Papal Infallibility again

[Hegesippus]

Vatican I laid out certain criteria that must be in place in order for the pope to exercise his charisma of infalliblity. My question is this, some people point to the fact that in the history of the Church, the church of Rome has never officially embraced heresy and this points to papal infalliblity. So is this not embracing heresy a sort of papal infallibilty. There is debate within the Church whether or not a pope can be a heretic, but obviously just a pope embracing heresy or even teaching heresy does not meet the criteria of papal infalliblity laid out by Vatican I, mainly the defining criterion. How does papal infallibity fit in with the church of Rome never embracing heresy. I am asking this question because my theology teacher stated that papal infallibity has only been used once, and I thought there was a consensus that it has been used at least twice, the assumption and the immaculate conception. I have one last question, if all the criteria were met before papal infallibility was declared dogma, was that an exercise of papal infalliblity?

 

[Exporter2]

Thanks. Very interesting. You said, " I am asking this question because my theology teacher stated that papal infallibity has only been used once,"

First, I would want to ask that theology teacher what he/she means by the term “papal infallibility”. That IS important.

From the Catachism and from CCD lessons it is my understanding that our Pope in concert with the Magisterium makes decisions then later the Pope would annoumce said decision. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would ask the theology teacher if he means that our Pope goes into seclusion, decides and then goes public with an infallible statement.I also would ask if infallibility is limited to maters of Faith and Morals. Thanks for your post.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Thanks. Very interesting. You said, " I am asking this question because my theology teacher stated that papal infallibity has only been used once,"

First, I would want to ask that theology teacher what he/she means by the term “papal infallibility”. That IS important.

From the Catachism and from CCD lessons it is my understanding that our Pope in concert with the Magisterium makes decisions then later the Pope would annoumce said decision. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would ask the theology teacher if he means that our Pope goes into seclusion, decides and then goes public with an infallible statement.I also would ask if infallibility is limited to maters of Faith and Morals. Thanks for your post.

The teacher means the formal definition of a dogma of the church. This is very rare, and the Assumption is the only modern example.

Popes do also proclaim saints, and issue encyclicals. The former is infallible but conclusions are not - the fact that Escriva is now a saint would naturally lead one to conclude that Opus Dei is a good organisation, but it doesn’t force a Catholic to take this position.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Heg__,

Infallibility rests first of all with the Church. Christ promised that He would be with her until the end of time.The Pope,as Head of the Church, is the expression of that infallibility. There lies the relationship between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church.

What Vatican I specifically contributed to the question is the fact that the Pope can define a doctrine infallibly on his own authority. In other words, if the Pope defined a doctrine without consulting the bishops, he would still be infallible. In actual practice this is improbable, and both Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception, and Pius XII, in the defining the Assumption, took pains to state that they had consulted all the bishops.

Verbum

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t know where this idea that there are only tw instances of infallible papal definitions. That means the Fathers of the First Vatican Council based their definition on one instance. That makes no sense. Whenever the pope defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be hald by the whole Church, it must be infallible. Cardinal Newman, who was wary of the definition to begin with, also says it applies to condemnations of errors–doctrines that the whole Church is prohibited from believing.

Here is a little article I wrote up about this issue:
dictatuspapae.blogspot.com/2006/10/papal-infallibility.html

It also bears pointing out what Vatican II said about the issue:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)

 

[Hegesippus]

Where is Dave when you need him?

 

[Exporter2]

May this poor soul interject a thought and a few words regarding Papal Infallibility? :banghead:

Isn’t it true that no New theological truths have been promulgated since the death of the last original Apostle? Isn’t it true that our Popes have only made truths known for a long time (since the Apostles) to be part of Catholic Dogma?

When I hear a discussion about infallibility I want to hear the words:

1. Faith and Morals
2. Magisterium
3. Successor of Peter, etc.