Struggling with 'Papal Infallibility'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlotte408

Guest
Hi everyone! I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

I’m having a hard time, I’ve accepted all of the dogmas…but one I’m really stuck on. I accept it- I guess you could say at face value, a kind of ‘if you say so’…and I pray for understanding, try to meditate on it…but…Its a block…I just CANT wrap my head around it, and this is why-

The Pope, is a MAN. I cant, I just CANT believe that a man is unfallible…we are all born with original sin…we are all just … mere mortal men. The Pope was born somewhere to a family just like everyone else- He’s NOT the son of God like Christ was…So he is a mere man…

And then, I went and I looked up all the Popes…((theres a LOT of them)) and next to some of them, it said ‘ANTI-pope’ What does that mean??? When I think ‘anti’, like, anti christ, or anti anything, you think ‘opposite’- if a man was made Pope, he should be instantly infallible?? So how could he be removed, or ‘anti’???

And what about the Popes that have done some pretty horrible things?? I’m not totally educated on all the Popes, so I wont make claims or assumptions…but I’ve heard, even from CAF posters here, that some of the Popes turned out to be not so holy…

I dont know how we can claim, papal infallibility, when we have Popes that have done some, from what I’ve heard, down right evil things. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, give me some information so I can defend our Popes or something because- I just feel like with this dogma we are not too much different from how the mormons think their prophets are infallible, but then if in the end they werent they say ‘they were just speaking as a man’ ???

Please help me with this, this is the LAST thing I am struggling with.
 
The Dogma of Papal Infallibility isnt an option. When you see the word “Dogma” it means that all Catholics must believe it. Its a matter of Faith. Therefore , I dont debate “what ifs” when it comes to Dogma. So I’ll approach your post from the standpoint of a question - as though you asked me What is meant by “Papal Infallibility”.

Papal Infallibility was defined by the Vatican Council I 1869 to 1870.

My suggestion is for you to read what that Council Decreed.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

Keep in mind. Our Lord has sent the Holy Ghost to Guide his Vicar in keeping the Church Orthodox in the Deposit of Faith. Meaning - when teaching the Faithful from the Chair of St Peter in Faith or Morals - the Pope is guided by the Holy Ghost himself.

What that doesnt mean is that he is infallible 24 / 7. A Pope can err as a private Pastor.

Vatican I :
  1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
  1. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
  2. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
  3. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that 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. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Pax
 
It’s not as though we say that the Pope is perfect and always right. Infallible is not the same as impeccable. Impeccable is ‘incapable of sin/error’. Infallible refers to matters of faith and morals and is a gift of the Holy Spirit (God) in certain situations.

Think of it this way: In Acts we are told that St. Peter was able to raise someone from the dead. Now, only GOD can do something like that, right? Not a mere man. God permitted St. Peter to have HIS (God’s) power to raise the dead in certain situations of GOD’S choice.

So isn’t the charism of Papal Infallibility like that? The Pope is able to be protected and guided by the power of the Holy Spirit (God) and to be able to use that GODLY power as GOD chooses.

Does that help?
 
I understand dogma means that its not something we can question, it just is, and I understand this because there are a many wiser men that have gone thru all of this stuff to get to these conclusions, but I need an understanding…I cant just- for some reason-

IOW- I wont just buy whatever someone is selling…I trust the CC, I trust my faith, I trust our Lord…But I cant…explore, grow, deepen in my faith, unless I have true understanding…know what I mean??

What does the term ‘anti pope’ mean and why do they use it? Have they ever removed a pope from ‘office’ ← if thats the correct term?
 
Charlotte408 said:
Hi everyone! I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

I’m having a hard time, I’ve accepted all of the dogmas…but one I’m really stuck on. I accept it- I guess you could say at face value, a kind of ‘if you say so’…and I pray for understanding, try to meditate on it…but…Its a block…I just CANT wrap my head around it, and this is why-

The Pope, is a MAN. I cant, I just CANT believe that a man is unfallible…we are all born with original sin…we are all just … mere mortal men. The Pope was born somewhere to a family just like everyone else- He’s NOT the son of God like Christ was…So he is a mere man…

And then, I went and I looked up all the Popes…((theres a LOT of them)) and next to some of them, it said ‘ANTI-pope’ What does that mean??? When I think ‘anti’, like, anti christ, or anti anything, you think ‘opposite’- if a man was made Pope, he should be instantly infallible?? So how could he be removed, or ‘anti’???

