Papal Infallibility

[Montalban]

How does the Pope state that what he’s talking about is infallible, as opposed to his opinion?

 

[FightingFat]

This explains it thoroughly catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

It’s about “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
And when the Pope makes a solemn declaration on the faith.

 

[Montalban]

This explains it thoroughly catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

It’s about “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
And when the Pope makes a solemn declaration on the faith.

Excepting that Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Whereas your cited site says it’s conferred upon the Pope alone. Same with Luke 10:16; Jesus is speaking to more than one.

Have you any examples of an infallible declaration by a Pope prior to Vatican I?

 

[batteddy]

The Immaculate Conception in 1854 is a good example of Papal Infallibility before the First Vatican Council in 1870.

The formula used is a good example of how it would be made clear that it was an infallible statement, not some lesser teaching:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Statements saying “If anyone deny…let him be anathema” IF they deal with doctrine and not discipline (because early councils often used the same formula for disciplines too)…can be taken as infallible usually.

The Assumption declaration by Pius XII said:

“by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

 

[StCsDavid]

The Immaculate Conception in 1854 is a good example of Papal Infallibility before the First Vatican Council in 1870.

The formula used is a good example of how it would be made clear that it was an infallible statement, not some lesser teaching:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Statements saying “If anyone deny…let him be anathema” IF they deal with doctrine and not discipline (because early councils often used the same formula for disciplines too)…can be taken as infallible usually.

The Assumption declaration by Pius XII said:

“by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

I think what is intereesting is that each of the statements the Pope of the time speaks in third person plural. It’s not “I say” but rather “we pronounce.” I think it’s important to remember it’s not the Pope alone coming up with these statements. He has a lot of help from the cardinals and bishops, and oh yeah, most important of all, the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Fidelis]

Excepting that Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Whereas your cited site says it’s conferred upon the Pope alone. Same with Luke 10:16; Jesus is speaking to more than one.

The diference being, of course, that in Matthew 16, Jesus gave to Peter and his successors, the Popes, the additional promises “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Note that these important distinctions are not mentioned in Matthew 18.

Have you any examples of an infallible declaration by a Pope prior to Vatican I?

The conditions where a Pope speaks infallibly are the following:

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.

From this we can see that four specific conditions have to be met to qualify a teaching of the Pope as an exercise of papal infallibity:

1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra—from his position as supreme and universal pastor. Not as a private theologian, bishop of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City, etc.
2. He must be defining a doctrine—not just commenting, explaining, exhorting, or discussing. It is a final and definitive judgment on a particular issue or subject.
3. The doctrine must concern faith or morals. It can concern both revealed doctrine (e.g. Perpetual Virginity of Mary) and Natural Law (e.g. abortion).

4.           It must be addressed to the whole Church, not just a segment of her.

Here is a page to a link of writings of the Popes.

papalencyclicals.net/

Apply these criteria to as many of these writings as you wish, and you will have your example – plus some.

 

[FightingFat]

Excepting that Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Whereas your cited site says it’s conferred upon the Pope alone. Same with Luke 10:16; Jesus is speaking to more than one.

Then you didn’t read it my friend, or at least didn’t understand it.
It quite clearly states that the Bishops can also make infallible pronouncements regarding the faith.

Did you come here to challenge or understand?

 

[Ghosty]

You’re forgetting the OTHER key passages about the Papacy. Matthew 16:18 is only one. There is of course John 21 where Jesus says:

15: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16: A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17: He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Now some argue that this is merely a “reinstating” of Peter to general Apostleship, and forgiveness for his three-fold denial of Jesus, but I don’t think that stands when looked at in the context of what Jesus said to Peter at the Last Supper, as recorded in Luke 22:

31: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
32: but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

This is explicitely a task for Peter, not for the other Apostles. Nowhere is this task ever given to others. Peter is the confirmer of the Faith specifically, that is his unique and proper role among the Apostles. This is exactly the role the Pope continues, as in “ex cathedra” statements the Pope must be speaking for the Church in confirmation of its Faith, not as a “new teacher” (this is made quite explicit both in the documents defining Papal Infallibility, and in “ex cathedra” statements themselves such as the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary), and this is also what is done when the Pope confirms or annuls the acts of Ecumenical Councils.

This power isn’t at all new, either. It is implicitely found in the earliest non-Scriptural writings by the Fathers, and it is explicitely mentioned by such Popes as Leo the Great (and his judgement on the acts of Chalcedon was accepted by the East) and Gregory the Great (who’s judgement was likewise accepted in the East).

