|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Changes in unchangeable infallible teachings
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Most Catholics are familiar with the infallibility claimed by papal ex cathedra teachings and somewhat familiar with the infallibility claimed by ecumenical councils of bishops.
However, the form of infallibility that involves most of the Church’s infallible teachings is the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium.
Also sometimes referred to as a “constant teaching,” this form of infallibility claims that if all (or most) of the bishops including the pope agree on a teaching regarding faith or morals that teaching is then infallible (and hence unchangeable).
“Additionally, the Ordinary and Universal Episcopal Magisterium applies to a teaching held by all the bishops at any given moment in history. Thus, even if a teaching on a matter of faith and morals is out of favor among the bishops of a later date, once it has been held by all the bishops to be accepted by the faithful as infallible, then it is considered infallible and unchangeably true.”
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Ordinary_and_universal_magisterium
A fairly recent claim of this type of infallibility involves the Catholic Church’s claim that it cannot ordain women to the priesthood.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”
“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2)."
"Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.”
However, such teachings in other areas have been reversed. For example, The Catholic Church endorsement of the moral legitimacy of slave ownership was only formally reversed in the 1900’s.
Shortly before this the Vatican (Pope Pius IX) reinforced this traditional Catholic teaching.
Perhaps to repudiate the American Emancipation Proclamation, Catholics were reminded of this traditional infallible teaching by the Instruction of the Holy Office (1866) that:
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law…It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”
But if one looks it up in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, slave ownership is now a sin against the 7th commandment.
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
They need to stop using the word 'infallible' - simples.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To be fair, there was a strand of anti-slavery sentiment within some quarters of the RCC before there was within some Protestant denominations ' although active anti-slavery campaigning seems to have started among the Quakers and spread to the Unitarians as well as into more mainstream evangelical groups - and let's not forget that predominantly Catholic countries like Mexico abolished slavery before the largely Protestant USA.
As far as the OP goes, my understanding - limited as it is - of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and also of Orthodox notions of conciliarity, is that there is potentially more 'up for grabs' than might appear at first sight.
None of the Ecumenical Councils - however many we believe there to have been - decreed anything about slavery, as far as I know, nor women's ordination.
I might be wrong, but I've understood the infallibility thing to be about huge doctrinal issues such as the Trinity and deity of Christ etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
While I don’t think the current pontiff is quite as liberal as many non-Catholics (and even Catholics) would like to believe, the overwhelming response of the arch-conservative Catholics that “He can’t change doctrine! He isn’t changing doctrine!” every time he says something starts to sound like “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU”. In the end, if he remains on the Throne of Peter long enough I think Pope Francis will disappoint the arch-conservatives and the ultra-liberals in his church.
The Church--even the Magisterium--is, as you pointed out, capable of change, though at a rate that makes a glacier look like a roaring rapids. I’m not Catholic, but I think they will eventually ordain women if the institution survives long enough to do so. I think I will have long been dust before it happens.
If it does happen, it will be presented in such a way that its occurrence was always implicit in certain teachings of the Church, and its previously forbidden status will have been a matter of administration, not doctrine. They’ve painted themselves into some corners, though. I’m not going to say the impediments they have set up are impossible to overcome, but they aren’t going to be easy either.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They need to stop using the word 'infallible' - simples.
I tend to agree with this. The word implies that something is unchangeable forever, and there are very few things that really warrant this.
Science deals in hypotheses and theories. So, for example, evolution is a theory, meaning that it is a working idea, that has been shown to have validity across a range of environments. The "theory" means that there might be situations or aspects that need refining or correcting, but it is true in many situations.
To all intents and purposes, science treats evolution as true, and can work from that. It might be that some other theory comes that offers a wider explanation, incorporating evolution, and covering other areas too.
To say that this is "infallible" would be taking things too far - it isn't, because it may not explain everything. The Church should take a leaf out of this, and reject the idea of "infallible", replacing it by "Currently Accepted". Our understanding or other people has changed immensely over the last century or two - from slavery to women, we view then fundamentally differently.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They need to stop using the word 'infallible' - simples.
Quite. Don't they realise there's been a reformation?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
You know what else? Before Vatican II, Catholics all had to abstain from meat on Fridays. After Vatican II, they only have to do that in Lent.
Ha! So much for "infallible"!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Abstention from meat on Fridays has never been a doctrine of the Church. It has, however, been a discipline.
The idea of making some sort of sacrifice on a Friday, if possible, in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,has been a constant theme throughout the centuries of history of the Church.
