total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[anon5216]

Yes.
But do you have or does there exist somewhere a list of infallible ex cathedra doctrines of the Church?

There was a thread on this question. There is no list.
The only consensus was on the same two things mentioned earlier on this thread.

There was long discussion on the circumstances that are required for infallibility, but there is so much wiggle room for interpretation that no consensus on a list was ever reached.
It boils down to individuals believing in their own personal list of infallible doctrines based on what each individual is willing to accept as infallible.

IMO, the Church will never come up with an explicit list - even if claimed incomplete -
as a list then opens the door to people believing anything not on the list can be taken much less seriously (or ignored entirely).

Also, vagueness allows hedging their bets (so to speak), should anything be dis-proven later.

 

[una_fides]

There was a thread on this question. There is no list.
The only consensus was on the same two things mentioned earlier on this thread.

There was long discussion on the circumstances that are required for infallibility, but there is so much wiggle room for interpretation that no consensus on a list was ever reached.
It boils down to individuals believing in their own personal list of infallible doctrines based on what each individual is willing to accept as infallible.

IMO, the Church will never come up with an explicit list - even if claimed incomplete -
as a list then opens the door to people believing anything not on the list can be taken much less seriously (or ignored entirely).

Also, vagueness allows hedging their bets (so to speak), should anything be dis-proven later.

Ex cathedra papal declarations are not the only means for dogmas to be infallibly defined. They can also be part of a General Council or part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. If the Church has always believed it to be a true dogma, then it is infallible according to her infallible teachings. These will not change nor can they be “dis-proven” later. Can someone “disprove” that the use of artificial contraception or abortion are sinful? No. Are these infallible truths of the faith? Absolutely. Does one need to point to any specific ex cathedra papal declarations to know they are infallibly true? Absolutely not.

 

[una_fides]

Yes.
But do you have or does there exist somewhere a list of infallible ex cathedra doctrines of the Church?

There is no official list. Unlike Anon’s non-Catholic and skeptical theory as to why the Church does not publish such a list, I believe that she does not need to. As I stated above, ex cathedra teachings are not the only infallible teachings. We are also bound to accept with religious submission of our will and intellect the teachings of the ordinary Magisterium as well. When the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, officially teaches something, there is not room for dissent unless something she were to teach in her ordinary Magisterium contradicted her previously defined infallible teachings. Too many people think / hope that they can dissent from a teaching as long as it has not been defined ex cathedra by a pope. The truth is that they are bound to believe the teachings of the Church and to obstinately dissent or even doubt concerning a teaching of the divine and Catholic faith is heresy by its very definition.

 

[sidbrown]

Can someone “disprove” that the use of artificial contraception or abortion are sinful? .

Slavery was once permitted, but now it is sinful. Further, the Church has two lungs:
In an address to the Eastern Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus, Pope Benedict XVI invoked the language of Pope John Paul II and clearly refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as one of the two lungs of the Church:

“Thank you, Your Beatitude, for this gesture of esteem and brotherly friendship. In you, I greet the Pastor of an ancient and illustrious Church, a shining tessera of that bright mosaic, the East, which, to use a favourite phrase of the Servant of God John Paul II of venerable memory, constitutes one of the two lungs with which the Church breathes.”

vatican.va/holy_father/be…mos-ii_en.html
But what does the Eastern lung believe about birth control? It is true that there are some Orthodox who beleive that it is sinful, but there are many who will say that you are allowed to use artificial birth control after you have had three or more children.

 

[una_fides]

Slavery was once permitted, but now it is sinful. Further, the Church has two lungs:
In an address to the Eastern Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus, Pope Benedict XVI invoked the language of Pope John Paul II and clearly refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as one of the two lungs of the Church:
…
But what does the Eastern lung believe about birth control? It is true that there are some Orthodox who beleive that it is sinful, but there are many who will say that you are allowed to use artificial birth control after you have had three or more children.

