Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Catholic Weddings
Papal infallibility
Can anyone offer some clarification on this? Why is it that some Catholics claim that papal infalliblity is very rarely exerecised, and often cite the assumption as the most recent example? Aren't Church counsils infallible? So that means Vatican 2 is a more recent example. (Although it needs to be understood that no individual line from an ecumenical council is infallbile...it has to be taken as a whole). What about more rcent papal proclaimations, such as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? How does that not meet the standards of papal infalliblity?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Papal infallibility
I think there is confusion because there is infallability that is formallly declared (usually when a Pope is clarifying or clearing up some confusion) and there is general infallibility that comes along with our inherent, unchanged doctrine.
The "formal" papal infallibility is rarely exercised, that's true. There is usually a declaration along with the teaching that this is being solemnly defined as a truth for all Christians. Church Councils are infallible when they exercise that same level of authority. For instance, most Ecumenical Councils issued what are called "canons" defining the doctrine of the Church. If you look at The Council of Trent, it will say something at the end like "If anyone says that man is saved by faith apart from works of charity performed in grace, let him be anathema. (accursed). " That would be an infallible statement.
So when John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which I think reiterated the Church's teaching that the priesthood is exclusively given to men, it was infallible but not because of a "formal" papal infallibility - it was infallible because this is the constant teaching of the Church, believed always and everywhere by Christians faithful to the true Church that Jesus Christ founded on the Apostles. So, in that sense we can know it is infallible, when the pope says it, or when you or I say it. But it didn't involve him speaking "ex cathedra."
But there can be other statements made without this declaration, even when they are made amongst other infallibile statements. A statement like "Latin is to be retained as the language of the liturgy" in Vatican II, obviously isn't - it is a directive that wasn't even really followed. So, there can be directives and other official rulings that aren't under the umbrella of "infallible" teachings.
Does that make sense?
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.
This statement, copies from Catholic answers and discussing Vatican 2, further supports it:
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,This is from papalencyclicals.net, listed as a decree from Vatican 1:
That all said, it seems that Ordinatio is pretty clearly spoken Ex Cathedra.
It could be that it is because it wasn't a new definition or clarification, but a confirmation of previous teaching. Before Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of Mary's Assumption into Heaven, it was still permissible to not believe it. Some saints (Saint Thomas Acquinas) did not believe it.
It was never permissible to believe in a female priesthood and it seems John Paul II is pointing to the constant tradition of the Church, and confirming it with his authority as a Pope. So, while it is an infallible teaching, and those words that specify it as such are presented, it isn't the same as a something that is given with "papal infallibility", which would be something "new" or more specifically defined.
Still, that wouldn't take anything away from the force of this teaching. It isn't as if a teaching grounded on a pope speaking ex-cathedra is any more true or more unassailable than one that is grounded in the constant faith of the Church.
[QUOTE]I don't understand how JP2 wasn't speaking Ex Cathedra because of this statement, and particularly the bolded: 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. This statement, copies from Catholic answers and discussing Vatican 2, further supports it: Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith ( Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." This is from papalencyclicals.net, listed as a decree from Vatican 1: when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA , that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, That all said, it seems that Ordinatio is pretty clearly spoken Ex Cathedra.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>It was later clarified by the church that he wasn't speaking Ex Cathedra in that particular instance. He didn't want to take it that far. It's, as Resa explained, been consistant throughout the history of the church, but it has never been declared officially infallible. In theory, it could change in the future, the likelyhood is slim, but it is not considered "the big Infallible", if you will. </div><div>
</div><div>I can't get into any religious sites to get any clear definitions (except from wikapedia, and I don't want to get laughed off the boards :),) on the computer I'm on, but this comes from a NY Times article:</div><div><div><span style="background-color:#ffffff;">
</span></div><p style="margin:0in 0in 12pt;line-height:17.6pt;background-color:white;"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Georgia, serif;color:black;">Although its origins go back centuries, the notion of papal infallibility was effectively codified at the First Vatican Council, a meeting of church officials in the 1860s. At a time when other European monarchies were ceding more power to the mechanisms of representative democracy, papal infallibility became a kind of consolation prize for the Vatican losing its temporal powers.</span></p><div><span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:8pt;background-color:white;line-height:17.6pt;">In fact, the invocation of papal infallibility “ex cathedra” has only occurred twice in the modern era: In 1854, when Pope Pius IX promulgated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was without original sin. And in 1950, Pope Pius XII pronounced the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin, that Mary had been assumed into heaven, body and spirit. The church has not ruled on whether the Virgin Mary died before she was assumed into heaven.</span></div><div><span style="background-color:#ffffff;">
</span></div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/world/europe/what-do-you-call-a-retired-pope-and-is-he-still-infallible.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/world/europe/what-do-you-call-a-retired-pope-and-is-he-still-infallible.html?pagewanted=all</a></div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div>
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Papal infallibility : It was later clarified by the church that he wasn't speaking Ex Cathedra in that particular instance. He didn't want to take it that far. It's, as Resa explained, been consistant throughout the history of the church, but it has never been declared officially infallible. In theory, it could change in the future, the likelyhood is slim, but it is not considered "the big Infallible", if you will.
