The infallable pope

[Tantum_ergo]

One point, Ron:

The Church always taught that the Pope was infallible when it came to teaching on matters of faith and morals, and that the extraordinary Magesterium (the Deposit of Faith) was likewise made up of infallible teachings. It wasn’t ‘laid out’ until 1870 because it was at that particular time that so many people were claiming that the Pope** did not have** a charism of infallibility, and many people were being led astray by such false teachings.

Same with the Immaculate Conception. It didn’t ‘spring up’ in 1854 out of nowhere, never having been taught in the previous 1800 or so years. Again, it had always been taught or understood, but (again) there was a large and vociferous crowd who began a concerted effort to teach falsehood, and thus the Pope made it absolutely clear that those who denied the Immaculate Conception were indeed teaching falsehood.

A peasant living in 1240, for example, asked, “Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?” might not have known those words (especially if he didn’t speak “English”, even middle English or old English). . .but that same peasant, asked if he believed if the Virgin Mary had been born without ‘the sin of Adam’ would have unhesitatingly answered “YES”.

And so would the cleric of 678, or the woman hiding in the catacombs of 299. The teaching was there. The way it was taught varied --some people would think, “Mary was like the ark, inviolate”. . . Some would have thought, “Mary was full of grace. She had never room for sin”. All those thoughts meant the same though some were ‘better expressed’ or more ‘detailed’ than others. But the core is the same.

 

[Peter_J]

Tantum ergo,

It’s a little hard to know where to begin …

Firstly, the Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible when it comes to teaching on matters of faith and morals, but only that the Pope is infallible when it comes to teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. (Technically, the statement I just made is redundant, since one of the 3 conditions for an ex cathedra statement is that it be on faith and morals.)

Second, yes Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception were always taught by the Church: Nothing that isn’t in the original deposit of faith can be a dogma; so when we say that Vatican I dogmatically defined P.I., we’re necessarily implying that P.I. is part of the original deposit of faith, which is another way of saying that the Church always taught it.

But with regard to the picture you’ve painted of “always taught by the Church”, I think you’ve really let your imagination run away with you. :doh2:

 

[ron77nyc]

How do we know when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra?

 

[Peter_J]

If you’re saying the Church did without it then so it can do without it now then I agree. The Church does not need to publish a complete list of infallible statements for it to continue. Why then do we need to say the Pope is infallible? The Church existed also without that claim for over 1800 years.

I guess we think alike – see my second post on the “Newman vindicated?” thread.

It seems like people use that statement “the Pope is infallible” when they need it but no one knows what it means.

Yes, it does seem that way sometimes.

 

[ron77nyc]

I read the other thread and it also makes some good points. It’s the tip of the iceberg. When I was in grammar school we were taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Vatican ll said there is salvation for non-Catholics. This article from nov55.com sums up what I’ve been getting at.

"Mathematics of Catholic Theology

By mathematics, I mean proof. Technically, there is no such thing as proof. Proof is no more than accepting the obvious as fact. If someone will not accept the obvious as fact, and no one can prove that it is.

The best de facto proof is in contradictions resulting from errors. Contradictions in Catholic theology show de facto proof that it is in error.

The context is this: Catholic theology claims a line of authority was passed from Peter to the popes. The authority is supposed to include “divine revelation,” which produces infallible theology.

There are contradictions in the claims of infallibility. Popes almost never proclaim their rulings to be infallible. The last infallible proclamation occurred around 1952, when Mary was said to be assumed into heaven.

Yet at a different level, every word of official Catholic theology is said to be part of an infallible “magisterium,” defined as teaching authority. So every word of a pope’s document is supposedly infallible, while nothing infallible was produced in half a century.

Such contradictions stem from motives. Church authorities want to destroy all opposition, competition and criticism by claiming the ultimate authority of infallibility. All other professionals do the same thing, pretending at one level to make no errors, while close examination shows nothing but a muddle of errors.

A more significant contradiction is in the claim that only Catholics get saved, because the “keys to heaven” exist no place else. That claim was too absurd for modern minds, so it was reversed at the Second Vatican Council (1963-65). A large part of the purpose of V-II was to correct that problem, which is why it was called an “ecumenical council.”

Reversing that point was not just a contradiction; it leveled the theological landscape. If nonCatholics get saved, then nothing Catholic is essential (at the individual level), and nothing in theology is infallible. If a point that important is not infallible, then nothing else is either.

The significance of that contradiction cannot be overstated. Traditional Catholic priests assume they perform a function which is essential to salvation and which no one else can do. Ninety percent of the theology rationalizes that function with the authority of supposed infallible words. If nonCatholics get saved, the theology is in error.

To an outsider, it might seem that Catholic clergy could be satisfied being a little more human. There is plenty that humans need to do in the religion. But professionals of all types tend to brainwash themselves into believing they are something more than human, and they lust for authority as the highest power they can achieve. The Catholics do that in a more sanctimonious and sheltered environment than usual.

To a physicist, there is no higher state than being a physicist. But speaking for the big bang is a lot more profane than speaking for God."

 

[elts1956]

It seems as if Rome is not being transparent about this very important point that they teach is a foundation which the Catholic Church is built upon. “We need to know it but you dont” leaves me with some suspicions.

Yes, me too. Like I “suspect” I wouldn’t be able to keep all of them in my head anyway. Also remember, if one is ignorant, though seeking whatever answers, whether it be ex cathedra, infallbile documents, or whatever, if these cannot be found, or are not listed, one is not held culpable. So I don’t know why the Chruch would “hide” them from us. I don’t think the clergy will suddenly reach out and say, “Gotcha”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Peter, with respect, I believe that I am correct. This is right from the Catholic Answers Library:

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

The ‘definitive act’ need not be ex cathedra, but it certainly may be ex cathedra.

Pope John Paul 2 in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not making an ‘ex cathedra’ statement but the teaching he gave is still infallible teaching.

 

[elts1956]

Peter, with respect, I believe that I am correct. This is right from the Catholic Answers Library:

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

The ‘definitive act’ need not be ex cathedra, but it certainly may be ex cathedra.

Pope John Paul 2 in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not making an ‘ex cathedra’ statement but the teaching he gave is still infallible teaching.

Where does Ut Unum Sint stand in this? Also, I am confused about the Bishop’s ability to infallibly teach the truths of Christ. It would be clearer for me if you said they could teach the infallible truths of Christ. I am sure if they stuck to the infallible interpretation the teachings would be infallible?? Also regarding “infallible” teachings of Bishops/Archbishops, what about Niederauer and his non-declaration of “one must follow the teaching of the Church, whether one agrees, or not”, in regard to Pelosi and her stance on abortion?

 

[rinnie]

If you’re saying the Church did without it then so it can do without it now then I agree. The Church does not need to publish a complete list of infallible statements for it to continue. Why then do we need to say the Pope is infallible? The Church existed also without that claim for over 1800 years. It seems like people use that statement “the Pope is infallible” when they need it but no one knows what it means.

I do and I can explain it quick and easy, When the RCC says the Pope is infallible it means in scripture, No one can trick him or mess him up. How do I know this, easy Jesus said I will give you the words. But you are wrong the Church never existed without this claim. How could it Jesus made the claim. He said when it comes to teaching scripture I will give you the words. How by the Advocate the HOLY SPIRIT. Plain and Simple. He gave the Pope the Keys to the Kingdom. What is the Kingdom here on earth The CHURCH. As long as Jesus is in Heaven and until he comes again in Glory the Pope Got the keys, and as long as he got the keys he guards the Kingdom here on Earth. the Church. And that is true today as it was when Jesus left. The Pope still has the Keys to the RCC always has always will. And he will lead it until Jesus takes back the keys.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter, with respect, I believe that I am correct. This is right from the Catholic Answers Library:

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

Actually, you just proved one of my points. The Church doesn’t teach that the Pope “is infallible when it comes to teaching on matters of faith and morals” but rather that he exercises infallibility whenever he “proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals”. (I personally tend to think first of the language of Vatican I – “ex cathedra” and so forth – but I’m not married to it.)

 

[Peter_J]

I do and I can explain it quick and easy, When the RCC says the Pope is infallible it means in scripture, No one can trick him or mess him up.

I’ll make this very simple for you: The Church doesn’t say that the Pope is infallible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How do we know when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra?

When he speaks concerning moral and faith issue as well. It’s not just the Pope but the Ordinary Magisterium, that is the Pope in union with the entire bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’ll make this very simple for you: The Church doesn’t say that the Pope is infallible.

you are technically correct. He is only infallible when he teaches moral and faith issue, or when he speaks Ex-cathedra, concerning moral and faith teachings from the Church.

The Pope could make opinions, but those opinions when are not infallible. He could say, the sky is purple and it does not make it so. His infallibility is limited to moral and teaching.

Infallibility is actually the Holy Spirit preventing the Church from teaching erroneous doctrines that is contrary to Divine Revelation

 

[Americanrevert]

Hello,

***I do and I can explain it quick and easy, When the RCC says the Pope is infallible it means in scripture, No one can trick him or mess him up. ***

How do I know this, easy Jesus said I will give you the words. But you are wrong the Church never existed without this claim. How could it Jesus made the claim. He said when it comes to teaching scripture I will give you the words. How by the Advocate the HOLY SPIRIT. Plain and Simple. He gave the Pope the Keys to the Kingdom. What is the Kingdom here on earth The CHURCH. As long as Jesus is in Heaven and until he comes again in Glory the Pope Got the keys, and as long as he got the keys he guards the Kingdom here on Earth. the Church. And that is true today as it was when Jesus left. The Pope still has the Keys to the RCC always has always will. And he will lead it until Jesus takes back the keys.

**Wouldn’t this make him a Messenger of God? Then this contradicts the Bible.

Just curious.**

Americanrevert

 

[ron77nyc]

When he speaks concerning moral and faith issue as well. It’s not just the Pope but the Ordinary Magisterium, that is the Pope in union with the entire bishops of the Catholic Church.

Going back to my original questions: What exactly are these infallible doctrines and how do we know when a doctrine is officially infallible?
If they don’t want us to know then what is the purpose of having them?
If ignorance is a plus then let’s all stay stupid.

 

[Peter_J]

you are technically correct. He is only infallible when he teaches moral and faith issue, or when he speaks Ex-cathedra, concerning moral and faith teachings from the Church.

The Pope could make opinions, but those opinions when are not infallible. He could say, the sky is purple and it does not make it so. His infallibility is limited to moral and teaching.

Infallibility is actually the Holy Spirit preventing the Church from teaching erroneous doctrines that is contrary to Divine Revelation

Mannyfit75,

Have you even been reading the thread? The Pope isn’t infallible every time he teaches something about faith or morals. That’s one of the three conditions for a teaching to be ex cathedra.

Is it any wonder that people say Catholics aren’t united, given the way you are blantantly misrepresenting Catholic teaching?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Going back to my original questions: What exactly are these infallible doctrines and how do we know when a doctrine is officially infallible?

There are only two times in history when the Pope exercise this. The Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption.

If they don’t want us to know then what is the purpose of having them?
If ignorance is a plus then let’s all stay stupid.

Well, the Church wants you to know. That is why we have RCIA to let new converts to the faith what the Church actually teaches. I recommend reading Catechesis Credendi. I think that is the Document.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit75,

Have you even been reading the thread? The Pope isn’t infallible every time he teaches something about faith or morals. That’s one of the three conditions for a teaching to be ex cathedra.

I would say the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is not only infallible but the Ordinary Magisterium.

Let me quote the following text:

**Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.
**

Source: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

Is it any wonder that people say Catholics aren’t united, given the way you are blantantly misrepresenting Catholic teaching?

The teaching office of the Church have always teached that infallibility:

Consider these facts:

The levels of the Magisterium
[4][5][6]

Teacher: Level of Magisterium: Degree of certitude: Assent required:

1. Bishops Ordinary Non-infallible Religious submission of intellect and will
2. Pope Ordinary Non-infallible Religious submission of intellect and will
3. Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church Infallible Full Assent of Faith
4. Bishops, in union with Pope, defining doctrine at General Council Extraordinary (and universal teaching of the Church) Infallible Full Assent of Faith
5. Pope ex cathedra Extraordinary (and universal) Infallible Full Assent of Faith

Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

Me misrepresent the Church teachings? I don’t think so. As to your comment that the Catholics are united is a false misconception. The doctrines concerning moral and faith are something Catholics must accept.

 

[ron77nyc]

There are only two times in history when the Pope exercise this. The Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption.

Well, the Church wants you to know. That is why we have RCIA to let new converts to the faith what the Church actually teaches. I recommend reading Catechesis Credendi. I think that is the Document.

If there are only 2 then what’s the big deal? That means Peter didn’t teach anything infallible and besides those 2 you mention the rest of Church history contains nothing infallible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If there are only 2 then what’s the big deal? That means Peter didn’t teach anything infallible and besides those 2 you mention the rest of Church history contains nothing infallible.

The others were proclaimed by Church Councils, Council of Nicea, Council of Ephesus, and the first 7 Councils of the Church. As well as those Councils that came after the seventh Council.

For example, the title Mother of God was proclaimed in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was declared in the The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as “ever-virgin.”