In my years of engaging apologetics topics with Protestants, and even sometimes fellow Catholics, I have found that the Church teaching on infallibility is one of the most difficult for people to grasp. It is more often necessary to explain what infallibility does not mean than what it does, and so root out the errors in people’s understanding.
Infallibility was dogmatically defined by Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus.
We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable.
This is a very specific, and limited, definition.
The pope must be speaking ex cathedra as teacher of the whole Church.
He must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals.
He must specify that this doctrine is to be held as true by the whole Church.
Yet there are four things that it is always necessary to remind people, even Catholics, that all this does not mean.
It does not mean that the pope is without sin.
This is a common mistake among Protestants and secularists. In a series of anti-Catholic sermons ten or so years ago, Dr. John MacArthur took note of the fact that John Paul II had apologized for the sins of the Church during the Crusades and the Inquisition. He seemed to think it incongruous that a Church that claimed infallibility could admit to having been in error.
But the pope did not apologize for what the Church taught, but only for what some Catholics had done. There is a difference. Infallibility does not mean impeccability. The confessional exists for a reason, and even the pope goes to Confession.
It does not mean that everything a pope says, or every opinion of the pope, is infallible.
The pope must be speaking ex cathedra. A Wednesday audience, or a papal interview, are not infallible.
The pope must be speaking on a question of faith or morals. The pope’s opinion about a scientific theory is not infallible. The pope’s opinion of the Red Sox is not infallible.
It does not mean that the pope can answer every question about the faith, or the scriptures, that could possibly come up.
Protestant apologists are fond of asking, for example, why the Church does not just give us an infallible interpretation of every verse of Scripture.
The reason is because infallibility has a very limited purpose, and that is to ensure the unity of the faith and to answer pressing moral questions that could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Bible. Embryonic stem cell research is one such question.
The pope was never meant to replace a person’s thinking and reading ability, only to keep them within boundaries set by divine revelation.
It does not mean that that Catholics have a license to ignore things that are not technically infallible.
Some Catholics, I am afraid to say, have a very difficult time with this last one. But Lumen Gentium 25 has settled the question for us.
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.
Vatican I does not define this dogma narrowly so that Catholics have an escape hatch by which to flee teachings they don’t like. (“Unless the pope says the magic words, I can poo-poo that, buddy.”) It does so because the Church is very careful to distinguish between levels of epistemological certainty and between what is divine revelation and what is not.
But God did not give us a teaching Church so that we would pay attention only to the very narrow category of divine revelation. That is why quibbling too specifically about whether such and such a document is infallible is often a mask for a desire to ignore what is nevertheless authoritative.
It may be more important for Catholics to consider what is authoritative than what is infallible.
So are you claiming the pope’s ramblings in Laudato Si about the hoax of global warming must be adhered to by Catholics as authoritative? I hope not, because you’d have a difficult time reconciling the many conflicting ideas in areas such as politics and economics pope’s have written on in the past. For instance, when Pope Paul VI wrote in Populorum Progressio that the right way for rich countries to help poor ones was to tax their citizens and send money to Third World governments, are we to consider that as authoritative and binding on Catholics? Or if I prudently ignore this advice, am I using that as an “escape hatch to flee teachings I don’t like” because they are technically not infallible, as you are insinuating?
Look at the tone of your question, referring to an authoritative teaching document as “rambling”. Have you actually read Laudato Si? Because there’s a lot there besides the small part you’ve chosen to highlight. And no, Catholics are not bound to accept as definitive the Pope’s statements on matters outside of faith and morals. But clearly, there are many who reject Laudato Si outright because their real affiliation is some other socio-political paradigm. That’s rebellion.
If you were dying of thirst and I gave you a gallon of water to drink, but said there was a small drop of poison in it, would you still drink it? Rather odd too, that someone who rejects the hoax of global warning is the one being accused of having “some other socio-political paradigm” affiliation.
Which question would you like answered? I think your analogy with poison is more than a bit over the top, frankly. No, you are not obliged to accept what the Pope says concerning climate change (but have you actually read it, even?). It’s not a question of faith and morals. The Pope is simply repeating the majority opinion, whether right or wrong. I happen to agree with you, that the “climate change” hype is overblown and based on problematic models. BUT, and heres the great part…it’s really irrelevant. Our responsibility to care for creation is not dependent on whether climate is or isn’t changing as a result of human activity! It’s rooted in our mandate to be good stewards of the gift of creation, which is the Pope’s primary point throughout the encyclical (again, have you read it?) But when i hear a fellow Catholic refer to a Papal encyclical as “ramblings”…wow.
“…But when i hear a fellow Catholic refer to a Papal encyclical as “ramblings”…wow.”
