Why ISN'T there a list of infallible teachings?

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve been on this forum for many years. And I’ve seen MANY people asking for a list of infallible Catholic teachings.

I have responded (as have many others) that no such list exists (and many Catholic theologians say no such list is possible).

But I have become very dissatisfied with my prior responses. Good grief, we are talking about the DOCTRINE of our Church. Why can’t we come up with a list of infallible doctrine?

Our own Canon Law says

No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such (Canon 749p3, see also Canon 1323p3 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

What does CLEARLY ESTABLISHED mean to you? To me, it means the Church has firmly stated that this particular doctrine is to be regarded as infallibly defined (not left to the opinion of various theologians to apply the criteria of infallibility to - is *Humanae Vitae *infallible? It seems to depend on who you ask).

If a doctrine must be CLEARLY ESTABLISHED to be regarded as infallible, don’t you think we ought to have a list of such doctrines? The Catholic Church has never “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” things in a secretive manner.

Why don’t we have such a list? This is ridiculous. We claim to teach the One True Faith, but we cannot really say what that is??? If somebody asks me, “what is the Doctrine of your Church,” I must tell him that we don’t really know for sure??? C’mon. That’s nuts.

Why don’t we have such a list?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I’ve been on this forum for many years. And I’ve seen MANY people asking for a list of infallible Catholic teachings.

I have responded (as have many others) that no such list exists (and many Catholic theologians say no such list is possible).

But I have become very dissatisfied with my prior responses. Good grief, we are talking about the DOCTRINE of our Church. Why can’t we come up with a list of infallible doctrine?

We have the Catechism and books like Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, * which come pretty close to what you’re looking for. But consider what’s being asked for: a bounded series of teachings or doctrines. And quite frankly, no Christian can give that, even if they go off of the Bible alone (since all Christians believe that the Bible must be interpreted in particular ways). We can say, “Here’s everything that’s been said,” but not “and here are all of the implications of what’s been said.”

Can a moral atheist give an exhaustive list of every implicit moral rule in civilized society? Can a Protestant give every teaching which necessarily follows from a proper understanding of the Bible?

I find the request sort of odd, frankly, although I understand its appeal. To be honest, I’m thankful we don’t have an exhaustive list. Every day, in the areas of bioethics, new moral questions are being asked, which wouldn’t have occurred to (or even made sense to) folks like St. Augustine, because the science didn’t exist at the time. Issues like chemical abortion, cloning (human and animal), IVF, various forms of birth control, genetic modification (for both food and persons), animal testing, etc. The Church’s ongoing task is to take the Deposit of Faith, delivered “once for all” to the Apostles (Jude 1:3), and apply it to modern circumstances, including some which the Apostles would never have dreamed of.

So that’s one reason why a list not only is impossible, but is a bad idea - because the Church has to take that once-for-all Faith and apply it authoritatively in various ways (like saying the Ten Commandments prohibit embryonic stem-cell research, despite not mentioning ESCR by name, for example). There’s another, which is that much of the Apostolic Tradition is assumed. There are certain things which moral people assume other moral people know and practice, and which don’t need to be reduced to an explicit law.

Finally, any such list immediately raises the specter of legalism. Pharisaic Judaism devised a specific number of Laws from the revelations to Moses and the Prophets, and immediately found ways of meeting the letter of the law while violating the spirit.

So you can see, immediately, the contours of the Deposit of Faith by reading the Catechism, peppered hopefully by papal encyclicals or other Catholic resources, or reading books like Ott’s. But ultimately, the Faith is a right relationship with God and neighbor, and not simply a set of rules to be followed or propositions to be believed.

Our own Canon Law says
What does CLEARLY ESTABLISHED mean to you? To me, it means the Church has firmly stated that this particular doctrine is to be regarded as infallibly defined (not left to the opinion of various theologians to apply the criteria of infallibility to - is *Humanae Vitae *infallible? It seems to depend on who you ask).

If a doctrine must be CLEARLY ESTABLISHED to be regarded as infallible, don’t you think we ought to have a list of such doctrines? The Catholic Church has never “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” things in a secretive manner.

