N
newby
Guest
Does anyone know the Infallible Statements that have been made by the Popes and which Pope made which one? Thank you for any help you may provide.
In Christ’s Name,
Newby
In Christ’s Name,
Newby
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
There are literally hundreds and hundreds. I would suggest getting a copy of Denzinger if you are interested in studying them.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
I heard on the radio that there have been only 3 infallable statements made by the Popes over the centuries:
Maybe it’s actually a difference of infallable doctrines versus infallable statements. I’ve had this same question also and posted it in the Ask an Apologist forum, but it was never posted or answered. (then again, I’ve had several posts “time out” lately)
I’d be interested to hear what other knowledgeable people here have to say about this and what resources to go to to find the answers.
- The Assumption of Mary
Maybe it’s actually a difference of infallable doctrines versus infallable statements. I’ve had this same question also and posted it in the Ask an Apologist forum, but it was never posted or answered. (then again, I’ve had several posts “time out” lately)
I’d be interested to hear what other knowledgeable people here have to say about this and what resources to go to to find the answers.
D
dumspirospero
Guest
That is wrong…there have been 2…and only two…infallible statements that is. with that said, Papal councils, etc. such as Vat II are infallible because the Holy Spirit makes sure they are infallible.
1)The Immaculate Conception
2)The Assumption
Br. Rich SFO:
1)The Immaculate Conception
2)The Assumption
Br. Rich SFO:
M
michaelp
Guest
You mean that you all don’t have an infallible list of infallible statements? How ironic.
Michael
K
kleary
Guest
Actually that is the good thing. There is no document to list all infallible decrees of the Roman Pontiff.You mean that you all don’t have an infallible list of infallible statements? How ironic.
Michael
As far as is known at this time there are only two that must be believed, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and her Assumption to Heaven.
I suggest you look HERE for more info -
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
However…KNOW what you are attacking-
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.%20On%20the%20infallible%20teaching%20authority%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff
Ken
K
kleary
Guest
Yet a quote from the first link above-
If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.
Ken
E
Exporter
Guest
michaelp,
“You mean that you all don’t have an infallible list of infallible statements? How ironic.”
Yes we all mean to say that we all do not have alist of all the infallible statements that have been made from the Vatican. Why would we, unless we are taking a course on a higher level in a PhD program of Theology?
I do believe the original question was one of curiosity and not of substance. It is similar to asking how many miles of highway in the state of Nevada.
“You mean that you all don’t have an infallible list of infallible statements? How ironic.”
Yes we all mean to say that we all do not have alist of all the infallible statements that have been made from the Vatican. Why would we, unless we are taking a course on a higher level in a PhD program of Theology?
I do believe the original question was one of curiosity and not of substance. It is similar to asking how many miles of highway in the state of Nevada.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Many people confuse Infallible statements with “Ex Cathedra” teachings. There are few Ex Cathedra statements three is usually quoted however there may be two others that meet the necessary requirements. However the original poster asked about infallible Papal statements not just Ex Cathedra statements.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
Br. Ricj SFO:
“The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)”
If anyone would like to find the ex-Cathedra statements, simply read the writings of the dogmatic councils. Whenever you find a statement which ends with the words “let him be anathema” the preceeded statement was ex-Cathedra - that is, infallible. Vatican II has no such infallible statements.
Maybe that is because an ex-cathedra statement IS an infallible statement, and an infallible statement IS an ex-cathedra statement.
Br. Ricj SFO:
There are not only three ex-Cathedra statements. Every dogma from every dogmatic council IS an ex-Cathedra statement, and there are hundreds of them. Ex-Cathedra just means “from the Chair”. It means that the statement was made in a definitive way “from the chair of Peter”. The following is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)”
If anyone would like to find the ex-Cathedra statements, simply read the writings of the dogmatic councils. Whenever you find a statement which ends with the words “let him be anathema” the preceeded statement was ex-Cathedra - that is, infallible. Vatican II has no such infallible statements.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, Newby!