Because it is, Ryan. There is nothing disloyal in speaking the truth. The truth that many solid, believing Catholics are seeing is that the Holy Father is busying himself in a time of rank moral crisis within the Church in creating formal encyclicals to pass on global warming theory.
It’s out of place, Ryan. Like having your Dad hide out in his office to write a formal complaint about the neighbor’s trees blocking the view, but at the same time providing homes for the squirrels while mom is in the other room dealing with Jenny whose just announced she’s pregnant out of wedlock, joining a commune while little Bobbie is crying for a sex change.
So you might be scandalized by Catholics calling a Papal encyclical ramblings – wow – but the rest of us are scandalized by a Pope expending his time on side issues that are not part of his job description to the negation of spending time speaking clearly about Catholic Faith and Morals. The Pope’s responsibility is to speak clearly in these matters, Ryan, and in due season. Not remain mum or speak one way only to act another. It’s confusing. It’s dangerous.
That’s the scandal. That’s the wow, Ryan. A Holy Father who is acting as if he’s not there. Wow indeed. But as long as we’re all prepped for the ‘Climate Conference’ in Paris, all’s good.
Good grief, man.
good grief is right…Did you just say that our care for creation (which includes the poor and vulnerable and unborn…did you even read it? Just admit you didn’t…) is a “side issue”? And that’s where we part ways then. I don’t hold heterodox opinions and I’ve yet to hear one from this Pope.
Ryan, just admit it. You don’t even know what a heterodox opinion is or a sidetrack. But I bet you tell the wife – if you have one – that thumbing through tax receipts in June is doing a solid job when the sewer is backed up and the kids bathwater is brown.
As for the Holy Father or any leader for that matter, just focus on what they tell you. Not what they do. Great strategy man. Makes me feel real warm and fuzzy for future leadership.
How long, oh Lord? How long?
By your logic the Holy Father could include his opinion about green beans in an encyclical and everyone must accept his statements or else they’ll be called rebels or accused of having a ‘tone’. Based on nothing binding, mind you.
IOW: There is nothing wrong in calling a rambling encyclical rambling when that’s what it is.
Not sure how you get there…green beans? Thanksgiving on your mind? Anyhow, the very small section in Laudato Si that makes reference to climate change is only repeating the majority scientific opinion on the matter. I agree with you and barnabus, the hype is a hoax and climate change is not the apocalyptic cataclysm the elites say it is. But to not acknowledge, at least, the prevailing opinion would be irresponsible, especially since the Pope teaches authoritatively only on matters of faith and morals. In addition, when Peter speaks, Catholics should listen. No, you’re not obliged to accept his thoughts on climate or green beans (not being matters of faith and morals). The good thing for us Catholics is that it doesn’t really matter whether climate is changing as a result of human activity. We’re still called to care for Creation. And that’s what the encyclical is about. Please read it. It quotes JPII and BXVI heavily and is hardly “rambling”. It seems as if you’ve written it off because of what you’ve heard about it rather than reading it yourself.
Could just have been as easy to choose the evils of air conditioning, Ryan. Central air SAVES many lives, especially the elderly. But the Holy Father seems to have a rather different view of central air. (…although my green beans selection is rather representative of the Holy Father’s tendency to pluck the seemingly absurd at random from the air.)
As to a majority scientific opinion, that’s the point. The topic is science and the opinion is one of a majority – not necessarily the truth – and hotly debated. (Keep in mind that obtaining grants and wanting to stay employed motivates many scientists, who gets funding, who stays employed, and who gets into the country club. Just like any other job/industry.) Remember, Christ began His Church with only a handful of disciples. Not a majority. But a few armed with Truth. His concern wasn’t to be popular.
That’s why this castigation of thinking people – recall the Pope wasn’t only addressing his encyclical to Catholics – about the whole of the letter as being rambling, something which includes going off topic, is out of place. The document IS rambling. It touches on areas that are not appropriate; the language imprecise and the theology sketchy. Out side the general, it’s about our need to be good stewards. So yes, we are to be good stewards, but in proper order, not rambling, scattered, inverted ways that would have us confuse that proper order. To include moral prioritization.
Laudato Si is a Papal Encyclical, not the venue for opinion based, off topic speculation and cozy couch speak. (I sense the common enemy tactic at play here as if manufacturing global warming as the evil alien will get everyone to work together. Trouble is, there’s mass communication today and so folks look at the Al Gore’s of the world with their Sasquach cubed carbon footprint and then laugh, understanding he’s stumping this one all the way to the bank. Just like current TV.
So on one hand you give the Holy Father a pass because this climate change business is non binding only to attempt by way of shaming that Catholics had better pay attention because – hey, this is the Holy Father.
