Papal Infallibility

[ematouk]

Hi, Im an Eastern Orthodox Christian evaluating the Roman Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

I was wondering if any of you could point me to Roman Catholic Apologetics websites which write defence articles on the “personal infallibility of the Pope”. Not the Colleagial infallibility of the Church which I already accept.

Currently I read a 5 page internet article by an Atheist who critiqued the Roman Catholic doctrine:

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/infallibility.htm

The criticism seemed quite fairly written, to which he even cites a Pope who rejected papal infallibility. Pope John XXII condemned the doctrine as “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” in the Papal bull “Quia quorundam”. ( papalencyclicals.net/John22/qquor-e.htm ). The exact definition he condemned is “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” which seems almost identicle to Papal infallibility.

He asserts many evidences against papal infallibility including the conditions of Vatican 1 which he portreys as lacking in freedom due to a majority of pressures.

I was wondering, are there any Roman Catholic articles which attempt to rebuttle these arguments? I would like to know the Catholic side of history.

God bless.

 

[FightingFat]

Hi ematouk! welcome to the forum!

This is a very interesting subject and it is important not to confuse infallibility with impeccability. Proper understanding would require a careful study of the historical background IMO. The doctrine of infallibility relates to the Holy Spirit’s protection of the truth of the deposit of faith from error.

The dogma was defined at the first Vatican Council in the document *Pastor Aeternus *and reaffirmed at the Second Vatican Council in the dogmatic constitution of the Church called Lumen Gentium thus:-

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

There is an article on papal infallibility right here on Catholic Answers, have you read it?

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

But here are some more articles for you to digest: -

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm

catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Papal-Infallibility/papal-infallibility.html

Hope this helps! God bless!

 

[FCEGM]

Hi, Im an Eastern Orthodox Christian evaluating the Roman Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

I was wondering if any of you could point me to Roman Catholic Apologetics websites which write defence articles on the “personal infallibility of the Pope”. Not the Colleagial infallibility of the Church which I already accept.

Currently I read a 5 page internet article by an Atheist who critiqued the Roman Catholic doctrine:

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/infallibility.htm

The criticism seemed quite fairly written, to which he even cites a Pope who rejected papal infallibility. Pope John XXII condemned the doctrine as “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” in the Papal bull “Quia quorundam”. ( papalencyclicals.net/John22/qquor-e.htm ). The exact definition he condemned is “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” which seems almost identicle to Papal infallibility.

He asserts many evidences against papal infallibility including the conditions of Vatican 1 which he portreys as lacking in freedom due to a majority of pressures.

I was wondering, are there any Roman Catholic articles which attempt to rebuttle these arguments? I would like to know the Catholic side of history.

God bless.

ematouk, here are a few more sites on the subject:

www.catholic-legate.com/articles/councilchalcedon.html

bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm

Regarding John XXII, he never addressed the issue. The closest thing to P. I. that was addressed in his reign was the issue of his debate with the French theologians over the nature of the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven. Before he was elected Pope, and while still a French theologian himself, John XXII held to the (incorrect) scholarly opinion that none of the saints in Heaven presently enjoy the Beatific Vision, but this will only be available to the saints after the Last Judgment.

He continued to hold this view - which was disputed by many rival theologians in the Church - during the early part of his pontificate; and during this time, while he argued in favor of his position, he decreed that he was not infallible in regard to it because it was just his private opinion and he was not imposing it on the Church. In the course of his continuing debate with his French opponents, he was eventually convinced that his position was wrong, and he recanted it. But this has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility, since P.I. refers only to that which the Pope formally teaches to be binding upon the Church. P.I. does not apply to a given Pope’s personal opinions or personal theological ideas. It is quite possible for a Pope to be personally erroneous about such things.

Further, in regard to his difficulties with the Franciscan spirituals, this doesn’t address the Church’s dogmatic understanding of Papal Infallibility at all. The rule of a given monastic order is a matter of discipline, not formal doctrine, and not faith and morals. One cannot dogmatize a rule; and so John’s conflict with the Franciscans is irrelevant to Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

According to our dogmatic belief, in order for a Pope to act infallibly, he must be a) teaching something in regard to faith and morals, i.e., something that can be dogmatized and b) he must be addressing the entire universal Church. The case of Pope John vs. the Franciscans doesn’t meet either of these qualifications. Needless to say, what is applicable only to the Franciscans does not effect the universal Church, and a rule of discipline cannot be dogmatized, since all monastic rules are subject to change.

