Is Papal Infallibility Falsifiable In Theory?

[Subcontrary]

Just a non-Catholic here with a question about infallibility. What hypothetical proposition would a pope have to say that would falsify the doctrine of papal infallibility? Would it be nothing short of this sort of thing: “I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that (falsehood Y)?” I do not want to derail this conversation by inserting any specific falsehood into where I wrote (falsehood Y), but if it helps you answer the question, feel free to make up falsehoods to insert in its place.

Is papal infallibility not falsifiable after all, not even in theory? That is to say, would even a pope saying the above proposition not falsify his infallibility, and simply mean that (falsehood Y) is not actually a falsehood? There has to be a difference between the hypothetical scenario where papal infallibility exists and the one where it does not exist, hasn’t there? That difference is what I’m curious about. I would be grateful if you could dream up and post propositions which, by virtue of the fact that papal infallibility is an accurate component of reality, a pope could/would never actually say.

 

[N0X3x]

The pope is only infallible under certain conditions. If those conditions are met, (I’m not sure exactly what they are, but I think you cover most of them in your example) then palpal infallibility is falsifiable, but you’d need more than the pope proclaiming something to be true that is empirically false.

For example, if the pope says, infallibly, that the moon is made out of green cheese, then the moon is made out of green cheese. There could be some sort of sensory mix-up; God could make Green cheese appear to our senses as moon rocks.

In order for papal infallibility to be truly falsified, the pope would need to make an infallible proclomation that is logically impossible. If the pope proclaims that 2+2=5, then papal infallibility has been falsified, since there is no way that could be true.

 

[Genesis315]

Subcontrary,

If the definitively judged a falsehood to be true, and bound the Church to that judgment, then papal infallibility would be false.

Papal infallibility, however, is generally limited to things that are unknowable apart from revelation, which is why infallibility is necessary (the Church must preserved that original revelation, since it cannot be known any other way). It does not include things that are verifiable by ordinary, natural means, like what the moon is made of.

It also includes morality, because while morality is generally knowable by reason alone, following it is necessary for salvation and because we are fallen, we often have difficulty reasoning it out ourselves.

Therefore, it is very difficult to prove papal infallibility as false unless a doctrine was both definitively judged by the Magisterium as heresy and then as dogma on another occasion (one of those occasions by definition would have to be in error).

 

[Subcontrary]

So if a pope said, “I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that squares and non-squares are identical,” then infallibility would be falsified?

Is there no case that in fact that this simply means that squares and non-squares are identical? Couldn’t there be some sort of mix-up in our small minds? There are a couple at least seemingly incomprehensible mysteries within Catholicism; is there any reason to think that a pope infallibly declaring a logical impossibility wouldn’t be categorized as one of these?

Therefore, it is very difficult to prove papal infallibility as false unless a doctrine was both definitively judged by the Magisterium as heresy and then as dogma on another occasion (one of those occasions by definition would have to be in error).

I’ve read a few arguments that the Magisterium, being full of humans, is liable to err now and again. Usually I read this in conversations where somebody brings up two seemingly contradicting doctrines. Would you be more likely to say that in fact the doctrines are not contradictory, rather than that the Magisterium simply erred? I was also under the impression that only a pope specifically could claim that a claim is infallible, not the Magisterium in general, is that not true?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Pope could just say that he isn’t infallible in the relevant contexts, and that would falsify the dogma.

Think about that for a few minutes.

 

[Subcontrary]

The Pope could just say that he isn’t infallible in the relevant contexts, and that would falsify the dogma.

Think about that for a few minutes.

“I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that the doctrine of papal infallibility is false.”

:stretcher:

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that the doctrine of papal infallibility is false.”

:stretcher:

Now tell me honestly, Subcontrary, are you really Pope Francis? He gets around, you know.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Your question actually doesn’t apply to papal infallibility because it appears you have made the mistake most non-Catholics make about it.

An infallible statement by a pope defines something already understood by the Church as truth. It never introduces a subject or teaching that is new because the Church does not believe there is any further revelation beyond that already made understood in Christ. It only clarifies a teaching from this revelation that may be in danger of falling into disbelief by fully defining it as essential. It isn’t a new revelation or a new truth. It is a dogmatic definition of something that has been true since the beginning of the Church.

So if a pope wanted to introduce a new teaching unheard of by the Church and foreign to our teaching, such a doctrine would not qualify as a dogma. Popes have only the Deposit of Faith to draw from, a deposit made up of Apostolic Tradition and the Holy Scriptures, both of which the Catholic faithful accept as truth to begin with.

Since such an infallible statement can only deal with what the Church believes to be true, one cannot fault a pope for clearly defining any one of these truths in a dogmatic nature. The challenge is not in whether a pope can teach so but whether the truths of the Church are truths to begin with.

By the way, an infallible statement by a pope rarely happens. Most are unaware that there have been only two such declarations made since the doctrine of papal infallibility was defined, once in 1854 and another about a century later in 1950.

