Infallible List Of Infallible Decrees

[thessalonian]

I was asked by my tommorrow night's debate partner where there is a list of infallible papal decrees. Looking for your input.

A couple thoughts come to my mind.

1) Having this infallible list of decrees would undermine the rest of the papal teaching of encyclicals that are not neccessarily fallible and in fact Pius XII says are expoundings of teachings of the ordinary magesterium, which are in fact infallible.

2) No infallible list of infallible decrees can be put out by the Church for several reasons.

-First of all infallibility is on faith and morals. Thus specific listing of papal decrees would not be an issue of infallibility.

-Infallible teachings were always taught by the Church.

-A list of infallible decrees could not have always been taught by the Church.

- An infallible list of infallible decrees would not be infallible any more if another infallible decree were added. Neither would it always be infallible in the past when there were fewer of these decrees. Thus it cannot meet the criteria for infallibility and is not "irreformable".

The funniest thing about this question is the problem of the canon of scripture not being declared until long after the Apostles died.

Thoughts?

Blessings

Edited October 16, 2003 by thessalonian

[cmotherofpirl]

Do you have a copy of the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott available?

[thessalonian]

Do you have a copy of the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma  by Ott available?

Yep and I happen to be using it tonight to prepare on this very matter.

Thanks.

[Guest angelspawn]

Hey,

My name is Chris - im new here, but i read this topic, and i agree that it doesnt make sense to have an infallible list of infallible decrees. A given list could theoretically be infallible for a given time period, but still, like you said, it's not a matter of faith and morals like normal infallible decrees are.

I think at best you could compile a list of the current infallible decrees, which, were it correct, be inDouche true, and in one sense infallible (the sense that the list is verifiably true for the time being, and thus unable to also be false for the time being).

I think the question about the canon of Scripture has to do with infallibility of an ecumenical council, not of the pope by himself necessarily. Before the council where the canon was declared, Tradition was used to safeguard the teachings of the Church. The body of teachings of the Church is contained much more fully in Tradition than in Scripture, i.e. Tradition encompasses more teachings than does Scripture. Its just that more people tend to rely on and refer to Scripture nowadays because thats where attacks come from. Does that help? I'm not sure I answered your question well...

God Bless!

Chris

[cmotherofpirl]

THes how about being basic - use the Apostles Creed.

[cmotherofpirl]

Chris welcome to phatmass.

There is a check-in thread at the top of open mic if you want to introduce yourself.

[Jake Huether]

I don't think that defining a list of infallible decree's is necessary. I think that your victim (hahahah - I'll call him that for now) needs to understand what infallible really means. Take for instance the Bible. The same scriptures were infallible BEFORE they were declared so by the Church! The fact that Mary was concieved without sin was Truth before the Church declated it Truth. The Church is lead by the Spirit, and as such, we MUST take ALL her teachings on faith and morals as infallible. The only reason the Church would need to officially define it as such is if it came to a point where the Truth of the matter was being twisted, which was the case with Mary's sinlessness, the Canon of Scripture, etc.

I think there is only a handfull (if that) of officially declared infallible teachings.

But really, ALL the Churches teachings on faith and morals are infallible. Christ promised that they would be! "I will send you the Spirit, and He will lead you unto all truth!"

For the faithfull, the Church doesn't need to say a thing about infallibility, it is merely implied. Official declerations are more of a safeguard, where in the future, if the teaching were to become so twisted (like the sinnlessness of Mary) that many would be confused, then the Church can point back in history and say, "See this is what we taught then and this is what we teach now."

[Carson Weber]

Just a thought..

Jesus didn't ask us to seek what is infallible and what isn't. He simply gave his authority to men, and we are expected to follow the invisible head of the Church through his various vicars, whom he has appointed. I find the whole notion of seeking after infallibility contrary to the spirit of obedience; in a certain sense, it has for its underlying cause and driving force the wish to be "free" or "independent" regarding those matters that "may be fallible", and this freedom isn't really freedom at all because it doesn't seek obedience to the will of God but rather our own ways.

As an addendum, I want to clarify my thought. This is partially in reaction to those who seek to validate disobedience in any shape or form. I do recognize that the Magisterium provides ample "freedom" for us, esp. with regard to the Interpretation of the vast majority of the Bible. But, when this "freedom" seeks to be disobedient in matters that are not specifically infallible, it's a freedom that I feel is unwarranted.

I apologize if this sounds "Medieval" to you, and I would propose that this is the Christian life our Lord proposes, one shepherded by his shepherds who truly share in Jesus' authority.

Edited October 17, 2003 by Carson Weber

[cmotherofpirl]

Good point Carson.

People always seek to validate disobedience with hunting for the catch in anything.