With papal infallibility, why does the Church still has council for issues on Faith and morals?

[Abu]

meme1961 #59
A council is basically a meeting of some of the greatest living theological scholars on the planet, informed by thousands of years of scholarship.

A Council is mainly composed of the Bishops of the world, not necessarily some group of “theological scholars”.

An infallible, ex-cathedra statement is rarely issued, but when done so, it almost always clarifies the proper relationship between dogma, which can be somewhat abstract and generic, and some specific incident, instance or question.

It is essential to drop the false idea of “dogma” as the common expression of infallibility. It is not.

The common expression of infallibility is DOCTRINE.
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) **defining a doctrine **of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Both the Encyclicals *Casti Connubii *of Pius XI, 1930, and *Humanae Vitae *of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”, and abortion has always been condemned by Christ’s Church.

A category two truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). So both the dogmas and the infallible (definitive) doctrines that are secondary truths, require an assent of faith, though there is a distinction between theological faith and ecclesial faith.

The category 3 truths are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

That is precisely why the 1983 revision of Canon Law replaced in Canon 749:3 “dogmatically (‘dogmatice’) declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”. This removes any occasion for equating “infallible” with “dogmatic”, an equation which unduly limits papal infallibility. Such a limitation is clearly not contained in the Vatican I dogma on papal infallibility.

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Thus the three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

 

[clem456]

Every Catholic should be familiar with the catechism, which the Church itself promulgates for the education of the faithful.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

• The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, **enjoys this infallibility **in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, **together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.**418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[Leibniz]

How do you dare to call me a cafeteria Catholic?

“Such dissent against the doctrine quoted – taught by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, authorized by its Prefect Joseph Card. Ratzinger, which taught clearly the reality that ”the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts) are to be held definitively” – shows the ignorance or studied dissent here present.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not issue an infallible statement in 1998 when it published that, and thus, it is quite possible that Cardinal Ratzinger was plain wrong when he issued that statement. This is what I believe. Others believe it too.

In fact, the very person who first created the categories taught by Pope John Paul II in Ad Tuendam, Cardinal Avery Dulles (in my opinion the greatest American Catholic scholar in history), actually brings up the subject of the canonization of saints, and explains why it is that most theologians are more cautious about what they claim about these canonizations, explaining that most do not claim that these saints are necessarily in heaven.

If you look at other sources, you will see that the majority of Catholic scholars now teach that canonizations are infallible, but as even New Advent says, it is not universally taught by the Church: “Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative.”

Not only is it not universally taught by the Church, but even supposing that some part of the papal declaration concerning a saint is infallible, it is not at all clear what the object of that infallibility is.

Is it that the person is necessarily in heaven? No.
Is it that the person canonized necessarily lived a holy life worthy of veneration? No. I don’t think we can assume that either.

Is it that the person performed some act of heroic virtue that is worthy of veneration. No. I don’t even believe that this is the case.

Is it that there is some story about the person practicing holy virtue that is worthy as emulation as an example of good Catholic morals? Possibly. This is the only part that would make sense as something that could be taught infallibly by the Church, given that such infallibility only applies to faith and morals, and not to the facts of a person’s life or judgment in the afterlife.

If that’s what Cardinal Ratzinger was trying to say, then good.

If Cardinal Ratzinger was trying to claim something more, then he was flat wrong when he did so, just as the Church officials who tried Galileo were wrong.

Pope Benedict XVI was the greatest pope in my lifetime, but I’ll stand with Cardinal Dulles on this issue.*

 

[Abu]

Leibniz #63
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not issue an infallible statement in 1998 when it published that, and thus, it is quite possible that Cardinal Ratzinger was plain wrong when he issued that statement. This is what I believe. Others believe it too.

It is only the cafeteria selfists who describe Cardinal Ratzinger as head the Congregation of the Faith as possibly “plain wrong” and would deny also Canon 750 § 2:
“Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.” [My emphasis].

It is high time to drop the absurdity and assent to the reality:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, authorized by its Prefect Joseph Card. Ratzinger, taught clearly the reality that ** "the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts) are to be held definitively”**

From Ad Tuendam Fidem (motu proprio – on his own authority) from St John Paul II:
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.

the very person who first created the categories taught by Pope John Paul II in Ad Tuendam, Cardinal Avery Dulles (in my opinion the greatest American Catholic scholar in history), actually brings up the subject of the canonization of saints, and explains why it is that most theologians are more cautious about what they claim about these canonizations
The majority of Catholic scholars now teach that canonizations are infallible

The error once again – real Catholics know that the reality of a doctrine in the end doesn’t depend on scholars or theologians but on the teaching of the Magisterium.

One has to be wary of Fr Dulles *Models of the Church *as Fr Thomas Dubay, SM, in Authenticity, p 247, explains: “On the one hand, it plays down excessively the institutional model, and on the other, it exaggerates as a criterion of value what modern men find to their liking.”

Fr Avery Dulles claimed that “the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff had fallen into error,” in addressing the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1976, also claiming this gem: “Indirectly…the Council worked powerfully to undermine the authoritarian theory and to legitimate dissent in the Church…Vatican II quietly reversed earlier positions…on a number of important issues.” (CTSA Proceedings, 1976, p240-241).

There was mass confusion by Avery Cardinal Dulles in his earlier years after Vatican II, such as The Survival of Dogma, 1971. Dulles writes, p 114: “The times call for an ‘epochal’ reinterpretation of the very notion of ‘magisterium’ ……Contemporary techniques of government, teaching and communications would seem to harmonise at least as well with the demands of the gospel as do the feudal and absolutist patterns of the past.” On pp 117-120, Dulles professes explicitly the doctrine of the historical and cultural relativism of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church – “Man’s religious knowledge is necessarily embedded in contingent notions that depend on particular cultural circumstances…(making) the dogmas of the faith subject to reconceptualization.”

Totally false and in keeping with Karl Rahner. [Cf *The Teaching Church in Our Time, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, The Faith and the Theologies, Msgr Eugene Kevane, Notes p 54].

ON THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH (HPR, A-Sep, '99)
In reviewing Faces of the church: meditations on a mystery and its images. By Geoffrey Preston, O.P., edited by Aidan Nichols, O.P. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 255 Jefferson Avenue, S.E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503, 1997), x + 310 pgs., Fr. John-Peter Pham, Champaign, Illinois writes:
“In his much-heralded *Models of the Church *with which he intended to identify some of the main trends in twentieth-century ecclesiology, grouping the positions by type (or model) and considering the criticisms directed from each against the others, weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.

“Regrettably, two unfortunate consequences arose from Dulles’s otherwise significant work. First, legions of lesser theological minds, rather than ponder the complementarity of his models, by and large took to them cafeteria-style: electing one over the others as the pre-eminent model. Thus, if one were to survey contemporary ecclesiology on the basis of the Dulles taxonomy, one would find an overwhelming option by fashion-conscious theological writers for the servant model — albeit with some lip-service to the herald model — to the wholesale neglect of the institutional, communion, or sacramental models. All, of course, to the impoverishment of ecclesiological science. Second, by the very fact that it attempts a taxonomy, Dulles’s approach, even in its best light, detracts from the mystery which is the Church at her essence.”

To his credit, Fr Dulles was able to renew himself and ceased to promote such error and dissent. He was made a Cardinal.

 

[Leibniz]

First of all, Abu, you are still acting like a jerk, and there is really no need for that. I think you need to look at yourself in the mirror and start asking yourself why you are behaving this way.

As for this…

“It is only the cafeteria selfists who describe Cardinal Ratzinger as head the Congregation of the Faith as possibly “plain wrong” and would deny also Canon 750 § 2:”

No.

You are clearly mistaken in ascribing to a document published by the Congregation of the Faith the full weight of the Magisterium of the Church. No office or bureaucracy of the Church can simply “bootstrap” its way to infallibility by asserting its own power, and that’s not at all what Cardinal Ratzinger was attempting to do. He did not define a doctrine to be held definitively by all Catholics. He did not declare “let them be anathema” to all who don’t hold that canonized saints are infallibly held by faith to be in heaven. He didn’t do it, he wasn’t trying to do it, and even if he were trying to do it, he still didn’t possess the authority to do it.