 

[MattofTexas]

The Pope could officially promulgate something that contradicts a previously made infallible statement, that would prove that the current Pope or the contradicted Pope/Entire College of Bishops/Ecumenical Council/Entire People of God was not infallible and thus falsify the dogma.So if Pope X were to declare that Mary’s body is entombed somewhere on Earth, and declare this a matter of faith essential to salvation…then anyone who was being honest with themselves would have to admit that either Pope X or Pope Pius XII had erred in teaching a matter of faith or morals and thus both Papal infallibility and the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils with the Pope go out the window (since Vatican I defined Papal infallibility). So yes it is falsifiable. But if the dogma is true a situation demonstrating the falsify of Papal infallibility will never present itself, because the Pope cannot err in teaching faith and morals in his official Papal capacity. So theoretically yes, but practically from a Catholic prospective no, since the Holy Spirit would prevent such a situation from ever occurring.

 

[dshix]

I am amazed that the thread has gotten past the fifth post and this has not been said yet.

The pope only makes an infallible statement when defining a Catholic doctrine on matters of faith and morals. That is the ONLY time the infallibility of the Pope came into play.

The pope cannot infallibly declare that the moon is made of green cheese, or that one of the existing doctrines of the Church is false, because that, by its definition, would NOT be making use of his infallibility. It would just be voicing an opinion.

All the doctrine of the Church has already been revealed. Doctrine will never, EVER be added to or subtracted from, because it was completed by the death of the apostles.

Further infallible statements by popes are only to define, clarify, or make clear EXISTING doctrines, such as in the case of the Immaculate conception.

Thus, infallibility cannot be hypothetically falsified. If the pope says anything not pertaining to faith and morals, it isn’t infallibility, and if he contradicts an existing teaching, it isn’t infallibility.

 

[MPat]

Just a non-Catholic here with a question about infallibility. What hypothetical proposition would a pope have to say that would falsify the doctrine of papal infallibility? Would it be nothing short of this sort of thing: “I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that (falsehood Y)?” I do not want to derail this conversation by inserting any specific falsehood into where I wrote (falsehood Y), but if it helps you answer the question, feel free to make up falsehoods to insert in its place.

Is papal infallibility not falsifiable after all, not even in theory? That is to say, would even a pope saying the above proposition not falsify his infallibility, and simply mean that (falsehood Y) is not actually a falsehood? There has to be a difference between the hypothetical scenario where papal infallibility exists and the one where it does not exist, hasn’t there? That difference is what I’m curious about. I would be grateful if you could dream up and post propositions which, by virtue of the fact that papal infallibility is an accurate component of reality, a pope could/would never actually say.

First of all, falsification would not be that easy. It is never that easy: one should always check for experimental errors and the like.

You might wish to look at the cases when another institution could have been expected to claim infallibility. For example, Islam could be expected to hold that Koran is inerrant. And yet we have en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_verses and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29 that acknowledge the self-contradictions. Or, for another example, Mormons could be expected to claim that their prophets are infallible, but en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29 or catholic.com/tracts/distinctive-beliefs-of-the-mormon-church tells us that they have been unable to do that.

So, as you can see, one hundred years didn’t have to pass until those religions ran into such problems that they had no choice but to acknowledge self-contradictions. They could not be explained away. So, is infallibility that hard to falsify…? And in case of the Catholic Church we have a much longer time period - with Ecumenical Councils giving many statements that might have contradicted each other. And yet we have a very limited number of cases when someone even claims that there is a self-contradiction. And in those cases it is still possible to explain how it is not a contradiction - while in the other examples such attempts have been abandoned.

 

[ClearWater]

The Pope is not permitted to say anything which goes against Church dogma, number one. even if he is speaking ex-cathedra… If a pope, had a lapse of insanity, and began speaking ex-cathedra, trying to cancel dogma, it would not be allowed.

We are told that God would guide our popes. If God were not to guide our popes, then yes errors of that kind would be possible. However, we were promised that God would always be with our Church. We have never, in all our 2,000 or so years, had a case like you suggest, as far as I am aware, even during all the times when other churches were forming, splitting, etc. So, this helps confirm, to my way of thinking, that God is guiding us, as promised.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

The Pope could officially promulgate something that contradicts a previously made infallible statement…

Since an infallible statement would be to declare as dogma something that the Church already accepts as part of its Deposit of Faith (though may not be explicit in the form of a doctrine), the above situation could not occur.

Infallible statements regard the faith and morals that the Church sees as revealed to it in Christ. They involve subjects already believed in the Church as truth and are not new revelations (i.e., we believe that the four Gospel accounts are the only ones that belong in the official Canon, but it is not a dogma; it is something Catholics accept as true but it has not needed to be defined as such via an infallible papal statement).

In regards to the Assumption, such was only declared dogma after a full study of the facts by the Holy Father (he called on the assistance of others in the Church and did not arrive at this dogma on his own). An infallible statement or teaching is that in which the pope declares what is evidently so, not hypothetically so or according to whim.

