The Pope CAN be infallible or IS infallible?

[Abu]

JB Dugan #40
The infallibility of the People of God

We need to understand that that infallibility is consequent on obedience not antecedent to it.

Vatican II clearly taught that to belong to the sensus fidei (the sense of the faithful) requires obeying the Magisterium:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, **the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints **(cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, *Lumen Gentium (LG) Vatican II, my emphasis]

The “certitude” comes after infallibility has been exercised in dogma and doctrine by the Holy Father or by an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Holy Father, to which the faithful assent. As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., makes clear: “Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the Magisterium gives them universality, i.e. spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine makes it true!” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 227].

And again:
“Not only are some equating the possession of the truth with the right to decide what is truth, but they are obscuring the role of the papacy in the exercise of the Church’s teaching authority.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Teaching Church In Our Time, 1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 114].

Or as Msgr George A Kelly explains: “The *sensus fidei *of the Catholic Church calls for Catholics to be trained “to think with the mind of the Church…” (Battle for the American Church (Revisited), Ignatius, 1995, p 33).

Msgr Eugene Kevane reinforces this truth in his work Creed and Catechetics, Christian Classics, 1978, p 83, in quoting from theologian Candido Pozo, S.J.: “The acceptance of this profession of faith by the People of God,” concludes Pozo, “confers on it [the People of God] a consequent infallibility.” And he points out that a doctrinal definition ex cathedra possesses “antecedent infallibility,” rooted in the very act of its definition, prior to any acceptance. “This infallibility of which we speak now is consequent upon the acceptance.”

 

[JB_Dugan]

We need to understand that that infallibility is consequent on obedience not antecedent to it.

Vatican II clearly taught that to belong to the sensus fidei (the sense of the faithful) requires obeying the Magisterium:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, **the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints **(cf. Jude 3).” [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, *Lumen Gentium

(LG) Vatican II, my emphasis]

The “certitude” comes after infallibility has been exercised in dogma and doctrine by the Holy Father or by an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Holy Father, to which the faithful assent. As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., makes clear: “Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the Magisterium gives them universality, i.e. spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine makes it true!” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 227].

And again:
“Not only are some equating the possession of the truth with the right to decide what is truth, but they are obscuring the role of the papacy in the exercise of the Church’s teaching authority.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Teaching Church In Our Time, 1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 114].

Or as Msgr George A Kelly explains: “The *sensus fidei *of the Catholic Church calls for Catholics to be trained “to think with the mind of the Church…” (Battle for the American Church (Revisited), Ignatius, 1995, p 33).

Msgr Eugene Kevane reinforces this truth in his work Creed and Catechetics, Christian Classics, 1978, p 83, in quoting from theologian Candido Pozo, S.J.: “The acceptance of this profession of faith by the People of God,” concludes Pozo, “confers on it [the People of God] a consequent infallibility.” And he points out that a doctrinal definition ex cathedra possesses “antecedent infallibility,” rooted in the very act of its definition, prior to any acceptance. “This infallibility of which we speak now is consequent upon the acceptance.”

Thank you for the references, Abu.

Please understand that I have no problem with obedience to the Magisterium and I find Lumen Gentium very clear on the subject.

But…

Just for discussion, could we not say that the Magisterium themselves were People of God before they became Magisterium. Could they have brought this awareness of certain truths with them?

You say that the infallibility of the people of God is “consequent on obedience not antecedent to it.”

I say: What came first…the chicken or the egg?

 

[Richca]

This issue / and that we ‘pray to’ saints are two areas non Catholics often have a misunderstanding about - and sadly many Catholics have been poorly instructed on this as well — We do not ‘pray to’ Mary or the saints - we ask them to ‘pray with’ us - it is a simple but VERY important distinction / as is Papal infallibility - we need to know what our Church teaches - when we don’t it is ok, just provides an opportunity to learn!

Great topic!

