Non-Infallible Teachings

40 thoughts on “Non-Infallible Teachings”

1. Jimmy, I read an article complaining about poor translation of Ott’s book into English (here, if you’re interested). If that stuff is true, is there any way besides learning French or German that I could have a better translation?
   BTW, the title is Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in case anyone didn’t know.

2. observation on your comment:
   “John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement.”
   Since there exists a positive protection of the Holy Spirit that prevents the Roman Pontif from teaching error, then “not infallible” but simultaneously “not wrong” seems an odd juxtiposition.

3. Jimmy, unless I read you wrong, did you say that John Paul II did not invoke his infallibility in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? If you did, I must fully disagree because I can pick out the four points which classically are required for papal infallibility.
   Also, see these links:
   http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
   http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

4. Jimmy-
   Thanks for drawing the distinction between “infallible” and “authoritative”.
   The opposite of “infallible” is not “wrong”.

5. It seems a bit rediculous to me that Christ intended that the only way the faithful could know which of their Church’s teaching were infallible and unchangin were thpose that were listed as such in a 1950s-book written by a Catholic layman.
   Since most of the Catholic world was illiterate until very recently, I suppose this means that virtually no Catholic had any idea about which Church teachings were infallible, and thus what he could dissent from in good conscience until relatively modern times?!?!?!

6. Good grief, Eric. All Jimmy did was recommend a book. He did not say this was the ONLY way we could understand which teachings are infallible and which aren’t.

7. Tim:
   How would the vast majority of Catholics living one hundred years ago been able to understand the infallibility of Church teachings?
   Nearly every Catholic living back then (and up until relatively recently) was taught the doctrine of limbo, for instance, just as they were taught about Heaven, Hell, and urgatory; there was never any “non-infallible” qualifier, technical dogmatic manuals notwithstanding. The same goes for the “doctrine” that one could never go to Communion with the stain of venial sin on their souls. Our ancestors were taught this as definitvely as any other doctrine.
   The Church herself cannot agree on which of her teachings are infallible. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis satisifies all of the requirements of Vatican I, yet the Vatican claims it was not itself an infallible statement.
   Ludicrous, if not outright BS . . .

8. Jimmy,
   I really appreciate the detailed answer to my question. I’ll need to read it a few more times in order to make sure I understand it all.
   I do have 2 more questions:
   1. How does the ordinary Magesterium declare something (specifically the inability to ordain women) as being infallible?
   2. I know that it probably won’t happen, but is it possible that the Church could someday say that artificial birth control is ok? After reading your answer I’m no longer sure whether this is a non-infallible teaching. Can only non-infallible teachings be changed?

9. There is a list of the infallible teachings compiled from Ott’s book here:
   A List of Catholic Infallible Teachings
   Eric does bring up a good point: why has the Church never made an infallible list of infallible teachings? There is debate in (orthodox) Catholic circles as to the infallibility of certain teachings. I have heard this argument from Protestants from time to time.

10. Jimmy:
    I’d appreciate a response to Paul’s question above as well. It certainly appears from a layman’s p.o.v. that the language used in O.S. is specifically worded to meet the Vatican I definition of an ex cathedra pronouncement even though it does not use the actual magic words “ex cathedra”.
    Are we to believe that if the document itself does not expressly state that it is an ex cathedra pronouncement then it is not?
    Please advise.

