Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term

Homiletic & Pastoral Review ^ | March 30, 2012 | REV. JOHN T. FORD CSC

[daniel1212]

They know it means it precludes the possibility of error, but it is a matter of interpretation as to how many of the possibly multitudes of “infallible” pronouncements really fit the criteria. As well as their meaning to some degree, as assured infallibility is not provided for the hearers.

We are to seek to persuade men after the manner of 2Cor. 4:2. After all the the itinerant preacher from Bethlehem did not have the sanction of the historical heavyweights who actually had positional power based on promises and historical decent, but who presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation that Scripture did not affirm.

And thus the church began in dissent from them, as in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His claims on Scripture and the love, faith, purity and power of God it affirms, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

And so must the church today, and we have comparatively far to go in love and purity...

[count-your-change]

“I wouldn’t hold your breathe for a list of “infallible” teachings.”

Hmmm.... would the teaching on infallibility be on that list? I wonder.

[count-your-change]

I remind you I will waste no more time with you beyond this response.

[editor-surveyor]

Revelation 18 will be infallibly fulfilled when Rome goes up in smoke in “one hour.”
.

[Salvation]

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

Probably the best list would be included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but you can check out the Vatican website too. It’s there too.

I got used to this search engine for the Catechism of the Catholic Church — you can check it out too.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

[boatbums]

Just HOW are the "faithful" able to "infallibly recognize truth"? I can tell you this: THIS is how so many of the "faithful" cannot debate honestly and openly with the Scriptures and non-Catholics. They, in their own minds, are infallible and simply CANNOT be wrong.

I think with most it is more that they believe whatever the Roman Catholic Church tells them is true and it's true because the Roman Catholic Church says it is true. They are also taught to view those outside of Catholicism as partners with Satan to draw the "faithful" away from the "true" church. So-called "heretics" were executed in the past for the crime of "stealing away the souls of the faithful" through their false teachings.

When I was about twelve, we were living on base and I went to Mass by myself. Since it was the first time there, I got the service times mixed up and sat in on the Protestant service by mistake. I kept waiting for the priest to come out and he never did and it dawned on me that I was sitting in on the Protestant service and I was too scared to get up and leave. I remember having this terrible feeling that I had sinned by going to a Protestant church! In fact, it was and may still be considered a sin to attend any church that is not Catholic.

So, as you pointed out, some here simply refuse to consider that what their church teaches about anything can ever be in error. In the occasional discussions I have with my Catholic Mom, they mostly end with her retort of, "Well, that's what we believe.". It doesn't matter that I show her from her own Bible version what Scripture says about an issue, if it goes against what she has been taught, she refuses to even think that maybe "they" were wrong. The REAL problem with that - and something Catholic leaders should keep in mind - is that far too much weight is placed on the idea of the "Church" being infallible about everything they say that, when it IS proved in inescapable ways that they HAVE erred, many may go to the opposite extreme and reject everything they were taught - even of those things where the Catholic Church is right Scripturally. The "Berean" method that Paul spoke about is there, I think, specifically as an admonition for us to do the same - prove all things by Scripture.

[boatbums]

They don’t know what it means but they’ll tell you when they see it.

Also known as: IKIWISI - I'll know it when I see it

[count-your-change]

I've read what the Catechism says and it offers no more than what has already been said, who can speak infallibly and when.

[piytar]

Hmmm, didn’t know those were infallible. I stand corrected.

[boatbums]

The fact that the vast majority of Church teachings are not taught under this charism does not mean that such teachings are unimportant. They do not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible, which have a greater binding force, precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation.

This part was the most surprising of all the article. I cannot imagine what the author means by saying doctrines such as the trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, his propitiatory death for sin, the grace of God, salvation by grace through faith and all the essential doctrines that go into making Christianity do "not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible". Seeing that the author identifies only the Assumption of Mary as falling under the heading of "Infallible teachings", I find it astonishing that these other core doctrines are not seen as important as a doctrine that is nowhere even found in Scripture and has no relation at all to what needs to be believed in order to be saved.

He explains that the reason is "Infallibly" defined doctrines "have a greater binding force precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation". To me, he is saying that extra-Bibical, "special" revelation of these doctrines makes them MORE important that Biblically revealed truths. Am I understanding this correctly and do you agree with him?

[Salvation]

I realize what you are talking aout. But the sacraments, creed, everything that is in the Catechism are things that were decided usually my Magisterium or by Council, so it’s a valid resource.

The Vatican link, however, has encyclicals and writings of Pope on it...some important, some not so important.

[old republic]

Actually Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the question of women and priesthood was clearly irreformable. The libs asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a “dubium,” whether John Paul had intended that it be understood as infallible and the dubium was answered with “Yes.” Then the libs complained that the CDF lacked competence to rule on infallibility, only the pope does—so why did you doofuses send in a dubium? Only when you didn’t get the answer you hoped for do you decide the CDF lacked competence.

You got that right. All of the hallmarks of infallibility are present in the documents that you mentioned. As you said, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was a crystal clear example of infallibility and yet certain groups still refuse to acknowledge it as definitive. A clear look at the text of the infallible part of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the text of the decrees of Vatican I and Vatican II on how to determine when the Church teaches infallibly make it abundantly clear that the Pope intended this statement to be an infallible exercise of his teaching authority. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, clearly decreed this concerning infallibility of the Pope :

“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals”

Now when we compare the above statement of infallibility to the actual text of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

All of the criteria set out by the above passage of Lumen Gentium for papal infallibility are clearly met by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The pope proclaimed, by a definitive act, a matter of faith and morals, to be held by the whole Church, and by citing his ministry to confirm the brethren, the pope has clearly invoked the power of infallibility, because Lumen Gentium declares explicitly that the power of infallibility protects the pope when he is confirming the Brethren in the faith by a definitive act. (The definition of Papal infallibility from Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus also could be used to demonstrate the infallible nature of this statement.)

