Infallibility

[Luke2219]

What documents are infallible and what are not?

What is the difference between an "assent of faith" and "submission of mind and will"?

I know that the Teachings are infallible and that encyclicals and the Cathechism are explaining infallable teachings. But I find the position hard to defend without knowing what exactly is infallible and what is not.

What about the Saints? or anullments? Can the Church err in these matters?

I undertand that if a Saint in cannonized that it is okay and even fruitful to venerate them and that you should have no doubt that can get married if you have been granted an annulment. But these matters seem to do with faith and morals and they are expressed by the ordinary magisterium. So by that standard they are infallible. But on the other hand, the Church cannot see inside people's hearts. What if a couple is lying to get an annulment? What if some of the documentation that suppports the cannonization of a Saint is fabricated?

I know the Church checks these things out thourougly. I'm not trying to doubt the validity of either. I just want to know how the doctrine of infallibility applies here so I can better defend the doctrine. Is it possible for the Church to err in these regards?

Thanks for you attention and help.

[Jake Huether]

What about the Saints? or anullments? Can the Church err in these matters?

Both are infallibly proclaimed.

What if a couple is lying to get an annulment? What if some of the documentation that suppports the cannonization of a Saint is fabricated?

We trust that the Holy Spirit will "see the hearts" of the people in question, and guide the Church to the right descision.

It wasn't the Early Church Fathers that could "read the hears" of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the writers of the OT and NT. The Holy Spirit did, and guided the Church.

[Dave]

Actually, Jake, it IS possible for a marriage tribunal to issue an annulment in error. That's not covered by infallibility; rather, the people on the tribunal give out or withhold annulments based on a MORAL CERTITUDE of the validity or invalidity of the marriage in question. So yes, it is possible that a person could get an annulment without lying about anything but yet their previous marriage could still be valid. And if they remarried, then objectively speaking, their new marriage would be invalid. However, they themselves wouldn't be guilty of sin, since they contracted the new marriage in good faith, not realizing the state of their previous one.

As for saints, well, the Church normally takes a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG time examining the lives of those proposed for canonization or beatification. They really make sure to leve no stones unturned so that there's not even the slightest possibility that they might beatify or canonize someone erroneously.

[Luke2219]

As for saints, well, the Church normally takes a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG time examining the lives of those proposed for canonization or beatification. They really make sure to leve no stones unturned so that there's not even the slightest possibility that they might beatify or canonize someone erroneously.

But is it even possible for a mistake to be made?

My question is not about Saints and anullments as much as it is about infallibility, what it extends to and how it can be applied.

[Jake Huether]

Actually, Jake, it IS possible for a marriage tribunal to issue an annulment in error.  That's not covered by infallibility; rather, the people on the tribunal give out or withhold annulments based on a MORAL CERTITUDE of the validity or invalidity of the marriage in question.  So yes, it is possible that a person could get an annulment without lying about anything but yet their previous marriage could still be valid.  And if they remarried, then objectively speaking, their new marriage would be invalid.  However, they themselves wouldn't be guilty of sin, since they contracted the new marriage in good faith, not realizing the state of their previous one.

As for saints, well, the Church normally takes a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG time examining the lives of those proposed for canonization or beatification.  They really make sure to leve no stones unturned so that there's not even the slightest possibility that they might beatify or canonize someone erroneously.

Isn't an annulment a declaration by the Church. And since it is a faith/moral issue, isn't it therefore infallible.

I trust what you are saying is true. But logically, the Church is the bride of Christ, the Body of Christ. Could the Church make a statement that would lead two people (one or both of which are still validly married to another) into this situation?

Can the Church make a mistake on an issue of faith/morals? I was under the impression that she couldn't.

Or is this not a faith/morals issue?

I suppose a botched annulment can't be counted against the Church, realizing that two validly married people aught not be seeking an annulment anyway.

But...

Sorry, Luke, to hijack your thread...

I think it ties in good though with the question of when something is infallible or not.

[Dave]

That a valid marriage cannot be dissolved is a faith/moral issued that is infallible. Whether a particular marriage is invalid or not is another matter entirely.

Here's what Colin Donovan had to say in the FAQ section of the EWTN site:

A Decree of Nullity does NOT dissolve the marriage, it cannot. It is a reasoned judgement that one never existed, and as such is capable of human error. If the tribunal is fastidious to Church law and theology and the couple and their witnesses are honest, the decision can be followed in good-faith, including a new marriage. If someone is ABUSING the process through deceit, however, it would be a very grave sin for that person. A person who innocently enters a second marriage would not be guilty of sin, but the person who abused the process to fraudulently obtain a decree in order to remarry would commit adultery by remarrying.