11. Jimmy sez,
    …John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn’t say it under the protection of inallibility.
    For an Ex-Cathedra statement to be infallible, the Pope must be:
    1. Intending to teach
    2. by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
    3. a Doctrine of Faith or Morals
    4. to be held by the universal Church.
    Therefore the Teaching:
    1. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance,
    3. a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,
    2. in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32)
    which includes the definition:
    I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women
    4. and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
    is Infallible and a perfect example of a Papal Teaching Ex-Cathedra!
    It should also be noted that whereas some theologians attempt to make a distinction between a teaching that must be believed (credenda) and a teaching that must be held (tenenda), they hope to point out that we may be obliged to HOLD onto a teaching (implying non-ifallibility) without actually BELIEVING it (believing implying infallibility).
    Pius IX however clearly taught that an Ex-Cathedra teaching includes teachings that are HELD (tenenda)and not restricting it to Believed (credenda).
    “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the salvation of the Christian people,
    with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra*, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be **HELD** by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.”
    “If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours – may God prevent this happening – anathema sit.”
    Just in case anyone wants to make a case against Ex-Cathedra statements from the view of language (ie:Anathema, Decree/Define/ etc.) we should also point out that “statements” are not infallible… The Pope is INFALLIBLE!!

12. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an “ex cathedra” pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church. (CDF Commentary on the Professio Fidei)
    “Ordinatio Sacerdoalis” is one such confirmation which is not a new dogmatic definition, but simply an affirmation of something already taught infallibly.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
    Nearly every Catholic living back then (and up until relatively recently) was taught the doctrine of limbo, for instance, just as they were taught about Heaven, Hell, and urgatory; there was never any “non-infallible” qualifier, technical dogmatic manuals notwithstanding. The same goes for the “doctrine” that one could never go to Communion with the stain of venial sin on their souls. Our ancestors were taught this as definitvely as any other doctrine.
    Can you point to one magisterial document that taught either of these things? Limbo was nothing more than theological speculation, never Magisterial teaching (infallible or otherwise). While frequent reception of communion was rare, the Church never taught it was sinful to receive it if you are guilty of venial sin.

13. There seems to be a notion that if a particular doctrine is already infallible then no ex cathedra pronouncement on this doctrine can be made. I do not believe that this can be the case since as has been pointed out the mark of infallibility attaches to the teaching itself and not the document or process which revealed it.
    Clearly there is a case that the teaching (no ordination for women) was already infallible. Clearly the pope intended to confirm this. Clearly he used the language defined at the first Vatican council. Ergo, the teaching HAS BEEN infallibly defined AND the pope’s document was infallible.
    A statement that confirms an infallible teaching is, ipso facto, infallible.

14. Pope John Paul II used the same formula in OS that Pius IX set forth in Pastor Aeternus. His language and choice of words was simply modernized. These do not alter the formula that makes it Ex-Cathedra and therefore a Dogma.
    There is also a 5th criteria; Canon Law
    “Canon 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. [there’s that HELD word again!!]
    §2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
    §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is MANIFESTLY demonstrated.
    The sheer brevity of OS speaks volumes as to whether this constitutes “MANIFESTLY demonstrated”.

15. “A statement that confirms an infallible teaching is, ipso facto, infallible.
    Yes, it’s infallible. Just not a new extraordinary definition. The doctrine has no greater weight than it did before OS. It’s just more explicit.
    Cardinal Ratzinger, of all people, knew John Paul’s intention in OS. And he confirmed that the Holy Father was simply reiterating an infallible teaching. He wasn’t raising its theological weight.
    Also, just so we’re clear, dogma is not limited to teachings of the extraordinary Magisterium, as the CDF points out:
    “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”
    The universal and ordinary magisterium requires the same assent as the extraordinary magisterium, that is, the assent of divine and Catholic faith.

16. These might help:
    “Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis“, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, CDF (1995):

    In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.” (emphasis added)

    “Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei,” CDF(1998):

    A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
    _________
    32 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4: AAS 86 (1994), 548.
    33 Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Response to a Dubium concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”: AAS 87 (1995), 1114.

17. I wonder if the bold part above pertains to the Pope’s formal declaration in OS or if it pertains to the CDF’s Official Reply (as an extension of the Papal Magisterium).

