Infallibility of the pope

[MindNight]

MAIN QUESTION= I’m sure lots of people have asked this question before (and it may be an over-discussed topic), but what are the criteria for the popes to speak infallibility? In other words,** WHEN** is he speaking infallibly?

BONUS QUESTION (this one is not as important/urgent to be answered)= What does the Holy Spirit do to the pope to speak infallibly? Does it implement words in the Pope’s mouth, does it hypnotise him to deliver infallible messages or what?

But yeah mainly I would like the main question to be answered, please. Thank You and God Bless! And if you don’t feel like giving long answers, fine, then perhaps some give me some link or something to a website (perhaps to another thread which already answers this question).

 

[jorge_carrillo]

The CCC says:

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 **“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 he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… **the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[jorge_carrillo]

From teh Lumen Gentium:

1. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)

The red colored words reffer to Luke 22, 32:

**Luke 22, 32

{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail,
and so that you, onceconverted, may confirm your brothers.”**

The Father of he Council only explained broadly the meaning and implications of this sentence in the life of the church and in the prerrogatives of the succesor of Saint Peter, the bishop of Rome.

 

[bzkoss236]

MAIN QUESTION= I’m sure lots of people have asked this question before (and it may be an over-discussed topic), but what are the criteria for the popes to speak infallibility? In other words,** WHEN** is he speaking infallibly?

I can’t remember exactly, but some of the criteria are:

1. He must be making a statement on faith or morals
2. He must intend for the statement to be authoritative (not necessarily saying “This is ex-cathedra”, but the authority of teaching that which is believed to be true)
3. It must be something that is already a teaching of the Church (meaning it can’t be something he made up)
4. It cannot contradict an already existing doctrine
5. It cannot contradict our understanding of the scriptures.

To add to this, not as a requirement, but an indication of how the Pope’s infallibility has been used was always to resolve a conflict on a Church teaching where the conflict started to cause problems within the Church.

BONUS QUESTION (this one is not as important/urgent to be answered)= What does the Holy Spirit do to the pope to speak infallibly? Does it implement words in the Pope’s mouth, does it hypnotise him to deliver infallible messages or what?

I would say that it happens similar to how it happened with the Apostles and the writers of the Bible, where the Holy Spirit guides him to the truth.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

MAIN QUESTION= I’m sure lots of people have asked this question before (and it may be an over-discussed topic), but what are the criteria for the popes to speak infallibility? In other words,** WHEN** is he speaking infallibly?

The Catechism is referencing the infallible definition of Vatican I:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 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.

That’s from Pastor Aeternus, session 4, chapter 4.

BONUS QUESTION (this one is not as important/urgent to be answered)= What does the Holy Spirit do to the pope to speak infallibly? Does it implement words in the Pope’s mouth, does it hypnotise him to deliver infallible messages or what?

The difference between infallibility [what the pope and Councils have] and inspiration [what the Apostles and Authors of Scripture had] is that inspiration is a “positive” gift, while infallibility is a “negative” gift.

Inspiration means that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles and Authors of Scripture into saying what He wanted them to say. With inspiration, He simply preserves the pope and Councils from saying anything heretical or untrue.

To use a bowling analogy, infallibility acts like “bumpers,” preventing the ball from rolling into the gutter of heresy. It’s no promise that the pope will say the most brilliant and a propos thing (although, if these men are open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they often do say brilliant and timely things). Inspiration goes further, like a Hand helping you roll, to ensure that you hit a perfect strike every time.

 

[capablanca911]

This is probably a minority view in the RCC, but it is my opinion that infallbility is guaranteed when on matters of faith and morals, ordinarily the councils with endorsement of the pope, or extraordinarily the pope alone, makes dogmatic statements binding on all the faithful as indicated with the verbiage ‘let him be anathema…’ or an equivelent for those who don’t hold the proposed doctrine.

So in my mind, Humana Vitae** is not **infallible, (but is ‘binding’ because of our obligation to be obedient to Rome).

But Ineffabilis Deus is infallible because it says:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

This is probably a minority view in the RCC, but it is my opinion that infallbility is guaranteed when on matters of faith and morals, ordinarily the councils with endorsement of the pope, or extraordinarily the pope alone, makes dogmatic statements binding on all the faithful as indicated with the verbiage ‘let him be anathema…’ or an equivelent for those who don’t hold the proposed doctrine.

There need not be any anathema clauses for a definition to be infallibile. Vatican I defined when these statements occur, and said nothing about needing an anathema clause.

Pope John Paul II’s definition in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an interesting case in point, in that it was a doctrinal definition without any anathema clauses. He said:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the CDF, explained:

In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

 

[capablanca911]

Perhaps I don’t understand you?

By my analysis, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible.

By Cardinal Ratzinger’s analysis, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis not infallible. “In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible….”

That a dogma **can **be infallibly true **without **the specific charism of infallibility being invoked on the dogma is something that I wouldn’t disagree with, but I didn’t find it germane to the OP or to my post.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Fair point: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ declaration is not infallible (of itself), nor is it a dogmatic definition. Nevertheless, it expressly what “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” As Ratzinger wrote elsewhere:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

To me, this seems to establish that infallible teachings do not need anathema clauses (which I understand to be your position).

 

[R_C]

It is dogma de fide that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

Some resources

Catholic Answers tract - Papal Infallibility

Catholic Answers video - Scott Hahn explains papal infallibility

EWTN - Papal Infallibility

EWTN - A discussion on Infallibility

First Vatican Council - Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

Catholic Encyclopedia - Infallibility

Bonus question: this regards the Spirit of truth. How the Spirit works is a mystery even to the angels… I’ll simply quote a Church Father on this matter, Iraeneus:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times …]

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner…assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition …]

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church …] For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?

t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father**. …]

The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere. (Iraeneus, AD 189)

 

[capablanca911]

To me, this seems to establish that infallible teachings do not need anathema clauses (which I understand to be your position).

So by what criteria is the object that was set forth by the the ordinary and unviversal Magisterium infallible, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did not meet?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

So by what criteria is the object that was set forth by the the ordinary and unviversal Magisterium infallible, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis did not meet?

I’m not positive what you’re asking. Are you asking why Ordinatio Sacerdotalis wasn’t itself infallible? Because it wasn’t intending its definition to be dogmatic, and didn’t follow the rubric laid out in the First Vatican Council.

JPII was saying, in short, “we know that this is the infallible teaching of the Church, not because I say so, but because the Magisterium has always said so.”

Where do you get support for your argument that anathema clauses are needed?

 

[capablanca911]

When and where did "…the Magisterium … always said so…" where they intended "…its definition to be dogmatic?"