Infallible list of infallible teachings?
In a previous incarnation of my website I had posted a list of all the infallible teachings of the Church. This list was compiled by a professor who went through Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” and gleaned all the doctrines that were marked “de fide.” The reason I did this was because I had been in a debate with a Protestant who asked me “Is there an infallible list of infallible teachings?” His implication was that if there is not such a list, then you can’t really know what is infallibly taught and what is not.
The short answer to his question is: no, there is not actually such a list, at least not officially. Nowhere in the deep recesses of the Vatican archives is there a musty parchment which details exactly which doctrines are infallibly taught and which are not. The list from Ott’s book is useful, but it is actually Ott’s interpretation of what is de fide, and not binding on Catholics.
However, I don’t believe that this lack of an infallible list is a problem, because I believe the presuppositions behind the question itself are faulty.
First, the question betrays a materialistic mindset. With the advent of sola scriptura and the invention of the printing press, many Christians view the written word as the only infallible means of communicating God’s revelation. The spoken word, which was supreme in ancient cultures but has fallen out of favor in modern times, is not considered a reliable method of conveying information. If something cannot be seen and touched, it cannot be trusted. Thus, passing on a belief by oral tradition is considered messy and unreliable, but passing it on via the written word is safe and reliable. If there is no written list of infallible teachings, the thinking therefore goes, how can anyone know what is infallibly taught?
Second, this question reduces the Christian religion to a list of intellectual concepts to be accepted, not a faith to be lived. The primary means of passing on the Faith through the centuries has been the praying life of the Church, primarily the liturgy, not catechism classes or reading assignments. The Assumption of Mary, for example, was not infallibly declared until 1950, but it was liturgically celebrated since at least the 5th century. We know what the Church teaches by living it, not simply learning it.
Third, this question creates a false dichotomy between infallible doctrines and other authoritative teachings. Implicit in the question is the assumption that one must only believe the infallible teachings and is free to reject all other common teachings of the Church. However, this is a legalistic way of looking at our Mother the Church. What loving child calculates which minimum set of directives from his mother he must follow to be in her good graces? Rather, does he not want to embrace all that his mother teaches him? As he matures, he may come to different conclusions over smaller matters, but this is always done with great respect for his mother’s views.
Finally, the one who demands an infallible list doesn’t understand the purpose of having infallible teachings in the first place. The Church does not define beliefs infallibly so that Christians may be burdened with a checklist of things they must accept in order to be saved. The Church instead defines beliefs infallibly so that we might be enabled to know and love God more fully. Typically the Church will only define something infallibly if it finds that the rejection of such belief endangers the souls of those in its flock. It is usually a defensive measure. For example, when the Church defined the doctrine of the Trinity – that God is three persons in one nature – it did so because opposing beliefs, such as that of the Arians, were endangering countless souls. If the belief that Christ was but a creature prevailed, the consequences would have been staggering. The Church realized that this debate had to be settled definitively and therefore declared authoritatively the doctrine of the Trinity. Never again was the Church tempted to deny the divinity of Christ, because the teaching on the Trinity became an integral part of the life of the Church.
All the above is not to say that having knowledge of which teachings are infallible is unimportant. Quite the contrary; at times, especially when debating finer points of theology, it can be vital. And typically this is quite easy to determine. But in the day-to-day life of the average Catholic, having a list of infallible teachings readily available is unnecessary. As I stated earlier, the purpose of infallible teachings is to help souls draw closer to Christ. And it is by simply following the Church – through the teachings of her living magisterium and by the reception of her sacraments – that we are best able to do this. When we die, we will not be given an examination asking us to list official Church teaching, but will instead be given an examination of conscience: did we, through the grace given to us through faith in Christ, love God and love others?
My apologies, but I’m going to argue with you here. I don’t intend to be obnoxious, but if that is nevertheless result feel free to ignore/delete the comment as you see fit.
It seems to me that you’re not giving the question a fair answer, because you’re failing to address the perspective from which it is being asked. For a practicing Catholic, relative to his ongoing practice of the faith, you are right in saying that this isn’t a very important question. The teaching of the Church binds in conscience whether it’s infallibly pronounced or not.
However, it is possible (even for a Catholic) to ask the question “from the outside looking in” – as a way of assessing the claims the Church makes about herself. At a minimum, it seems to make perfectly good sense to want to determine, as much as possible, whether the Church has ever contradicted, or been forced to recant, any “infallible” teaching. When there is no “list” as such, then the Catholic apologist is always free to explain away any inconvenient rejected teaching by simply stipulating that it wasn’t infallible (or more subtly, that the words used by, say, the Council of Trent are indeed infallible, but the interpretation of those words is not and therefore subject to change). And this is in fact more or less exactly what happens, rightly or wrongly, whenever a “contradiction” is raised.