Why don’t we have such a list? This is ridiculous. We claim to teach the One True Faith, but we cannot really say what that is??? If somebody asks me, “what is the Doctrine of your Church,” I must tell him that we don’t really know for sure??? C’mon. That’s nuts.

Why don’t we have such a list?

You’re mistaken in believing that “dogmas” and “beliefs dogmatically defined by the Church” are interchangable. Since 1800, only four things have been dogmatically defined by the Church: papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and that ordination is restricted to men.

But there’s obviously much more to the faith than what’s been solemnly dogmatized, just as there was much more to the Gospel then what the Council of Jerusalem addressed in Acts 15.

 

[Geremia]

There is. It is compiled by Denzinger in his Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum), all of which is available online at that link.

 

[elts1956]

We have the Catechism and books like Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, * which come pretty close to what you’re looking for. But consider what’s being asked for: a bounded series of teachings or doctrines. And quite frankly, no Christian can give that, even if they go off of the Bible alone (since all Christians believe that the Bible must be interpreted in particular ways). We can say, “Here’s everything that’s been said,” but not “and here are all of the implications of what’s been said.”

Can a moral atheist give an exhaustive list of every implicit moral rule in civilized society? Can a Protestant give every teaching which necessarily follows from a proper understanding of the Bible?

I find the request sort of odd, frankly, although I understand its appeal. To be honest, I’m thankful we don’t have an exhaustive list. Every day, in the areas of bioethics, new moral questions are being asked, which wouldn’t have occurred to (or even made sense to) folks like St. Augustine, because the science didn’t exist at the time. Issues like chemical abortion, cloning (human and animal), IVF, various forms of birth control, genetic modification (for both food and persons), animal testing, etc. The Church’s ongoing task is to take the Deposit of Faith, delivered “once for all” to the Apostles (Jude 1:3), and apply it to modern circumstances, including some which the Apostles would never have dreamed of.

So that’s one reason why a list not only is impossible, but is a bad idea - because the Church has to take that once-for-all Faith and apply it authoritatively in various ways (like saying the Ten Commandments prohibit embryonic stem-cell research, despite not mentioning ESCR by name, for example). There’s another, which is that much of the Apostolic Tradition is assumed. There are certain things which moral people assume other moral people know and practice, and which don’t need to be reduced to an explicit law.

Finally, any such list immediately raises the specter of legalism. Pharisaic Judaism devised a specific number of Laws from the revelations to Moses and the Prophets, and immediately found ways of meeting the letter of the law while violating the spirit.

So you can see, immediately, the contours of the Deposit of Faith by reading the Catechism, peppered hopefully by papal encyclicals or other Catholic resources, or reading books like Ott’s. But ultimately, the Faith is a right relationship with God and neighbor, and not simply a set of rules to be followed or propositions to be believed.

You’re mistaken in believing that “dogmas” and “beliefs dogmatically defined by the Church” are interchangable. Since 1800, only four things have been dogmatically defined by the Church: papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and that ordination is restricted to men.

But there’s obviously much more to the faith than what’s been solemnly dogmatized, just as there was much more to the Gospel then what the Council of Jerusalem addressed in Acts 15.

I have given this some thought and usually come up with the same answer. All codes of morality BEGIN with the ten commandments. ie. Thou shalt not kill. What? How? Physically? Spiritually? When can one kill? In defense? Yes, the Church says so, but what about those who choose martyrdom over defending oneself? Who would God love the most? It goes on and on, needing much thought, but the answers are there for us to find. We must learn somehow to listen to the Holy Spirit. As you said solidified codes can lead to laws, but no spirit.

 

[Geremia]

What does CLEARLY ESTABLISHED mean to you?

Dogmas are often defined in the negative and ending with let him be anathema. Sometimes a pope will speak ex cathedra; this means he is speaking infallibly.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I have given this some thought and usually come up with the same answer. All codes of morality BEGIN with the ten commandments. ie. Thou shalt not kill. What? How? Physically? Spiritually? When can one kill? In defense? Yes, the Church says so, but what about those who choose martyrdom over defending oneself? Who would God love the most? It goes on and on, needing much thought, but the answers are there for us to find. We must learn somehow to listen to the Holy Spirit. As you said solidified codes can lead to laws, but no spirit.

