How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[david_ruiz]

My response was to the OP, who asked about the doctrine of papal infallibility. Fortunately, you agree with the Catholic Church, that infallibility is ultimately only posessed by God Himself, so we at least have a common ground to start from.

That aside, the topic at hand is not whether or not the primacy of Peter is legitimate. The original question presupposes that. And, although the subject of the primacy of the bishop of Rome is always a great discussion, it is not the topic of this thread.

O.K. Thanks.I guess then I would have to say infallibility does not get passed .The guessing is not that it doesn’t come thru the pope carte-blanche but just how to discuss it. I would say it doesn’t also because of at the historic time of it’s absolute pronouncement (1800’s) you have two of the most contested ( well, one for sure) infallable ex-cathedra pronouncements: about Mary’s conception and assumption. It definitely got people off the fence on the matter of his inerrancy (on doctrinal and faith issues)

 

[joshua_b]

O.K. Thanks.I guess then I would have to say infallibility does not get passed .The guessing is not that it doesn’t come thru the pope carte-blanche but just how to discuss it. I would say it doesn’t also because of at the historic time of it’s absolute pronouncement (1800’s) you have two of the most contested ( well, one for sure) infallable ex-cathedra pronouncements: about Mary’s conception and assumption. It definitely got people off the fence on the matter of his inerrancy (on doctrinal and faith issues)

It appears to me that your big problem is with the phraseology. There is not one Catholic in the world who believes the pope as a person is infallible (at least not one who is doctrinally correct). Papal Infallibility actually refers to the God’s protection of His Church, and it is a promise to the people, not the pope.

The Catholic understanding is, God has promised His Church they do not have to worry about being taught doctrinal error, because He will simply not allow it to happen. Since the deposit of faith rests ultimately with the successor of Peter, now the arch-bishop of Rome, any doctrine declared is infallible (literally “without fault or error”).

I realize you do not agree because you do not accept the Primacy of Peter. However, you do accept the infallibility of Scripture, do you not?

 

[Vico]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123
Bishop Gasser (Vatican I, explained the topic that would be voted on) noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute: since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.
   See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.
   262
   http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7583935&postcount=262
   In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered the very question before the people here, in this way:
   “It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”
   Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

 

[joshua_b]

Thank you Vico for providing a more articulate and concise response than i am capable of giving. I am not blessed with the gift of tongues; i do often speak in drivel, and it is hard for me to distinguish between the two.

 

[david_ruiz]

It appears to me that your big problem is with the phraseology. There is not one Catholic in the world who believes the pope as a person is infallible (at least not one who is doctrinally correct). Papal Infallibility actually refers to the God’s protection of His Church, and it is a promise to the people, not the pope.

The Catholic understanding is, God has promised His Church they do not have to worry about being taught doctrinal error, because He will simply not allow it to happen. Since the deposit of faith rests ultimately with the successor of Peter, now the arch-bishop of Rome, any doctrine declared is infallible (literally “without fault or error”).

I realize you do not agree because you do not accept the Primacy of Peter. However, you do accept the infallibility of Scripture, do you not?

Yes, thank-you .I understand the CC phraseology,that is why i listed two doctrines from popes and not personal actions/beliefs…At what point does God intervene when error creeps in ,or slight compromise ? .Does it even get to that point .if not , does he wait a day , a year, a generation ? Is the church protected or it’s message ? Is it not the gospel that has remained constant ? At what point are we worrying about non-essential issues,doctrines, practices that may not necessarily be "protected " ? The emphasis is too much on “church” ,it is really "my "church which we all say is Christ’s church. This is not protected . It is not “once saved always saved” or "once right always right (again, “my” church or a particular church). The book of Revelations gives us plenty of evidence of churches in “error”. Even if a church is 100 % correct on “doctrine and matters of faith etc”, she may be wrong on other fronts,even in matters of the heart.

 

[joshua_b]

Yes, thank-you .I understand the CC phraseology,that is why i listed two doctrines from popes and not personal actions/beliefs…At what point does God intervene when error creeps in ,or slight compromise ? .Does it even get to that point .if not , does he wait a day , a year, a generation ? Is the church protected or it’s message ? Is it not the gospel that has remained constant ? At what point are we worrying about non-essential issues,doctrines, practices that may not necessarily be "protected " ? The emphasis is too much on “church” ,it is really "my "church which we all say is Christ’s church. This is not protected . It is not “once saved always saved” or "once right always right (again, “my” church or a particular church). The book of Revelations gives us plenty of evidence of churches in “error”. Even if a church is 100 % correct on “doctrine and matters of faith etc”, she may be wrong on other fronts,even in matters of the heart.

