Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

One problem of infallibility is this:  There have been many times throughout the history of the church that the bishops, speaking in unison and in agreement with the Bishop of Rome, have been wrong. I could list some of these instances, but we all know them; as such, I won’t waste the space. But all you have to do is look at the former Index of forbidden books to see just some examples.

No we all don’t know these instances, how about listing them as a refresher with some references as well to where they were taught by the Church as a whole in union with the pope. As for the Index of Forbidden Books, how does this have anything at all to do with infallibility? If this is your measuring stick for infallibility then you greatly misunderstand the term. For a long time, the Church was able to get around challenges to the doctrine of infallibility by stating that 1) either no error had been committed, or 2) that the error was committed on an issue about which infallibility was not at stake.  This second argument has always been a last resort, because the fallacy of it is self evident. The fact is that on numerous occasions the Bishops, speaking in unison and in agreement with the Pope, have been wrong.

I think you are making a mistake of applying infallibility to places where the Church has always recognised that infallibility does not exist. You are beating down a straw man of your own making. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A perfect example of the difficulties of the magesterium  ordinarium is the issue of birth control, as it was handled at Vatican II. A majority of the commission that was dealing with the issue recommended that the Church’s teaching on this matter be changed.  But a Curial minority won the argument, not on the facts of the issue at hand, but on the basis that *the bishops had consistently and unanimously, throughout history, taught that "artificial" birth control is evil.*  To reverse themselves at Vatican II would have cast the whole doctrine of infallibility into doubt.  And that was a can of worms neither the bishops nor the Pope were willing to open.

Artificial birth control is evil. Your logic here does not make sense. You think it is not evil, so therefore the pope must have thought it was not evil as well, but he couldn’t change his mind because everybody before him said it was evil. Maybe he didn’t change his mind because he thought it was evil as well. Have you ever stopped to wonder why "the bishops had consistently and unanimously, throughout history, taught that "artificial" birth control is evil"? The minority won the argument precisely because of the facts at hand, not in spite of them. The ban on artificial birth control is deeply rooted in theology and biblical exegesis; which is something that it’s opponents never, ever address. People who want artificial birth control always appeal to a warped sense of social justice while ignoring the deeper issues at hand. Personally, it amazes me how people who call themselves Catholics who desire that the Church change its teachings cannot see the intrinsicly real connection between this issue and abortion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For this reason, it seems to me that the doctrine of infallibility often gets in the way of the truth. As such, it is a hindrance to the spreading of the Gospel. The church should be an institution which constantly examines itself and its teachings, and is willing to admit and correct errors when those errors are shown to exist. I have other reasons for doubting the doctrine of infallibility, among them the historically unproveable issue of the apostolic succession of bishops, and the assumption that the apostles themselves were infallible. I can elaborate on those if you want, but for now I think it’s time for me to shut up.  :-) By the way, I do not want the above statements to be misconstrued as my being hostile to the Catholic Church. I love the Church. And the more I learn about other Christian denominations and other religions (however beautiful they may be), the more I feel in my heart that I must remain a Catholic. Peace to you Bruce, Brian

Your understanding of the Church is not in any way in line with the Church’s understanding of itself. Catholics may not, if they wish to remain Catholic, doubt that the Church possesses infallibility. You are like a Protestant whose faith resides mainly in himself. You assume that you know the truth and the Church is in error. This is not faith. It is pride. Do you actually believe in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or do you cross your fingers when you say the creed? Most historians, even the Protestant ones, admit that the fact of the apostolic succession of bishops is valid. Read some Harnick. Do you even believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and if you do may I ask you why? If you do not believe in Apostolic Succession then it would follow from there that basically anybody can say a Mass. How do you figure infallibility will be shed from the Church? You want to turn the Church into something even more insufficient and distorted than Protestantism. You would have it deny its own nature not just for the sake of compromise, but to embrace error. You say you love the Church. What you love is your conception of the Church. As Christ said, "he who is not with me is against me." Neil Before you buy.

Response:

Canon 749, which is *the* canon on papal infallibility, states that the pope is infallible when "he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such."  This is a restate- ment of the definition from Vatican I:  "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when … he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church …", etc.  In each case the key word is "define" (or "a definitive act", which is presumably the same thing).  I can’t find anything in Canon Law or Vatican I that implies a larger scope for papal infallibility.

Ok, I was stretching it a bit, plus I was on a different wave length than you at the time. How’s that for talking my way out of it? The point I was trying to make is that the pope does not have to express his intention explicitly, i.e., does not have to say "the following is an infallible teaching