What do you think "Infallibility" means?

[KindredSoul]

So I have posted a little in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=896116

Long story short, the OP had asked a strictly hypothetical question, wondering what faithful and orthodox Catholics would do if the Church changed Her teachings on some hitherto infallibly held dogma or moral code. He used contraceptives for an example. Clearly, he meant if it was clear that this was a definite change, a 180, not something that could in any way be construed as “development,” because he specifically mentioned it in a way that showed he wondered about what it would mean for the doctrine of Infallibility.

After establishing that such a scenario is impossible, I did play along for the sake of discussion (you can see my response there for yourselves, as I don’t want to muck up this thread with such details).

But what I found interesting is that some said that they would simply believe the new teaching. I want to say that I do admire the deep humility expressed in such statements…

However, it brought me to the following thoughts: If the Church were (strictly hypothetically) to do such a thing, it would have to mean one of two things…either 1) That the Church was wrong before OR after the change, and is therefore not Infallible, OR 2) Infallibility means the Church actually has the power to change reality itself, so that something that was true before the change literally could become untrue after the change. This option obviously goes well beyond what the Church officially teaches about Infallibility (that it’s merely a protection from error) but it’s the only way that the Church could still be said to BE Infallible if something changed.

If the first option is true (which I believe), I’m not personally sure how I could continue to believe that the Catholic Church was the true one in that hypothetical scenario, unless She Herself redefined Herself as being almost exclusively based in Tradition and Scripture rather than in any special gift of Infallibility (which would mean that even if the Magisterium tried to solemnly proclaim some contradiction of Sacred Tradition we would be free, even encouraged, to ignore that and still be a Catholic in good standing). But the second option, as I said, seems to be quite different from what the Church means by Infallibility.

So my question is what do you personally think the Church’s Infallibility does? Does it merely protect the Church from error? Or does it give the Church such power that even if She was obviously and undeniably “changing Her tune” she would somehow be right, and worthy of belief? Hypothetically, if you hold to the first option, then would it be reasonable to continue being a part of the Church out of “obedience and humility” if She changed a teaching and thus clearly wasn’t Infallible but continued to claim She was?

Just curious about how my fellow orthodox Catholics think of this. Obviously none of this would ever be practically relevant, but it’s just good to know how people think.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[rcwitness]

Very good question. (what do you think infallibility means?)

My initial understanding, without looking to a Church definition:

The Church is able to Teach what is from Jesus Christ Himself unto the Universal Church. This is done under the requirements of an official council, the Magisterium, or the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra.

What it means, is that nothing can contradict what has been Taught previously in the same manner.

If there were a hypothetical situation like was suggested the Church would immediately need to reconcile herself (as in explain the reason for the contradiction, then relate what is to be held as the truth)

Would my understanding and trust in what I believe God has revealed to me be shaken? Yes

These types of hypothetical questions are not very wise. What if this, what if that? Its better to learn what is proposed, Taught, defined, and evident.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So my question is what do you personally think the Church’s Infallibility does? Does it merely protect the Church from error? Or does it give the Church such power that even if She was obviously and undeniably “changing Her tune” she would somehow be right, and worthy of belief? Hypothetically, if you hold to the first option, then would it be reasonable to continue being a part of the Church out of “obedience and humility” if She changed a teaching and thus clearly wasn’t Infallible but continued to claim She was?

When the Church teaches infallibly the Church lets you know that the teaching is infallible.

Not all teachings are infallible. So if the Church ever changes a teaching, it could only be in the area that is not infallible … that is, where the Church has not spoken with absolute certainty.

If, for example, the Church decided after all that there were only Two persons in the Godhead, that would be a clear sign that the Church had lost the claim of infallibility … and also the claim to the respect of Christians (but of course this is not going to happen). Or if the Church began to teach that sodomy is not a mortal sin, or that same-sex marriage is permissible, the claim to be infallible would be wrecked.

This gift of infallibility is not claimed by other Christian groups, and that is why they (some of them) change their teachings willy-nilly. But Christ could not have established a Church and left it free to teach false doctrines. So the claim of infallibility is a clear sign that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.

Perhaps the question you are raising would be better answered if you would give one or two examples of the infallible teachings that the Church might change … and what would be your reaction to such a change.

 

[sscott]

I’m not sure of the official position but I noticed some Catholics almost hit the ceiling when Pope Francis washed the feet of several women, some of whom were Muslim. I know on this site one has to respect clergy but some were pretty close to second guessing the Pope. If dogma changed all hell would break loose. Just saying.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

To find the true meaning of the word. Infallibility ,
, I could introduce you to my Ex father in law,
he had a admirable self confidence in his own Infallibility ,

 

[davidv]

What infallibility means is the Church cannot teach as truth that which is false.

 

[Auntie_A]

I think infallibility must be discussed with an awareness of dogma, practices and traditions, and especially, the truth.

For example, if Pope JPII apologizes to the Jewish people for any Catholic type of anti-semitism, yet no other pope has done so, that is a reparation for a bad practice of individuals; the church dogma never promoted anti-semitism even if some hideous human .leaders bought in on the awful practice.

Wiping the feet of the women by Pope Francis was a powerful symbolic statement; but it does not undo anything but possible years of neglecting women in a Holy Thursday foot washing ritual by certain clergy. It does not change dogma.

The word infallible gets thrown around a lot by many people but it is not fully understood. The pope has spoken ex cathedral only twice in the history of the Church.
There is an Extraordinary Papal Magisterium and an Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium. With either there is an infallibility but only in certain aspects of dogma and truth while the document can be considered to be possibly fallible or with human error.

That might be a little too much explanation for you and appear to be legalese but it does denote a cautious approach to discerning the truth which I appreciate. My Mormon friend told me years ago that black people could not be bishops in the Mormon Church because they had the "mark of Cain on them, a “curse of darkness”. This was in their church’s revelation for many years since their beginnings. Then at the end of the 20th century one of their presidents had a new revelation and now they can be bishops. Good call there but bad dogma at the beginning.

There is much to be discerned by all of us as humans and as Christians. I appreciate that the Catholic Church is cautious in discerning dogma and practices.

It seems that I have heard the word infallibility used more by critics than by clerics.

 

[rcwitness]

The pope has spoken ex cathedral only twice in the history of the Church.

You may be right, technically, but I am not so convinced. If the Pope makes reference to his position of Successor of Peter and Chief Bishop while making a definitive statement regarding what the Church is to accept, then I would consider this Ex Cathedra. I have a hard time believing this has only been done twice. In fact, I argue that the first time was by Peter in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). But I know that I am not the one who defines Ex Cathedra, so I am certainly willing to be corrected.

My Mormon friend told me years ago that black people could not be bishops in the Mormon Church because they had the "mark of Cain on them, a “curse of darkness”. This was in their church’s revelation for many years since their beginnings. Then at the end of the 20th century one of their presidents had a new revelation and now they can be bishops. Good call there but bad dogma at the beginning.

Weren’t they excluded from the clerical Priesthood all together? And I was told the reason for changing there stance had to do with the dificulty distinguishing ‘decendants of Cain’ mong the Brasilian people when they built a temple here in Brasil. That’s hardly a revelation.

It seems that I have heard the word infallibility used more by critics than by clerics.

Oh, yea. It is a huge source of contention. Yet all Christians acknowledge the Bible as infallible. So apparently the Church could convey Divine Truth in this manner, but never again. Though the Catholic Church certainly recognizes Sacred Scripture to be not only infallible, but the highest form of authority. Interpretation is another aspect which must accompany Sacred Scripture.

A Bishop’s ability to affirm Nihil Obstat to a literature is a form of confirmation, yet far from the level of infallible. It seems it is a recognition that nothing obstructs the Truth which the Catholic Church holds, but how authorative, im not sure.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yet all Christians acknowledge the Bible as infallible.

That may be so, but no Protestant Church can claim its interpretation of the Bible as infallible without at the same time acknowledging the doctrine of infallibility … which so far as I know is a doctrine of the Catholic Church only.

 

[KindredSoul]

Perhaps the question you are raising would be better answered if you would give one or two examples of the infallible teachings that the Church might change … and what would be your reaction to such a change.

I actually think that your own examples work beautifully, when you say: “If, for example, the Church decided after all that there were only Two persons in the Godhead, that would be a clear sign that the Church had lost the claim of infallibility … and also the claim to the respect of Christians (but of course this is not going to happen). Or if the Church began to teach that sodomy is not a mortal sin, or that same-sex marriage is permissible, the claim to be infallible would be wrecked.”