Well, friend, Catholics are paying attention which is why they are wondering out loud – for the benefit of those who would otherwise be misled – as to why a thinking Pope would be advocating so hard for what, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a magician’s diversion. A growing industry and convenient hamstring to those economies that have actually lifted a great many out of poverty unlike every other system that came before. Hmmmm. Makes a body wonder. Especially with the grave moral evils afoot today – the very same that are being, dare I say it, slowly ushered in by way of “Synod” gradualism. That and the regular shaming of Catholics who want to uphold Catholic teaching as being bad and closed minded.
Quoting JPII and BXVI “heavily” matters little. There was plenty amiss in those eras, too. Again, a gradualism wherein we now have a Holy Father who is saying one thing and doing another. Supposedly upholding the teachings of the Church, promoting “humility” while at the same time rather boldly dismissing the teachings of the Church as not that important, advocating for a bruised and broken Church that he would prefer, and extolling those like +Kasper Co. instead of correcting them.
So to say that he is rambling is charity, friend. Enjoy your green beans!
I share your concern with all that is wrong with the environmental movement, but it seems you’re purposely pretending to misunderstand because you just don’t like Francis and want to make him out to be some kind of wacko wild reformist. You’ve drunk the Kool-aid. He doesn’t say air conditioning is evil or bad. Seriously, I just still get the sense you haven’t read it. Speaking of rambling…you’re all over the place here. “Sketchy theology”? Hmm…do tell. And “plenty amiss” with JPII and BXVI? You’ve lost me. #airconditioningsaveslives
Ryan, use whatever excuse you’d like to avoid the reality that whether one ‘likes’ Francis or not is immaterial. One can really, really like their Dad but understand quite clearly when there is something amiss. One can really like their Dad and, as such, feel compelled to cover for him when it comes to correcting misguided and confusing statements that could otherwise misguide and confuse the kids in the house – not to mention the folks next door. Because liking Dad is helping Dad from doing irreparable damage in regards to his duty, not calling those who question the rational of such a bizarre encyclical Kool-Aid drinkers. That’s sophomoric when you think of it.
Seriously, I get the impression that you are merely sticking up for a rambling, out of touch encyclical (Speaking formally about ecology when Faith and Morals are in the dumper and ecology is not your area of authority. Look at the subject matter at the Synod. Look to the sea of refugees and the confused talk from the Vatican that Muslim ideology isn’t wholly opposed to the Catholic Faith. We can’t think or will that away, Ryan.) because you feel the need to protect Francis. My Pope right or wrong mentality. But, Ryan, that’s not the Catholic Faith. That’s being on a team. The Francis team.
And absolutely, there are aspects of JPII (Koran kissing, Assisi I, II, III, and other lovelies to include not minding the store with regard to those receiving promotions etc.) BXVI is/was not without his moments, too. Policy is really conveyed by means of who gets promoted, not what is said. We all hear a lot of things, but its the fruits, good and bad, that tell the tale.
So hashtag on. That’s not going to change the reality that this papacy has some serious issues. Time for a half time chat recommending a removal of the current PR team and subsequent hurrahs for +Kasper and crew are the order of the day.
Papal infallibility is strictly limited for good reason. It’s the protection of the Holy Ghost.
Ryan, when people earnestly desire NOT to take a point they deliberately or subconsciously fail to recognize hyperbole, a verbal tool used to make a point. You might look into it.
As for LS, frankly, it shows this papacy lacks the depth of prior pontificates. The reason for LS was not just a simple reminder of our charge to care for Creation. It was a tool in service to the foolishness of the climate change nuts, and that is all.
Ryan, the indisputable fact is that Pope Francis DOES ramble in a whole range of venues, whether you like it or not. He has demonstrated previously he is a terrible writer. There’s nothing you can do about that, but to come down on someone for stating uncontested truth is just wrong.
This is a unique problem for Catholics because we had no such condition with which to contend in the last two papacies. Observing that is not disrespect; it is pointing out obvious fact, and this fact undermines the pope’s communication effectiveness.
Now, you are correct that there is much good stuff in there but, as for the pope’s opinions in the political, economic, and scientific arenas, ALL Catholics are absolutely free to disregard those after considering them with due respect.. As I read LS it became apparent that his personal views in those spheres are fully in keeping with the progressive mindset and its agendas. I recognized his ideas in those areas sufficiently to decide that he clearly knows little of what he was talking about.
In fact, Pope Francis demonstrates nothing less than a knee-jerk allegiance to nonsense I’ve previously vetted over the years. There was no need to re-consider; it’s obvious he’s been completely fooled like so many thoughtless rank and file liberals. His papal office cannot confer validity to the same false and discredited claims he espoused right out of the progressive playbook.
