www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ordinary magisterium Papal documents

Are there any examples of any teachings or points of view in papal documents that do not fall under the ordinary magisterium and are therefore fallible? I ask this because while it seems to be the majority opinion that only two papal decrees are infallible according to the teaching of Vatican I, it is also the case that Catholic theology teaches that the ordinary magisterium is infallible. And I have heard that basically everything that the Pope teaches, if it is not explcitly ex cathedra it is still infallible as part of the ordinary magisterium. Doesn't this mean that there are no (and have never been) any errors in any papal encyclicals? Can someone find something taught in a papal encyclical or bull that is now regarded as erroneous, or anything taught as binding that is now regarding as not binding? I've also heard that everything published by the CDF, since it is an arm of the Pope, is infallible as well, since all that it teaches is the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Joe

Joe:

I was taught in my moral theology course that a teaching of the ordinary magisterium is non-infallible, unless is of the level of "universal ordinary magisterium," which means that is taught by the Pope and all the bishops. Papal encyclicals, papal bulls, and curial documents, are considered to be non-infallible, according to my teacher of moral theology. In going over the levels of magisterial authority, she did say that systematic theologians might disagree with how she laid things out, but that in moral theology, it is generally believed that ecumenical councils, ex cathedra statements of the Pope, and the universal ordinary magisterium are all infallible, while everything else is non-infallible.

Ryan

Ryan,

I think that is about right.

The Church teaches as part of her mission. Some things have been taught from time immemorial (the fact that abortion is a "sin that cries out to God" being one), and they comprise the "universal ordinary magisterium". At times, because of opposition to what the Church teaches from within (usually) there is an extraordinary event (such as a council) which determines the matter, and that becomes an act of the "extraordinary magisterium".

In the Roman Catholic Church, the "Magisterium" is just the "living" authentic teaching of the Church, meaning that the expression is as "contemporary" as the language of the times. Authentic refers to the fact that it is in concord with all that the teaching has been in the past, etc.

"Encyclical" is short for "encyclical letter" and is nothing more than a vehicle the Pope can use (other bishops can issue them also, but then they address that bishop's particular church) to make his view known to whomever he is addressing. As such, they probably don't go back to later than the mid-18th C. Especially since Pope Leo XIII, the Popes have used that vehicle in an effort to "get the message out" to as many people as possible. Before then, the Popes were not facing as much universal doctrinal denial on the part of the "thinking classes" and usually "decided" matters and approved or disapproved of the work product of counsels.

Encyclicals dealing with the "social doctrine of the Church" often contain "opinionable" matters (because they involve at times prudential judgements that themselves involve inherently changing circumstances). Those are obviously not infallible, though worthy of respect certainly.

It isn't the "vehicle" that entails infallibility; that depends on the nature of the teaching itself. That the Church does not see itself authorized by Christ to ordain women is such a doctrine. The CDF opined that Pope John Paul had made a infallible definition (even though he did not use the word "infallible") because he solemnly declared that it was to be "definitively held" by Catholics in perpetuity.

Michael

Joe,

You might want to look into Ad Tuendam Fidem and the accompanying cover letter by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is a motu proprio by JPII discussing the nature of ordinary magisterium--that it is reformable, not infallible, but that it ought to be received by the faithful with obsequium religiosum--religious submission of the will. The cover letter listed some examples of papal judgments that fall in this category including Apostolicae Curae which negated the validity of Anglican Orders.

It's never been clear to me how Quanta Cura would not have to be considered part of the universal ordinary magisterium (and therefore infallible), but the whole subject of what criteria exactly makes things fit in to that category seems rather arbitrary to me.

AMM,

As clarification, ordinary universal magisterium is non infallible teaching. It is reformable. However, it still requires religious submission of the will. Obsequium religiosum. It does happen that later teachings supercede earlier teachings. An example is Pascendi being largely succeeded by Dei Verbum on the permissibility of the historical critical method in the study of scripture.