Those are precisely the kinds of changes I was talking about (and that the OP in the original thread seemed to intend, even though he made the mistake of including disciplines such as priestly celibacy…but his intention was still clear), changes that, from my understanding of Infallibility, would clearly invalidate the Church’s claim to it. I would also include the “peripheral” Dogmas, such as the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. These may seem secondary to the more central dogma’s such as the nature of God, etc., but since the Church has infallibly declared them to be true, then changing Her stance on one of those would be just as bad for Her claims of Infallibility as changing her stance on the Trinity or morality, as far as I can see.

As for my own reaction to such a hypothetical change, it can be found, in detail, in the other thread I linked to, but I’ll copy and paste it here, so that it’s easier to keep up with in this thread:

I believe the scenario is impossible, of course, but to play along with the hypothetical nature of the question, it would result in a crisis of faith, to be sure.

If the Church changes Her position on Faith and Morals, in a way that is obviously a real change (and not merely a development of doctrine, which can sometimes look like “change”), then you’re right, this would disprove the Church’s infallibility.

The problem is that Catholicism is only distinct from other branches of Christianity because of its claims to Infallibility. If the Church is “just another church” that is capable of getting it wrong on matters of Faith and Morals, then I’m not sure why I should be Catholic at all. I would find it intellectually dishonest, at best.

Sure, I could “redefine” what it means to be Catholic for myself, but in light of the fact that there are other Christian groups out there notably similar to Catholicism but without the dogma of infallibility (the Orthodox Church especially), it would be much more honest to join one of them instead of remain in a Church Whose definition of Herself is in stark contrast with my own definition of Her…

Honestly, as I hinted, I’d probably be prone to looking into the Orthodox Church; as I understand it, based on what a prolific Orthodox lady once told me (before I became Catholic, I considered Orthodoxy), Orthodoxy works on the basis not of infallibility, but of Tradition, of preserving the way Christians have always believed, so that even IF some patriarch (even the most prestigious one!) were to suddenly try to “change” Church Teaching, the average Orthodox Christian would know to just “ignore it” and keep believing what Christians have believed since day one.

I WOULD consider remaining Catholic, in your hypothetical scenario, IF the Church redefined Herself along those same lines as the Orthodox Church, and said She no longer taught Herself to be Infallible. But then, that would mean that I would be encouraged as a Catholic to believe traditional interpretations of Sacred Tradition over even the Pope on matters of contraception, gay marriage, etc., anyway, so I would just go on believing those things were wrong, because that’s what Christians have always believed, until this modern age. When faced with the choice between what some modern bishop says (even the bishop of Rome) and what the wisdom of the ancient Christians has unanimously declared for two millennia, it just makes more sense to stand with the ancients, if it’s obvious that Pope is not infallible (which would be the obvious case if he’s changing something so starkly)

So basically I could only remain Catholic, then, if the Church redefined Herself in such a way as that the “new teaching” in your hypothetical scenario would not be binding, and the new definition of Catholic–like Orthodoxy–encouraged us to follow Tradition (rather than the Pope, per se) which would render the whole idea of “changing Church teaching” moot in the first place so that I would just keep believing what I already do, simply nix the doctrine of Infallibility.

…]

P.S. I realize that the Catholic Church already DOES define Herself as a Church of Tradition, so really this “redefinition” would simply have to do with dropping the “Infallible Part” rather than having to “add” the part about Tradition, since that’s already there.

(Words in blue were edited for accuracy, as I realized my original post suggested the Pope, in real life, has power to “change” doctrine, which I don’t believe).

I hope this makes my own stance and way of thinking on this issue a little more clear.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Abu]

Auntie A #7
There is an Extraordinary Papal Magisterium and an Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium. With either there is an infallibility but only in certain aspects of dogma and truth while the document can be considered to be possibly fallible or with human error

The reality needs to be understood more clearly.

There is no new doctrine ever. There is only a development of doctrine which means a greater understanding of what has always been present as the need arises for the answer to some challenge to truth.

Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4, of Ecumenical Council Vatican I:
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Lumen Gentium 25, of Ecumenical Council Vatican II:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

The three levels of Magisterial teaching need to be given their authentic meaning:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Thus, from EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

“The Pope is personally infallible, yet in a particular sense. His infallibility is personal because it belongs to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Church in Rome or to the Roman See. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of this See.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 229].

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council, important for episcopal counsel. are infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

As Bishop Gasser points out: “Therefore general councils were not necessary in order to know the truth, but in order to repress errors.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius,2008, p 41].

