Infallibility

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey everyone, I think it would be really good if we could get some solid, verifiable posts on what makes a statement or Magisterial teaching infallible. I'm sure we have all heard of "Ex Cathedra" statements by the Pope, but I would really appreciate it (even if only for my own personal interest) if someone could go in depth on what constitutes an "ex cathedra" statement, and can anything else be infallible as well. Thanks a ton!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Aloysius]

The Pope must cite his ministry as successor to St. Peter and speak on a matter of faith or morals. He can cite his Petrine authority with Luke 22:32 or Matthew 16:18 usually.

[phatcatholic]

the following article by william g. most answers this question well (it is long, but i highly suggest reading it in its entirety):

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/4LEVELS.TXT"]THE FOUR LEVELS OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING[/url]

[b]First level:[/b]

[b]a) Solemn definition.[/b] LG 25: No special formula of words is required in
order to define. Wording should be something solemn, and should make clear
that the teaching is definitive. Councils in the past often used the form:
"Si quis dixerit. . . anathema sit." That is: "If someone shall say. . . .
let him be anathema." But sometimes they used the formula for disciplinary
matters, so that form alone does not prove. Further, they also could define
in the capitula, the chapters. Thus Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu
(EB 538) spoke of such a passage of Vatican I (DS 3006 -- saying God is the
author of Scripture) as a solemn definition.

The Pope can define even without the Bishops. Of his definitions LG 25
said: "His definitions of themselves, and not from consent of the Church,
are rightly called unchangeable, for they are pronounced with the
assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised him in blessed Peter.
So they need no approval from others, nor is there room for an appeal to
any other judgment." So collegiality even in defining is not mandatory. Yet
most definitions of the Popes have been taken in collegiality, that is,
with consultation of the Bishops. Even the definitions of the Immaculate
Conception and the Assumption were such, for the Popes did poll the Bishops
by mail.

[b]b) Second level:[/b] LG 25: "Although the individual bishops do not have the
prerogative of infallibility, they can yet teach Christ's doctrine
infallibly. This is true even when they are scattered around the world,
provided that, while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves, and
with the successor of Peter, they concur in one teaching as the one which
must be definitively held." This means: [b](1)[/b] The day to day teaching of the
Church throughout the world, when it gives things as definitively part of
the faith, [b](2)[/b] If this can be done when scattered, all the more can it be
done when assembled in Council. Thus Trent (DS 1520) after "strictly
prohibiting anyone from hereafter believing or preaching or teaching
differently than what is established and explained in the present decree,"
went on to give infallible teaching even in the capitula, outside the
canons.

To know whether the Church intends to teach infallibly on this second
level, we notice both the language -- no set form required - and the
intention, which may be seen at times from the nature of the case, at times
from the repetition of the doctrine on this second level.

[b]c) Third Level:[/b] Pius XII, in Humani generis: "Nor must it be thought that
the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of themselves require
assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the supreme
power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary
Magisterium, about which it is also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears
me.' [Lk 10. 16]. . . If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their acta expressly pass
judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the
matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be
considered any longer a question open for discussion among theologians."

We notice: [b](1) [/b]These things are protected by the promise of Christ in Lk
10. 16, and so are infallible, for His promise cannot fail. Though that
promise was first given to the 72, it is certain that the Apostles were in
the group, and as the trajectory advanced, it became clear that the full
teaching authority was only for them - the mission given to the 72 was
preliminary, and the full meaning was made clear later when the Apostles
were given the authority to bind and to loose. This was part of the broader
picture: Jesus wanted only a gradual self-revelation. Had He started by
saying: "Before Abraham was, I am", He would have been stoned on the spot.
[b](2)[/b] Not everything in Encyclicals, and similar documents, is on this level
- this is true only when the Popes expressly pass judgment on a previously
debated matter, [b](3)[/b] since the Church scattered throughout the world can
make a teaching infallible without defining - as we saw on level 2 -then of
course the Pope alone, who can speak for and reflect the faith of the whole
Church, can do the same even in an Encyclical, under the conditions
enumerated by Pius XII. Really, on any level, all that is required to make
a thing infallible is that it be given definitively. When a Pope takes a
stand on something debated in theology and publishes it in his Acta, that
suffices. The fact that as Pius XII said it is removed from debate alone
shows it is meant as definitive.

In this connection, we note that LG 12 says: "The entire body of the
faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of
belief." This means: If the whole Church, both people and authorities, have
ever believed (accepted as revealed) an item, then that cannot be in error,
is infallible. Of course this applies to the more basic items, not to very
technical matters of theological debate. But we note this too: If this
condition has once been fulfilled in the past, then if people in a later
age come to doubt or deny it -- that does not make noninfallible what was
once established as infallible. Many things come under this , e. g. , the
existence of angels.

This does not mean, however, that the Pope is to be only the echo of the
faithful.

[b]d) Level 4:[/b] LG 25: "Religious submission of mind and of will must be
shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff
even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments
made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and
will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the
repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of
speaking."

We note all the qualifications in the underlined part The key is the
intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing definitive teaching
from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is infallible, as on level 2. He
may be giving a decision on a previously debated point - as on level 3,
then it falls under the promise of Christ in Lk 10. 16, and so is also
infallible. Or it may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case
like that envisioned in Canon 752 of the New Code of Canon Law: "Not indeed
an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be
given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of
Bishops [of course, with the Pope] pronounce on faith or on morals when
they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to
proclaim it by a definitive act." If they do not mean to make it
definitive, then it does not come under the virtue of faith, or the promise
of Christ,"He who hears you hears me". Rather, it is a matter of what the
Canon and LG 25 call "religious submission of mind and of will." What does
this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching.
But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates. This
cannot be the absolute assent which faith calls for - for since this
teaching is, by definition, not definitive, we gather that it is not
absolutely finally certain.

