Is Papal Infallibility Falsifiable In Theory?

[tdgesq]

Don’t dodge the question; answer it. Give me an example. Just one.

dshix,

I think you misunderstand me. I can’t give you an example, because I don’t believe the CC has ever contradicted itself on a teaching of faith or morals.

 

[aragonjohn1]

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.

God bless

 

[dshix]

dshix,

I think you misunderstand me. I can’t give you an example, because I don’t believe the CC has ever contradicted itself on a teaching of faith or morals.

Ah, ha, I must have misunderstood this post of yours. I apologize.

 

[tdgesq]

Ah, ha, I must have misunderstood this post of yours. I apologize.

No apology necessary. I was short in my earlier email, which was easily misinterpreted. Just lack of time these days to give a detailed response.

 

[Abu]

DelsonJacobs #8
By the way, an infallible statement by a pope rarely happens

Incorrect, because infallibility extends to doctrines as well as dogmas – there have been many infallible doctrines.

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.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

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) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, 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 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.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

There is no question that the primacy of Peter and the Bishops of Rome was recognised from the beginning of Christ’s Church and infallibility in doctrine was accepted from the beginning also – possessed by His Church – “He who hears you, hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16). [See Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16-17, 26; Jn 16:13].

Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp, or the Vatican Library) for anyone with the will to know what Christ’s Church is teaching, like most of the documents of Vatican I, and the papal documents before and since Vatican II.