 

[Auntie_A]

The reality needs to be understood more clearly.

There is no new doctrine ever. There is only a development of doctrine which means a greater understanding of what has always been present as the need arises for the answer to some challenge to truth.

Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4, of Ecumenical Council Vatican I:
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Lumen Gentium 25, of Ecumenical Council Vatican II:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

The three levels of Magisterial teaching need to be given their authentic meaning:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem

by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Thus, from EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

“The Pope is personally infallible, yet in a particular sense. His infallibility is personal because it belongs to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Church in Rome or to the Roman See. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of this See.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 229].

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council, important for episcopal counsel. are infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

As Bishop Gasser points out: “Therefore general councils were not necessary in order to know the truth, but in order to repress errors.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius,2008, p 41].

Thanks for clarification.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

At the risk of opening a can of worms, there is a real case from the past that might be illustrative of how the dynamics of infallibility might work. For hundreds of years, the Church condemned usury; as evidenced by the medieval custom of getting loans from Jews, this condemnation of usury was understood to mean that a Christian may not receive ANY interest from loans. When the Vatican said usury was wrong, the people understood the Church to be saying that charging interest was wrong.

Now today, the Church does not teach that charging interest is wrong; She teaches that charging exorbitant interest is wrong. Clearly, the ordinary Catholic does not have the same understanding of Church teaching on usury today as the ordinary Catholic in 1300 AD had.

The facts of the case, as I understand them, are above. I will not address the manifold arguments that the Church has or hasn’t changed doctrine on this issue. Rather, I should like to ask the question: presuming the Church hasn’t changed doctrine, what *has *the Church changed?

We cannot simply say that the meaning of the word usury changed, so that the things the Church condemned in 1300 aren’t condemned now. Doctrines are not dependent on their words. If the meaning of the word “incarnate” changed, this would not change the fact that Jesus was incarnate – we would just have to find a new word for “incarnate”.

Now if we look at the role that the doctrine played, I think we will get much farther. The Church in the Middle Ages recognized that it was wrong to profit off another’s poverty. It was possible to stop this wrong by condemning usury across the board. But the goal of this declaration was not to stop two people from making a mutually beneficial transaction involving interest. The forbidding of this mutually beneficial transaction was collateral damage.

On a spiritual level, the Church in 1300 was being wise. On a practical level, the Church ministers were being short-sighted, since they did not recognize that eventually Jewish moneylending would peter out, and mutually beneficial Christian “usury” would be common.

A modern comparison: Suppose that, in 1971 (1972?), Humanae Vitae had said something very slightly different – call this letter Humanae Schmitae. Suppose it had said that it was wrong for a Catholic to take birth control for any reason whatsoever. And then suppose that it were discovered – this is very hypothetical – that a certain birth control pill cured cancer. Surely we would say that the spirit of Humanae Schmitae was still just as valid and deeply true, though we would also say that the letter of Humanae Schmitae was short-sighted. We would allow people suffering from cancer to use the birth control pill.

I find all of my musings here perfectly consistent with the idea that the Church is immune from moral and theological error. But the Church is not immune from human error, and humans sometimes take a moral truth and put it in writing in a somewhat unhelpful way.

I don’t think this opens the door for any major moral or theological “developments” in the Church. If such a genuine development were to happen, I suppose we might be justified in believing that “the Church” was no longer the Church – just as the second Avignon papacy was not really a papacy. Or believing the Church had never been infallible – which doesn’t trouble me a great deal, but I can understand how it might trouble others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Or believing the Church had never been infallible – which doesn’t trouble me a great deal, but I can understand how it might trouble others.

Well, it would certainly trouble me, because that opens a very wide door to many doctrines possibly being in error. We would then be in the position of the Protestants, hoping we believed in the truth but never being absolutely certain because we had repudiated the doctrine of infallibility which is claimed by Catholic alone.

 

[KindredSoul]

For hundreds of years, the Church condemned usury; as evidenced by the medieval custom of getting loans from Jews, this condemnation of usury was understood to mean that a Christian may not receive ANY interest from loans. When the Vatican said usury was wrong, the people understood the Church to be saying that charging interest was wrong.

Now today, the Church does not teach that charging interest is wrong; She teaches that charging exorbitant interest is wrong. Clearly, the ordinary Catholic does not have the same understanding of Church teaching on usury today as the ordinary Catholic in 1300 AD had.

