When can you ignore Non infallible statments

  • Thread starter Thread starter FCS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn’t say that a Pope said that, it only says a couple lines above that it and many of the other statements were condemned by the Pope.

I’m sorry if I’m not explaining this well, thank you for trying to help.
 
Last edited:
Okay, there is a lot of erroneous advice here.
  1. Denzinger 1158 above is a condemned decree, therefore it is the opposite of what is written, so it is indeed immoral to eat for pleasure only. Since it says “only,” you should not be too scrupulous on this issue. Saint Alphonsus says that eating meats, regardless of how delicious they are, can be moral, if you were say invited to a dinner party. Since people typically do not eat like beasts detached from any other end, only worry about this when you are eating desserts, feasts (feasts can be moral), etc. But do not be too concerned about about pleasure in any bite that you eat. Also, it condemns “are not sinful,” so it could (and likely is) only venially sinful.
  2. The infallible Magisterium has no error, and most of the Church’s sexual teachings, including Humanae Vitae (the Vademecum for confessors), fall under this category.
  3. The non-infallible Magisterium have limited error. Therefore, just by virtue of accepting all the teachings in the non-infallible Magisterium, you are GUARANTEED not to be led into grave error. For this reason, if you want to be safe, just accept the teachings. Can there be errors? Only very slight errors, that do not impact your path to salvation. For example, there was recently a very minor error in the Catechism about lying only being intrinsically evil when the person being deceived has the “right to know.” This error was quickly removed. Therefore, if there is an error, rest assured, it will be corrected quickly.
  4. MOST IMPORTANT: The non-infallible Magisterium requires “assent from the faithful.” So the posters saying “you can agree or disagree, doesn’t matter” are deceiving you. You are required to assent to it, not with full assent, but still assent. You can licitly dissent if you have a strong argument from Natural Law, Scripture, Tradition, Saints, to the contrary. The infallible Magisterium requires full assent of the faith. It is impossible for the Church to be wrong about contraception, for example.
 
alphonsus1 said:
MOST IMPORTANT: The non-infallible Magisterium requires “assent from the faithful.” So the posters saying “you can agree or disagree, doesn’t matter” are deceiving you. You are required to assent to it, not with full assent, but still assent. You can licitly dissent if you have a strong argument from Natural Law, Scripture, Tradition, Saints, to the contrary. The infallible Magisterium requires full assent of the faith. It is impossible for the Church to be wrong about contraception, for example.
Click to expand...
What exactly does assent mean and what does non-full assent mean?

Is it OK to view this statement in the context of the time period the Pope lived in?

Also, what would count as a valid argument to dissent licitly?
 
Last edited:
Assent just means that the default should be agreement with the Magisterium and disagreement is only permissible for a very convincing reason. You have to research the position, find a convincing argument from the Bible, from Scripture, from Saints, etc, before you can dissent to the Magisterium. And even then, I would say you are safest to just assent, because our Church is guaranteed to protect us from grave error. So who would not want to take a guarantee, and instead go with our conscious (which has no such guarantee)?

For an example. Take the death penalty change to the Catechism. This teaching is not an issue of faith and morals, because it says it is now wrong because of enhanced incarceration schemes to effectively detain criminals without resorting to death, and this claim needs to be verified with evidence. We do not believe that the Pope has all knowledge available to him, so that we do not have to even perform studies. Therefore, an atheist professor with knowledge of particular circumstances could be just as likely/ more to be correct.

Denzinger 1158 is definitely an issue of Faith and Morals. I know a poster told you yesterday that it was explained by the circumstances of the time, but this is untrue, the statement is condemning it because of the intentions of the actor. It says “for pleasure only” that means the motive/ intention of the actor. It says nothing about it being wrong because of considerations of poverty, etc.

Let me repeat, there are three sources of morality: circumstances, intentions, and the object. Papal decrees pertaining to the object/ intentions are issues of faith and morals. Therefore, this statement is definitely part of the non-infallible Magisterium. It does require assent, but not full assent!
 
Last edited:
One final thing. I do not recommend dismissing Papal decrees as just a product of the “context of the time period”/ dismissing them. This is because we believe the Pope gets spiritual inspiration from God. While individuals can be misled by circumstances of the time, God is certainly not misled. Therefore, if the intention is indeed evil to eat for pleasure only, I do not suspect the Pope to be misled by circumstances of the time, because he was drawing upon his authority from Peter in making this decree. This inspiration is from God, and while it is not 100 percent guaranteed to be true, for practical purposes, typically just treat it as true and you’ll be safe.

First take into consideration what the Pope intended, and whether it is part of the Magisterium. For example, some Papal Bulls are addressed specifically to the leader of a country. All the condemned decrees in Denzinger are addressed to the body of the faithful. So the teaching must be (1) addressed to the entire body of the faithful, (2) declared and defined in a document that has the capacity to be authoritative (papal bull, encyclical, apostolic exhortation, etc), (3) regard an issue of faith and morals, (4) be declared and defined (not be posed in a question/ speculative language/ etc). If it meets the conditions, which Denzinger 1158 does, then it requires assent!

I hope this helps! Prayers for you!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for helping and praying for me. I’m just a little confused-how could pleasure be wrong/sinful!?

Also, it says even to satisfy for pleasure. After rereading this, it seams to say that eating in itself is sinful.
 
Last edited:
Well, then if I were you I wouldnt put any stock in it whatsoever.
 
“Even to satiety” — that is, the proposirion that the Pope is disagreeing with says that even eating solely for pleasure until one is full is not a sin. He is certainly not saying that eating itself is sinful. A number of Christian writers in earlier times took a very dim view of doing anything (be that eating or marital sex) for the pleasure of it. At least on the subject of sex, the Church’s position today seems to be that the pleasure is a gift from God, though of course the purpose of sex goes beyond just pleasure. I don’t know of any statements specifically on food, but I would imagine the principle would be similar — the good things of the world are given to us by God to enjoy, but it is wrong to make enjoyment the sole object of an activity with a greater purpose. So the condemnation you cite would not be wrong, exactly, but we would be less likely to state it in such stark, anti-pleasure terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top