18. Claiming that one knows the requirements for an infallible statement better than Pope Benedict does (or did when he was head of the CDF) is a fairly ambitious claim, and one that requires some fairly impressive credentials to be convincing.
    It’s also important not to lose sight of the religious assent that must be given even to non-infallibly proposed teachings (which Jimmy mentioned in his original post, but which tends to get lost when concentrating too much on infallibility).

19. Jason:
    I’m not sure what your point is. One of mine was that the pope did not need to be “raising the theological weight” of the teaching in order for the statement to be infallible. As I said, the statement is infallible by virtue of it either confirming or defining an infallible teaching. Jimmy above denied the infallibility of the teaching and some have pointed to the form used by the pope as a reason for this. My point was to put the focus on the teaching itself first and the form of the document secondarily.

20. “Limbo was nothing more than theological speculation . . .”
    Tell that to every priest and nun who taught this as an absolute truth to every Catholic who inquired about the fate of unbaptized children, up until about 50 years ago. I’d go so far as to say you won’t find a single person my parents’ children who was taught that Limbo was anything other than true. They were *never* told “this is just speculative.” Since as recently as my grandparents’ day, most Catholics were illiterate, I’m curious to know how the overwhelming majority of Catholics were to know that this teaching was just speculative. They were never taught this.
    “While frequent reception of communion was rare, the Church never taught it was sinful to receive it if you are guilty of venial sin.”
    Tell that to every priest and nun who taught this as an absolute truth to every Catholic who inquired about the subject up until about 50 years ago.
    Why you guys are spaming the com-boxes with the cut-and-pastes from the CDF is beyond me. The psycho-babble of these documents make absolutely no sense, and display no logical consistency at all, to anyone who known how to think rationally. The CDF fails to demonstrate why Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible in and of itself; just saying it does not make it so, especially since the CDF document is itself fallible.
    I have to confess that this is one thing makes Orthodoxy more attractive as a religion. They don’t claim all these kinds of infallibility, and are content with keeping the mechanics of it something of a mystery, even for know. And they still manage to keep the true Faith. Makes more sense than Catholicism’s making claims that have no real practical application.
    There are othe things that keep me Catholic, but this is a major stumbling block. It’s simply impossible as a Catholic to know if a given teaching is infallible or not. Doctrines thought to be definitive not too long ago are now reinterpreted in ways our spiritual dorebearers never could have imagined . . . it’s real disturbing.

21. “Claiming that one knows the requirements for an infallible statement better than Pope Benedict does is a fairly ambitious claim . . .”
    C’mon, let’s quit with the cop-outs!
    “It’s true because so-and-so says it is” is a poor argument. If Ratzinger’s statement is so manifestly correct, then please demonstrate for us how it does not fulfill Vatican I’s criteria.
    I dare you to.

22. “I’d go so far as to say you won’t find a single person my parents’ children who was taught that Limbo was anything other than true.”
    This should read:
    “I’d go so far as to say you won’t find a single person of my parents’ generation who was taught that Limbo was anything other than true.”

23. Eric:
    Wasn’t Limbo the designation for where the souls from the Old Testament waited until Christ came and opened the gates of heaven? As such, wasn’t that teaching true?

24. Eric,
    Priests and Nuns do not a magisterium make. It is true that it was a generally accepted theological speculation. But it was nothing more than that. It never become a teaching of the Magisterium, ordinary or extraordinary.
    Here’s a document from a hundred years ago on frequent communion.
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWFREQ.HTM
    Why you guys are spaming the com-boxes with the cut-and-pastes from the CDF is beyond me.
    I’m sorry you are inable to comprehend the Church’s documents, but I haven’t “spammed” anything. I highlighted a relevant section of a document, so people didn’t have to go on a goose hunt. I’m also sorry you feel the need to consider defecting from the Catholic Church. I hope you reconsider. God bless.
    Chris,
    My point was to put the focus on the teaching itself first and the form of the document secondarily.
    Gotcha.

