Need help refuting an argument against Papal Infallibility

[JacobHarrison]

A while ago on another site, I was debating an atheist apostate who was once a priest who was trained in the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. I was trying to show evidence of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and he countered my arguments by mentioning a historical issue which he claims refutes Papal Infallibility.

While the Catholic Church has always condemned abortion, many theologians erroneously thought that abortion was only murder if the fetus is “animated” since they lacked the scientific knowledge that proves that life does begin at conception. There were therefore different penalties to earlier and later abortions. Then in 1588, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam which said that all abortion is murder.

However, according to the ex priest, in 1591 Pope Gregory XIV revoked it and issued the bull Sedes Apostolicae which declared that the soul enters the fetus later after conception. He said that it refutes Papal Infallibility because both Effraenatam and Sedes Apostolicae contain statements concerning faith and morals and they contradict each other.

 

[Ghosty1981]

We’d have to see the text of letters in question. It seems to me, however, that this was more a question of canonical penalties than an explicit teaching on ensoulment.

Even today the Church does not have an infallible teaching on the time of ensoulment, though the science is much clearer now than it was in the Middle Ages.

Does anyone have the texts of these bulls?

Peace and God bless!

 

[EZweber]

It might also help to note that we are not really sure how far papal infallibility extends. Another point is that “All abortions are murder” and “The soul doesn’t enter the person at conception” are not necessarily contradictory.

 

[rosejmj]

I personally think there are better arguments against papal infallibility or at least the importance of the pope.

But against his argument, isn’t the pope only truly infallible when he speaks ex cathedra? And that has only happened 2 times if I am not mistaken

 

[JacobHarrison]

Speaking ex cathedra has been defined as “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” Making a statement about the ensoulment of fetuses seems to be a matter of faith and morals.

 

[rosejmj]

" The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by [Vatican I] took place on 18 July 1870. Since that time, the only example of an ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when [Pope Pius XII]defined the [Assumption of Mary]as an [article of faith]"

 

[Ghosty1981]

Speaking ex cathedra has been defined as “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” Making a statement about the ensoulment of fetuses seems to be a matter of faith and morals.

This assumes that a) the whole Church was the target audience, and b) the teaching was on matters of Faith and morals and not merely canonical penalties associated with certain activities. These two factors are in no way clear at this point.

Given the fact that the Church to this day does not infallibly define the time of ensoulment it seems unlikely that either of these Papal Bulls pronounced directly on the topic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[EZweber]

when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church

The question is, when is he speaking in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority? There is much debate on this subject. I would also like to see the apparently contradictory statements

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is why the Church should make it abundantly clear as to what is and is not an infallible statement and list them all. This game of “oh that doesn’t count” isn’t cutting it.

 

[Ana_v]

Another point is that “All abortions are murder” and “The soul doesn’t enter the person at conception” are not necessarily contradictory.

I think they are necessarily contradictory. That’s if murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person.

The presence of a rational soul is necessary for the life/organism in question to be a human person. Without the presence of the rational soul, it is a form of animal life (comparable perhaps to the humanoids preceding homo-sapiens in the evolution/creation debate)
and its moral status would correspond to the type of thing it is. If it’s not a human person, then killing it is not murder. However, that wouldn’t thereby mean that abortion is morally permissible.

Consider contraception or masturbation: “wasting” sex cells (e.g. sperm) or impeding them from fertilizing is not “murder”, but neither is it morally licit.

Even if at certain stages of early pregnancy, the embryo or fetus does not yet possess a rational soul, abortion would still be immoral on the grounds that it contravenes the procreative process.

 

[twf]

It wouldn’t really be that helpful outside of apologetic debates.
Regardless, formal dogmatic definitions are quite rare and usually done in the context of a council. I doubt these two bulls intended to promulgated dogmas.

Yes, the Church’s ordinary magisterium is infallible, in addition to those rare solemn dogmatic decrees, and it isn’t always clear where this infallible body of teaching begins and ends… but at the end of the day the average Joe can safely accept that the Catechism is an accurate summary of what the Church teaches and be content with that.

 

[EZweber]

I think they are necessarily contradictory. That’s if murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person .

If ensoulment is necessary for humanity and murder is defined that way, yes. Do we know? No.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We don’t ignore the intricacies of civil law just because the average person may not understand it. The question as to what is and is not an infallible teaching is not only an interest for a great many people, but it has the potential to affect those who are or are not interested in the subject.

The Church has had more than ample time to clarify what it means when it talks about papal infallibility. A teaching has no worth if it’s impossible to tell what it encompasses.