[cmotherofpirl]

An annulment is infallible because it is final.

Infallibility means the Church cannot teach error, it is a negative protection.

[Dave]

An annulment is infallible because it is final.

Infallibility means the Church cannot teach error, it is a negative protection.

Perhaps it would be infallible if it came before the Roman Rota, which, after all, is the highest marital court. But local diocesan tribunals don't have that guarantee. Please read my previous post in which I quote Colin Donovan.

[Dave]

Oh, and I forgot to mention about saints . . . the Church cannot err when declaring saints because as a criteria for it, it has to have evidence of a TRUE miracle wrought by the would-be saint's intercession. And the Church really makes sure to examine it thoroughly to be sure that it's a miracle.

[cmotherofpirl]

You may appeal an annulment if you want, but the final decree is considered infallible.

I just got an annulment remember?

[Jake Huether]

To answer Luke,

Here is what Paul from the Greenspun forum (he's a Decon) had to say:

Catholics are morally bound not merely to "give full consideration" to the church 's official teaching in forming their consciences, but in fact are bound to form their consciences IN FULL ACCORD with the official teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals, whether such teachings are defined ex cathedra or not. Few of the Church's teachings are defined ex cathedra. This does not mean that all other teachings are open to personal interpretation (a euphemism for personal rejection). The personal conscience of an individual is rightly formed when it presumes the infallibility of all official teaching on faith and morals, trusting in the promise of Our Lord to Peter, "WHATSOEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven", not "whatever you define ex cathedra". Any attempt to impose one's personal interpretations onto Church teaching on the grounds that a given teaching is not defined ex cathedra is at best misguided, at worst essentially dishonest and insincere. The Church's teaching on birth control, for example, while not the type of doctrinal matter that is typically defined ex cathedra, is absolutely binding on all Catholics. Failure to form one's conscience in full accord with this essential and binding teaching results in an erroneous conscience, de facto. In fact, no strictly moral teaching has been defined ex cathedra. This fact does not render the entire scope of morality thereby totally subjective. On the contrary, moral questions are NEVER subjective in nature. Valid moral decisions can be made ONLY by reference to objective standards, and for a Catholic the objective standards to which the personal conscience MUST submit and conform are the moral teachings of the Church, ex cathedra or not.

There is NO difference between the source of inspiration of ex cathedra doctrinal definitions and the rest of the deposit of faith. The source of inspiration of ALL Church doctrine is one and the same Holy Spirit. Apparently many people have a defective, or at least inadequate, view of just what an ex cathedra statement is and does. First, keep in mind that an ex cathedra statement does not introduce new doctrine. It merely references and defines a pre-existing doctrine. This pre-existing doctrine MUST have been DIVINELY INSPIRED, ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND BINDING on the faithful BEFORE the ex cathedra statement was made; otherwise such a statement could not have been made! An ex cathedra statement does not MAKE a given doctrine true and binding on all the faithful; rather, it reaffirms in precise terms that a particular doctrine IS true and binding on all the faithful, usually in direct response to an overt attack upon the doctrine in question. This is why most of the Church's doctrines have not been defined ex cathedra - NOT because they are any less divinely inspired or any less true or any less binding on the faithful, but because they have never come under attack or called into question in a manner that demanded such special clarification.

Nothing about a doctrine is changed by ex cathedra definition! It is still the SAME doctrine it was before. It is no more inspired, no more true and no more binding on the faithful than it was previously! Therefore, every element of the deposit of faith is a potentially ex cathedra doctrine, and would become an ex cathedra doctrine if the Church determined that such a definitive clarification was called for. Therefore, each and every element of the deposit of faith is to be regarded as equally inspired, absolutely true, and equally binding on all the faithful, whether the Church has defined it ex cathedra (yet), or not.

Nonetheless, I am still kinda fuzzy on the annulment isssue here...

Isn't a decree of nulidity granted by the Church, not simply the marriage tribunal. The tribunal does the investigation, but it is an official statement by the Church.

Although each annulment is not "officailly" stated ex-Cathedra, as Paul from the other board pointed out, it still should be concidered "infallible".

