List of Infallable papal proclamations

[Chipper]

Infallible does not mean without error.

This statement: if something is true, then it is infallible
contradicts the teaching of the Church …

Ron

Where are you getting this stuff from? I think you are confusing the logical basis of my statement, with various categories involved with the church declarattions at hand. The fundamental statement is that Infallible means without error.

Here are some Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Infallibility.

*"In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, *
*the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, **preserved from ***
liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.

and…

*…that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; *
it means exemption from the possibility of error; "

Not only that look up the word Infallible in the dictionary.

Thus my statement, “If something is true then it is infallible”. still stands undefeated.

 

[CUAGRAD08]

A list of infallible Papal teachings is very easy since it has only occurred once in the history of the Church. This is the Church wide standard and is what is taught in the best theological schools in the world. There is no argument over other teachings in the Church.

This one single pronouncement was on the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. It was made by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in a document entitled Munificentissimus Deus. This was the first and only time that this “power” of the Pope was used.

The list is easily compiled because the principal of Papal Infallibility was not defined (and therefore did not exist) until The First Vatican Council in 1870. This council laid out the requirement that made a Papal teaching Infallible. First was that it had to be the Roman Pontiff making the pronouncement. Secondly it must be while acting as the supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church using his teaching authority. Third it must it must be on an issue of faith and morals. Finally the Pope must know and explicitly state that he is defining an infallible teaching of the Church. This set of circumstances has only occurred once since the Coucil.

There are other teachings commonly claimed as infallible Papal teachings, but these usually have a major flaw: timing. The most widely claimed is the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This was however proclaimed in 1854, like the others before the 1870 Vatican Council I.

As for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, this does not fit the requirements. (Since this was my thesis topic I can personally attest that this is very true.) The teaching the Women cannot be priests was specifically said to be an infallible teaching of the Church, but the Pope does explicitly state that he was proclaiming this Doctrine. In fact he more than explicitly states he was just telling everybody what all the bishops were teaching. (Because of this it is counted as a doctrine of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium Infallibility.)

The list is very simple; it only has one thing on it: the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Ok well then is there a list of statements “generally considered” to be infallable? Or maybe a list of all statements considered infallable by anyone (that is, including disputed ones)?

Wikipedia has a list (see here).

An anti-Catholic website has a different list (see here).

 

[prodromos]

The list is very simple; it only has one thing on it: the Assumption of Mary.

You left out the canonization of saints. Every time the Pope declares someone to be a saint the Catholic Church considers it to be an infallible statement.

John.

 

[Just_Lurking]

“A 1998 commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone, the leaders of the CDF, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.” (wikipedia)

I’ve not found a copy of that commentary yet.

See here.

1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31

 

[fwon2638]

A list of infallible Papal teachings is very easy since it has only occurred once in the history of the Church. This is the Church wide standard and is what is taught in the best theological schools in the world. There is no argument over other teachings in the Church.

This one single pronouncement was on the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. It was made by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 in a document entitled Munificentissimus Deus. This was the first and only time that this “power” of the Pope was used.

The list is easily compiled because the principal of Papal Infallibility was not defined (and therefore did not exist) until The First Vatican Council in 1870. This council laid out the requirement that made a Papal teaching Infallible. First was that it had to be the Roman Pontiff making the pronouncement. Secondly it must be while acting as the supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church using his teaching authority. Third it must it must be on an issue of faith and morals. Finally the Pope must know and explicitly state that he is defining an infallible teaching of the Church. This set of circumstances has only occurred once since the Coucil.

There are other teachings commonly claimed as infallible Papal teachings, but these usually have a major flaw: timing. The most widely claimed is the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This was however proclaimed in 1854, like the others before the 1870 Vatican Council I.

As for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, this does not fit the requirements. (Since this was my thesis topic I can personally attest that this is very true.) The teaching the Women cannot be priests was specifically said to be an infallible teaching of the Church, but the Pope does explicitly state that he was proclaiming this Doctrine. In fact he more than explicitly states he was just telling everybody what all the bishops were teaching. (Because of this it is counted as a doctrine of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium Infallibility.)

The list is very simple; it only has one thing on it: the Assumption of Mary.

So are u saying that Vatican I “invented” infallibility or that the Pope really had no such power???

Francis

 

[Just_Lurking]

There are other teachings commonly claimed as infallible Papal teachings, but these usually have a major flaw: timing. The most widely claimed is the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This was however proclaimed in 1854, like the others before the 1870 Vatican Council I.

John Paul II taught that this was also infallible (see here):

The conciliar texts also indicate the conditions for the Roman Pontiff’s exercise of the infallible Magisterium. They can be summarized in this way: the Pope must act as “the shepherd and teacher of all Christians,” pronouncing on truths regarding “faith and morals,” in terms clearly showing his intention to define a certain truth and to require definitive assent of all Christians. That occurred, for example, in the definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, about which Pius IX stated: “It is a doctrine revealed by God and for this reason it must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful” (DS 2803), or in the definition of the Assumption of Mary most holy, when Pius XII said: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we declare and define as divinely revealed dogma…etc.” (DS 3903).

 

[Mickey]

So then…Pope Pius IX infallibly defines the doctrine of infallibility, yet there are no authoritative records or theological agreement on which statements are infallible declarations.

Very confusing.

 

[davidv]

So then…Pope Pius IX infallibly defines the doctrine of infallibility, yet there are no authoritative records or theological agreement on which statements are infallible declarations.

Very confusing.

Confusing only if one insists on a list. How does a list help us obey the teachings of the church?

Seems to me the only reason one needs a list is to justify some less than holy actilvity because its not on the list.