Hi Sid. Thank you for joining in on the discussion. I will answer your remark, but I really think we are starting to digress into the topic of infallibility, which would be best discussed in another thread. I will answer both to set the record straight concerning your query and because of infallibility’s link to the inerrancy of Scripture, since the Church has constantly and universally taught that the Bible is without error for over 2000 years.

First, regarding slavery, the Church never officially condoned slavery stating that it was a just practice or that it was a dogma of faith or morals that masters have a right to own slaves. In fact, the Church, morally speaking, was the one to condemn the practice of the exploitation of slaves and the manifestation of slavery in the New World.

Second, regarding the eastern Churches, a quick Google search on the topic will help clear up your confusion on their position on this issue. Here’s a site that explains that the eastern Churches have always held that artificial contraception is morally evil, despite the fact that in recent years some local churches have taught contrary to the constant teachings of the Church. roca.org/OA/155-156/155h.htm. If individual bishops embrace heresy, that does not change the constant and infallible truths that they oppose. In order for a teaching to fall under the universal and ordinary Magisterium, it is the bishops in union with the pope who determine infallible truth, not by necessarily even unanimous teachings but by the constant teaching of the Church when the bishops make a definitive judgment on a matter of faith or morals.

The Church’s teachings are not based on novelty or innovation; they are grounded in apostolic Tradition. Therefore, if the Church has always condemned something to be sinful, then it is an infallible truth of morals that cannot be changed. You can try to argue it all you want, but we have at least two papal declarations condemning the practice of artificial contraception as not only a morally unjust practice but as intrinsically evil. Artificial contraception is not a new practice, and the Church has always condemned it as evil. catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[sidbrown]

Hi Sid. Thank you for joining in on the discussion. I will answer your remark, but I really think we are starting to digress into the topic of infallibility, which would be best discussed in another thread. I will answer both to set the record straight concerning your query and because of infallibility’s link to the inerrancy of Scripture, since the Church has constantly and universally taught that the Bible is without error for over 2000 years.

First, regarding slavery, the Church never officially condoned slavery stating that it was a just practice or that it was a dogma of faith or morals that masters have a right to own slaves. In fact, the Church, morally speaking, was the one to condemn the practice of the exploitation of slaves and the manifestation of slavery in the New World.

Second, regarding the eastern Churches, a quick Google search on the topic will help clear up your confusion on their position on this issue. Here’s a site that explains that the eastern Churches have always held that artificial contraception is morally evil, despite the fact that in recent years some local churches have taught contrary to the constant teachings of the Church. roca.org/OA/155-156/155h.htm. If individual bishops embrace heresy, that does not change the constant and infallible truths that they oppose. In order for a teaching to fall under the universal and ordinary Magisterium, it is the bishops in union with the pope who determine infallible truth, not by necessarily even unanimous teachings but by the constant teaching of the Church when the bishops make a definitive judgment on a matter of faith or morals.

The Church’s teachings are not based on novelty or innovation; they are grounded in apostolic Tradition. Therefore, if the Church has always condemned something to be sinful, then it is an infallible truth of morals that cannot be changed. You can try to argue it all you want, but we have at least two papal declarations condemning the practice of artificial contraception as not only a morally unjust practice but as intrinsically evil. Artificial contraception is not a new practice, and the Church has always condemned it as evil. catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I think that there are some Catholic theologians who say that Humanae vitae is not an infallible teaching of the Church, although still, Catholics have to adhere to the teaching.

 

[sidbrown]

First, regarding slavery, the Church never officially condoned slavery stating that it was a just practice or that it was a dogma of faith or morals that masters have a right to own slaves. In fact, the Church, morally speaking, was the one to condemn the practice of the exploitation of slaves and the manifestation of slavery in the New World. ]

Is it not true that:
Bishop John England of Charleston wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren stating that the Pope did not condemn slavery. Many Catholic priests owned slaves and they were not reprimanded in any way for doing so.