Father, my understanding is that the the ordinary universal magisterium does in fact compose part of the infallible teaching off the RCC (as distinct from the ordinary magisterium which is confusing). I found an article on the Columbia.edu site which says


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

So anywhow, Quanta Cura seems to me to have the criteria that would put it in to the OUM (I'm sure Pius IX had no doubts about it). Though as I side, the criteria indeed seems rather fuzzy to me. That is what I think is at the heart of some of the is it infallible/is it not infallible discussions I've seen.

The reversals of things like Quanta Cura and Pascendi, which at a minimum required at one time religious submission of the will, simply make no sense to me whatsoever.

The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium -- according to Roman Catholic doctrine -- is infallible. The difference between the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that the former teaches infallibly through what are called "defining acts," while the latter teaches infallibly through "non-defining acts" (see the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei [ewtn.com] , no. 9).

Religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to teachings that are proposed by the Authentic Magisterium (see the third paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei [ewtn.com], and the CDF Doctrinal Commentary [ewtn.com], no. 10).

Those interested in this topic may want to peruse a paper that I wrote while I was working on my MA degree at Franciscan University; at the time -- of course -- I was still under the sway of Latin theology:

The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gent...f the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium [geocities.com]

Thanks, Andrew, for the Columbia article reference. Over the years I have seen various accounts of these distinctions. I do wish we had a simple authoritative account of these distinctions. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter released with Ad Tuendam Fidem is still fairly opaque to my reading.

One question arises for me. How it is established that there is universal agreement or virtual universal agreement among the world's bishops other than a vote taken at a general council? There are well known cases of polling the episcopate for the two ex cathedra teachings. But, I am not aware of other cases of such polling.

While I fully ascent to Humanae Vitae, I would be surprised if there was near universal accord among the church's episcopate at the time of its release, or perhaps 10 years after its release. Most bishops simple avoid the topic, at least in the US, even today almost 30 since the first assignments of JPII.

Not everything that a pope teaches can be infallible--or else ex cathedra would not be necessary as a special class of teaching.

Fr. Steele,

Regarding Humanae vitae, the Catholic Church's teaching about use of the marriage act had always been what HV teaches (a case of universal ordinary magisterium), but included many other things as well. The question was whether artificial means of birth control were covered under that teaching. The answer was yes. "Universal" applies to both time and space.

As I understand it, the "ordinary magisterium" is nothing more than the Church, through those in Holy Orders, and very secondarily through others cooperating with them, exercising the power of teaching the Gospel of Christ (evangelization, catechesis, etc.). Since people are using "best efforts" to teach these truths, infallibility cannot be ascribed to every such expression. Yet we hope the teachers are not tring to deceive us, and such efforts are seconded by the Holy Spirit. That is why they deserve "religious assent" of mind.

One example of this might be an encyclical of the Pope where he preaches on the Mystery of the Eucharist, among other things. We would not expect to hear every last detail of all the dogmas that relate to the Eucharist explained again in all their details. That would not imply that the Pope was being "heretical", either.

The "extraordinary magisterium" requires an "event" of some sort, by which the effort is made to discern with deliberation as exactly as possible (or necessary) the appropriate teaching about something. The Holy Spirit assists to ensure that they be as accurate as necessary, without any garantee that the entirety of the truth is enunciated. Thus, while such dogmas are true for all times, additional ideas that do not contradict these statements may continue to be taught, and might even be added as dogma in the future.

An example of this: the first 2 Councils, where Christ's Divinity and that of the Holy Spirit are taught and clarified. And yet other Councils were needed to clarify and define the nature and relation of the 2 natures and 1 person in Christ.

Best,
Michael

Father, the UOM seems incredibly vague to me as a construct, and of course short of an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra statement (which there aren�t a whole lot of) it seems inevitable that there will be confusion and speculation. When you asked before where the centralized teachings of the Orthodox Church are, maybe that is something to keep in mind. There might be more overlap between the two sides in this respect than one might initially suppose.


I�m fairly certain there is not among the episcopate, and that of course says nothing of the laity. I would assume it would require submission of the will, but of course so did Quanta Cura for instance.

Thank you folks for continuing this discussion. I'm reading and trying to absorb what I can so I can better understand these things.

Joe

Make that one--the Proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, in INEFFABILIS DEUS (1854), happened before the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility in 1870.