Issues with papal infallibility

[Gorgias]

Are you sure? I thought that it was well established that Pope Innocent IV allowed torture (under certain restricted conditions) to be used in the Inquisition according to the papal encyclical Ad Extirpanda?

As an ecclesiastical teaching of “faith and morals”? Nope.

From Ad Extirpanda:

A Proclamation of the Laws and Regulations to be Followed by Magistrates and Secular Officials against
Heretics and their Accomplices and Protectors

Nope. Doesn’t look like a ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’ to me… :nope:

 

[Gorgias]

Limbo was taught in some versions of the Baltimore Catechism

It certainly was!

But, it’s not the ‘limbo’ that you think it is…

From the Baltimore Catechism, 1941 Edition:

1. What do we mean when we say in the Apostles’ Creed that Christ descended into hell?
   When we say that Christ descended into hell we mean that, after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest, called limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.

Put to death indeed in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit, in which also he went and preached to those spirits that were in prison. (I Peter 3:18-19)

1. Why did Christ go to limbo?
   Christ went to limbo to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.

1. Where was Christ’s body while His soul was In limbo?
   While His soul was in limbo, Christ’s body was in the holy sepulchre.

This is the ‘limbus patrum’, or the ‘limbo of the patriarchs’, which the Church has taught formally, and which the Church continues to teach. Prior to Christ’s redemptive death, people – even good & just people – could not enter heaven. Therefore, they had to ‘wait’ until Christ’s sacrifice was complete. This ‘place’ where their souls waited – the ‘green room’, as it were, to heaven – is known as the ‘limbo of the patriarchs’.

It is (/was) real, and it existed (/exists), but there’s no one there now – there’s no need for it anymore, after all!

The ‘limbo’ that you’re thinking of – the ‘limbo of infants’ – was a theological attempt to answer the question “what happens to babies who die without having been baptized?” Augustine himself wrestled with this question, and came up with an answer that says “heaven, but not quite the Beatific Vision, maybe?”

Now, there’s an important, but subtle, distinction to be made here. Some people in the church – even a bishop or a subset of bishops – may teach something in the name of the Church, but that doesn’t make it ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’ let alone ‘infallible’. To reach that level, it has to be taught by all bishops in union with the pope (or, in special cases, by the pope alone), and with the intent that it be taught as ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’.

“Limbo of the infants” meets none of these standards.

 

[dmar198]

For more than 500 years it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It was in the Creed. That was changed so that now it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

I think the latter thing implies the former because to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Does that make sense? Because I think that makes it clear that the latter version of the Creed does not deny the teaching of the former, but simply adds a word to it, as if to say, “Oh, this is true as well.” Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation of this point?

For 1900 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. After Vatican II, that was changed and for 50 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for all. Then they changed it again and now they teach that the Blood was shed for many, although there are some priests who say that the Blood was shed for All, even though in the missalette it says that the Blood was shed for Many.

I don’t think any of those statements are contrary to each other, because the amount of people in “all” is “many,” right? Therefore, if you say the blood was shed for many, you could either mean “all” or “not all.” Does that seem reasonable? Because I think the Church always clearly taught that the passage that says “for many” includes all among the many. For example, in the Baltimore Catechism, the same lesson that says Jesus’ blood was shed “for many” (Question 346) also says, “Our Divine Lord had an immeasurable love for every member of the human race, and gave proof of this by shedding His blood for the salvation of all mankind.” (Question 356) source What do you think of that?

Limbo was taught in some versions of the Baltimore Catechism, which is the ordinary magisterium, is it not?

I don’t think Limbo was taught in the Baltimore Catechism, I think that’s a common misinterpretation. When I was in school my religion courses were based on the Baltimore Catechism, and we were always taught that Limbo was just a popular theory among some theologians. For example, Question 632 says, “it is the common belief [unbaptized infants] will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.” source To me, that supports what I was taught: limbo is a popular theory, but not a teaching of the Church. What do you think?

 

[dmar198]

But torture is said to be wrong now, although it was not so during the Inquisition.

What makes you think torture was not wrong during the Inquisition? I think it is possible that the Catholics who used or commanded torture were simply violating Catholic doctrine. Do you think that’s possible?

 

[porthos11]

1. I keep hearing that “Unam sanctam”, a papal bull written in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII is not considered infallible yet it says: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” How could this not be considered to be intended as an infallible declaration?

Any (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated.

I’ll just address this one. While this declaration in Unam Sanctam is admittedly embarrassing or irritating to today’s modern ears, the formula is precise. It meets all criteria and is indeed an infallible definition. I wish it weren’t, to be honest, but it is.

 

[garysibio]

But torture is said to be wrong now, although it was not so during the Inquisition.

