Is the Pope infallible

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That’s a scary thought. Does this mean the Pope has the authority to tell the world that Christ is not God?

Blessings,
Marduk

He can never oppose Divine Truth or change any infallible teaching of the Church.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Can you give some official documentary evidence for this statement of yours?

As far as I know, the closest thing is the teaching that there is no recourse from a judgment of the Roman Pontiff. But this clearly refers to matters brought to him on appeal, or, IOW, matters that he is called upon to judge. I really don’t believe the Catholic Church teaches that “The Pope does not answer to anyone, except Christ.”

Also, can you give an EXAMPLE in the history of the Church wherein the Pope did not discuss anything with his brother bishops before making a judgment? It seems to me that the truth of your statement depends on real historical evidence to back up your statement (aside from the documentary evidence I asked for). Otherwise, the Popes themselves would not seem to agree with your statement.

Sure, consent of his brother bishops is not necessary for an ex cathedra decree, but is not consent of his brother bishops necessary for the unity of the Church? Show me a Church document that would answer my question in the negative. And while you’re at it, also show us an instance in the history of the Church that would answer my question in the negative.

Blessings,
Marduk

No one can prove a negative to you. No one has the ability to prove that a pope did or didn’t seek advisors (name removed by moderator)ut before making a decision on a matter and if the decision was supported or opposed by the advisors.
“The Pope does not answer to anyone, except Christ.” Prove that I am incorrect.

 

[mardukm]

No one can prove a negative to you. No one has the ability to prove that a pope did or didn’t seek advisors (name removed by moderator)ut before making a decision on a matter and if the decision was supported or opposed by the advisors.

I see you are one of those who likes to play the semantics game. Fine, let me rephrase it positively. Prove to us that the Pope has made a single decision binding on the Church without any (name removed by moderator)ut from his brother bishops.

“The Pope does not answer to anyone, except Christ.” Prove that I am incorrect.

No problem. Pope St. Victor was moved by the united admonition of his brother bishops to belay his threat of excommunication to the Asian Churches that did not celebrate Easter at the same time as the Church of Rome. Again, at what came to be known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Pope Vigilius was moved by his brother bishops to finally condemn the Three Chapters (though indeed, Pope Vigilius’ reasoning for NOT condemning the Three Chapters was itself holy and reasonable). There, now care to answer my own questions?

Can you also answer the following question without resorting to semantics:
“Sure, consent of his brother bishops is not necessary for an ex cathedra decree, but is not consent of his brother bishops necessary for the unity of the Church? Show me a Church document that would answer my question in the negative. And while you’re at it, also show us an instance in the history of the Church that would answer my question in the negative.”

Or let me put it more simply:
For any decree by the Pope, even an ex cathedra decree, Is the consent of his brother bishops NECESSARY for the unity of the Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ron,

Unam Sanctam does not disregard the teaching on invincible ignorance. Any individual teaching of the Church, whether taught under papal infallibility or not, must be interpreted in the light of the entire Faith. It is a type of fundamentalism to see each magisterial statement as standing on its own, apart from the other teachings (or in conflict with the other teachings) and as if not subject to proper interpretation.

A Pope can certainly teach, infallibly or non-infallibly, by his sole authority as the chief priest and first teacher of the universal Church. But it is contrary to the Catholic Faith to say that the teachings of an Ecumenical Council are nothing other than the teachings of the Pope. The Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter, but the Bishops are the successors of the other Apostles. Christ did not appoint one Apostle, but 12, and He called them all Apostles.

Also, this point is clear from the history of the Church, when sometimes the Council was called by an emperor, not called by the Pope, and when sometimes the Pope did not attend the Council, and did not participate in the writing of the documents, but merely approved the documents after the Council was completed.

As for the claim that papal infallibility has only been used twice: Joseph Ratzinger (as a private theologian some years ago) attempted a list of infallible papal statements which certainly had more than two items on it. (Does anyone know where I could find a copy of that list?)

In my opinion, the teaching of Humanae Vitae falls under the infallibility of the Universal Magisterium, but not papal infallibility. The infallibility of the UM depends upon the teaching of the body of Bishops AND the Pope, not the Pope alone (like an Ecumenical Council).

VERY, VERY well put. I would only question the last paragraph. I believe the infallibility of Humanae Vitae is derived from the infallibility of Sacred Tradition on the matter, not the infallibility of the UM. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

He can never oppose Divine Truth or change any infallible teaching of the Church.

Thanks for the response. I was playing devil’s advocate because your original statement in and of itself without any explanation was pretty extreme. And as this is a Catholic apologetics website, we shouldn’t be saying things without proper explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bookgirl32]

NO.