I pray to Mary all the time especially when I recite the rosary. The Hail Mary and Holy Mary Mother of God prayers of the rosary are directly addressed to Mary. I also pray to the saints quite often. Since Mary is our Mother and the Mediatrix of All Graces, we can personally ask of her everything we need for our spiritual and material well being.

Further, the CCC#2679 says: “Mary is the perfect Orans (prayer), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus’ mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.”

CCC#2676: “This twofold movement of **prayer to Mary **has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria.”

 

[Abu]

JB Dugan #42
You say that the infallibility of the people of God is “consequent on obedience not antecedent to it.”

Not “I say”.

Vatican II makes it very clear:
“the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).”

The cited “greats” Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Msgr George A Kelly, and Msgr Eugene Kevane citing Fr Candido Pozo, S.J., all carefully assent to Vatican II that infallibility resides with the People of God only when they obey and receive a doctrine or dogma.

could we not say that the Magisterium themselves were People of God before they became Magisterium. Could they have brought this awareness of certain truths with them?

The Magisterium has what the People of God do not have.

Declaration In Defense Of The Catholic Doctrine On The Church Against Certain Errors Of The Present Day [CDF June 24, 1973]
‘But by divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ’s name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.(20)
‘For this reason the Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the first Vatican Council, teaches that Christ made Peter “a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of the faith and of communion”(21); and the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has declared: “The teaching office of the bishops is for the believer the sign and channel which enable him to receive and recognize the Word of God.”(22) Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent.(23)
‘The People of God has particular need of the intervention and assistance of the Magisterium when internal disagreements arise and spread concerning a doctrine that must be believed or held, lest it lose the communion of the one faith in the one Body of the Lord (cf. Eph. 4:4, 5).’
Notes:
20. Cf. Vatican Council II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 5; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 138ff.
21. Vatican Council II: Ibid., 18; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 124ff. Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, Prologue; Conciliorum Ecumenicorum Decreta 3, ed. Institute per la Scienze Religiose di Bologna. Herder, 1973, p.8. (DS 3051).
22. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Quinque iam anni, AAS 63 (1971), p. 100.
23. Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, 6, AAS 40 (1907), p.471 (DS 3406). Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Consitution, Pastor aeternus, ch. 4
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html

 

[JB_Dugan]

Not “I say”.

Vatican II makes it very clear:
“the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).”

The cited “greats” Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Msgr George A Kelly, and Msgr Eugene Kevane citing Fr Candido Pozo, S.J., all carefully assent to Vatican II that infallibility resides with the People of God only when they obey and receive a doctrine or dogma.
The Magisterium has what the People of God do not have.

Declaration In Defense Of The Catholic Doctrine On The Church Against Certain Errors Of The Present Day [CDF June 24, 1973]
‘But by divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ’s name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.(20)
‘For this reason the Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the first Vatican Council, teaches that Christ made Peter “a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of the faith and of communion”(21); and the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has declared: “The teaching office of the bishops is for the believer the sign and channel which enable him to receive and recognize the Word of God.”(22) Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent.(23)
‘The People of God has particular need of the intervention and assistance of the Magisterium when internal disagreements arise and spread concerning a doctrine that must be believed or held, lest it lose the communion of the one faith in the one Body of the Lord (cf. Eph. 4:4, 5).’
Notes:
20. Cf. Vatican Council II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 5; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 138ff.
21. Vatican Council II: Ibid., 18; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 124ff. Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, Prologue; Conciliorum Ecumenicorum Decreta 3, ed. Institute per la Scienze Religiose di Bologna. Herder, 1973, p.8. (DS 3051).
22. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Quinque iam anni, AAS 63 (1971), p. 100.
23. Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, 6, AAS 40 (1907), p.471 (DS 3406). Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Consitution, Pastor aeternus, ch. 4
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html

I really didn’t want to get this “deep into the grass…” about this subject BUT…

Are not the Magisterium the People of God?

 

[Abu]

JB Dugan #45
Are not the Magisterium the People of God?

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
PEOPLE OF GOD. A biblical term popularized by the Second Vatican Council to describe the members of the Church. The expression brings out the fact that those who belong to the Church form a visible society, that they are distinctive, specially chosen by God, and composed of all baptized believers in Christ throughout the world. Their degree of membership depends on their degree of faith, obedience to the Church’s precepts, and sanctity or union with God.

MAGISTERIUM. The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Thus the Magisterium teaches the whole Church comprised of the People of God. Christ did not give anyone, apart from the Magisterium, the authority to define dogma and doctrine. Unless and until what the Magisterium is, and what the Magisterium actually teaches, is understood clearly, all sorts of erroneous ideas are floated. It is vital to know this.

Vatican II makes it very clear:
“the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).”

 

[javid]

Yes, not quite exactly right.

The Pope himself as a human is not infallible, however due to the incredible grace God gave to Peter and his successors, he has recourse to infallibility when defining a matter of faith or morals. The conditions of this are:

1. The Roman Pontiff
2. Speaks Ex Cathedra (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority”…)
3. He defines
4. That a doctrine concerning faith or morals
5. Must be held by the whole Church

This authority comes from the authority Christ gave Peter in Matt 16-19

Why The Pope is infallible in this condition and he is not infallible in other times?

 

[Abu]

javid #47
Why The Pope is infallible in this condition and he is not infallible in other times?

As in post #3 and post #26, because Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, established His Church on His Supreme Vicar St Peter, and His Church, with the authority of the Son of God, teaches this through Her Ecumenical Council Vatican I.

As a Pope is not God, he does not try to play God. Popes know that they are merely human beings who can commit sin and that their infallibility from Christ is only in defining a doctrine or dogma on faith or morals to the whole Church.

 

[javid]

As in post #3 and post #26, because Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, established His Church on His Supreme Vicar St Peter, and His Church, with the authority of the Son of God, teaches this through Her Ecumenical Council Vatican I.

As a Pope is not God, he does not try to play God. Popes know that they are merely human beings who can commit sin and that their infallibility from Christ is only in defining a doctrine or dogma on faith or morals to the whole Church.

I didn’t mean that, What I want know is why Popes are infallible in certain conditions and they are not infallible in other times.

 

[Abu]

The Pope is infallible precisely because Christ gave His Supreme Vicar His authority and thus to His Church and His Church has taught clearly that it encompasses faith (what we believe) and morals (how we act):

Ecumenical Council Vatican I, approved by the Pope, defined the very dogma of the infallibility of the Pope in Pastor Aeternus:
Chapter 3.
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. 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.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6

 

[Usagi]

I didn’t mean that, What I want know is why Popes are infallible in certain conditions and they are not infallible in other times.

Infallibility isn’t so much a special power given to the Pope as it is a protection for the rest of us.

The idea is that if the Pope were about to bind all the faithful to a teaching on faith or morals that was false, God would not allow that, because it would mean the entire Church going astray.

Notice, that doesn’t involve the Pope having any special knowledge or insight from God. The Pope isn’t like the prophets of old or the writers of Scripture; God doesn’t reach down and pass on new information through him. (There is no new public revelation since the death of the last Apostle.) Rather, God is promising the rest of us that He will not allow a Pope (or all the bishops together, or an ecumenical council) to bind false teachings upon the faithful.

On lesser matters, God allows the Popes to make mistakes just like any other leader (or any of us, really).

Usagi

 

[javid]

Infallibility isn’t so much a special power given to the Pope as it is a protection for the rest of us.

The idea is that if the Pope were about to bind all the faithful to a teaching on faith or morals that was false, God would not allow that, because it would mean the entire Church going astray.

Notice, that doesn’t involve the Pope having any special knowledge or insight from God. The Pope isn’t like the prophets of old or the writers of Scripture; God doesn’t reach down and pass on new information through him. (There is no new public revelation since the death of the last Apostle.) Rather, God is promising the rest of us that He will not allow a Pope (or all the bishops together, or an ecumenical council) to bind false teachings upon the faithful.

On lesser matters, God allows the Popes to make mistakes just like any other leader (or any of us, really).

Usagi

When a pope talks about unbaptized dead babies’ destiny, is it a teaching on faith?

 

[Usagi]

When a pope talks about unbaptized dead babies’ destiny, is it a teaching on faith?

That would seem to me to fall within that domain, yes.

Note, though, that no Pope has ever defined infallibly what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism.Indeed, that’s usually held as something that has not been specifically revealed to us by God, and thus we cannot dogmatize about it. The trend of theological speculation has always been toward optimism, from “Hell” to “Hell but without punishment” to “the outskirts (limbo) of Hell, but as happy as one can naturally be” to, most recently “perhaps even Heaven, we trust in God’s mercy.”

Usagi

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by javid
When a pope talks about unbaptized dead babies’ destiny, is it a teaching on faith?

That would seem to me to fall within that domain, yes.

Note, though, that no Pope has ever defined infallibly what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism.Indeed, that’s usually held as something that has not been specifically revealed to us by God, and thus we cannot dogmatize about it. The trend of theological speculation has always been toward optimism, from “Hell” to “Hell but without punishment” to “the outskirts (limbo) of Hell, but as happy as one can naturally be” to, most recently “perhaps even Heaven, we trust in God’s mercy.”

Usagi

It is a matter of faith but there are other requirements that need to be met in order to be considered an infallible statement. No pope has issued an infallible statement on Limbo. if that is where the OP is going. If you disagree maybe you can cite the pope and the teaching so that we can analize it here.

 

[javid]

That would seem to me to fall within that domain, yes.

Note, though, that no Pope has ever defined infallibly what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism.Indeed, that’s usually held as something that has not been specifically revealed to us by God, and thus we cannot dogmatize about it. The trend of theological speculation has always been toward optimism, from “Hell” to “Hell but without punishment” to “the outskirts (limbo) of Hell, but as happy as one can naturally be” to, most recently “perhaps even Heaven, we trust in God’s mercy.”

Usagi

Do mean Popes said what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism, but none of them was infallibly?

And do you mean If Pope defines a dogma that has not been specifically revealed to us by God, we can’t accept it?

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usagi
That would seem to me to fall within that domain, yes.

Note, though, that no Pope has ever defined infallibly what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism.Indeed, that’s usually held as something that has not been specifically revealed to us by God, and thus we cannot dogmatize about it. The trend of theological speculation has always been toward optimism, from “Hell” to “Hell but without punishment” to “the outskirts (limbo) of Hell, but as happy as one can naturally be” to, most recently “perhaps even Heaven, we trust in God’s mercy.”

Usagi

Do mean Popes said what happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism, but none of them was infallibly?

First of al I am not aware of any pope teaching this infallibly or not. I do not recall at any time that the idea of Limbo was official teaching of the church. What happens to the souls of infants who die without baptism was a theological question that certain theologiams came up with the idea of Limbo. They arrived at this because of the acknowledged existence of the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ’s triumphant ascension into Heaven (the “limbus patrum”) which Jesus referred to as the “Bosum of Abraham” and also in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary where the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Ephesians 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ “also descended first into the lower parts of the earth,” and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that “being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,” Christ went and “preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:18-20).

Regarding infants [and those who die unbaptized but with no personal sin, only original sin]The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But speculation arose due to the seemingly contradiction between God’s mercy and justice. By insisting on the absolute necessity of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven, Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul’s teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Christian principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.” However, it is not a doctrine of the Church and remains in controversy as does the mercy vs justice debate.

And do you mean If Pope defines a dogma that has not been specifically revealed to us by God, we can’t accept it?

If a doctrine is formally defined and all the requisites of papal infallibility are met then we are to accept it. It should be noted that a dogma “specifically revealed by God” does not need to be defined unless there is some confusion or that some hgeresy has developed due to an alternative interpretation. Then a formal definition is warranted to clarify the dogma. Such clarification, however, does not constitute new doctrine but merely provides a clearer understanding of the doctrine. The Trinity doctrine is a good example of this.