Posted by SquishyMine[/QUOTE]
Not quite... it's still infallible as it is an inherent, already understood doctrine that is part of the foundation of the Church. It cannot change. So, the statement is infallible, but JPII isn't invoking "papal infallibility" as this was already understood at the time. So, he doesn't "need" to invoke "papal infallibility" since it is already infallible. Papal infallibility is invoked when the Pope himself is "issuing" something new, or clarifying something that hasn't previously been clarified.
So a pope can speak infallibly on anything that is already inherent and clear in the Church without invoking his "papal" infallibility. He only needs to invoke that if there is something that hasn't been previously declared as "official".
The Pope cannot change the doctrine of anything that is already in existence. This is why female priests, gay marriage, etc will never be part of Catholic doctrine.
It's sort of like enacting a new law vs re-iterating a new one. If the law is already in existence, the govt isn't enacting a law by stating it. They are enacting a law only when it is "new" or more specifically defined. So, the words they use to describe a previous law and a new law, might be the same. And both laws may be as important to the foundation of the govt/country. But they haven't enacted anything new.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]
hm, interesting. obviously that contributes to the confusion.
[QUOTE]Just curious, how did it come about that in the modern era (1800s-1900s, compared to early times) the church promulgated the doctrines about immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary? If those things hadn't already been believed or defined or whatnot for almost 2 thousand years, why was it important that they be promulgated when they were? I guess I'm asking how they decided on it then, and not before, and if the church had done fine for so many years without "defining" those things, was it really essential that they be defined?
Posted by CrazyCatLady3[/QUOTE]
<div>Usually it comes about because a heresy or a certain speculative "theology" is making its way around. </div>
The believe in these two dogmas can be traced really far back, but needed some clarification. Everyone knew and believed that Mary was sinless, but they did argue about the mechanism and from how far back. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, believed she was more likely born sinless, while others (and the true teaching would be) that she was conceived sinless.
The assumption was very obviously a believe since ancient times evidenced by the fact that we have no record in history of anyone looking for her body or claiming to have found it. This is because no one believed her body existed on earth, and even the grave robbers who stole relics to sell knew they couldn't possibly convince anyone that they had Mary's bones since that would go against common belief.
SaveSave
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Papal infallibility : Not quite... it's still infallible as it is an inherent, already understood doctrine that is part of the foundation of the Church. It cannot change. So, the statement is infallible, but JPII isn't invoking "papal infallibility" as this was already understood at the time. So, he doesn't "need" to invoke "papal infallibility" since it is already infallible. Papal infallibility is invoked when the Pope himself is "issuing" something new, or clarifying something that hasn't previously been clarified<strong>. So a pope can speak infallibly</strong> on anything that is already inherent and clear in the Church without invoking his "papal" infallibility. He only needs to invoke that if there is something that hasn't been previously declared as "official". The Pope cannot change the doctrine of anything that is already in existence. This is why female priests, gay marriage, etc will never be part of Catholic doctrine.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]
<div>I would agree that the statement is not infallible, but its contents were declared infallible based on ordinary magestrum, from many sources. This was done by a council and then apoproved by the pope. It's the bold wording I am trying to clarify because it can confuse people. Saying the pope was "speaking infallibly" can be misleading - rather than perhaps saying that he was speaking <em>about </em>something that is infallible. </div><div>
</div><div> My original point still stands that something is not automatically considered infallible just because the Pope says it. A very common misconception.. </div><div>
</div><div>It was also my understanding the priest doctrine could be changed if new evidence were brought to light because it hasn't been declared Dogma. That was my understanding, but I am open to being wrong on that. Maybe I was going on information before the content of OS was declared infallible. All I could find was that the doctrine wasn't devinely inspired (so that was why Papal Infallibility wasn't evoked), but it could be declared devinely inspired in the future.</div>
So if a Pope can speak Ex Cath to clear up a heresy, why couldn't JP2 speak Ex Cathedra to clear up the heresy being taught by many that the Church needs to "get with the times" and ordain women?
[QUOTE]So if a Pope can speak Ex Cath to clear up a heresy, why couldn't JP2 speak Ex Cathedra to clear up the heresy being taught by many that the Church needs to "get with the times" and ordain women?
