Papal Infallibility Problem

[OZ_Col]

Hello All!

I have a problem.

I was a protestant minister for many years (not currently attending any protestant church), who has been searching for understanding on the Catholic Faith. I have been on this path since late 2004, and have been continuously reading, watching and listening to all I can , Catholic Answers, EWTN, Church Fathers and of course the Bible.

To this date I find I feel “very comfortable” with just about everything Catholic. I have no problem with Supremacy of the See of Peter, nor with The Blessed Mother, I pray the Rosary, meditate on the Divine Mysteries, attend Mass, have no problem with Purgatory or Communion of Saints, I see the Scriptural basis for the Catholic way of Salvation, but I struggle with the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The next step for me is to start in the RCIA program, but here’s the problem. It seems it might be a lot easier to be born Catholic and have unanswered questions, than to convert to Catholicism and declare “I have no questions” (re: Papal Infallibility). So I’ve decided to post this and see how others might have dealt with similar dilemmas and to seek advice from those who may have a greater understanding than I do.

My understanding is that belief or ascent to this dogma is ‘required for salvation’. To what degree is this required for salvation? I don’t understand how it wasn’t required for salvation prior to 1870, as there doesn’t seem any greater level of grace or promise revealed in it. Also, I’ve noticed in my study there seems to be some confusion between what are and what aren’t infallible statements, as there isn’t a list of infallible statements, just what am I giving ascent fully to?

For example, does the dogma of Infallibility apply to the statements of Popes dated prior 1870? During my search for understanding on the Catholic faith, I find Papal references to things like torture and slavery, I understand there are times and context issues, but are these also infallible statements, (I think there was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV, which condemned the Jews to “eternal slavery”), do I have to give full ascent to all these claims?

I have also read claims of contradictions between various Popes (I know a little about the issues and claims of the “Old Catholics”, views which I don’t hold), but from my position it does appear there was a significant “softening” of views at Vatican II. How do I fully ascent to past claims, and maintain a hope or expectation for any future changes? Could it be possible that a Pope decree that he was no longer infallible, for example at a future Vatican III?

Anyhow, that doesn’t solve my immediate problem. How do I sincerely move forward and commence RCIA, while struggling with these perceived contradictions? I mean, I could just say I believe in “Papal Infallibility”, but how do I reconcile my fulsome belief in the Pope being the Successor to Peter, and my struggle with the issues for example, Pope Pius IX’s “Syllabus Errorum” which seems to decree that Bible societies are pests? To what degree do I need to agree with things which to my intellect seem less than infallible?

I am sincerely looking for advice, as this appears as a difficult hurdle in my journey to the Church which Christ established.

Many thanks
Col

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think that one of the things to do is simply to understand the dogma better. Some of the things you said in your post indicate that you may have some misconceptions, or, as you freely admitted, things which you do not know the answer to. I think that many of the difficulties you have are based on that. In some cases, they are also based on perhaps misunderstandings of what other related things.

For example, while there were some statements made by popes which gave some approbation to slavery, what slavery was at that time is not what we think of today. Slavery in those days was not forced service as it was in America, for instance, but more of an indentured servitude.

In any case, this is just an example given to help illustrate that your problem may be eased a great deal by simply having some questions answered. I am sure you will find those answers here.

God bless, and I will be praying for you

 

[Reepicheep]

Col:
Are you under the impression that the dogma of Papal Infallibility means that *every *public statement made by a Pope is infallible?
Because it’s a lot more limited than that.

 

[OZ_Col]

Thank You Lazerlike42. & Reepicheep

Yes I guess it’s one of those issues which seem to throw up heaps of questions. Particularly to my personality I guess. The answer to which is as you say to come to a greater understanding of the dogma.

Although I do know it doesn’t apply to every statement that in itself is a bit of a problem. How do I know what statements is does apply to?

For instance, the example I gave in my initial post of Pius IX’s “Syllabus Errorum”. Is that an infallible statement? Either way, how do you know what is and what isn’t?

Because at some stage of the process of entrance into the Catholic Church, I guess I will have acknowledge ascent to the dogma. Or is just a matter of agreeing to the principle of the dogma and submitting to the best of your understanding?

