are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

That's an interesting one, because some people think its been defined infallible and others do not. Which supports my thesis that there's no infallible way of determining what has been infallibly determined - and therefore its a pretty useless doctrine.

There is nothing complicated about it. When the Church says that something is infallible, it is.

The problem is that there are theologians that want to ignore the Church and argue against it.

Where people get confused is that fact that infallibility is not meant as 'this is the way things are, end of discussion'. An infallible doctrine is meant to spur discussion, not hinder it.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;The Church teaches infallibly any time it comes from the Holy Spirit.

Me too.

Doctrines are put forth infallibly by the Councils and the Pope.

Hey! Me too! (sometimes)
I had to revise my "burn the heretics" doctrine slightly, tho.

 

[ebia]

There are theologians that think all sorts of things. It's pretty hard to argue your way around "I declare that the Church will never have the authority to ordain woman priests," as was penned by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

You can if you don't think he was acting infallibly when he said it. Or, presumably, if you don't think Vatican I was acting infallibly when it defined the papal infailibility.

 

[ebia]

So you would then also say the idea that the Bible is infallible is also a "useless doctrine"?

You might be surprised what I would say.

"The bible is reliable" is something I can work with precisely because its straightforward - "the church is reliable" is more problematic because it has to carry caveats and conditions, just as "my understanding is reliable provided I've interpreted the bible correctly" might be true but is of little practical use.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Me too.

Hey! Me too! (sometimes)
I had to revise my "burn the heretics" doctrine slightly, tho.

Can ya give us a peek at it

 

[MrPolo]

You might be surprised what I would say.

"The bible is reliable" is something I can work with precisely because its straightforward - "the church is reliable" is more problematic because it has to carry caveats and conditions, just as "my understanding is reliable provided I've interpreted the bible correctly" might be true but is of little practical use.

The devil's advocate in me says that if the Bible is reliable and your understanding of it has caveats, then you should still consider "the Bible is reliable" a useless concept.

 

[ebia]

The devil's advocate in me says that if the Bible is reliable and your understanding of it has caveats, then you should still consider "the Bible is reliable" a useless concept.

No, because while my understanding will always be provisional, limited, and in places just damn wrong, it tells me that going back to reground myself in scripture is always a good thing to do.

 

[Uphill Battle]

God has given us the responsiblity of dominion over His Creation ~ this relates to faith and is contained in the Deposit of Faith (Genesis).

Global warming exists and is anthropogenic. ~ this does not relate to faith.

Contraception is a grave evil. ~ this relates to morals and is evident from the Natural Law

My red leather shoes are rockin' ~ not a statement regarding faith or morals.

I hope this helps!

you may notice you didn't put anything like"

Mass only in Latin, or it's sinful
eating meat on Fridays is sinful

are these "faith and morals?"

I fail to see how they are not, as if you ate meat on a Friday at one point, you were making a Moral transgressionary act... and now you aren't.

There are many occasions where the collegiality of the Church functioned this way. For example, the Council of Trent did in identifying which books had been identified as Scripture. So I don't see why you would say that violates any of the criteria.

Also from which paragraph are you drawing the "free to express opinion" conclusion? I'd like to see how the Church words it. I don't see that phrase anywhere.

And why exactly are you linking to Lumen Gentium from a website calling for women priests?

so are they not free to express their opinion? Is it vote the party line, much like bipartisan politics?

and I linked to it because it was interesting. It appears there are some Catholics that disagree with the methods of infallibility.

The Church teaches infallibly any time it comes from the Holy Spirit. Doctrines are put forth infallibly by the Councils and the Pope.

I am not sure where you are coming up with those conditions.

with some of your own, who don't agree with "the Church."

or are they "NOTREALCATHOLICS(tm)?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

you may notice you didn't put anything like"

Mass only in Latin, or it's sinful
eating meat on Fridays is sinful

are these "faith and morals?"

I fail to see how they are not, as if you ate meat on a Friday at one point, you were making a Moral transgressionary act... and now you aren't.

I don't recall not having Mass in Latin was ever sinful.
Eating meat on Fridays would be a violation of penance on Fridays. All Catholics are still required to make an act of penance. They are allowed to substitute abstaining from meat for another form.

with some of your own, who don't agree with "the Church."

or are they "NOTREALCATHOLICS(tm)?

You aren't a Catholic in full communion if you choose to disagree with the faith of the Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't recall not having Mass in Latin was ever sinful.
Eating meat on Fridays would be a violation of penance on Fridays. All Catholics are still required to make an act of penance. They are allowed to substitute abstaining from meat for another form.




You aren't a Catholic in full communion if you choose to disagree with the faith of the Church.

The difficulty I find is that "the faith of the Church" is really quite amorphous. What was the faith of the church at one time is no longer the faith of the Church. For example, Papal bulls are now considered worthy of only the dustbin of the Vatican whereas at one time they were taken quite seriously. If one believes in an evolutionary view of the Church and divine revelation then one can embrace this theology. However, such a view contradicts the immutability of God's revelation.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The difficulty I find is that "the faith of the Church" is really quite amorphous. What was the faith of the church at one time is no longer the faith of the Church. For example, Papal bulls are now considered worthy of only the dustbin of the Vatican whereas at one time they were taken quite seriously. If one believes in an evolutionary view of the Church and divine revelation then one can embrace this theology. However, such a view contradicts the immutability of God's revelation.

You make it sound as though the church changes its positions on what is infallible. It does not.

 

[Hairy Tic]

That's an interesting one, because some people think its been defined infallible and others do not. Which supports my thesis that there's no infallible way of determining what has been infallibly determined - and therefore its a pretty useless doctrine.

## First & all-important point:

It cannot be emphasised enough that the bishops, including the Pope, are subordinate teachers in the Church. The True and Sole Teacher is Christ, active in His Church & world through the ministry of His Spirit.

The extra-ordinary Magisterium -

• Pope defining, by his own act, without the bish0ps
• the bishops in communion with the Pope acting with him, but not in an Ecumenical Council
• Bishops & Pope together, in Ecumrenical Council
  

is infallible; the ordinary Magisterium:

• the Pope and his fellow-bishops teaching in the daily exercise of their pastoral duties

not always infallible.

Not all infallible teaching takes the form of an act of formal doctrinal definition: no doctrine was formally defined at Vatican 2; but it taught much that had been defined earlier; a definition reiterated after definition by a previous authority is materially infallible - IOW, infallible in its content.

The dogmatic definitions of Ecumenical Councils are infallibly true; ECs are preserved from teaching error.

Much that could in principle be formally by a solemn act of dogmatic definition, has not been; most truths in the Bible, for example. Definitions are not confetti, to be thrown around any old how.

Some things are - so to speak - "definitions-in-waiting":

• the Immaculate Conception was in this position after 1661, when Alexander VII forbade theologians to call it in question, until it was defined in 1854;
  
• & the teaching that the priesthood is reserved to men alone, is in this position now; in 1995, by a "definitive" (the word used) though not infallible act of teaching, John Paul II forbade theologians to question this proposition.

Everything taught as infallible is both authoritative and authentic teaching:

infallibility

• is the highest degree of theological certitude enjoyed by a proposition

authority

• refers to the source of the teaching

authenticity

• means that what the source that teaches has taught, is genuinely the doctrine of the Church, and not a heresy or a human invention, etc.
  

The three qualities are related, but not identical or inseparable.

It may be as well to note that although infallibly true teaching may not be denied, it can always be investigated further; the work of theology is not terminated when a doctrine is taught infallibly. A definition brings a truth into sharper focus - one of the tasks of theology is to deepen the Church's understanding of what this sharpening of focus brings into view.

Next: the Pope as infallible

is formally infallible only in when acting in his capacity as

• Teacher
• of the whole Church
• on earth

- he is not infallible when acting as

• law-giver
• judge in legal cases
  
• temporal sovereign
  
• priest hearing confessions
  
• politician
• private theologian
• preacher
• individual Christian
• administrator
• bishop
• employer
• arbitrator between nations
  

- but only when acting as Pope, and in very few functions even as Pope:

• canonisation of Saints
  

but not in:

• declaring a Servant of God Venerable, or Blessed
  
• approval of religious orders
• apportioning the Catholic world into dioceses & other administrative units

So although infallible definitions by the Pope are acts of the man who is legitimate Pope, not all acts of that man acting in that capacity are infallible: some acts of the Pope as Supreme Pastor are Papal acts, but do not engage his authority to teach. And the same man has authority in the Church other than as Pope. And he is also one of the Faithful.

Note on the Pope's "fullness of power":

This is engaged whenever the Pope

• solemnly defines a doctrine to be held as a dogma
• acts in some other weighty ecclesiastical causes - as when Clement XIX suppressed the Society of Jesus in 1773

It should be emphasised that there are:

• several degrees of theological certitude
• several degrees of error in doctrine
• various teaching organs

The Roman Congregations have authority - but none of them, not even the SCDF, enjoys the charism of infallibility. And the Pope cannot delegate his infallibility.

This is too long, and too short - hope it is some use.

 

[Hairy Tic]

you may notice you didn't put anything like"

Mass only in Latin, or it's sinful

eating meat on Fridays is sinful

are these "faith and morals?"

I fail to see how they are not, as if you ate meat on a Friday at one point, you were making a Moral transgressionary act... and now you aren't.

## Those two are /were "Precepts of the Church" - there are six in all - and are ecclesiastical in origin. They are not truths revealed by God, or in any way part of the Deposit of Faith, so they are not dogmas, so they cannot be treated as such; so they have no authority but that which they derive from the Church. Which can, for sufficiently weighty reasons, alter or abolish them. So the answer to your q.: = No.

Precepts of the Church can oblige in conscience under pain even of mortal sin - this does not require them to be taught or instituted or promised by Christ.

so are they not free to express their opinion? Is it vote the party line, much like bipartisan politics?

and I linked to it because it was interesting. It appears there are some Catholics that disagree with the methods of infallibility.

with some of your own, who don't agree with "the Church."

or are they "NOTREALCATHOLICS(tm)?

## That "CINO" stuff is divisive nonsense - people can be (so-called) "bad Catholics"; but they are still Catholics. Any baptised Christian in union with Rome in any way or degree is a Catholic. In a sense, the only "Real" Catholic is Christ. All of us need God's grace and mercy - otherwise, the saintly would be devils, and so would the unsaintly. A lot is said against abortion - yet warnings against the sin of pride seem to be rare. The devil was not damned for his stance on bio-ethics.

 

[ebia]

## First & all-important

I'm aware of the theory.

BTW, could you use a smaller font?

 

[MrPolo]

so are they not free to express their opinion? Is it vote the party line, much like bipartisan politics?

No, flippant, sir. I did not say that. I asked you a different question.

 

[MrPolo]

No, because while my understanding will always be provisional, limited, and in places just damn wrong, it tells me that going back to reground myself in scripture is always a good thing to do.

I see no difference in your view of the reliability of the Bible and a Catholics view of the reliability of Church teaching (which happens to include the reliability of the Bible). But we can move on friends and happy.

 

[ebia]

I see no difference in your view of the reliability of the Bible and a Catholics view of the reliability of Church teaching (which happens to include the reliability of the Bible).

The distinction I'm trying to put forward here is that the bible itself is well defined. There are a few books and chapters on the fringe that are debated, but for the most part we are clear about what is scriptrue and what is not.

There is a far greater ambiguity about what is and what is not infallible church teaching. If we replace infallible with a more appropriate notion of reliability then that might not be a bad thing; it becomes more personal, a community-in-knowing.

But we can move on friends and happy.

I would certainly hope so - I don't quite share the entire Catholic Church official thinking, but I'd definitely see myself as a critical friend, not an enemy. (And I'd have to say I probably hold to more of the Church's teaching than most of the Catholics I work with).

 

[MrPolo]

There is a far greater ambiguity about what is and what is not infallible church teaching. If we replace infallible with a more appropriate notion of reliability then that might not be a bad thing; it becomes more personal, a community-in-knowing.

This is where I disagree. There are really little-to-no movements out there denying say, the IC, Assumption, or the canon of Scripture, or the hypostatic union, consubstantiality of the Trinity, and a whole host of other teachings not explicit in Scripture that are obviously taught by the Church. When you have occasions of one theologian thinking something was defined infallibly and another who doesn't, you usually see the doubter STILL hold that the teaching has been declared with extremely high certainty. I covered that a little in the blog article I linked to earlier. I think those who argue there is all this confusion and ambiguity over whether or not something has been technically infallibly defined exists only in the minds of critics. Catholics don't seem too confused that the IC is a dogma, for instance.

 

[Hairy Tic]

I'm aware of the theory.

BTW, could you use a smaller font?

## Unfortunately, not everyone is - & it seemed worth giving a fairly detailed outline of some aspects of it for that reason

And - I can, but it's less easy on the eyes. Still, as you ask.

It's very small

I'm surprised there is a problem for you, because the poster of post 38 seems to be using the same fount as I was; yet only one poster is hard on your eyes. For some reason, most posts come up as in a very small fount.

 

[ebia]

## Unfortunately, not everyone is - & it seemed worth giving a fairly detailed outline of some aspects of it for that reason

I've no problem with that.

And - I can, but it's less easy on the eyes. Still, as you ask.

It's very small

I'm surprised there is a problem for you, because the poster of post 38 seems to be using the same fount as I was; yet only one poster is hard on your eyes. For some reason, most posts come up as in a very small fount.

I'd rather everyone used the same font - and displays can be adjusted as appropriate. From my perspective, where the standard font is fine, your posts read like someone writing very large in crayon. And I'll freely admit that I don't bother to read posts that are hard to read.