When does infallibility apply?

[D0UBTFIRE]

Hi,

I’ve read that the Holy Father is infallible when he speak ex cathedra. I keep being told from my parish that he’s only done that twice.

I’ve also read that the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Could someone clarify? Most of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, from what I understand, have not been spoken by the Holy Father ex cathedra, or otherwise people wouldn’t be saying that it’s only been done twice…this makes the issue of infallibility confusing.

Also, the Catechism - could you call it a collection of the dogmas/doctrines of the Church? Could you say that everything in the Catholic Catechism is about faith and morals and therefor infallible???

Thanks.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Here is a summary of Church authority and infallibility:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/outline-Church-authority.htm

Nothing in the Catechism is infallible merely because it is in the Catechism, however, many of the teachings in the Catechism have been previously established as infallible.

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

A. Papal Infallibility (solemn definitions of the Pope)
B. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils
C. the ordinary universal Magisterium (when the Pope and the Bishops teach the same doctrine, definitively to be held, but without any one solemn definition)

All other teachings of the Magisterium are non-infallible.

Many theologians believe that Papal infallibility has been used more than twice.
E.g.
The Immaculate Conception
The Assumption
On the Beatific Vision of God, Pope Benedict XII
Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=6117&date=2010-03-05

 

[Bookcat]

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34185

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34186

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34699

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34700

 

[Bookcat]

As to the Catechism…it is a sure norm for teaching the Faith etc…but only those things that are infallible (defined by the Pope or Council etc as such) are infallible.

The ordinary magisterium can be infalliable …but again this is not in everything that is taught…but only under particular circumstances…

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they 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” [Lumen Gentium 25].

of course we follow the teaching of the Church per se… all of em …not just the infallible ones…but you know that part.

 

[kage_ar]

The Catechism is a short reference book, it is not the be all and end all of Catholic Doctrine and Dogma.

 

[Beircheart]

Does infallibility apply when a Pope authors an encyclical? I do not wish to hijack this thread so I respectfully ask you not respond arguing the merits of the following as that has been done extensively elsewhere. Please keep focus on whether this is an infallible pronouncement and, if we are to claim ourselves to be Catholic, we MUST follow this or does it not fall under the umbrella of infallibility. As it seems to be a clear cut directive regarding a tenant of faith accompanied by a prescribed course of behavior (reject) would you please include the rational for its being or not being infallible.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Excerpt from Humani Generis, POPE PIUS XII

Thanks!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The view that there have only been two ex cathedra pronouncements in all of history is absurd. Papal infallibility would be the most useless charism ever. The two instances alleged are things that were not even a source of controversy among Catholics.

I think this article might be helpful, especially section c.

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

 

[simspt]

Hi,

I’ve read that the Holy Father is infallible when he speak ex cathedra. I keep being told from my parish that he’s only done that twice.

I’ve also read that the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Could someone clarify? Most of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, from what I understand, have not been spoken by the Holy Father ex cathedra, or otherwise people wouldn’t be saying that it’s only been done twice…this makes the issue of infallibility confusing.

Also, the Catechism - could you call it a collection of the dogmas/doctrines of the Church? Could you say that everything in the Catholic Catechism is about faith and morals and therefor infallible???

Thanks.

This is a very confusing area among Catholics and its definitely worth spending the time to educate ourselves on it. Here are some good books to start with…
I would start with these 4 books to get a good grasp of the subject.

amazon.com/dp/1932589384/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=4966935992&ref=pd_sl_8gqvj6erox_e

amazon.com/Magisterium-Teaching-Authority-Catholic-Church/dp/1592440606/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421602767&sr=1-1&keywords=sullivan+magisterium

amazon.com/Creative-Fidelity-Interpreting-Documents-Magisterium/dp/1592442080/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

amazon.com/What-Authority-Scripture-Magisterium-Faithful/dp/0814628729/ref=la_B001ITRPAA_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421602844&sr=1-1

 

[steve_b]

Hi,

I’ve read that the Holy Father is infallible when he speak ex cathedra. I keep being told from my parish that he’s only done that twice.

Only twice??? I’ve heard that said myself. I’m still wondering who started that rumor.
D:

I’ve also read that the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Could someone clarify? Most of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, from what I understand, have not been spoken by the Holy Father ex cathedra, or otherwise people wouldn’t be saying that it’s only been done twice…this makes the issue of infallibility confusing.

Here’s a case where JPII spoke infallibly on an issue, based on the language he used in difining the issue. Following his statement, I provided the definition of papal infallibility

#10
D:

Also, the Catechism - could you call it a collection of the dogmas/doctrines of the Church? Could you say that everything in the Catholic Catechism is about faith and morals and therefor infallible???