First of all, thank you, totally believe you. Second of all, where did that perception come from? Just curious. Feel free to not answer if it’s derailing the thread, I could always start it somewhere else.

 

[mardukm]

According to the late great Cardinal Newman the Pope only speaks with infallibility ex-cathedra, which has happened only once in recent times, in 1950 when Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus- proclaimed the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Conciliar and other teachings ie, Humanae Vitae etal are NOT ex-cathedra and therefore subject to human error.

According to Catholic teaching, there are four organs of infallibility:

1. The Pope teaching ex cathedra
2. The Ecumenical Council
3. Sacred Tradition
4. Individual bishops even when dispersed throughout the world when they teach something definitively and unanimously on a matter of faith or morals.

The Pope does not always have to appeal to the infallibility of his office for one of his decrees to be infallible. He can very well appeal to the infallibility of Sacred Tradition. That was the case regarding the issue of women’s ordination and, IMO, Humanae Vitae. These decrees by the Pope, though not given ex cathedra, are nevertheless infallible by virtue of the infallibility of Sacred Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

First of all, thank you, totally believe you. Second of all, where did that perception come from? Just curious. Feel free to not answer if it’s derailing the thread, I could always start it somewhere else.

I have no idea. Sometimes people misunderstand that everything the pope does or says is somehow infallible.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I see you are one of those who likes to play the semantics game. Fine, let me rephrase it positively. Prove to us that the Pope has made a single decision binding on the Church without any (name removed by moderator)ut from his brother bishops.

No problem. Pope St. Victor was moved by the united admonition of his brother bishops to belay his threat of excommunication to the Asian Churches that did not celebrate Easter at the same time as the Church of Rome. Again, at what came to be known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Pope Vigilius was moved by his brother bishops to finally condemn the Three Chapters (though indeed, Pope Vigilius’ reasoning for NOT condemning the Three Chapters was itself holy and reasonable). There, now care to answer my own questions?

Can you also answer the following question without resorting to semantics:
“Sure, consent of his brother bishops is not necessary for an ex cathedra decree, but is not consent of his brother bishops necessary for the unity of the Church? Show me a Church document that would answer my question in the negative. And while you’re at it, also show us an instance in the history of the Church that would answer my question in the negative.”

Or let me put it more simply:
For any decree by the Pope, even an ex cathedra decree, Is the consent of his brother bishops NECESSARY for the unity of the Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t see this as semantics, I recomend to everyone that we use as percise and specific language as possible.
Most of the time Popes have and still do address specific issues, in specific countries, and affecting only specific Churches, that are not intended by them to apply to the universal Church. Many times people will read decrees from Popes and forget to understand to who and for what reason he is speaking first.

“For any decree by the Pope, even an ex cathedra decree, Is the consent of his brother bishops NECESSARY for the unity of the Church?”

No, the Unity of the Church is seen in that his brother Bishops assent to his decree.

There are instances in early Councils where a list of decrees or Canons were approved by the Bishops at the Council. When the Pope approved the Council he struck out certain Canons. All the other Canons became binding on the Church, except those not approved by the Pope. This would be an example where all the other Bishops decreed something, but the Pope disagreed on his own authority, it mattered not that the other Bishops agreed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rich

“For any decree by the Pope, even an ex cathedra decree, Is the consent of his brother bishops NECESSARY for the unity of the Church?”

No, the Unity of the Church is seen in that his brother Bishops assent to his decree.

I feel you are avoiding the question, you answer it, and then qualify if with a statement that has a different focus than the original question.

Let me ask again:
For any decree by the Pope, even an ex cathedra decree, Is the consent of his brother bishops NECESSARY for the unity of the Church?

NOW, on to the NEW topic that you have introduced:
When his brother bishops assent to the Pope’s decree, do they do it simply because the Pope decreed it, or because by their investigation it proves to be consonant with Sacred Tradition (consider the movement of the Holy Spirit as a given in this question)?

There are instances in early Councils where a list of decrees or Canons were approved by the Bishops at the Council. When the Pope approved the Council he struck out certain Canons. All the other Canons became binding on the Church, except those not approved by the Pope. This would be an example where all the other Bishops decreed something, but the Pope disagreed on his own authority, it mattered not that the other Bishops agreed.

Two issues spring forth from your statement that requires comment and I would appreciate a response:

1. The Pope’s disapproval of a canon denudes the canon of its ecumenical status - i.e., it is not binding on the whole Church. However, that does not prevent such canon from being accepted by the particular Churches whose bishops did approve that canon.
2. On an issue of Faith or morals, within an Ecumenical Council, when orthodox bishops propose orthodox doctrine for the Pope to confirm, does the Pope have the authority and/or right to veto or reject it?

