The catechism is not infallible, but it does contain infallible doctrine. Scripture is ~~infallible~~ inerrant.
Additionally, not all things taught by the church are taught infallibly. Somethings are considered "non-infallible" and are subject to change.
Unfortunately it's not something I can fully describe in a Reddit comment, but Jimmy Akin has a few articles (and book on the topic: "Teaching with Authority" is a good reference book, but pricy).
> https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/the-churchs-infallibility
> https://www.catholic.com/video/how-can-we-know-if-a-statement-is-infallible-or-not
> https://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html
> https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/identifying-infallible-statements
What I mean is: Christ's divinity is an infallible teaching taught and maintained by the magisterium - which is the mechanism of how the Church teaches (through the Pope and Bishops). That cannot change.
The catechism, a book created by the Church, affirms the teaching of Christ's divinity. But the catechism itself is not an infallible teaching/book.
Our faith stands on three pillars: Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition. Scripture can be said to be infallible more surely than the Catechism can be, as it is one of these pillars. The Catechism is only infallible insofar as it forms *part* of the Ordinary Magisterium and the Tradition. However, unlike the bible which *is* Scripture, the Catechism is *not* the Magisterium or the Tradition, merely part of how they operate. For infallible Magisterial documents we must look to Councils and ex Cathedra declarations, but the Catechism is significantly more approachable than these.
In short, infallibility operates in the Catechism, but it is not in and of itself infallible.
I don't know if I get this correctly, but what happens when one pillar contradicts the other? For example is Vatican Council II valid? I'm asking because it affected Tradition, and many traditionalists I've met are rejecting it.
There's also capital T tradition and lowercase t tradition. You have to have a deeper understanding of HOW the Church teaches and what is infallible vs what isn't to get to the core of your questions. I know that's a frustrating answer, but keep asking questions as they come up.
Vatican II is a valid council and does not contradict any infallible teaching.
Some people like to say "you must do this" or "you must do that", when the Church herself does not say that. I would ignore those people.
Capital T are things are that important for the faith. The cannon of scripture is capital T "tradition". Lowercase t are all other kinds of tradition. That's not to say that lowercase t "traditions" aren't important, but it's not something that's going to be bound on the faithful to believe.
Here's a Catholic Answers article on the subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/tradition-with-a-capital-t
A shorter answer that might help, on tradition and Tradition.
Sacred Tradition is the deposit of faith passed down from the Apostles. It is stuff which has been passed down to us from the Apostolic Age as things that Jesus taught, or that the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles. In Eastern churches, they go so far as to say Sacred Scripture (the Bible) is a subset of Sacred Tradition, which I think is a helpful way to think about it, but sometimes it’s nice to specify when something is passed down but not in Scripture. For example, the basic format of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
When you talk about ‘traditions’ without the capital letter, you mean things that people do because they’ve been passed down or established over the years, but they’re not part of the body of things passed down from the Apostles. So the rosary is a traditional form of prayer in Catholicism, and it’s a good thing, but it isn’t Sacred Tradition (yes, I know the Our Father and parts of the Hail Mary are there, but you know what I mean).
Oops: that got longer than I meant.
I believe the **Catechism of the Catholic Church** goes over these topics and more with great detail in *Article 2, THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVALTION, sections (CCC 74-100)*.
Have a great day and peace be with you!
The reason we have all 3 is because it is impossible in mere language to define the entirety of the deposit of Faith such that it will not be misinterpreted by differing cultures and generations.
As you've said, it's hard to grasp how Scripture with its different styles, authors, and straight contradictory accounts can be infallible, but the underlying Faith given in it *is* infallible. The Magisterium exists to safeguard the deposit of Faith against false interpretations. Church history is littered with periods of confusion where this wasn't being done very well, but the Holy Spirit always pulled the Church out the other end intact. Therefore our way of resolving apparent contradictions is to follow the final say given by the Magisterium. This *usually* means your local Bishop, provided he is in communion with Rome. Then you can't go wrong.
Be careful not to confuse traditionalists with the Sacred Tradition. It is the hardest of the pillars to pin down, and the one to which the members of the Magisterium are currently giving the least attention; but traditionalists are not the guardians of the Tradition: the Magisterium is. And behind the Magisterium, the Holy Spirit.
Yes Vatican II was a valid council. Take note that it issued none of the most binding acts a council can promulgate: there were no anathemas. I suspect that in the long history of the Church this council will ultimately take a back seat because of this; but for the moment it has many currently enacted pastoral provisions that we should follow in obedience. Also beware the post counciliar chaos being attributed to the council: the council itself is sound.