 

[David_Zampino]

So in other words if I found a reference of St Augustine using the same arguments then it would be convincing but since you don’t like the source then you automatically disregard the arguments altogether. I could have just written the arguments myself on here so that they could be weighed on their own merits but the fact you write them off because of the source shows your bias against the content itself. I don’t have time right now to dig through the Church fathers and show where they make the same arguments demonstrating how Scripture harmonizes and does not contradict itself. But of course because you likely disagree with the conclusions I’m sure you will find a way to write them off as well. The Church has explained how to interpret Scripture is according to Tradition and that we must look to the fathers for our understanding. The Catholic Church has solemnly pronounced that there are no errors in the texts of Scripture so if a Protestant, Jew, or even an atheist were to agree or offer evidence supporting the Church’s teaching then I would think that deserves our attention. Do you only read Catholic history books or only attend Catholic lectures or Catholic classes taught by Catholic professors? Certainly you can learn information from any source, but we must carefully weigh the evidence especially if the source is not Catholic and is teaching on doctrinal matters. This site does not teach doctrine, but it simply stated a way to historically reconcile Scriptures, which the Church itself commends us to do.

It’s a shame that today there are many Protestants who are more Catholic in their beliefs than many people who profess to be members of the Church.

You jump to a great many conclusions. A great many. You have also appeared to make a number of incorrect assumptions about me as well.

To respond to your point:

One must weigh VERY carefully the sources behind the arguments one chooses to use. When a Catholic, positing an extremely narrow definition of a word (inerrancy) chooses to use as a source a very fringe Protestant argument, one must be very careful.

One can learn from many sources (both positively and negatively) and one should. I have learned a great deal from people with whom I disagree. I have books on my shelves which express positions with which I disagree. Iron sharpens iron.

But – there are some sources (in any field) which deserve to be disregarded or discredited. I suspect that you would immediately disregard a treatise which used Jack Chick as source material! (As would I!)

Using sources of very questionable worth (which I believe, in this case, you have done) in order to justify an extremely narrow definition of a very important concept (inerrancy) is problematic.

 

[una_fides]

You jump to a great many conclusions. A great many. You have also appeared to make a number of incorrect assumptions about me as well.

To respond to your point:

One must weigh VERY carefully the sources behind the arguments one chooses to use. When a Catholic, positing an extremely narrow definition of a word (inerrancy) chooses to use as a source a very fringe Protestant argument, one must be very careful.

One can learn from many sources (both positively and negatively) and one should. I have learned a great deal from people with whom I disagree. I have books on my shelves which express positions with which I disagree. Iron sharpens iron.

But – there are some sources (in any field) which deserve to be disregarded or discredited. I suspect that you would immediately disregard a treatise which used Jack Chick as source material! (As would I!)

Using sources of very questionable worth (which I believe, in this case, you have done) in order to justify an extremely narrow definition of a very important concept (inerrancy) is problematic.

This “very fringe protestant argument” takes the same approach as the early Church fathers in reconciling the biblical accounts. An approach which causes the authors to disagree in anything they say or to contradict reason or history is clearly contrary to Catholic teaching, so if this protestant source was making plausible arguments that correspond with the Catholic position that there are no errors in Scripture then perhaps the protestant was more Catholic than most “Catholics” today are in their understanding of the nature of Scripture.

 

[una_fides]

Is it not true that:
Bishop John England of Charleston wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren stating that the Pope did not condemn slavery. Many Catholic priests owned slaves and they were not reprimanded in any way for doing so.

First, even if what you claim were true, it would not even prove that that particlar pope did not condemn slavery. It would only prove that a secondary source claimed that he did not. Second, many Catholic priests could become complete heretics and that would not change the Catholic faith one iota. The matter of owning slaves involves neither faith nor morals but an economic system that if run according to Church teachings of loving one’s neighbor is not inherently sinful, though those in authority often did abuse their positions. There were times in Church history in certain areas where morality became lax and priests had mistresses, etc. But again their sinful behavior would not, does not, and cannot change the Catholic faith.