Finally, can you please comment on my discussion with brother Deconi? It seems he is of the view that within an Ecumenical Council, only the Pope is infallible and only his decision matters. My belief is that the Ecumenical Council AS A WHOLE BODY is protected by infallibility, and not just the Pope. If you agree with brother Deconi, can you offer any magisterial document to support your claim?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Dear brother Rich

I feel you are avoiding the question, you answer it, and then qualify if with a statement that has a different focus than the original question.

Let me ask again:
For any decree by the Pope, even an ex cathedra decree, Is the consent of his brother bishops NECESSARY for the unity of the Church?

NOW, on to the NEW topic that you have introduced:
When his brother bishops assent to the Pope’s decree, do they do it simply because the Pope decreed it, or because by their investigation it proves to be consonant with Sacred Tradition (consider the movement of the Holy Spirit as a given in this question)?

Two issues spring forth from your statement that requires comment and I would appreciate a response:

1. The Pope’s disapproval of a canon denudes the canon of its ecumenical status - i.e., it is not binding on the whole Church. However, that does not prevent such canon from being accepted by the particular Churches whose bishops did approve that canon.
2. On an issue of Faith or morals, within an Ecumenical Council, when orthodox bishops propose orthodox doctrine for the Pope to confirm, does the Pope have the authority and/or right to veto or reject it?

Finally, can you please comment on my discussion with brother Deconi? It seems he is of the view that within an Ecumenical Council, only the Pope is infallible and only his decision matters. My belief is that the Ecumenical Council AS A WHOLE BODY is protected by infallibility, and not just the Pope. If you agree with brother Deconi, can you offer any magisterial document to support your claim?

Blessings,
Marduk

No, the Unity of the Church is not dependent on all the Bishops consenting to a decree of the Pope. The Unity of the Church is not broken because one or even ten Bishops dissent.
An Ecumenical Council can be Infallible when the Bishops are in union with the Pope.
Brother Bishops assent to the Popes decrees because they are in union with the Pope, unless they are certain that what is decreed is opposed to the Deposit of Faith. A Council canon rejected by the Pope is not binding period.

 

[mardukm]

No, the Unity of the Church is not dependent on all the Bishops consenting to a decree of the Pope. The Unity of the Church is not broken because one or even ten Bishops dissent.

Again, you have not answered the question directly. I did not ask whether ALL bishops must consent to a decree by the Pope. Even the standard of an ecumenical Council is the consent of a majority of the bishops (not ALL the bishops), naturally including the consent of its head bishop as well. All I asked is whether the consent of the Pope’s brother bishops is NECESSARY for the unity of the Church on a doctrinal or moral matter.

An Ecumenical Council can be Infallible when the Bishops are in union with the Pope.

Thanks for your viewpoint. I’m not sure if this is what you are saying, but, personally, I don’t believe the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council depends on the infallibility of the Pope. I believe the Council as a body itself possesses infallibility. The validity of an Ecumenical Council depends as much on the consent of the head bishop as it does on the consent of at least a majority of his brother bishops. Thus, when the head bishop calls or consents to the calling of an Ecumenical Council, it will inherently and automatically possess infallibility. As such, it’s decrees will have the special protection of the Holy Spirit. When its decrees are sent to the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) for confirmation, such confirmation will not be for the purpose of validating the orthodoxy of the decrees, but merely for the purpose of ensuring the unity of the Church. Of course, the Pope would personally need to be convinced of the orthodoxy of the decrees by studying the documents and granting his confirmation; HOWEVER, as stated, that confirmation would not add to the objective orthodoxy of the decrees in any way. IOW, the Pope’s confirmation could never be wanting.

A parallel can be seen in the way the consent of his brother bishops is necessary for the unity of the Church in the case of an ex cathedra decree. The orthodoxy of an ex cathedra decree would never be wanting because of infallibility. Before acceptance, his brother bishops need to be convinced of their own free volition of the orthodoxy of the decree, but such subsequent consent (or assent, as some would prefer to put it) of his brother bishops would never be wanting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the Church will be preserved

The situation would be different for a council that is convened without approbation of the head bishop. In such a case, prior to papal approval, such a convention would not be considered an Ecumenical Council, and hence would not possess the charism of infallibility.

Would you say everything I just wrote is a valid, orthodox Catholic viewpoint?

Brother Bishops assent to the Popes decrees because they are in union with the Pope, unless they are certain that what is decreed is opposed to the Deposit of Faith.

I mostly agree with this. I personally believe that on a matter decreed ex cathedra, the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting. As such, the consent of his brother bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, will never be wanting as well - and not because the Pope says so, but because they will be convinced (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) of their own free volition that such papal teaching is orthodox.