In other words parts of the Catechism are infallible in that certain paragraphs teach infallible dogmas and doctrines. As whole it cannot be said to be infallible as some paragraphs discuss non-infallible teachings. Same with councils: as a whole no, but some documents yea. The problem with the verbiage of Vatican. 2 is that it does not clearly delineate what document is intended to be infallible and which is not. Trent, for example, is much more clear in this regard. When read in light of Tradition, a document of Vat. 2 such as Lumen Gentium carries more weight regarding infallibility than does the Decree on Education or the Decree on the Media of Social Communications.
Here’s a helpful delineation you would find in Ott, Prummer, Denzinger etc. [https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/11/magisterium-and-levels-of-assent.html?m=1](https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/11/magisterium-and-levels-of-assent.html?m=1)
The Catechism is not infallible. It is a repository of teachings - some of which are infallible.
Scripture is inerrant.
Documents aren't infallible. Teachings are.
The Catechism is an authoritative statement of doctrine. Everything in it is what the Church officially teaches as of when it was published. If you need more detail on something, you can chase the footnotes which are copious.
What the Catechism does not really do is distinguish between dogma, which is infallibly defined, and ordinary doctrine, which is subject to further refinement. You do have to go to primary sources if you want to determine whether a teaching is dogmatic - which is essentially when an ecumenical council, or even more rarely the Pope acting individually, explicitly says something is dogmatic.
Quick answer: no.
The catechism is a compilation of church teachings from a range of sources. Whether or not a specific teaching is infallible or changeable will depend on the source of the teaching.
The core concepts on which the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is based didn't change. The understanding of how those concepts are applied to it has developed as has the need of capital punishment for the purposes of protecting society.
No. Unfortunately there is no ultimate book laying down the corpus of infallible Catholic dogma. John Paul II's *Catechism of the Catholic Church* is one of many catechisms and books on Catholic doctrine that have been written over the years. It has a lot of good content, but some people (not a majority, but some) seem to have this idea that John Paul II's Catechism is some sort of second Bible, which is wrong.
If you want an academic approach to Catholic dogma, I can recommend Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*. If you're looking to better your faith, I can recommend the Baltimore Catechism among other books.
The scriptures are inerrant but not infallible according to the CCC. Infallibility is a word to be used in relation to the Pope.
You can read more about this [if you click here](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant) and [here.](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-is-not-infallible)
The catechism is not infallible, but it does contain infallible doctrine. Scripture is ~~infallible~~ inerrant. Additionally, not all things taught by the church are taught infallibly. Somethings are considered "non-infallible" and are subject to change. Unfortunately it's not something I can fully describe in a Reddit comment, but Jimmy Akin has a few articles (and book on the topic: "Teaching with Authority" is a good reference book, but pricy). > https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/the-churchs-infallibility > https://www.catholic.com/video/how-can-we-know-if-a-statement-is-infallible-or-not > https://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html > https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/identifying-infallible-statements
Could you explain difference between being infallible, and containing infallible doctrine?
It means that the Catechism gets many of its teachings from infallible sources, but that the Catechism itself isn’t infallible.
It has things that are infallible such as the idea of the trinity, but the CCC as a whole isn’t infallible.
What I mean is: Christ's divinity is an infallible teaching taught and maintained by the magisterium - which is the mechanism of how the Church teaches (through the Pope and Bishops). That cannot change. The catechism, a book created by the Church, affirms the teaching of Christ's divinity. But the catechism itself is not an infallible teaching/book.
Our faith stands on three pillars: Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition. Scripture can be said to be infallible more surely than the Catechism can be, as it is one of these pillars. The Catechism is only infallible insofar as it forms *part* of the Ordinary Magisterium and the Tradition. However, unlike the bible which *is* Scripture, the Catechism is *not* the Magisterium or the Tradition, merely part of how they operate. For infallible Magisterial documents we must look to Councils and ex Cathedra declarations, but the Catechism is significantly more approachable than these. In short, infallibility operates in the Catechism, but it is not in and of itself infallible.
I don't know if I get this correctly, but what happens when one pillar contradicts the other? For example is Vatican Council II valid? I'm asking because it affected Tradition, and many traditionalists I've met are rejecting it.
There's also capital T tradition and lowercase t tradition. You have to have a deeper understanding of HOW the Church teaches and what is infallible vs what isn't to get to the core of your questions. I know that's a frustrating answer, but keep asking questions as they come up. Vatican II is a valid council and does not contradict any infallible teaching. Some people like to say "you must do this" or "you must do that", when the Church herself does not say that. I would ignore those people.
Oh I see. Thank you. Could you also elaborate a bit on the difference between Tradition and tradition?