Col

 

[Reepicheep]

Col:
Here’s a link that may help. Check in particular, the fourth paragraph.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[justbeinfrank]

Col:
Here’s a link that may help. Check in particular, the fourth paragraph.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Col, please *do *read that linked article, because it will clear up a lot of things for you.

If in the event that you are still struggling with this issue by the time the end of RCIA rolls around, remember that “assenting” is something you do with the will, not with the intellect. You can believe the teaching while knowing that you do not yet understand it. This is the entirely legitimate (indeed, praiseworthy) principle of faith seeking understanding.

You seem to have a strong faith, and I would bet that that article will clear things up for you, in any event. It certainly helped me. Let us know if you have further questions or reservations after reading the article.

 

[justbeinfrank]

Not every statement by a pope is infallible. Only those statements regarding faith and morals that a pope *specifically and formally defines *as infallible are indeed infallible. This does not apply to the examples that you’ve given (e.g., papal bulls concerning slavery). Even the highest method of papal teaching, encyclicals, are not ipso facto infallible. To my understanding there have been only two invocations of papal infallibility since the dogma was defined at Vatican I: the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Although, technically, every saint’s formal canonization is infallible, too.)

Furthermore, it is not the role of the pope to invent or define *new *doctrines. The pope’s role is to protect the deposit of Faith and the Revelation with which the Church has been entrusted. Taking the abovementioned examples, Catholics throughout history have believed the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. It was only when the Protestant influence began to make people question Marian doctrines that the popes defined those two teachings as infallible. Meaning that they clarified that these were two truths that God had revealed, and that all Catholics therefore must believe.

In terms of your question about whether papal infallibility applies backwards in history – in principle, it does, and you can find papal documents as early as 449 AD that some theologians argue are instances of papal infallibility. (The arguments are not about whether the doctrines involved are true, since they concern matters like the two natures of Christ and other firmly established dogmas. The arguments, rather, are about whether the popes had intended to make solemn, infallible definitions in those cases or not.) But since the dogma of papal infallibility was made explicit by Vatican I, there is a more or less recognizable formula for infallible statements that has only been used twice.

And I hate to say it, but the Wikipedia article on papal infallibility is pretty good, too.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

For instance, the example I gave in my initial post of Pius IX’s “Syllabus Errorum”. Is that an infallible statement? Either way, how do you know what is and what isn’t.

That is a pastoral teaching. Pius is not saying “as a matter of defined dogma each and every organisation describing itself as a ‘Bible Society’ is a pest”.
What he is saying is
“At this point in time there are several organisations describing themselves as ‘Bible Societies’ which are pests, this is an inherent problem in the concept of a society of laymen coming together to decide their own interpretation of the Bible, and so I don’t want Catholics involved in such societies or setting them up.”

The words don’t necessarily apply to say, a Bible Society in modern China, with a very different cultural context.

 

[OZ_Col]

Thank You All.

Yes! The article was very helpful in getting a better picture of the issue.

I found the paragraph which referenced Knox writing to Arnold Lunn particularly interesting.
When highlighting “how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’?” he then makes the following statement:

“Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!"

From your understanding is the above statement a true reflection of the general attitude of Catholics?
In particular the phrase “certain in all human probability to contradict themselves”.

I assumed that a contradiction in “anathemas” would be a breach of infallibility. I thought an anathema would always be a statement of faith. Was I wrong in thinking this?

Thanks

Col

 

[Genesis315]

I wrote this article on papal infallibility that some people find helpful. It’s not really an apologetics piece defending the doctrine as much as it is an explanation of the doctrine itself along with a list of examples.

dictatuspapae.blogspot.com/2006/10/papal-infallibility.html

 

[Lazerlike42]

Thank You All.

Yes! The article was very helpful in getting a better picture of the issue.

I found the paragraph which referenced Knox writing to Arnold Lunn particularly interesting.
When highlighting “how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’?” he then makes the following statement:

“Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!"

From your understanding is the above statement a true reflection of the general attitude of Catholics?
In particular the phrase “certain in all human probability to contradict themselves”.