In substance, this is a problem for Catholicism not unlike the Protestant problem of stating that the scriptures are the only infallible authority without being able infallibly to state which books are in the canon. I’m not saying it’s a critical or insoluble problem, but it deserves a fairer hearing.
I think the above responds to your second and third points. Regarding the others:
1). In re: The accusation of “materialism” – You can’t honestly be denying that the written word is, in fact, more reliable than the spoken, particularly over a long time span. It seems to me patently obvious – if not, why bother having scriptures at all? Why wasn’t the content of the faith simply passed down orally for all 2000 years of the Church’s history. (And I have to point out that calling it the “advent of sola scriptura” is question-begging).
2). In re: your fourth point on the purpose of infallible teaching. This is very well put as far as it goes, but it leaves gaps. Is a belief in the bodily assumption of the Blessed Mother necessary, in any sense of the word, for salvation? I find such a suggestion very difficult to sustain.
Make of all that what you will.
Dean
Dean,
Good points made (and not obnoxious at all). I’ll try to address some of them here.
I understand the desire of many on the “outside” to see a list from which they can determine whether doctrines have been contracted or not – I’ve had the desire as well. However, having such a list would not resolve that issue, as we are talking about doctrines which all beg for ongoing interpretation. Excepting doctrines that declare the truth of historical events (such as the Assumption), you always have the possibility of varying interpretations of even a defined doctrine. So even if you have a “list,” apologists on both sides could still defend their positions the same as they do today. This is why you need a living Church, not dead documents or fixed lists, which guide the faithful in the practice of the Faith.
Regarding the superiority of the written word, I do not deny that it is potentially more reliable than the oral word (although it clearly is not perfect at passing on information and can be as unreliable as the oral word). However, I do not think writings are necessary for passing on the Christian Faith. After all, there were no authoritative Christian writings for decades after Christ and no defined canon for centuries. Christ didn’t tell his apostles to write all he taught them – he told them to “proclaim” it. Yes, this includes writings, but writings are not necessary for this transmission – and I would argue that writings are not even the primary means of transmitting the faith – the liturgy is. Thank God that in His mercy He has given us inspired writings. But He did not have to do this to transmit the faith from age to age.
Dean asked the question if belief in the assumption of the Blessed Mother was necessary for salvation.
I would suggest that it is since salvation comes through membership in the Catholic Church (I’m not a Feeneyite; I’m allowing for a broad definition of Catholic Church) and being a member means believing all that she proposes as true. Anything less would be to fall into material heresy if not formal heresy.
As regards the necessity of Scripture, I think I understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure I would express it quite like that. I think Scripture is necessary for transmission of divine revelation but clearly the faith can be passed on through oral catechesis. This strikes me as one of those tricky areas where one has to be extremely careful in a choice of words. The same probably applies to my first comment also.
Good point about what is “necessary” to believe, John.
Like I mentioned in my original post, I don’t think God has a checklist to make sure we subscribe to all the proper beliefs. Instead, He looks at our underlying attitude. If we believe the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and we believe that the Holy Spirit guides it to all truth and protects it from error, then if it teaches something authoritatively and we reject it, then we are, in a very real sense, rejecting Christ himself, which of course puts our salvation in serious jeopardy.
John,
What you say about the Assumption is perfectly true, but it’s coming at the problem from a different direction.
What Eric was saying (I think) was that the Church does not make infallible pronouncements on matters unless she sees that the “rejection of such belief endangers the souls” of those in her care. I don’t think this characterization holds for the doctrine of the Assumption, for a couple of different reasons.
Now, once the Church has already pronounced it infallibly (de fide<) your point absolutely holds. But to some extent that’s a different kind of question.
I understand what you are saying, Dean, but I don’t think we can say that rejection of the doctrine of the Assumption does not endanger our souls. I would agree that it is difficult to understand how this is so from a natural or rational perspective.
The problem I have is exactly what Eric said this morning about rejecting Jesus. Truth is a unity because Truth is not a something; Truth is a Somebody and his name is Jesus Christ. (*)
I’m not sure if the original characterization of the reason for infallible pronouncements is accurate and that might be part of the problem here. It’s unclear what “infallible pronouncement” means which is how we got started in the first place. Is this “ex cathedra” statements? Conciliar documents? Ordinary magisterium?
It’s very diffficult to make the kinds of assessment that led to this whole thread because there are many examples of teachings that, due to historical conditioning of language, appear to contradict one another but do not when properly understood. Mysterium Ecclesiae addresses this problem particularly in section 5.
*Bonus points for recognizing the origin of that line about Truth.