Talk:Infallibility of the Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Infalliblity in the Authentic, Ordinary, and Extraordinary Magisterium

This entire section is not representative of the teaching of the Catholic Church. No such triple distinction is found in any Magisterial document, nor in the official Catechism. The author of this section is confusing the universal and ordinary Magisterium with the ordinary Magisterium. The former is infallible, the latter is non-infallible.

The categories are Extraordinary (or Sacred) Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. The former is always infallible and includes the unfortunately-named 'ordinary and universal Magisterium'. The latter is non-infallible. All the teachings of the Magisterium are authentic. --Ronconte 23:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub message

Why the change from {{christianity-stub}} to {{RC-stub}}? The article is primarily about a doctrine more or less common to Catholics and Orthodox, and a subset of Protestants as well; it only mentions as a cross-reference the more specific doctrines particular to Catholics. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed it back. Gentgeen 02:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infallibility of the Church: Orthodox view

Ecclesiology in the Orthodox Church does not believe in infallibility of persons/individuals. You cannot split Russian and Greek Orthodox, it's the same faith. Furthermore Orthodoxy believes in the Infallibility of Holy Scripture and the writers of Holy scripture are of equal authority as these writings they produced but they themselves are not infallible, since even Peter made mistakes and Paul had to correct him. The Bible has spelling and grammar mistakes, it is the doctrine and teachings which are infallible not the actual Book.

So In the Orthodox Church 1) God and Holy Scripture alone are incfallible.

2) the Church as a whole contains infallible teachings derived from the Bible. So in effect it is wrong to say the Church IS infallible, the Church Faith is infallible since the source is the Holy Scripture inspired by God.

3) the Ecumenical Councils are held to try to clarify these teachings due to misinterpretation by leaders in mainly non-Greeks speaking Churches (ie Afrrica and Oriental East and later, Rome). The faith of the Councils is infallible due to it being derived, again, from Holy Scripture.

regards

Greek Orthodox Theologian

NB --203.59.182.2 08:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not sufficient to say "The faith of the Councils is infallible due to it being derived, again, from Holy Scripture." How do you know that this faith is derived from Holy Scripture? The whole problem is that not everyone agrees on what Scripture means. Arius and Nestorius and Luther all quoted Scripture to defend their views. That's why we need to ask, "Are the ecumenical councils infallible? And if so, how do we know that?"
Regarding your point that "You cannot split Russian and Greek Orthodox, it's the same faith," I think this depends on what you mean. I wasn't saying that these were split. There are indeed disagreements between Russian and Greek Orthodox theologians -- but these disagreements are not about dogmas of the church.
[Continued in the next subsection....] Lawrence King 06:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecumenical Councils Russian

"While the Russian Orthodox Church does recognize the first seven ecumenical councils as valid, some Russian Orthodox theologians believe that the infallibility of these councils' statements derived from their acceptance by the faithful (and thus from the infallibility of all believers), and not from the acts of the councils themselves."

I have not come past any Russian orthodox theologians who would accept that the resolutions of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible only because faithful people who made them are infallible. I believe this should be changed.

Sorry, you're misreading the statement. Read the two paragraphs you wrote above. The paragraph you quoted said that these Russian Orthodox theologians believe the infallibility derives from the faithful who accepted the council. In other words, it has nothing to do with the people who made the resolutions.

Infallibility = correct, without error. This is God and the Holy Scripture - (the written Word of God). Orthodox Faith is correct without error because the Bible is without dogmatic error. "Be assured that my words are not false; one perfect in knowledge is with you." (Job 36:4). Similarly the Church which is the protector of the faith, the perfect faith is perfect because of the faith it is assigned to protect.

