Papal Infallibility Question

[garysibio]

From the Wikipedia article on Papal Infallibility (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility):

In the nineteenth century, before the 1870 definition, two catechisms in use in Ireland explicitly denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In answer to the question of whether the pope was infallible they suggested that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics. After the formal declaration of the Pope’s Infallibility by Pius IX, this question and answer were quietly dropped in subsequent editions, with no explanation for the change.

The source given for this statement is:

Salmon, George (1914) The Infallibility of the Church John Murray pp.26-27

OK. I know not everything found in Wikipedia is to be believed but I’d be interested in knowing if anyone has ever heard of this.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Gary,

A good reason for defining something is because not everybody agrees on a subject. The definition of this dogma by the bishops of the world was not unanimous. So possibly the Irish episcopate was not 100% behind the doctrine. It could also be that infallibility was confused with impeccability, which is often the case among Protestants (and Wikipedia?).

This doctrine did not just crop up during the Council. It was the common teaching of the Church throughout the world. There was however some question as to the circumstances under which the pope was exercising his infallibililty. Vatican I clarified this.

Verbum

 

[garysibio]

Hi Gary,

A good reason for defining something is because not everybody agrees on a subject. The definition of this dogma by the bishops of the world was not unanimous. So possibly the Irish episcopate was not 100% behind the doctrine. It could also be that infallibility was confused with impeccability, which is often the case among Protestants (and Wikipedia?).

This doctrine did not just crop up during the Council. It was the common teaching of the Church throughout the world. There was however some question as to the circumstances under which the pope was exercising his infallibililty. Vatican I clarified this.

Verbum

Thanks for the response.

I have a hard time believing that the authors of two catechisms were confused over the difference between infallibility and impeccability. The authors of these catechisms would clearly disagree that infallibility was part of the Church’s tradition.

I had not considered this before but why would infallibility not have been an issue for Trent to resolve? Trent dealt with issues arising from the Reformation. Surely infallibility would have been at or near the top of that list.

I’ve been doing some digging around on this issue and, while I find a lot in the early Church Fathers to support papal primacy, I’m not finding anything to support papal infallibility.

 

[PJM]

=garysibio;7405688]From the Wikipedia article on Papal Infallibility (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility):

In the nineteenth century, before the 1870 definition, two catechisms in use in Ireland explicitly denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In answer to the question of whether the pope was infallible they suggested that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics. After the formal declaration of the Pope’s Infallibility by Pius IX, this question and answer were quietly dropped in subsequent editions, with no explanation for the change.

The source given for this statement is:

Salmon, George (1914) The Infallibility of the Church John Murray pp.26-27

OK. I know not everything found in Wikipedia is to be believed but I’d be interested in knowing if anyone has ever heard of this.

OK, BUT…

Infallibility comes from God Himself, not the Magisterium, who only defined the issue.

**Matt. 16:15-19 and Matt. 18:18 ** Which extends the power of Authority to all the Apostles an subsiquent leaders were GRANTED unlimited Power of Governance by Christ, personally!

To “Bind” and To “Loose” were terms of power of ***unlimited Governance ***when they were used by Jesus and would have been clearly understood as such by those to Jesus was both COMMANDING and teaching.

FROM Strong’s Concordnance: “Bind in Hebrew means” …3**256 **yacar yaw-sar’ a primitive root; to chastise, literally (with blows) or figuratively (with words); hence, to instruct:–bind, chasten, chastise, correct, instruct, punish, reform, reprove, sore, teach.

To “Loose” means: **5203 natash naw-tash’ a primitive root; properly, to pound, i.e. smite; by implication (as if beating out, and thus expanding) to disperse; also, to thrust off, down, out or upon (inclusively, **reject, let alone, permit, remit, etc.):–cast off, drawn, let fall, forsake, join (battle), leave (off), lie still, loose, spread (self) abroad, stretch out, suffer.

And in GREEK: Result of search for “Loose”:
142. airo ah’-ee-ro a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare 5375) to expiate sin:–away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, upBy Jesus to peter and the Apostles.

NOTICE and READ very carefully Matt. 16:19… I [Jesus] give to you Peter [my futrure popes] the [all of them’] “KEY’S TO HEAVEN!”

Infallibility has existed from the time of this GRANTED authority by Christ to Peter. The fact that was was not defined, in no way presumes it was not understood, accepted and applied by the Fathers.

**Or Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus wrote

“we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”**

God’s continued Blessing friends,
Pat

 

[Ignatius]

Salmon, George (1914) The Infallibility of the Church

So, an anti-Catholic Protestant minister denies Papal infallibility? No, I had never heard this before.

 

[uxordepp]

Indeed!

An Anglican minister from this period of the 20th century is not necessarily to be relied upon for accuracy.

I own another book from about this same time entitled “Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome” which is full of some audacious fallacies concerning Church teaching.

Accuracy in print apparently fell outside the realm of the commandment concerning bearing false witness.

Wikipedia might have done better in documenting its article.

 

[promethius]

From the Wikipedia article on Papal Infallibility (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility):
In the nineteenth century, before the 1870 definition, two catechisms in use in Ireland explicitly denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In answer to the question of whether the pope was infallible they suggested that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics. After the formal declaration of the Pope’s Infallibility by Pius IX, this question and answer were quietly dropped in subsequent editions, with no explanation for the change.
The source given for this statement is:

Salmon, George (1914) The Infallibility of the Church John Murray pp.26-27

OK. I know not everything found in Wikipedia is to be believed but I’d be interested in knowing if anyone has ever heard of this.

The big question to ask is: So what?

Even if the relaying of the story is true, which is dubious in my mind, it’s irrelevant.

Go back for a second: the entries were “quietly dropped” in subsequent editions… I suppose there is a link to the original editions so that we can view the historical documentation backing this claim… or is this another Jack Chick method of saying “It happened but I can’t offer evidence because those dirty catholics hid/destroyed all of the proof”?

But nonetheless, it’s entirely irrelevant. Catechisms are NOT infallible documents. They CONTAIN infallible truths, but their authors are not possessed of magisterial authority in writing them. They only serve to record what the author perceives as dogmatic and disciplinary church teaching. This is why catechisms are reviewed and approved as valid: because MANY non-authorized versions of the catechism throughout history have contained errors.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Thanks for the response.

I have a hard time believing that the authors of two catechisms were confused over the difference between infallibility and impeccability. The authors of these catechisms would clearly disagree that infallibility was part of the Church’s tradition.

I think the key to the answer is the Irish bishops’ statement that it was a Protestant invention. So, we need to ask what it is that the Protestants believed papal infallibility to be? First, they believed that papal infallibility was personal which made the Pope impeccable. They believed papal infallibility was personal to the extent that everything the Pope said was infallible. They believed that papal infallibility extended to the Pope’s deposing power. Given all this, it is completely understandable that the Irish bishops would reject “papal infallibility” as it was being paraded around by the Protestants. Vatican 1 clarified all this. And it was necessary for Vatican 1 to clarify it.

I had not considered this before but why would infallibility not have been an issue for Trent to resolve? Trent dealt with issues arising from the Reformation. Surely infallibility would have been at or near the top of that list.

At the time of the Reformation, “papal infallibility” was not an issue because it seems it was clearly understood that infallibility referred to the teaching office. To combat the Protestants, all that was needed was to address their errors in doctrine. If the Protestants are proven wrong in doctrine, then the infallibility of the Church (which included the infallibility of its head bishop) was sufficiently defended. Also at the time of the Reformation, the issue of the deposing power of the Pope did not have the same relevance as it did in the 19th century.

I’ve been doing some digging around on this issue and, while I find a lot in the early Church Fathers to support papal primacy, I’m not finding anything to support papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is implied in many ways in the early Church. I am currently preparing a list of these instances in the early Church which I will present in the Eastern Catholicism forum in response to a request there. I will post it in the following thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=519511). I should have it ready by the end of the week.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[garysibio]

So, an anti-Catholic Protestant minister denies Papal infallibility? No, I had never heard this before.

