Faith And Morals

[dairygirl4u2c]

two questions cross my mind from time to time.

1. isn't the inquisition a moral statement by the CC, that it was the moral thing to do as per infallibility and faith and morals?
is the argument that they never taught definitively enough the inquisition to be right?
or is it that it's not a matter of faith and morals? how does this argument work if that's the case?


2. is there a system for whether encyclicals are to be considered infallible? the standard for infallibility, is whether the pope intended to teach X as a matter of faith and morals, to the church. i understand this, but i don't know if that translates into X encyclical is infallible or not. the intention could be disputed, so i wonder what the system is.
if there's no system, it'd be like drawing a teaching outta a hat when the CC wants to push one under the rug.
btw, is Dignitatis Personae an encyclical or just an 'instruction'? is there a system for whethr either is infalible or not? i'd imagine both rise to a teaching, which is suppose to be believed, regardless of whether it's infalible or not, but just out of curiosity.

Edited December 16, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

There are some things that are infallible on their face, such as proclamations from the Pope ExCathera. Issues of Dogma, such as the Nicene Creed, also untouchable. Many of the moral issues, especially the recent ones, fall under Authoritative Doctrine. That is an area that is not considered infallible, but we are still called to assent to these teachings, while recognizing a remote possibility that the church might be in error. In this area, it is not up to us to decide if the church is wrong, it would be up to the Magisterium to make that decision in the fullness of time, and after the prayerful intervention of the Holy Spirit. What that means is that Dignitatis Personae is church law until/unless the church tells us otherwise. You can internally disagree with it, but you are called to follow it nonetheless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

That still doesn't answer the question about what status encyclicals are. It does say they should be believed no matter what.

also wonder, is the teaching itself tha you must assent to noninfallible teachings, itself infallible?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1729385' date='Dec 16 2008, 02:13 AM']two questions cross my mind from time to time.

1. isn't the inquisition a moral statement by the CC, that it was the moral thing to do as per infallibility and faith and morals?
is the argument that they never taught definitively enough the inquisition to be right?
or is it that it's not a matter of faith and morals? how does this argument work if that's the case?[/quote]

The Inquisition is not a matter of faith and morals. It is a practice the Church uses to root out a pervasive heresy.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1729385' date='Dec 16 2008, 02:13 AM']2. is there a system for whether encyclicals are to be considered infallible? the standard for infallibility, is whether the pope intended to teach X as a matter of faith and morals, to the church. i understand this, but i don't know if that translates into X encyclical is infallible or not. the intention could be disputed, so i wonder what the system is.
if there's no system, it'd be like drawing a teaching outta a hat when the CC wants to push one under the rug.
btw, is Dignitatis Personae an encyclical or just an 'instruction'? is there a system for whethr either is infalible or not? i'd imagine both rise to a teaching, which is suppose to be believed, regardless of whether it's infalible or not, but just out of curiosity.[/quote]

There is a system... a ranking of documents, so to speak. I tried to search for something online, but couldn't find anything quickly. I've never been told that encyclicals are generally infallible. Usually it's just a very specific teaching declared by the pope that is infallible, like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. I do know that encyclical is simply a term used for a letter than "cycles" to all the churches, and I know they aren't normally considered infallible, though definitely to be held in high regard.

[Ziggamafu]

It would be misleading to say that any document is "generally" infallible. Dogmas either come down in the form of anathemas in an ecumenical council or in a specifically stated form from the popes. It is best to leave it at that.

[CatherineM]

The reason that it can be difficult to figure out which documents are infallible, I believe is on purpose. With some obvious exceptions, I think the Magisterium doesn't want to be backed into a corner if some new technology or discovery happens in 50 years that sheds new light on something that we thought was fairly settled. It's the equivalent of someone asking a parent why, and having them say, "because I said so." It can be infuriating trying to figure out which things fall in Definitive Doctrine and which fall in Authoritative Doctrine because they don't label them at the top.

[dairygirl4u2c]

their ambigurity, also gives catholics no choice but to pick and choose, to a certain extent, what they will internally believe, and what they will merely assent outta obligation.

ie, if it's not clear infallible or not, then the catholic will have no choice but to decide for herself.

it's suppose to be wrong to not believe something that is infallibly taught, yet one cannot even know sometimes it looks like.

of course, some things are obvious and to try to say you are only asenting to it and not doing more in good faith, is not good.
good judgment is always required, and good faith.
but, besides those obvious situations, is my point.

in a certain sense, the CCshould be more confident. if it cannot fall into error, then what's the deal.
i realize that the CC argues that it acts therough the people, as feeble and random as they are, and so if the current way is how infallibility arises, then that's the way it is.
perhaps they'd argue that's the most natural way, and the way it ought to arise, naturally through the process of human doubt and foible, while the teaching itself never falls to error.
but still, it could be argued, be more confident.