Thanks.

The CCC isn’t infallible. However It includes in it infallible teachings of the Church

 

[DavidFilmer]

Only twice??? I’ve heard that said myself. I’m still wondering who started that rumor.

The rumor is true (to the best of our knowledge).

Here’s a case where JPII spoke infallibly on an issue, based on the language he used in defining the issue

He taught an infallible truth, but not ex Cathedra (more on that later).

We need not rely upon our opinion of the language that St. John Paul the Great used in his encyclical. It was surely clear enough what was his intention, but it was further clarified beyond all possible doubt by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope Benedict, while he was Bishop Cardinal Prefect of CCD) in this Responsum, which says (in part)

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium

To my knowledge, this is the ONLY Papal teaching (of any kind or scope) which has been affirmed by any Vatican Office which actually uses the word “infallible” to describe it.

Canon Law maintains:

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. [Code of Canon Law, #749 §3

I would say that the letter published by CCD on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is THE most “manifestly obvious” teaching of any Pope in the history of the Catholic Church.

But it is important to note that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not actually an exercise of Papal infallibility. St. John Paul the Great merely acknowledges that the authority of this teaching is “set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (that means the Bishops - ex Cathedra is an extraordinary (meaning “not ordinary”)) means of teaching. St. John Paul the Great was simply “passing along” the infallible teaching of the Bishops dispersed around the world, united with the Supreme Pontiff.

To my knowledge, this is the only such teaching (of the ordinary and universal Magisterium) that has been formally recognized as infallible.

So there are a total of exactly three doctrines which are regarded by the Church as infallible (two pronounced ex Cathedra and one pronounced on behalf of the ordinary Magisterium).

But, for the guy in the pew, it makes no difference whatsoever. All Catholics are expected to adhere to ALL Catholic teaching, without regard to its infallible status. Infallibility means NOTHING to the typical Catholic layperson - it is a subject of interest only to theologians and Canon Lawyers (and a few Catholigeeks on this Forum).
[/quote]

 

[steve_b]

The rumor is true (to the best of our knowledge).

He taught an infallible truth, but not ex Cathedra (more on that later).

We need not rely upon our opinion of the language that St. John Paul the Great used in his encyclical. It was surely clear enough what was his intention, but it was further clarified beyond all possible doubt by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope Benedict, while he was Bishop Cardinal Prefect of CCD) in this Responsum, which says (in part)

To my knowledge, this is the ONLY Papal teaching (of any kind or scope) which has been affirmed by any Vatican Office which actually uses the word “infallible” to describe it.

Canon Law maintains:

I would say that the letter published by CCD on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is THE most “manifestly obvious” teaching of any Pope in the history of the Catholic Church.

But it is important to note that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not actually an exercise of Papal infallibility. St. John Paul the Great merely acknowledges that the authority of this teaching is “set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (that means the Bishops - ex Cathedra is an extraordinary (meaning “not ordinary”)) means of teaching. St. John Paul the Great was simply “passing along” the infallible teaching of the Bishops dispersed around the world, united with the Supreme Pontiff.

JPII the great proclaimed an infallible teaching, NOT by council, not by vote, but by the language he used in proclaiming that teaching…to end all debate

I would suggest to you THAT is also the value of infallibility. The capability to end arguments and put people’s minds at ease.
D:

To my knowledge, this is the only such teaching (of the ordinary and universal Magisterium) that has been formally recognized as infallible.

Then consider the following and ask yourself how many saints have been declared?

“In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip for space] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”
Taken From http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
D:

So there are a total of exactly three doctrines which are regarded by the Church as infallible (two pronounced ex Cathedra and one pronounced on behalf of the ordinary Magisterium).

But, for the guy in the pew, it makes no difference whatsoever. All Catholics are expected to adhere to ALL Catholic teaching, without regard to its infallible status. Infallibility means NOTHING to the typical Catholic layperson - it is a subject of interest only to theologians and Canon Lawyers (and a few Catholigeeks on this Forum).

apart from your remarks, infallibility **is **an indispensable gift to the Church, and has been used more than 3 times…

 

[DavidFilmer]

apart from your remarks, infallibility **is **an indispensable gift to the Church

Oh, I agree it is an indispensable gift - it’s just not relevant to laypeople. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a layperson should know or care whether a particular doctrine is promulgated infallibly.

If you can think of any reason why a layperson needs to know or care, I would love to hear it.