A Council canon rejected by the Pope is not binding period.

As the Canons themselves indicate, if there is doubt as to the intent of a particular canon, then one must look either to other canons or to custom to settle the matter. Custom does not support your interpretation of this canon.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Spirithound]

Brother Marduk,

When his brother bishops assent to the Pope’s decree, do they do it simply because the Pope decreed it, or because by their investigation it proves to be consonant with Sacred Tradition (consider the movement of the Holy Spirit as a given in this question)?

I think that some bishops may do their own investigation, but if the decree fulfills the definition of a statement ex cathedra, then it deserves to be assented to based solely on that.

Two issues spring forth from your statement that requires comment and I would appreciate a response:

1. The Pope’s disapproval of a canon denudes the canon of its ecumenical status - i.e., it is not binding on the whole Church. However, that does not prevent such canon from being accepted by the particular Churches whose bishops did approve that canon.

I agree

1. On an issue of Faith or morals, within an Ecumenical Council, when orthodox bishops propose orthodox doctrine for the Pope to confirm, does the Pope have the authority and/or right to veto or reject it?

Yes. He certainly, because of his infallible charism, could not give a decree contradicting it, but that same charism does not guarantee that the Pope will ever say all that he should.

Finally, can you please comment on my discussion with brother Deconi? It seems he is of the view that within an Ecumenical Council, only the Pope is infallible and only his decision matters. My belief is that the Ecumenical Council AS A WHOLE BODY is protected by infallibility, and not just the Pope. If you agree with brother Deconi, can you offer any magisterial document to support your claim?

I feel that the two are related. The Pope may speak infallibly on his own, but nothing infallible may come out of a council without the Pope’s consent.

Again, you have not answered the question directly. I did not ask whether ALL bishops must consent to a decree by the Pope. Even the standard of an ecumenical Council is the consent of a majority of the bishops (not ALL the bishops), naturally including the consent of its head bishop as well. All I asked is whether the consent of the Pope’s brother bishops is NECESSARY for the unity of the Church on a doctrinal or moral matter.

It seems that a bishop could bring himself and perhaps, perhaps his diocese into schism over a newly-defined dogma.

Personally, I don’t believe the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council depends on the infallibility of the Pope. I believe the Council as a body itself possesses infallibility. The validity of an Ecumenical Council depends as much on the consent of the head bishop as it does on the consent of at least a majority of his brother bishops. Thus, when the head bishop calls or consents to the calling of an Ecumenical Council, it will inherently and automatically possess infallibility. As such, it’s decrees will have the special protection of the Holy Spirit. When its decrees are sent to the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) for confirmation, such confirmation will not be for the purpose of validating the orthodoxy of the decrees, but merely for the purpose of ensuring the unity of the Church. Of course, the Pope would personally need to be convinced of the orthodoxy of the decrees by studying the documents and granting his confirmation; HOWEVER, as stated, that confirmation would not add to the objective orthodoxy of the decrees in any way. IOW, the Pope’s confirmation could never be wanting.

I perceive some contradiction in this paragraph, which could just be my personal connotations. You first say that the validity of an EC depends as much on the consent of the head bishop as it does on the consent of at least a majority of the other bishops. This necessarily puts the head bishop on a level above the other bishops, and seems to actually grant him veto power. But then you say that the head bishop only confirms the canons for the purpose of Church unity, not grading them for orthodoxy. Brother Rich has said that certain Popes have struck out certain canons from ECs that they (possibly through their legates) presided over, and this would seem to contradict the idea that he only approves councils for the purposes of Church unity, but rather than some matter of orthodoxy was at stake. OTOH, those canons could have been struck down on grounds of Church unity. (?) That being said, your penultimate statement seems to me to be correct, that the Pope’s confirmation would not add to the objective orthodoxy of the decrees, but I think that may be because orthodoxy exists independent of any of us. The Councils and the Popes are just granted the charism to discern certain orthodoxies, not create them.

A parallel can be seen in the way the consent of his brother bishops is necessary for the unity of the Church in the case of an ex cathedra decree. The orthodoxy of an ex cathedra decree would never be wanting because of infallibility. Before acceptance, his brother bishops need to be convinced of their own free volition of the orthodoxy of the decree, but such subsequent consent (or assent, as some would prefer to put it) of his brother bishops would never be wanting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the Church will be preserved

I see a problem here in that some bishops have been heretics.

The situation would be different for a council that is convened without approbation of the head bishop. In such a case, prior to papal approval, such a convention would not be considered an Ecumenical Council, and hence would not possess the charism of infallibility.

Perhaps these are the examples of Popes striking out certain canons?
Peace