Edited December 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, for the sticklers like me, who are also catholic though, not only is the assent v. genuine belief up for grabs to a catholic, so too is whether to believe it at all.
that is, like i said earlier, if the teaching that you have to believe something only "authoritiztively" taught is not itself an infallible teaching, or at least clearly marked as so.

they'd prob want to qualify that, as "if we say you haveto beleive or assent, what about when we are wrong?" and so leave that wiggle room. this more specifically is where "cause i said so" has a certain wisdom given it can't all be laid out very well.

i suppose that is a practical problem, justifying heistant development.
if a pope says "no salvation outside the CC" and he truly intends that to mean the CC is how all are saved even i they don't know about it etc, peole can mistake it. so, if they'd be more mushy about it the whole time (unlike they were with that teaching) then tehy can merely fudge what was arguably only the appearnce of a doctrine and not the real thing.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1732571' date='Dec 20 2008, 01:05 PM']The reason that it can be difficult to figure out which documents are infallible, I believe is on purpose. With some obvious exceptions, I think the Magisterium doesn't want to be backed into a corner if some new technology or discovery happens in 50 years that sheds new light on something that we thought was fairly settled. It's the equivalent of someone asking a parent why, and having them say, "because I said so." It can be infuriating trying to figure out which things fall in Definitive Doctrine and which fall in Authoritative Doctrine because they don't label them at the top.[/quote]

Why would an infallible Church need to leave itself such wiggle room with reguards to its teachings?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think what i posted shows some hypothetical examples, where appearance v. reality isn't understood by the people. as to why wiggle room might be prudent.
so if the "corner they backed themselves into" is only apparent, then this is the answer to the issue.
if the "corener" is that they made a mistake, then a catholic shouldn't entertain the idea of them actually making a mistake, but only about how they as people would go about elaborating an infallible teaching, with their doubts and all. as i had mentioned earlier. such that a merely authoritative doctrine is taught, but mushyily so, cause no one and not even the pope is sure what to think. we shouldn't expect him t say Y or N on it all all at once. if he has an inclination, which is reasonable to expect, but still isnt confident in it, then what the system currently is, is pretty reasonable.
you'd think they'd be more clear on "this is just an inclication", but it probably goes back to "cause i said so" and they don't want people scattered all over figuring it all out, "just do it".

Edited December 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1732661' date='Dec 20 2008, 02:23 PM']Why would an infallible Church need to leave itself such wiggle room with reguards to its teachings?[/quote]

Because Christ had to leave his perfect church in the hands of imperfect humans. Only certain teachings of the church are deemed to be infallible because they are directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[mortify]

"The Inquisition" is a myth! Read Edward Peter's book _Inquisition_

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]The Inquisition is not a matter of faith and morals. It is a practice the Church uses to root out a pervasive heresy.[/quote]

i knew that was the response.
i guess i should hav asked, how can ya really tell?
it seems like a pretty strong moral statement to me, that nonatholics or whatever must die.

but i suppose i see points about it being more a 'practice' than 'morals'. thta's why i don't bring it up.

but i don't see why an argument couldn't be made.

maybe not in the spirit of 'morals', but it'd seem 'morals' would have to do mroe than just sex and murder and stealing type things. inquisition was killing, afterall, even if justified.

Edited December 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1732712' date='Dec 20 2008, 06:32 PM']Because Christ had to leave his perfect church in the hands of imperfect humans. Only certain teachings of the church are deemed to be infallible because they are directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

Sure, but when those human are acting in their capacity as the heir of Peter or the Bishops in certian councils they are guarded not just from error but from the possability of error (right? That is how I understand it if not please correct me).

So if so then why leave what "is" and "is not" infallibly pronounced so opaque?

I mean just from an outsiders point of view it seems like a lack of confidence or some sort of insurance policy. Leave everything vague so if we are wrong we can simply doubble back and correct it by claiming the previous teaching was never really infallibly pronounced or "come to a fuller understanding" or whatever

Obviously I don't mean it is some sort of conspiratorial sense like that, I know full well most of the people in the Vatican are good, honest people, but it just seems odd.

[dairygirl4u2c]

like if they wanted to get outta the limbo teaching, even though it was in the catechism before, they'd just say "never really truly taught, sorry"
then there'd be no standards to judge them by, for outsiders and skeptics.

right now, it's just sorta, "we dont want to undue limbo, cause of its history (whether it was or was not definitive probably depends on a scholarly look at the documents outside the catechism), so we'll just leave it in limbo" (pun intended)

it is a rare thing, this pressure to jump outta a teaching, even if not infallible, so for sure, much respect intended for staying so well done, or at least not obviously flawed, for 2000 years.