It’s interesting that in the Bible itself, Paul’s suggestion to Timothy for determining how to behave (in Paul’s absence) isn’t to look to a written list of rules (see 1 Timothy 3:15).

 

[DavidFilmer]

But there’s obviously much more to the faith than what’s been solemnly dogmatized, just as there was much more to the Gospel then what the Council of Jerusalem addressed in Acts 15.

Yes, I agree. But the Church ought to be able to say that THIS particular teaching (whatever that is) has been solemnly dogmatized, and the Church ought to be able to list all such doctrines (up to our present age).

Ott is great (and he helped put the smackdown on the silly notion of Limbo), but he is is NOTHING more than a Catholic theologian. Our Faith is not defined by persons such as Ott. It is defined by the Church.

Why can’t the Church define Her own teachings?

 

[DavidFilmer]

There is. It is compiled by Denzinger in his Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum), all of which is available online at that link.

You have GOTTA be kidding me. I clicked on that link, and picked a topic at random. The first entry says that if a married woman has sex with another man with her husband’s approval (huh???) it is not adultery but fornication.

Further reading reveals many other heresies.

Sorry, but your list is absurd.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I don’t understand why a list wouldn’t be possible. Perhaps a complete list would be difficult since we might be missing a few things from a thousand plus years ago, but even a lay theologian with a lot of time on their hands could go around collecting every infallible declaration we have and compiling them. That is certainly possible.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

You have GOTTA be kidding me. I clicked on that link, and picked a topic at random. The first entry says that if a married woman has sex with another man with her husband’s approval (huh???) it is not adultery but fornication.

Further reading reveals many other heresies.

Sorry, but your list is absurd.

Ha ha ha - read the page before that, beginning with 1150. The heading is:

Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) *

[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]

So what you picked up, starting with 1200, was part of a list of condemned heresies. Frankly, I’m just relieved you recognized them as heresies – that could have turned out much worse!

 

[DavidFilmer]

So what you picked up, starting with 1200, was part of a list of condemned heresies.

Okay, I picked the middle of the list, and got a list of **** without the disclaimer. Yes, the earlier stuff is better.

But I am not willing to concede that THIS website has THE authoritative list of all doctrines which have been “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” by the Catholic Church.

Shouldn’t this list be on the Vatican website? Or on the Catholic Answers website?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t understand why a list wouldn’t be possible. Perhaps a complete list would be difficult since we might be missing a few things from a thousand plus years ago, but even a lay theologian with a lot of time on their hands could go around collecting every infallible declaration we have and compiling them. That is certainly possible.

Yes, it ought to be QUITE possible.

The Catholic Almanac can tell you, in excruciating detail, exactly how many Dominicans there are, or how many Catholics in America are Hispanic, or exactly how many Catholic youth groups there are. But it cannot tell you (in 640 pages) what Catholic Doctrine is.

That’s silly. Why can’t the Church define and enumerate Her own Doctrine?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Okay, I picked the middle of the list, and got a list of **** without the disclaimer. Yes, the earlier stuff is better.

Easy mistake – I just thought it was sort of a near-miss. Like I said, it could have been worse, if you didn’t know your faith.

But I am not willing to concede that THIS website has THE authoritative list of all doctrines which have been “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” by the Catholic Church.

Shouldn’t this list be on the Vatican website? Or on the Catholic Answers website?

It’s worth noting that the website we’re talking about now is just a collection of Church documents, most of which exist on the Vatican’s website. I suppose they could be better organized, but if you’re looking for a list of 637 laws you need to uphold, you won’t find it, for the reasons I mentioned before.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Ok, I read the thread but I’d still like a list. One of the criteria for an infalable statement is that it must be believed by all the faithful. Since I don’t know what all those infalable statements are, I worry that I’m not keeping up my end of the bargain.

 

[LilyM]

Ok, I read the thread but I’d still like a list. One of the criteria for an infalable statement is that it must be believed by all the faithful. Since I don’t know what all those infalable statements are, I worry that I’m not keeping up my end of the bargain.