Leo the Great wrote, in response to the “28th Canon of Chalcedon”:

But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.

and Gregory the Great wrote, in response to claims of universal authority on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople:

But, when this my brother with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,-the most serene Lord gives me a somewhat distressing intimation, in that he has not rebuked him who is acting proudly, but endeavours to bend me from my purpose, who in this cause of defending the truth of the Gospels and Canons, of humility and rectitude; whereas my aforesaid brother and fellow-priest is acting against evangelical principles and also against the blessed Apostle Peter, and against all the churches, and against the ordinances of the Canons.

and:

For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, thou hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising thy brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod

So this practice is quite ancient, and is recognized as being Petrine by the early Church. It is in this capacity that Pope is infallible as a confirmer of the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Excepting that Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Whereas your cited site says it’s conferred upon the Pope alone. Same with Luke 10:16; Jesus is speaking to more than one.

Fidelis:

The difference being, of course, that in Matthew 16, Jesus gave to Peter and his successors, the Popes, the additional promises “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Note that these important distinctions are not mentioned in Matthew 18.

You miss the point. That Catholic apologist site I was directed to says that the verses that support infallibility are Matthew 18:18, and Luke 10:16. If you want to argue that such verses DO NOT give such proof, then you should say so, because as it stands this is what you’re trying to do - you’re saying oh, it’s not this verse, but another.

And of course in Matthew 18:18 which comes after Matthew 16, Jesus gives that ‘right’ to all the Apostles.

Montalban:

Have you any examples of an infallible declaration by a Pope prior to Vatican I?

Fidelis:

The conditions where a Pope speaks infallibly are the following:

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.

From this we can see that four specific conditions have to be met to qualify a teaching of the Pope as an exercise of papal infelicity:

1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra—from his position as supreme and universal pastor. Not as a private theologian, bishop of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City, etc.
2. He must be defining a doctrine—not just commenting, explaining, exhorting, or discussing. It is a final and definitive judgment on a particular issue or subject.
3. The doctrine must concern faith or morals. It can concern both revealed doctrine (e.g. Perpetual Virginity of Mary) and Natural Law (e.g. abortion).
4. It must be addressed to the whole Church, not just a segment of her.

Here is a page to a link of writings of the Popes.

papalencyclicals.net/

Apply these criteria to as many of these writings as you wish, and you will have your example – plus some.

Which ones of these did the Pope declare were infallibly spoken?

 

[Montalban]

Then you didn’t read it my friend, or at least didn’t understand it.

So you presume.

It quite clearly states that the Bishops can also make infallible pronouncements regarding the faith.

That’s not what it says. It says that THE verses in Scripture for proofs of Papal Infallibility are…

and then lists them. Neither of which give such proof.

Did you come here to challenge or understand?

A bit from column ‘A’ a little from column ‘B’. If you can’t show such proofs, then you should say so

 

[Montalban]

You’re forgetting the OTHER key passages about the Papacy

I’m not forgetting that at all. Sheesh! I was told to go read a site that gave Scriptural proofs and the two verses it cites weren’t directed to Peter alone (and even if they were this is still negated by Matthew 18:18 but we’ll have that discussion another time).

In short the two verses this site states don’t prove it. IF you want to argue that there are other verses, that’s fine

Now, how does ‘feeding the sheep’ equate to infalibility?

 

[Montalban]

So this practice is quite ancient, and is recognized as being Petrine by the early Church. It is in this capacity that Pope is infallible as a confirmer of the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

I agree that Popes have often cited the ‘authority’ of St. Peter, but isn’t this different from an ex-Catheda statement - because the Popes cited their authority quite a lot. I though ‘ex catheda’ statements to be quite rare.

 

[dcdurel]

Someone explained the definition of when the Pope is infallible:

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.

From this we can see that four specific conditions have to be met to qualify a teaching of the Pope as an exercise of papal infelicity:

1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra—from his position as supreme and universal pastor. Not as a private theologian, bishop of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City, etc.
2. He must be defining a doctrine—not just commenting, explaining, exhorting, or discussing. It is a final and definitive judgment on a particular issue or subject.
3. The doctrine must concern faith or morals. It can concern both revealed doctrine (e.g. Perpetual Virginity of Mary) and Natural Law (e.g. abortion).
4. It must be addressed to the whole Church, not just a segment of her.

It seems obvious, when you study the major encyclicals of the Popes, such as Humanae Vitae, Redemptor Hominis, Veritatis Splendor, etc. that the Popes are speaking in all these as

1. supreme and universal pastor, that is as the Pope,
   that they are
2. giving the final and definitive judgement on the subject (which is why they are writing the encyclicals in the first place)
3. The encyclicals certainly deal with faith or morals
4. They are addressed to the whole Church.