I assumed that a contradiction in “anathemas” would be a breach of infallibility. I thought an anathema would always be a statement of faith. Was I wrong in thinking this?

Thanks

Col

A few things. First, it would have to be shown that there actually were contradictions, rather than just making a blanket statement that there are, but I’m sure you weren’t thinking otherwise.

This second point is really much more important. In Catholicism, as well as in any Protestant group or anywhere else in Christianity, there are doctrines and then there are disciplines. A doctrine is a truth of the faith that is part of the teachings of Christ and is not changable, because it pertains to a matter of ‘true’ of ‘false,’ and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” A discipline is just a matter of how things happen to be done at the current time; they are practices that have chosen to be followed at a given time.

For instance, a doctrine would be that Christ has two natures, human and divine. That is a truth, a part of the teaching of Christ, and it cannot be changed because truth does not change. A discipline would be ‘we meet for church on Wednesday evenings’ (in some Protestant denominations, for example). Another discipline, such as one that the Roman Catholic Church practices, is that priests remain celibate. This is not a doctrine - it is a practice, a discipline, that was instituted and could be changed (although that’s unlikely).

Therefore, when looking at what the popes said, it would have to be determined if what they said was a docrine or a discipline (it’s not that hard). Popes certainly contradicted themselves lots of times in disciplinary matters, because they were changing them. What matters is if they contradicted on doctrinal matters, and even then if they were writing in such a way so as to invoke the gift of infallibility, which would be unlikely.

What is true is that anathemas typically are found in an infallible statement of an ecumenical council. So, when a council says anathema, it’s typically an infallible teaching, although on occassion councils have used anathemas on disciplinary matters. When they do this, all they are saying is that if anyone violates this discipline he is excommunicated. This isn’t that common anyhow.

The only other thing that you could be thinking of would be when a pope issued an anathema on a person. That is merely an excommunication, and is not infallible. So, when the pope excommunicated Martin Luther, it was possible that the pope was wrong and Luther was not actually guilty of all the things he was accused of (now in his case there’s more than ample evidence he was, but this is only intended as an example to illustrate what I mean).

Certainly keep the questions coming.

 

[OZ_Col]

Thank You Genesis315

Nice article it is always helpful to see actual examples. However, your statement regarding your last two examples (Humanae Vitae, Paul VI and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis , John Paul II) is part of my problem.

“Now, the next two I am going to discuss are controversial–not as to the truth, but as to whether papal infallibility was engaged.”

For example I read that many Catholics continue to use some form of contraception, and I really don’t wish to debate contraception, I’m happy to accept the ruling. However, many others don’t appear to accept it in practice, yet your article says:

“He, as a result of His Supreme teaching authority granted by Christ has definitively declared the truth to answer all questions concerning the veracity of this doctrine and he has bound all Catholics to obey as a necessity of salvation.”

Again, contraception is not in question, just the issue of how I determine what is and what isn’t infallible. Do I just submit to the dogma of infallibility to the degree that I genuinely understand it at this point of time? But I guess there are many fine Catholics practicing contraception, who at this stage don’t think it is an infallible statement, what is their present state of salvation if they were hit by a bus today?

Again thanks, if I sound contentious, I’m not. Just trying to get my head around a subject which I concede is logical, but which I find difficult to interpret.

Col

 

[OZ_Col]

Lazerlike42
Sorry if it came across as a blanket statement from me, but I was actually quoting the catholic answers article attributed to Ronald Knox.

“Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!"

Thank you for pointing out the differences between Doctrine & Discipline.

Col

 

[Lazerlike42]

Lazerlike42
Sorry if it came across as a blanket statement from me, but I was actually quoting the catholic answers article attributed to Ronald Knox.

Thank you for pointing out the differences between Doctrine & Discipline.

Col

Oh my, please don’t misunderstand me, I wasn’t accusing you of making a blanket statement by any means. I knew that it was a quotation. I said that I wasn’t assuming you were thinking otherwise to give you credit, not to be snippy or anything.