Infallibility only applies to doctrine. Doctrine is a teaching that is considered to be a required belief of the faithful; in other words, it is something the church has officially declared as a teaching that all members are required to believe. I will give you an overly-simple and obvious example…the resurrection of Christ. Every Catholic is required to accept this teaching, and there is no room for “individual interpretation” or an alternate theory of what may have happened to cause people to believe that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.

Until the pope declares something to be doctrine, it is not doctrine, and is not a “required” belief. Purgatory is an example. The Church officially teaches that Purgatory is real, that in Purgatory we are made completely sinless and clean and holy - which is required before we can enter heaven according to Scripture, and that prayers are beneficial to those in Purgatory. Those are the only three official teachings (or doctrines) the Catholic Church has on Purgatory. Doctrine is binding, and is required to be accepted by the faithful. Outside of those three things, we are free to believe and debate on whether Purgatory is a place or merely a process, whether it is a long endeavor or instantaneous, what kind of suffering, if any is involved, etc.

The pope can write as many papers and give as many talks as he wants about Purgatory, and can even be writing and preaching erroneously, without violating infallibility, because sermons and papers are not official Church teaching; all of the sermons and papers in the world will not change the doctrine and the Church’s official teaching. Now, if the pope were to decide to declare that Purgatory did not exist, God would intervene before the pope could make that declaration and prevent it from becoming “binding”.

So, in essence, the church’s message (or official teaching) is protected by God. And ultimately, through that promise, the members are protected from false teaching, because God will not allow us to be bound to believe something that is incorrect.

Now, God will not prevent the pope from being a rotten and sinful human being. The pope still has free will, as we all do, and is free to reject Christ just as everyone else is. God will not prevent that; He will only prevent the pope from declaring false teaching as officially binding on us. And Catholics most certainly do believe the the Church (the visible Church) is protected, for “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. Most Catholics would argue that if the Church were ever to teach doctrinal error, then the gates of hell will have prevailed, especially since the Church is “the pillar and foundation of ALL Truth”.

 

[joshua_b]

Yes, thank-you .I understand the CC phraseology,that is why i listed two doctrines from popes and not personal actions/beliefs…

The book of Revelations gives us plenty of evidence of churches in “error”. Even if a church is 100 % correct on “doctrine and matters of faith etc”, she may be wrong on other fronts,even in matters of the heart.

I pulled this specifically because I felt it warranted further discussion. First, in regard to the two doctrines you reference, I am going to assume that you are referring to the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary. What is interesting, is that these are the only two ex-cathedra proclaimations ever made by the Church. And, even though they were officially declared at a much later verifiable date, there is concrete evidence as early as the thrid century that the Church believed this. It isn’t as if the pope just woke up one day and decided to make it up. Likewise, the immaculate conception was proclaimed ex-cathedra in 1854, but it was something that has always been taught as part of the deposit of faith. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is the teaching of the Church in its entirety as it has been handed down. No one, not even the pope, can change it. He can further define and clarify it, but he can not change it.

There have always been individual churches in error, and I will even concede that there still are. I know of more than one Catholic parish that teaches error, but those teachings are also not consistent with the official teachings of the Church. An individual or group being wrong “on other fronts” or “in matters of the heart”, does not automatically invalidate everything. If someone fails math, they are still correct when they tell you that 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[onemangang]

How do we know infallibility gets passed down? Good question!

Christianity is a revealed religion. God has revealed Himself to man through the Person of Jesus Christ.

We would have to presuppose that God is infallible in being and essence, in Who He is, and What He does!

Is God infallible? We all would posit Yes on this I suppose!
Does God do everything infallibly? Yes, of course!

Do you believe that God has revealed Himself to man through the Person of Jesus Christ?
Did He do that Infallibly? Yes! Christ has infallibly revealed Himself to man!

What was the mode that Christ chose to deliver the message, that He is God with us!

A Church! Christ chose a Church to Infallibly preserve and communicate His revelation through a deposit of faith. The fullness of Truth subsist in Her , so She by His Infallible mediation is indeed infallible, when presenting Him, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

So, Christ has infallibly revealed Himself to man.

The mode that He chose to deliver this message is an infallible visible social order, the Church.

