What would be the next doctrine to be proclaimed infallibly ex cathedra?

[HomeschoolDad]

(This isn’t really the category I would put this under, but it’s the closest thing.)

If there were going to be another doctrine or dogma proclaimed infallibly, ex cathedra, by the Pope, what might it be? I know we have already had the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, as well as the defining of papal infallibility itself. What would be some more candidates for a future infallible declaration?

I would vote for the priesthood being male-only as a doctrine that needs to be solemnly defined with the infallibility of the papal chair. That’s the first thing that comes to mind. It is challenged in modern society, and not everyone accepts the Church’s reasons for teaching this. And it would be the most “politically incorrect” thing the Church could possibly teach.

Any other ideas?

 

[John10]

I agree, that having priesthood being male-only could be declared as a dogma. Although, the main issue is complying with the teaching we already have, not so much in having more of them.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I agree, that having priesthood being male-only could be declared as a dogma. Although, the main issue is complying with the teaching we already have, not so much in having more of them.

Is it a dogma? Could it be made so? Does something become a dogma just because the Church says it is, or does the Church recognize that something is dogmatic by its very nature?

I don’t have those answers. And can only dogmas be proclaimed infallibly ex cathedra? Or may doctrines that don’t rise to the level of dogma be proclaimed infallibly true?

 

[commenter]

Defining, specifying the Canon of the New Testament, ex cathedra. It is set now by the ordinary Magisterium but is likely the next dangerous challenge in Christianity.

 

[lil_user]

having priesthood being male-only could be declared as a dogma

But that’s already been stated solemnly by the Pope (John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). I don’t see reason for a more solemn proclamation unless there be a major internal struggle in the Church.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren, We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful

I doubt today’s Magisterium is bent upon exercising its infallibility in this way. It’s a tad old-fashioned for today’s leadership, I fear.

 

[lil_user]

specifying the Canon of the New Testament, ex cathedra

I thought this had been definitively clarified? Why do you foresee it being a major issue in the future? I would have though there was more dissent about OT Canon, given the different Bible versions.

(Council of Trent, decree De Canonicis Scripturis of 4/4/1546)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

having priesthood being male-only could be declared as a dogma

I’m sure it is. Can you imagine the howls of outrage from feminists, the secular media, and other Christian confessions that have chosen to ordain women (Anglicans, Lutherans, et al), if it were solemnly proclaimed by the Church to be an infallibly taught dogma that will be true for all time?

Still, though, it meets the criteria that I would imagine for infallible proclamation ex cathedra — it has always been believed by the Church, yet it needs to be defended by the Church’s authority, as there are some who challenge it both within and outside the Church. And as with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, it is not expressly and unambiguously taught in Scripture — implied, not denied, but is not explicitly taught in the Bible.

 

[lil_user]

if it were solemnly proclaimed by the Church to be an infallibly taught dogma that will be true for all time

Good points. On the latter, also see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...tteredefinitivo-ordinatiosacerdotalis_en.html

a serious concern is seen arising in some countries regarding opinions that put into doubt the definitive nature of this doctrine. In order to maintain that it is not definitive, it is argued that it has not been defined ex cathedra and that an eventual decision by a future Pope or Council could overturn it.

First, concerning the ministerial priesthood**, the Church recognizes that the impossibility of ordaining women belongs to the “substance of the sacrament” of Orders** (cf. DH 1728). … Aware that there cannot be a change to this tradition, in obedience to the Lord, the Church strives also to deepen its significance…

Secondly, the doubts raised about the definitive nature of Ordinatio sacerdotalis also have grave consequences for the manner of understanding the Magisterium of the Church.

It is important to reaffirm that infallibility does not only pertain to solemn pronouncements of a Council or of the Supreme Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, but also to the universal and ordinary teaching of bishops dispersed throughout the world, when they propose, in communion among themselves and with the Pope, the Catholic doctrine to be held definitively.

John Paul II referred to this infallibility in Ordinatio sacerdotalis. In this manner he did not declare a new dogma, but, with the authority conferred upon him as the Successor of Peter, he formally confirmed and made explicit, so as to remove all doubt, that which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium has long considered throughout history as belonging to the deposit of faith.

