vid

I commonly find claim that 1st Vatican Council established that canons of ecumenical councils concerned with questions of faith or morals are infallible. I am interested in exploring infallibility of Church in context of this council (eg. without subsequent updates to doctrine).

What I found so far:

So the source I am interested in should be "Dei Filius, chapter 3". It can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html

Closest to what I am looking for in chapter 3 seems to be this:

If I understand this, following is to be belived "with divine and Catholic faith":
- Word of God, written or handed down
- everything proposed for belief as divinely revealed by ordinary or universal magisterium" (terms not really clear to me) of Church
- everything proposed for belief as divinely revealed by solemn judgement of Church

Now, supposing I got it right, I still need few things explained:

1. Saying something "is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith" means it is infallible?

2. How does one tell what is "solemn judgement" of Church?

3. What is "ordinal and universal magisterium"? Explanation should be this, but according to that link, only "universal magisterium" is infallible, whereas the Dei Filius 3 says both ordinal and universal magisterium are to be treated equally. Wiki comments on this, but doesn't explain reason of the difference. Was this some later change, or what?

4. How does one find out which things said by "universal or ordinary magisterium" or "solemng judgement of Church" are "proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed"? Is there some phrase to distinguish what was "divinely revealed" and what wasn't, or is everything said by these organs automatically treated as divinely revealed, or ... ?

PS: I am definitively not interested in philosophical discussion infallibility as such, or nature of Church and its documents, etc.

andrewcriddle

For an accurate reliable answer you would need a canon lawyer.

However the basic point made by the sources you quote is the distinction between a/ doctrines solemnly and formally taught by a council regarded as ecumenical, (and clearly and explicitly ex cathedra statements by popes), and b/ the broader issue of doctrines held so widely and for so long that they cannot be legitimately called into question.

Both a/ and b/ are regarded by Roman Catholics as infallible. However it is much more difficult to ascertain the contents of b/ (truths taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium) than of a/ (truths taught by the extraordinary magisterium eg by solemn definition of an ecumenical council).

Truths taught by the extraordinary magisterium can it principle be identified by reading the proceedings of all the ecumenical councils and all the papal statements claimed to be ex cathedra and trying to determine what exactly is being solemnly and explicitly taught.

There is much more room for legitimate disagreement as to the truths taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For example Vatican 1 solemnly and explicitly taught that the pope is in a rather limited sense infallible, hence this is something taught infallibly by the extraordinary magisterium, and it cannot legitimately be taught by a Roman Catholic that papal infallibility is simply false. However there is entirely legitimate debate as to whether or not the position that women cannot be ordained priests is or is not an infallible teaching. It is not something taught infallibly by the extraordinary magisterium, and it is unclear whether the general long term acceptance of the position that only men can be priests makes it something taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Andrew Criddle

vid

So, if there is some particular canon from particular ecumenical council (which is extraordinary magisterium), how does one tell whether this canon is taught "solemnly and explicitly", eg. whether it is taught infallibly?

Also, I noticed this formulation in Dei Filius does not make difference between ordinary magisterium and extraordinary magisterium, whereas todays interpretation does (saying that only extraordinary magisterium can teach infallibly). Was this changed after Vatican 1, or am I misreading something?

Splarnst

What's RKC? Do you mean RCC?

vid

Yes, thanks for noticing. (RKC is RCC in my native language)

andrewcriddle

You really need an expert for this, but a good rule of thumb is a/ that there is a penalty attached to refusal to believe the canon or other indications of the importance of the issue, b/ we are not dealing with obiter dicta things said, in passing, in the course of explaining the decision, but with the core of the decree itself.
I think you are maybe misreading. From your link The ordinary magisterium is in general fallible. The ordinary magisterium becomes infallible when it is universal (held by all bishops etc). It is then both ordinary and universal.

Andrew Criddle

vid

Vast majority of canons of ecumenical councils that I have read were more practical church rules that can only be obeyed, not 'believed' as you say. Such as "nun can't marry", etc. These are not considered "solemn and explicit"?

Yes I probably was, your explanation seems to make sense.

andrewcriddle

In general, disciplinary rules etc are definitely not infallible.

Andrew Criddle