Implicit in my question was “Does he have a point? Why or why not?”

 

[garysibio]

OK, BUT…

Infallibility comes from God Himself, not the Magisterium, who only defined the issue.

**Matt. 16:15-19 and Matt. 18:18 ** Which extends the power of Authority to all the Apostles an subsiquent leaders were GRANTED unlimited Power of Governance by Christ, personally!

To “Bind” and To “Loose” were terms of power of ***unlimited Governance ***when they were used by Jesus and would have been clearly understood as such by those to Jesus was both COMMANDING and teaching.

FROM Strong’s Concordnance: “Bind in Hebrew means” …3**256 **yacar yaw-sar’ a primitive root; to chastise, literally (with blows) or figuratively (with words); hence, to instruct:–bind, chasten, chastise, correct, instruct, punish, reform, reprove, sore, teach.

To “Loose” means: **5203 natash naw-tash’ a primitive root; properly, to pound, i.e. smite; by implication (as if beating out, and thus expanding) to disperse; also, to thrust off, down, out or upon (inclusively, **reject, let alone, permit, remit, etc.):–****cast off, drawn, let fall, forsake, join (battle), leave (off), lie still, loose, spread (self) abroad, stretch out, suffer.

And in GREEK: Result of search for “Loose”:
142. airo ah’-ee-ro a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare 5375) to expiate sin:–away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, upBy Jesus to peter and the Apostles.

NOTICE and READ very carefully Matt. 16:19… I [Jesus] give to you Peter [my futrure popes] the [all of them’] “KEY’S TO HEAVEN!”

Infallibility has existed from the time of this GRANTED authority by Christ to Peter. The fact that was was not defined, in no way presumes it was not understood, accepted and applied by the Fathers.

Or Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus wrote

“we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

God’s continued Blessing friends,
Pat

I don’t equate papal primacy with papal infallibility. Your comments seem to address the former.

 

[garysibio]

Dear brother Gary,

I think the key to the answer is the Irish bishops’ statement that it was a Protestant invention. So, we need to ask what it is that the Protestants believed papal infallibility to be? First, they believed that papal infallibility was personal which made the Pope impeccable. They believed papal infallibility was personal to the extent that everything the Pope said was infallible. They believed that papal infallibility extended to the Pope’s deposing power. Given all this, it is completely understandable that the Irish bishops would reject “papal infallibility” as it was being paraded around by the Protestants. Vatican 1 clarified all this. And it was necessary for Vatican 1 to clarify it.

At the time of the Reformation, “papal infallibility” was not an issue because it seems it was clearly understood that infallibility referred to the teaching office. To combat the Protestants, all that was needed was to address their errors in doctrine. If the Protestants are proven wrong in doctrine, then the infallibility of the Church (which included the infallibility of its head bishop) was sufficiently defended. Also at the time of the Reformation, the issue of the deposing power of the Pope did not have the same relevance as it did in the 19th century.

Papal infallibility is implied in many ways in the early Church. I am currently preparing a list of these instances in the early Church which I will present in the Eastern Catholicism forum in response to a request there. I will post it in the following thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=519511). I should have it ready by the end of the week.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks, Marduk.

 

[Nita]

Where are these 2 Catechisms so that his statement can be verified? I would certainly not accept that these 2 Catechisms existed on just the word of someone who is out to undermine the Church.

But even if they did exist, it doesn’t mean the information was true. I taught CCD for about 5 years (late 80’s and early 90’s). I can assure you that things get printed in Catholic Catechisms that are contrary to our faith - and at least some of those Catechisms had Imprimatur’s. So just because something appears in a local catechism does not mean it is a reliable source for denying or undermining what thee Universal Catholic Church teaches.

 

[garysibio]

Where are these 2 Catechisms so that there is some sort of backup for the statement? I would certainly not accept it on just the word of someone.

