Papal Infallibility - Specifics

[Little_Mary]

If anyone can help me with this I’d appreciate it. I still have a lot to learn!

How many times, in the 2,004 years of the Church’s history, has a Pope spoken infallibly? I have been told that it has happened only five times and that three conditions have to be met before it can be done.

Can anyone fill in on what five occasions (if this is correct) over the course of history has a Pope spoken infallibly and what three conditions have to be met?

Also, the actual number of times this has happened, on what subjects and what conditions had to be met, might be a really good thing to point out to any non-Catholic (or Catholic) who might have a different idea of what it means when we say that the Pope is infallible. Right?

Thanks much

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

"How many times, in the 2,004 years of the Church’s history, has a Pope spoken infallibly? "

Let’s see 262 X 1000 maybe 10,000 you do the math!

What your asking is not how many times has the Pope spoken infallibly which would be every time he teaches on Faith and Morals. But more specifically how many times has the Pope (not specifically this current pope) spoken or taught “Ex Cathadra” on his own from the Chair of Peter. I have read three times.

 

[brianberean]

Little Mary:

If anyone can help me with this I’d appreciate it. I still have a lot to learn!

How many times, in the 2,004 years of the Church’s history, has a Pope spoken infallibly? I have been told that it has happened only five times and that three conditions have to be met before it can be done.

Can anyone fill in on what five occasions (if this is correct) over the course of history has a Pope spoken infallibly and what three conditions have to be met?

Also, the actual number of times this has happened, on what subjects and what conditions had to be met, might be a really good thing to point out to any non-Catholic (or Catholic) who might have a different idea of what it means when we say that the Pope is infallible. Right?

Thanks much

To my knowledge, nobody knows…or at least nobody can provide a number that every Catholic agrees on.

From Catholic apologists, I’ve read anywhere from 2 to 18 times…

Happy hunting,
Brian

 

[JimG]

Yes, the Pope speaking ex cathedra is only a limited instance of his teaching infallibly on faith and morals. Look at the entire 2000 year history of the church, and see how often Popes have taught error in respect to faith and morals. Zero.

JimG

 

[Adam_D]

Little Mary,

I’m also rather unclear on this subject, but I had this thought – that whenever a pope ratified the teachings of an ecumenical council we are able to say that his charism of infallibility insured that those teachings are infallible. And there are many such teachings. Whenever an ecumenical council says “whosover denies (insert dogma) let him be anathema” then they are proclaiming an unchangeable dogma that we can trust is absolutely true once the pope ratifies it. So in that sense we have many infallible proclamations. Since this is the normal way the church settles theological disputes (because, though the pope is protected from error, he is not miraculously inspired with new teachings and so we have to expect lots of human ‘grunt work’ needs still to be done) it is understandable that we would see relatively few cases where a pope (outside of this scenario of ratifying a council’s teachings) decided, altogether of his own initiative to proclaim ex cathedra a new dogma.

I’m not so sure, as Br. Rich hints at, that every utterance of the pope on matters of faith and morals is to be trusted as infallible. My understanding of infallibility is that it protects the pope in his teaching capacity insofar as he makes clear that he intends to bind the consciences of all believers to a particular teaching.

Like you, Little Mary, I am waiting for someone more knowledgable to fill us in on those (three or five?) ex cathedra statements that individual popes have infallibly taught. But, as I was stressing above, we shouldn’t imagine that those are all of the Church’s infallible teachings by any means.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

You are correct to point that out I did not intend to imply that every word from the mouth of the pope is an infallible teaching. No, no, no. That is why I say that papal encyclicals and other documents are not themselves infallible but that they can contain infallible teaching.

 

[Little_Mary]

"How many times, in the 2,004 years of the Church’s history, has a Pope spoken infallibly? "

Let’s see 262 X 1000 maybe 10,000 you do the math!

What your asking is not how many times has the Pope spoken infallibly which would be every time he teaches on Faith and Morals. But more specifically how many times has the Pope (not specifically this current pope) spoken or taught “Ex Cathadra” on his own from the Chair of Peter. I have read three times.

Thank you, Br. Rich and to everyone who has answered so far. You’ve helped me get onto the right path and continue to learn!

Let me see if I have this straight - Everytime the Pope teaches on Faith and Morals, his teachings are infallible. OK,

Re: Ex Cathadra - from the Chair of Peter - These statements must have been formal/public statements. Right?

And what about the three conditions that have to be in place? Or am I confusing that with something else?