The CDF said that the above statement from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible because of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium but that it was not a solemn definition in itself. That seems a very odd statement, because isn't a definitive act a solemn definition by definition? Doesn't the fact that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis issued a solemn definition to be held by the whole Church make it in and of itself, a dogmatic definition? Wouldn't that then constitute a textbook use of the Extraordinary papal magisterium rather than the Ordinary and Universal papal Magisterium? The only thing it seems to be missing might be an explicit anathema upon those who refuse to assent to the definition. However, I suppose that it could be argued that an anathema is implicit against those who refuse to assent to the definitive acts of the magisterium. After all, presumably those who refuse to assent to the Church's definitive acts are outside Her aren't they?

[old republic]

To me, he is saying that extra-Bibical, "special" revelation of these doctrines makes them MORE important that Biblically revealed truths. Am I understanding this correctly and do you agree with him?

No, the Catholic Church says that these doctrines are equally infallible with scripture. (The Council of Trent itself infallibly defined the Biblical Canon so the Bible is itself part of those "special" doctrines defined as infallible).

The Church believes all Public Revelation (The Deposit of Faith) is divided into two parts. The Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. Scriptures are the part of Revelation that the apostles and prophets wrote down, the unwritten parts of Revelation that were taught by Christ to the Apostles and handed down orally are called Sacred Tradition. When the pope/Ecumenical Council promulgate an infallible definition, they cannot create/receive new revelations, they can only clarify whether a teaching has always been in or is compatible with the Deposit of Faith or not. Here is what the Council of Trent had to say concerning the scriptures:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,—lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament—seeing that one God is the author of both —as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

[Cronos]

As the article explains, the person who is Pope is not infallible, neither is his talks on common matters, neither except for a specific pronouncement ex-cathedra, are his teachings. Only specific, let’s call it deadlock breaker statements pronounced ex-cathedra are infallible., thanks purely and solely to the grace of God who takes care of His Church and not due to any innate ability of the person who occupies St. Peter’s chair — in fact it would be despite the innate fallibility of the person who occupies Peter’s chair

[Cronos]

The early church fathers only recognized one thing as infallible and that was the scriptures

False -- scripture is inerrant, not infallible. Persons who read scripture are fallible or not, hence the wide differences in interpretation.

[old republic]

I cannot imagine what the author means by saying doctrines such as the trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, his propitiatory death for sin, the grace of God, salvation by grace through faith and all the essential doctrines that go into making Christianity do "not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible".

All of those essential doctrines that you mentioned above are already infallibly defined doctrines, so yes they do have the same importance as teachings deemed to be infallible. (All essential doctrines that Christ taught for salvation are of their very nature infallible whether or not the Church has explicitly defined them as such thus far. However, not all dogmas are explicitly defined, some are infallible and have always been taught by the Church as the truth, but they have not yet been defined because they have not been directly denied by members of the Church. These doctrines are infallible teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium ( the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church).

However, if an infallible doctrine of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium comes under attack or is questioned by the faithful, it sometimes becomes necessary for the Church to explicitly state that a certain truth is infallible to help prevent the faithful from being led into error. When the Church does this, a doctrine moves from being infallible under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium to being infallible under the Extraordinary Magisterium. Both the extraordinary and Universal Magisterium are equally binding, it's just more obvious and explicit when things are declared infallible under the Extraordinary Magisterium.

[presently no screen name]

The term “infallibility” like many other convoluted doctrines of Rome is undefinable.

Like all their man made doctrines, it's not from God. So the Vatican will define it however they want and will apply it however/whenever they want to suite their agenda.

The concept of any man having “infallibility” - is pagan, warped and laughable.

God is The Almighty One and Supreme over ALL.

[Natural Law]

"God is The Almighty One and Supreme over ALL."

Yes, and He speaks to us infallibly through His Church, its Magisterium, and its Popes, all of whom conspired with the Holy Spirit to produce the Sacred Scriptures.

[Houghton M.]

I think the CDF was trying to get across the idea that infallibility rests, basically, on the degree of definitiveness announced in the text of a particular pronouncement, not in some specific set of words.

I assume that “solemn” refers to the sort of thing that was done in 1854 and 1950 and the CDF was trying to wean people away from the idea that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra and infallibly twice in the last 200 years.

But beyond that, I too am a bit mystified by the distinction being drawn in the response to the dubium.

[presently no screen name]

He speaks to us infallibly through His Church,

GOD speaks infallibly through HIS WORD ALONE - He would never use man to speak infallible for Him - because man is INCAPABLE of it!

You are under compulsive to believe what the Vatican says - so you can't entertain that the pope's 'self proclaimed' infallibility is bogus. You are stuck - so discussing it with you is equivalent as discussing it with a stone wall.

But it shows those of us who know they Truth, there will be gnashing of teeth when those who believe in man's infallibility are presented with 'Why did you believe man could every be infallible? Clearly you never KNEW ME'.

But it's written down now, you were told the Truth and believed it not. And guess what - it wasn't from the one 'claiming infallibility' because he still has his hooks in you - he has no plans on letting you go. However, many have escaped. 'Man's infallibility' is the height of pride - so we know who is behind that.