And what about the Popes that have done some pretty horrible things?? I’m not totally educated on all the Popes, so I wont make claims or assumptions…but I’ve heard, even from CAF posters here, that some of the Popes turned out to be not so holy…

I dont know how we can claim, papal infallibility, when we have Popes that have done some, from what I’ve heard, down right evil things. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, give me some information so I can defend our Popes or something because- I just feel like with this dogma we are not too much different from how the mormons think their prophets are infallible, but then if in the end they werent they say ‘they were just speaking as a man’ ???

Please help me with this, this is the LAST thing I am struggling with.
Click to expand...
Hi, there.

Over 260 men have occupied the office of the pope, the Vicar of Christ, the leader of the earthly priesthood that is the Catholic Church.

It’s the office, not the man, who has the power. Our U.S. presidents have power as a man only because the office grants him that authority.

We’ve had bad presidents as well as a few questionable popes, yes. But the Church itself is guided at all times by the Holy Spirit. The ability for a pope to make an error in the matters of morality and faith is simply not possible because the Holy Spirit guides him in the matter of faith and morals (and *not *anything else in terms of the Church).

The use of papal infallibility is very rare because Christ and His Apostles and the early Church provided more than a modest amount of framework to maintain our Church.

Christ’s words to Peter in establishing his Church establish the papal authority. Others such as Joseph Smith, or Martin Luther or John Calvin cannot make such a claim as their claims of authority are not found anywhere in Scripture or Sacred Tradition–and their words as men cannot contradict or modify the Word of Christ.

You might want to read Pope Fiction, by CAL apologist Patrick Madrid, to help in dispelling the stories of the weird popes of history. I hope that helps you a bit.
 
No, it just means that there were rival factions (kind of like an early U.S. Russia cold war scenario) where one group claimed that THEY had the ‘real’ Pope and another group claimed that THEY did.

Or if you remember, there was a woman named Anna Anderson who claimed that she was the real Tsarina Anastasia who had escaped being killed in 1917. (in fact there was more than one claimant.) Now obviously there is only one “Tsarina” but that doesn’t mean that people can’t claim to be the Tsarina, and it doesn’t mean that if more than one person claims a title that the title is either ‘wrong’ or doesn’t exist–just that there was a controversy.

But history has shown very clearly which was the ‘true’ Pope and which was the counterfeit, the imposter, the rival, etc. That doesn’t have any effect.

Oh, and remember, the Pope does not have to be a perfect man or even a GOOD man. Do you remember that God chose SAUL as king, and Saul started out doing some good things but then chose to do wrong things? Well, that didn’t make God wrong for choosing Saul. God had a reason. God’s choice might be that choosing a ‘bad’ person shows that even the ‘bad’ must do his will. Look at God’s choosing St. Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles after St. Paul had persecuted the Christians!
 
You’re not the only one who has a hard time wrapping your head around papal infallibility. I have questions about it too. So does everyone I know IRL. I think it’s an abstract believe that is hard to understand.

And before anyone answers, lets establish some boundaries: DO NOT question my faith in the Holy Spirit, or I will disregard you entire post and put you on my ignore list. I won’t tolerate anymore rudeness of members, I’m sick of the rudeness, the lack of charity and the blatant arrogance, especially those telling me what I do and don’t believe. If you care about my faith like some of you so proudly claim, then answer my questions knowing I want an answer, not judgement or lip service.

Does the virtue of infallibility that the Pope and the Council of Bishops take away their free will? How does Free Will work into the infallibility of the Pope and the Council of Bishops when they are influenced by the Holy Spirit?

Note: I completely believe that the Holy Spirit is there to guide them, but what if their free will prevents them from hearing the complete message, or from interpreting it the wrong way? How does the gift of the Holy Spirit and infallibility affect their free will to misinterpret a teaching due to their own thoughts, values, believes, even biases? Note again: this is not a question about the Holy Spirit, this actually has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. This is a question about Free Will and it’s existence when the Holy Spirit talks to the Pope and Bishops. Does it disappear? Is it momentarily taken away?