My mother used to tell me that “there is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see”. Rome has already spoken definitively on this issue. It’s part of the Depositum Fidei and not open to change.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

specifying the Canon of the New Testament, ex cathedra

I thought this had been definitively clarified? Why do you foresee it being a major issue in the future? I would have though there was more dissent about OT Canon, given the different Bible versions.

(Council of Trent, decree De Canonicis Scripturis of 4/4/1546)

The argument (by the bad guys) will be that other parts of Trent have been superceded or “added to”, so also that Trent’s Canon is just a temporary guide for that time, but we now have all this new scholarship on Scripture.
There is a slight pressure among some groups to delete certain passages or books especially referring to headship of husbands over wives, or “hard sayings” by Jesus. Some gay congregations currently use Bibles that reportedly omit certain passages

More likely to happen is unauthorized addition of books. In 2013 “A New New Testament” was developed mostly by mainline Protestant leaders, but also liberal Catholics. It includes the Gospel of Mary alongside the Gospel of Mark, and new Acts or Epistles not in an appendix but mingling among the familiar Acts and familiar Epistles.

A few Protestant congregations use this in worship and catechesis, and it’s only a matter of time before the Gospel of Thomas pops up at Masses, on an equal basis, or instead of, Luke. It will happen on campus first.

 

[porthos11]

I agree, that having priesthood being male-only could be declared as a dogma. Although, the main issue is complying with the teaching we already have, not so much in having more of them.

It already is. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis meets all the necessary requirements for an ex cathedra definition.

 

[porthos11]

commenter:

specifying the Canon of the New Testament, ex cathedra

I thought this had been definitively clarified? Why do you foresee it being a major issue in the future? I would have though there was more dissent about OT Canon, given the different Bible versions.

(Council of Trent, decree De Canonicis Scripturis of 4/4/1546)

It is indeed dogma, by virtue of the definition of an ecumenical council, so a papal definition is not necessary.

All canons A.S. by ecumenical councils are deemed infallibly defined and dogmatic.

 

[porthos11]

(This isn’t really the category I would put this under, but it’s the closest thing.)

If there were going to be another doctrine or dogma proclaimed infallibly, ex cathedra, by the Pope, what might it be? I know we have already had the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, as well as the defining of papal infallibility itself. What would be some more candidates for a future infallible declaration?

I would vote for the priesthood being male-only as a doctrine that needs to be solemnly defined with the infallibility of the papal chair. That’s the first thing that comes to mind. It is challenged in modern society, and not everyone accepts the Church’s reasons for teaching this. And it would be the most “politically incorrect” thing the Church could possibly teach.

Any other ideas?

I actually want the Pope to infallibly define, as a matter of morals, that no one sins when, in the course of a regular business operation, and in exchange for a fair, customary monetary amount, a person provides a service or good normal to his business even if the service or good were directed towards a morally illicit activity.

For example, I would like to see a definition that declares as sufficiently remote the cooperation of bakers and photographers whose services are engaged by a homosexual couple for their “wedding”, such that, provided the services were strictly paid for and there is no indication of personal approval by the businessman, the businessman incurs no sin. Naturally this excludes “friends and family” discounts, “free”/complimentary cakes, etc.

If such a definition were promulgated (and thereby confirmed as consistent with Catholic faith and morals), this would relieve the consciences of many Catholic businesspersons. Of course, if this opinion is not correct, the charism of infallibility would prevent such a definition.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I actually want the Pope to infallibly define, as a matter of morals, that no one sins when, in the course of a regular business operation, and in exchange for a fair, customary monetary amount, a person provides a service or good normal to his business even if the service or good were directed towards a morally illicit activity.

For example, I would like to see a definition that declares as sufficiently remote the cooperation of bakers and photographers whose services are engaged by a homosexual couple for their “wedding”, such that, provided the services were strictly paid for and there is no indication of personal approval by the businessman, the businessman incurs no sin. Naturally this excludes “friends and family” discounts, “free”/complimentary cakes, etc.

If such a definition were promulgated (and thereby confirmed as consistent with Catholic faith and morals), this would relieve the consciences of many Catholic businesspersons. Of course, if this opinion is not correct, the charism of infallibility would prevent such a definition.

This is a very interesting idea.