 

[N0X3x]

I am amazed that the thread has gotten past the fifth post and this has not been said yet.

The pope only makes an infallible statement when defining a Catholic doctrine on matters of faith and morals. That is the ONLY time the infallibility of the Pope came into play.

The pope cannot infallibly declare that the moon is made of green cheese, or that one of the existing doctrines of the Church is false, because that, by its definition, would NOT be making use of his infallibility. It would just be voicing an opinion.

All the doctrine of the Church has already been revealed. Doctrine will never, EVER be added to or subtracted from, because it was completed by the death of the apostles.

Further infallible statements by popes are only to define, clarify, or make clear EXISTING doctrines, such as in the case of the Immaculate conception.

Thus, infallibility cannot be hypothetically falsified. If the pope says anything not pertaining to faith and morals, it isn’t infallibility, and if he contradicts an existing teaching, it isn’t infallibility.

I see. My mistake.

 

[anthonymarie]

If a Roman Catholic ecumenical council were to explicitly contradict a previous one on a point of dogma this would give credence to the view of many of the Orthodox that dogma should only be defined by the church as a whole (by which they mean including them) and this would falsify it by a sort of weight of reason (in my humble opinion).

 

[livingwordunity]

By the way, an infallible statement by a pope rarely happens. Most are unaware that there have been only two such declarations made since the doctrine of papal infallibility was defined, once in 1854 and another about a century later in 1950.

I think you mean that there have only been two infallible dogmas declared in recent history. There have been more than two infallible statements such as with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

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.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I think you mean that there have only been two infallible dogmas declared in recent history. There have been more than two infallible statements such as with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

My comment in no way whatsoever was written nor intended to be read as if I was claiming that there were no other infallible papal teachings. I only mentioned two since the time the doctrine of papal infallibility was being defined, which was during the First Vatican Council. You yourself quoted that this is what I said. Since the first example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, actually occurred just a few years before the dogma of papal infallibility was defined in full, this should be apparent.

My apologies where poor writing on my part caused confusion. I appreciate your kindness in requesting clarity,

 

[Subcontrary]

So yes it is falsifiable. But if the dogma is true a situation demonstrating the falsify of Papal infallibility will never present itself, because the Pope cannot err in teaching faith and morals in his official Papal capacity. So theoretically yes, but practically from a Catholic prospective no, since the Holy Spirit would prevent such a situation from ever occurring.

This brings up a related question, does entrance into the office of pope constrain his free will in that respect, as in, he couldn’t declare a falsehood regarding faith or morals to be infallible even if he wanted to, no matter how hard he tried?

What if Pope X tried to write or say these words:

“I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that Mary was conceived with original sin.”

Would the Holy Spirit inhibit his free will to do so? Does a man leave behind his freedom to write or say such a thing when he becomes a pope, or is there something else to it? Thank you folks for your interesting responses.

 

[dshix]

This brings up a related question, does entrance into the office of pope constrain his free will in that respect, as in, he couldn’t declare a falsehood regarding faith or morals to be infallible even if he wanted to, no matter how hard he tried?

What if Pope X tried to write or say these words:

“I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that Mary was conceived with original sin.”

Would the Holy Spirit inhibit his free will to do so? Does a man leave behind his freedom to write or say such a thing when he becomes a pope, or is there something else to it? Thank you folks for your interesting responses.

Such a thing has never happened and is not likely to happen, but given the circumstances of your hypothetical, the answer is this: the statement, oral or written, would simply be false. The pope, though claiming to be speaking infallibly, would obviously not be, because he would be contradicting a doctrine. The Church would immediately know that the Pope, though claiming to be speaking infallibly, would not be.

 

[anthonymarie]

Some of the kind of reasoning on this thread makes me call to mind the Catechism on the proof of God’s existence:

These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.

Most of us don’t believe in Catholicism because we rigorously analysed it’s teachings Boolean Algebra style. We believe because of “converging and convincing arguments”. If the pope ever did stand up and intentionaly contradict his own infallibility it would make the arguments for infallibility seem rapidly “diverging” and somewhat “unconvincing”.

I don’t think it ever would happen. I believe the Holy Spirit uses providence to provide for the papacy. Just like He provided Mary at her conception with an immaculate heart, knowing she would be Mother of God and that she would keep it unblemished by the grace of God, He guides the cardinals to elect someone He knows will keep unblemished the Chair of Peter in matters of Faith and Morals by the grace of God.

But just as if, if Mary had done something that looked very much like a sin, it would question our faith in the idea that she remained “spotless”, so if the pope said something, ex cathedra, that looked very much like a contradiction or error it would, in reality, question our faith in Papal Infallibility. Arguments for Papal Infallibility would then begin to look very “unreasonable” and project a very “conspiracy theory” image. They might be internally logically consistent but then most conspiracy theories are. Few Catholics would then in reality feel able to continue to except Papal Infallibility as a doctrine.