I’ve talked about this with priests before, and they say they understand what I’m saying and what I’m asking, but to “not worry about these things”. So maybe they don’t know the answer. Maybe there is no answer.
 
A little historical perspective might help. From earliest Church days bishops were always in agreement with the bishop of Rome in their teaching. When Vatican I was held the Church was struggling with the idea of being run by councils. Much of Italy had consisted of Papal states under the Pope. The central government of Italy took over these states and left the Pope with tiny Vatican City. Looking at councils that threatened to strip his authority and having already lost much of his land, Pius IX pushed back with the concept of infallibility.

Only twice has the Pope unilaterally declared something infallibly and both concerned Mary. Vatican II stated that all the bishops in unity can make infallible statements as long as the Pope is in agreement. The Pope, however, can still make infallible statements by himself. Given that he has only done this twice I wouldn’t get too hung up on this issue.
 
So, ‘Papal Infalibilty’ is not that, once a man is Pope he can do-say no wrong-

But that a Pope, can make declarative statements, in regards to faith-morals, and those statements or doctrines will be infallible…???

I can wrap my head around that, if that is what you mean…

Kind of like, I may not be the most perfect person, I might swear…have a drink- etc…BUT, when I talk about this one particular subject- I’m knowledgable and maybe even an expert, so even though I am merely man, and have faults, they do not distract from, or take away my experience, knowledge on that subject-

In the same sense, a Pope may not have always been a perfect person, and still might make mistakes in his actions…BUT when it comes to faith-moral, doctorine, etc- The Lord intervenes as a somewhat ‘expert’ and speaks thru him??? Gives him enlightenment…???
 
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty–the Faith of Jesus Christ.
In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, from the Chair'' of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation--only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to define,’’ some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: I will give (o thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.'' (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to hear the church’’ (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth–without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible.
For a complete understanding of the Pope’s infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years–sometimes hundreds of years–of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope’s hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England’s Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching.
is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

He has used this gift of the Spirit on two occasions, in defining the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and in defining the truth of her Assumption body and soul into Heaven.

users.stargate.net/~elcore/truth5.htm
 
Charlotte408 said:
So, ‘Papal Infalibilty’ is not that, once a man is Pope he can do-say no wrong- You are absolutely correct!! Infallibility doesn’t mean ‘impeccability’.

But that a Pope, can make declarative statements, in regards to faith-morals, and those statements or doctrines will be infallible…??? Correct again. It is a complex subject (but then again, it’s been around 2000 years so you might expect that). . .but it all goes back to God. I mean, the Bible is the inerrant word of God but it was written by men under His guidance. And under His guidance, they–mere men–were able to be absolutely inerrant in giving His word. And later, mere men were able to comb through all the writings of the Old Testament and the New, as well as many other works like the Didache, and were able to ‘take’ only the inspired, inerrant word of God for the Bible.

I can wrap my head around that, if that is what you mean…

Kind of like, I may not be the most perfect person, I might swear…have a drink- etc…BUT, when I talk about this one particular subject- I’m knowledgable and maybe even an expert, so even though I am merely man, and have faults, they do not distract from, or take away my experience, knowledge on that subject-

In the same sense, a Pope may not have always been a perfect person, and still might make mistakes in his actions…BUT when it comes to faith-moral, doctorine, etc- The Lord intervenes as a somewhat ‘expert’ and speaks thru him??? Gives him enlightenment…???
Click to expand...
Right. . .the Holy Spirit is the One who guides.

Even if the Pope were a bad person, he would still not be able to teach wrongly on matters of faith and morals. He could not come out and say, "God is a duo, not a Trinity’. . .because that God is Trinity is truth and cannot be changed, it’s part of the deposit of faith. And if necessary, the Holy Spirit could strike him dead if he even TRIED to teach error. I suppose that is a relief for me as a Catholic though it might not ‘relieve’ the Pope!