 

[ematouk]

Thankyou very much. The above articles are very good, but many of them do not answer the objections from the historical context of Vatican 1.

also there is one thing that bothers me about the doctrine. Why is there no official definition of ex cathedra? I heard on another forum that “although the pope in infallible and we can rely on these infallible teachings 100% to be true, we can not know which one is infallible”

One particularly that bothers me is this one:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam [1302])
papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

It seemed to me that prior to Vatican 2 this used to be regarded as infallible irreversible teaching by some Catholic theologians who bothered to make a list of infallible pronouncements. But now on other forums the Catholics seem to believe that this teaching is not infallible because it does not meet the conditions of being ex cathedra (possibly because they can not reconcile it with Vatican 2?)

The thing I dont understand is why it doesnt meet the conditions of being ex cathedra: It is the exact same formula used for defining dogma as used by Ineffibilis Dues to define the Immaculate Conception.

Also a major issue that bothered me was that if it was so essential that the Pope be infallible, then why wasn’t it mentioned for the first 12 centuries of the church? I accept papal primacy and I admit that was mentioned, but I can not see any mention of papal infallibility.

Thankyou and God bless.

 

[JMBNH]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” St Irenaeus Against Heresies AD 189 3, 3:2

‘Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and **whither no errors can come’ **St Cyprian of Carthage Epistulae 59 (55) 14 AD 256

To me they look very much like Papal Infallibility (when it’s defined properly), though I do agree that it is not mentioned a lot in the early Church (unlike both Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy).

 

[protestantman]

If Peter was infallable, the why did Paul confront him for being “…clearly in the wrong.” Galations 2:11

 

[FightingFat]

If Peter was infallable, the why did Paul confront him for being “…clearly in the wrong.” Galations 2:11

You’re making the basic mistake of confusing infallibility with impeccability. Infallibility doesn’t mean the pope can’t get things wrong, It means when he is teaching THE FAITH deposited by Christ, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Check out some of the links that have been posted for further details, I would recommend you start with the basics here catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[ematouk]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” St Irenaeus Against Heresies AD 189 3, 3:2

I do not see how this has to do with papal infallibility. Have you read St Irenaeus? This is in reference to the controversy that was occuring at the time. St Irenaeus can not be said to be inferring infallibility to the church of Rome or to the popes and their successors. That would be reading into the text something that simply isnt there.

“All churches must agree”, But what must they agree to? “it is in her [Rome] that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”. This is because Rome was not infected with the heresies that originated in the East and so it had maintained “everywhere”, among all its faithful, the apostolic tradition.

 

[ematouk]

‘Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and **whither no errors can come’ **St Cyprian of Carthage Epistulae 59 (55) 14 AD 256

Oh wow, Ive never seen this quote being used for papal infallibility before. Its strange that it is being brought up. Virtually all Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant scholars are agreed that ‘seat of Peter’ was a term St Cyprian of Carthage used to refer to all bishops. St Peter to St Cyprian of Cathage was simply the first bishop, an example to all bishops being his successors. In fact the quote u have referred to, he actually referring to his own episcopate (the African bishops - not that of Rome).

Please read how Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno explains it in his book “The Rise of the Papacy” (p. 57-60):
Robert Eno: The Rise of the Papacy:

Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).

The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.

Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.

The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘…a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘…No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).

Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘…them to discern the womb and root…of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).

It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind…one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops.

Now here is an Orthodox explaination by John Meyendorff in his book “Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions” (p. 61, 152) :
John Meyendorff:

Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage…For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops

I’m sorry if I sound a bit harsh, I did not intend to be. I’m just studying the doctrine of infallibility at the moment and seeking clarity.

I would like to know the Roman Catholic perspective on the history of Vatican 1 - if the conditions were harsh or forbade freedom of bishops? That would be interesting to me at the moment.

God bless and Thankyou all.

 

[JMBNH]

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistulae, 59:14).

Though Rome is added here, what else is the principal church a reference to, which is linked to the chair of Peter.

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (Letters, 55[52]:1).

While these don’t refer to Papal Infallibility they say that being in the Catholic Church is being in full communion with the Pope/Bishop of Rome, which is more than Papal Primacy, possibly means Papal Supremacy

 

[mardukm]

Pope John XXII condemned the doctrine as “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” in the Papal bull “Quia quorundam”. ( papalencyclicals.net/John22/qquor-e.htm ). The exact definition he condemned is “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” which seems almost identicle to Papal infallibility.