However — and I can’t speak with certitude — I am not sure whether moral teachings, as opposed to matters of doctrine or dogma, are the kind of things that can be infallibly proclaimed. A priest I knew, who wanted to relieve people of their obligation to follow Humanae vitae, taught “the Church has never made an infallible statement regarding morality”. Was he right? I don’t know. Deo gratias, he no longer functions as a priest. (Note: I would not have to think of a moral teaching as requiring infallibility before I would accept it. I treat traditional Catholic moral theology as being part of the ordinary magisterium, and I do not deny it.) Can anyone on CAF address this?

Now, as to your example. The central question I am seeing here goes something like this: “does providing consumer goods or services, when they will certainly be used for immoral purposes, constitute formal cooperation, proximate material cooperation, or remote material cooperation, and if it is material cooperation, whether proximate or remote, is it permissible?”.

That’s really too complicated, and too nuanced a question to lend itself to an infallible declaration. It depends. What if you sold scalpels and curettes — morally neutral in themselves — and someone from an abortion clinic came into your store to buy them? What if you just work there and don’t own the store? That is far more offensive than baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. I would say in that case, just bake generic wedding cakes, tell all customers you don’t do decoration or customization, and let them choose from the little figurines you keep on hand. If they choose two men or two women, that’s not on you. (This is assuming you own the store, and what you do and don’t do, carry and don’t carry, is up to you.)

Again, this sort of moral casuistry isn’t the kind of thing that can be infallibly proclaimed. People could legitimately differ on how much cooperation can be accepted, and where you draw the line.

 

[porthos11]

Morals are included. The Pope’s infallibility is engaged when he speaks defintively on matters of faith and morals, subject to the conditions.

 

[Nihilo]

idk. But I do know the specs of it. It will be propositions either spoken by, written by, or approved by at least one of the actual Apostles.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

More likely to happen is unauthorized addition of books. In 2013 “A New New Testament” was developed mostly by mainline Protestant leaders, but also liberal Catholics. It includes the Gospel of Mary alongside the Gospel of Mark, and new Acts or Epistles not in an appendix but mingling among the familiar Acts and familiar Epistles.

A few Protestant congregations use this in worship and catechesis, and it’s only a matter of time before the Gospel of Thomas pops up at Masses, on an equal basis, or instead of, Luke. It will happen on campus first.

It is best to stay with the basic requirement: what we need to believe in order to be saved.

I used to be in the Legion of Mary. I prayed the rosary everyday for a few years.

Frankly, now I find devotion to Mary and the Saints has somewhat given too much attention that it becomes like it is compulsory to believe in those in order to be saved. Clearly it has become a distraction: Jesus has never taught those teachings as necessities in order for someone to get saved.

Now that God has given me some understanding, I am much more cautious in dealing with what I call ‘side teachings’, teachings those Jesus had never mention as necessities for salvations.

Those could be the vehicle for the father of lies to sow bad teachings among the good ones, just as the enemy sow weed among the wheat, so that the lies spread within the church causing strife: people quarrels about ‘side teachings’ unnecessary for salvation.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t know if it is even a doctrine, but maybe banning the death penalty?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Morals are included. The Pope’s infallibility is engaged when he speaks defintively on matters of faith and morals, subject to the conditions.

So are you saying that theoretically, a moral teaching could be proclaimed ex cathedra as infallible?

If that’s the case, I would welcome infallible proclamation of direct abortion always being murder, as long as the zygote/embryo/fetus has an immortal soul. Only problem is, we don’t know the moment at which that takes place. We make the assumption that it is at the moment of conception, but we don’t know that as an absolute fact. It is better to assume that the zygote/embryo/fetus has a soul and be wrong, than to assume it does not have a soul and be wrong. To use a secular example, it is like assuming a gun is loaded unless you know for a fact that it is not (by examining the chamber) or assuming that someone is in the path of where you intend to shoot unless you know for a fact that there isn’t anyone — “be sure of your target and what is behind it”. We do not demolish buildings that have been partially destroyed until we know for a fact that no one is still alive and trapped in the wreckage. And so on.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t know if it is even a doctrine, but maybe banning the death penalty?

That is impossible.

 

[thistle]

I agree, that having priesthood being male-only could be declared as a dogma. Although, the main issue is complying with the teaching we already have, not so much in having more of them.

It is already an INFALLIBLE teaching of the Church.