Okay, okay, you're right David. Technically... they are NOT infallible. However, that is not to say that they ARE necessarily fallible. Still though - for our Protestant viewers, as I stated, we place our faith in the promise of the Holy Spirit, that what is BOUND on earth by the Church is BOUND in heaven also.

[Jake Huether]

Luke,

Here is some great info. It was posted on the Greenspun.com forum by a guy named Kiwi.

IV. FOUR LEVELS OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING

Fr. William G. Most

First level:

A) Solemn definition. 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 . . .

B) Second level: LG (Lumen Gentium) 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: (1) The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when it gives things as definitively part of the faith, (2) 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.

C) Third Level: 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: (1) These things are protected by the promise of Christ in Lk 10. 16, and so are infallible, for His promise cannot fail . . . (2) 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, (3) 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 . . .

D) Level 4: 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 inDouche 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 . . .

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.

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted. Copyright © Trinity Communications 1994.

V. THE HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS AND THE TRUTH

Fr. William G. Most

. . . Sadly, not a few Catholics who consider themselves orthodox, fall into the error of saying that if a thing is not defined, it is free matter: we can take it or leave it as we will. Not so, says the new catechism, echoing Vatican II. in # 891 we read:

The Roman Pontiff chief of the college [of Bishops] actually enjoys this infallibility when, as supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, in charge of confirming his brothers in the faith, proclaims by a definitive act, a point of doctrine on faith or morals.

Before continuing, let us note that word definitive. It means a teaching that is presented as final, with no change possible. But there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that specifies what wording the Pope must use in order to make a teaching definitive. All that is needed is that in some way, whatever way he may choose, he makes clear that a teaching is definitive. So this section of the new catechism does not add the words ex cathedra. Rather, it refers to LG #25 . . .

All that is required for something to be infallible is that it be taught definitively. But the things described by Pius XII are taught definitively. So what he said was not any new teaching; it was a repetition of what the Church has always done and believed.

Some have thought that a Council would have to use the formula: Si quis dixerit... anathema sit, in order to make something infallible. The same persons thought then that only things in the Canons, the Si quis dixerit sections would be infallible, while the capitula, the bordering sections could not be. But Pius XII in his great Scriptural Encyclical, Divino afflante Spiritu, of 1943, spoke of a statement from Vatican I as a solemn definition, even though not given in a Canon:

In our day Vatican Council I... declared that these same books of Scripture must be considered 'as sacred and canonical' by the Church' not only because they contain revelation without error, but because... they have God as their author. ' But when Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine... had dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals... our predecessor... Leo XIII... rightly and properly refuted those errors. (EB 538. Cf. DS 3006)

What emerges here? Vatican I had taught that God is the Author of Scripture, and that hence all of Scripture is free of error. Pius XII told us that this teaching of Vatican I was a solemn definition, even though not put in the usual wording for such a definition. All that was needed was what we have been speaking of, namely, that it make clear that a teaching is presented as definitive. So any wording that will make that fact clear, that a teaching is definitive, suffices for an infallible teaching. Incidentally, when something is taught repeatedly on the ordinary magisterium level, that very repetition makes clear that it is intended as definitive . . .

But there is still more: The catechism explains in # 889:

To maintain the Church in the purity of the faith transmitted by the Apostles, Christ willed to confer on His Church a participation in His own infallibility, that of Him who is the Truth. By the 'supernatural sense of the faith' the People of God, adheres indefectibly to the faith' under the guidance of the living Magisterium of the Church.

This repeats what Vatican II said in LG #12: The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. In other words, if the whole Church, people as well as Pastors, has ever accepted something as revealed, that cannot be in error. This is often called passive infallibility. Imagine how many things it covers, e.g., the whole Church from the start has believed there are angels. So those who deny or doubt their existence, deny not just some ordinary teaching, but one that is infallible . . .

We hope Charles Curran is listening. Not only things taught as definitive, but even things not taught that way require even internal assent of the mind. With infallible statements, the assent is based on the virtue of faith; with noninfallible things it is based on the virtue of religion.. . .

[The] Magisterium can tell us so many things. Among others, it can tell us that even though some truths are closer to the center of the hierarchy of truths than others, yet all those presented to us by a divinely protected Magisterium must be believed.

So yes, there is a hierarchy of truths -- but it can never lead us to go against the hierarchy of the Church.

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted. Copyright © Trinity Communications 1994.