…]

Now if we look at the role that the doctrine played, I think we will get much farther. The Church in the Middle Ages recognized that it was wrong to profit off another’s poverty. It was possible to stop this wrong by condemning usury across the board. But the goal of this declaration was not to stop two people from making a mutually beneficial transaction involving interest. The forbidding of this mutually beneficial transaction was collateral damage.

Hmm. Yes, I do believe that this last paragraph explains my own thoughts on that perfectly. The Church was indeed forbidding all interest, at that time, but the reason behind that prohibition was to forbid “profiting off of another’s poverty,” which, as the Holy Spirit had Infallibly guided the Church, is in fact wrong. The development of dogma here, which now says reasonable interest is NOT wrong, was possible precisely because the previous understanding of the dogma was based on a false premise–but as long as that false premise was assumed, the Church was perfectly right to proclaim as She did.

Two thoughts on this: The first is that, in order to develop a doctrine in such a way (that is, to say that something that was a sin yesterday is no longer a sin), for this not to wound the Church’s claim to infallibility, it must be possible that the Church can make a good case that “The Holy Spirit was telling us X, and in previous ages the Church was proclaiming it in a valid but incorrect way, such that with the passage of time we now understand it better.” This is the case with usury, as you point out, due to new understandings of what interest does and can be. It would NOT be the case, for instance, if the Church had turned around and said: “It is no longer wrong even to charge EXTREME interest” because in that case it would seem the Church was totally throwing out the old teaching on Usury, not merely developing it (because then, what would even be LEFT of it?!). In that case, the dogma of infallibility would collapse, methinks.

The second, and I say this just to throw it out there, is that I think Catholics are still bound by a Church’s teaching on such a matter, as it is presently intended by the Pope and Magisterium, even if there is good reason to think that it may develop into something that is (practically) different in the future. So for example, had someone in the Middle Ages had such insight as that he knew that NOT all interest “profits from the poor,” he would still have been sinning to disobey the Church by charging even the smallest interest. Mainly because, even IF it’s possible that the Church Herself is misinterpreting what the Holy Spirit says by “going too far” with it as was the case back then, it would still stand that we owe our humble obedience to the Church, just as currently I–a married man–could not (in the Latin Rite) run off and get ordained by a renegade bishop without sinning by doing so, even though the prohibition on married priests is also something that is subject to changing should the Church’s wisdom permit it.

I find all of my musings here perfectly consistent with the idea that the Church is immune from moral and theological error. But the Church is not immune from human error, and humans sometimes take a moral truth and put it in writing in a somewhat unhelpful way.

I agree, although as I said above I still think we are bound to adhere to that writing for as long as the Church insists upon it.

I don’t think this opens the door for any major moral or theological “developments” in the Church. If such a genuine development were to happen, I suppose we might be justified in believing that “the Church” was no longer the Church – just as the second Avignon papacy was not really a papacy. Or believing the Church had never been infallible – which doesn’t trouble me a great deal, but I can understand how it might trouble others.

If you see my post in #10, where I quote myself from the other thread, you will find that I actually could reconcile the underlined portion with being Catholic IF (and only if) the Church ceased to claim Infallibility, and defined Herself more like the Orthodox Church (Who, as I understand it, appeals strictly to Sacred Tradition for her dogmas, and encourages the faithful to believe “What has always been believed” rather than claiming the Infallible authority to develop dogma at all). It’s just that I think it would be somewhat dishonest, both to myself and the Catholic Church, if I remained Catholic despite not really believing that the Church has all those qualities She claims to have. It’d be more honest, I think, to become Orthodox. I guess what I’m saying is that I would then think that, if infallibility was clearly false all along, then for as long as the Church claimed infallibility, then the Orthodox (for instance) would be right in thinking She’d gone off the rails: She would no longer be the Church. Because that’s a mighty big claim to take lightly and just say “Oh, I’ll just brush that one aside and pretend it’s not an important part of being Catholic.” It seems to me that, whether one believes in Infallibility or not, it’s not something one can ignore. :nope:

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Abu]

The confusion over the teaching on usury is quite unnecessary and only because little attention has been paid to what the Church actually teaches.

Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but say nothing about the charging of interest in general.

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that** interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful.** The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

With free enterprise as developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.” Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

Since a lender does lose the benefits from interest, or use of his money in other ways, that’s precisely what makes the charging of interest legitimate and worthy – he has expense and risk – a great Lateran Council understanding of the use of money.