 

[Scoobyshme]

It is my understanding that the Pope can speak infallibly under two sets of circumstances. 1) When he speaks “ex cathedra”, or “from the chair.” This is his most formal method of declaring something infallibly. The pope, throughout history, has done this very rarely. 2) when the pope speaks to the whole church on faith and morals, regardless of whether his statement is marked “ex cathedra” then he speaks with “normal infallibility.” I think it’s Lumen Gentium 25 that speaks to these two points. I just paraphrased.

 

[theMutant]

Scoobyshme:

It is my understanding that the Pope can speak infallibly under two sets of circumstances. 1) When he speaks “ex cathedra”, or “from the chair.” This is his most formal method of declaring something infallibly. The pope, throughout history, has done this very rarely. 2) when the pope speaks to the whole church on faith and morals, regardless of whether his statement is marked “ex cathedra” then he speaks with “normal infallibility.” I think it’s Lumen Gentium 25 that speaks to these two points. I just paraphrased.

To this there is one more requirement, he must explicitly bind all of the faithful to the teaching being presented.

 

[Little_Mary]

Scoobyshme:

It is my understanding that the Pope can speak infallibly under two sets of circumstances. 1) When he speaks “ex cathedra”, or “from the chair.” This is his most formal method of declaring something infallibly. The pope, throughout history, has done this very rarely. 2) when the pope speaks to the whole church on faith and morals, regardless of whether his statement is marked “ex cathedra” then he speaks with “normal infallibility.” I think it’s Lumen Gentium 25 that speaks to these two points. I just paraphrased.

Thanks, that helps

I am also trying to find out what the three conditons that must be in place. I think one is that the subject he speaks on “ex cathedra” must already be accepted by the masses - in other words, it’s no surprise to anyone because everyone pretty much already believes it.

Anyone???

 

[Matt16_18]

How are we defining “infallible”? The most basic definition of infallible is “without error”. How many times have the popes spoken the truth in the last 2000 years? Too many times to count!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

To be “ex cathedra”

1. It must be a serious matter of Doctrine on Faith or Morals.
2. It must be addressed to the whole Church.
3. He must specifically say that this is an infallible and irreformable (sp?) teaching of the Faith.

This is just off the top of my head, correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Vincent]

Fr. Brian Harrison, OS argues that the acts of papal infallibility as defined in 1870 aren’t as rare as commonly thought:

In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the Pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Pastor Aeternus relator] Gasser replied:

“But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?”

(The context makes it clear that, by the expression “dogmatic judgment”, Gasser here means any infallible definition having to do with dogma, not only with dogmas in the strict sense, because he notes in the same paragraph that the Council is proposing to define that “the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible”; and as we have seen, a central point of the whole relatio is that the new formula being presented to the Fathers does not limit papal infallibility to dogmas in the strict sense, i.e., points of revealed truth.) In other words, Gasser was able to assert in passing - that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience - that there had already been “thousands and thousands” of infallible definitions issued by former Popes!

 

[Little_Mary]

Matt16_18:

How are we defining “infallible”? The most basic definition of infallible is “without error”. How many times have the popes spoken the truth in the last 2000 years? Too many times to count!

That would be my thinking too. I am just trying to, if possible, break it down so that it is easier to understand, particularly to someone who might be a little closed minded to it to begin with.

 

[Matt16_18]

Br. Rich

• To be “ex cathedra”

1. It must be a serious matter of Doctrine on Faith or Morals.
2. It must be addressed to the whole Church.
3. He must specifically say that this is an infallible and irreformable (sp?) teaching of the Faith.*

Would then, * Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* meet the criteria for a papal “ex cathedra’ statement? Pope John Paul II states in * Ordinatio Sacerdotalis*:

… in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

But I don’t think that * Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* is an ex cathedra papal exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. The reason that I say that is this:

**Letter October 28, 1995

Concerning the CDF Reply
Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith**

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm

… The Pope’s intervention was necessary not simply to reiterate the validity of a discipline observed in the Church from the beginning, but to confirm a doctrine “preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents,” which “pertains to the Church’s divine consitution itself” (n. 4). In this way, the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved solely to men could not be considered “open to debate” and neither could one attribute to the decision of the Church “a merely disciplinary force” …

In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. * In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

It is the last sentence of the above letter from the CDF that inclines me to say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not a papal ex cathedra statement.

If Mr. Keating could pipe in on this, I would appreciate it!

Just how do we know when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra?