My reading from the papalencyclicals website does not indicate a condemnation of papal infallibility,by Pope John XXII, but rather a condemnation of his opponents’ interpretation of the meaning of “the keys” given to St. Peter. Pope John argued that “the keys” do not refer to knowledge, but rather to the binding or loosing of sin and it attendant penalties. You see, his opponents were arguing that since the keys refer to knowledge, then ALL the pronouncements of the Pope are infallible and cannot be revised. On that basis, his opponents were claiming that disciplinary decrees made by a prior Pope cannot be changed.

THAT is what Pope John XXII was refuting.,

He asserts many evidences against papal infallibility including the conditions of Vatican 1 which he portreys as lacking in freedom due to a majority of pressures.

I will address this next week. If it is still on your mind at that time, please remind me by periodically bumping this thread to the.top of the Forum list.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Pope John argued that “the keys” do not refer to knowledge, but rather to the binding or loosing of sin and it attendant penalties.

So then Pope John believed that “the keys” were given to all the Apostles–not St Peter only.

Matt 18:18
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[Mickey]

history of Vatican 1 - if the conditions were harsh or forbade freedom of bishops? That would be interesting to me at the moment.

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor the Tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert undebated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier @ Vatican I

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So then Pope John believed that “the keys” were given to all the Apostles–not St Peter only.

Matt 18:18
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Why is it problematic to understand that the keys were given to all, but that the one who was charged with leading all who were given keys, has “the biggest set”?

This is largely a false dichotomy: “If keys exist than they all have them if anyone has any such authority”

 

[Mickey]

Why is it problematic to understand that the keys were given to all, but that the one who was charged with leading all who were given keys, has “the biggest set”?

I cannot find this " biggest set of keys" theory in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Mickey]

Vatican 1 - if the conditions were harsh or forbade freedom of bishops? That would be interesting to me at the moment.

"See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our Head".
Bishop Le Courtier

 

[SoCalRC]

Hi, Im an Eastern Orthodox Christian evaluating the Roman Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

I was wondering if any of you could point me to Roman Catholic Apologetics websites which write defence articles on the “personal infallibility of the Pope”. Not the Colleagial infallibility of the Church which I already accept.

Since infallibility was prepared as dogma by ecumenical council, and upheld by second ecumenical council, I’m not sure how one could accept one form of infallibility and not the other.

The article you cited appears to assert that the dogma was pushed through by an insane, power mad, pope. But that ignores the Second Vatican Council and Lumen Gentium which, albiet in softer language, reiterates the teaching.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Mickey:

Perhaps you should attempt to refrain from such vitriolic posts. I am receiving private messages from Latin and Eastern Catholics apologizing for you.

Ditto Mickey,

I am receiving private messages of support.

Does it occur to you that you could be guilty of the same? You have come here to the Catholic Answers Forum and spent a fair amount of time speaking up in contradistinction to what Rome teaches but plead ignorance or inaccessibility to Roman doctrines and dogma.

If you spend a lot of time at Catholic Answers Forum, expect, as a matter of course to get some Catholic Answers.

When you get them, decrying them as vitriolic when they deconstruct the logical fallacies or misrepresentations in your argument won’t really change anything.

Years ago when at a similar crossroads I had begun taking instruction at an OCA parish to go down the same path you did. It isn’t that I am not familiar with these arguments you make - it is that I don’t agree with them.

If you wish to try to send me some guidelines or suggestions as to how I can disagree with you without you responding with sarcasm or vitriol yourself (in calling me arrogant, sarcastic and vitriolic noe less!) I will look them over and take them to heart.

In the mean time, if you come on here and want to debate my co-religionists and tell them they are wrong, I am going to at least speak up for them and myself.

If it is your preference to speak against us and have no one answer them… Catholic Answers is not going to be the best place to have that pattern of discourse.

 

[Mickey]

The article you cited appears to assert that the dogma was pushed through by an insane, power mad, pope.

What do we know about Pius IX? Does anyone know of any non-biased non-polemical sources about him?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I cannot find this " biggest set of keys" theory in Scripture or Tradition.

I thought I was on ignore… hmm.

At any rate, reduction of my argument to sarcasm with a ROTFL emoticon doesn’t really refute it.