Christ infallibly chose an infallible visible social order, to mediate His infallible authority to the world.

The infallible Social Order He conferred has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof.

All of this is complete in the Person of Jesus Christ, who is infallible!

The Church actively participates in the Mediation of Christ Authority. This continuity can be traced back to Christ Himself. Christ makes Himself Present through the Church daily, bearing witness to His Majesty, and also to Her being an active participent in the unfolding of divine wisdom. He is the Head, She is His Body. He is the Logos, the Actus Purus, but the Church, His Bride, an inseparable reality, that operates through Him, With Him, In Him, In unity, and in Conformity to Her Husband Jesus Christ, which is Her Head!

In other words, God did not leave us alone to discern, who He is by our own intellect, If that were true, then He would be reserved for the Intelligentsia, and not the common man! Instead Christ has given us,** the manifold wisdom of God, the Church so that our faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.**

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[david_ruiz]

Infallibility only applies to doctrine. Doctrine is a teaching that is considered to be a required belief of the faithful; in other words, it is something the church has officially declared as a teaching that all members are required to believe. I will give you an overly-simple and obvious example…the resurrection of Christ. Every Catholic is required to accept this teaching, and there is no room for “individual interpretation” or an alternate theory of what may have happened to cause people to believe that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.

Until the pope declares something to be doctrine, it is not doctrine, and is not a “required” belief. Purgatory is an example. The Church officially teaches that Purgatory is real, that in Purgatory we are made completely sinless and clean and holy - which is required before we can enter heaven according to Scripture, and that prayers are beneficial to those in Purgatory. Those are the only three official teachings (or doctrines) the Catholic Church has on Purgatory. Doctrine is binding, and is required to be accepted by the faithful. Outside of those three things, we are free to believe and debate on whether Purgatory is a place or merely a process, whether it is a long endeavor or instantaneous, what kind of suffering, if any is involved, etc.

The pope can write as many papers and give as many talks as he wants about Purgatory, and can even be writing and preaching erroneously, without violating infallibility, because sermons and papers are not official Church teaching; all of the sermons and papers in the world will not change the doctrine and the Church’s official teaching. Now, if the pope were to decide to declare that Purgatory did not exist, God would intervene before the pope could make that declaration and prevent it from becoming “binding”.

So, in essence, the church’s message (or official teaching) is protected by God. And ultimately, through that promise, the members are protected from false teaching, because God will not allow us to be bound to believe something that is incorrect.

Now, God will not prevent the pope from being a rotten and sinful human being. The pope still has free will, as we all do, and is free to reject Christ just as everyone else is. God will not prevent that; He will only prevent the pope from declaring false teaching as officially binding on us. And Catholics most certainly do believe the the Church (the visible Church) is protected, for “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. Most Catholics would argue that if the Church were ever to teach doctrinal error, then the gates of hell will have prevailed, especially since the Church is “the pillar and foundation of ALL Truth”.

Thank-you. Being protected and prevailing need explaining. Some think protection is I will not get sick, hence prevailing against the germs all around us. Some would say you can get sick ,but be protected from the disease prevailing and killing you or being more debilitating than it should… Tell me, if you were about to get butchered for your faith by a Lutheran (think late 1500’s) and he said to you , "What I am going to do to you might be wrong, even a sin, but the gates of hell shall not prevail against my Lutheran church and her doctrines . " what would you think, as you see the devil’s anger in this Lutheran’s face, as he is about to cut your head off ? I am sorry but I would be thinking “hell’ is prevailing in that Lutheran’s soul and possibly his church” . But your God-given faith shall prevail ,even in the face of death. The church grew in those first centuries, in spite of death and tremendous persecution . Indeed, the gates of hell did not prevail , for the Father in heaven illumined many souls, thru the Holy Spirit, and nothing could separate them from the love of the Father.

 

[Vico]

I pulled this specifically because I felt it warranted further discussion. First, in regard to the two doctrines you reference, I am going to assume that you are referring to the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary. What is interesting, is that these are the only two ex-cathedra proclamations ever made by the Church. And, even though they were officially declared at a much later verifiable date, there is concrete evidence as early as the thrid century that the Church believed this. It isn’t as if the pope just woke up one day and decided to make it up. Likewise, the immaculate conception was proclaimed ex-cathedra in 1854, but it was something that has always been taught as part of the deposit of faith. The Sacred Deposit of Faith is the teaching of the Church in its entirety as it has been handed down. No one, not even the pope, can change it. He can further define and clarify it, but he can not change it.