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]
<div>
</div><div>If I'm reading correctly, and it goes to my 3rd paragraph - it's because it wasn't devinely inspired, because if it was, it would then put it into the Dogma category. It would then fall under the "big infallible" as we've been calling it, and he wasn't ready to do that...but the teaching is open to that in the future. </div><div>
</div><div>That also gets to my question of Dogma versus Doctrine I'm hoping someone can clarify for me.</div>
[QUOTE]I guess it's too late for me to read all this formal writing. I'm going to have to revisit this in the morning. The only thing I could comprehend was that Squishy has twin girls that were premature. I absolutely adore my younger sisters, who are also preemie twins. I think it's bed time.
Posted by alaynajk321[/QUOTE]
<div>yup - they were about 4 months early. There were many, many prayers for our little miracles, and they are now doing awesome! We are so blessed!</div>
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Papal infallibility : Interesting, thanks for the info. So there was no record of Mary dying, but was there any record of her just "disappearing"? How did the church go from having no record of her death/burial to the idea that she was physically lifted into heaven? Couldn't there be other possibilites??
Posted by CrazyCatLady3[/QUOTE]
You're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that because there was evidence of a dead body, she must have been assumed, or that people began to believe the assumption because of this.
What I'm saying is that from the beginning, people knew she was assumed. Presumably people witnessed it, and it fit in with their understanding of Mary as the first fruits of the resurrection. Other people in Scripture have been assumed before, so it wasn't a new idea.
Because of this, no one ever spoke of her body or finding it because it was pointless. Just like they never looked for Jesus' body (until the more modern secular doubters bent on "disproving" the resurrection). And that's a HUGE deal because the early and medieval christians were big on relics. They were always looking for relics, and people would steal them or even lie about having relics to get people to come visit their shrine ("Come to our town and see the arm of St. so and so"). The fact that no one ever claimed this about Mary proves that people believed in the assumption from the beginning, but it doesn't prove that she was in fact assumed.
There are a lot of christian beliefs that weren't initially written down. Christians were an oral culture, and passed down oral tradition. You can find mentions of the assumption I think as early as the 3rd or 4th century, but no sooner. They didn't see a necessity for writing down every belief.
SaveSave
[QUOTE]Infallible doctrine cannot change, so you will never get female priests. But, aspects of the male priesthood that haven't been infallibly designated (such as celibacy for priests) can be re-defined.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]
<div>
</div><div>Thank you! That makes sense, and also answers why I was confused. I was unaware there were two types of doctrine. I also must have been asking my uncle (he's a priest) about female priests before it was declared infallible. I'm fine with male priets, have just always been curious about it because it's such a sticking point for so many people.</div><div>
</div><div>How about the role of women in The Church (such as the possibility of nuns serving mass)? </div><div>
</div><div>Then there's the 4th distinction I came across in my reading about this - Discipline. If I'm understanding that correctly, it's what the meat on Fridays example falls under. It was never Doctrine, it's a Discipline?</div>
Same with the example of no meat on fridays, like you said. Discipline can change.
Doctrine has never and will never change, but it does develop (think about the difference between an animal evolving and developing). Substantially, it is the same. But we may elaborate upon it, understanding it a little differently, or apply it in new ways.
SaveSave
[QUOTE]Priestly celibacy is an example of a discipline. It has never been doctrine. Same with the example of no meat on fridays, like you said.<strong> </strong> Discipline can change. <strong>Doctrine has never and will never change, but it does develop (think about the difference between an animal evolving and developing). Substantially, it is the same. But we may elaborate upon it, understanding it a little differently, or apply it in new ways.</strong>
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]
<div>
</div><div>I think this is closer to how I always thought of it.</div><div>
</div><div>But it was explained above that the Priest Celibacy was an example of Doctrine that hasn't been infallibily designated..</div><div>
</div><div>Curious as to where everyone is getting their information? Where can I find a clear definition of Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline...and are their really two types of Doctrine, or are Doctrines that haven't been declared infallible really Disciplines?</div>
Dogma (all dogma are doctrine, but not all doctrines become dogma)
- always infallibile
- taught with with absolute certainty, divinely revealed
- all Catholics must believe and obey (if you don't, you're commiting the sin of heresy)
- can be clarified, but can never change or contradict previous dogma
- ex. there is only one God
Doctrine
- basic teachings of the Church
- are usually infallible, but not always
- taught with moral certainty
- all Catholics must obey, (also considered a sin if you don't, but is not heresy)
- can be altered over time, but can never contradict previous doctrine or dogma
- ex. teachings against contraception
Discipline
- practices within the Church
- not infallible
- can be changed over time
- can be sinful to not follow
- ex. abstinence from meat on Fridays
Custom
- can vary from different cultures throughout the Church
- can be changed
- ex. women wearing head coverings to mass