What Is Infallibility?

[MrZetterlund]

Well I’m just sitting up at the McDonnalds inside my work place (Walmart) on my luch break, that just so happens to have wi-fi. Which only means one thing: Catholic Answers for a full hour to blog!!

Anyway, I saw a thread this morning about someone who believes they wish to leave the Catholic Church because they believe that the Church has erred in her teaching on contraception. Unfortunately, I can’t say that I don’t secretly agree since NFP has the same effects of contracepting, and the same “openess to life” as a broken condum. (I.e. Both conceptions happen because you don’t use them right.) However, that is besides the point in this thread. The thing I wish to question in this thread is: What does it mean to be infallible? When we say the Pope is infallible, we mean that he cannot err in teachings of morality or faith. However, I do not think this approach can be taken at face-value. The first Pope, St. Peter, not only erred in his teachings on circumcision in Gal. 2:11-12 when St. Paul “opposed him to his face” but also denied Christ three times before Jesus’ death. Clearly, that isn’t speaking on behalf of the faith of the Church.

There were issues on heleocentrism early in the Church too, and those who researched were condemned as corrupt scientists who seek to discredit God’s Word.

However, I remember an interview Pope Benedict the Sixteenth had with Peter Seewald, and I remember Pope Benedict saying that the concept of infallibility devoped over a course of centuries to mean that there is a final say of authority, that there aren’t any loose ends, that one can say “this is the faith of the Catholic Church.” I then began looking at infallibility as an authoritative position rather than absolute inability to err, if that makes sense. Basically, I wonder if by saying Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Church authority are “infallible” if we are saying “this is not in error with what we believe” rather than saying “geocentricity is true because the Bible is geocentric and infallible, so it’s based in reality, unlike whatever your little telescope says.”

Also, I believe the Holy Spirit keeps the Church from erring, whether by historical occurences or by blatant correction to the face of the Pope, and in some instances even death.

Thoughts and comments? Thanks, God bless

 

[john81]

Well I’m just sitting up at the McDonnalds inside my work place (Walmart) on my luch break, that just so happens to have wi-fi. Which only means one thing: Catholic Answers for a full hour to blog!!

Anyway, I saw a thread this morning about someone who believes they wish to leave the Catholic Church because they believe that the Church has erred in her teaching on contraception. Unfortunately, I can’t say that I don’t secretly agree since NFP has the same effects of contracepting, and the same “openess to life” as a broken condum. (I.e. Both conceptions happen because you don’t use them right.) However, that is besides the point in this thread. The thing I wish to question in this thread is: What does it mean to be infallible? When we say the Pope is infallible, we mean that he cannot err in teachings of morality or faith. However, I do not think this approach can be taken at face-value. The first Pope, St. Peter, not only erred in his teachings on circumcision in Gal. 2:11-12 when St. Paul “opposed him to his face” but also denied Christ three times before Jesus’ death. Clearly, that isn’t speaking on behalf of the faith of the Church.

There were issues on heleocentrism early in the Church too, and those who researched were condemned as corrupt scientists who seek to discredit God’s Word.

However, I remember an interview Pope Benedict the Sixteenth had with Peter Seewald, and I remember Pope Benedict saying that the concept of infallibility devoped over a course of centuries to mean that there is a final say of authority, that there aren’t any loose ends, that one can say “this is the faith of the Catholic Church.” I then began looking at infallibility as an authoritative position rather than absolute inability to err, if that makes sense. Basically, I wonder if by saying Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Church authority are “infallible” if we are saying “this is not in error with what we believe” rather than saying “geocentricity is true because the Bible is geocentric and infallible, so it’s based in reality, unlike whatever your little telescope says.”

Also, I believe the Holy Spirit keeps the Church from erring, whether by historical occurences or by blatant correction to the face of the Pope, and in some instances even death.

Thoughts and comments? Thanks, God bless

First, the only statements that are infallibly made by the Pope are those where he uses his papal authority and obliges all those in the Church to solemly believe. If the Church comes out with a position on science, it is the Church’s opinion, not their “infallible” position (hence the mistake about the sun revolving around the earth).

An easy way to see how Pope’s proclaim their infallible authority is to read the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption.

Also read the paragraphs below for a better discernment:

"Clearly Catholics have a duty to obey all Church teachings. However, there are varying degrees of obligation according to the different degree of authority that is attached to the teaching, and to how it is presented. You will find these distinctions in any standard textbook of dogmatic theology.

Dogmas defined ex cathedra must be accepted under pain of losing the Faith, in such a way that a person who professes the direct contradictory of an act of the extraordinary Magisterium defining such a dogma, is correctly called a heretic.

Dogmas are frequently taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Clearly we owe them the adhesion of our Faith, and a person who would knowingly deny one of these would be a formal heretic. The problem, however, is that of determining what really is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium (i.e., that which has always and everywhere been taught), and consequently that which really is infallible. This is the work of theology, but since human judgments are involved errors can enter in. It is consequently often not possible to call a person who denies such a dogma a formal heretic, until such time as his error has been condemned by an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium. This is what was done at the Council of Trent for the protestant errors, for example concerning justification and the sacraments.

There are other teachings of the Church which are neither a part of the Extraordinary Magisterium nor a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but which are authentically proposed by the Church. This includes the bulk of the teachings in the papal encyclicals. Such teachings of the Authentic Magisterium are not infallible, but cannot be discarded for as much. As Pius XII stated in Humani Generis, and as John Paul II has reiterated, such teachings must be accepted with reverential respect. Allow me to quote from Humani Generis:

‘Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For…generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.’ (§20)

However, since they do not invoke the full authority of the Church and are not infallible, they can be wrong. Needless to say they can only be rejected or refused if they are in direct contradiction with infallible teachings of the Church’s Magisterium." (Fr. Peter R. Scott)

God bless

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**John81 wrote:**First, the only statements that are infallibly made by the Pope are those where he uses his papal authority and obliges all those in the Church to solemly believe. If the Church comes out with a position on science, it is the Church’s opinion, not their “infallible” position (hence the mistake about the sun revolving around the earth).

This was not the issue with Galileo. This, however, is not the thread to discuss it. You might read this:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

 

[john81]

This was not the issue with Galileo. This, however, is not the thread to discuss it. You might read this:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Very interesting! Thank you for the information!

God bless

 

[Bookcat]

no time at the moment to read the question…but this is from the Catechism

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.​

As Catholics of course we do not just assent to that which is infallible. We give the proper assent to various the Teachings of the Church.

It is not a “do it yourself” Faith or a “pick and choose” Faith.