List of Infallable papal proclamations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joshua7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. However, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium [1]. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 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.

The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
 
No, I believe the Pope has spoken infallibly twice. The Church Magisterium has spoken infallibly many times.

Jesus said he would not leave his Church. Why is the Church then so afraid to tell us what is infallible and which is not? God will not allow the Church to say something is inallible unless it is without error. If the Church is very afraid of this, it must be afaid of it’s own fallibility. Right?
I can’t help but think of the Jews before Christ, with all their lists and Laws, with people to interpret and reinterpret and reinforce. Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He gave two commandments. The Church was left in order to help get us to heaven.

It seems that demanding a list goes against the spirit of what Jesus stood for…

I mean - nothing can be explained fully… someone will always be picking at this statement or that, trying to find exceptions, etc. Hop on an annulment thread if you’d like to see it in action!

I believe it’s the Catechism that tells us what we are to believe:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm From there, you will find many notations…

1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56

Endnote 56 reads: 56 Cf. CIC, Can. 989; Council of Trent (1551): DS 1683; DS 1708.

So… it might be a great place to start. Just as infallible ex-cathedra statements are to be made to clear up confusion, perhaps not enough people are clamoring for a list of infallible proclamations. And I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, either…
 
All the teachings (doctrines and disciplines) of the Catholic Church are summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and these must be accepted by ALL Catholics.
Even if these can be in error?
 
I can’t help but think of the Jews before Christ, with all their lists and Laws, with people to interpret and reinterpret and reinforce. Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He gave two commandments. The Church was left in order to help get us to heaven.

It seems that demanding a list goes against the spirit of what Jesus stood for…

I mean - nothing can be explained fully… someone will always be picking at this statement or that, trying to find exceptions, etc. Hop on an annulment thread if you’d like to see it in action!

I believe it’s the Catechism that tells us what we are to believe:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm From there, you will find many notations…

1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56

Endnote 56 reads: 56 Cf. CIC, Can. 989; Council of Trent (1551): DS 1683; DS 1708.

So… it might be a great place to start. Just as infallible ex-cathedra statements are to be made to clear up confusion, perhaps not enough people are clamoring for a list of infallible proclamations. And I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, either…
I think of this often. The Jews were very in to their laws down to the minutia. The problem is that the Catholic Church is not much different. The laws, doctrines and Dogmas of the Church are so plentiful, that it’s common for educated Catholics to mixed up. I mean, look how many pages the Catechism is. No layman could possibly be totally educated in the Catechism without attaining a degree in Catholic Theology. Look at the fact that the Church has Cannon Law and Cannon Lawyers to interpret that law. If this is not dealing in the minutia of the law, similar to that of the Jew’s, I’m not sure what is. Now, admittedly, Church Law is not as complicated as Jewish law. But did Jesus really want things so complicated as to necessitate lawyers just to interpret the law?
 
I think of this often. The Jews were very in to their laws down to the minutia. The problem is that the Catholic Church is not much different. The laws, doctrines and Dogmas of the Church are so plentiful, that it’s common for educated Catholics to mixed up. I mean, look how many pages the Catechism is. No layman could possibly be totally educated in the Catechism without attaining a degree in Catholic Theology. Look at the fact that the Church has Cannon Law and Cannon Lawyers to interpret that law. If this is not dealing in the minutia of the law, similar to that of the Jew’s, I’m not sure what is. Now, admittedly, Church Law is not as complicated as Jewish law. But did Jesus really want things so complicated as to necessitate lawyers just to interpret the law?
No, but I think WE want lawyers to interpret the laws. Then, we get to argue and bicker!

I read the Catechism during the time I was considering coming Home. I think it is great for people looking for the WHYs of the faith. And it isn’t overly complicated, but just darn wordy. But I think it was a reaction to the simplicity of the Baltimore Catechism. Perhaps we need a middle ground… I must confess a love for the Baltimore … I hope to get an edition at some point so I can read it through.

While not really germane to the discussion, this leads me to consider St. Therese, the Little Flower. I can’t imagine her insisting on a list of infallible statements.

Then again, let me assume you’re American, as I am. Our culture places a high value on having things defined, codified, etc. Who else could have spawned such dreadful creatures as personal injury lawyers? (*the usual joke disclaimers apply…)
 
Even if these can be in error?
Disciplines are different. Its not a case of error or not as they can be changed at anytime.
I am not aware of a Church doctrine that has ever been in error so can you give me an example of one?
 
