Infallible Vs. Fallibe

[dairygirl4u2c]

Hi! I am wondering if anyone here could tell me how to tell the difference between infallible and fallible decrees. Some say everything that is decreed in the Catechism should be treated as infallible to the extent that Catholics have to follow it, but not everything is ultimately infallible. So ultimately what is and is not infallible? Does the Catholic Church have to wait until a decree is made ex cathedra to know that it ultimately is infallible to the fullest extent of the law?

Thanks!

Edited June 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Brother Adam]

Catholics should faithfully hold to the whole Catholic faith. Generally there really aren't many problems that arise, however lets say a priests gives a homily and mistakingly says we are "saved by faith alone" (haha). His statement isn't protected by any certian infallibility. Only when the Pope speaks in "ex-cathedra", that is, "from the chair" is his specific teaching protected from infallibility.

The Catholic faith in general is protected from doctrinal and moral error.

Also look at it this way: A doctrine should generally be believed, but a dogma is specifically protected from error.

[amarkich]

Something that should be noted is that any Ecumenical Council enjoys infallibility when declaring dogma (with the exception of Vatican II insofar as it states itself to be simply pastoral and to have not declared any new dogma). This is asserted and proclaimed by Vatican I (I apologize that I cannot find the actual document of the Council and quote, but I would be glad to consult other sources to acquire this information if you are interested). God bless.

EENS,
Adam

[Guest JeffCR07]

yea, please refer to the post on infallability, it answeres all the quesitons on what is infallable and what isn't

[the lumberjack]

no catholic in the world would be able to hold a job if they were to read and learn every decree ever made by the Catholic Church.

how many have ever read EVERY article of every council and other miscellaneous documents EVER produced by the Catholic Church?

this is why I have seen more than one Catholic that I know leave...too much paperwork. too much legalism. this is why I've seen many a catholic living as satanists, atheists, and other less desirable things.

I'm not just speaking for the catholics I know, but for the blogs and discussion boards I've read and profiles I've read online.

but hey, its just me blubbering on.

God Bless

Christ first.

[Archbishop 10-K]

Actually, I see the extensive documentation of the Magisterium as evidence of the Church being the "true religion," and one of the factors that brought be into Christ. While you can still be a simpleton and be a good Catholic, other denominations and religions are extremely vague, with no common authority or interpretation thereof, and basically with no grasp of absolute truth. Others will say, "follow the Bible." That gives me almost no certainty on anything since the Sacred Scripture does not define itself. On the other hand, a Catholic can refer me to a wealth of Church sources so as to clear up virtually any theological question I may have.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]no catholic in the world would be able to hold a job if they were to read and learn every decree ever made by the Catholic Church.[/quote]

I'm working on it and holding a job and marriage just fine.

[quote]how many have ever read EVERY article of every council and other miscellaneous documents EVER produced by the Catholic Church?[/quote]

How long would it take to read every document or book produced by a Protestant over the past 500 years? Have you done it?

[quote]this is why I have seen more than one Catholic that I know leave...too much paperwork.  too much legalism.  this is why I've seen many a catholic living as satanists, atheists, and other less desirable things.[/quote]

Did you leave America when Bill Clinton was caught in a scandal? Would you leave your church if the pastor was caught embezzling funds? Why should Catholics leave the Catholic Church just because there are sinners.

Too much legalism? Hardly. What you call legalism the Bible calls fruits of the Spirit. Yep, that's right, those branches already attached to the tree will be cut off and thrown into the fire because they did not produce. And yet how much producing is enough? Simply to remain in a state of grace. Is it hard? It isn't a cake walk, but Christ never said the Christian life was. He alluded that it would be like picking up your cross and carrying it. And why would someone be carrying a cross? After all, as protestants say, "Why would we not want to bare fruits?"

[quote]I'm not just speaking for the catholics I know, but for the blogs and discussion boards I've read and profiles I've read online.

but hey, its just me blubbering on.[/quote]

yep, and you are grabbing at straws.

[Sammy Blaze]

Knowledge is Power
~S.

[amarkich]

Great post, Brother Adam.

EENS,
Adam

[Brother Adam]

Hi Adam (woah),

What does EENS mean?

-Adam

[Aloysius]

actually, when it comes down to it, it's quite simple. seek truth, pray, and when you have a question look it up in the Catechism, ask someone who's been through seminary, ask a friend who's Catholic, email an expert at EWTN or something. You try to make it out to be some complicated thing. it is not. no Catholic is required to know all truth, only to seek all truth and to believe that truth is to be found in the Church Jesus Christ promised would be led by the spirit into all truth.

It's very very simple, otherwise how could it have sustained itself in an age in which the general public was illiterate? you learn through prayer, you learn through the experience of all who are in the Body of Christ. Our Church is True. She is not legalistic, she simply claims to be True and she tells her people that because it is true in matters of faith or morals, if they wanna know something they should consult her. They should not obsess over whether something she says is infallible to the fullest degree or not. That's what people who get too over-prideful over their own intellect do.

Sincerely,
a sheep of Jesus' flock who will follow the direction the sheepdogs bark at me to go.

PAX

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]How long would it take to read every document or book produced by a Protestant over the past 500 years? Have you done it?[/quote]
Just want you to note that non-Catholic's faith generally don't require us to read every document made by someone with a similar religion. Perhaps it should require that, but that's beside the point.

I do agree that lumberjack for the most part grabs at straw what with his constant justifying himself by the fact of the existence sinners in the Catholic Church and such. He should be more technical in historical academia and such. He's gotta fight fire with fire or else he'll never get anywhere.


[quote]Also look at it this way: A doctrine should generally be believed, but a dogma is specifically protected from error. [/quote]

How far does that "should" go in "should generally believe"? I realize if you were a good Catholic, you would follow the doctrine, but, hypothetically, are there any exceptions to that rule?

