Problems with Infallibility

[ALoveDivine]

This is really getting to me. From my study of Catholic history, and the contemporary Catholic Church, it seems that the notion of Papal Infallibility cannot possibly be true. Correct me if my reasoning is fallacious. Let me elaborate my point here.

Many prior popes have authoritatively declared things to be true and have anathematized those who rejected these teachings. Take for example the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctum". In here the Pope proclaimed that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all human beings be subject to the Roman Pontiff. No wiggle room here. And yet, the modern CCC acknowledges precisely the opposite; that it IS possible for those not subject to the Pope to be saved.

Or what about the old Papal pronouncements about the primacy and authority of the Pope over all secular rulers? Obviously the church doesn't hold to that anymore.

This is my problem. How can the doctrine of Papal Infallibility be true, when we have totally abrogated doctrines authoritatively and explicitly taught, and even with the included anathemas, by historic Popes? And what about those few Popes who were declared heretics by recognized ecumenical councils? How can Papal Infallibility possibly stand in light of that?!

I really do love the Catholic Church, I love the sacraments, I feel at home here...but this doctrine of Papal Infallibility is just utterly unacceptable to me on grounds of both reason and morality. I won't outright teach against it or reject it, but I cannot bring myself to accept it either. I find myself constantly wishing Vatican 1 never happened.

 

[Rhamiel]

Many prior popes have authoritatively declared things to be true and have anathematized those who rejected these teachings. Take for example the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctum". In here the Pope proclaimed that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all human beings be subject to the Roman Pontiff. No wiggle room here. And yet, the modern CCC acknowledges precisely the opposite; that it IS possible for those not subject to the Pope to be saved.

No Salvation Outside The Church is still a doctrine of the Catholic Church

part of this is the difference between Doctrine and Dogma
while all doctrine is true, there are different interpretations of the same teaching

the Church has always understood that some sins have mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability

Or what about the old Papal pronouncements about the primacy and authority of the Pope over all secular rulers? Obviously the church doesn't hold to that anymore.

it does not hold that teaching anymore? oh
have we officially dropped this teaching or have we just decided not to emphasize that teaching at the time

And what about those few Popes who were declared heretics by recognized ecumenical councils? How can Papal Infallibility possibly stand in light of that?!

they may have been heretics, but they never authoritatively supported heresy
like, even a sermon by the Pope would not count as an infallible statement

 

[ALoveDivine]

while all doctrine is true, there are different interpretations of the same teaching

By that line of reasoning we could theologize any "infallible" doctrine into saying precisely its opposite, then justify that on the grounds of different "interpretation". Which is essentially exactly what the Church has done with Unam Sanctum on the subject of the necessity of all human creatures to be subject to the Pope. If this is true, then the notion of infallibility is utterly hollow and meaningless, as any "infallible" statement could be made to say its opposite my a mere exercise of philosophical gymnastics. Might it not be better to say, hey, Vatican 1 got it wrong. The east wasn't involved, so it wasn't ecumenical. Then just go back to pre-great schism council recognition. It seems like that would pretty much solve all these issues.

the Church has always understood that some sins have mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability

Boniface acknowledged absolutely no such circumstances in Unam Sanctum. Neither did many other Popes before and after him. So who's right, the med-evil popes or Vatican 2?

have we officially dropped this teaching or have we just decided not to emphasize that teaching at the time

As far as I know, the Catholic church no longer teaches that the Pope has supreme temporal authority over secular rulers. If you can provide evidence to the contrary please do. If I am correct in this, then an infallible statement has been abrogated, rendering the entire dogma of infallibility principally invalid.

I will go further and say that Papal infallibility cannot possibly be true if a single authoritative Papal teaching, with an attached anathema, has ever been abrogated. Since such statements have been abrogated, it follows logically that the notion of Papal Infallibility is wrong. Hence Vatican 1 was in error, ergo it wasn't truly ecumenical.