In terms of your second question, I think I know something that will make it a bit easier to understand. The Catechism says of infallible teachings,

“When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.’”(891)

Of noninfallible teachings, the Catechism says,

“To this ordinary teaching the faithful 'are to adhere to it with religious assent’” (892)

Both of the quotations that the Catechism provides are from Lumen Gentium, a decree from the Second Vatican Council. The difference between ‘obedience of faith’ and ‘religious assent’ may help you, and it seems to be this:

Obedience of faith pertains to the theological virtue of faith, which means that one believes something as true because Christ has revealed it. When one does not believe such a thing, that person is rejecting what is understood to be the revelation of Jesus Christ, because the Church, in infallibly teaching the truth, has been protected from teaching error by Christ Himself. Therefore, to reject such a teaching would be a sin against faith.

Religious assent pertains more to the obedience to the Church. Christ gave us the Church to lead us and teach us in His absence, and we are expected to be obedient to the Church. When the Church teaches something without invoking the charism of infallibility, she has not declared that Christ Himself has revealed something, as He is not protecting her from error, but rather that this belief is understood by the Church to be true and is her teaching. To reject such a belief would not be a sin against faith, but a sin against obedience. It would be a lesser sin, one which does not strike at the heart of faith.

To paraphrase the wonderful Frank Sheed, when we believe something with the virtue of faith, we believe it because we believe that Christ has said it, and that is good enough for us. This is the assent we give to infallible doctrines. To non-infallible doctrines, we do not give the assent of faith - for we have not been told that Christ has necessarily said anything - but we do give obedient submission to the Church.

So practically, it is not too relevant, because we are called to accept whatever the Church teaches as true. The difference is moreso in the sin that we are guilty of in rejecting a teaching than anything. I do not wish to sound as though I am saying we ought to blindly accept everything, or that the certainty about whether a doctrine is infallible or not doesn’t matter. I am speaking as a matter of practicality. There may exist some room for what is known as faithful dissent when it comes to non-infallible doctrines.

The key here is that faithful dissent is not the sort of thing that is done without very powerful reasons, and ought to be very uncommon, especially for everyday Catholics. Most often, only theologians would engage in faithful dissent, because of their special qualifications for judging such matters. However, even then, the Church teaches that this is to be a private matter, one in which the individual turns to God in prayer, one in which he or she perhaps attempts to address it with the Magisterium (perhaps by writing to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) rather than a situation in which he or she brings it out to the public forefront. It is a time for humbly holding back ones concerns in the public forum, recognizing that he or she is only a human being who may err, and leaving the rest of the faithful to the guidance of Christ’s Church.

 

[OZ_Col]

Thank You! Lazerlike42,

I sincerely appreciate the generosity with your time taken to give such a lengthy reply.
This is the first I’ve heard an explanation of the terms “obedience of faith” and “religious assent”.
I would have ignorantly assumed they meant the same thing, but now I know.
I had a quick look at your excellent website www.soladeiverbum.com and downloaded the Booklet - The Mass: A Brief Explanation. I’ve been looking for something like this for a while. Very helpful for those attending Mass from a non-Catholic background.

Again Thank You
Col

 

[fineca]

I wrote this article on papal infallibility that some people find helpful. It’s not really an apologetics piece defending the doctrine as much as it is an explanation of the doctrine itself along with a list of examples.

dictatuspapae.blogspot.com/2006/10/papal-infallibility.html

Why do you say only the last two are controversial? It seems clear that only the 2 Marian dogmas mention all the requirements for an infallible papal statement. The other ones I think can all be discussed, since they usually meet only some and not all of the requirements. And the very fact that I’m disputing it now proves that it’s arguable, and indeed makes it a bit problematic to know what is infallible and what not. With all this, the whole dogma seems a bit useless, doesn’t it, I mean if we don’t even know what is infallible? It’s supposed to guard the Church from error but all it does is set such limits to itself that whenever there’s an error or a contradiction it can be dismissed as not infallible.
There is the distinction between religious assent and obedience of faith. Does that mean that nothing except a couple of papal statements are revealed by God? Of course that’s not the case, so it just further complicates the matter.
That would mean that almost all of our faith is just teachings of the Church and not divine revelation and thus subject to change. Which again of course is not the case. So it’s problematic as what…

 

[Lazerlike42]

Why do you say only the last two are controversial? It seems clear that only the 2 Marian dogmas mention all the requirements for an infallible papal statement. The other ones I think can all be discussed, since they usually meet only some and not all of the requirements. And the very fact that I’m disputing it now proves that it’s arguable, and indeed makes it a bit problematic to know what is infallible and what not. With all this, the whole dogma seems a bit useless, doesn’t it, I mean if we don’t even know what is infallible?