As regards what gets printed in Catholic Catechisms: I taught CCD for about 5 years (late 80’s and early 90’s). I can assure you that things get printed in Catechisms that are contrary to our faith - and at least some of those Catechisms had Imprimatur’s.

Nita,

One of the reasons I asked was because I had never heard this before and I wanted to find out if the info about the catechisms was accurate.

I’m aware of the problems with some catechisms today but I don’t believe that was a big issue in the early to mid-19th century. It seems to me that, if this was an issue of liberal theologians, they would not defend their position by saying that Protestants made it up to make us look bad.

You might want to read the entire Wikipedia article. It’s well-documented.

 

[promethius]

It’s well-documented.

Well documented does not necessarily mean true. Nita brings up a good point… where are these Catechisms? Are they an invention of an anti-catholic writer or did they really exist. Without Wikipedia linking to a location where those documents can be viewed either in original text or from a reliable source, we have NO way of verifying this document from a potentially biased source.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

One of the reasons I asked was because I had never heard this before and I wanted to find out if the info about the catechisms was accurate.

I’m aware of the problems with some catechisms today but I don’t believe that was a big issue in the early to mid-19th century. It seems to me that, if this was an issue of liberal theologians, they would not defend their position by saying that Protestants made it up to make us look bad.

The Irish Catechisms were real. There is no denying that.

It is important to realize that the beliefs expressed by Protestants about papal infallibility that I mentioned earlier was also held by many Catholics outside of England. Vatican 1 did a valuable thing to define papal infallibility, for thenceforth, it was no longer permitted for Catholics to believe those exaggerated (and false) things.

Further, one also has to realize that Catholics in England were in a tenuous situation. They were a second-class group of citizens. Catholics were discriminated against, and just one of the ways this was manifested was the fact that Catholics could not hold public office. Given the popular misunderstandings of papal infallibility that was rampant in the Protestant mind, belief in papal infallibilty (especially as a deposing power) would have been equivalent to sedition. There was a definite advantage, on the level of mere survival, and especially for the Irish, to deny that papal infallibility was de fide, given that (1) papal infallibility was believed by Protestants to be all those things that I mentioned earlier, and (2) there was in fact no definition of papal infallibility to which Catholics could point to ensure their Protestant masters, “that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[promethius]

Further, one also has to realize that Catholics in England were in a tenuous situation. They were a second-class group of citizens. Catholics were discriminated against, and just one of the ways this was manifested was the fact that Catholics could not hold public office.

That part in red depends on what time frame and what country you’re talking about. In many areas of England and particularly during the subjugation of Northern Ireland, Catholics weren’t citizens at all, but rather were considered guilty of treason. The prisons of English castles are soaked in the blood of Catholic martyrs who were tortured to death for their faith.

And again, I’ll point out that whether or not the catechisms were real is irrelevant to a discussion of the validity of papal infallibility, since no given author of a catechism necessarily has written a true document. Catechisms must be certified as being without error before they can be followed as such.

 

[garysibio]

And again, I’ll point out that whether or not the catechisms were real is irrelevant to a discussion of the validity of papal infallibility, since no given author of a catechism necessarily has written a true document. Catechisms must be certified as being without error before they can be followed as such.

I see your point but I’m not certain I agree. Let me explain. Catholic doctrines are not pulled out of thin air. We believe that they are part of the teaching of Jesus to His apostles which they then passed on to the Church in either written or oral form.

Here we have a situation where two catechisms specifically state that papal infallibility is not only not true but an invention of the Reformation to discredit the Catholic Church. This would be a fairly solid indication that, at least in the opinion of the authors of these catechisms, papal infallibility was not part of the deposit of faith. That is why I feel it is important to find out what is going on here.

Do you see my point?

