Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Papal Infallibility; and Infallibility of the Church
Topic Started: Monday, 21. January 2008, 23:07 (2,413 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

This is what the catechism has to say about infallibility:

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quicunque vult

John Sweeney wrote:

Quote:
 
I think sometimes we lack any ability to see how ridiculous this type of ruling must seem to those outside the Church. We may say we don't care about them but of course we not only should but we must.


This implies abandoning Christian faith altogether. On the contrary, the urgent need is to convert others to the truth of the Catholic faith, and to do it by love and the beauty inherent in our faith. Difficult? Undoubtedly. Impossible? No - it's been done before. And we know that ultimately Christ will triumph.

QV
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

MickCook
Jan 23 2008, 10:48 PM
Papal infallibility refers to when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair) -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor. Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act or teaching of the pope but only to his ex cathedra teaching.

Quote:
 
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.



Not quite as clear as mud, but the simple version is that the Pope rarely speaks ex cathedra (the last time was in 1950). This is down to Jesus saying to Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven." (see personal charisma above).

Mick

It seems to me that infallibility goes beyond binding and loosing. For one thing it binds future popes from loosing.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Gerry, believe me , it will not stop future Popes from "loosing " If the need is great enough, a way will be found to set aside previous rulings, infallible or not. Some new rule will be created or an old one found which gets round whatever ticklish historical problem is getting in the way. I am not criticising this approach--it is the way of governments and bureaucracies everywhere and in all generations when faced with difficult historical precedents. Helps make the world go round!

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joseph

Any evidence of popes having done that John - on issues of Faith and Morals?
Joseph
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Many , many examples through history Joseph. For example, and to take a biggie, it is historical fact that many Popes--I think 30--were married and that in some centuries most priests were. Indeed many high ranking priests were sons of priests. Then the rules changed in the West to enforce celibacy. I would say that was a fundamental faith and morals issue and a major change in Church teaching. More recently, we have the example qouted of Limbo which the Vatican let us know was not much in favour with Pope Benedict to soften us up for its "abolition". I don't know about you but I was taught this as a doctrine as true as Purgatory and very much part of the Faith.

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
John Sweeney
Jan 24 2008, 03:16 PM
Many , many examples through history Joseph. For example, and to take a biggie, it is historical fact that many Popes--I think 30--were married and that in some centuries most priests were. Indeed many high ranking priests were sons of priests. Then the rules changed in the West to enforce celibacy. I would say that was a fundamental faith and morals issue and a major change in Church teaching.

No it isn't. It's a change in discipline.

Quote:
 
More recently, we have the example qouted of Limbo which the Vatican let us know was not much in favour with Pope Benedict to soften us up for its "abolition". I don't know about you but I was taught this as a doctrine as true as Purgatory and very much part of the Faith.

Again, Limbo has not been abolished, and neither has Purgatory.

That a Pope might let slip his own personal views on a particular subject is not evidence of the Church changing Her teaching.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan M

John Sweeney
Jan 24 2008, 03:16 PM
Many , many examples through history Joseph.
John

Quote:
 
For example, and to take a biggie, it is historical fact that many Popes--I think 30--were married and that in some centuries most priests were. Indeed many high ranking priests were sons of priests. Then the rules changed in the West to enforce celibacy. I would say that was a fundamental faith and morals issue and a major change in Church teaching.


John, this is neither a "biggie" nor a "fundamental faith and morals issue"!

Celibacy is, and always has been, a disciplinary issue. If it was a fundamental faith and morals issue, then how can the Eastern Catholic Churches, in union with the Pope, allow priests to be married when the Latin Rite do not? It can't be good for some but not for all.

Quote:
 
More recently, we have the example qouted of Limbo which the Vatican let us know was not much in favour with Pope Benedict to soften us up for its "abolition". I don't know about you but I was taught this as a doctrine as true as Purgatory and very much part of the Faith.


Limbo was NEVER a doctrine. If you were taught this as a doctrine, well whoever taught you was in error.

It has always been clear that we do not know for sure what happens babies that die without being baptised and Limbo was thought of as a possible solution to the problem.

There has never, never, been a case of any doctrine, any faith requirement being changed by the Church. This is impossible. The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and will not allow that to happen.
Peace and love,

Joan.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Clare and Joan

Again, you are using the Catch 22 argument. The Church never changes its teachings on faith and morals because when it does we call them something else , like discipline or custom or some other get-out. And if anyone argues, we rule that we're infallible. That's all right then, sorted.

John
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michaeljohn

I'm not quite sure why whether priests are married or not should be a matter of faith.
Neither do I understand why it is a matter of morals, unless of course you believe that "morals" automatically equals "sex". I would have thought that a married priest is every bit as moral as a married layman in which case you are presumably suggesting that I am living an immoral life because I am married. :wh:
Both these subjects have always been recognised as a matter of Church discipline.
What has also been recognised as a tradition and as a doctrine is that the Holy Spirit will guide Popes to avoid the Church falling into error. He takes no account of the personal worthiness or otherwise of the incumbent.
As Clare and Joan have both said I doubt you could find any instances in which Popes have made pronouncements on matters of faith and morals intended to apply to the whole Church and then had them overturned by a subsequent Pope.

A little less cynicism, John. This is the Church we're talking about here; not New Labour! :nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan M

John Sweeney
Jan 24 2008, 05:03 PM
Clare and Joan

Again, you are using the Catch 22 argument. The Church never changes its teachings on faith and morals because when it does we call them something else , like discipline or custom or some other get-out. And if anyone argues, we rule that we're infallible. That's all right then, sorted.

John

Quote:
 
Again, you are using the Catch 22 argument. The Church never changes its teachings on faith and morals because when it does we call them something else , like discipline or custom or some other get-out. And if anyone argues, we rule that we're infallible. That's all right then, sorted.


John, this is total rubbish! Apparently you do not know the difference between discipline and doctrine.

If you really do your research you will see clearly that the only changes the Church has made (and by that I mean saying that what was required at one time is no longer required, (or vice versa), as is the case with celibacy) have been in matters of discipline.

Matters of doctrine or dogma, to be held by all the faithful, have NEVER been changed. As time passes, with further study, the Church may arrive at a deepened understanding of the doctrine and expound on this, but such does not change the doctrine.

Your understanding of Papal infallibility needs education.
Peace and love,

Joan.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eve
Former Admin/Moderator
Joan M
Jan 25 2008, 10:59 AM
John,  this is total rubbish!  Apparently you do not know the difference between discipline and doctrine.

Your understanding of Papal infallibility needs education.

Some people join forums to widen their understanding of Catholicism.
Howdy Folks. Has anybody seen my husband lately?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Joan M,

Your understanding of the workings of the Vatican and the Curia needs education. I suggest you listen to what John is saying.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eve
Former Admin/Moderator
A secondary debate developed so 20 postings are in a new thread.

Salvation outside the Church

Howdy Folks. Has anybody seen my husband lately?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Gerard
Jan 25 2008, 11:18 AM
Joan M,

Your understanding of the workings of the Vatican and the Curia needs education. I suggest you listen to what John is saying.

Why? Is he infallible now? :huh:

Joan M's understanding seems pretty sound to me. More sound than yours and John's! :P
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply