Just one example

[Uphill Battle]

If one example could be given that the RCC or it's leaders ever taught error, in regards to Faith, Morals, or Salvation, would it give lie to the claim of 100% infallibility?

 

[freespiritchurch]

No. According to Catholic teaching, only a very small number of the statements of the Catholic Church are infallibly. The Pope or an ecumenical council can produce infallible teachings, but most of what they say is not infallible.

In the history of the Catholic Church, the Popes have made only two statements that are recognized as infallible: in 1854 (the Immaculate Conception) and in 1950 (the Assumption). Councils have made many more statements that are recognized as infallible, but the most recent council (Vatican II, 1962-5) did not make any infallible declarations.

Alan

 

[Uphill Battle]

No. According to Catholic teaching, only a very small number of the statements of the Catholic Church are infallibly. The Pope or an ecumenical council can produce infallible teachings, but most of what they say is not infallible.

In the history of the Catholic Church, the Popes have made only two statements that are recognized as infallible: in 1854 (the Immaculate Conception) and in 1950 (the Assumption). Councils have made many more statements that are recognized as infallible, but the most recent council (Vatican II, 1962-5) did not make any infallible declarations.

Alan

then why does the RCC hold to the notion that they are 100% infallible in their teachings?

 

[a_ntv]

then why does the RCC hold to the notion that they are 100% infallible in their teachings?

???

There are (a few) infallible teachings (the infallible part is only the fact described, not the way to describe it)
There are lots of other teachings that can be questionated
There are lots of traditions that are not even teachings
...

 

[Uphill Battle]

???

There are (a few) infallible teachings (the infallible part is only the fact described, not the way to describe it)
There are lots of other teachings that can be questionated
There are lots of traditions that are not even teachings
...

I am told repeatedly that RCC is the revelation of all truth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

???

There are (a few) infallible teachings (the infallible part is only the fact described, not the way to describe it)
There are lots of other teachings that can be questionated
There are lots of traditions that are not even teachings
...

that view appears inconsistant.

So, IS the Magesterium completely, 100% infallible or not?

As, in, are all teachings of the RCC 100% without error?

Bet your last dollar they are.

There is something called the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium. We are to accept ALL that come down to us from holy mother church that she purposes for our belief, not just the ex cathedra statements.

Sure some dissenting types like to split hairs and say they only have to obey what is ex cathedra and that would then leave them agreeing with the 4 Marian dogmas and I don't know what else. The pope used ex cathedra only a hand full of times in the history of the Church.

from another thread. Not using this to cast disparagement on Benedicta in any way, it just appears the views are inconsistant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
Sacred Magisterium
The teachings of the sacred magisterium are always infallible: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium." (First Vatican Council, Dei Filius 8.) However, the criteria for the infallibility of these two functions of the sacred magisterium are different. See Infallibility of the Church and papal infallibility for more details.



now, here is the quandry I see with this. The one example I am thinking of is Pope Urban II declaring that God wills it! when speaking of the crusades. Not that instance, but the erroneous teaching that any solider who died in this effort would have his sins remitted. Scoundrels and sinners admitted to heaven, because they were willing to kill Muslims.

If the pope is part of the sacrad Magesterium, is not his teaching considered "infallible?" if so, is this teaching not in error, rendering a lie to the infallibility of the pope and the Magesterium?

(I've been studying the popes, and the vast majority of their actions are highly political. A mish mash of action, counter action, it's quite depressing, actually.)

 

[freespiritchurch]

When a doctrine is declared to be infallible, there are two practical consequences. First, the teaching can't be changed by future generations. Second, Catholic theologians and teachers can be disciplined for challenging the doctrine.

In an earlier post I mentioned that only some teachings of ecumenical councils and Popes are infallible. "Infallible" means that the teaching can never be contradicted. That includes a pretty short list of teachings, most of which come from councils--the Popes have made only 2 infallible statements in history.

Then there's the "ordinary magisterium." That includes everything that hasn't been infallibly taught. The best analogy for the ordinary magisterium is a Supreme Court decision--a later court can reverse the decision, but while it stands it's the law.

This is where things get interesting.

If something is taught by the ordinary magisterium long enough and consistently enough, then it can be infallible. However, there's no definitive way to determine when this happens. People who want to limit debate on controversial issues will make long lists; people who want to encourage debate will make short lists. But none of these lists really matter

Every so often, a Pope will say that a teaching is infallible through the ordinary magisterium. This has the effect of cutting off debate on the topic, but it doesn't limit future generations.

This is what happened with women's ordination. If Pope John Paul II had made an infallible statement that women couldn't be ordained, it would have been binding on the church for all time. Instead, he said that it was an infallible statement of the ordinary magisterium. This means that Catholic teachers can't advocate women's ordination. However, another Pope could come along and say that JPII's opinion was wrong, which would allow for debate to resume.

Finally, even if a teaching isn't infallible, church authorities can tell the people they're responsible for to stop arguing about it. For example, JPII declared that the death penalty was wrong in modern society. Everyone recognizes that this is a recent teaching and not infallible. But if a priest spoke in favor of the death penalty, his bishop could order him to stop.

I hope this explanation is clarifying, not confusing.

Alan

 

[a_ntv]

When a doctrine is declared to be infallible, there are two practical consequences. First, the teaching can't be changed by future generations. Second, Catholic theologians and teachers can be disciplined for challenging the doctrine.

In an earlier post I mentioned that only some teachings of ecumenical councils and Popes are infallible. "Infallible" means that the teaching can never be contradicted. That includes a pretty short list of teachings, most of which come from councils--the Popes have made only 2 infallible statements in history.

Then there's the "ordinary magisterium." That includes everything that hasn't been infallibly taught. The best analogy for the ordinary magisterium is a Supreme Court decision--a later court can reverse the decision, but while it stands it's the law.