--203.59.182.2 11:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, when you say "Orthodox Faith is correct without error because the Bible is without dogmatic error," you are leaving something out. Arius and Nestorius and Luther and Calvin disagreed with Orthodox dogma on many points, and yet they tried to interpret the same Scripture as you. Scripture needs an interpreter (that's my POV, of course). The issue of infallibility is exactly about the question of whether there are any guaranteed reliable interpreters of Scripture.
Greek and Russian Orthodox theologians all agree that the first seven Ecumenical Councils issued infallible decrees that reliably interpreted Scripture. But how do we know these councils really were correct? Is it because we believe that the Holy Spirit guided the bishops at these councils, or is it because the people of the church recognized the councils' decrees as being true after the council was over?
This is where Russian and Greek theologians disagree.
Here is my source. I have added a few hotlinks:
With regard to the infallibility of ecumenical councils, Orthodox opinion has been divided ever since A. Khomiakov proposed his theory of sobornost (catholicity) in the middle of the last century. [1] [2] [3] According to this theory, only the faith-consciousness of the whole Church enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit which ensures its remaining in the true faith. The bishops, even gathered in an ecumenical council, have no claim to such assistance of the Holy Spirit as would guarantee the truth of their dogmatic decrees. The bishops can only witness to what is already the faith of the Church, and it is only when their teaching is confirmed by its reception by the faithful that it has any dogmatic authority.
While Khomiakov's view has had wide acceptance, especially among Russian Orthodox theologians, it is rejected by many, especially of the Greek Orthodox, who see it as an innovation which does not reflect the traditional eastern position regarding the magisterial authority of bishops. These Orthodox theologians hold that the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, representing the dogmatic consensus of the whole episcopate, enjoyed the assistance of the Holy Spirit which ensured the truth of the doctrines they solemnly defined. They reject the idea that the whole body of the faithful is the only locus of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the faith-life of the Church.
--- Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium, Paulist Press, 1983, p. 88.
The footnote in Sullivan's book on this passage cites his source: W. Hryniewicz, "Die ekklesiale Rezeption in der Sicht der orthodoxen Theologie,", Theol. u. Glaube 65 (1975) 250-265.
Is this sufficient to demonstrate the difference between Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox theologians on this point? Lawrence King 06:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecostal views

[edit] Incoherent sentence: "believe to possess this" ?

This sentences seems incoherent,

Pentecostals and Charismatics in various denominations believe to possess this authority, and as a result change their beliefs on certain issues due to divine personal revelation.

but without more familiarity with Pentecostals I don't know what it's trying to say or how to correct it. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I fixed this. Lawrence King 23:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecostal Converted

If you wish to know more on individual infallibility in Pentecostal Churches contact this guy. Brian Leher. He converted to Orthodoxy. He welcomes any questions.

brian@sthermans.ca

[edit] Protestant infalibility

Quote: 'Although Protestants generally do not use the word "infallibility", many mainline Protestant denominations accept that their own denomination is correct (at least in general) in its core beliefs.'

This is really a attempt to say 'protestant are guilty of infalibility too' - all ideologies (religions political or non-religious) belive that they are (in general correct) - that's quite different from a doctrine of infalibility. --Doc (?) 23:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Very fair criticism. I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I have rewritten the Infallibility of all believers section; let me know if it's an improvement. Lawrence King 05:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better thanks - although I've never heard of a doctrine of 'infallibility of all believers' - but that doesn't say much. I think more could be said about Protestant critiques of infalability and the question of where councils 'can err' - I'll do a digging if I get a minute. --Doc (?) 13:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Infallibility of all believers

This entire section should be deleted.

Before you delete anything, please recognize that this article is not simply about Roman Catholic teaching. It represents teachings of many Christian churches, and each section clearly states which church(es) believe in the specified doctrine.


The Roman Catholic Church has never taught any such thing, and the footnote is to a personal letter from a Pope to a Bishop (i.e. not binding on the Church) which does not even mention such an idea. The letter describes the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

This footnote included two references. One of them, Pius IX's Tuas Libenter, was indeed incorrectly cited -- so I deleted this. The second reference is to Lumen Gentium § 12 ¶ 1, which can be found here. This reads as follows (emphasis added):
The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth.
Any Catholic who recognizes Vatican II as a valid council must accept this teaching. This was also clearly taught by Augustine, Aquinas, and Bellarmine; I can give you the quotes if you like.