 

[thistle]

“A 1998 commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone, the leaders of the CDF, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.” (wikipedia)

I’ve not found a copy of that commentary yet.

Ron

adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html

 

[Mickey]

How does a list help us obey the teachings of the church?

I don’t know. It seems that if you belong to a Church which claims a major doctrine such as infallibility, you would want to know which teachings have been infallibly declared.

 

[stmaria]

Dogmas of the Catholic faith
jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

 

[davidv]

I don’t know. It seems that if you belong to a Church which claims a major doctrine such as infallibility, you would want to know which teachings have been infallibly declared.

I believe you have mis-characterized infallibility as a “major” doctrine. It pales in comparison to the divinity and humanity of Jesus, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, or the God given nature of the the 7 sacraments.

I don’t need to know anything about infallibility, unless I was a theologian, to live a holy life as described by the Church.

 

[Mickey]

I believe you have mis-characterized infallibility as a “major” doctrine.

As an Orthodox Christian, I do not recognize the innovation of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Period.

But I am curious. Are you saying that you view it as a “minor” doctrine? I was not aware that Rome differentiated between “major” and “minor” doctrines.

 

[Ignatius]

As far as I know there are only two, both concerning Mary.

At least that is what I had been taught. The defined dogmas were the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception.

Other than that, the Church relies on the infallibility of the Magestarium.

I believe that is correct, there are only two infallible ex-cathedra statements.

There are, of course, other pronouncements which affirm those of the Megisterium, such as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[davidv]

As an Orthodox Christian, I do not recognize the innovation of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Period.

But I am curious. Are you saying that you view it as a “minor” doctrine? I was not aware that Rome differentiated between “major” and “minor” doctrines.

“Major” doctrines are call “dogmas” and are (from the Catholic Encyclopedia)General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the ApostlesI believe Ludwig Ott defines several layers doctrine, all requiring obedience but with varying levels of intellectual ascent required.

It is on the basis of the need for obedience that I stated before that whether something is infallibly declared or not, if we disobey, we sin, and put our soul at risk.

 

[expectthebest]

I think the whole question of infalliblility leads to what Catholics must believe and what Catholics may have some ability to question and come up with a different understanding. A person brought up a point on another thread that Dogma is not something that one can question and come up with a different answer where Doctrine is something that is up for discussion. I’m not sure this is true, it’s not what I was taught.

Then we get into discussion of Papal infallibility vs Universal Magisterium infallibility vs Ordinary Magisterium non-infallibility but must be followed anyway, etc.

So, the question is, what must Catholics believe and what are Catholics not absolutely bound to believe?

 

[thistle]

This was in another thread:

"Doctrine - any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.

The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or decision of an ecumenical council, or this teaching may be taught ordinarily in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.

The difference in Dogmas and Doctrines is the level of certainty with which the magisterium teaches. Dogmas are taught with absolute certainty (beyond all doubt whatsoever), whereas doctrines are taught with moral certainty (similar to beyond reasonable doubt).

Dogmas require the assent of faith, meaning that obstinate doubt or denial of the truth of the dogma is the sin of heresy–a sin against the virtue of faith.

Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will. Refusal to submit to doctrines of the Church is not a heresy, not a sin against faith, but a sin against charity. We are called to “obey our leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). To dissent with doctrine is incompatible with humility, loyalty, and charity. It is a matter of placing one’s own fallible intellect and will above that of the mind of the Holy Catholic Church.

I recommend the following Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which describes the difference between “dissent” and “difficulty” in assenting to doctrines."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

 

[expectthebest]

This was in another thread:

"Doctrine - any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.

The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or decision of an ecumenical council, or this teaching may be taught ordinarily in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.

The difference in Dogmas and Doctrines is the level of certainty with which the magisterium teaches. Dogmas are taught with absolute certainty (beyond all doubt whatsoever), whereas doctrines are taught with moral certainty (similar to beyond reasonable doubt).

Dogmas require the assent of faith, meaning that obstinate doubt or denial of the truth of the dogma is the sin of heresy–a sin against the virtue of faith.

Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will. Refusal to submit to doctrines of the Church is not a heresy, not a sin against faith, but a sin against charity. We are called to “obey our leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). To dissent with doctrine is incompatible with humility, loyalty, and charity. It is a matter of placing one’s own fallible intellect and will above that of the mind of the Holy Catholic Church.

I recommend the following Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which describes the difference between “dissent” and “difficulty” in assenting to doctrines."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Thanks for the very clear and concise answer. This is helpful.

My next question would be, why do we have to believe in something that is not taught infallibly? If the Church believed it to be true, why not teach it infallibly? Sure, we are to “obey our leaders and submit to them” but what is the limit? I can understand using this passage to explain the mandatory assent to Dogmatic teaching. But for something that is not Dogmatic seems to possibly go a little far.

For example, the 68th Cannon of the Fourth Lateren Council placed special restrictions on Jews and Muslims in that they had to wear special cloths to be easily recongnized, could not hold public office and could not go outside on certain Easter days. Was this something that a Catholic of the time would have had to submit too? I think today one would describe this Cannon as being totally anti Christian. Actually, it reminds me of hwo the Nazis treated the Jews.

So, If the premise is submission to the authority of the Chruch, shouldn’t that explicit submission be reserved for that which the Church believes enough to justify an infallible proclamation?

 

[Joysong]

In Acts 15:28, we read:

It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’"

This first Council of Jerusalem defined nothing new doctrinally that pertains to Divine Revelation, yet we see the action of the apostles proclaiming that their decision was arrived at with the help of the Holy Spirit, and it was therefore assented to.

We are taught also from the Vatican Council II document below that religious assent is not an option, but for any who call themselves Catholic, it is a matter of faith to believe God is speaking.
Lumen Gentium:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.