When people come here and ask if something has been infallibly defined, they are usually under the grave misconception that they are at liberty to disregard the teaching if it has not been. This is a very common (and very wrong) idea.

and has been used more than 3 times…

Can you cite me a source for a fourth teaching which has been formally declared to be an infallible teaching by the Magesterium? I’m not talking about you getting out your Vatikan 1 Katpian Katholik Dekoder Ring and expressing your own opinion about which other doctrines meet that standard. Your Dekoder Ring is not what the Church has in mind when she says the infallible nature of the teaching must be “manifestly evident.”

And I’m not talking about dusting off your copy of Ott and citing the de Fide teachings on the “hierarchy of authority” that he devised. Those are understood to be his opinions as a priest and theologian, not a teaching of the Magesterium (and the intended audience for his book is other theologians, not laypeople). He is not trying to usurp the authority of the Church by expressing those opinions to other theologians.

I would agree that we can say with confidence whether something falls short of the V-1 standard (for example, it is addressed to only a particular person or group, and not to the world at large). But it would be quite impertinent for us to assert that the Church teaches something infallibly when the Church Herself has not made that distinction.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So there are a total of exactly three doctrines which are regarded by the Church as infallible (two pronounced ex Cathedra and one pronounced on behalf of the ordinary Magisterium).

But, for the guy in the pew, it makes no difference whatsoever. All Catholics are expected to adhere to ALL Catholic teaching, without regard to its infallible status. Infallibility means NOTHING to the typical Catholic layperson - it is a subject of interest only to theologians and Canon Lawyers (and a few Catholigeeks on this Forum).

See this magisterial document (Pope John Paul II on the profession of faith, followed by the teaching of then-Cardinal Ratzinger prefect of the CDF)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

The infallible teachings of the Magisterium (Papal Infallibility, Conciliar Infallibility, the ordinary and Universal Magisterium) require the full assent of faith. Refusal to believe or obstinate doubt is the grave sin of heresy.

Non-infallible teachings require religious assent; refusal to believe any particular non-infallible teaching is not heresy. The requirement to believe is of a different type and lesser degree, as Ratzinger explains in the above cited commentary on the Profession of Faith.

So, it does matter. The Church does NOT teach that we are to give the full assent of faith to every teaching, or that dissent from any teaching is heresy (which, when formal heresy, includes the penalty of automatic excommunication).

The assertions “without regard to its infallible status” and “Infallibility means NOTHING to the typical Catholic layperson” are stunning rejections of the distinction found in many magisterial documents (Vatican I, Vatican II, Canon Law, the CCC, etc.) between infallible and non-infallible teachings and the different assent required for each.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Can you cite me a source for a fourth teaching which has been formally declared to be an infallible teaching by the Magesterium?
…
Those are understood to be his opinions as a priest and theologian, not a teaching of the Magesterium…

But it would be quite impertinent for us to assert that the Church teaches something infallibly when the Church Herself has not made that distinction.

You are, in effect, adding a condition for a teaching to be infallible, that the Magisterium subsequently formally declare that teaching to be infallible. But such a requirement (whether practical or theoretical) is not of the Magisterium and contradicts magisterial teaching on infallibility:

LG 25: “And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

Vatican II says that an infallible teaching does not require a subsequent formal declaration that the teaching is infallible.

All the Canons of those Ecumenical Councils which issued infallible teachings in the form of Canons (usually with an attached anathema) are infallible. The three teachings condemning the sins of murder, euthanasia, abortion, in Evangelium Vitae are infallible. The teaching that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) is infallible. Many teachings are infallible under the ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Unam Sanctam contains an infallible teaching, later confirmed as infallible by the Fifth Lateran Council. Most theologians think that canonizations fall under papal infallibility (as the secondary object of infallibility).

 

[steve_b]

Oh, I agree it is an indispensable gift - it’s just not relevant to laypeople. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a layperson should know or care whether a particular doctrine is promulgated infallibly.

Is that the kinda stuff you taught when you taught RCIA? You have a rather low opinion of the lay person.
D:

If you can think of any reason why a layperson needs to know or care, I would love to hear it.

Excuse me? This is part of catechesis

And you taught RCIA? Good Grief!!!
D:

When people come here and ask if something has been infallibly defined, they are usually under the grave misconception that they are at liberty to disregard the teaching if it has not been. This is a very common (and very wrong) idea.

That’s NOT the issue here. You say only 3 times has an infallible teaching been made. I showed you where that is wrong
D:

Can you cite me a source for a fourth teaching which has been formally declared to be an infallible teaching by the Magesterium? I’m not talking about you getting out your Vatikan 1 Katpian Katholik Dekoder Ring and expressing your own opinion about which other doctrines meet that standard. Your Dekoder Ring is not what the Church has in mind when she says the infallible nature of the teaching must be “manifestly evident.”

