It’s bad enough for me to make choices that hurt my own relationship with God. How much more serious is it to be the cause of someone else deciding to sin? Not only must I choose the pathway of holiness for God’s sake and for my own sake; I must also do it for the sake of others.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss

Infallibility

Infallibility

INFALLIBILITY

BASIC R.C. BELIEF A special gift whereby the Church is preserved free from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. It is expressed by definitions of popes, decrees of general councils, creeds and professions of faith. It is also exercised when doctrines are unanimously taught by the bishops of the world.

Papal infallibility does not imply sinlessness, but means that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals, cannot err. This was defined by the Vatican Council(I) as being retroactive to all preceding popes.

He speaks ex cathedra when, in virtue of his office and apostolic authority, he intentionally defines a doctrine which must then be held by the whole church.

Papal encyclicals are not thought to be infallible. Since 1870, only one teaching was given that is universally accepted as infallible: the definition of the Assumption in 1950. The pope is believed to be infallible when he canonizes a saint.

POST VATICAN II

From FALSE TRENDS IN MODERN TEACHING, page 20: “In writing (encyclicals), it is true, the Popes do not exercise their teaching authority to the full. But such statements come under the day-to-day teaching of the Church, which is covered by the promise, `He who listens to you, listens to me.’ Luke 10:16.

CHRISTIAN COMMENT The Lord Jesus recognized the need for an Infallible Teacher for His Church, and authorized the Holy Spirit as the One Who would lead into all truth (John 16:13). His ability to convey truth to Christians is taught in I John 2:27.

From Dick Knolls’ newsletter, August 1979. “The basic issue is this: how is the guidance of the Church given to the faithful? If the Church claims to be the final authority, where do I hear her voice? The answer to that question has been formulated in many statements of Canon Law and in many papal encyclicals, but the most detailed reply comes in the statements of the First Vatican Council supplemented by the celebrated decree of Vatican II on the constitution of the church, LUMEN GENTIUM.

“In Vatican I the emphasis had been firmly laid on the supreme authority of the pope and on his infallibility in all matters of faith and morals. Vatican I, however, ended prematurely in 1870 when the troops of the victorious Italian nationalists entered Rome. The sudden termination of the Council furnished an argument for the claim that the decree was an openended one which needed supplementation by a further statement defining the role of the bishops and their relation to the papacy. This further statement came in Chapter III of LUMEN GENTIUUM, but far from finalizing the issue, it led to further controversy with Rome.

“The decree claims for the bishops as a body what Vatican I had claimed for the Pope, namely, the power to teach without error the doctrine of Christ. Individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, Nevertheless, when in the course of their authentic teaching on faith and morals they agree on a single opinion to be held as definite, they are proclaiming infallibly the teaching of Christ.’ This means that when they act together and in agreement with the Pope, and when they define a teaching on either faith or morals as obligatory for the faithful, they are teaching infallibly.

“There is, however, a problem even here for the R.C. who is much more sympathetic to papal and episcopal claims that (Hans) Kung is. Seamus Ryan presents in his commentary on the decree of Vatican II, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. `It is difficcult to see how one can ever be quite sure that a particular teaching of the dispersed episcopate is infallible.’ For justification of this difficulty, he points to the discussion on the subject of birth control. Judging by the tests of Vatican II, the episcopal agreement for years on this subject bears the clear stamp of infallibility. But the present debate indicates that many would deny this teaching is infallible. It is no wonder that this problem remains and Ryan adds rather wryly, `A dispersed diaconate which is infallible, but never knows when, is a puzzling paradox.’

“Hans Kung wrote, `We are nevertheless bound to point out that the attribition of infallibility to the college of bishops, based on the traditional unhistorical theory of the bishops’ direct and exclusive apostolic succession, stands exegetically, historically, and theologically, on feet of clay.'”

Some historic notes re Infallibility.

  1. In 590, St. Gregory I first used the term “ex cathedra.”
  2. Liberius, in 385, subscribed to the Arian heresy to gain the bishopric of Rome.
  3. Gregory I called anyone who would take the title Universal Bishop an Antichrist.

4 .Adrian II declared civil marriages valid; Pius VII condemned them.

5. Vigilinus, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Adrian VI and Paul IV all disclaimed the attribute of infallibility.

6. The Donation of Constantine recorded the conferring of certain privileges and honors to the Bishop of Rome. This became part of official Canon Law and was used by the Popes to bolster their claims (Adrian I to Charlemagne in 778; Leo XI in 1054; Urban II to support his claims to Corsica in 1091; also Innocent III, Gregory IX and Innocent IV). Roman Catholics today admit that it was a forgery.

7. From KEENAN’S CATECHISM, 1869 edition. “Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible? A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith.” After 1870, the question was omitted, but in 1896, the following was added:

“Q: Is the Pope infallible? A: Yes, the Pope is infallible. Q: But some Catholics,. before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism. A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitely accepting the dogma.”