Understanding Papal Infallibility for Dummies (like me)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamalChristophr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamalChristophr

Guest
Is it correct that the possibility exists for the pope to be in error as far as an encyclical goes? Does papal infallibility only pertain to when the Pope declares a dogma, otherwise he can make mistakes? How many times has the pope proclaimed a dogma? So yeah, please answer one or all of the questions above. 🙂 Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Bear.

Does this mean that one is free to accept or reject the teachings contained within the Pope’s encyclical Human Vitae, for example?
 
Last edited:
No, you can’t make up your own definition of infallibility.

For example, read this:


The notion of “infallibility” is totally unique in and of itself.

In the past hundred years, the Church has spoken twice with the strength of infallibility and both had to do with teachings on Mary.

You can discuss and debate what is written in any of our catechisms. The words in these books do not merit the descriptor: “infallible”.

There are authors and there are staff writers and there are translators and when you re-issue a particular printing of any catechism, you may encounter changes … but an infallible doctrine or dogma … may have new words, but the essence of the teaching will remain infallible.

But teachings such as the few on Mary are described as infallible.

We just do not use the word “infallible” casually … to explain or clarify what is written in one book or another.

I would refer, again, to one of Karl Keating’s books:

shop.catholic.com1

What Catholics Really Believe

Karl Keating does an excellent job of clearly explaining Catholic practices that even devout Catholics can have a difficult time explaining to others.
There are many good and excellent books and good and excellent writers.

But the idea of “infallible” does not hinge on the specific choice of words found in any specific book, so that one book might be infallible and another might not be infallible.

Scroll down to the article from U.S. Catholic on infallible teachings … which are those that are “ex cathedra”.
 
Last edited:
No problem with HV, just working through the logic of papal authority, infallibility, encyclicals and all the implications thereof. Potentiality for error and the charism of the Holy Spirit being with the Church through out the ages is just a topic that I’ve been trying to understand better.
 
Last edited:
“Assent of “intellect and will” to both categories of teachings are required for full communion with the Catholic Church.”

Would this apply to AL and the Churches changing stance on homosexuality?

Thnk u great info.
 
So, then, I suppose, aside from the doctrine of papal infallibility, there is a more secondary level of veracity or right judgment, or at least, obligation of obedience by the faithful when the pope promulgates a teaching not in an ex cathedra manner, and encyclicals would be a subset of this group.
 
“both categories of teaching” refers to ex cathedra and not ex cathedra teaching by the Pope, I assume.?
 
The Pope has to definitively (ie irreformably) declare that a truth must be believed or held by all the Church (or definitive condemnations of heresy/errors). It’s a logical deduction: since the entire Church is infallible in that it cannot defect from the truth revealed by God and the Pope has the power to give the final, definitive say for the whole Church as to what the truth is, therefore when he gives this final, definitive say he must be infallible.

For more in depth reading, here is the explanation of papal infallibility provided to the bishops of the First Vatican Council before they passed their decision on it being a dogma of the faith (unfortunately, the whole book is not available for free online, but this is a significant preview).


Anyway, in past times, Popes rarely sent out documents for the entire Church except to legislate or definitively settle some doctrinal dispute. Beginning in more recent centuries, especially since the pontificate of Leo XIII, Popes have written volumes and volumes of long letters usually elucidating on some particular doctrines, offering some reasoning behind them, and applying them to current situations. This is part of the normal, everyday teaching that all the bishops engage in, but, unless one of these letters contains such a definitive act, it would not be infallible in and of itself. It still deserves respect, just not the unconditional assent of faith.

As an aside, there’s a myth that is common these days that there are only two instances of papal infallibility (basically because they were carried out with a lot of fanfare). If you read the relatio I linked to, the proposal of some bishops that infallibility be tied to a process or formula that the Pope had to do or say was ruled out because there was no uniform process for the “thousands and thousands” of prior instances where infallibility would apply. There was likely some hyperbole there, but point being, it is not as uncommon as some would want to believe.
 
Last edited:
JamalChristophr said:
Does this mean that one is free to accept or reject the teachings contained within the Pope’s encyclical Human Vitae, for example?
Click to expand...
Please refer to the Wiki section called “Instances of Infallible Declarations” in the article I posted to you.

In summary:
  • there is no complete list of "infallible " documents
  • to the extent scholars or the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith have made lists that are referenced in the article (Ratzinger wrote the list for the Congregation before he became Pope), HV doesnt seem to be on them, BUT the lists are not necessarily complete and in the case of the Congregation list, Ratzinger said it was not complete
  • so people will continue to argue over HV’s status, but as shown by the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis example, they would do that anyway
For purposes of following the Catholic “rules” right now, the Church says artificial contraception is a sin, period, so it doesn’t really matter if we think HV is infallible or not. The rule is not going to go away for us. The only possible effect of infallibility is that it makes the teaching very hard for a future Pope to change.

It’s rather interesting that papal infallibility itself wasn’t even formally declared till the mid-1800s.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Anyway, in past times, Popes rarely sent out documents for the entire Church except to legislate or definitively settle some doctrinal dispute. Beginning in more recent centuries, especially since the pontificate of Leo XIII, Popes have written volumes and volumes of long letters usually elucidating on some particular doctrines, offering some reasoning behind them, and applying them to current situations. This is part of the normal, everyday teaching that all the bishops engage in, but, unless one of these letters contains such a definitive act, it would not be infallible in and of itself. It still deserves respect, just not the unconditional assent of faith.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I wonder if it was better when the Popes reserved their “public broadcasting” for just the most important issues. Probably not practical to do that in today’s global media driven world.
 
Sometimes, they used to request some very smart person to visit Rome and write or “ghost-write” a paper or essay … and they would discuss it for a few hundred years. (Now Saint) Thomas Aquinas comes to mind; he used to commute between Paris and Rome.

There was no Catholic Answers Forums for smart guys to chime in and opine on various subjects.
 
Last edited:
I suppose my inquiry on a more foundational level goes beyond just understanding what papal infallibility means, although that is the more specific aspect of my question. I am interested in seeing what lies within the freedom of the Bishop of Rome to enact or change various things in the Church, and if that range is bounded in some way by various things, whether it be infallibility, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or the sensus fidelium.

If I get up some initiative, I will go and do some reading in church and papal history. I have an affinity for looking at particular cases rather than always in the abstract, so I suppose that will necessitate independent reading. alas.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Talking about a Catholics obligation to “assent of intellect and will” regarding AL and the and the controversies over Communion there/homosexuality issues in the Church.

From what i understand those issues are in opposition to a level of doctorine in the Church. Thats why theyre controversial.

What are your thoughts on a Catholics duty to agree with it? Idk. Is it obligatory?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top