There have always been individual churches in error, and I will even concede that there still are. I know of more than one Catholic parish that teaches error, but those teachings are also not consistent with the official teachings of the Church. An individual or group being wrong “on other fronts” or “in matters of the heart”, does not automatically invalidate everything. If someone fails math, they are still correct when they tell you that 2 + 2 = 4.

Also there are more authoratative examples. Bishop Gasser (Vatican I) said:“But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. “Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;” where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?”

And I scanned for a few such statements not so commonly noticed:

• CCC 247 “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447 [76]” – Pope St. Leo I, 447 A.D.

In 447 Pope St. Leo I, wrote a letter refuting the Arians, to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga, using the phrase “and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”

• Agatho’s Letter to the Sixth Council
• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” – ex cathedra, Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 A.D…
• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – Pope Boniface VIII, ex cathedra, Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302 A.D…
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their alms givings,their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his alms giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” – ex cathedra, Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 A.D.

 

[Abu]

joshua_b #106
referring to the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary…what is interesting, is that these are the only two ex-cathedra proclaimations ever made by the Church.

Unfortunately that is incorrect, in a good post.

In fact, from Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) **ex cathedra **(from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone Canon anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

 

[david_ruiz]

How do we know infallibility gets passed down? Good question!

Christianity is a revealed religion. God has revealed Himself to man through the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Vico]

Christ revealed the Mystery of God’s plan of redemption for mankind through his life, death, and resurrection. We have the Word to bring us truth and the Spirit to make us holy, through which we learn the mystery of God’s life.

 

[onemangang]

Amen,but how is Jesus revealed to us ? How was it revealed to Peter (mat 16) ?

Through the deposit of faith, given by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ!

St. Peter was graced the realization that Jesus was indeed the Messiah!

"for God so chose that by the foolishness of preaching should men be saved.

God gave us a single verse of Scripture? Really? 1 Corinthians 1:21 Hey wait doesnt Paul go on to talk about the Mystery that was hidden in the next chapter?

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory :

And then Go on to expound on the “mystery” later in Ephesians

Ephesians 3:9 And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: 10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,11According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord

Partially correct but misplaced emphasis.

Says You!

Would you agree that the Jews were the one true religion at Christ’s time ? But was it the Saducees or Pharisees or some of the other rites/divisions,sects /denominations of Judaism that saved Peter ?

Taught St. Peter

So what sect of Judaism was the authority during St.Peter’s day?

We know that the Scribes and Pharrisees sat on Moses seat and that St.Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. We know they had a levitical priesthood and a Nasi (Highest-ranking member and President over the Sanhedrin) ! There was also a Roman Appointed High Priest for civil matters Annas and Caiaphas So what did that look like?

Lets look at the structure St. Peter would have been familiar with.

You had your Nasi (Gamaliel the Elder) Who was the Chief who prosided over councils

The Great Sanhedrin, which met in the Hall of Hewn Stones in the Temple in Jerusalem!

Since the membership of the Sanhedrin is fixed by the Torah, its number cannot be changed.

The Sanhedrin consisted of 71 judges. G-d thus commanded Moses, “Gather to Me 70 men of the elders of Israel… and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, so that they should stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16). This was the first Sanhedrin. Counting Moses himself as Nasi, it consisted of 71 members.

Any judgment issued by the Sanhedrin in the absence of the Nasi was invalid.

Much of the Sanhedrin was made up of the Levite priest.

By the end of the Second Temple period, the Sanhedrin reached its pinnacle of importance, legislating all aspects of Jewish religious and political life within the parameters laid down by Biblical and Rabbinic tradition.

The Sanhedrin was the supreme council of Israel. As long as it stood,** it was the supreme court and legislative body in all matters of Torah law. As such, the Sanhedrin was entrusted with keeping and interpreting the Oral Torah.**

That is a glimpse of what religious Authority would have looked like in St. Peters day!

As you know many things in the past Jewish history have been made complete in Christ Jesus! This might look familiar to you, since you were “raised Catholic”

Was it sacred scripture ? Was it their traditions ? Church is NOT a method .Church is a noun .Preaching and illumination by the Holy Spirit , the Father in Heaven is the mode,the verb. Peter was lost ,even in his true religion without this. What is our emphasis ? His church is whomever does his will. Church is as church does

Correct, the Church is a noun, as I am a noun. A person, with a living voice to proclaim Christ! I don’t separate the Church from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition! Of course God is the mode, but His Modus Operandi consist of His bride as an active participant in conferring grace!