And I’m not talking about dusting off your copy of Ott and citing the de Fide teachings on the “hierarchy of authority” that he devised. Those are understood to be his opinions as a priest and theologian, not a teaching of the Magesterium (and the intended audience for his book is other theologians, not laypeople). He is not trying to usurp the authority of the Church by expressing those opinions to other theologians.

I already cited my example #12 , when I quoted

“In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip for space] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”
Taken From http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

did you even read that, opening the links as well?
D:

I would agree that we can say with confidence whether something falls short of the V-1 standard (for example, it is addressed to only a particular person or group, and not to the world at large). But it would be quite impertinent for us to assert that the Church teaches something infallibly when the Church Herself has not made that distinction.

I gave quotes. NOT my opinion.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Vatican II says that an infallible teaching does not require a subsequent formal declaration that the teaching is infallible.

So how are we supposed to know? Everyone get their Vatican-1 checklists and figure it out for themselves?

Some say that Humanae Vitae is infallibly proclaimed. I think they’re probably correct. It sure looks like an infallible pronouncement (all five boxes on my checklist are marked). But the Church has not said so. Who are we to assert that Humanae Vitae is infallible when the Church Herself has not done so?

What say you: Is Humanae Vitae infallible? Whatever your answer is, it is only your opinion. Would you teach your opinion as fact? If someone else had a different opinion, could you be sure you are right and he is wrong? Didn’t Jesus establish something to keep us from getting into this very protestant-style conundrum? Oh yeah, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Excuse me? This is part of catechesis

You’re saying that Catechumins are usually taught a list of infallible doctrines? I’d like to see that list. Especially seeing as how it has been discussed here many times with the overwhelming consensus that such a list is impossible to create.

That’s NOT the issue here. You say only 3 times has an infallible teaching been made. I showed you where that is wrong
I already cited my example #12 , when I quoted

Yeeeaaaaahhhhhh, well I asked for a statement from the Magesterium and you gave me Jimmy Akin. Don’t get me wrong - Jimmy’s a great guy, very smart, and I have nothing but respect for him, but he’s not the Magesterium. He presents the idea that, if a pope uses the word “define” that’s some sort of code word for “hey, this is infallible.” He does not cite a source for that. That’s a pretty HUGE idea to not cite a source in Church teaching. And it’s something that has surely escaped the notice of the VAST majority of the world’s Catholics.

It may well be the case that every time the Pope intends to teach infallibly he uses the word “define.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean that every time he uses the word “define” that he intends to teach infallibly. I’d like to know more about this “trigger” that Akin describes (from a Magesterial source).

Akin goes on to say,

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption thus are not the only two exercises of papal infallibilty in history. They are arguably the only two dogmatic definitions (i.e., definitions of dogmas; saint canonizations being definitions of what are known as dogmatic facts rather than dogmas per se) in the last hundred and fifty years, but they are far from the only two in history.

I’ll admit that the difference here is not readily apparent to me. But he does seem to acknowledge that these two doctrines are the only ones that have been defined to be infallible by the Church and are thus (it would seem) somehow higher in the hierarchy of authority (a position that Akin doesn’t seem to feel that Humanae Vitae occupies, FWIW).

At any rate, you did not provide what I asked for. I asked for a teaching of the Catholic Church, not of a (very well respected) Catholic layperson.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Non-infallible teachings require religious assent; refusal to believe any particular non-infallible teaching is not heresy.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but I see a problem with this idea.

How is your average guy in the pew supposed to know which Church doctrines he may freely refuse to accept and that’s OK?

So he can say it’s OK to use birth control if he doesn’t think Humanae Vitae is infallible? He can just reject that teaching?

You see my problem…

 

[Beircheart]

Oh, I agree it is an indispensable gift - it’s just not relevant to laypeople. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a layperson should know or care whether a particular doctrine is promulgated infallibly.

This is in direct conflict with what the church teaches about the amicable coexistence between faith and reason. It absolutely does matter to the laity. In this, the information age, it matters more now than ever!

Whether you agree with the appropriateness of the situation or not, many church teachings are competing with secular knowledge for, not just relevance, but accuracy: a verifiable accuracy. My generation, being born in the mid-60’s, has been conditioned to question everything but spirituality and faith were still an option. The one after me, to doubt everything and issues of faith were regarded as highly suspect. The one coming along now is being groomed to believe nothing other than that which cold, verifiable data corroborates and faith is nonsense.

In light of the above (wherein I speak in generalities; there are of course individual exceptions), to promote the idea that any questioning of church teachings is forbidden is to drive away many. For the church to not have adequate responses to these questioners, along with their supporting evidence, is a major pastoral failing and the tolling death bell for the faith. So, again, it matters very much.