Papal Infallibility

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The question of Papal infallibility was raised recently and lost amid two or three other simultaneous discussions in the same thread. In checking back I noticed while infallibility is discussed in this forum there is additional info I have come across which I thought you might find interesting.

These comments can be found at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

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).

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), December 16, 2000

Answers

Dear Ed L,
The exposition you give here is excellent. I do believe most practising Catholics are aware of these points. But if a non-Catholic has the impartiality to read it here, maybe it can affect the way he sees ''infallible''.

My wife and I have argued the subject of capital punishment. She makes a point of saying John Paul II is against it, and that it's breaking the commandment ''Thou shalt not kill.'' Since the Pope is against capital punishment, that's that, to her.

But I hold that justice can be served in most cases by CP-- and that John Paul II is a champion of justice as well as an opponent of CP. If and when he pronounces EX CATHEDRA a condemnation of capital punishment-- I will accept that. But I'm not bound under penalty of sin to agree with him on a matter of personal judgment. Much as I respect and revere him.

No question he is better educated, and saintlier than I. But I disagree with him, and with my wife; sometimes.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2000.


Eugene:

While I am not a proponent of capital punishment it is my understanding that the Church, while I hesitate to use the word "condone", does not condemn capital punishment for instances when as you say, "justice is served". The Pope's personal feelings on capital punishment and the Church's stance are an excellent example of how the two can differ and I thank you for pointing this out to me. It speaks to the heart of many non-Catholic criticisms of "infallibility" and I will use the example in the future.

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), December 17, 2000.


The commandment has been poorly translated too often. You shall not kill is one such poor translation. The real one, I have been assured, is 'You should not murder'. Ask a meat farmer if there is any difference. Do not ask a vegitarian. They never got that message. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), December 22, 2000.

Capital Punishment...

You Guys take what the Pope says to much!!!!.. Take What The WORD says.

The 1st murder in the bible was who? .... Ding Ding!! . times up!

It was when one brother killed another, Cain Killed Able,.. now lets see what the Surpreme Judge says about capital punishment...

As you know, God did not fry Cain, or Inject his vains with deadly substance, but he set a "mark" on him, that NONE should kill him..., I agree with what God did, rather than what the pope thinks on capital punishment, which is the judge, the pope, or God?.. thank about it

No Law but Love, No Creed but Christ, No Book but the Bible

-- Dr. TaiChi (hpuxor@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.


Dr. Thi Chi, do you know what the Pope said on this subject?

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), January 05, 2001.


+ I think you will find Ed's post helpful, Kathy.

-- @ (@@@@.@), September 11, 2002.

David,

You are a gem.....thanks for bringing this post up. Ed's post is well written, simply put, laid out in laymans terms, and well....easy for someone like me to understand.

The reason I brought the other thread up......while looking into the history of the Popes, I was reading about Pope Gregory VII who made the claim that no-one on earth could be saved without acknowledging him as their ruler. Which then led me to Boniface VIII, who issued a bull that clarified the claim that salvation comes from accepting the Roman Pope. Which then led me to the schism. At which point I stopped there, because this raised the issue of infalliblity to me.

I am trying like heck to understand all of this, and at times feel a bit, well, stupid.

So my question is....Does salvation only come to those who acknowledge the Pope as their ruler?

And I haven't gotten this far yet in my reading, but what about the time during which their were two and three Popes serving at the same time?

I have been looking through the archives, but there are so many....do you know of anymore that you could pull up for me off hand?

I have been reading alot in the "newadvent site" but find it difficult to understand fully.

Thanks and God bless,

P.S. I wish Ed would visit this site more often. I find his posts to be well written and trust that he knows what he is talking about.

Ed, if your out there.....thanks for all the good posts you have here.

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 11, 2002.


Okay, I know my question hasn't been answered yet, but I have read some information since my last post about the time during which there were two and three Popes.

These Popes are referred to as anti-pope?? Is this correct? Or was one chosen out of the two and three to be the Pope? I don't know the names of the "Popes" I am talking about here, the names weren't mentioned. Can someone help me out here? Thanks ;)

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 11, 2002.


Hi, Kathy

I am a person that has to stick with the basics, or I will get lost, and not be able to keep up.

I will try and rember a thread for you, but what question do you want to start with?

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 11, 2002.