It is the wording of this section that is incorrect. It sounds as if the laity apart from the bishops and the pope can decide doctrine. It needs to be rewritten to include the bishops and the pope. But in that case, it would seem to fall merely under the ordinary and universal magisterium, since the pope and bishops would be in agreement. --Ronconte 12:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because ordinary and universal magisterium requires the bishops to teach something as definitive. Infallibility of all believers includes beliefs that are not explicitly taught as such. So it requires greater unanimity but the bar isn't as high. An example would be: "God loves all people". This is a universal belief of the church and therefore infallible, even though the bishops have never felt the need to explicitly teach this as a definitive fact. But I agree that this should be rephrased; I'll do that if you like. Lawrence King 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The above paragraph does not make any sense. You are not using the correct terminology. You are confused about the meaning of the terms that you do use. Phrases like 'explicitly teach this as definitive fact' are not theologically coherent. Are you claiming that the infallible teachings of 'all believers' are not definitively taught? That is absurd. --Ronconte 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming. The verb "to define", in theology, refers to a formal statement. Therefore the doctrine of the Assumption is infallible and defined, but the doctrine of the Communion of Saints is infallible (by the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium) but not defined, because it was not promulgated in a papal or conciliar decree. This is how the word is used by theologians.


There are not 'four channels' of infallibility; no such idea or terminology exists in Roman Catholic theology.

If you have a word better than "channel" that's fine. Francis Sullivan SJ uses the word "subject". The "subject" is the one doing the teaching; the "object" is what is being taught. Thus, when Pius XII taught the Assumption, Sullivan would say the "subject" was Pius XII and the "object" was the Assumption. I worried that most readers would misunderstand this, because "subject" in English usually refers to a topic -- when we ask, "What was the subject of the lecture?" we are referring to the thing being taught, not the one doing the teaching. So I picked "channel", but I am very open to a better word.
This idea is clearly described in Sullivan's major books Magisterium and Creative Fidelity. The new head of the CDF, William Levada, received his doctorate under Sullivan, so I don't expect the CDF to change this view anytime soon.
There is no magisterial document, including the Catechism, which innumerates infallibility into four channels or subjects or whatever. The ideas of a few theologians, or even of most theologians, does not constitute a basis for an article on what Catholics believe and on what the Church teaches.
So the new prefect of the CDF once studied under the theologian that you cite. This is a perfect example of the general problem with your edits. You are not expressing what the Church teaches or believes. You are arguing a specific theological position on a very narrow basis. Even if there is a document from the CDF that says exactly what you are saying, it still has no place in this article. The basis for statements in this article should be what Catholics believe and what the Church clearly teaches.
As I said in my other discussion, the CDF is the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, in charge of teaching doctrine. If the CDF teaches something than "the Church" is teaching that thing. Read the article Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for more details on this. Remember, the Catechism was written by a Vatican commission, not by the Pope! If you reject the CDF as a teacher of Catholic doctrine, then you logically must reject the Catechism as well. See this page of the Vatican website.


Your description of Catholic belief is not the general belief of Catholics, but of specific theologians whom you prefer. The text needs to be more general as to what Catholics believe. --Ronconte 12:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to be about the general belief of "Catholics", because many Catholics misunderstand their faith. It is about the teachings of the Catholic church. And Sullivan is not just a theologian that "I prefer" -- or else the new Pope would not have picked his student Levada to head the CDF. Lawrence King 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Also, an encyclopedia article paragraph should not begin with the qualifier 'Roughly'.

Why not? To state these doctrines in full detail would be too long. "Roughly" makes it clear that the complete details are not included. I think clarifying the phrasing would be good, of course.


The ordinary and universal Magisterium is not exercised by the bishops alone. It can only be exercised by the body of bishops with the Pope.