I suspect most people disregarded LS because of those factors; the stuff the pope wrote which is good is not new. Those things are not in keeping with long-term Church teaching. It is welcome but was lost in the Left-wing BS which alienated so many good people. The press and the culture at large heard nothing about it; they promoted the pope’s progressive views as if they are binding which, fortunately, they are not.
Well, I am late to this discussion, but I have already written about the authoritative character of Laudato Si here: https://scottericalt.org/laudato-si-is-a-hard-teaching-and-we-must-accept-it/
I would look in particular at #3 in the post, since that addresses in particular the part about climate change and its relation to the whole encyclical.
I come to conflict with you, Scott, in your assertion of authentic magisterium. For whereas an encyclical is the chosen vehicle for authentic teaching, the use of said vehicle cannot be said to be binding when said vehicle is attempting to transport contraband goods – that is, opinions and assertions that go beyond the scope of Catholic faith and morals. (Much like putting on papal garb doesn’t give one’s pronouncements greater weight. The clothes do not make the man. This is why we’ve received scriptural admonishment to judge by fruits and to be wary of those preaching a different gospel and the blind leading the blind.)
IOW: “Authentic” magisterium refers to the content of what is taught, not the vehicle by which it is delivered, friend. I would say it is a good try, but this technique of making official pronouncements about what is not authentically qualified to be binding is an old trick. (HV taught ‘authentic’ magisterium. LS ventures outward into opinion, a decidedly favored opinion that makes itself a handy tool in those who are vehemently opposed to Catholic faith and morals.)
As to, “But what you are not free to do is simply disregard the whole moral context of the discussion and say: “Piss on that.””
Nobody is saying just piss on that, Scott, although that paints the opposition as rather the evil seed. And that’s you point, no? But even if that is your point, the reality is we can pose morality questions to all manner of hypotheticals and suppose what, via papal encyclical, we must do morally should aliens land. The thought being that Catholics are bound to stall out in moralizing over the hypothetical.
While that may be well in good for dinner conversation, there is a specific job that is being ignored when one opts to bind/not bind one to a time wasting conversation about hypothetical situations when real life situations are hammering at the door. Like what to do with anti-Christ flooding in from an forgotten basement?
What you seem to be about in your article is binding Catholics to the moral necessity of having a conversation that will keep them distracted from the real threats to Catholic faith and morals. As if we all must remain at table until Daddy formally excuses us, even though the rapists have not only parked outside on the driveway, but have broken down the front door.
Daddy says we must remain at table. Um, sorry, Scott, but Catholics are bound to more than a false manifestation of obedience to keep them silent and dumb. That is why saints of old indicated they were more afraid of bad Catholics than outside threat. For bad Catholics are the one’s who allow the enemy in, they welcome him, they introduce him to the young and pretend that he is everyone’s friend.
So the rejection of LS is based on, the Pope is wrong and the science is debated. The piss on that you’re detecting is piss on the false obedience argument that those who would have us glob onto climate change based solely on Daddy says so. In other words, Catholics have had enough of that which is false pushed forward in the pope mobile. Enough.
QED. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
QED to be sure, Scott.
Mine was a post. You devoted an entire article which attempted to make binding something which clearly is not while painting your position as one of superior fidelity. You may be frightened by the specter of materialism, but don’t let your own guilt cloud the realities of the circumstances of others. One can be living in poor circumstances and still oppose LS.
It would appear your ‘me’think meter is fixed on your own deficiencies.
Methinks you’ve just been schooled.
He did the very thing he insisted no one does: say piss on that.
Either you still don’t get it, or you’re being willfully obtuse to save face. Out of Christian charity, we’ll assume it’s the former. In that case, you might want to take your own advice about who is qualified to blog on the faith.
there have only been two (2) “ex cathedra” teachings ever declared by a Pope and the Church and both of them regard the Blessed Virgin Mary.
This is technically correct, although there have been a few others that are most likely infallible such as JPII’s statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: ” I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Also the doctrine defined ‘ex cathedra’ must be a doctrine that ALREADY is part of Church Tradition: the Pope cannot
“invent” new teachings.
I mostly like the Red Sox joke. This helped me a ton other wise.
the climate changes, always has, always will. can such changes be catastrophic, perhaps. is human activity the primary cause of the climate changing, very doubtful since the climate changed before mankind’s presence on earth.
on the other hand, human activity can make the environment inhospitable. examples could be acid rain and the demolition of rain forests.
I am unfamiliar with any instances where the Holy Father prescribed to the concept of anthropologic global warming.
No matter how much you tell people that people infallibility does not mean the Pope is not sinless they don’t want to listen