 

[Matt16_18]

Little Mary

• That would be my thinking too. I am just trying to, if possible, break it down so that it is easier to understand, particularly to someone who might be a little closed minded to it to begin with*

I think that you have asked a question that doesn’t have an easy answer.

I will help confuse matters further with this quote:

“… when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM

The above seems to say that the Pope has affirmed infallible doctrine in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by an “act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible.”

Oy vey!

 

[Vincent]

The 1870 definition states, “when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

A doctrine to be held (Latin: tenenda). . .

That might give us a clue as to what kind of faith/morals doctrine Vatican I was referring to. The CDF’s Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei includes sententia definitive tenenda as another category of doctrine that can be defined solemnly when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

And guess what:

“The doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) was listed by the CDF as an example of a doctrine in this category.

What’s clear is that OS is infallible. Going further, is OS ex cathedra? Since the 1870 definition states that doctrines to be held can be the object of an ex cathedra act, an argument can be made, as Fr. Peter Pilsner and Brother Ansgar Santogrossi explain, that OS is ex cathedra.

Now Cardinal Ratzinger affirms that OS is infallible, is sententia definitive tenenda and is a “teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church”. But by writing that, “in this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible,” he appears to think that OS is not ex cathedra, but is instead “a non-defining act,” since it is an explicit “declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff” of something belonging “to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium”.

What I find somewhat unclear is the “explicit ‘declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation’” part. The 1870 definition is silent on this “exception clause”, and I’m not sure where it first appeared. A recent development perhaps?

 

[Little_Mary]

Little Mary

That would be my thinking too. I am just trying to, if possible, break it down so that it is easier to understand, particularly to someone who might be a little closed minded to it to begin with

I think that you have asked a question that doesn’t have an easy answer.

I will help confuse matters further with this quote:

“… when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church."

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM

The above seems to say that the Pope has affirmed infallible doctrine in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by an “act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible.”

Oy vey!

Maybe there is no easy answer - just trying to learn how to defend the Pope’s position in the church effectively. I’ll never give up!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“Would then, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis meet the criteria for a papal “ex cathedra’ statement?”

No, because it was already an infallible teaching of the Deposit of Faith. The Doctrine was not defined, but restated in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

 

[Calvin]

JimG:

Look at the entire 2000 year history of the church, and see how often Popes have taught error in respect to faith and morals. Zero.

I have a question about this statement which is related to the original post: how can you say this given the fact that the number of times Popes have taught on faith and morals is undefined?

As a seeker, it seems to me that the only way one can “prove” that a Pope might have taught error (and thus is fallible) is if one can find two “infallible” statements that contradict each other. I’ve noticed a pattern when I read Catholic apologetic materials where a Protestant will claim to find just such a contradiction and a Catholic apologist either responds with: 1) “that really wasn’t an error” (and then harmonizes the two views) or 2) “that statement wasn’t infallible” (and then points out the narrow criteria for making a statement ex cathedra). The problem is that, unless we have a definite list of the supposed infallible statements we can’t evaluate whether or not any of them contradict each other.

As such, the game is “rigged,” so to speak, against those who want to find out if the Pope is fallible. (A question that my mind is still open on, by the way.) If someone points out two Papal statements that are contradictory the answer is not “well, I guess popes can err after all” but “well, that one wasn’t one of the infallible statements.”

For example Pope Boniface VIII in his decree Unam Sanctum writes that the Eastern Orthodox (“those who are not committed to the care of Peter and his successors”) are “not of Christ’s sheep.” In Orientalium Ecclesarum, as is well known, Pope Paul VI decreed that the Orthodox sacraments are valid and even referrs to the Orthodox as “the Eastern Churches.” How can Paul’s referance the Orthodox as Churches square with Boniface’s referance to the Orthodox as** not Christ’s sheep**? This is clearly a teaching on faith and morals because it addresses the question: “should an Orthodox person convert to Catholicism?” Boniface would say “yes” because such a person is “not Christ’s sheep.” Paul specifically says “no” in Orientalium Ecclesarum.

I’m predicting right now that the Catholic apologetic will be to point out that Boniface’s decree was, for whatever reason, not an ex cathedra statement. And it may well not be one. My problem is, as I tried to explain above, that until a list of ex cathedra statements is provided we will never be able to evaluate whether or not the Popes are infallible.

I’ve gone back to 1054 and can’t make up my mind to cross the Rubicon or swim the Bosphorus. This is one of my “hinge” issues so any comments would be appreciated.

With all respect,

-C