth in much of these but these can be taught because there have not been definite answers given and they do conform to the understanding of the Church as we know it.

 

[Nita]

One area that comes to mind has to do with predestination. The Church infallibly teaches that God does predestine some to eternal blessedness. But the Church has left open the basis for this predestination. One is free to accept either the Thomist position or the Molinist position. (If you have “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ott, see p.243-244.)

Another area: I think the eternal destination of babies who die unbaptized is still open - that is, no infallible declaration as to their eternal dwelling. (CCC #1261 and 1283)

 

[Edmundus1581]

We have in our own lifetime a teaching which went from non-infallible to infallible - the male-only priesthood.

Constant Church tradition has always accepted that only men could be ordained to the priesthood, however it only became infallible with Pope JPII’s apostolic letter of 1994.

 

[Abu]

The only non-infallible doctrines listed By Fr William Most in his little booklet Catholic Beliefs: The Bottom Line, Prow Books, 1988, are:

The names of the authors of the four Gospels; and to determine what the inspired author means, we must consider the genre or pattern of writing in which he is working.

 

[EricFilmer]

Can anyone help me out with a few examples of non-infallible teachings.

Finding infallible teachings and disciplines is relatively easy but I got stuck when someone asked me to immediately name some non-infallible teachings. My mind went blank and I’m stuck in that mode.

Jimmy Akin addresses this topic in in this blog article (you’ll have to scroll down a little).

 

[thistle]

Jimmy Akin addresses this topic in in this blog article (you’ll have to scroll down a little).

Thanks. From what I read in the article and other links its not just me who cannot immediately point to a non-infallible teaching.

I like the CCC. It contains infallible, non-infallible teachings and disciplines but I have never understood why each teaching therein could not have been marked as infallible, non-infallible or discipline. How hard would that have been to do? Then most of us would not be confused and we would not have to have debates (sometimes heated) as to whether this or the other teaching was infallible or not.
The Church produced and published the CCC but without saying what type of doctrine each one is it might be perceived they don’t know in every case.

 

[Abu]

As even non-infallible doctrine requires the “loyal submission of the will and intellect” Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25, and Bl John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, the third level of doctrine, Catholics need not be too concerned with what doctrine is infallible and what is not.

 

[joshua_b]

Just to clarify, disciplines do not fall under the umbrella of “infallibility” (“Finding infallible teachings and disciplines is relatively easy…”). Disciplines are not doctrine, and are subject to change at the bishop’s discretion. Friday penance, Lenten abstinence, and priestly celibacy are all examples of disciplines. They are observed by the faithful out of obedience, but are not official teachings of the Church.

Being a regular poster, thistle, I am sure you are aware lf it, but it was worded a little vague, and someone not so familiar with the terms may have gotten confused.

 

[thistle]

Just to clarify, disciplines do not fall under the umbrella of “infallibility” (“Finding infallible teachings and disciplines is relatively easy…”). Disciplines are not doctrine, and are subject to change at the bishop’s discretion. Friday penance, Lenten abstinence, and priestly celibacy are all examples of disciplines. They are observed by the faithful out of obedience, but are not official teachings of the Church.

Being a regular poster, thistle, I am sure you are aware lf it, but it was worded a little vague, and someone not so familiar with the terms may have gotten confused.

I am aware that disciplines are not teachings which is why I said teachings and disciplines. I did not classify disciplines as teachings. I separated them.

 

[thistle]

As even non-infallible doctrine requires the “loyal submission of the will and intellect” Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25, and Bl John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, the third level of doctrine, Catholics need not be too concerned with what doctrine is infallible and what is not.

I don’t agree.
It is heresy to deny an infallible teaching but it is not heresy to deny a non-fallible teaching even though they both would normally put you in a state of mortal sin.

 

[EricFilmer]

Thanks. From what I read in the article and other links its not just me who cannot immediately point to a non-infallible teaching.

I like the CCC. It contains infallible, non-infallible teachings and disciplines but I have never understood why each teaching therein could not have been marked as infallible, non-infallible or discipline. How hard would that have been to do? Then most of us would not be confused and we would not have to have debates (sometimes heated) as to whether this or the other teaching was infallible or not.
The Church produced and published the CCC but without saying what type of doctrine each one is it might be perceived they don’t know in every case.