He CAN though make statements that are not necessarily infallible but are nevertheless not ‘contradictory’ to revealed Truth and should be obeyed. For example, married men may not enter the priesthood normally, and that is a ‘change’ from the very early days. However, it does not contradict Scripture because Jesus spoke of the need of being a ‘Eunuch for the kingdom’ and so did St. Paul, saying it would be ‘better’ for the 'unmarried man will care only for the Lord, but the married man has cares and must care for his wife and children as well." Still, this is a discipline and can change depending on circumstances. If enough men of good will were found and their wives and children were staunch and helpful, and the Holy Spirit then felt that such as these would be needed by the Church, the Holy Spirit (and it would only BE through the Spirit, never simply a decision of man alone) could guide the Pope to permit married priests.

Things like ‘discipline’ (fasting, music, liturgy) can change. . .otherwise we would all still be wearing robes and sandals and lying down on cushions and couches in (separate male/female) rooms in private homes to receive the Eucharist, because that’s how it was ‘in the beginning’. But they must still be ‘rooted’ in what is unchanging, which is why we still have, just as they did in the beginning, the speaking of the Word and then the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. That will never change.
 
Fallen men wrote Sacred Scripture, right? They did so infallibly.

There’s a few examples in Scripture which may provide a good examples to show how this charism exists despite the sinfulness of the individual to whom it has been granted. Remember, the charism in question is a gift for the good of the whole Church, and is not based on merit–kind of like how sacraments are not valid or invalid based on the merit of the minister.

Anyway, the first example is what Christ tells people in regards to those who sat in the chair of Moses: do what they say, not what they do. This implies they taught truly, but didn’t live it.

Second, St. Peter rises up filled with the Holy Spirit in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts and declares the Gentiles should be allowed to enter the Church, but then he shuns them later and has to be rebuked by St. Paul. Here, St Peter proclaimed the truth for the Church, but then didn’t personally live up to it.

Third, St. Peter declares Christ to be the Son of God after everyone else gets the answer wrong when asked by Jesus who He is. Jesus says Peter did not receive this truth from flesh and blood, but the Father revealed it. In other words, Peter did not figure it out himself on his own merit, but was aided by God. (see the verses surrounding Matt. 16:18). Of course right after that, Peter argues with Jesus about his suffering and is called Satan!

Finally, and I think most powerfully is the example of high priest Caiaphas. While conspiring to commit the most grievous sin of all, deicide, he still retains the charism of his office:

John 11:49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing, 50 nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.

Notice, like St. Peter, he did not speak this truth based on his own merit, but because of the charism granted to his office as high priest.

The same principle applies for papal infallibility. It exists so that the Church can be of one mind and one voice concerning the truths of the faith (thus reflecting its one Head Jesus Christ). It is not based on the merit of the man holding the office and doesn’t apply to everything he does, but only in virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church on earth.
 
If the Holy Spirit was able to keep the Sacred Authors (of Scripture) free from error in their writings, why can’t He keep the Pope’s free from proclaiming error on matters of faith and morals?
 
stuart12 said:
If the Holy Spirit was able to keep the Sacred Authors (of Scripture) free from error in their writings, why can’t He keep the Pope’s free from proclaiming error on matters of faith and morals?
Click to expand...
If the Holy Spirit can prevent the Pope from proclaiming error why can’t He prevent all bishops from proclaiming error?

Yours in Christ
Joe
 
Saint Peter was given the Keys and made the earthly head of the Church, so he and his sucessors are infallible but the bishops can only exercise their authority in union with the Roman Pontiff.

The bishops to proclaim something and to be assured of infallibility must wait for the consent of the Pope, or we would have two sides (Pope versus bishops) competing against each other.
 
I never said he is in Rome…:confused:

But his successors have been in Rome since his passing from this life, and currently His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI occupies his seat.
 
Charlotte408 said:
Hi everyone! I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

I’m having a hard time, I’ve accepted all of the dogmas…but one I’m really stuck on. I accept it- I guess you could say at face value, a kind of ‘if you say so’…and I pray for understanding, try to meditate on it…but…Its a block…I just CANT wrap my head around it, and this is why-

The Pope, is a MAN. I cant, I just CANT believe that a man is unfallible…we are all born with original sin…we are all just … mere mortal men. The Pope was born somewhere to a family just like everyone else- He’s NOT the son of God like Christ was…So he is a mere man…

And then, I went and I looked up all the Popes…((theres a LOT of them)) and next to some of them, it said ‘ANTI-pope’ What does that mean??? When I think ‘anti’, like, anti christ, or anti anything, you think ‘opposite’- if a man was made Pope, he should be instantly infallible?? So how could he be removed, or ‘anti’???

And what about the Popes that have done some pretty horrible things?? I’m not totally educated on all the Popes, so I wont make claims or assumptions…but I’ve heard, even from CAF posters here, that some of the Popes turned out to be not so holy…

I dont know how we can claim, papal infallibility, when we have Popes that have done some, from what I’ve heard, down right evil things. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, give me some information so I can defend our Popes or something because- I just feel like with this dogma we are not too much different from how the mormons think their prophets are infallible, but then if in the end they werent they say ‘they were just speaking as a man’ ???

Please help me with this, this is the LAST thing I am struggling with.
Click to expand...
Hello,

When struggling with Papal infallibility it is good to note the difference between infallibility and impeccability. The ability to teach without error does not mean one is unable to commit sin or that they are sinless. Yes the Pope is not Christ but Christ did not write infallible Gospels, or Epistles. He used his apostles who are far from perfect to write these infallible scriptures. God did the same with the Old Testament writers as well. If sinfulness keeps us from proclaiming what is true then there would have been no point for Christ to start a Church or for The Father to have a chosen people. God works through his creation and when it comes to their salvation he would not let his Church teach dogmatically that which is wrong. Moses commited murder but was able to teach infallibily, Peter denied Christ but wrote infallible Epstiles, Paul used to stone Christians and was there when St. Stephen was killed and yet Paul wrote the most of any apostle in the entire bible. The other s deserted Christ during His passion and they too wrote infallibly.

If you accept 99% of the Catholic teaching except that 1% Papal infallibility then you deny the very thing Christ used to give you the 99%. You see the fruit which has come from it, and when you read the bible you use that fruit. If you accept the Bible to be infallibe or the Word of God then you also must see the Church since the Bishops of the Church wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! The Church still does this today and the only Church claiming it is The Catholic Church. =
)
 
Charlotte408 said:
So, ‘Papal Infalibilty’ is not that, once a man is Pope he can do-say no wrong-

But that a Pope, can make declarative statements, in regards to faith-morals, and those statements or doctrines will be infallible…???
Click to expand...
First, Charlotte, I don’t think you have a problem with the doctrine infallibility at all - you just appear to be confused about how far it extends.

The error of “papism” is the notion that the Pope can never do anything wrong ever. A lot of Catholics who are confused about the Doctrine of Infallibility fall into this error.

When the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” (literally, “from the chair”) he is making an infallible declaration. As another poster noted, that is an extremely rare occurrence. Some of the links posted here elaborate on this idea in more detail. However, the last time that a Pope has spoken “ex cathedra” was, I think, in the early 1950’s.

Just remember, if the Pope says he thinks it will rain tomorrow and it snows or he thinks that things will improve in a particular area in the Church and they don’t, or if he commits a sin or causes scandal, these matters have no bearing on infallibility.
 
rep140 said:
A little historical perspective might help. From earliest Church days bishops were always in agreement with the bishop of Rome in their teaching. When Vatican I was held the Church was struggling with the idea of being run by councils. Much of Italy had consisted of Papal states under the Pope. The central government of Italy took over these states and left the Pope with tiny Vatican City. Looking at councils that threatened to strip his authority and having already lost much of his land, Pius IX pushed back with the concept of infallibility.

Only twice has the Pope unilaterally declared something infallibly and both concerned Mary. Vatican II stated that all the bishops in unity can make infallible statements as long as the Pope is in agreement. The Pope, however, can still make infallible statements by himself. Given that he has only done this twice I wouldn’t get too hung up on this issue.
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely true. The Pope and the Council of Bishops are taught by the CC to be infallible in teachings of faith and morals. The fact that the Pope made “formal” infallible statements such as The Immaculate Conception, doesn’t mean that’s the beginning and the end of it. A LOT of things are considered infallible, and as far as I know, there isn’t even a list of infallible statements/teachings. And if there is, please let me know where I can read them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top