Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[Abu]

Having disposed of the false assumption of an “an active infallibility of the Faithful”, the active infallibility which is possessed by the Pope and Bishops is also complemented as Newman describes:
“The body of the faithful never can misunderstand what the Church determines by the gift of its active infallibility. Here on the one hand I observe that a local sense of a doctrine, held in this or that country, is not ‘sensum universitatis’ – and on the other hand the schola theologorum is one chief portion of that universitas – and it acts with great force both in correcting popular misapprehensions and narrow views of the teaching of the active infallibilitas, and, by the intellectual investigations and disputes which are its very life, it keeps the distinction clear between theological truth and theological opinion, and is the antagonist of dogmatism.”
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

The reality:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“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 other, nor do they allow an appeal to any other tribunal.”

“The Pope is personally infallible, yet in a particular sense. His infallibility is personal because it belongs to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Church in Rome or to the Roman See. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of this See.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 229].

 

[Jon_S_1]

Having disposed of the false assumption of an “an active infallibility of the Faithful”, the active infallibility which is possessed by the Pope and Bishops is also complemented as Newman describes:
“The body of the faithful never can misunderstand what the Church determines by the gift of its active infallibility. Here on the one hand I observe that a local sense of a doctrine, held in this or that country, is not ‘sensum universitatis’ – and on the other hand the schola theologorum is one chief portion of that universitas – and it acts with great force both in correcting popular misapprehensions and narrow views of the teaching of the active infallibilitas, and, by the intellectual investigations and disputes which are its very life, it keeps the distinction clear between theological truth and theological opinion, and is the antagonist of dogmatism.”
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

The reality:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“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 other, nor do they allow an appeal to any other tribunal.”

“The Pope is personally infallible, yet in a particular sense. His infallibility is personal because it belongs to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Church in Rome or to the Roman See. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of this See.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 229].

What is your point with these? Affirming what we were talking about ?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What is your point with these? Affirming what we were talking about ?

LOL, We have been trounced by the out-of-context-partial-quote ninja! :stretcher:

mardukm’s insistence on understanding context must be stopped!

 

[Abu]

It is good to know that the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was considered a true doctrine from the beginning.

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
“On the other hand, although its character as a divinely revealed truth was defined in the First Vatican Council, the doctrine on the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was already recognized as definitive in the period before the council. History clearly shows, therefore, that what was accepted into the consciousness of the Church was considered a true doctrine from the beginning, and was subsequently held to be definitive; however, only in the final stage - the definition of Vatican I - was it also accepted as a divinely revealed truth.” [1998].

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect
• Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
  Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
  Secretary
  ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

The following errors need correction.

Veritas1994 #21
Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible – and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith.

The three levels of Magisterial teaching need to be given their authentic meaning.
The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Thus there is no question of giving the third level “respect”, but much more – “loyal submission of the will and intellect.” No “doubt” can excuse this, nor any “disobedience” be even suggested. Anything less is dissent.

making excuses for some of the Holy Father’s more scandalous actions (e.g., “ecumenical” services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and “Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers”, etc.),

Such talk of “scandalous actions” is unacceptable in a real Catholic, a misunderstanding of what occurred. But railing against Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is totally unacceptable. On altar girls, this has not been ruled out but I’m not in favour of that.

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 05-27-2009 (EWTN):
The small “t” traditions are practices that can change over time. For example, the language of the Mass, whether or not altar girls are permitted, whether both species are permitted at Mass or not (Precious Blood), are all small “t” traditions that can change.
tinyurl.com/n5zz5qd

 

[Blind_Didymus]

which schism specifically? There have been more than one I believe.

There is a lot of Catholic doctrines that were not defined as dogmas but where never less believed by Catholics. For example it was not until Pope Pius XII made the Assumption of Mary a dogma in 1950, yet many Catholics already believed this dating as far back as the Early Church Fathers.

This is the case with any dogma such as papal infallibility. The Church has always taught that the pope is infallible but throughout the ages our understanding of what that means has deepened.

Some in the east believe it, for example Coptics

The Coptic Orthodox Church celebrates the Feast of the Assumption of St Mary annually. While on St Mary though, why does the Coptic Church observe her birthday on a different date? Is this because of an ancient communication mistake related to calendar differences?

The Coptic year begins on 29 August [Julian], currently 11 September [Gregorian] or the day after if the previous Coptic year was a leap year. I have noticed that the Copts observe St George’s Day on 23 Paremhat which would appear to be due to a mistake in communicating the month of April (seeing Paremhat begins slightly earlier).
Similarly, St Clement of Alexandria said, “And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon”. This has caused some confusion and led some to think he meant Christ was born in May. However when the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles says to celebrate Christmas “on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month”, it was obviously still following the old Roman reckoning which counts April as the first month (seeing New Year’s Day was March 25th). This makes December the ninth month of the Julian Calendar as used at that time. Similarly, Pachon (which is the Greek name for the Coptic month of Pashons) is the ninth month of the Coptic Calendar. So St Clement’s mistake over which calendar to follow actually only confirms that the early Christians knew the date of Christ’s birth.
Sorry for the side track on calendar issues but the frequency with which I have spotted mistakes/discrepancies/disputes which could have easily been resolved by simply checking which calendar somebody meant is astounding.

The Copts also hold (as best I understand their position) that the Bishop of Rome has primacy over all other Christian bishops in honour and authority in doctrine which is to be followed by all others insofar as he teaches correctly. The dispute between Pope St Leo of Rome and Pope St Dioscorus of Alexandria was largely caused by an inability on both sides to comprehend what the other meant and so whereas Leo thought Dioscorus meant divinity became unconscious when Christ sleep, Dioscorus thought Leo meant Christ was not really divine while he slept. Thus, each thought the other was teaching incorrectly. Thankfully, the current Coptic Pope Theodore II of Alexandria and the Pope Francis of Rome have a very good relationship and are both ecumenists so hopefully the Churches may be united on the earth in our days.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

I may be wrong but I read somewhere that the reason that the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church had to do more with political and imperial reasons than about the faith itself.

The Eastern Orthodox St Mark of Ephesus wouldn’t agree with that. He went to the Council Florence favouring union but became the most outspoken bishop against it.
In short, he believed the popular Roman explanation of purgatory as being for the punishment of sins to be incompatible with the Orthodox understanding of sin being like a disease which God heals. (Generally, Orthodox Christians do believe in purgatory, though without calling it that. Even when the Latins began officially calling it that they only did so with the recognition that the Greeks confess the same concept.) In the Orthodox view, purgatory is a cleansing spiritual fire which purifies and heals the soul. It is a grace from God intended for our good rather than a punishment because of our wickedness. In my view, these are simply different ways of conceptualising it and disputes over how we perceive the afterlife ought not to be a cause for withholding communion.
The other matter St Mark of Ephesus disagreed on was that of the addition to the Creed. In his comprehension of it, by changing the Creed, the Latin Church was trying to change who God is. This may well have been due to linguistic/translation misunderstandings again seeing that all the other bishops were able to agree on the matter.

The political atmosphere certainly added to the problem but the real cause of the ongoing lack of union afterwards was that the laity had not been education on why the union was proper and theologically sound. Even in our day, to bring about unity on the earth, the laity must be educated so as to accept it. A babe can not eat meat; no more will an ignorant Orthodox Christian accept union until he has grown to understand it rightly.

That is about the stent of my expertise, maybe someone could PM Markut, he is orthodox Coptic in union with Rome.

Just want to point out that this is a very complex issue that is slowly being resolved…so let’s work toward that goal.

Where has Marduk been lately anyway? To clarify, he was raised Coptic Orthodox but, while living in the Philippines, translated into the Coptic Catholic Church. He’s mentioned to me that the Coptic Catholics are very Chalcedonian but feels comforted that they fully accept the miaphysite Christological understanding/expression and that he has met others like him in the CCC.

CWN - November 09, 2012
“A commission of Russian Orthodox theologians has completed a draft statement on primacy in the universal Church, which will now be submitted to the Russian Orthodox synod for approval.

Now this is interesting. Put simply, we’re not going to get anywhere without Russian agreement. But, at least in my view, should Russia unite with Rome then the weight of the Orthodox world will follow behind her. The Serbs respect the Russians even if they are perhaps less favourable to uniting while the Greeks will, for the most part, eventually agree to unite once they perceive their culture isn’t under threat.

In order for the Oriental Orthodox to unite though, the Ethiopians will need some convincing. This is rather a tough sell in a country with 2 public holidays commemorating military victories over the Italians. That said, the Copts are respected by the Ethiopians even if they have had many disputes through the centuries. So if the Copts can be convinced, the Ethiopians will eventually do what the Egyptians will do, for the most part :egyptian:
The current difficult issue for the Copts is that Rome signed a christological agreement with the Assyrians, whom the Copts hate. (No offence to any Copts but having been amongst you for several years now, this is the correct word. The Copts aren’t even willing to let the Assyrians explain what they mean by their own position but rather insist that the Assyrians must condemn their own saints and submit to Coptic theological formulas or else, so say many Copts, it is impossible for any Assyrian to be see paradise.)

To end this post, as the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom says, let us “pray for the unity of all”.

 

[Tunesmith]

The MOST IMPORTANT THING to understand about Papal infallbility is that there is no reason for the average layperson to even know that it exists, much less which teachings fall into this category.

Why would the church tell the laity to obey all infallible teachings and then not tell them what they are?

 

[pablope]

Why would the church tell the laity to obey all infallible teachings and then not tell them what they are?

Hmm…how do you know the conregation is not told?

That is the role of our priests and bishops…they are there to run to if there is doubt, if there is a question from someone.

 

[Tunesmith]

Hmm…how do you know the conregation is not told?

Because no one knows for certain what these infallible teachings are. There is no official church publication of infallible teachings. How many are there?
Look at this
americancatholic.org/messenger/aug2004/Wiseman.asp
"Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic. She says that the Church has spoken infallibly only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption.
I say that it has spoken infallibly many times, especially through its 21 ecumenical councils. Which one of us is right?

A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.
The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.
Since 1870, some people have argued that canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that assertion is a debatable point at this time."

It gets more confusing as you read on. It actually says that infallible teachings can change.

That is the role of our priests and bishops…they are there to run to if there is doubt, if there is a question from someone.

How could the priest or bishop know if it has never been plainly stated in writing? How would someone sitting in a church or a classroom know if the priest or teacher was teaching something contrary to an infallibly proclaimed truth?

 

[Abu]

Tunesmith #49
It actually says that infallible teachings can change.

Of course infallible doctrines cannot change to a contradiction. Such an assumption is false.

In fact, from Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘*ex cathedra’ *definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone Canon anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium ***have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. ***

Abu, it is not correct to say that you have EXPLICIT AFFIRMATION regarding secondary Doctrinal Truths. What we DO have is this:

In Vatican I the Latin word used regarding secondary objects was “tenendam” which left the door open for the secondary object of infallibility. “held” in Latin applies to both Revealed Truth and other Church teachings.

According to Vatican II, the Latin word used was “credendam” Or " This infallibility… extends just as far as [tantum patet quantum] the deposit of Divine Revelation that is to be guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded." Lumen Gentium 25. “Believed” in Latin applies ONLY to Revealed Truths. So the sentence above, AT FIRST READING, seems to LIMIT infallibility to Divine Truths only, ruling out the possibility of secondary objects. However, SOME theologians see just the opposite. They understand the words “guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded” to also include secondary objects.

However, even if we grant that Vatican II did mean to include secondary objects (infallibility’s reach) then Vatican II offers scant guidance on WHAT those secondary objects are. (from: L. King, Theologian, Catholic University in NSJ)

BTW, it is interesting to note (and I posted this elsewhere) that in Gasser’s Relatio, he EXPLICITLY removes secondary objects of infallibility, whereas Cardinal Newman explicitly INCLUDES them!

So your conclusion: " Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt."

Is mere conjecture.

 

[Jon_S_1]

How could the priest or bishop know if it has never been plainly stated in writing? How would someone sitting in a church or a classroom know if the priest or teacher was teaching something contrary to an infallibly proclaimed truth?

You are confusing terms ,

In one hand we are talking about infallible statements. Looking back through history it is hard to know for certain if more than 2.

On the other hand you have the infallible teaching of the church. This is primary. This is the dogma and doctrine of the church.

Dogma and doctrine is infallible. It is by definition the truth.

These truths were given by Christ and the Apostles to the early church and passed down through the generations.

The New Testament was written surrounding this truth

Councils and Popes and church doctors have further * developed* these truths.

The summation of the dogmas and doctrines of the church is found in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

This is how the people know what is true.

 

[Tunesmith]

Of course infallible doctrines cannot change to a contradiction. Such an assumption is false.

Here is an infallible statement:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."
It is further explained in the same council
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino,1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

It is reiterated in this encyclical 500 years later
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

The Catholic Church today teaches that all the above mentioned who cannot be saved actually can be saved. This is a contradiction.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here is an infallible statement:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."
It is further explained in the same council
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino,1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

It is reiterated in this encyclical 500 years later
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

The Catholic Church today teaches that all the above mentioned who cannot be saved actually can be saved. This is a contradiction.

No,

The church holds these teachings today.

We know that the only way to heaven is through Christ and having faith. We know that the Catholic Church is the holder of these truths.

This is THE ONLY WAY GOD HAS REVEALED TO MEN ON HOW TO BE SAVED.

God has also taught us of his love, justice and mercy.

So the church SPECULATES and HOPES that God being God can save people who of no fault of their own are outside the church.

We know that God can work in ways not revealed to man.

This is simply a hope, and the church’s missionary mission to proclaim the gospel to all men is clear today as it always has been.

You will not, nor ever, find an INFALLIBLE statement that says there is certainty of salvation outside the confines of the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

The problem with Absolutist Petrine advocates is that they think EVERY exercise of infallibility by the Pope is ex cathedra (according to the definition of V1). They make no distinctions between (1) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope during an ex cathedra decree, (2) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the whole body of bishops in an Ecumenical Council, and (3) the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. They completely fail to understand that “papal” infallibility as defined by V1 is NOT active during an Ecumenical Council or during an exercise of the Church’s infallibility by the universal Ordinary Magisterium. By this exaggerated understanding, they are under the illusion that the Church’s infallibility rests in or has its source from “papal” infallibility ALONE.

The Pope’s confirmation of an Ecumenical Council or his explicit assent to a teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium are NOT acts of “papal” infallibility. The necessity of these papal acts for the college is not because he alone is infallible and thereby grants his infallibility to the acts of the Church/his brother bishops, but merely because of the necessity imposed by the PRIMACY (as explained in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 about the necessary consent of the head bishop).

Again, well done, brother AmbroseSJ.

Blessings,
Marduk

Abu, it is not correct to say that you have EXPLICIT AFFIRMATION regarding secondary Doctrinal Truths. What we DO have is this:

In Vatican I the Latin word used regarding secondary objects was “tenendam” which left the door open for the secondary object of infallibility. “held” in Latin applies to both Revealed Truth and other Church teachings.

According to Vatican II, the Latin word used was “credendam” Or " This infallibility… extends just as far as [tantum patet quantum] the deposit of Divine Revelation that is to be guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded." Lumen Gentium 25. “Believed” in Latin applies ONLY to Revealed Truths. So the sentence above, AT FIRST READING, seems to LIMIT infallibility to Divine Truths only, ruling out the possibility of secondary objects. However, SOME theologians see just the opposite. They understand the words “guarded as sacred and faithfully expounded” to also include secondary objects.

However, even if we grant that Vatican II did mean to include secondary objects (infallibility’s reach) then Vatican II offers scant guidance on WHAT those secondary objects are. (from: L. King, Theologian, Catholic University in NSJ)

BTW, it is interesting to note (and I posted this elsewhere) that in Gasser’s Relatio, he EXPLICITLY removes secondary objects of infallibility, whereas Cardinal Newman explicitly INCLUDES them!

So your conclusion: " Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt."

Is mere conjecture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The problem with Absolutist Petrine advocates is that they think EVERY exercise of infallibility by the Pope is ex cathedra (according to the definition of V1). They make no distinctions between (1) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope during an ex cathedra decree, (2) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the whole body of bishops in an Ecumenical Council, and (3) the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. They completely fail to understand that “papal” infallibility as defined by V1 is NOT active during an Ecumenical Council or during an exercise of the Church’s infallibility by the universal Ordinary Magisterium. By this exaggerated understanding, they are under the illusion that the Church’s infallibility rests in or has its source from “papal” infallibility ALONE.

The Pope’s confirmation of an Ecumenical Council or his explicit assent to a teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium are NOT acts of “papal” infallibility. The necessity of these papal acts for the college is not because he alone is infallible and thereby grants his infallibility to the acts of the Church/his brother bishops, but merely because of the necessity imposed by the PRIMACY (as explained in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 about the necessary consent of the head bishop).

Again, well done, brother AmbroseSJ.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks brother Marduk!

You have summed up my fears exactly! It is this OBSESSIVE CONCENTRATION on Papal infallibility that SO OBSCURES ordinary Church Infallibility. Further, it exhibits a gross misunderstanding of the very technical theological language and context which is SO crucial to understanding infallibility. It’s as if arguing for extreme infallibility has the effect of rubbing off on themselves!

 

[Veritas1994]

No,

The church holds these teachings today.

We know that the only way to heaven is through Christ and having faith. We know that the Catholic Church is the holder of these truths.

This is THE ONLY WAY GOD HAS REVEALED TO MEN ON HOW TO BE SAVED.

God has also taught us of his love, justice and mercy.

So the church SPECULATES and HOPES that God being God can save people who of no fault of their own are outside the church.

We know that God can work in ways not revealed to man.