 

[twf]

The Church is an organic, mystical society, not just a dusty list of laws and beliefs. When a teaching is challenged, that’s when the Church generally definitively settles the matter one way or another. For the Church to go through 2000 years of teaching and come up with a definitive list would not only be a time consuming and tedious exercise, but it would likely require an ecumenical council (either that or the Pope would have to devote years and years doing it himself)…otherwise the infallibility of the list itself could be in doubt.
The modern Catechism isn’t 100% infallible per se, but it is authoritative. Its something the average Catholic can consult and live by. That by itself was a huge undertaking. It is only the second comprehensive universal Catechism in Church history.

 

[AlNg]

" The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by [Vatican I] took place on 18 July 1870. Since that time, the only example of an ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when [Pope Pius XII]defined the [Assumption of Mary]as an [article of faith]"

So the declaration of Pope John Paul II teaching that women cannot be ordained as priests was not infallible?

 

[Ghosty1981]

So the declaration of Pope John Paul II teaching that women cannot be ordained as priests was not infallible?

It was not an act of Papal Infallibility, but it is an infallible teaching. The vast majority of infallible teachings, such as the Divinity of Christ to name just one, are not Papal.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Church is an organic, mystical society, not just a dusty list of laws and beliefs. When a teaching is challenged, that’s when the Church generally definitively settles the matter one way or another.

But they haven’t. How many times have people on Catholic Answers (both the radio show and the forum) asked this very question? How many articles have been written asking this question? People want to know this, and have for quite some time, and we can’t get a straight answer. When the Church defined Papal Infallibility it’s highly reasonable to have expected that they would also define a bright line for those items which in the past were or were not infallible and define what items in the future would or would not be infallible.

I can go to any library and find what that state considers a misdemeanor and what it considers a felony. It can break it down into the various classes of felonies or misdemeanors. Now you’re likely saying that’s a lot of laws to sort through, but that’s the beauty of it: As new laws are created they are categorized so we know whether a crime is a class A felony or class B misdemeanor. We don’t have to wade through centuries of hemming and hawing with no clear answer.

For the Church to go through 2000 years of teaching and come up with a definitive list would not only be a time consuming and tedious exercise, but it would likely require an ecumenical council (either that or the Pope would have to devote years and years doing it himself)…otherwise the infallibility of the list itself could be in doubt.

First of all, the Church has had all this time to draw a bright line between what is and isn’t infallible teaching. It’s not like the teacher sprung this on them at the last minute. People have been clamoring for this answer since it was determined a pope’s teachings could be infallible. Second, if the Church itself can’t say what is infallible teaching, then how can they be sure what the circumstances are to determine if what is decreed is infallible? It can’t define a term then not know how to apply it.

The modern Catechism isn’t 100% infallible per se, but it is authoritative. Its something the average Catholic can consult and live by. That by itself was a huge undertaking. It is only the second comprehensive universal Catechism in Church history.

Whoever said that this question doesn’t need to be answered if the average Catholic doesn’t need to know the nitty-gritty of papal infallibility? Most people can get by not knowing how general relativity works, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t deserve answers. This is especially true when the Church begged the question about papal fallibility by introducing and pronouncing that papal fallibility exists.

It’s time we got answers and not mushmouthed avoidance to the question.

 

[Wesrock]

twf:

list of laws and beliefs

Isn’t that what the Catechism is?

No.

10 char.

 

[commenter]

rosejmj:

" The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by [Vatican I] took place on 18 July 1870. Since that time, the only example of an ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when [Pope Pius XII]defined the [Assumption of Mary]as an [article of faith]"

So the declaration of Pope John Paul II teaching that women cannot be ordained as priests was not infallible?

There is the Extraordinary Magisterium, which defines the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Then there is the Ordinary Magisterium.

St JP2 reaffirmation of the male priesthood was a clarification that this particular teaching was in fact infallible. He didn’t need to make it infallible, he explained it that it already was, for those who didn’t know. This is the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[commenter]

It’s time we got answers and not mushmouthed avoidance to the question.

Thus is the Age of Enquiring Minds Who Want to Know. NOW.

Doctrine has been far more clarified by now than it was in the early centuries of the Church.
As a result of all that additional clarification, do you really think Christians are more fervent, devout, now than then?

St Paul was arguably the first Christian theologian. One might wish he had been more systematic, organized in his explanations.

Instead, Paul mostly responded to questions as they came up, to meet a specific pastoral need, or a challenge. The Church tends to do the same.