Erroneous Extension of Infallibility

[Truthstalker]

Can the Pope err in mistakenly asserting something as infallible that is actually outside the deposit of divine Revelation, but by error he thinks it is within the deposit, or is outside an element of doctrine that is necessary, and he mistakenly thinks it is within the deposit and its requisite extensions?

Catechism:

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.[77]

If the answer is yes, then how is it to be corrected? If no, then how are the limits of the extension determined?

 

[rwoehmke]

The Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to his Church, protects a pope from this type of error. In giving Peter and his successors the keys of the Kingdom, the power to loose and to bind, this was made possible. Even some of the most notorius popes in history did not manage to “screw this up.” Vatican I Council in the late 19th century set up definite criteria for a papal pronouncement to be considered infallible. It has only been used once since then. What popes have done since that time is to point out situations that are considered infallible teaching because they were truths that have been constantly taught since the early days of Christianity. The inability of a bishop to ordain a woman priest was one recent example cited by John Paul II.

 

[RobNY]

I think the question is: can the pope erroneously believe something to be a matter of faith and morals, when in fact it is not (i.e., it is scientific or something else)? That seems to be the sticking point. Or is it something else?

-Rob

 

[Truthstalker]

I think the question is: can the pope erroneously believe something to be a matter of faith and morals, when in fact it is not (i.e., it is scientific or something else)? That seems to be the sticking point. Or is it something else?

-Rob

I THINK the charism would include infallibility about what it is infallible about, intrinsically, but I don’t see that written. Because it is not excluded the possibility exists that something could be infallibly declared that is erroneous, because the declaration is outside the area where infallible declarations are valid. So there needs to be an infallibly declared area where they are valid, I would think, and thus an infallibly declared limit, and matters defined that are not subject to the declaration of infallibility. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Della]

The only areas in which the pope can make infallible pronouncements is in matters of faith and morals. He cannot and would not try to make an infallible statement about any scientific theories, except to say that such theories may be incompatible with the faith–but not to say that this or that theory is true or not, if you see what I mean. If that is what you are asking.

 

[USMC]

The only areas in which the pope can make infallible pronouncements is in matters of faith and morals. He cannot and would not try to make an infallible statement about any scientific theories, except to say that such theories may be incompatible with the faith–but not to say that this or that theory is true or not, if you see what I mean. If that is what you are asking.

The point of his question is that the Pope’s infallibility is also limited within the scope of faith and morals. In other words, he is not able to define anything thing related to faith and morals, but on those doctrines contained within the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles. The Pope cannot make up a new doctrine and define it.

His question is: Would it be possible for a Pope to make up a new doctrine and then attempt to define it as a dogma.

I’m not sure if the charism of infallibility would prevent such an error from occurring, but it might.

The definition of Papal Infallibility, as it was defined at Vatican I reads:

First Vatican Council: “We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. In the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. In virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. He defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

In the same section of the Council it also says the following:

Vatican I: “For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”[/qutoe]

From this we know that the Holy Ghost was not promised to the Pope so that he could make new doctrines, but only that he could infallibly define doctrines contained in the deposit of faith.

I am not sure what the answer is.

 

[CollegeKid]

The only areas in which the pope can make infallible pronouncements is in matters of faith and morals. He cannot and would not try to make an infallible statement about any scientific theories, except to say that such theories may be incompatible with the faith–but not to say that this or that theory is true or not, if you see what I mean. If that is what you are asking.

I think the OP is trying to get beyond the basic definition of infallibility. We know that the dogma was defined so that the Pope will not teach something erroneous regarding “matters of faith and morals.” I think the question is, how do we always or will we always know that any given ex-Cathedra statement from a Pope *did in fact *address a “matter of faith or morals,” in other words, can we clearly and without confusion or room for debate define the separate universal truth of what constitutes “faith and morals” and what does not. For instance, what if some hypothetical situation occurs in which the Pope issues an official statement, binding on the whole church as a matter of morals, saying that it is intrinsically immoral to eat bunt cake? (Not that I think this would ever happen, I’m just throwing out an extreme example to make the point). Or, a little closer to reality, some assert that during the Galileo controversy, the Church “infallibly” taught as a matter of faith that the earth stands still, or some other conclusion that to most of us today looks as though it only pertains to the scientific realm and has nothing to do with faith or morals.