Lastly, and most important, even if a pope as a private person were to have endorsed slavery and said it is a good thing–which no one has ever claimed has ever happened–even such a fictitious situation would not change the Catholic faith nor would it have anything to do with the Catholic faith. The pope’s private beliefs are not binding on any Catholic nor do they have any weight in determining Catholic teachings unless he so chooses to bind the faithful by teaching particular doctrines, which he can also declare everyone is bound to believe. If a pope teaches that a doctrine is divinely revealed or that it is definitive and all the faithful must believe it, then it falls under the category of an ex cathedra infallible declaration.

Your examples fall far short of proving that the Church has changed her infallibly defined dogmas.

 

[una_fides]

I think that there are some Catholic theologians who say that Humanae vitae is not an infallible teaching of the Church, although still, Catholics have to adhere to the teaching.

We cannot base our faith on modern Catholic theologians. We must base our faith on what the Church has always taught. There are modern “Catholic” theologians who deny the divinity of Christ, teach that women have a right to be priests, and that popes are not infallible. Even if the vast majority of such theologians were to agree on a teaching, it would not change or define any teaching of the Church, unless the Church were to authoritatively ascribe to such teaching. The greatest Catholic theologian with the most magisterial approval is none other than St. Thomas Aquinas. His teachings on the inerrancy of Scripture, along with all the rest of the fathers, is crystal clear. No errors of any kind. Only potential errors in our understanding.

 

[una_fides]

Yes.
But do you have or does there exist somewhere a list of infallible ex cathedra doctrines of the Church?

Sid,

There was actually an official list cited earlier on this thread. It also clarifies that this list is not exhaustive:

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithThis commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of "Ad tuendam fidem" by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]
…
11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 ** the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts**;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Notice that it lists the absence of error in Scripture in the same list as Marian dogmas and the Real Presence! It is not a question still up for debate. It has been infallibly defined. There are no errors in Scripture.

           "Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and...no error can occur in the inspired text....                  (Pope Benedict XV, [*Spiritus Paraclitus*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html), n. 21,22,28)

" it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. … For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20-22).

 

[sidbrown]

First, even if what you claim were true, it would not even prove that that particlar pope did not condemn slavery. It would only prove that a secondary source claimed that he did not. Second, many Catholic priests could become complete heretics and that would not change the Catholic faith one iota. The matter of owning slaves involves neither faith nor morals but an economic system that if run according to Church teachings of loving one’s neighbor is not inherently sinful, though those in authority often did abuse their positions. There were times in Church history in certain areas where morality became lax and priests had mistresses, etc. But again their sinful behavior would not, does not, and cannot change the Catholic faith.

Lastly, and most important, even if a pope as a private person were to have endorsed slavery and said it is a good thing–which no one has ever claimed has ever happened–even such a fictitious situation would not change the Catholic faith nor would it have anything to do with the Catholic faith. The pope’s private beliefs are not binding on any Catholic nor do they have any weight in determining Catholic teachings unless he so chooses to bind the faithful by teaching particular doctrines, which he can also declare everyone is bound to believe. If a pope teaches that a doctrine is divinely revealed or that it is definitive and all the faithful must believe it, then it falls under the category of an ex cathedra infallible declaration.

Your examples fall far short of proving that the Church has changed her infallibly defined dogmas.

It is true that the Second Vatican Council condemned slavery. However, there is a problem since St. Paul commanded slaves to obey their masters. (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8). Why should a slave obey his master if enslavement of another person is wrong in the first place?According to Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., First Things, October 2005: The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim slaves. Throughout the Middle Ages, theologians followed St. Augustine in holding that slavery was not absolutely forbidden by the natural law. The local Synod of Gangra was held in 340 and it condemned a lot of things and one of the things it condemned was any recommendation that slaves flee their masters. This was only a local synod, but its decisions were ratified later on by the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[sidbrown]

The greatest Catholic theologian with the most magisterial approval is none other than St. Thomas Aquinas.