What!?!?!? YOU haven’t heard about the Great Golden Book of Infallible Statements hidden in the basement of the Vatican Library, under a trap door in the Secret Archives!?!?!? Ohhhhhh, what is the world coming to?!?!?!
Infallibility is not what your question implies. Infallibility is “communicative” and “receptive,” and “general” and “transactional.”
First, you can see infallibility adverted-to in inspired Scripture, which, of course, is infallible on the issues of faith and morals, the “meat” of infallibility.
**1 ****While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. ****2 ****He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. ****3 ****Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. Luke 5:1-3.**Note well what you have here: “Boat” always = “Church” in the Bible. “Two” always = “the Church.” Large bodies of water = “sea of damnable souls.” “Sitting” always = “presiding.” So, we have “two boats,” a double affirmation, by “two” and “boats,” that they symbolize “the Church.” Note which boat Jesus gets into – *Simon Peter’s boat, the Church of the Popes! *Jesus “sits” in Simon Peter’s boat – Jesus “presiding” in the Church of the Popes. And what do we see coming out of Simon Peter’s boat to the saved on the shore (they are not in the “sea of damnable souls,” right?)? We see the actual teaching of Jesus Himself presiding in the Church of the Popes coming out of the Church of the Popes.
TO BE CONTINUED (because of that annoying character limit)
B
BibleReader
Guest
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST…
And then there is the story of Malchus…
**10 **Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. **11 **Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?” John 18:10-11. “Sword” = “the Word.” Note who is wielding the “word” – Simon Peter, the first pope! And note what he is applying “the word” to – an ear! And note what Jesus Himself does – He corrects Simon Peter! That is a picture of “communicative infallibility” – God protects the communication of truth. **49 ****His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?” ****50 ****And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. ****51 **But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:49-51. Same story, but here the focus is slightly different. Here we are told that “one of them” struck the ear with the sword – probably an implicit extension of the infallibility teaching to the Apostles – the first Bishops, too – in some sense. The “word” is still applied to an “ear,” of course. The “ear” falls off – “the word” has been poorly received! – but God, Himself, repairs the “hearing” – a picture of “receptive” infallibility, pursuant to which God protects the “hearing” of the teaching of truth by His Church.
If you are unimpacted by Scripture, hang around, here, and perhaps you might ultimately be.
Infallibility is “general” in the sense that Christians are always morally obligated to abide by the teaching of the Church’s agents unless they can perceive an articulable reason for not doing so.
It is “transactional” in the sense that it is reliable that on any given subject, the truth will ultimately and critically emerge.
The folks up above who functionally limit infallibility to two or three occasions are wrong. That is a common misunderstanding among Catholics nervous about saying that anything is infallible.
Hopefully, you’re not only a “flash in the pan,” a “one issue visitor” taking a shot at Catholics on what you mistakenly think is a weak point, so that you’re not interested in hanging around, and will leave.
And then there is the story of Malchus…
**10 **Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. **11 **Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?” John 18:10-11. “Sword” = “the Word.” Note who is wielding the “word” – Simon Peter, the first pope! And note what he is applying “the word” to – an ear! And note what Jesus Himself does – He corrects Simon Peter! That is a picture of “communicative infallibility” – God protects the communication of truth. **49 ****His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?” ****50 ****And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. ****51 **But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:49-51. Same story, but here the focus is slightly different. Here we are told that “one of them” struck the ear with the sword – probably an implicit extension of the infallibility teaching to the Apostles – the first Bishops, too – in some sense. The “word” is still applied to an “ear,” of course. The “ear” falls off – “the word” has been poorly received! – but God, Himself, repairs the “hearing” – a picture of “receptive” infallibility, pursuant to which God protects the “hearing” of the teaching of truth by His Church.
If you are unimpacted by Scripture, hang around, here, and perhaps you might ultimately be.
Infallibility is “general” in the sense that Christians are always morally obligated to abide by the teaching of the Church’s agents unless they can perceive an articulable reason for not doing so.
