Can anyone think of a few examples of teachings that are NOT infallibly taught to the faithful, but that we are still required to assent to by what Vatican II calls “religious assent” of the will and intellect? (Please do not use the prohibition against contraception…I believe this is infallible because it is unanimously taught by the bishops worldwide and has been so since the beginning.)
I am curious as to why people want to know which teachings are infallible and which non-infallible. It makes no difference as we are bound by both.
In both cases rejecting one or more teachings is a sin of grave matter but in the case of infallible teachings it is additionally heresy.
I’m not a scholar or anything, but I think that some of the doctrinal development of Vatican II falls into this category, no?
I don’t think that all validly ordained bishops agree to the restrictions against contraception. For example, AFAIK, some Eastern Orthodox bishops may allow it under certain narrow conditions, such as if the married couple already has four or five children, they are financially strapped, and they have discussed their situation with their confessor, and their confessor has given them permission.
- that’s outside the Roman Catholic magisterium, so not really a consideration
- my impression was that they were not nearly so narrow, but I may have been mistaken
If we’re bound by both, why define anything infallibly?
So I gather no one can identify such a teaching, that is, a teaching that require assent of the will and intellect? Every time I ask this question, no one can ever answer it.
Teachings are only infallible where it states the truths of the faith that have been previously defined in Ecumenical Councils or infallible decrees of the Roman Pontiff.
Infallibility is not a concept that applies to a teaching document. It is however, authoritative in its entirety. The Magisterium consists of several “organs” of infallibility whereas pastoral teaching level does not.
I am not sure but I would like to consider Catechism 841 with regards to Muslims as one.
I thought that Eastern Orthodox bishops were validly ordained and that the Eastern Orthodox faithful were allowed, according to Roman Catholic rules, to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic church. (However, generally, the Eastern Orthodox do not allow their faithful to do so).
I’m with you on that.
I asked a similar question once and felt pretty attacked by some of the answers. I wanted to know if attending confirmation class was a “have to” these days and why. It seems to me that that’s not a matter of some infallible teaching but a custom . Why would it be just as binding? I know, not the topic.
Back to your post, I also have asked about that and was referred to the CCC but it’s the content there I was questioning. Is that not ok to ask?
This is an interesting question, and one that has confused me to come degree. For example, there doesn’t seem to be a specific list of which encyclicals are listed as infallibly written. Clearly Popes write and speak publically, and not everything they say or write is ex cathedra. I was not under the impression that we are bound by anything not specifically listed as dogma. I would be very interested to know of even one. And, I was also not aware that the ban against contraception wasn’t dogma. Can you site that anywhere? Since the Pope can’t change that, I was always under the impression it was an infallible teaching. If it’s not infallible it could be changed, but we know it cannot.
“Only men may be ordained to the diaconate”.
“Generally, only unmarried men may be ordained to the priesthood.in the Roman Rite.”
“You must do some form of penance every Friday.”
“Before remarrying in the church, a divorced Catholic must receive a decree of nullity”
How many would you like?
All of these are teachings of the Church, none of them is infallible, each of them is possibly subject to change.
Those are good examples. In my mind I was separating infallible teachings from ones that can change, that are disciplines. So disciplines are on the level of infallible?
So it is possible to change the rule against divorce and remarriage?
That cannot be changed. Civil divorce is permitted. After a divorce an annulment would have to be obtained otherwise the divorced parties are not free to marry.
Remarry is a bit misleading as an annulment declares the first union was not a valid marriage so a divorced person who obtains an annulment would be free to marry and not remarry.
That is not what I said. I referred specifically to a “decree of nullity”. That is simply the “process” that we are now required to follow. The process can change.
Here’s what you said:
How could that be changed?
If “permission” can be given or refused for an act (a matter of morality, not of discipline) according to circumstances, then the rightness or wrongness of the action contemplated would seem to be a matter of prudential judgement, and what is being given is actually an opinion about the circumstances, nothing more. Contraception however is taught as an intrinsically evil act (like calumny) - meaning it’s always wrong.
Not sure if there were a few cases where it was approved for nuns to use the pill. In any case, not all validly ordained bishops agree.