This is something I’ve questioned a lot too and I still don’t know for sure. My guess is that in defining what does and does not constitute “faith and morals,” we mainly have to appeal to the collective conscience of the Church, the sense of the faithful, as long as any conclusion reached by this method doesn’t clash with an official teaching of the Church. To put it another way, what our own reason and common sense, aided by prayer and God’s grace, tell us is a matter of faith or morals.

Example: Can I reasonably say that I believe the topic of whether or not the regulations set forth in Leviticus apply to Christians is a matter of faith? Yes. Why? Well because in that instance, the topic deals with something that is in the Bible, God’s word to mankind. Can I reasonably say that I believe the topic of whether or not its moral to eat bunt cake is even a matter of morals at all? No. On its face the topic seems ridiculous to me. Aside from the fact that nothing within my own powers of reason or common sense give me any inkling that bunt cake-consumption has anything to do with morals, I’m also pretty sure there’s nothing in the Bible or Church Tradition that touches on the topic at all.

Of course, I could be mistaken about most or all of this, this is just my two cents.

 

[Della]

Let’s take your bunt cake example–if the pope were to teach that eating bunt cake to excess is gluttony, then it becomes a matter of morals, and so wouldn’t be out of his province to rule upon.

I’m not afraid the pope will “step on toes” or go outside his true realm of right and responsibility. I know of no pope in history who was eager to make declarations and looking for things to make pronouncements about in the area of his own charism let alone things that do not concern the Church. The things the pope does make pronouncements about are serious issues that need to be addressed because they influence and have real consequences for the faithful.

 

[Truthstalker]

Popes have been notably reluctant to pronounce. However, a Pope might become enthusiastic and declare everything as pertaining to faith and morals. Suddenly Catholics are obliged to eat bundt cake on Tuesdays, as a moral matter as declared by the Pope.
What excludes this?

 

[Della]

Popes have been notably reluctant to pronounce. However, a Pope might become enthusiastic and declare everything as pertaining to faith and morals. Suddenly Catholics are obliged to eat bundt cake on Tuesdays, as a moral matter as declared by the Pope.
What excludes this?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[CollegeKid]

Let’s take your bunt cake example–if the pope were to teach that eating bunt cake to excess is gluttony, then it becomes a matter of morals, and so wouldn’t be out of his province to rule upon.

Good point. If however, the Pope issued an encyclical to the whole Church that it is objectively immoral to sit down and have one moderately-sized piece of cake for dessert occasionally, then I would be confused. Again, that was an extreme example, not the type of situation I ever envision actually happening.

I’m not afraid the pope will “step on toes” or go outside his true realm of right and responsibility. I know of no pope in history who was eager to make declarations and looking for things to make pronouncements about in the area of his own charism let alone things that do not concern the Church. The things the pope does make pronouncements about are serious issues that need to be addressed because they influence and have real consequences for the faithful.

I agree; I was just saying that I think the OP, and I could be wrong, was asking: how do we define “serious issues that need to be addressed because they influence and have real consequences for the faithful”? I think we’d both agree that in most instances its pretty obvious. For example, I automatically accept mens-only ordination as an article of faith because it has to do with the holy orders of the Church, its been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was the example set by Christ.

One area where what constitutes faith and morals might not be so clear is whether or not the Earth stands still or in fact rotates on an axis. It doesn’t seem to me to pertain to faith, but there are Catholics who would disagree with me.

 

[Della]

One area where what constitutes faith and morals might not be so clear is whether or not the Earth stands still or in fact rotates on an axis. It doesn’t seem to me to pertain to faith, but there are Catholics who would disagree with me.

As I recall of the Galileo case (I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I get it wrong, but just for the sake of argument), it wasn’t whether or not the earth stands still but that he was saying he had to be right and the Bible wrong. Frankly, I don’t think the pope cares how the physical mechanics of the universe operate, but he does care, very much about the veracity of the Bible.