Many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. However, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.
LUMEN GENTIUM

“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.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25
The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible.
:confused:
 
So what you are saying is that the infallibility of the Church, the basis for believing in it’s teachings rather than some other teachings, can’t be defined.
Dear Expectthebest,
Code:
              I am just saying that we  could not  have, IMHO, a complete and  de fide  list of what the Church, whether through the extraordinary or the ordinary Magisterium,  has proposed  as de fide.
This has nothing to do with which the organ, or agent, of the infallibility of the Church is.
 
Dear Expectthebest,
Code:
              I am just saying that we  could not  have, IMHO, a complete and  de fide  list of what the Church, whether through the extraordinary or the ordinary Magisterium,  has proposed  as de fide.
This has nothing to do with which the organ, or agent, of the infallibility of the Church is.
That is like saying that the state has civil laws but the state can’t tell you what all those laws are. Unforuneately, you will be held accountable for following those laws anyway.

Either there needs to be a list of infallible laws or we must blindly follow whatever the Church says. There is no in between.
 
LUMEN GENTIUM
“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.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25
Even so, it is my understanding that we may still respectfully disagree. For example, the Pope says capitol punishment is always wrong. As far as I know, the Church does not say that we must follow that teaching. The Pope also said the Iraq ware was not just. As far as I know, we don’t have to follow that teaching either.
 
Even so, it is my understanding that we may still respectfully disagree. For example, the Pope says capitol punishment is always wrong. As far as I know, the Church does not say that we must follow that teaching. The Pope also said the Iraq ware was not just. As far as I know, we don’t have to follow that teaching either.
Yet you cannot disagree with the Pope’s infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction. 🤷
 
Yet you cannot disagree with the Pope’s infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction. 🤷
The Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra. Of course we cannot disagree with an Ex Cathedra statement. This is why it becomes important to know what is infallible and what is not. Otherwise, there is nothing the Pope says that we can ever disagree with.
 
Even so, it is my understanding that we may still respectfully disagree. For example, the Pope says capitol punishment is always wrong. As far as I know, the Church does not say that we must follow that teaching. The Pope also said the Iraq ware was not just. As far as I know, we don’t have to follow that teaching either.
You MUST follow everything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Law whether its infallible or not.
 
Has anyone found the list yet? 😉
Hi Mickey,
Code:
        if I'm not wrong Expect's  questions can be considered in substance,  although formulated in terms of papal infallibility, about infallibility  of the Church tout court   ( or rather any infallibility), nothing specific being essentially in them  about the organs of her infallibility.
These concerns could not be affected, IMHO, by restating the exercise or the organs/agents of the infallibility of the Church,
eg as in this statement from the site of the greek orthodox church in America (www.goarch.org)

The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church by nature and duty from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines and pronounces some of these Revealed truths. In such instances, the Fathers of the Church assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, remain pending for acceptance by the “Conscience of the Church”, which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity.

Whether you speak about papal statements or acceptances, or, as here, about decisions accepted by all of the faithful, the problem with the complete list of what the Church has proposed through her infallibility would not appear in principle less legitimate ( new possible peculiar questions arising about how the consent of all the faithful can be defined and exercised).

In any way, IMHO, the mentioned list does not appear logically feasible, and pastorally expedient. On the former case, I said above. The latter case being in connection, in my personal speculation 🙂 , with the risk of individual guys becoming subjectively too confident ( about one’s own interpretation of what would be within the list), and in the same time possibly too uncertain ( about teachings remaining outside the list).
 
if I’m not wrong Expect’s questions can be considered in substance, although formulated in terms of papal infallibility, about infallibility of the Church tout court ( or rather any infallibility), nothing specific being essentially in them about the organs of her infallibility.

These concerns could not be affected, IMHO, by restating the exercise or the organs/agents of the infallibility of the Church,
eg as in this statement from the site of the greek orthodox church in America (www.goarch.org)

The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church by nature and duty from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines and pronounces some of these Revealed truths. In such instances, the Fathers of the Church assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, remain pending for acceptance by the “Conscience of the Church”, which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity.

Whether you speak about papal statements or acceptances, or, as here, about decisions accepted by all of the faithful, the problem with the complete list of what the Church has proposed through her infallibility would not appear in principle less legitimate ( new possible peculiar questions arising about how the consent of all the faithful can be defined and exercised).

In any way, IMHO, the mentioned list does not appear logically feasible, and pastorally expedient. On the former case, I said above. The latter case being in connection, in my personal speculation 🙂 , with the risk of individual guys becoming subjectively too confident ( about one’s own interpretation of what would be within the list), and in the same time possibly too uncertain ( about teachings remaining outside the list).
The only thing I understood clearly from your post was the Greek Orthodox statement about the “Conscience of the Church”, which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity.