Since Vatican 2 Catholics have been encouraged to make some sacrifice of their own choosing on a Friday. That has been the case in Spain for centuries.
At the moment I think that English RC bishops have encouraged abstinence from meat on Fridays.
American bishops encourage abstinence on Lenten Fridays. These laws do not apply to faithful Catholics outwith these jurisdictions.
The only days of abstinence binding upon Catholics, as a discipline, are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Even then those under 14 and over 60 are not bound by these disciplines. Were they to be doctrines they would, as you can't stop believing in the Trinity once you reach the age of 60 - that is of course if you wish to be a faithful Catholic.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Forthview, I wish there were some tag or other way of indicating sarcasm on this board.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Gamaliel posted:
None of the Ecumenical Councils - however many we believe there to have been - decreed anything about slavery, as far as I know, nor women's ordination.
RESPONSE:
Women’s ordination and the moral approval of slave ownership are infallible teaching by way of the ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM, not by way of decrees of ecumenical council or papal ex cathedra teachings.
In the case of women’s ordination, CDF noted:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2)."
Lumen gentium 25,2
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine INFALLIBIBLY whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. “
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
Lumen gentium 25,2
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine INFALLIBIBLY whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. “
Isn't there a certain circularity there?
This is infallible, so long as all the bishops who teach 'authentically' hold to it. Presumably they are only teaching 'authentically' by not dissenting from the allegedly infallible position?
And with the CDF note, this presumably means if we could find evidence of a (orthodox, catholic, in communion with Peter etc.) female priest in the Early Church the whole house comes crumbling down?
Doesn't this show, not a confidence in the tradition, but a fear of it?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hans Kung is a controversial Catholic theologian and his book "Infallible?" is an honest (though not perfect) attempt to critique the doctrine. From memory, I think Pope Benedict XV1 found much to criticise, but thought some aspects of the book were right. He drew a distinction between the Catholic Faith and Roman Scholastic theology, and believed that at least some of Kung's criticisms of the latter were well justified. This seems to be an argument distinguishing between the principle (with which he cannot disagree) and its practical interpretation (about which there is a great deal to be said).
I'm not Catholic and a inclined to agree that the word "infallible" (meaning true for all time) is a dangerous one to apply to any human thoughts, however divinely inspired we may believe them to be. There is static in the divine-human communication which we ignore at our peril.
[ 13. November 2015, 09:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think you will always end up with either a circular argument - as per TomM - or a meaningless concept - it is simply the axiomatic teaching of the church.
I am not sure that adding the word makes any real difference. Surely, "these are the teachings of the church, which we believe to be the way God wants us to be" says as much. Claiming infallibility for people in a church that has been clearly shown to consist of fallible men is presumptuous, I think.
"This is infallible teaching, directly from God, because xxx was that closely in touch with God. OK, he was abusing children as well, but he was in touch with God".
Whereas I do think that "He taught some good lessons, he did much good in his community, and that is to be applauded, but we cannot ignore the fact that he was an abuser, which was an indication of his brokenness and failure to live up to the standards he taught" starts to have a more humble and human feel.
Clergy (of any sort) are human, not divine. We should celebrate that, not diminish it. Fallabilty is part of being human.
OK,
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Forthview, I wish there were some tag or other way of indicating sarcasm on this board.
I've found that adding superfluous exclamation marks can do the trick.
quote:
You know what else? Before Vatican II, Catholics all had to abstain from meat on Fridays!! After Vatican II, they only have to do that in Lent!!
Ha!!! So much for "infallible"!!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Tom M posted:
"Isn't there a certain circularity there?
This is infallible, so long as all the bishops who teach 'authentically' hold to it. Presumably they are only teaching 'authentically' by not dissenting from the allegedly infallible position?"
RESPONSE:
No. Once an infallible definition is arrived at, it is "irreformable," all Catholics must "hold" it forever. No subsequent bishops (or pope) can change it.
>>And with the CDF note, this presumably means if we could find evidence of a (orthodox, catholic, in communion with Peter etc.) female priest in the Early Church the whole house comes crumbling down?<<
RESPONSE: No. It would be maintained that she never had valid orders because she was precluded by her gender from receiving them.
"Doesn't this show, not a confidence in the tradition, but a fear of it?"
What it shows the creative imagination used by the hierarchy to control Catholics.
[ 13. November 2015, 12:54: Message edited by: Aristotle's Child ]
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Aristotle's Child, you have been previously invited by a Dead Horses host to clarify your posts and in particular, to learn how to use the Ship's UBB code to quote other posters clearly, so we know which parts of your post are by whom.