It’s not useless, because with it we have a much more clear idea than we would without it. On top of that, when there is uncertainty whether or not a statement is infallible or not, the Church can speak on it and say whether it is or not. We always start off with the idea, as Canon Law states, that no papal statement is to be regarded as infallible unless it is manifestly evident. That typically clears up most controveries, because it sets the bar pretty high - a papal statement has to meet all the requirements in a clear way to be considered infallible, as the two Marian statements do. Beyond that, if we have a question, we can turn to the Church.

It’s supposed to guard the Church from error but all it does is set such limits to itself that whenever there’s an error or a contradiction it can be dismissed as not infallible.
There is the distinction between religious assent and obedience of faith. Does that mean that nothing except a couple of papal statements are revealed by God? Of course that’s not the case, so it just further complicates the matter.
That would mean that almost all of our faith is just teachings of the Church and not divine revelation and thus subject to change. Which again of course is not the case. So it’s problematic as what…

The two categories of obedience of faith and religious submission apply to far more than simply papal statements. There are countless other, infallibly declared statements, that can be found throughout the 21 ecumenical councils of the past 2000 years. These are most commonly the doctrines put into canons. There is typically very little confusion over which of these statements are infallible and which are not. If it pertains to faith and morals and is in a canon of an ecumenical council, it is infallible.

The way the doctrine of papal infallibility operates certainly does put a great many restrictions on what statements are infallible and which are not. As you say, most times when one is considering a papal statement, it will be found easily to not be an infallible statement. The reason for this is that papal infallibility is a last resort, God given charism to be invoked only when absolutely necessary, not some protection against the popes teaching error in a general way.

This is a very critical point. It is easy to see the doctrine as meaningless or useless if one doesn’t understand why God gave it to us. The charism of papal infallibility is given by God as a guard on the faith, to be used when it is in some great danger. It exists for the sake of protecting truths over which some question may arise, so that God’s people can have no question about a matter of controversy.

This is the reason that is takes so much to invoke it - it’s meant to be a very large, obvious blinking light pointing to a truth that is in danger; it’s meant to be a giant sign to big to miss that can be put up by a doctrine when it is in doubt. God doesn’t give it to the pope to use every day to simply declare a truth here or there. Many will argue that the charism was actually misused in the two Marian declarations, because it was not used to protect a doctrine that was in danger or to clear up a controversy that was causing harm to the faithful.

Papal infallibility is essentialy the ‘big gun’ that is supposed to only come out when it is absoultely necessary, and so it is suppose to require a lot to make it work, and to be extremely obvious. This is why Canon Law states that only statements which are ‘manifestly evident’ to be infallible are. If there is even some question about a statement, it most likely isn’t infallible simply because a pope is supposed to really mean to use it when he does.

 

[Mary3]

Hello All!
The next step for me is to start in the RCIA program, but here’s the problem. It seems it might be a lot easier to be born Catholic and have unanswered questions, than to convert to Catholicism and declare “I have no questions”

When I was in RCIA, we (RCIA class) were presented to the congregation just before Easter. I will never forget the priest’s comments as he introduced us. He explained how much we had suffered for the faith. That many of us had to struggle to understand and accept the teachings of the Church, yet we hung in and obeyed Jesus’ call on our lives. He noted how many of us suffered the loss of friends, alienation of family just as Jesus promised we would suffer. He pointed out how much more difficult was our journey than the journey of someone born and baptised into the Church who had never left it. Then he asked everyone to stand and welcome us with a round of applause. Still brings tears to my eyes to remember it.