Papal Infallibility only happened twice?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The doctrine of infallibility means that ‘ex cathedra’ statements are one of the requirements, but 2 that the Holy Spirit is protecting the church from such a contradiction so that the Church may not be lead astray (see Matt 16:13-19, Jesus declares that “the gates of Hades shall not prevale against it [the church]”).
 
Tis_Bearself said:
As someone said earlier in the thread, there is a debate about this, including debate over whether the canonization of saints is infallible, and particularly concerning the post-1870 stuff, so Jimmy Akin does not seem to lay the issue to rest in this case.

Apart from the two Marian dogmas, it really seems like infallibility post-1870 means whatever the person claiming it applies wants it to mean. Time will tell I guess.
Click to expand...
Note that there is a modern list of the dogmas of the Catholic Church called Lumen Gentium (promulgated 1964) from the Vatican Council.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
The New Testament is not a pronouncement of a Pope or Magisterium, except for the part written by Peter.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t believe in it, but we don’t need an infallibility doctrine for it.
Click to expand...
In one sense I agree with you. Scripture in itself is God’s Word.

But without an infallible, visible human magisterium, we have no idea what books are in it.

Some Protestant apologists squirm out of recognizing the Magisterium by saying we have a “fallible collection of infallible books”. (Rome Sweet Home, by Scott Hahn).
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did mean ecumenical councils in particular. Yes, the Pope is an essential part of such councils, but their authority, their infallibility, is a synergy, I would say… ecumenical councils are an example of the entire college of bishops, head and body, collectively exercising infallibility.
 
twf said:
Yes, I did mean ecumenical councils in particular. Yes, the Pope is an essential part of such councils, but their authority, their infallibility, is a synergy, I would say… ecumenical councils are an example of the entire college of bishops, head and body, collectively exercising infallibility.
Click to expand...
Interesting - just curious, how does the Catholic church reconcile the fact that the Pope wasn’t present at any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils?
 
Last edited:
The Bishop of Rome still accepted / ratified each of the seven councils of the first millennium that we recognize as ecumenical. Others were not ratified by the Pope and are not thus recognized by the modern Catholic Church. He was involved even if not there in person. Chalcedon is a particularly good example as Pope St Leo’s tome was received by the council.
 
twf said:
The Bishop of Rome still accepted / ratified each of the seven councils of the first millennium that we recognize as ecumenical. Others were not ratified by the Pope and are not thus recognized by the modern Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Also not recognized by the modern Protestants. Those Protestants who do recognize some authority to some Ecumenical Councils limit their recognition to those ratified by the pope, and not by other authorities (the gnostics, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Some time ago I was under the impression that since the doctrine of papal infallibility was established the Pope has only spoken infallibly on two occasions, once to set forth the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and again to set forth the dogma of the Assumption.

Then I joined CAF and noticed that people are always saying on here that Pope so-and-so infallibly said this or that and it’s not referring to the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

Recently I read this Canon Law Made Easy blog post. The blog is quite good and reliable, and the post restates what I originally thought, namely that Popes have only spoken infallibly twice since papal infallibility was declared.

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/02/17/when-does-the-pope-speak-infallibly/

So what’s up with people claiming all kinds of other things are infallible statements of a Pope, when they apparently aren’t? Unless another event of infallibility has happened since 2011 that I missed?
Click to expand...
Example apart from the 2 mentioned by others

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis = a definitive papal pronouncement that confirms or reaffirms a teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of a male only priesthood. JPII definitively states that his pronouncement is a confirmation (“in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren”). Finally, affirming that he is acting to remove all doubt on the matter, the Pope adds that his “judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

From the doc.

“4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
 
Last edited:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think moral doctrines are matters of dogma. They are not divinely revealed but grounded in natural law, and considered infallible because of the constant tradition of the church, confirmed by the magisterium (like Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae).
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think **moral doctrines are matters of dogma.
Click to expand...
The definition of papal infallibility is the following

(all emphasis mine)

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, 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, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.[/u] Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. "

From: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
40.png
Neithan:
They are not divinely revealed but grounded in natural law, and considered infallible because of the constant tradition of the church, confirmed by the magisterium (like Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae).**
Click to expand...
Consider the explanation above. Key points for the teaching
  1. Teach and define, a matter of Faith AND morals are the only areas for infallible consideration.
  2. By Divine assistance, promised to the pope in St Peter , willed by the Divine Redeemer
  3. The issue is to be believed by the whole Church
  4. An infallible statement of a pope, can be confirmed by magisterial teaching, but not necessary.
 
Last edited:
Thanks @steve-b I think I’m splitting hairs about the term dogma.
Tis_Bearself said:
Wasn’t there a big debate, including among cardinals and bishops at the time, over whether Humanae Vitae was infallible or not?
Click to expand...
In Canada there was the infamous Winnipeg Statement, where most bishops stated that Catholics could, in the privacy of their own conscience, dissent from Humanae Vitae. This sort of thing was echoed recently about the Amoris Laetitia gloss on divorced and civilly remarried Catholics with the “internal forum” discussion I think.
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
Thanks @steve-b I think I’m splitting hairs about the term dogma.
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
Wasn’t there a big debate, including among cardinals and bishops at the time, over whether Humanae Vitae was infallible or not?
Click to expand...
In Canada there was the infamous Winnipeg Statement, where most bishops stated that Catholics could, in the privacy of their own conscience, dissent from Humanae Vitae.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with the Winnepeg statement.

The CCC says (emphasis mine)
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

IOW

there is no recourse, to “privacy of conscience” to justify what is morally unacceptable. That can’t be justified.
 
Last edited:
Neithan said:
In Canada there was the infamous Winnipeg Statement, where most bishops stated that Catholics could, in the privacy of their own conscience, dissent from Humanae Vitae . This sort of thing was echoed recently about the Amoris Laetitia gloss on divorced and civilly remarried Catholics with the “internal forum” discussion I think.
Click to expand...
I think the Church is always going to have people doing stuff “in the privacy of their own conscience” regardless of how much it tub-thumps authority or infallibility or whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top