25. Eric said: “Tell that to every priest and nun who taught this as an absolute truth to every Catholic who inquired about the fate of unbaptized children, up until about 50 years ago. I’d go so far as to say you won’t find a single person my parents’ children who was taught that Limbo was anything other than true.”
    And how many priests and nuns told lay Catholics that all Jews are, simply by virtue of being Jews, collectively and uniquely guilty of killing Christ?
    “It’s simply impossible as a Catholic to know if a given teaching is infallible or not.”
    Really? How can it be impossible for Catholics not to know that all the Church’s teachings are infallible?

26. My point is and has been that OS is ex-cathedra and therefore a Dogma because it fullfills Vatican I’s condition for it to be so.
    As for Limbo, although the church has taught it (Doctrina = teaching) it has never formally defined it as a Dogma.
    What was perhaps unclear was whether Limbo salvation or damnation. Whatever is NOT damnation IS salvation and vice versa. Limbo has never been taught as damnation. Limbo=Limbus=edge or rim. My take is that it is definately on the salvation side.

27. My point is and has been that OS is ex-cathedra and therefore a Dogma because it fullfills Vatican I’s condition for it to be so.
    Ex Cathedra is not a magical formula. The Pope has to intend to proclaim something in the supreme manner. Since Cardinal Ratzinger is the only one who was close enough to John Paul II to know his actual intent, his clarification on the matter is our only reference point on whether John Paul II in fact intend it as an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. As Christ points out, it’s the teaching itself that matters, rather than the document.
    As for Limbo, although the church has taught it (Doctrina = teaching) it has never formally defined it as a Dogma.
    Where did she teach it?

28. *Chris points out, even.
    Sorry, Christ. Thou art not the Christ. 🙂

29. “It never become a teaching of the Magisterium, ordinary or extraordinary.”
    Nor ordinary Magisterium? If Limbo wasn’t ordinary Magisterium, nothing is . . . Just as I suspected, “Ordinary Magisterium” is just an arbitrary designation for any fallible doctrine the Church doesn’t want questioned at a particular moment.
    “Here’s a document from a hundred years ago on frequent communion.”
    Our ancestors might as well had wiped their rumps with it. It wasn’t taught or enforced. Oh, and this document is not infallible, so . . .
    “And how many priests and nuns told lay Catholics that all Jews are, simply by virtue of being Jews, collectively and uniquely guilty of killing Christ?”
    Very few, I suspect. I’ve never heard of this actually being taught to any person I know within living memory. Instead, I find that many Modernists read this accusation into previous statements of clergy that are quite innocent of themselves.
    “Since Cardinal Ratzinger is the only one who was close enough to John Paul II to know his actual intent . . .”
    I disagree. The Pope’s words were crystal clear. Could you please point out to us which of the four criteria we are misreading into the document? Thanks.

30. If Limbo wasn’t ordinary Magisterium, nothing is
    If it was, then you will have no problem citing one instance of the ordinary magisterium teaching it. When someone asks me about contraception, I can point them to documents long before humanae vitae.
    I’m just asking for one citation.

31. “My point is and has been that OS is ex-cathedra and therefore a Dogma because it fullfills Vatican I’s condition for it to be so.”
    Yeah, I too think that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis includes an ex cathedra exercise of infallible extraordinary magisterium. If I recall correctly, Cardinal Ratzinger did not say it wasn’t — I think he sidestepped that whole question, instead focusing on the fact that the doctrine that the priesthood is reserved to males was already infallible in the ordinary magisterium. There’s a common misperception that unless a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement of a doctrine, the doctrine is not infallible, but the ordinary magisterium is also an organ of infallibility. I could be misreading what Cardinal Ratzinger said about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but I kind of wonder if he wasn’t trying to remind everyone that Church teachings can be (and in fact usually are) true without a Pope’s ex cathedra imprimatur.
    But frankly my eyes tend to glaze over when I come across debates about the infallibility of this, that, or the other statement of the Church. “Infallibility” basically means “couldn’t possibly be wrong” — it’s just a more emphatic way of saying something is true. If something is true, it doesn’t take a Pope or an Oecumenical Council for it to be true. The roles of Popes and Councils is to remove doubt, to clarify matters, and to discipline those who teach error. Instead of wondering if a papal declaration meets the criteria of an ex cathedra statement, the first question we ought to concern ourselves with is, “Is this true or not?” If it’s true, it can’t possibly be false, which means it’s infallibly true.