Hi David,

If you want to go with the question I asked first...that is good for me. But really doesn't have to be answered in any particular order.

I am still looking through the threads myself to see what I can find.

It's funny David, all this time there have been debates here on the forum when Fred was still with us about "schism" and I though it was referring to the protestant reformation. It's no wonder I was too confused to even get involved, I had no idea that the schism that was being debated was about the "anti-popes" or the spliting of the east and west. I'm learning that it is better to just ask than to not know at all.

God bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 11, 2002.



Hi Kathy

"If you want to go with the first question...."

Ok

"Does salvation only come to those who acknowledge the Pope as their ruler?"

I have pulled up many, many threads that show this is false! You have read them! I just pulled at least four in the past week or so.

You must be joshing me? Am I wasting my time answering this question again?

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 11, 2002.


Daivd,

I am not trying to pull your strings, and I have nothing up my sleeves.

I am simply trying to figure this all out or sort it all out. I did read the threads. John G. left some good ones as did Ed. I understand exactly what Ed wrote in is thread.

Nothing personal David, maybe I should wait for John or Chris to see this post. I understand completely if you do not want get into this.

God bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 12, 2002.


Kathy,

Please see this Catholic Answers tract . It has the following line which is how I view salvation outside the church.

while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

These exceptions include, but are not limited to, those people who have not been taught that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus started (Protestants and others).

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), September 12, 2002.


Kathy,

In reading the lives of the Saints, I've run across a few who lived during the "schism(s)". Not to worry, Kathy, not all of the two or three Popes were "anti-popes". Throughout the history there has been an untainted line of legit' Popes. However, at certain periods there were a few Bishops who tried illegally to set themsleves up as such. But the Catholics who were "in tune" with what was going on, knew which was the "real" Pope. Hope this helps.

Also, I just read something in the Bible that seems to be connected to infallibility. Whether it has to do with your concern, I don't know. But check it out.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 12, 2002.


Kathy,

I know you didn't have anything up your sleeve, and I am sorry if I gave you the impression that made you think otherwise.

There are 4 threads up now in the recent answers section that will help you with your first question. I topped them up for Emerald a few days ago.

God bless you

David

-- (David@excite.com), September 12, 2002.



Glenn, Jake and David,

Thank you for your responses.

I have already read the section of the Catechism that you quoted and have been to the site you listed, a while ago. I didn't have any questions really at that time. I have read all the threads that were brought to the top, which give the differences on infallible ( ex cathedra (sp) and fallible.

I recently decided I want to learn more about the Popes and their history. In doing so, some questions came up....I thought I knew where everyone (or I should probably say the Church) stood on the issue of salvation. The posts here seem pretty clear to me.

My confusion stems from Pope Gregory VIII, ...no one on earth could be saved without acknowledging him as their ruler. Followed by Boniface VIII, ...issued a bull that clarified the claim that salvation comes from accepting the Roman Pope.

I was left with the question....well, does salvation come from the Pope, the Church, or faith and works? I beleive these statements were made before Vatican II. This is all during the time of the renasiance (sp).

As for the time when there were two or more Popes....it didn't mention the names of who the "anti-popes" were and which of those Popes became legit, if it was any-one of those Popes at all. So I just wanted to find out if anyone had more information that could fill in the blanks for me.

Hi Jake, Ed's post really gave a thorough explanation on fallible vs. infallible. What I take from that post is that when the Pope speaks on issues reguarding faith and morals and is speaking ex cathedra he is speaking with infallibility. But on other issues such as sports or current events he is fallible. Am I understanding this correctly? (give me a break guys, sometimes my ponytail is a little too tight...haha)

David, the history in and around the Catholic Church and the history of religion in general is alot to take in. It is very easy to be misguided just by some of the terminology alone, never mind trying to understand the history in time. Often times, I have to stop what I am reading...just to look up a definition of a word.

I took some sociology courses in college that only touched on religion breifly. Maybe I need to take a course that has an in-depth teaching of the history in religion.

I am eager to learn and actually understand it all.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 12, 2002.


Correction... Pope Gregory VII not VIII. Sorry.

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 12, 2002.

Geesh, Kathy! Your enthusiasm is awesome! You are on fire, and it is spreading to me. I want now also to read about some of the Popes.

I have a comment on something you wrote:

"I was left with the question....well, does salvation come from the Pope, the Church, or faith and works? I beleive these statements were made before Vatican II. This is all during the time of the renasiance (sp)."