This is a problem with reference to slavery becasue according to the article I referenced above by very Cardinal Dulles, St. Thomas Aquinas defended slavery as punishment for sin.

 

[sidbrown]

There also seems to have been a change in the teaching on torture, since according to the Papal Bull Ad extirpanda of Pope Innocent IV, torture is approved to elicit confessions from suspected heretics, but the present teachng is that torture is not allowed.

 

[una_fides]

It is true that the Second Vatican Council condemned slavery. However, there is a problem since St. Paul commanded slaves to obey their masters. (Col. 3:22-25; Eph. 6:5-8). Why should a slave obey his master if enslavement of another person is wrong in the first place?According to Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., First Things, October 2005: The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim slaves. Throughout the Middle Ages, theologians followed St. Augustine in holding that slavery was not absolutely forbidden by the natural law. The local Synod of Gangra was held in 340 and it condemned a lot of things and one of the things it condemned was any recommendation that slaves flee their masters. This was only a local synod, but its decisions were ratified later on by the Council of Chalcedon.

The key is the difference in what “slavery” meant back then and what it means today. In Biblical days slavery was not the same thing as slavery today. If you wish to discuss slavery, please start a thread on that subject. I suggest doing a Google search and researching different forms of slavery in the past and present. Here is a site I located in a matter of seconds that points out some differences: gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

We are all to be slaves of Christ. Mary’s response to the angel is best translated, “Behold the slave of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy word.” We are all slaves in a sense to our masters or those placed over us in authority, and there is nothing inherently evil about being the servant of others, just as Christ gave us the example of being a servant by washing the apostles’ feat. So in fact, slavery in this way is not evil; it is good and just! What the Church has recently spoken out against is modern injustices in modern slavery, such as slavery based on race or ethnicity and treating people as property. In ancient times, slavery was entirely different. But regardless, as I stated, the Church never previously officially taught that slavery was good or just or anything. She tolerated it just as the Church today tolerates other sins and sinful people. There is a distinction between toleration and proclamation. You are trying very hard here, but your efforts are directed to the wrong end: to try to prove that the Church is not who she claims she is, the pillar and foundation of truth. If you wish to make her into a foundation of lies and contradictions, then you are fighting on the wrong side in this battle.

 

[una_fides]

There also seems to have been a change in the teaching on torture, since according to the Papal Bull Ad extirpanda of Pope Innocent IV, torture is approved to elicit confessions from suspected heretics, but the present teachng is that torture is not allowed.

Dogma vs. discipline. Infallibility vs. Impeccability. These are necessary distinctions.

 

[una_fides]

This is a problem with reference to slavery becasue according to the article I referenced above by very Cardinal Dulles, St. Thomas Aquinas defended slavery as punishment for sin.

What is with all this talk on slavery. The topic is inerrancy of Scripture! Can we please get back to the topic? If you want to talk slavery, please start a new thread.

 

[sidbrown]

What is with all this talk on slavery. The topic is inerrancy of Scripture! Can we please get back to the topic? If you want to talk slavery, please start a new thread.

I gave the Scriptural references to the works of St. Paul.

 

[adriancombe]

Sid,

There was actually an official list cited earlier on this thread. It also clarifies that this list is not exhaustive:

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithThis commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of "Ad tuendam fidem" by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]
…
11. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 ** the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts**;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Notice that it lists the absence of error in Scripture in the same list as Marian dogmas and the Real Presence! It is not a question still up for debate. It has been infallibly defined. There are no errors in Scripture.

           "Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and...no error can occur in the inspired text....                  (Pope Benedict XV, [*Spiritus Paraclitus*](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html), n. 21,22,28)

" it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. … For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20-22).

Thank you very much for this, especially the Professio Fidei link. Don’t know why I wasn’t aware of this before.