Also, it’s interesting that you would even make the authoritarian argument regarding the Congregation of the Faith, given that I had brought up the example of the Inquisition in the trials and judgments of Galileo in 1616 and 1633. These were authorized by the pope, and the office declared Galileo’s theories as things to be officially regarded as heresy.

“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”" (See at law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html .)

Is this doctrine as defined by the Inquisition required to be firmly embraced and held by all Catholics in all time periods? If so, then wouldn’t that imply that Pope John Paul II himself should be considered a heretic for his statements made in 1992:

“The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”

And what am I to make of this supposed acknowledgement of error that Avery Dulles made? I was not referring to any phase he might have went through in the early 1970s. I was speaking of things he held in decades after, and as far as I know, Dulles never backtracked on his opinion about the infallibility of canonizations prior (or after) becoming a cardinal in 2001. But of course, to you, I guess Dulles wasn’t even a real Catholic back in the 1970s.

What gives? Why are you so rigid and unbending in your attempts to apply legalistic reasoning to infallible doctrines? Can you not see the problems that have arisen in Church history from doctrines pronounced by official church bodies on limbo, salvation outside the formal Church, usury, etc.? Do you not see the seeds of scandal and shame that can follow when people become too authoritarian in trying to over-simplify the clarity of the Magisterium? Why tempt fate with your rash boldness?

You do realize that there are organizations right now filled with schismatics, like SSPX or adherents of Feeneyism, who can’t wrap their heads around the idea that something they once thought was infallible was actually not at all what they thought it was, don’t you? Don’t you think it would be good advice to faithful Catholics everywhere to be heedful not to fall into this same trap?

It’s shocking how obstinate you are in refusing to acknowledge any problems that could potentially arise from the doctrinal strategy you seem to be pursuing–once again using the term “real Catholics” to imply that I am not a true member. Are you a fascist, sir? Have you no heart? Please, desist from your attacks on others who disagree with you, and who may even understand the essential nature of Catholic doctrine better than you do. You are attacking the wrong side, and you don’t even know it.

 

[M-Dent]

You are clearly mistaken in ascribing to a document published by the Congregation of the Faith the full weight of the Magisterium of the Church. .

No one has the authority to contradict the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith except the Holy Father. Please remember that other than the Holy Father the current prefect is the highest ranking authority on these matters.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11675746#post11675746

 

[Abu]

Leibniz #65
I had brought up the example of the Inquisition in the trials and judgments of Galileo in 1616 and 1633. These were authorized by the pope, and the office declared Galileo’s theories as things to be officially regarded as heresy.

False again – Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” There was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy re Galileo.

Can you not see the problems that have arisen in Church history from doctrines pronounced by official church bodies on limbo, salvation outside the formal Church, usury, etc.?

The continued attempts to portray the Church and Her Magisterium as not having Christ’s authority in defining doctrine, and the confusion of doctrine with theories, show a pathetic subservience to confusion. All nonsense, once again and interminably – as neither limbo, nor usury involve doctrines of the Church as every informed Catholic knows, and as has been shown.

The inability to understand the development of, and the refusal to assent to, the actual dogma on salvation is corrected by none other than the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., who explains that the New Testament itself on salvation “makes it plain that Christ founded the Church to be a society for the salvation of all men….But they also had the biblical narrative of the ‘pagan’ Cornelius who, Acts tells us, was ‘an upright and God-fearing man’ even before baptism……the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptised. Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions….At the Council of Trent…the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one’s eternal destiny.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 234-5].

Some people make their own problems, but the faithful Catholic studies, learns and assents to what the Church actually teaches, without prevarication.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

CLOSED

Until people cool off, let’s give this subject a rest. The tone is shifting from dialogue and debate to confrontation and name calling. Everyone take a break.