 

[promethius]

I see your point but I’m not certain I agree. Let me explain. Catholic doctrines are not pulled out of thin air. We believe that they are part of the teaching of Jesus to His apostles which they then passed on to the Church in either written or oral form.

sigh So if I write a catechism tomorrow and change the teaching to state that Jesus was only Divine and not possessed of two natures, and that gay marraige is NOT wrong according to catholic belief, does that somehow reflect on church teaching?

Of course not. Titling a book “Catechism of the Catholic Church, XYZ edition” does not confer any magical dogmatic status to whatever the author wants to put in. History is fraught with poor catechisms which have been rejected as distorting catholic teaching. You can select any number of these, but because they are not accepted by the church as without error, they bear no impact on questioning catholic teaching.

This is why it is important to understand the difference between objective truth and recorded truth. Doctrine and Dogma are OBJECTIVE TRUTH. They exist as reality on their own. If they were NEVER written down, they would still be true. Recorded truth is when you take an objective truth and write it down in a text. The Catechism contains recorded truth… but it is NOT objective truth in and of itself… it merely writes down what is objectively true. This is why it is incredibly important to follow only catechisms which have been certified as without error, so that we know that what is recorded partains ONLY to what has been defined as OBJECTIVELY TRUE and does not expound beyond what the church has revealed as OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

In other words, don’t elevate the catechism above what it is. It contains doctrine, but it is not doctrine in and of itself, and is only trustworthy so long as it is certified by the church to be without error in recording objective truth.

 

[garysibio]

sigh So if I write a catechism tomorrow and change the teaching to state that Jesus was only Divine and not possessed of two natures, and that gay marraige is NOT wrong according to catholic belief, does that somehow reflect on church teaching?

Of course not. Titling a book “Catechism of the Catholic Church, XYZ edition” does not confer any magical dogmatic status to whatever the author wants to put in. History is fraught with poor catechisms which have been rejected as distorting catholic teaching. You can select any number of these, but because they are not accepted by the church as without error, they bear no impact on questioning catholic teaching.

This is why it is important to understand the difference between objective truth and recorded truth. Doctrine and Dogma are OBJECTIVE TRUTH. They exist as reality on their own. If they were NEVER written down, they would still be true. Recorded truth is when you take an objective truth and write it down in a text. The Catechism contains recorded truth… but it is NOT objective truth in and of itself… it merely writes down what is objectively true. This is why it is incredibly important to follow only catechisms which have been certified as without error, so that we know that what is recorded partains ONLY to what has been defined as OBJECTIVELY TRUE and does not expound beyond what the church has revealed as OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

In other words, don’t elevate the catechism above what it is. It contains doctrine, but it is not doctrine in and of itself, and is only trustworthy so long as it is certified by the church to be without error in recording objective truth.

Come on. That’s not what I said and you know it. Christ’s nature is well documented in Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers, papal infallibility is not. (Primacy is, but not infallibility.)

In addition, when those catechisms were written, papal infallibility was not a defined dogma of the Church and there was quite a lot of opposition to making it so.

 

[promethius]

Come on. That’s not what I said and you know it. Christ’s nature is well documented in Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers, papal infallibility is not. (Primacy is, but not infallibility.)

Regardless, Papal infallibility is doctrine, which means it is objective truth. It has been true prior to it’s formal revelation by the magisterium and has been true ever since Christ gave that authority to Peter. To say that one was truth in the 8th century and one was not is to fail to understand the difference, again, between objective truth and recorded truth.

The Church does not CREATE doctrine. It reveals it as needed and given by God. Doctrine is objective truth.

In addition, when those catechisms were written, papal infallibility was not a defined dogma of the Church and there was quite a lot of opposition to making it so.

And it is still regardless. Those catechisms went beyond the scope of teaching of the catholic church and hence were in error. The church never certified them as representative of ACTUAL catholic belief, so they bear NO impact in assaulting catholic beliefs based on whatever error they contained. Again, you cannot simply CLAIM to have authored an acceptable catechism, there is a process by which a catechism must be accepted by the church. What these two catechism are is not true representations of church teachings. They are simply books which happen to contain some truth and some untruth.