www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Papal Infallibility

Someone please explain to me exactly how it functions.

I am not starting this thread to foment conflict and controversy. I would seriously like to get a good explanation.

Is there a scriptural and/or patristic argument for this doctrine?

Any good books on this subject?

The simple answer is that papal infallibility DOESN'T function - and that the famous definition of Vatican I is carefully hedged about so that it is very nearly impossible to fulfill the conditions for an "infallible" definition. I would suggest Tillard's book *The Bishop of Rome* as a useful discussion by a highly respectable Roman Catholic theologian.
Incognitus

Here I would disagree with Incognitus. The definition from Vatican I is very restrictive (thankfully) but it is generally recognized that the requirements for an infallible definition were met in 1950 (the papal definition of the Assumption/Dormition). I would recommend The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development and Mission of the Papacy by J. Michael Miller, CSB published by Our Sunday Visitor.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I also have The Shepherd and the Rock...as a reference book. I'm afraid I haven't read it straight through, though I think I will, now that you suggested it .

As I have been mentioning on other parts of the forum, I am enjoying a book called Jesus, Peter and the Keys which I am not just reading but studying. It has approval of an Orthodox priest and a Roman Catholic Imprimatur. What I like about it, is that it is not just looking at the beliefs of Roman Catholics. It quotes extensively from other Christians as well. I am learning a lot, and am marking up the margins for further research. The book makes extensive use of early Christian writings, and Scriptural quotes.

I enjoy the peaceful approach to what can become a difficult topic.

David Ignatius writes that "it is generally recognized that the requirements for an infallible definition were met in 1950 (the papal definition of the Assumption/Dormition)". Correct, so far as it goes. But the fact that "it is generally recognized" indicates that it is not universally recognized. And there are respectable theologians prepared to argue that one of the strongest underpinnings of the definition is the act of Pope Pius XII in circularizing the entire Catholic hierarchy and ascertaining that the doctrine enjoyed a near-unanimity, so that when he issued the definition it becomes reasonable to assert that he was speaking as the voice of the episcopate.
I still remember Sister Euthanasia or whatever her name was telling us that now that the Pope had defined the Assumption, we all had to believe it (this to a class of a lower grade in primary school!). That is exactly what the doctrine of infallibility does NOT mean. Nothing becomes true because somebody defines it; the definition means that the Church recognizes the truth in question. Incognitus

Today's edition of USA TODAY has a feature news story about JP2's health and ability to effectively continue as supreme Pontif of the Catholic Church. The half page article speculates on the current administrative situation within the Vatican. Of particular interest the part dealing with the Popes close 'inner circle' of advisors and the rest of the Vatican's curia. You may still be able to get a copy today.

Not wanting to get in any argument with Incognitus. I agree that the idea of infallibility does not make a doctrine "true." As to the Dormition/Assumption I am uncomfortable with those who feel that is an optional belief. At any rate, I believe the charism of infallibility works best in concert with the episcopate.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Thank you all for the responses and the book recommendations.

I would like to see a discussion of this topic develop here, although I am not prepared to argue one way or the other.

I wish merely to learn.

While a Pope's pronouncement does not "make a doctrine true" it pretty much rules out arguing against that doctrine for faithful Catholics. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a logical conclusion from the infallibility of the Church...and if the Church is fallible it's all up for grabs.

Very true.

I am not saying I am ready to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, but it does seem a complement to the idea of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

I have often wondered, in my reading of Church history, how one is supposed to sort through the welter of conflicting bishops, emperors, and councils.

How, for example, does one tell a holy and ecumenical council from any other kind?

The idea of a final executive authority makes sense. Of course, merely making sense does not make a doctrine true.

A few weeks back I was rereading the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The authority of the bishop was a recurring theme for him. It suddenly struck me, as I was reading, that the model for the local eucharistic assembly would logically be the model for the universal Church, as well.

The basic local model, according to St. Ignatius, is the bishop and his presbyters and deacons.

If the authority at the local level is vested in a single man assisted by a larger group of deputies and their helpers, then why not a similar arrangement for the Church as a whole?

Big deal! And "See Dick run..." isn't Shakespeare. And times tables are not integral calculus. And so on. But only in the realm of religion do primary school teaching approaches enter into adult arguments. How interesting.

The knowledge I received in early grades in parochial school was indeed pretty limited. Probably the most important thing I beagn to learn was the awesome beauty of those who responded to a call to a life of service. Even if my teachers were not up to sophisticated standards in literature, mathematics, or religious education, I do remember their example to me.

And I do remember their names.

A few years ago I had it explained to me by a very traditional priest, that Papal Infallibility does not mean agreeing with the Pope in all matters, but only those times when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra concerning matters of faith. For instance, he told me that he disagreed with the Pope on the matter of the death penalty, and he added that Pope John Paul II's condemnation of the death penalty was not an Infallible pronouncement, and we were not required to agree with it.

And personally, I can't think of too much that I learned that was not essentially true. Indeed when in my twenties I started questioning the evangelical form of Christianity I had converted to it was the essential Catholicism I had learned at St Agnes School that lead me back to the truth: was the Pope the successor of St Peter? Did he speak with authority? and so on...
I remain grateful to Sr Mary Eunice and Sr Therese and the rest.
And can anyone do better in answering the fundamental questions of the human soul than the answers in the old catechism? Why did God make me? God made me to know, love and serve Him in this life and to be happy with Him forever...
And I was taught that even if not formally infallible, papal teaching is worthy of respect and assent, a principle regularly violated by Catholics on the right and the left.
And djs- even if times tables are not integral calculus that does not mean that 2x2=274!

If I seemed ambiguous on the Assumption that was not my intention; this teaching is certainly to be believed.
My own mother was a life-long champion of the importance of primary education - graduate school is of little use to those who are functionally illiterate, cannot do simple arithmetic, and so on. Such people do exist - and can even be found in graduate schools! One reason for this problem is that primary school education is often scandalously neglected and primary school teachers do not receive the respect and appreciation which should be theirs by right.
When adults are debating this or that, one might not immediately recognize the primary-school content of the argument - but that element will be present, or else the argument will collapse.
In the wildly unlikely event that the nun who was teaching me in 1950 read my posting, I hope she will forgive my having forgotten her name. The first teaching nun whose name I remember is Sister Margaret Marian, who had me a few years later. She was overworked but patient.
Incognitus

I believe the statement of the good Sister had more to due with the requirement to believe than the truth of the matter.

The Pope declaration is rightly a recognition of a Truth, namely that the Mother of our Lord was taken bodily into heaven. The Pope's declaration on that did nothing to add to the Truth of the matter.

What the Pope did was make belief in that Truth a requirement of being a faithful Catholic. Prior to that time, a person could deny the Assumption\Dormition and still be considered a Catholic ( abiet a misguided one). Now such a person can rightly be labled a heretic and outside the Church.

The Church has long recognized specific Truths that are not specifically required for belief ( the Marian apporitions at Fatima or Lourdes for example). A Catholic is not required to believe such truths to be a true Catholic.

Not so with the Assumption\Dormition.