When are the bishops in the ordinary Magisterium infallible?

[WannabeSaint]

Just because something isnt specifically declared divinely inspired in a council or ex-cathedral doesn’t mean the teaching isn’t infallible. A teaching can be infallible if it held by the ordinary Magisterium of bishops.

My question is this: If one were to ask every bishop in the world a particular theology question, and each gave the same answer…does that mean whatever their answer is, is infallible?

And if one out of all those bishops gave a different answer, does that mean something isn’t infallible?

 

[WannabeSaint]

^bump

Also, I wasn’t sure which topic to post this on. If this isn’t the right topic, please transfer it to the appropriate one please.

 

[CRV]

Philosophy might be the better subforum for this question, as Papal Infallibility has been discussed here many times in the past (even though it isn’t specifically what your question is about), so you should get more responses here.

 

[Jen7]

I don’t think so. The bishops don’t ONLY need to agree - they also need to be speaking with the “mind of the Church” in continuity with what has been taught before.

 

[mdgspencer]

.
What the bishops agree on is infallible.
When the bishops decide on something in such a matter doesn’t mean asking them one by one. Their view is found through an ecumenical council. This shows too that they can be some few bishops who believe otherwise–when councils have defined something as true commonly there are bishops who came to the council who believed otherwise. This happened when the infallibility of the Pope was defined during an ecumenical council in 1870. These bishops who hadn’t thought so generally accepted what the council decided, in view of the great authority of such a council.

 

[Dovekin]

Bishops teach infallibly whenever they teach something that is true. Completely uselesss tautology as far as answering your question goes. It does however express a faith that trusts God to teach the Church through them.

For example, John Paul II declared that bishops have infallibly taught the reservation of Orders to men. That means for almost 2000 years, bishops have taught that teaching without knowing they were doing it infallibly. Or thinking they were doing it infallibly, but it was just their opinion that they were doing it.

If one were to ask every bishop in the world a particular theology question, and each gave the same answer…does that mean whatever their answer is, is infallible?

:astonished:That would be such a spectacular miracle, it probably would an example of infallibility. Convincing anyone that such an agreement really happened would be difficult.

 

[Genesis315]

If they are in agreement on a doctrine to be definitively held, then such a judgment is infallible, since the entire episcopate has authority to teach the whole Church and neither the episcopate or whole Church can defect from the faith.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

[The bishops] nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

The First Vatican Council also refers to the general infallibility of the Church’s “ordinary and universal magisterium,” that is, those things consistently taught across time and place.

It is usually when this latter teaching becomes partially obscured that an “extraordinary” definitive judgment is needed from the Pope or Council to restore clarity and unity.

It should be noted that when we all agree, our collective, universal judgment is infallible:

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

 

[WannabeSaint]

“ordinary and universal magisterium,” that is, those things consistently taught across time and place.

Hi Genesis, how would one be able to discern something that has been constantly taught across time and place from a majority opinion?

For instance, the majority of Catholics throughout the ages have believed it’s a teaching of the Church that animals dont go to Heaven. That’s actually not a church teaching. The church leaves room for speculation on that topic.

 

[Gorgias]

For instance, the majority of Catholics throughout the ages have believed it’s a teaching of the Church that animals dont go to Heaven. That’s actually not a church teaching. The church leaves room for speculation on that topic.

Actually, you need to be a bit more precise, because the way you’ve phrased it, one might respond, “actually, the Church teaches precisely what you say it doesn’t”!

So, I could take your statement to mean either “will God re-create animals in heaven?” or “do animals attain to heaven?” The latter question is answered by Church doctrine: no, only humans have eternal souls, so only humans attain to heaven. (The former question is one way to answer a five-year-old who’s afraid he’ll never see his kitty again, and the response (which again, follows Church teaching) is “God will re-create the heavens and the earth, so if what it takes for you to be happy in heaven is your kitty, then I bet God will re-create him there!”)

So: there is a “teaching down through the ages” in what you’ve mentioned: the only physical creatures that have eternal souls are humans, so humans are the only physical creatures who will attain to heaven.

 

[WannabeSaint]

Fair enough.

What would be the answer to my main question though? How can we discern something that has been taught consistently throughout the ages and something that has been mere a popular opinion in Catholic moral theology circles through the ages? A better example would be different interpretations of scripture.

 

[MPat]

Just because something isnt specifically declared divinely inspired in a council or ex-cathedral doesn’t mean the teaching isn’t infallible. A teaching can be infallible if it held by the ordinary Magisterium of bishops.

My question is this: If one were to ask every bishop in the world a particular theology question, and each gave the same answer…does that mean whatever their answer is, is infallible?

Would the questions be given and answered in private conversations?

If so, then the bishops do not seem to be teaching. And thus, by Lumen Gentium (cited by Genesis315), it would appear that it is not infallible (by itself).

To oversimplify a little, perhaps, it looks like the less explicit the consensus is, the wider it has to be for infallibility. For consensus of “private” opinions to count, consensus of the faithful as a whole (“consensus fidelium”) seems to be required. The bishops would seem to have to teach for the same effect (or to gather in an ecumenical council confirmed by the Pope, and vote - then merely a majority would suffice). Thus, I guess, your scenario might work, if all the bishops would give the answers in homilies (or in letters to the whole diocese, to be more sure).

 

[commenter]

The bishops don’t ONLY need to agree - they also need to be speaking with the “mind of the Church” in continuity with what has been taught before.

I don’t think so. The bishops don’t ONLY need to agree - they also need to be speaking with the “mind of the Church” in continuity with what has been taught before.

The problem is, who determines what current teaching is consistent with what has gone before? If there is disagreement this is ultimately decided by the current pope, and the bishops in union with him.

You have some people saying the pope and bishops should be obeyed on doctrine only when they teach in agreement with Tradition, as if Tradition was a stand-alone, clear and obvious objective standard.

In reality, someone who says that isn’t looking directly at Tradition, invariably he has a book or website giving someone’s opinion about Tradition.

 

[Vico]

Fair enough.

What would be the answer to my main question though? How can we discern something that has been taught consistently throughout the ages and something that has been mere a popular opinion in Catholic moral theology circles through the ages? A better example would be different interpretations of scripture.

Some irreformable doctrines are not popular with the people, so that should be kept in mind.

You can read the Catechism and their given sources, which includes, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum Denzinger-Schönmetzer.

http://catho.org/9.php?d=g1

old numbering: Denzinger - English translation, older numbering

The book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott organizes the doctrines and lists the various Magisterial expressions and debates for them.

 

[Genesis315]

Discerning this used to be one of the primary tasks of theologians, although they don’t seem to do it much anymore. See how Pope Pius IX put it in a letter cited in Denzinger:

1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.
Denzinger - English translation, older numbering

But we all should use our Catholic sense. Ultimately, this is a response to Protestants and others who claimed the Church erred consistently over time, or for those who want to minimize the deposit of faith. Certain things have simply been handed on consistently without need for an extraordinary act (the longer we go, the less there are, as new attacks on truth are raised in every age).

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a classic example of a dogma that was never the subject of a conciliar or papal definition, yet has always been taught an defended by the Church.