Therefore, unless one of these four points are missing, the Popes are teaching infallibly. I can’t think of any major encyclical, which is written to clear up errors, that does not meet all these criteria. Why would he even write a teaching encyclical if it did not meet these four criteria?
After all, that is the reason Jesus gave us Popes, to clear up the errors that have developed, and thus preserve the teachings of the Gospel, the deposit of truth, the Catholic faith, that has come down to us from the apostles.

 

[Montalban]

Someone explained the definition of when the Pope is infallible:

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church.

From this we can see that four specific conditions have to be met to qualify a teaching of the Pope as an exercise of papal infelicity:

1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra—from his position as supreme and universal pastor. Not as a private theologian, bishop of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City, etc.
2. He must be defining a doctrine—not just commenting, explaining, exhorting, or discussing. It is a final and definitive judgment on a particular issue or subject.
3. The doctrine must concern faith or morals. It can concern both revealed doctrine (e.g. Perpetual Virginity of Mary) and Natural Law (e.g. abortion).
4. It must be addressed to the whole Church, not just a segment of her.

It seems obvious, when you study the major encyclicals of the Popes, such as Humanae Vitae, Redemptor Hominis, Veritatis Splendor, etc. that the Popes are speaking in all these as

1. supreme and universal pastor, that is as the Pope,
   that they are
2. giving the final and definitive judgement on the subject (which is why they are writing the encyclicals in the first place)
3. The encyclicals certainly deal with faith or morals
4. They are addressed to the whole Church.

Therefore, unless one of these four points are missing, the Popes are teaching infallibly. I can’t think of any major encyclical, which is written to clear up errors, that does not meet all these criteria. Why would he even write a teaching encyclical if it did not meet these four criteria?
After all, that is the reason Jesus gave us Popes, to clear up the errors that have developed, and thus preserve the teachings of the Gospel, the deposit of truth, the Catholic faith, that has come down to us from the apostles.

What about a Pope who is declared heretical? (Pope Honorius) Were his teachings ex cathedra?

“Pope Honorius wrote a letter to the heretic patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, approving his thesis that Our Lord would have only one will or energy, and not two – the divine and human – and taking a clear position against St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was attacking the heretic.”
traditioninaction.org/SOD/j080sdLeoII_6-3.htm
he Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) condemned Monothelism and Pope Honorius as a heretic. This condemnation was elaborated by Pope St. Agatho (678-681). The documents of this Council were ratified by Pope St. Leo II.
(Ibid.)

Or a pope who argued against papal infalibility?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

On Honorius:

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach: The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility

Scott

 

[Montalban]

On Honorius:


Guilty Only of Failure to Teach: The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility

Scott

unless he spoke ex cathedra, and he did make statements on doctrine… which is why I asked earlier how does one know when the Pope’s speaking this.

Does he first state “What I’m about to say is infallible…” ?

Anyway, you can read the condemnation yourself…
The Sentence Against the Monothelites. Session XIII.
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-126.htm#P5872_1297340

Take note of the following:
“And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”
(Ibid.)
Honorius is condemned for ‘impious doctines’

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I’m just providing the link for anyone’s interest.

Scott

 

[Montalban]

On Honorius:

Scott

It also seems odd that you’re site’s arguing that he’d be condemned not for what he said, but for what he didn’t say OR for holding a personal opinion that was heretical.

 

[Montalban]

I’m just providing the link for anyone’s interest.

Scott

Ta

But it seems at odds with the actual text that condemns him (given the bit I noted above)

 

[Lrning]

What about a Pope who is declared heretical? (Pope Honorius) Were his teachings ex cathedra?

“**Pope Honorius wrote a letter to the heretic patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, **approving his thesis that Our Lord would have only one will or energy, and not two – the divine and human – and taking a clear position against St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was attacking the heretic.”

Conditions for Infallibility:

1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra—from his position as supreme and universal pastor. Not as a private theologian, bishop of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City, etc.
2. **He must be defining a doctrine—not just commenting, **explaining, exhorting, or discussing. It is a final and definitive judgment on a particular issue or subject.
3. The doctrine must concern faith or morals. It can concern both revealed doctrine (e.g. Perpetual Virginity of Mary) and Natural Law (e.g. abortion).
   4. It must be addressed to the whole Church, not just a segment of her.

Sounds like it was a letter “commenting” on Sergius’ thesis.
Was this letter addressed to the whole Church?