Salvation comes from God alone, through the death of His only Son, Jesus Christ. The thing is Salvation from God can only be achieved when one SUBMITS to the teachings of the Pope and the Church, and when one ACTS on the Faith taught by the same Pope and Church, which leads one to do the necessary Good Works, as Christ had done, to be saved.

I hope that you follow that. In other words. Without the infallible teachings and doctrine of the True Catholic CHURCH (in conformance with the POPE) we would never be taught the True FAITH, which would cause us not to do good WORKS, which would not lead us to SALVATION.

Now there are instances where some Holy People, by their very nature (despite their religion - in name) do these very same good WORKS - and by this, they are also adhering to the True FAITH, and thus they are in conformance with the teachings of our CHURCH and POPE, and no doubt Catholic by this nature of theirs, which is why they will be saved.

So, it can happen forwards of backward, but in either case the components are there. The Church (and Pope) who teaches the faith, which leads us to do good works, which leads us to Christ’s Salvation.

On the infallibility thing: Yes, you are correct. Only teachings on Faith and Morals. The Pope cannot infallibly state that the 49ers are inherently better than any other football team (even though we all know this is true).

Thanks for your posts, Kathy -

Don't worry, all will come to you in God's time. You will understand ALL things.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 12, 2002.


The 49ers didn't look to good against the Giants. ;-)

-- Jimmy (Jimmy@greek.com), September 12, 2002.

Hi Jake,

I hope you do read about the history of the Popes. It is all very interesting. I understand that Pope Gregory VII was a well respected Pope among Catholics for the changes he brought forth to eliminate the scandals the Church was dealing with at the time. People either loved him or hated him. It was a crazy time back then. Check it out Jake, I am sure you will find it fascinating.

I know that salvation first and foremost comes from God. But, what I read and quoted in the above posts from Pope Gregory VII and Bonifice VIII was vague (just that particular quote). It seemed to conflict with what the Catechism says on salvation. I have to go back and read more that leads up to the developement of councils. I think at that time changes were made, with better clarification and details.

Btw.....about football......I am a Patriots fan. What can I say, I am afterall, a Bostonian!! Go Pats!! ;-)

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 12, 2002.


Thanks, Kathy!

My prayers are with you on your journey.

In Christ.

P.S I'm glad that (at least) you are a football fan. Now we need to work on the team thing (49ers, 49ers, 49ers.. hint hint)

They just wanted to build the Giants confidence a tad - before making the kill :)

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 12, 2002.


Hi Jake,

Thanks for your responses. I am still wondering who those Popes were at the time of the "schism", do you happen to know which ones they were? I can't seem to locate the information on them because I don't know who they were.

Anyone??

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 13, 2002.


Here is the Schism I was thinking of. Hope this helps.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 13, 2002.


St. Catherine of Siena was one of the Saints at the time. If you read up on her, they also talk a little about her stance during the Schism.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (Jake Huether@lamrc.com), September 13, 2002.


Jake,

Thank you. That is what I was looking for. Now I just have to break it all down!!

God bless you Jake,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), September 13, 2002.


"...the popes personal feeling on capital punishmnent and the church's stance are an EXCELLENT example of how the two can differ."

Oh, I see Ed! As long as you agree its a "excellent example"! For instance in your post to Eugene in the above thread its ok for Catholics to disagree with the popes opinion.

But when you are against the war, you act like its a sin and compare America to Hitler and delete people that don't agree with your opinion.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 04, 2004.


Topping for Steve5555.

See not even your Moderator agrees with you on the popes opinion on CP.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 04, 2004.


David, Two Catholics can disagree on the Liberation of Iraq, and if it was a just battle or not. It is allowed by the doctrines of the Church (i.e., the just war doctrine). The same for Capital Punishment. In neither case are they intrinsically grave sins (in and of themselves sinful). In certain situations are they sinful, and in certain situations they are justified. As for war, it isn't up to the moderator of this group to decide if it is justified or not. In the case of Iraq, the determination is left to those who have all the available facts, it is their immortal souls which are at risk.

The Pope is against ALL war, which is probably a good position in this day and age for a Pope. He isn't President of the United States.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.


David, from the evidence presented here the Pope, Ed and myself all have identical opinions on CP. You seem more confused than ever.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