How can anyone give any mental assent when there is not absolute
certitude? In normal human affairs, we do it all the time. Suppose we are
at table, and someone asks if a dish of food came from a can, and if so,
was it sent to a lab to check for Botulism. It is true, routine opening of
a can would not detect that deadly poison. Yet it is too much to check
every can, and the chances are very remote, so much so that normal people
do not bother about it - yet their belief takes into account a real but
tiny possibility of a mistake. Similarly with a doctrine on this fourth
level. And further, the chances of error on this level are much smaller
than they are with a can of food. Similarly, in a criminal trial, the judge
will tell the jury they must find the evidence proves guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He does not demand that every tiny doubt be ruled out,
even though it may mean life in prison or death.

If one should make a mistake by following the fourth level of Church
teaching, when he comes before the Divine Judge, the Judge will not blame
him, rather He will praise him. But if a person errs by breaking with the
Church on the plea that he knew better - that will not be easily accepted.



pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Apotheoun]

I worte the following outline on the nature and exercise of the Papal and Episcopal Magisterium for a friend who was entering seminary. The full text of the outline with the 'end note' references included can be found at the following url:
[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun"]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun[/url]


The outline below is divided into three sections; the first section deals with the Extraordinary Magisterium, the second section deals with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and the third and final section covers the Authentic Magisterium.

(1) The Extraordinary Magisterium infallibly teaches both [i]de fide credenda[/i]
(i.e., of the faith to be believed) and [i]de fide tenenda[/i] (i.e., of the faith to
be held) doctrines through what are called, [i]defining acts[/i]. [1] Teachings
proclaimed by the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium are irreformable in
themselves. [2] These doctrines can be proclaimed by the Roman
Pontiff as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, or by an Ecumenical
Council held in [i]communion[/i] with and [i]confirmed[/i] by the Successor of
St. Peter. [3]

(2) The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium infallibly teaches both [i]de fide
credenda[/i] (i.e., of the faith to be believed) and [i]de fide tenenda[/i] (i.e., of
the faith to be held) doctrines through what are called, [i]non-defining
acts[/i]. [4] Teachings proclaimed by the Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium are [i]per se[/i] irreformable [5], and it should be noted that this
is the common mode of operation of the Church's infallible Magisterium.
It is exercised by the Bishops when, even though dispersed throughout
the world, but still preserving the bond of communion among themselves
and with the Roman Pontiff the head of the Episcopal College, they
proclaim in their common teaching doctrines to be believed as divinely
revealed or to be held definitively. [6] Additionally, the Pope, in the
exercise of his Ordinary Magisterium [7], can [i]confirm[/i] or [i]reaffirm[/i] [8] that
a doctrine belongs to the infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium even without recourse to a solemn dogmatic definition.
In such cases, "The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the
Roman Pontiff . . . is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal
attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by
the Church." [9]

(3) The Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops when exercising their
Authentic Magisterium teach doctrines on matters of faith and morals
and issue disciplinary directives with the authority of Christ. The faithful
are bound to accept these doctrines and norms, and are to adhere to
them faithfully, ensuring that they avoid anything that does not accord
with these authoritative teachings and decisions. [10] Although the acts
of the Authentic Magisterium do not possess the charism of infallibility,
its acts are not devoid of divine assistance [11], and therefore all
Christians must give a religious submission of intellect and will to its
teachings, even though they are not [i]per se[/i] irreformable. [12] The
adherence required ". . . cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but
must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of
obedience to the faith." [13]

[phatcatholic]

apotheoun............excellent work yet again

hopefully, you will soon have all of your work uploaded to your website. i have full confidence in them as invaluable resources for those inquiring about the catholic faith.

plus, they will undoubtedly make a great addition to the reference section!

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[littleflower+JMJ]

yes! very cool site!

[Apotheoun]

Thank you both for your kind remarks.

Edited June 11, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey, just as a follow up question: could you describe the difference between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and the Authentic Magisterium?

[Apotheoun]

"Hey, just as a follow up question: could you describe the difference between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and the Authentic Magisterium? "

First I would point out that both the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium teach dogmas and doctrines of the faith infallibly. They only differ in the manner in which they do this, the Extraordinary Magisterium teaches through solemn [i]defining acts[/i], either of the Pope alone (ex cathedra) or of all the Bishops gathered in an ecumenical council, which must always be held in [i]communion with[/i] or must be [i]confirmed by[/i] the Pope in order to be binding upon the Church. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium teaches dogmas and doctrines through what are called [i]non-defining acts[/i], i.e., through the ordinary daily teaching of the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him, even though dispersed throughout the world, yet still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Roman Pontiff. As far as the teachings and disciplinary directives of the Authentic Magisterium are concerned, they are acts to which the Christian faithful must give religious submission of intellect and will, and this is required even though the teachings and norms issued by the Authentic Magisterium do not possess the charism of infallibility. Finally, it should be noted that to publicly dissent from any level of Magisterial teaching is never licit.

Edited June 11, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Cool, thanks for the clarification!

[Apotheoun]

[quote]Cool, thanks for the clarification![/quote]


I'm glad my posts were helpful.

[phatcatholic]