Why hasn't the Catholic Church published an official list of every single infallible teaching?

[Tomdstone]

Interestingly enough, Dr. Ed Peters - who is certainly no slouch - takes the position that JPII actually DID speak infallibly on the matter, given the nature of the formulation of the document (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

AFAIK, Father Francis A. Sullivan says differently.

 

[lax16]

I specifically chose some of those example teachings because I knew they would cause the type of problems a list like this would solve.

Think about it:

Catholic 1: “I think women could be priests someday.”

Catholic 2: "Nope, the official list of infallible Catholic teachings says explicitly: “only a human being of the male sex is the proper matter for the sacrament of holy orders.”

Case closed, no hay problema!

Think of the misunderstandings it would prevent.
So, why haven’t they done this?

The only person I know that thinks there should be female priests and that the Catholic Church should “get with the times” is my Jewish/atheist BIL. lol

 

[dshix]

Are you sure you are not thinking of celibate priests? I thought St. John Paul answered once and for all that Jesus did not intend wymyn priests.

Yes, you’re right, LOL. I misread it.

 

[Tomdstone]

The only person I know that thinks there should be female priests and that the Catholic Church should “get with the times” is my Jewish/atheist BIL. lol

Check out the writings of Father Francis A. Sullivan.

 

[Jake_Parker]

I find it funny that you mention this.
I know growing up, myself and most of my Protestant friends actually believed this very thing about the CC. From an outside perspective, it really does seem like the CC is all about follow rules ABCD, and don’t ever do EFGH, make sure you go to confession, and then repeat the same prayers over and over again because that’s how to be Catholic.

I now know this was overly simplified, and a misunderstanding of Catholicism, but I can definitely see how people would think this.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, neither Blessed Paul VI nor St John Paul II declared a dogma ex cathedra. There is no dogma condemning artificial birth control or women’s ordination. That being said, they remain infallible teachings. It drives me nuts that people see the word “infallible” and automatically jump to “did the pope speak ex cathedra?” The Pope very rarely exercises the Church’s infallibility in a personal manner. The Church is infallible as the Holy Spirit guides her into all truth. Most infallible dogmas have been declared by ecunenical councils, not popes alone. Beyond defined dogmas, most infallible teachings come to us from the Ordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium, that is the consistent teaching of the popes and bishops down through the ages, is itself infallible. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Joseph Ratzinger, clarified this in the wake of St John Paul’s clarification on women’s ordination: no, the sainted pope did not exercise papal infallibility in the sense of defining a dogma ex cathedra, but yes the teaching itself is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium as consistently taught for 2000 years by bishops everywhere.

AMEN!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Tomdstone]

Our holy faith is not limited to a list of dogmas, but is woven into the liturgy and the lives of the saints…

Many Traditional and conservative Roman Catholics see problems with some of today’s liturgies. For example, how would a clown Mass be representative of “our holy faith”?

 

[LethalMouse]

Many Traditional and conservative Roman Catholics see problems with some of today’s liturgies. For example, how would a clown Mass be representative of “our holy faith”?

While I am actuallly not for a clown mass, I will put down a food for thought.

In my local area there was a word not common elsewhere used as an insult similar to say “Dork”

When I left I met a guy named “Dorkison” (With the other word) to me it was hilarious. But noone there had any knowledge of the word as funny.

In my teen years I recall a type kf socks being laughed at and considered dorky. Yet some older people saw what was dorky in reverse.

So to say if to someone what we consider “classy” were clownish, how subjective a thing?

On a side note, wasnt the clown mass thing not actually legit?

 

[Della]

Many Traditional and conservative Roman Catholics see problems with some of today’s liturgies. For example, how would a clown Mass be representative of “our holy faith”?

I haven’t heard of any Catholic parish trying such silly innovations for years now. Maybe some of our liturgical Protestant parishes, perhaps, still do this. In any case, it was never in the rubrics and shouldn’t have been done no matter when or for any reason, no matter how well intentioned. Left to our own devices, we humans come up with some really bad ideas. It’s why we have rubrics and the GIRM, to try to keep the Mass reverent and uniform, within certain cultural parameters.

 

[lax16]

Check out the writings of Father Francis A. Sullivan.

Now I know two - an atheist and a dissenting theologian.

 

[o_mlly]

As far as I am aware, the Catholic Church has never published an official list of every single infallible teaching. Why is this? Think of all the confusion it would clear up! Most of the discussions on this website would be easily resolved if there were such a list…

Catholics are obliged to assent with docility to the Magisterial teachings of the Church. The obligation of assent does not apply only to infallible teachings. For lay people, the difference is a distinction without a difference. In the rare event that fallible Magisterial teachings conflict, the teaching of the superior Magister obtains (we are a hierarchy.) If the Magisters are equal in authority then the remote rule obtains. No assent is required If the teaching is from the pope and conflicts with our deposit of faith.

Of course, for our teachers (magisters), the bishops and popes, the distinction is important. Infallible means “end of story.” For an understanding, listen to Fr. Ripperger (it will cost you a decade of the rosary.)

sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Ecclesiology/EcclesiologyV.mp3
Mark of Apostolicity and the Ordinary Magisterium - Fr. Ripperger

 

[Tomdstone]

Catholics are obliged to assent with docility to the Magisterial teachings of the Church.

Are papal bulls considered to be Magisterial teachings. Say for example, the papal bulls condemning certain heretical views, or the views of Martin Luther?

 

[davidv]

Are papal bulls considered to be Magisterial teachings. Say for example, the papal bulls condemning certain heretical views, or the views of Martin Luther?