And I haven't really gotten an answer so my question then is this: How do you tell the difference between doctrine and dogma?

[Archbishop 10-K]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 14 2004, 02:52 PM'] Hi Adam (woah),

What does EENS mean?

-Adam [/quote]
I believe that means Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, right? (Outside the Church, no salvation) As his sig says. And a good one at that.

[Aloysius]

[quote]Hi Adam (woah),

What does EENS mean?

-Adam
[/quote]
extra ecclesium nulla sallus

i'll add my two cents to it though, that is also in line with constant Church teaching
Extra Ecclesium (Explicatus et Implicatus) Nulla Sallus

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 14 2004, 02:22 PM'] Catholics should faithfully hold to the whole Catholic faith. Generally there really aren't many problems that arise, however lets say a priests gives a homily and mistakingly says we are "saved by faith alone" (haha). His statement isn't protected by any certian infallibility. Only when the Pope speaks in "ex-cathedra", that is, "from the chair" is his specific teaching protected from infallibility.

The Catholic faith in general is protected from doctrinal and moral error.

Also look at it this way: A doctrine should generally be believed, but a dogma is specifically protected from error. [/quote]
Although, if Peter Kreeft is right on the money in his exegesis of the Council of Trent, then Sola Fide is [i]materially[/i] correct, but not formally...

[Aloysius]

[quote]And I haven't really gotten an answer so my question then is this: How do you tell the difference between doctrine and dogma? [/quote]

doctrines are things the Church teaches, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the greatest collection of doctrines in today's Church. If you wanna know something the Church's doctrine teaches, consult it.

now, infallible doctrines are at a higher degree, if you find that the Church has proclaimed that doctrine with authority and it's a matter of faith or morals, the Catholic Church believes that is Truth that the Holy Spirit wants us to know.

if you find that it has been proclaimed by the Pope by virtue of His ministry of successor to St. Peter or proclaimed by a council ratified by the Pope again in his petrine ministry, it's Dogma. Dogma is something that is an absolutely necessary belief in faith or morals for for you to be Catholic. If you reject a Dogma, you're rejecting a major piece of the Catholic Faith and it'll domino effect you right out of the Church, cuz the Church's dogmas are so intertwined that you can't just take one out and keep the rest standing.

But again, a faithful sheep of the flock of Jesus Christ will simply look to the Apostolic Authority on questions that arise as to what they should believe about faith or morals, and shouldn't be too concerned with trying to label it [i]'doctrine' [/i]or [i]'dogma' [/i]or [i]'infallible' [/i]or what, because in a sense while only certain doctrines are [i]'infallible' [/i]and thus some doctrines might be [i]'fallible' [/i]in the sense of having some error, no doctrine is [i]detrimental [/i]to the faith.

Sincerely,
a simple Sheep of Jesus' flock

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Becoming a Satanist because the Catechism took too long to read? I should hope not.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jun 14 2004, 03:54 PM']

[/quote]
[quote]Just want you to note that non-Catholic's faith generally don't require us to read every document made by someone with a similar religion. Perhaps it should require that, but that's beside the point.[/quote]

Right. Typically there are a few weeks of membership classes after a person is saved in a corporate non-Catholic church (I only say corporate to distinguish from liturgical non-Catholic churches).

This is similiar to Catholic Churches. The membership classes (RCIA) in the Catholic Church typically last about 6 months meeting once a week and equip a person with everything they need to know and then some if they want to be a faithfully practicing Catholic. All RCIA members recieve a Bible, catechism, and usually other materials provided by the leader (such as a rosary, upon request). The first 12 classes of RCIA is solely for inquiry. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend with no strings attached. Ask questions, learn about what Catholics believe, and so on. If after that you decide you want to become Catholic you go into a second set of classes to prepare you to become a member of the Church and ready to defend the faith.

[quote]And I haven't really gotten an answer so my question then is this: How do you tell the difference between doctrine and dogma?[/quote]

You have a really good question there, and while I know, I don't think I can explain it very well so I'm going to leave that to someone more educated then myself. I do know that Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott is an excellent book on the subject.

Edited June 14, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Apotheoun]

I posted a response to the following question in a thread in the Catholic Apologetics forum, so I hope that this is in some way enlightening:

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

My answer:

[quote]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.[/quote]

I hope that this helps, but to get more information on the authority and exercise of the Church's Magisterium, I would recommend looking at the other postings in the "Infallibility" thread in the Catholic Apologetics forum. There are also some really good weblinks in the "Reference Section" of the that forum, so you might want to check them out as well.

I have a website myself (that is still under construction) that examines this topic and which gives a basic outline on the Magisterium. You can look at it by clicking the link below:
[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun"]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun[/url]

Edited June 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Also, just to tag-team with what Apotheoun said, I'm pretty sure that there is also the following teaching on doctrine vs. dogma.

In the case of Dogma, it is the absolute truth, inerrant, and infallible. The church teaches that to deny dogma is a sin.

In the case of Doctrine, however, it isnt quite as clear cut. All members of the faithful should follow the teachings outlined in doctrine unless they meet the following requirements: 1.) They are fully formed. 2.) They have prayed and meditated over the issue for an appropriate amount of time. 3.) They truly believe that the doctrine is in error and that it would be a [i]sin[/i] (ie, would lead them away from god) to follow the doctrine.

If that criteria is met, I believe that it would be a sin for the person to continue to follow the doctrine, however, I should note two things: First, its pretty hard to meet all that, and second, I might be wrong about it all

Apotheoun, I'd really appreciate it if you could verify the stuff I just said, I dont wanna be saying something thats wrong!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff