Pope is not infallible. Am I right?

[iaskquestions]

As far as I know, the Pope enjoys the charism of infallibility. That does not mean that the pope is infallible, but that God gives him the gift of infallibility at that moment.

Take another example. Suppose a priest has the gift or charism of healing. Does it mean that the priest is a healer? In the strict sense, no. **Christ is the healer **and the priest is his instrument. In the same way I don’t think that the pope is infallible but Christ speaks infallibly through the Pope.

Am I right?

 

[ralphinal]

I think so if I understand what you are saying. The protection afforded the pope when speaking on matters of faith and morals in an official way is from God not intrinsic in the man.

 

[Peter_J]

As far as I know, the Pope enjoys the charism of infallibility. That does not mean that the pope is infallible, but that God gives him the gift of infallibility at that moment.

Take another example. Suppose a priest has the gift or charism of healing. Does it mean that the priest is a healer? In the strict sense, no. **Christ is the healer **and the priest is his instrument. In the same way I don’t think that the pope is infallible but Christ speaks infallibly through the Pope.

Am I right?

It depends both on how you use the terms and whom you ask.

Some people will say “Since any ex cathedra statement made by the Pope in infallible, that means that the Pope is sometimes infallible and sometimes fallible, so therefore you can’t say simply ‘The Pope is fallible’.”

But I disagree. Fallible means capable of making mistakes (as in errors, that is, not sins – let’s not drag impeccability into this) so saying “The Pope is fallible” just means “The Pope is capable of making mistakes/errors”, which is true notwithstanding the fact that the Pope can’t make mistakes/errors while making an ex cathedra statement.

(Similarly, there’s no contradiction between saying “St. Paul was fallible” and “St. Paul was infallible when he wrote I Corinthians.”)

On the other hand, the statement “The Pope is infallible” is false unless you add the qualifier “when making an ex cathedra statement”.

 

[mark_a]

As far as I know, the Pope enjoys the charism of infallibility. That does not mean that the pope is infallible, but that God gives him the gift of infallibility at that moment.

The pope gets his infallibility from the Church, the body of Christ, not vice-versa.

I just thought it’s worth mentioning again.

 

[LilyM]

The pope gets his infallibility from the Church, the body of Christ. not vice-versa.

I just thought it’s worth mentioning again.

And it’s something that attaches to the office, not the man. Pope John Paul II was never, as an individual, infallible as Father, Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal Woytjla, nor Pope Benedict XVI as Father, Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal Ratzinger. Excepting only when they taught in union with both their brother Bishops and the Popes of the time.

And if, God forbid, a Pope were to step down after having reigned for some time, as JPII was urged to do when he was in ill health, they wouldn’t retain that charism of being individually infallible.

I am always a little amused when people quote the writings of Woytjla or Ratzinger as if the fact that they later became Popes gives them any more weight than those of any other Bishop or Cardinal.

Which is not to deny that they both were great scholars, teachers and writers though very different in approach and style, and that what they wrote should be given great weight on those grounds.

 

[Peter_J]

I am always a little amused when people quote the writings of Woytjla or Ratzinger as if the fact that they later became Popes gives them any more weight than those of any other Bishop or Cardinal.

Well, they weren’t categorically different from their brother Bishops; but I think in a certain sense one could see them as having had “more weight”.