 

[Michie]

*dp*

 

[Rhamiel]

what anathamas have been abrogated?

it is not "medieval vs. Vatican II"
the idea that people who are ignorant of the Church are not held responsible for their not being in the Church has been around at least sense St. Augustine

 

[WordList]

This is really getting to me. From my study of Catholic history, and the contemporary Catholic Church, it seems that the notion of Papal Infallibility cannot possibly be true. Correct me if my reasoning is fallacious. Let me elaborate my point here.

Many prior popes have authoritatively declared things to be true and have anathematized those who rejected these teachings. Take for example the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctum". In here the Pope proclaimed that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all human beings be subject to the Roman Pontiff. No wiggle room here. And yet, the modern CCC acknowledges precisely the opposite; that it IS possible for those not subject to the Pope to be saved.

Or what about the old Papal pronouncements about the primacy and authority of the Pope over all secular rulers? Obviously the church doesn't hold to that anymore.

This is my problem. How can the doctrine of Papal Infallibility be true, when we have totally abrogated doctrines authoritatively and explicitly taught, and even with the included anathemas, by historic Popes? And what about those few Popes who were declared heretics by recognized ecumenical councils? How can Papal Infallibility possibly stand in light of that?!

I really do love the Catholic Church, I love the sacraments, I feel at home here...but this doctrine of Papal Infallibility is just utterly unacceptable to me on grounds of both reason and morality. I won't outright teach against it or reject it, but I cannot bring myself to accept it either. I find myself constantly wishing Vatican 1 never happened.

Bear in mind that there is considerable variation in the opinion of theologians about which Papal statements are covered by infallibility. Pretty much everyone agrees that it includes the declarations of Mary's immaculate conception and assumption, but beyond that ...

And then there is the matter of interpretation, and the matter of form verses substance.

 

[concretecamper]

There are many Pope's that have declared no salvation outside the Church.

It is curious that in this age of eccumanism, all of a sudden the laity have a problem with extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

 

[Rhamiel]

There are many Pope's that have declared no salvation outside the Church.

It is curious that in this age of eccumanism, all of a sudden the laity have a problem with extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

yeah.... I know what you mean.

but even in those earlier days, there was still an understanding of culpability and invincible ignorance and baptism of desire and stuff like that
it is not like these things were just made up 100 years ago.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The context of Unam Sanctam was Pope Boniface VIII was asserting his rights against King Phillip IV of France. The Pope was basically saying that his spiritual authority is above the temporal authority of any king on earth. By saying, "...every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," Pope Boniface VIII was putting King Phillip IV in his proper place. It wasn't the only time that a king tried to usurp the authority of the Pope.

 

[Rhamiel]

As far as I know, the Catholic church no longer teaches that the Pope has supreme temporal authority over secular rulers. If you can provide evidence to the contrary please do. If I am correct in this, then an infallible statement has been abrogated, rendering the entire dogma of infallibility principally invalid.

ok, a few issues
1, is this teaching "supreme temporal authority" to be seen as a doctrine of the Church?
I am not saying it is not a doctrine, but it is something to look into, was this a teaching of the Church or just the opinion of a Pope at a time when the Pope had some political clout?

2, you ask me to prove if it is still a teaching believed by the Church... we have not brought it up recently, but I do not recall it being recanted?
but that could just be because the Pope does not have the secular power to enforce his lawful decrees?
kind of like going out to dinner with your family
sure you might like to go to Bob's Burger Palace, but you know every time you bring it up, all it does is cause a big fight because everyone else hates it.
So to avoid a fight, you just do not bring it up anymore.

 

[concretecamper]

staff edit

Saul, Saul, why do you persecute the Church? Is that what is written in Acts? We can have a disagreement on what the Church is. But to separate the Church and Christ is unthinkable.

Christ and the Church are One.....not separate .

 

[Rhamiel]

if you believe God could inspire and protect from error the people who wrote the bible, I do not see why this is a big leap

 

[ALoveDivine]

I do not see why this is a big leap

My biggest problem is the lack of consensus on what exactly counts as an infallible statement/doctrine. Without a clear-cut answer infallibility is essentially meaningless. Two people could disagree on the same statements infallibility and there would be no way to resolve it. Which makes me thing maybe we need to jettison the notion of infallibility entirely.