The remainder of your post looks like scholastic legalistic double talk to me. Please do not take that as an insult. My mind does not work in the way that you have explained papal infallibility.

I am not the most learned of men and the worst of all sinners. :o
 
The only thing I understood clearly from your post was the Greek Orthodox statement about the “Conscience of the Church”, which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity.

The remainder of your post looks like scholastic legalistic double talk to me. Please do not take that as an insult. My mind does not work in the way that you have explained papal infallibility.

I am not the most learned of men and the worst of all sinners. :o
Dear Mickey,
Code:
        I am sorry  if my post, in which I did not "explain papal infallibility",  didn't  appear comprehensible outside the Greek Orthodox quotation.  :blush:
So, I’m trying to show my point this way.

I understand, correct me if I’m mistaken, that the Eastern Orthodox communion does share with the Catholic Church the belief that the Church can, under particular conditions, teach
infallibly.

The concerns Expect is showing about “papal infallibility” do not appear on the specific “papal” qualification. His real concern, if I am not wrong, is about infallibility of the Church, as such.

In other words, the question about a complete list of the statements the Church has proposed under the conditions of the infallibility ( be it with papal acceptance or with the “consent of all faithful, clergy and laity” ) should equally concern the Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Churches.

I can add that I am not sure I can understand at present the concept of “consent of all the faithful”, in particular the precise definition of “all the faithful”, and the way infallibility is exercised
through or by this body.

I hope this post will look a little less like “scholastic legalistic double talk”. 🙂
 
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.
I am skipping ahead in this thread, but I want to chime in on this (albeit quickly and incompletely).

Infallibility is a term used to describe one Charism. To describe a teaching itself as being fallible or infallible is somewhat inaccurate. The best analogy I can give is that it would be like calling a fact about anything “decisive”. decisiveness is a human attribute, not one of any statement, fact, or object. The same can be said of fallibility in most circumstances.

Fallibility is defined as:

–adjective
  1. (of persons) liable to err, esp. in being deceived or mistaken.
  2. liable to be erroneous or false; not accurate: fallible information.
    (liable = –adjective 1. legally responsible: You are liable for the damage caused by your action. 2. subject or susceptible: to be liable to heart disease. 3. likely or apt)
So when a Pope or the Magisterium teaches anything infallibly, it means that whatever was Explicitly defined as infallible (or meets the criteria) is without the ability to be inaccurate, proven wrong, or be misleading.

For example, infallible teaching states the Immaculate Conception. Fallible teaching, held to be true, but not necessarily with a a ‘charisma veritatis certum’ (charism of certain truth) (thanks for that Ron Conte), would be the Patron Saints (I think this is true).

That is one mans opinion anyway.

Whether I am correct or incorrect about the infallibility issue is, to me, an academic point only. What teachings are infallible and fallible make no difference to me. I hold everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches as true, whether I understand it or not. Heck, my limited human intellect cannot even wrap itself around the mystery of the Trinity, but I know that to be truth. I pray for wisdom that I may someday come to understand all that I desire to understand, but the Holy Catholic Church is the only place on Earth that I know I can find the truth. If something there happens to be fallible, I know that at least it will not lead me from the truth of Christ nor lead me off the path to heaven. I have this assurance from the Holy Spirit.

With love and not a little ignorance,

FSC
 
From an outsider’s perspective, infallibility seems nothing more than a band-aid on the problem of “do as I say, not as I do” leadership.

This is obvious from the typical 1st comeback to a doubter:
“You are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Infallibility is regarding teachings of faith and morals - it doesn’t mean the leader proclaiming those teachings can actually follow them in practice themselves.”.
Maintaining discipline certainly can be difficult if it’s obvious the authority doesn’t follow that same discipline.
Maintaining teaching authority can be difficult if the teacher is seen as not definitively up on their subject.

Another problem is that when pressed for specific examples, the only ones offered refer to things that simply can’t be verified prior to physical death, and not guaranteed verifiable even after that point.

And of course, the whole subject of this thread: “Where’s the list?”; there is none.
Or rather, everyone can make up their own list - ultimately based on which things a person is willing to accept as being infallible.

As long as the process of discerning which things are actually infallible is vague enough, and not too many people question deeply enough, the whole thing does tend to support the authority structure.
That has been mentioned on this thread. It appears “infallibility” has much more to do with maintaining the hierarchical authority structure than it does with maintaining Truth.

A big reason for clinging to the “infallibility” claims is the insecurity of leaders and followers believing that without “infallibility” the Church could collapse.

There is another thread I participated in where I made the argument that a fallible Church would actually become much stronger spiritually:

“Fallibility: The Theological Implications”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=379776
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top