This is simply a hope, and the church’s missionary mission to proclaim the gospel to all men is clear today as it always has been.

You will not, nor ever, find an INFALLIBLE statement that says there is certainty of salvation outside the confines of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for posting this. It seems many people have a bit of a misconception regarding this.

All salvation comes from Christ he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. Only through me will you come to the Father” Christ also founded His Church the Catholic Church in Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Not only did he found a Church but he gave the Church his authority. This is shown in Matthew 16:19 "I give you (Peter) the keys and whatsoever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on earthed shall be loosed in heaven.

Thus just as all salvation comes from Christ as only He can save, so the same thing is true of His Church founded by Christ with his authority (including the authority of salvation)

This is not to say that absolutely no Non-Catholic cannot be saved, But it does mean that if a,Non-Catholic, say a Buddhist, muslim, protestant,etc. is saved it would be erroneous to say that he was saved by his religion. Rather he would be saved despite his religion and belief.

 

[Veritas1994]

The problem with Absolutist Petrine advocates is that they think EVERY exercise of infallibility by the Pope is ex cathedra (according to the definition of V1). They make no distinctions between (1) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope during an ex cathedra decree, (2) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the whole body of bishops in an Ecumenical Council, and (3) the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. They completely fail to understand that “papal” infallibility as defined by V1 is NOT active during an Ecumenical Council or during an exercise of the Church’s infallibility by the universal Ordinary Magisterium. By this exaggerated understanding, they are under the illusion that the Church’s infallibility rests in or has its source from “papal” infallibility ALONE.

The Pope’s confirmation of an Ecumenical Council or his explicit assent to a teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium are NOT acts of “papal” infallibility. The necessity of these papal acts for the college is not because he alone is infallible and thereby grants his infallibility to the acts of the Church/his brother bishops, but merely because of the necessity imposed by the PRIMACY (as explained in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 about the necessary consent of the head bishop).

Again, well done, brother AmbroseSJ.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for posting this

If you may help me with something…

I think that one of the problems that I have seen a lot of people have is putting too much emphasis and attention to the belief in infallibility (including that of the Pope but also that of bishops)that every word that comes out of say the Pope’s mouth is automatically infallible.

As I posted in one of my early posts even Saint Francis de Sales acknowledged that a few popes fell into heressy but only in their private judgement and thus what I am trying to say is that many people confuse the fact that every word that comes from the Pope for example even that which involves faith and morals is automatically infallible even though it does not meet all three conditons for an Ex,Cathedra statement.

I do not mean that we should not listen to what the pope has to say, but only that there is a misconception that every word or action that is done is infallible.

For example I have seen priests and bishops that have said something that is not true yet most people would nkt know this and reason that because a priest, or bishop said it then it must be an infallible teaching even though it obviously is not in union with the tradition of the,Church.

 

[Tunesmith]

The problem with Absolutist Petrine advocates is that they think EVERY exercise of infallibility by the Pope is ex cathedra (according to the definition of V1). They make no distinctions between (1) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope during an ex cathedra decree, (2) the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium exercised by the whole body of bishops in an Ecumenical Council, and (3) the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. They completely fail to understand that “papal” infallibility as defined by V1 is NOT active during an Ecumenical Council or during an exercise of the Church’s infallibility by the universal Ordinary Magisterium. By this exaggerated understanding, they are under the illusion that the Church’s infallibility rests in or has its source from “papal” infallibility ALONE.

The Pope’s confirmation of an Ecumenical Council or his explicit assent to a teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium are NOT acts of “papal” infallibility. The necessity of these papal acts for the college is not because he alone is infallible and thereby grants his infallibility to the acts of the Church/his brother bishops, but merely because of the necessity imposed by the PRIMACY (as explained in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 about the necessary consent of the head bishop).

Again, well done, brother AmbroseSJ.

Blessings,
Marduk

What you are saying here does not agree with the catholic encyclopedia.
ewtn.com/library/answers/contrad.htm
Ecumenical councils
1 An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head.
Hence:the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).
2 That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What you are saying here does not agree with the catholic encyclopedia.
ewtn.com/library/answers/contrad.htm
Ecumenical councils
1 An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head.
Hence:the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).
2 That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope?

Nothing in this article disagrees with what Mardukm posted.

Even what you highlighted does not contradict Mardukm. To think that it does reflects a faulty understanding either of what Mardukm has said, or what the article is saying or both.

The misinformation scattered by the Absolutist Petrine advocates is what causes this misunderstanding, especially among non-Catholics.