What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kd5glx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to ask as well, what are some examples of the Pope teaching infallibly on morals? The teachings on infallibility always cite the Pope’s ability to do teach on morals infallibly, but I can not think of any examples that could be considered Ex Cathedra statements on morals. Perhaps Humanae Vitae may be an example I suppose, though as far as the Ordinary magisterium goes, its always a bit fuzzy on what is infallible and what is not as far as moral teachings go.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I’ve never understood, Andrew, why the Catholic Church doesn’t have a list of infallible documents? How is a Catholic to know? The many different opinions as to what is and isn’t infallible on this board alone is a good testament to how confusing the whole thing is.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That is a tough one. It is a mystery.

I believe Scott Hahn says there are two.

I think Tim Staples says four–or maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are eighteen—although he is not quite sure about four of them.

Ludwig Ott says there are sixty.

🤷
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Dzheremi,

Asking for examples of infallible teaching on morals is germane to the OP. Asking for some kind of official llist or questioning why there isn’t one is not - that is just academic.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Great. Please provide some examples of infallible teaching on morals. No need to discuss why they are infallible, just provide some examples please. Then we can indicate which ones we object to per the original post.
 
Mickey said:
Indeed. That is a tough one. It is a mystery.

I believe Scott Hahn says there are two.

I think Tim Staples says four–or maybe more.
Click to expand...
Those are all interesting opinions, and freedom to have such opinions is important in the Catholic Church. Having such a list is obviously not necessary for the Faith in the eyes of the Magisterium. It is the requester for such an infallible list who has the onus of demonstrating why such a list is necessary for the Faith of the Church.

Would anyone ever think to leave the Catholic Church because such a list does not exist? It would be rather inconsistent to think that one would leave the Catholic Church for another group where the possibility of such a list is altogether nil.
The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are eighteen—although he is not quite sure about four of them.
Click to expand...
Ludwig Ott says there are sixty.
Click to expand...
Are you sure these folks were listing instances of the exercise of the extraordinary magisterium by the Pope, and not also including instances where he exercises the ordinary Magisterium? The Pope can pronounce infallibly while exercising the extraordinary Magisterium or the ordinary Magisterium. The Pope’s exercise of the exraordinary Magisterium (as defined by Vatican 1) is few and far between. His exericse of the ordinary Magisterium is much more common. In both cases, the Pope pronounces infallibly.

Do you understand the difference?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
cerad2 said:
Great. Please provide some examples of infallible teaching on morals. No need to discuss why they are infallible, just provide some examples please. Then we can indicate which ones we object to per the original post.
Click to expand...
Personally I can think of the following instances when the Pope has pronounced infallibly:
  1. Birth control;
  2. Divorce and remarriage
  3. Drunkenness
Perhaps others can think of more. IMO, the Pope did not pronounce these matters by an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium, but only per the ordinary Magisterium. Some think they were pronounced in an extraordinary manner. Whatever the case may be, they were pronounced infallibly.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Would anyone ever think to leave the Catholic Church because such a list does not exist?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. But since Pius IX infallibly declared the doctrine of infallibility 141 years ago, inquiring minds have been asking for this mysterious list. 😃
 
Mickey said:
I don’t know. But since Pius IX infallibly declared the doctrine of infallibility 141 years ago, inquiring minds have been asking for this mysterious list. 😃
Click to expand...
🙂 I can actually agree with you, brother Mickey (once in a while, it can happen :D). Asking for a list is logical, but it should never be regarded as necessary, on whatever level.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Maybe not necessary, but surely you can see how it would be helpful, if only to answer this question that a lot of Catholics wonder about…

I can’t help but personally find it quite odd that this church that has no trouble defining and categorizing so many other things that are supposedly necessary and helpful to know does not have such a list, or at least a fool-proof way for the layman to understand when something is infallible and when it is not, so as to eliminate the situation they’re in now where faithful Catholics often disagree quite pointedly about just what is infallible. 🤷
 
Well, suppose, for argument’s sake, we say the Church “has a list” of infallible teachings that must be believed.

Problem is, if there were such a list, it would either have to contain teachings that aren’t yet understood as being infallible. . .or else it would not be a complete list and teachings would be ‘added’ as they came along.

So if the latter, you’d have people complaining that the Church does ‘man-made’ things, because this ‘new’ teaching wasn’t on the list ‘to begin with’.

If the former, then you’d have the situation whereby somebody living in say AD 500 was looking at some list that set out teachings like this . . .Item, “Immaculate Conception”, will be questioned and finally set out as teaching in AD 1854. Um, so all of a sudden Catholics would know, for certain, that there would indeed be people still alive in AD 1854 at least --and that ‘certain knowledge’ would just by existing wind up having the potential to change history.

That being said, IF the Holy Spirit were ever to determine that the faithful need a list, the Holy Spirit will make it extremely clear to His people and we won’t worry about whether the list is complete. We’ll know. But it has to come from God. . .we can’t ‘force His hand.’
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Problem is, if there were such a list, it would either have to contain teachings that aren’t yet understood as being infallible. . .or else it would not be a complete list and teachings would be ‘added’ as they came along.
Click to expand...
Now I am really confused.
 
But you already have both of the situations you fear. I don’t see how having a list would make either of them worse than they currently are. How can you blame a list that doesn’t exist for problems that already exist without it because your church has unwisely embraced progressive revelation? :hmmm:
 
dzheremi said:
But you already have both of the situations you fear. I don’t see how having a list would make either of them worse than they currently are. How can you blame a list that doesn’t exist for problems that already exist without it because your church has unwisely embraced progressive revelation? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Yes. :yup:
 
dzheremi said:
because your church has unwisely embraced progressive revelation? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
:hmmm: What is “progressive revelation?” Can you please offer a Magisterial source that uses or defines such a term? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
:hmmm: What is “progressive revelation?” Can you please offer a Magisterial source that uses or defines such a term? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
This is as Tantum Ergo has put it in the post I was replying to:
Problem is, if there were such a list, it would either have to contain teachings that aren’t yet understood as being infallible. . .or else it would not be a complete list and teachings would be ‘added’ as they came along.
Click to expand...
I’ve bolded the part that has caused me confusion. Please, Mardukm, I don’t want to argue with you any more than necessary. Why not ask your question to the person who originally wrote that?
 
And while we’re looking that up, show me “high Petrine, Low Petrine, Middle Petrine” in the lexicon of the Church :D:p
mardukm said:
:hmmm: What is “progressive revelation?” Can you please offer a Magisterial source that uses or defines such a term? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top