Another example of this is the church’s position on the death penalty. In fact Pope Francis recently spoke out against the use, not only of the death penalty, but life imprisonment also. (I don’t have the reference but it was about two months ago.)

 

[Gorgias]

I’ll just address this one. While this declaration in Unam Sanctam is admittedly embarrassing or irritating to today’s modern ears, the formula is precise. It meets all criteria and is indeed an infallible definition. I wish it weren’t, to be honest, but it is.

What, then, do you say it means?

 

[MarkInOregon]

For 1900 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. After Vatican II, that was changed and for 50 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for all. Then they changed it again and now they teach that the Blood was shed for many, although there are some priests who say that the Blood was shed for All, even though in the missalette it says that the Blood was shed for Many.

What is the underlying word translated as “many” or “all”. Isn’t this a translation issue and not a teaching issue? Translating can be hard and sometimes the language a word is translated to has no exact match and the translators try to do the best they can to capture the meaning. Practically – I don’t really see the “big” distinction you are trying to draw.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Gorgias]

For 1900 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for many. After Vatican II, that was changed

Here’s the salient question: this was changed… where? In the prayers of the Mass? Liturgical prayer isn’t a matter of ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’, strictly speaking. So, a change in the prayers of the Mass doesn’t imply a change of ‘doctrine’.

and for 50 years it was taught that the Blood was shed for all. Then they changed it again and now they teach that the Blood was shed for many, although there are some priests who say that the Blood was shed for All, even though in the missalette it says that the Blood was shed for Many.

Here’s the thing: what you’re talking about here isn’t a change in Church doctrine – it’s a change in the English-language translation of the Mass only! An English-language translation of the Mass isn’t even capable of being a matter pertaining to infallibility!

So, again, it’s not like the Church changed its teaching, but rather, that the translation of the Mass in English changed…!

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

As i have read it papal infallibility only concerns certain proclemations regarding certain teachings of the catholic church.
Such as the ascension of the virgin Mary for example.

Not the holy fathers public speeches or opinions.
That is called ultramontanism and this position (taken by people such as Louis Veuillot) that says that all statements of the holy father should be seen as infallible, was never adopted by church, and the Bull Lumen Gentium by Pope Paul VI has effectively put an end to this doctrine once and for all.

 

[808Catholic]

Possibly? But no one knows if they are infallible or not?

Do/Did you pray on these issues? What does the Holy Spirit tell you? Your question on whether any one can know if what a Pope says is infallible or not seems to speak from the point of view of relativism where everyone’s opinion counts equally. This is not true in the Catholic doctrine. Catholics follow the Pope when it comes to doctrine. If someone calls themselves Catholics but do not follow the Pope, that person needs serious soul searching if they want to remain Catholic.

 

[wynd]

Tom,

Leaving aside your question for the moment… what’s the practical significance of whether or not it’s an infallibly asserted teaching?

I asked this in another thread but I think it got locked or deleted. I agree with you that teachings should be followed whether infallible or not. However, if it doesn’t matter, what’s the point of infallibility?

 

[wynd]

Here’s the salient question: this was changed… where? In the prayers of the Mass? Liturgical prayer isn’t a matter of ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’, strictly speaking. So, a change in the prayers of the Mass doesn’t imply a change of ‘doctrine’.

As for this, lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[Gorgias]

I asked this in another thread but I think it got locked or deleted. I agree with you that teachings should be followed whether infallible or not. However, if it doesn’t matter, what’s the point of infallibility?

The point of infallibility isn’t whether we should believe, but whether our belief proceeds directly from revelation.

 

[Gorgias]

As for this, lex orandi, lex credendi.

Fair enough. Yet, doctrine and dogma are not determined, strictly speaking, from the liturgy of the Church, and certainly not from the translations thereof.

The complaint was that “for many” was changed to “for all” and then back to “for many.” Yet, through it all, the liturgy in Latin (which was the basis for the various vernacular translations) remained constant: “pro multis.” So, even if you want to claim that liturgical prayer has the force of doctrine (which it doesn’t), you can’t claim it in this case, as the Roman Missal, in its original, has not changed, but only the English translations of the 20th century…

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Fair enough. Yet, doctrine and dogma are not determined, strictly speaking, from the liturgy of the Church, and certainly not from the translations thereof.

The complaint was that “for many” was changed to “for all” and then back to “for many.” Yet, through it all, the liturgy in Latin (which was the basis for the various vernacular translations) remained constant: “pro multis.” So, even if you want to claim that liturgical prayer has the force of doctrine (which it doesn’t), you can’t claim it in this case, as the Roman Missal, in its original, has not changed, but only the English translations of the 20th century…

I think it means that only a few will enter heaven right away…