It is “transactional” in the sense that it is reliable that on any given subject, the truth will ultimately and critically emerge.
The folks up above who functionally limit infallibility to two or three occasions are wrong. That is a common misunderstanding among Catholics nervous about saying that anything is infallible.
Hopefully, you’re not only a “flash in the pan,” a “one issue visitor” taking a shot at Catholics on what you mistakenly think is a weak point, so that you’re not interested in hanging around, and will leave.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
This should read:
Maybe that is because an ex-cathedra statement IS an infallible statement, and every infallible statement IS NOT an ex-cathedra statement.
By the way there are many infallible statements made in the documents of Vatican II, especially the Dogmatic Constitutions.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
RSiscoe,
Please don’t lump people into a box of your own making. Just because some of us were poorly catechized does not mean we have a problem or are “nervous” about papal infallability.
Get off your high horse. If you have an answer to a question, then please answer it, but please don’t feel you have the right to denigrate fellow Catholics for not having the right answer. I, for one, am here to learn, and I believe I as well as others, learn more from people who can make a point without insulting ANYONE.
Catholics (and Catholic I am) believe that “infallability” means that we believe that the Pope is infallable in teachings about morals and faith. I have no problem defending this, nor am I nervious about it.
I AM nervous about running into Catholics who seem to feel they have a right to put others down because they happen to understand a particular principle of our faith when others do not.
Please don’t lump people into a box of your own making. Just because some of us were poorly catechized does not mean we have a problem or are “nervous” about papal infallability.
Get off your high horse. If you have an answer to a question, then please answer it, but please don’t feel you have the right to denigrate fellow Catholics for not having the right answer. I, for one, am here to learn, and I believe I as well as others, learn more from people who can make a point without insulting ANYONE.
Catholics (and Catholic I am) believe that “infallability” means that we believe that the Pope is infallable in teachings about morals and faith. I have no problem defending this, nor am I nervious about it.
I AM nervous about running into Catholics who seem to feel they have a right to put others down because they happen to understand a particular principle of our faith when others do not.
M
michaelp
Guest
This is a joke, right?
M
michaelp
Guest
OK, guys. I know that no one here would let me by with something that sounds so silly. I must be misunderstanding.
How about if I said this: "I don’t have a canon of Scripture (wait, that is what I am always accused of on this site
); only those who have a PhD are able to fingure out what the infallible written statements are (canon) as only those with a PhD can figure out what all the spoken infallible statments are (ex cathedra)?Would you let me by with this?
So, you are saying that you have an fallible opinion about infallible statement. Alot of good infallibility seems to do.
You say the same thing to me (a Protestant) about the Scripture. But at least I have a list of the Scripture. You don’t have a list of infallible statement? Really, if this is true, what good does infallibility do?
Unless I have got it wrong somehow(?)
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Michael you are dear to me and always in my prayers as well as your family.I have no doubt I am in the very Church Christ started.With that being said a list of infallible statements from the Chair of Peter and those that are made on Faith and morals will be different in that the ones on faith and morals are more extensive and change because society changes.Let me give you an example 100 years ago cloning wasn’t an issue scripture doesn’t mention cloning, so the Church guided by the Holy Spirit will bind and loose concerning cloning.God Bless
M
michaelp
Guest
Thanks Lisa,
Hope that you and your family are doing well.
So there IS an infallible statement about cloning? Some say there were only two, others say there was more. You say that there is one about cloning. Who has the right answer? Where does one go for truth?
You know that I am being ironic since Protestants are accused by Catholic of being subjectivists with regard to the canon saying “Protestants have a fallible canon of an infallible text.” Alot of good that does you. Now you have a fallible list of infallible statements.
Am I right Lisa. You don’t have a list of infallible statements from the Pope? If this is correct, what good does infallibility do you?
In loving kindness as always,
Michael
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Now when did I ever say anyone was “nervous” about infallible statements? And what kind of box was I lumping you, or anyone else, into? I am wondering what in my post caused you to think I believed some people were nervous about papal infallibility.
- Status