Well, Ott at least, although not infallible himself, is a fairly reliable guide. If memory serves, he gives the source material (be it scripture or Papal and conciliar or other documents) upon which each teaching is based, so his book is a good resource.

Remember, while we should make honest efforts to study our faith, but 2000 years’ worth of teaching is a lot for anyone to absorb, for sure!

And God knows and understands that we’re not all professional theologians nor particularly capable of deep intellectual study. It’s our sincerity of effort and desire to please God rather than our book-learnin’ that counts most.

 

[Petergee]

Ok, I read the thread but I’d still like a list. One of the criteria for an infalable statement is that it must be believed by all the faithful. Since I don’t know what all those infalable statements are, I worry that I’m not keeping up my end of the bargain.

No need to worry. Just believe what the Magestrium tells you you have to believe, and obey everything the Pope tells to to do. e.g. get a copy of the CCC and do your best to believe and practise what it says. Unless you’re doing a Masters degree in theology, there is no practical reason for you to distuinguish between those doctrines which have been infallibly defined as essential for Catholics throughout the world for all time, and those doctrines which (though still issued under the pope’s authority) might, at least hypothetically, be reversed at some time in the future and in some place in the universe (or conversely they might be infallibly defined in the future).

 

[thistle]

Yes, it ought to be QUITE possible.

The Catholic Almanac can tell you, in excruciating detail, exactly how many Dominicans there are, or how many Catholics in America are Hispanic, or exactly how many Catholic youth groups there are. But it cannot tell you (in 640 pages) what Catholic Doctrine is.

That’s silly. Why can’t the Church define and enumerate Her own Doctrine?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarises ALL Catholic doctrine.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarises ALL Catholic doctrine.

Well, that is a claim that neither the Catechism nor the Magesterium has ever made. Where did you get that? The Church has never said it.

The Catechism is a teaching publication for laypeople. It contains a lot of doctrine, plus a lot that is not doctrine (such as the part about what might happen to unbaptized babies).

And the Catechism is not very good (and, actually makes no effort whatsoever) at distinguishing which parts have been supported by a solemn statement of infallibility. For example, the Catechism cites *Humanae Vitae. *Is *Humanae Vitae *an infallible encyclical? Some argue that it is because it seems to fit the criteria for infallibility (but, to me, the very fact that they must argue means it can’t be infallible under Canon 749).

 

[Geremia]

But I am not willing to concede that THIS website has THE authoritative list of all doctrines which have been “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” by the Catholic Church.

All it is is a compilation of official documents you can get elsewhere, e.g., on the Vatican website, at a library, etc., if you are worried about double-checking authenticity. Remember that everything in the whole Church today is founded on tradition and testimony of others, with its root in the historical Christ, God’s revelation to man (cf. Dominus Iesus 5.). There is not 100% mathematical certainty because that would preclude faith.

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s the response I gave to this question on another board a few weeks ago, although it applies specifically to Papal Infallibility:

The most simple answer is that Papal Infallibility was not formally defined until it was challenged in the nineteenth century, so likewise, no one ever sought to formally and definitively define which pronouncements were declared infallible until after the official pronouncement of Papal Infallibility. That means that all decisions SINCE the official pronouncement have been officially defined one way or another, but not before, although it’s possible to surmise many of them.

The following books are the best attempts at compiling such a list:

“The Sources of Catholic Dogma”, 30th edition,
Heinrich Joseph Denzinger
B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, 1957
(Here’s a link to the book online in its entirety)
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”
Ludwig Ott

“The Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils”
Norman Tanner
2 vol. set

According to posters on other boards, Ott’s book is quite good, but does contain a few errors. Also, both Denzinger and Ott’s books were written before Vatican II, so they weren’t able to reference the important statements on infallibility spelled out in Lumen Gentium.

Here’s an attempt at compiling the Dogmas of the Catholic Church from another site. I have no idea as to its accuracy, and it doesn’t break down which were infallible pronouncements:
americancatholictruthsociety.com/dogma1.htm