I believe second vatican would say this is wrong emphasis, God gave us His Word.

I believe the Second Vatican council would not be divorcing Christ from His Bride. All grace the Church confers, is Through Him, with Him, In Him, in Unity with the Holy Spirit!

What ,does He not stick closer than a brother ? What, did not John say the Spirit gives us an unction to know all things" ? This is not standing on the wisdom of men.
Peace and Love in Christ! Amen.

Nice, you used a verse that points to Christians** in the Church**, that received the deposit of faith, were properly Catechized, so they couldn’t be deceived by others, outside of the Church, because they know their faith!

 

[joshua_b]

Unfortunately that is incorrect, in a good post.

In fact, from Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) **ex cathedra **(from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone Canon anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Thank you for the correction. I think what I was going after was dogmatic proclamaitions.

Now, i guess my questions is, at what point is something NOT categorized as infallible. We have had some very bad popes throughout the history of the Church; what is considered “binding” ?

 

[joshua_b]

Tell me, if you were about to get butchered for your faith by a Lutheran (think late 1500’s) and he said to you , "What I am going to do to you might be wrong, even a sin, but the gates of hell shall not prevail against my Lutheran church and her doctrines . " what would you think, as you see the devil’s anger in this Lutheran’s face, as he is about to cut your head off ? I am sorry but I would be thinking “hell’ is prevailing in that Lutheran’s soul and possibly his church” …

I understand your point, but what I would be thinking and feeling under the immediate threat of death is not relevant.

The reality is that God has given us all the gift of free will. We all CHOOSE to follow Him. The actions of a specific individual are not an indictment of the group with which they are associated.

By this logic, a non-believer could look at the Church from outside and conclude that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed. Between the sometimes not-so-pretty history of the Catholic Church, the schism between the Catholic and the Orthodox, the Salem witch trials, the Protestant/Catholic divide in Europe, the “pay for pray” televangelists (whom often get caught up in their own legal/moral failings), a non-Christian could very easily use that logic to conclude that Christianity MUST be false because all of these things are certainly not of God.

 

[Nate13]

That sounds like you’re saying the others weren’t also truly given the power to bind and loosen the lock as it reads they were in Matt 18 unless they borrowed the keys from Peter.

No, I would say its describing the relationship in a similar way as priests exercise their role as mediators under the power given to them by the Mediator, Christ. Priests are not “borrowing” power from Christ to act as priests. “Borrowing” implies they take something away from Christ while they use it, which is not a correct description of what is occurring.

The Bible likes to use the phrase “through Christ” or “in Christ” to describe what we are talking about here. This is how infallibility should be viewed. The Apostles/Bishops are working “through the power of the seat of Peter established by Christ in the Tradition of the House of David”. It’s important to note there is only one seat, only one set of keys, and only one source of authority.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Nate13:

The Bible likes to use the phrase “through Christ” or “in Christ” to describe what we are talking about here. This is how infallibility should be viewed. The Apostles/Bishops are working “through the power of the seat of Peter established by Christ in the Tradition of the House of David”. It’s important to note there is only one seat, only one set of keys, and only one source of authority.

Infallibility does not flow from the Pope (or Peter.) It flows from the Holy Spirit, through the infallibility of the CHURCH. That is where the Pope’s, the Magisterium’s and the Faithful’s infallibility ALL come from, and how it should be viewed.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #117
Infallibility does not flow from the Pope (or Peter.) It flows from the Holy Spirit, through the infallibility of the CHURCH. That is where the Pope’s, the Magisterium’s and the Faithful’s infallibility ALL come from, and how it should be viewed.

Yes, and the “infallibility” of the faithful laity comes from their fidelity to Magisterial teaching.

Vatican II clearly taught that to belong to the *sensus fidei *(the sense of the faithful) requires obeying the Magisterium:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Vatican II, my emphasis]

John Paul II reiterated this in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation *Christifideles Laici *(on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) 1988, which detailed “the ‘Criteria of Ecclesiality’ for Lay Groups” as requiring “The responsibility of professing the Catholic faith, embracing and proclaiming the truth about Christ, the Church and humanity, in obedience to the Church’s Magisterium, as the church interprets it.” [p 79, my emphasis].

 

[david_ruiz]

Through the deposit of faith, given by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ!

St. Peter was graced the realization that Jesus was indeed the Messiah!