 

[CollegeKid]

As I recall of the Galileo case (I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I get it wrong, but just for the sake of argument), it wasn’t whether or not the earth stands still but that he was saying he had to be right and the Bible wrong. Frankly, I don’t think the pope cares how the physical mechanics of the universe operate, but he does care, very much about the veracity of the Bible.

That sounds like one of the explanations I’ve heard before; Its been awhile since I investigated the matter though so I’m not sure. I’m pretty sure however, that there are Catholics who adhere to geocentrism as an article of faith, and cite certain Papal encyclicals from the Galileo time period and afterward as evidence that any deviation from geocentric belief is incompatible with Catholic faith. I think Bob Sugenis does, and Jon Salza, creator and host of scripturecatholic.com.

 

[Della]

That sounds like one of the explanations I’ve heard before; Its been awhile since I investigated the matter though so I’m not sure. I’m pretty sure however, that there are Catholics who adhere to geocentrism as an article of faith, and cite certain Papal encyclicals from the Galileo time period and afterward as evidence that any deviation from geocentric belief is incompatible with Catholic faith. I think Bob Sugenis does, and Jon Salza, creator and host of scripturecatholic.com.

I’ve read their arguments along those lines, too, but I am wary of people who quote Church documents, including the Bible, with an agenda in mind. One can always find some passage that seems to support one’s assumptions. That is why papal infallibility and trusting in the Magisterium is so important–so we don’t go off the deep end believing whatever pleases us. Yes?

 

[Image_of_God]

That sounds like one of the explanations I’ve heard before; Its been awhile since I investigated the matter though so I’m not sure. I’m pretty sure however, that there are Catholics who adhere to geocentrism as an article of faith, and cite certain Papal encyclicals from the Galileo time period and afterward as evidence that any deviation from geocentric belief is incompatible with Catholic faith. I think Bob Sugenis does, and Jon Salza, creator and host of scripturecatholic.com.

Hello.

The belief of papal infallibility is that based on trust and faith in the Church and Jesus’ promise to lead the Church “to all truth.”
Many anti-catholics, will quote this and that about how Papal Infallibility is not true, but my belief is that these are just people trying to lead people away from the faith.
Papal Infallibility is base on trust in Jesus, who promise that his Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.
The point of the doctrine, is to say that God would never permit a Pope to teach error. That meaning, that God will no allow the Pope to say a wrong statement.
The Pope would never teach anything wrong, while speaking ex-cathedra about faith and morals.

 

[CollegeKid]

I’ve read their arguments along those lines, too, but I am wary of people who quote Church documents, including the Bible, with an agenda in mind. One can always find some passage that seems to support one’s assumptions. That is why papal infallibility and trusting in the Magisterium is so important–so we don’t go off the deep end believing whatever pleases us. Yes?

I would have to agree. But whether or not Bob Sugenis or Jon Salza are just trying to support an agenda, I don’t know. They may well have arrived at their conclusions through honest research and critical thinking.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The point of his question is that the Pope’s infallibility is also limited within the scope of faith and morals. In other words, he is not able to define anything thing related to faith and morals, but on those doctrines contained within the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles.

But what they are they ? The d. o. f. is a null set, which is filled up by the Popes, each of whom is equipped to fill it up as he sees fit. This means there are in principle as many deposits as Popes.​

The Pope cannot make up a new doctrine and define it.

His question is: Would it be possible for a Pope to make up a new doctrine and then attempt to define it as a dogma.

I’m not sure if the charism of infallibility would prevent such an error from occurring, but it might.

The definition of Papal Infallibility, as it was defined at Vatican I reads:

In the same section of the Council it also says the following:

Vatican I: “For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”

From this we know that the Holy Ghost was not promised to the Pope so that he could make new doctrines, but only that he could infallibly define doctrines contained in the deposit of faith.

I am not sure what the answer is.

The problem with words, is that they mean what one wants them to mean or needs them to mean . So “new doctrine” is as new as the Pope and his theological advisers say it is - the proposed dogmatisation of the co-redemption is a good example of this.​

What, after all,* is* “a new doctrine” ?

One not explicitly taught ?
One of which the parts are not explicitly taught, or not all of them ?
One not logically implied by one that has been taught ?

All of which raises the question, “Is Papal infallibility anything more than a form of secularism ?” IMO, it is indeed that; & it may be significant that it has so much in common with Protestant Fundamentalism: both want guarantees of the truth of what they believe, both are rationalist, both in effect deny that Christians who prefer faith to Fundamentalist rationalism are “real Christians”, neither is capable of thinking that Christianity might just be able to be different from their own notions of it.

Assenting to Papal infallibility is in practice more important than that the dogma should have a stable content - and this too happens in Protestant Fundamentalism: it is more important for them to admit that the Bible is totally inerrant, than for their belief to be understood in the same way; which makes it an empty doctrine. Papal infallibility is equally content-free; for the very good reason that it cannot escape historical details - and these in turn are always open to re-interpretation. As a result, the dogma is infinitely malleable, it is a “nose of wax”. So it can mean anything at all. So it is useless as a protection against error. And it destroys the perpetuity of the faith at a stroke - it is simply untrue that the Apostles believed in the Assumption; for if they did, there is is no evidence of it at all. And what is not known to be a fact, cannot be asserted to be a true fact; not even if the Pope asserts it. He is not Lord of the Truth - but the servant of it.

Unless he has means of knowing such things that others lack - if he has, historians of dogma would doubtless be very eager to know what these sources are. But if he is free to define as a fact what is not known to be a fact, it is hard to see why historians cannot appeal to apparitions of long-dead characters as sources of historical information.

Which means that there is nothing to stop a pope after 1870 deciding that he can define something that Pius IX and his precedessors would not have regarded themselves as having the competence to define (which curiously enough is also what happened in the history of the Immaculate Conception).

Maybe there are answers to all these objections to the dogma. IMHO, the definition of Papal Infallibility was a great mistake; but as the Church rests upon the grace of Christ, and not upon any human righteousness (such as that of never being wrong in doctrine), and as He is Faithful even though we are not, I don’t think it matters. ##

 

[USMC]

But what they are they ? The d. o. f. is a null set, which is filled up by the Popes, each of whom is equipped to fill it up as he sees fit. This means there are in principle as many deposits as Popes. ##​

Gottle,

You lost me from the start. What were you trying to say?

PS. I just read your profile. Weren’t you a Catholic at one time?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The only areas in which the pope can make infallible pronouncements is in matters of faith and morals. He cannot and would not try to make an infallible statement about any scientific theories, except to say that such theories may be incompatible with the faith–but not to say that this or that theory is true or not, if you see what I mean…

I wonder if that is right? Would we not say that the Popes took the scientific theory of transubstantiation and made it into a doctrine?

They adopted what was a scientific theory about the nature of the universe developed by the Greek Aristotle, and they applied it to the Eucharist.

Would you see the adoption of this scientific theory as Catholic dogma as an erroneneous extension of infallibility?

Fr Ambrose
Orthodox

 

[Struggling]

No. Substance and Accidents are a METAPHYSICAL premise…not a “scientific” one…

But I see what you are saying…a particular system of the metaphysics of natural philosophy isn’t intrinsic to the faith.

The Church may favor or endorse a philosophy (like Thomism), but as long as they don’t contradict revealed dogmas…we allow different philosophies.

Why then do we seem to favor a particular metaphysical system in Transubstantiation?

Well, two reasons.

One, I think a certain philosophical realism is needed for any of the dogmas to work on a practical level. I mean…if we question our ability to know anything, or that this isn’t just a big dream I’m having…no other plea to revelation or authority is going to work.

Similarly, though this is not a matter of explicit revelation…it is necessarily bound up with revelation, and presumed by revelation…that things have an existence Relative to other things (the accidents) but also a reality in and of themselves (the substance).

The Church must phrase it in specific philosophical terms, just like it must phrase it in a specific language when speaking it…but that doesn’t mean that that philosophy is divinely revealed any more than that language…it is just a necessary vehicle for conveying the revealed article of faith, the idea.