 

[mark46]

Let the Church speak for itself.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[mark46]

My biggest problem is the lack of consensus on what exactly counts as an infallible statement/doctrine. Without a clear-cut answer infallibility is essentially meaningless. Two people could disagree on the same statements infallibility and there would be no way to resolve it. Which makes me thing maybe we need to jettison the notion of infallibility entirely.

Their are many aspects of papal infallibility.
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

SPEAKING FROM THE CHAIR OF PETER
The most important is that when the pope teaches from the Chair of Peter, this teaching is binding on the Church. This happens, very, ver infrequently, notably affirming the dogma of papal infallibility, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the dogma of the assumption of Mary.
=====================================
IRREFORMABLE TEACHINGS
These are some of the critical settled dogmas of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger (later to be Pope Benedict) made clear in 1998 that these too are infallible. But note, this is not directly related to papal infallibility. I would suggest reading his treatment of infallibility to truly understand what the Church teaches. He is clearly one of the best and clearest theologian of our age. Obviously, his positions lead additional credence to his analysis.

DEFINITIVE TEACHINGS REGARDING FAITH AND MORALS
The teachings of the Church are also infallible. However, there is a different in kind here. Also these teachings are logically infallible because these teachings are derivable from divine revelation.

Of course, many would include almost every teaching regarding faith and morals in this category. I would certainly defer to Pope Benedict in this matter.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Pope Boniface VIII more or less had a monopoly on Christianity at the time. The exceptions of that time prove the rule. I don't think it likely that "alternative communions" struck Pope Boniface VIII as even a possibility.

The modern Church exists in a world where Protestantism has been arguably the principal religious influence on western civilization for about two centuries and thus simply acknowledges that salvation may be extended to non-Catholics in some circumstances... and if it does, they will be grafted onto the Church. If they weren't Catholic in life, most assuredly they will be Catholic in eternity.

I don't see a dichotomy between Pope Boniface VIII and the modern Church's teachings on this subject.

 

[mark46]

Take for example the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctum". In here the Pope proclaimed that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all human beings be subject to the Roman Pontiff. No wiggle room here. And yet, the modern CCC acknowledges precisely the opposite; that it IS possible for those not subject to the Pope to be saved.
===================================

There is no wiggle room

From the catechism

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
==========

 

[Rhamiel]

Let the Church speak for itself.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

thank you for posting that
did you mean this for this thread or the other thread?

<Staff Edit>

 

[Rhamiel]

I am sorry if my posts were confusing
in no way did I mean to limit the Church to just the Latin Rite
I have a deep and abiding love and respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches, which have an ancient and illustrious pedigree and deep theological and liturgical traditions

we have been blessed with so many great saints from the Eastern Churches, like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ignatius of Antioch and so many others

it is possible for people to not be in formal union with the Church, because of no fault of their own they do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
If they do know this, and still remain separated from the Church, then they can not be saved as clearly stated here
"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"


you and I can not judge the soul of the individual, that is for God
so we can not say that they are guilty of disunity
but we can also not say that they are innocent either
it is for God to judge

 

[mark46]

I am sorry if my posts were confusing
in no way did I mean to limit the Church to just the Latin Rite
I have a deep and abiding love and respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches, which have an ancient and illustrious pedigree and deep theological and liturgical traditions

we have been blessed with so many great saints from the Eastern Churches, like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ignatius of Antioch and so many others

it is possible for people to not be in formal union with the Church, because of no fault of their own they do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
If they do know this, and still remain separated from the Church, then they can not be saved as clearly stated here
"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"


you and I can not judge the soul of the individual, that is for God
so we can not say that they are guilty of disunity
but we can also not say that they are innocent either
it is for God to judge

Only God can judge.

We are responsible for our own actions and how we use our life to influence and serve others.