I'm repeating the same, firm invitation here in Purgatory.
To continue to enjoy your posting experience, please use the "quote" function as designed rather than your own homegrown quoting style. You may practice this to your heart's content on the relevant thread, and also ask for help and explanations there.
Your cooperation would be appreciated.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
No. It would be maintained that she never had valid orders because she was precluded by her gender from receiving them.
Which doesn't demonstrate infallibility, just pig-headed dogmatism.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Forthview, I wish there were some tag or other way of indicating sarcasm on this board.
Here you go -
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Aristotle's Child wrote: quote:
Women’s ordination and the moral approval of slave ownership are infallible teaching by way of the ORDINARY UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM, not by way of decrees of ecumenical council or papal ex cathedra teachings.
On the first (DH) topic, that claim was made, certainly.
But where on the second? My understanding was that ordinary teaching - however papal - remains fallible until general assent is forthcoming. The fact that it wasn't assented to surely keeps it in the domain of the fallible?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
Tom M posted:
"Isn't there a certain circularity there?
This is infallible, so long as all the bishops who teach 'authentically' hold to it. Presumably they are only teaching 'authentically' by not dissenting from the allegedly infallible position?"
RESPONSE:
No. Once an infallible definition is arrived at, it is "irreformable," all Catholics must "hold" it forever. No subsequent bishops (or pope) can change it.
But that is not what the statement actually says. The statement in Lumen Gentium implies continuous acceptance - something is not infallible for all time, but infallible so long as all the right thinking bishops think it...
quote:
>>And with the CDF note, this presumably means if we could find evidence of a (orthodox, catholic, in communion with Peter etc.) female priest in the Early Church the whole house comes crumbling down?<<
RESPONSE: No. It would be maintained that she never had valid orders because she was precluded by her gender from receiving them.
"Doesn't this show, not a confidence in the tradition, but a fear of it?"
What it shows the creative imagination used by the hierarchy to control Catholics.
"It wasn't infallible then, it was heretical (after all the hypothetical woman was in full comunion) . But now we've changed our minds..."
I think I already implied circularity...
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Forthview, I wish there were some tag or other way of indicating sarcasm on this board.
Here you go -
Derp.
You're right--thanks, Boogie.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Tom M inquired:
"But that is not what the statement actually says. The statement in Lumen Gentium implies continuous acceptance - something is not infallible for all time, but infallible so long as all the right thinking bishops think it."
RESPONSE:
“Continuous acceptance” means unchangeable, something infallible for all time.
Once an infallible definition is arrived at, it is "irreformable," all Catholics must "hold" it forever. No subsequent bishops (or pope) can change it.
"A dogma is a statement which specifies a particular teaching as being contained in the deposit of faith, that foundational revelation concerning Jesus Christ. Such a statement is normative and is to be accepted by the whole church because it is based on the authority of God Himself. Such a statement is taught infallibly by the church because the Holy Spirit preserves the church, especially its teaching authority, from error when teaching matters that are essentially related to the deposit of faith. Such a statement carries a quality of irreversibility; we cannot go back on it but we can develop its understanding. This quality of irreversibility distinguishes a teaching that is infallibly taught from a teaching which is not taught under the charism of infallibility.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/on-the-papacy-and-the-teaching-office-of-the-church.html
Also see Vatican I (session) Four - having to do with the unchangeable nature of an infallible teaching.
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that……Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. [unchangeable]"
Note: To state the obvious, since an infallible teaching is only proclaimed by the Church but has its origin in the Holy Spirit, if an infallible teaching changed, it would mean that the Holy Spirit changed his mind. Can the Holy Spirit do that and still be God?
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Host Hat On
Aristotle's Child
Proceed directly to the UBB Quotes thread in the Styx. A reminder. You'll find it here.
Here's a further reminder. If you want to quote from anyone else's post, click on the two quotation marks symbol at the top right of that post. You'll find you have an opportunity to post a reply and the entire post will be already included in your "Post a reply" page. You may then edit that post to include, in the quote, any part of the post you want to refer to. Simply use the normal delete buttons on your PC or tablet as you would for any other piece of text.
We're making every allowance for your inexperience but you must make an effort to comply with Hosts' advice and guidance. Using the practice thread will help.
We now want to see some evidence that you are at least trying to fit in with normal practice here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
ADMIN
Indeed, a few too many simultaneous stumbles over Commandments 6 and 8. Aristotle's Child, please re-consider how you interact here if you decide to return after your suspension for disregarding the Hosts and for crusading.
/ADMIN
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