I agree that the distinction between infallible and non-infallible teachings can often be hard to perceive, and often wished the catechism clarified things better. As it stands now, one has to look for clues in the manner a teaching is presented in the catechism (which involves subjective assessment, and a subjective assessment can often be an unreliable assessment). Evidently others likewise have difficulty in determining what is, and is not, a non-infallible teaching, as is demonstrated on the Catholic Planet forum in this quiz (which I stumbled upon when searching the internet for an answer to your OP).

All this doesn’t have much effect upon my personal spirituality, because I simply go with what the catechism teaches (and I am sure it is the same with you). But, of course, the difficulty arises when someone else asks us questions addressing the topic of non-infallible teachings (i.e., the situation which prompted you to start this thread, and I have experienced this sort of thing also when teaching RCIA).

 

[grannymh]

Can anyone help me out with a few examples of non-infallible teachings.

Finding infallible teachings and disciplines is relatively easy but I got stuck when someone asked me to immediately name some non-infallible teachings. My mind went blank and I’m stuck in that mode.

The weather report.

 

[Abu]

Catholics need not be too concerned with what doctrine is infallible and what is not.

Thistle #11
I don’t agree.
It is heresy to deny an infallible teaching but it is not heresy to deny a non-fallible teaching even though they both would normally put you in a state of mortal sin.

The fact is that Catholics need to be very concerned not to be in mortal sin, and the fact is that a non-infallible doctrine requires “submission of will and intellect.”

Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“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.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

So what is lax is the feeling that non-infallible doctrine may be dissented from with impunity – the bane of the age.
Donum Veritatis (Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, CDF), 1990, completely rules out all dissent:
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

 

[thistle]

Catholics need not be too concerned with what doctrine is infallible and what is not.
The fact is that Catholics need to be very concerned not to be in mortal sin, and the fact is that a non-infallible doctrine requires “submission of will and intellect.”

Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)

“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.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

So what is lax is the feeling that non-infallible doctrine may be dissented from with impunity – the bane of the age.
Donum Veritatis (Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, CDF), 1990, completely rules out all dissent:
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

I’m not disagreeing with that. I just don’t think you should readily say it makes no difference if a teaching is infallible or non-infallible. If it didn’t there would be no need for the Church to differentiate.

 

[Abu]

Thistle #15
I’m not disagreeing with that. I just don’t think you should readily say it makes no difference if a teaching is infallible or non-infallible. If it didn’t there would be no need for the Church to differentiate.

The statement that “Catholics need not be too concerned with what doctrine is infallible and what is not” is not the same as saying that “it makes no difference” – that is a false assumption.

The concern ad nauseam in multitudinous threads as to the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception, for instance, is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by many that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Catholics should be concerned that they assent to all doctrine whether infallible or otherwise. As Fr Brian Harrison points out, the third category of doctrine proposed as “ ‘authentic’ or ‘authoritative’…requires from us ‘religious assent of mind and will …as at least morally certain …true…(N)ormally, ‘authentic’ teaching is simply doctrine on the ‘infallibility track,’ as it were…” Fidelity, March 1999, p 31, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op Ltd., Australia].

 

[thistle]

The statement that “Catholics need not be too concerned with what doctrine is infallible and what is not” is not the same as saying that “it makes no difference” – that is a false assumption.

The concern ad nauseam in multitudinous threads as to the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception, for instance, is evidence of the totally misplaced assumption by many that any doctrine which is not infallible need not be taken seriously and can be dissented from.

Catholics should be concerned that they assent to all doctrine whether infallible or otherwise. As Fr Brian Harrison points out, the third category of doctrine proposed as “ ‘authentic’ or ‘authoritative’…requires from us ‘religious assent of mind and will …as at least morally certain …true…(N)ormally, ‘authentic’ teaching is simply doctrine on the ‘infallibility track,’ as it were…” Fidelity, March 1999, p 31, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op Ltd., Australia].

Okay. Now I understand what you mean and I agree.