The Franciscan St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) was perhaps the first theologian to recognize that time of use had an economic value and, at least in certain cases, might be licitly compensated. St. Antoninus (1389-1459), a Dominican of Florence, seems to have questioned whether Aristotle was correct in saying that money is naturally sterile. Money alone, he said, is sterile, but, combined with knowledge and enterprise, it is fruitful. His Summa Moralis examined commerce and banking, and prepared the way for modern notions of interest, which generally regard proper returns on loans taken with just title as fair.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor].

All suppositions re a change in dogma or doctrine are irrelevant as only a prudential judgment is involved.

Pope Leo XIII wrote: “If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute… [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 41] “….economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Abu,

Thank you for the citations. There are a number of them from the 1000s to the 1400s that you missed, and these would tell a different story than the one you told. As I said before, however, I do not care to get into an argument about usury.

God bless,
Prodigal

 

[Elizium23]

The teachings on usury have never been dogmas.

 

[KindredSoul]

Or believing the Church had never been infallible – which doesn’t trouble me a great deal, but I can understand how it might trouble others.

Well, it would certainly trouble me, because that opens a very wide door to many doctrines possibly being in error. We would then be in the position of the Protestants, hoping we believed in the truth but never being absolutely certain because we had repudiated the doctrine of infallibility which is claimed by Catholic alone.

So I’ve been thinking. These two thoughts I’ve quoted, contrasting as they are, raise an interesting set of questions, and while it might make for a whole thread unto itself, I think it can be a good direction for this thread to branch out.

Namely: If one is, like Prodigal, not troubled by the Church having never been infallible, and presumably has no problem remaining Catholic (not merely Christian) in such a scenario, then I’m interested in knowing what it is that would keep you Catholic in such a scenario as opposed to, say, Orthodox or perhaps high church Protestant? If the Catholic Church is not infallible, what makes Her special? The Orthodox Church also has Apostolic succession, so it couldn’t be that. The Orthodox Church has the Eucharist and Sacraments, so it couldn’t be that. So what is it? And if the Catholic Church is not infallible yet still claims to be infallible, what makes Her anything better than a blatant liar or at the very least woefully misguided? WHY is She then the preferable option TO the Orthodox Church, etc? How could you remain Catholic, yet feel internally consistent and honest, in that scenario?

I guess it’s true that She would still be the only Church led by Peter, upon whom Christ built His Church, but if Peter and the Catholic Church are not protected by Infallibility, then what was even the point of setting him apart? What makes him any different, then, from the other apostles, other than a formality? Would not the Orthodox be correct, then, when they say that the Pope’s leadership would be a mere formality? But then, what of the “keys to the kingdom?” The power to “bind and loose”? Surely we don’t believe that Jesus was just saying that as a formality?! So this, actually, causes problems not only for Catholicism but for Scripture itself. For if Peter has no special protection from theological and moral error (which is what Infallibility is), then these Scriptures which clearly give him some sort of special status seem quite meaningless, which has grave implications for the reliability of scripture… Because I do indeed believe that the dogma of infallibility is nothing less than a natural, necessary development of these things. And if scripture’s reliability is called into question AND there is no Infallibility, then we have some major problems in our ability to determine truth in Christianity, let alone Catholicism…

See, this is my problem, my genuine confusion, whenever someone says that he could still be Catholic even if he came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not infallible. Lose the dogma of infallibility and several other foundations of Catholicism are immediately on shaky ground or make no sense, and in fact some passages of Scripture itself make less sense (posing some problems for Christianity overall). So I’m genuinely interested in how those of you who would “not be troubled” if you discovered the Church wasn’t infallible can be so untroubled by such a thought. How wouldn’t it put Catholicism (and to an extent, Christianity itself, given the clear prominence of Peter in Scripture) on shaky ground? What would keep you Catholic? How would you deal with these questions and problems I have pointed out? I sincerely don’t understand, and so my questions are all in earnest.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Abu]

KindredSoul #19
Namely: If one is, like Prodigal, not troubled by the Church having never been infallible, and presumably has no problem remaining Catholic (not merely Christian) in such a scenario, then I’m interested in knowing what it is that would keep you Catholic in such a scenario as opposed to, say, Orthodox or perhaps high church Protestant?

Apparently he is not troubled by Christ specifically mandating His truths through His Church and warning against dissent.