Papal bulls are documents published by the Vatican. In and of the themselves, they are not teachings. Depending on what they contain, they may, or may not, describe a Magisterial teaching. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Bull and Briefs contains more information.

 

[Tomdstone]

Now I know two - an atheist and a dissenting theologian.

I didn’t know that the Vatican regards him as dissenting. I thought he was one of the official Vatican voices.

 

[Tomdstone]

Papal bulls are documents published by the Vatican. In and of the themselves, they are not teachings. Depending on what they contain, they may, or may not, describe a Magisterial teaching. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Bull and Briefs contains more information.

Take for example, a specific case in the papal bull Exsurge Domine which condemned theteachings of Martin Luther and other Protestants:
The following was condemned:
23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
Now is that declaration (which is a condemnation) (#23) part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church or not?

 

[o_mlly]

Are papal bulls considered to be Magisterial teachings. Say for example, the papal bulls condemning certain heretical views, or the views of Martin Luther?

“Bull” simply indicates the leaden or other metal seal authenticating the source of a several types of papal documents.

The Categories of Documents are as follows:

• Authority
• Motu Proprio
• Apostolic Constitution
• Encyclical
• Apostolic Letter
• Apostolic Exhortation
• Common Declaration
• Homily
• Audience
• Discourse
• Message

For more information, see: ewtn.com/HolySee/pontiff/categories.asp

 

[estesbob]

Yes, you’re right, LOL. I misread it.

I had a feeling that was the case.

 

[Vico]

Take for example, a specific case in the papal bull Exsurge Domine which condemned theteachings of Martin Luther and other Protestants:
The following was condemned:
23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
Now is that declaration (which is a condemnation) (#23) part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church or not?

There is no merit gained in the state of mortal sin, but still others prayers may be helpful. An* external penalty* is different than a guilt.

When a Catholic is guilty of a mortal sin that has the penalty of excommunication associated with it, like abortion, then two actions are required to resolve it: the absolution of the sin, and lifting the penalty of excommunication. The diocesan bishop has authority to remit the automatic excommunication imposed for an abortion. The remission occurs in the Sacrament of Penance. One may have the absolution from a priest and later receive the bishops release from excommunication. The bishop in turn may delegate this authority to priest confessors.

These are the categories of teaching:

Extraordinary Magisterium

1. Pope defining and proclaiming a doctrine definitively
   …a. Infallible: a truth of faith or morals. *
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

• What has been proclaimed is not subject to review or approval by the other bishops or the faithful, but is guaranteed infallible through the action of the Holy Spirit (and the assent of the Church will eventually be evident).

1. Pope and bishops teaching when in council
   …a. Infallible: proclaiming a truth.
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

Ordinary Magisterium

1. Pope and bishops teaching while dispersed throughout the world
   …a. Infallible: bishops teaching in harmony a truth that they say must be held definitively by all the faithful.
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

References:

Vatican I
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25
The Gift of Infallibility by Bishop Gasser, Rev. James O’Connor, p 120-123.

And Donum Veritatis, excerpt below:

1. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes “in a definitive way” truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

(15) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decl. Mysterium Ecclesiae, nn. 3-5: AAS 65 ( 1973) 400-404; Professio fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis AAS 81 (1989) 104 f.

(22) The text of the new Profession of Faith (cf. n. 15 ) makes explicit the kind of assent called for by these teachings in these terms: “Firmiter etiam amplector et retineo. …”.

(23) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Ironically enough, you all have done a lot of citing of various documents to show how you know when a teaching is infallible or not, or why we don’t really need an official list of infallible teachings.

Wouldn’t it have been easier to cite the official infallible list of RC teachings? Even better: why doesn’t the Church publish a list of teachings in order of their relative truthfulness? If only some things are infallible, mark them as such, and mark the others as “true but not infallible” or something like that. If you guys aren’t Pharisees (as was claimed) then it shouldn’t take too much effort at all. The Church could probably summarize her infallible and “true but not infallible” teachings on one page of single space small font, right? Think of how useful that would be to settle the rancorous dissent within Catholicism!

 

[Della]

Ironically enough, you all have done a lot of citing of various documents to show how you know when a teaching is infallible or not, or why we don’t really need an official list of infallible teachings.

Wouldn’t it have been easier to cite the official infallible list of RC teachings? Even better: why doesn’t the Church publish a list of teachings in order of their relative truthfulness? If only some things are infallible, mark them as such, and mark the others as “true but not infallible” or something like that. If you guys aren’t Pharisees (as was claimed) then it shouldn’t take too much effort at all. The Church could probably summarize her infallible and “true but not infallible” teachings on one page of single space small font, right? Think of how useful that would be to settle the rancorous dissent within Catholicism!

We don’t need anything of the kind. We owe ordinary obedience to ALL the Church’s teaches, ergo, there’s no need to make lists of what is more important to believe and what isn’t.

As for dissenters–there have always been dissenters. Church history is rife with dissenters of every stripe. People with their own ideas/agendas will test authority and every teaching imaginable. It’s not that they don’t know which teachings are dogma or doctrine, it’s that they want to change them or negate them.

We are fine as we are, thank you just the same for your concern. Church teachings are not there to be debated, but believed and practiced. The Church is not a debating society wherein whoever makes the best argument gets to decide matters of faith and morals. It’s the Body of Christ. Therefore, she is bound to teach Christ’s teachings as given to the Apostles. She can do nothing else, never has done anything else, and never will do anything else.