True, and perhaps this should be more clear. But the Pope is a bishop, so if you say "all the Catholic bishops" doesn't that include the pope?
For readers of this article, many of whom are non-catholic, you cannot assume that they understand that the Pope is also a bishiop. Also, the pope has a special role when the universal Magisterium is exercised; he does not merely act in the same capacity as any Bishop.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I have made a change on the page reflecting this.


The repeated claims in this article that 'all' theologians agree is factually false. There is not even close to a total agreement among theologians on any of these ideas.

Where is this "repeated"? It's only prominent in the discussion of Evangelium Vitae, and it's true there. Can you name a single Catholic theologian (other than Hans Küng) who denies that the three major teachings of EV are instances of the infallibility of the ordinary & universal magisterium?
Again, this article should not be based on your opinion of what the consensus among Catholic theologians is. The article, in the sections on Catholicism, must represent what Catholics in general believe and what the Catholic Church clearly teaches. The prevalent view among theologians is not relevant.
Those three statements cannot fall under the universal magisterium because the universal magisterium only applies when teachings have not been expressed in a specific definition. EV contains three specific definitions. Some think that these fall under papal infallibility. I think that they fall under the same type of infallibility found in ecumenical councils. I have a number of other unique ideas about infallibility. But I don't put them in an article in this encyclopedia. You are arguing a specific point of view within Catholic theology. That approach is unacceptable for an encyclopedia article, even if you happened to be correct.
No, an encyclopedia represents consensus. The view that these three statements have been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium was stated by Pope John Paul II himself in the footnotes to all three sections, by the CDF (at least two times), and by every theologian I have ever seen. That's called a consensus and is the basis for Wikipedia. For example, if every professional astronomer claimed that Jupiter has moons, then it belongs in Wikipedia.
What you are trying to do is to take the Vatican I and Vatican II documents and interpret them yourself. You may believe that they are easy to read and your reading is correct. But that counts as original research which is forbidden by Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. The reason I keep citing theologians and the CDF is to show that this is not just my interpretation. You have not yet cited anyone who agrees with your interpretation.


The entire section called Infallibility of the Consensus Patrum does not represent Catholic teaching at all. Tradition is not the teachings of a consensus of Church fathers. And the Church fathers are not considered infallible, even if they agree on a point (and there is much they disagree on).

This section doesn't claim that this is Catholic teaching. It claims this is Orthodox Church teaching.
The consensus of the Fathers is not identical to Sacred Tradition. Catholics do not believe, and the Church does not teach, that the consensus of the Fathers is an example of infallibility. The word Catholic should be removed from this section. Also, the claim that Tradition is the same as Consensus Patrum is not the teaching of the Church, nor the belief of the faithful.
You are right that this section was confusing. I have rewritten it using your suggestions; let me know if it looks right to you now. Lawrence King 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


I intend to rewrite the entire article, unless there are objections. --Ronconte 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly object. Let's discuss our differences (if any) on the discussion page instead. Lawrence King 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Postscript: I withdrew from this page after I got tired of the edit war. - Lawrence King 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A lack of objectivity

You, probably Ronconte, blew out my little candle of "criticism" (see version 28 Febr 2006 chapter "criticism"). This is not what wikipedia calls NPOV. I think it a sign of weakness. I am not interested in an edit war. All the best for you and all those who are frightened by a whiff of criticism. --hjn 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That section was removed because it was not a general criticism of the infallibility of the Church, but was a paragraph of support for the unique views of one particular German philosopher named Hans Albert. Write a more general criticism and I won't object. --Ronconte 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the unique views of one particular German philosopher can be true and can be a general criticism of the infallibility of the Church. Wikipedia has to inform their readers that there exists a general criticism of the infallibility of the Church from an well known author of some 30 books. Wikipedia is not installed to proliferate the visions of the Church but to spread the truth about what is today's knowledge. Suppressing this knowledge is a serious lack of objectivity and is not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia. --hjn 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Talk%7EInfallibility_of_the_Church_6e39.html"