32. “I’m just asking for one citation.”
    Here you go from the Baltimore Catechism:
    http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-b.htm
    Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
    Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family-father, mother, and children-may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity-just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

33. Jordan,
    You said: “Really? How can it be impossible for Catholics not to know that all the Church’s teachings are infallible?”
    But they are NOT all infallible. That was the whole point of Jimmy’s post.
    I don’t think anyone has answered Eric very well here. Jason’s reference to Pius X’s document on frequent communion is irrelevant, because that Pope is who re-instituted the practice. Before Pius X, it was common practice (VERY common) – and encouraged strongly from priests and bishops – to not receive communion frequently.
    Furthermore, the insistence on the fact that Limbo was never officially defined misses the point. In practice, all Catholics believed it existed, and that this was Church teaching. It seems like we are saying a technicality (“no official document”) is more important than what real people really believed.
    BTW, I am a Catholic convert (12 years) who accepts all the Church’s infallible teachings and submits in “obedience of faith” to all of her teachings. I’m not challenging them – I’m just trying to find a good way to explain this issue to non-Catholics such as Eric.

34. “But they are NOT all infallible. That was the whole point of Jimmy’s post.”
    Which teachings of the Catholic Church are false?

35. Sorry, that last post was from me.

36. Jordan,
    Two problems with your question:
    1) “Teachings of the Catholic Church” is too ambigious.
    What level of teaching? Magisterial? Personal teaching of a Pope? A Catechism? Not everything in the Catechism is infallible and some of it contradicts previous catechisms. Only those teachings held by the magisterium to be definitively held by all the faithful are protected by the charism of infallibility. Many of the other teachings might be true was well, but there is no guarantee of it.
    2) “False” is not the opposite of “infallible”.
    Just because a teaching is not infallible does not automatically mean it is false. However, there are plenty of “teachings” of the Church that are speculations and which she has not defined infallibly. Mary as Mediatrix of all graces is one example.

37. On the contrary, anything that is true is infallibly true. If something is possibly fallible, then it is not true, just possibly true.

38. So then, who wants to tell me which teachings of the Catholic Church are false? Any takers?

39. “On the contrary, anything that is true is infallibly true. If something is possibly fallible, then it is not true, just possibly true.”
    Anything that is true is infallibly true, but that does not mean that we humans have that knowledge. You are still mixing up the guarantee of infallibility with the ontological truth or falsehood of a doctrine. God has not revealed the truth and falsehood of every belief to humanity.
    “So then, who wants to tell me which teachings of the Catholic Church are false? Any takers?”
    I don’t think Limbo as a place where unbaptized babies go is true. It has been taught by the Church, but not infallibly so.
    I don’t think Mary being the Mediatrix of all Graces is true. It has been taught by the Church, but not infallibly so.
    However, if the Church tomorrow said that any of these was an doctrine to be definitively held by all the faithful, I’d be the first one in line to say I’m wrong, and acknowledge that it is true. But you cannot prove to me that these doctrine are definitively true. They may be, they may not be.
    Theological speculation has a long history in the Church. Often beliefs will “bubble up” and become accepted by most Catholics and even be taught by bishops and priests without being infallibly declared. Some of those beliefs may be in actuality true, and some may not. Only when the belief could cause spiritual harm to the faithful does the Church definitively declare it false.

40. THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED. SEE SUBSEQUENT POSTS.

Comments are closed.