This is where things get interesting.

If something is taught by the ordinary magisterium long enough and consistently enough, then it can be infallible. However, there's no definitive way to determine when this happens. People who want to limit debate on controversial issues will make long lists; people who want to encourage debate will make short lists. But none of these lists really matter

Every so often, a Pope will say that a teaching is infallible through the ordinary magisterium. This has the effect of cutting off debate on the topic, but it doesn't limit future generations.

This is what happened with women's ordination. If Pope John Paul II had made an infallible statement that women couldn't be ordained, it would have been binding on the church for all time. Instead, he said that it was an infallible statement of the ordinary magisterium. This means that Catholic teachers can't advocate women's ordination. However, another Pope could come along and say that JPII's opinion was wrong, which would allow for debate to resume.

Finally, even if a teaching isn't infallible, church authorities can tell the people they're responsible for to stop arguing about it. For example, JPII declared that the death penalty was wrong in modern society. Everyone recognizes that this is a recent teaching and not infallible. But if a priest spoke in favor of the death penalty, his bishop could order him to stop.

I hope this explanation is clarifying, not confusing.

Alan

You are great in explaining....

I would add that some people have the wrong idea that the infallible dogmas are "magic sentences": that is not.
What is infallibly is not the letter of the dogma, but the fact described.
And because we cannot describe with precision any aspect of God (not at all), this shall be always considered.

But to state any dogma in a rational way you need following ingredients:
- the fact to be described (the only infallible think)
- a language/philosophy used to describe it
- whichever is not explicitally stated but given as known.

So if you use the Latin language and a neo-aristotelic philosophy, the best was to describe the Eucharistic fact is the word transubstatation (it is simply a word, not an explanation)
If you use the Greek with a neo-platonic philosophy the dogma of the transubstatation shall be stated using different ways.
Who use modern English, and dont use the term substantia everyday when shopping, surely need that the transubstatation is rewritten: not to change the fact, but the way to describe it

PS for mrconstance: about the women-ordination, most catholic theologicians think it is a extraordinary magisterium statment, and so not modificable

 

[freespiritchurch]

You are great in explaining....

I would add that some people have the wrong idea that the infallible dogmas are "magic sentences": that is not.
What is infallibly is not the letter of the dogma, but the fact described.
And because we cannot describe with precision any aspect of God (not at all), this shall be always considered.

But to state any dogma in a rational way you need following ingredients:
- the fact to be described (the only infallible think)
- a language/philosophy used to describe it
- whichever is not explicitally stated but given as known.

So if you use the Latin language and a neo-aristotelic philosophy, the best was to describe the Eucharistic fact is the word transubstatation (it is simply a word, not an explanation)
If you use the Greek with a neo-platonic philosophy the dogma of the transubstatation shall be stated using different ways.
Who use modern English, and dont use the term substantia everyday when shopping, surely need that the transubstatation is rewritten: not to change the fact, but the way to describe it

PS for mrconstance: about the women-ordination, most catholic theologicians think it is a extraordinary magisterium statment, and so not modificable

About women's ordination: I hate to say it, but if you have to start by saying that "most Catholic theologians think," then it's not part of the extraordinary magisterium. When Pius IX and Pius XII defined dogmas, nobody had to guess. Pope John Paul II explicitly referred to the ordinary magisterium and not his personal authority. This was a really good move on his part, because it put the focus on the doctrine itself without bringing any issues of Papal authority into play. It reflected his understanding of Vatican II--which centered the Pope's authority in the church's authority, instead of the other way around. I'm sure it also reflected his concern from the Orthodox, who (I think) would have been critical of any exercise of papal infallibility, even if they agreed with the doctrine being defined.

Alan

 

[a_ntv]

About women's ordination: I hate to say it, but if you have to start by saying that "most Catholic theologians think," then it's not part of the extraordinary magisterium. When Pius IX and Pius XII defined dogmas, nobody had to guess. Pope John Paul II explicitly referred to the ordinary magisterium and not his personal authority. This was a really good move on his part, because it put the focus on the doctrine itself without bringing any issues of Papal authority into play. It reflected his understanding of Vatican II--which centered the Pope's authority in the church's authority, instead of the other way around. I'm sure it also reflected his concern from the Orthodox, who (I think) would have been critical of any exercise of papal infallibility, even if they agreed with the doctrine being defined.

Alan

Here the text of JPII: you can judge yourself:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html)

So JPII refers to the "constant and universal Tradition" (that is by it self already a reason of infalibility), adds his "ministry of confirming the brethen", uses the verb to declare (not to teach) and finally states that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

JPII did not used the more standard "ex cathedra", but only -as you righly stated- for respect for the Orthodox, even if most catholic theologicans see anyway it as aninfallible statment.

 

[freespiritchurch]

Here the text of JPII: you can judge yourself:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html)

So JPII refers to the "constant and universal Tradition" (that is by it self already a reason of infalibility), adds his "ministry of confirming the brethen", uses the verb to declare (not to teach) and finally states that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

JPII did not used the more standard "ex cathedra", but only -as you righly stated- for respect for the Orthodox, even if most catholic theologicans see anyway it as aninfallible statment.

When you say that "most" Catholic theologians think this is an infallible statement, it implies that some Catholic theologians think that this is not infallible. Can you find any Catholic theologians who don't think that the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption are not infallibly declared?

Cardinal Ratzinger could have clarified by saying that the definition was infallible; he said, pretty clearly, that the intention was to declare that this teaching of the ordinary magisterium was infallible; like JPII he carefully avoided the reference to papal infallibility. So I submit that my original statement is accurate: the issue is closed, but a future Pope could re-open it.

Alan