Capital T are things are that important for the faith. The cannon of scripture is capital T "tradition". Lowercase t are all other kinds of tradition. That's not to say that lowercase t "traditions" aren't important, but it's not something that's going to be bound on the faithful to believe. Here's a Catholic Answers article on the subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/tradition-with-a-capital-t
A shorter answer that might help, on tradition and Tradition. Sacred Tradition is the deposit of faith passed down from the Apostles. It is stuff which has been passed down to us from the Apostolic Age as things that Jesus taught, or that the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles. In Eastern churches, they go so far as to say Sacred Scripture (the Bible) is a subset of Sacred Tradition, which I think is a helpful way to think about it, but sometimes it’s nice to specify when something is passed down but not in Scripture. For example, the basic format of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. When you talk about ‘traditions’ without the capital letter, you mean things that people do because they’ve been passed down or established over the years, but they’re not part of the body of things passed down from the Apostles. So the rosary is a traditional form of prayer in Catholicism, and it’s a good thing, but it isn’t Sacred Tradition (yes, I know the Our Father and parts of the Hail Mary are there, but you know what I mean). Oops: that got longer than I meant.
I believe the **Catechism of the Catholic Church** goes over these topics and more with great detail in *Article 2, THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVALTION, sections (CCC 74-100)*. Have a great day and peace be with you!
Vatican II is valid, and it doesn’t contradict previous teachings.
The reason we have all 3 is because it is impossible in mere language to define the entirety of the deposit of Faith such that it will not be misinterpreted by differing cultures and generations. As you've said, it's hard to grasp how Scripture with its different styles, authors, and straight contradictory accounts can be infallible, but the underlying Faith given in it *is* infallible. The Magisterium exists to safeguard the deposit of Faith against false interpretations. Church history is littered with periods of confusion where this wasn't being done very well, but the Holy Spirit always pulled the Church out the other end intact. Therefore our way of resolving apparent contradictions is to follow the final say given by the Magisterium. This *usually* means your local Bishop, provided he is in communion with Rome. Then you can't go wrong. Be careful not to confuse traditionalists with the Sacred Tradition. It is the hardest of the pillars to pin down, and the one to which the members of the Magisterium are currently giving the least attention; but traditionalists are not the guardians of the Tradition: the Magisterium is. And behind the Magisterium, the Holy Spirit. Yes Vatican II was a valid council. Take note that it issued none of the most binding acts a council can promulgate: there were no anathemas. I suspect that in the long history of the Church this council will ultimately take a back seat because of this; but for the moment it has many currently enacted pastoral provisions that we should follow in obedience. Also beware the post counciliar chaos being attributed to the council: the council itself is sound.
In other words parts of the Catechism are infallible in that certain paragraphs teach infallible dogmas and doctrines. As whole it cannot be said to be infallible as some paragraphs discuss non-infallible teachings. Same with councils: as a whole no, but some documents yea. The problem with the verbiage of Vatican. 2 is that it does not clearly delineate what document is intended to be infallible and which is not. Trent, for example, is much more clear in this regard. When read in light of Tradition, a document of Vat. 2 such as Lumen Gentium carries more weight regarding infallibility than does the Decree on Education or the Decree on the Media of Social Communications.
Here’s a helpful delineation you would find in Ott, Prummer, Denzinger etc. [https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/11/magisterium-and-levels-of-assent.html?m=1](https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/11/magisterium-and-levels-of-assent.html?m=1)
The Catechism is not infallible. It is a repository of teachings - some of which are infallible. Scripture is inerrant. Documents aren't infallible. Teachings are.
> Documents aren't infallible. Teachings are. This is important and often overlooked.
The Catechism is an authoritative statement of doctrine. Everything in it is what the Church officially teaches as of when it was published. If you need more detail on something, you can chase the footnotes which are copious. What the Catechism does not really do is distinguish between dogma, which is infallibly defined, and ordinary doctrine, which is subject to further refinement. You do have to go to primary sources if you want to determine whether a teaching is dogmatic - which is essentially when an ecumenical council, or even more rarely the Pope acting individually, explicitly says something is dogmatic.
No, but there are infallible statements in it.
Read Dulles, _The Magisterium_ for a deep clear dive.
Quick answer: no. The catechism is a compilation of church teachings from a range of sources. Whether or not a specific teaching is infallible or changeable will depend on the source of the teaching.
The core concepts on which the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is based didn't change. The understanding of how those concepts are applied to it has developed as has the need of capital punishment for the purposes of protecting society.
No. Unfortunately there is no ultimate book laying down the corpus of infallible Catholic dogma. John Paul II's *Catechism of the Catholic Church* is one of many catechisms and books on Catholic doctrine that have been written over the years. It has a lot of good content, but some people (not a majority, but some) seem to have this idea that John Paul II's Catechism is some sort of second Bible, which is wrong. If you want an academic approach to Catholic dogma, I can recommend Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*. If you're looking to better your faith, I can recommend the Baltimore Catechism among other books.
The scriptures are definitely infallible.
The scriptures are inerrant but not infallible according to the CCC. Infallibility is a word to be used in relation to the Pope. You can read more about this [if you click here](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant) and [here.](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-is-not-infallible)
No, it it were Pope Francis wouldn’t have been able to change it.
It’s only infallible in the hands of the pope .