Q. How can anyone actually believe that a mere man could be infallible?
A. Of course, an athiest would never accept this, but anyone who believes in a Creator God could easily accept that God can do anything He chooses to do. Wouldn’t you agree? So, anyone who believes in an all powerful God could accept that it would be theoretically
possible for God to cause a man to be infallible.
But, that does not mean that He would choose to make a man infallible. So, then we could ask,
“Has He ever made any mere man infallible in the past?” And the answer to that question is
“Yes”.
But here we are only left with Jews and Christians, perhaps Muslims, but I don’t know for sure, who believe that God has made many different men infallible down through the ages. Anyone and everyone who believes Sacred Scripture is the infallible word of God can agree that God did inspire all of the authors to write these books and teach the truth infallibly.
Of course, this does not prove that the pope is infallible but we can also see that God has no problem with leading His people infallibly through a mere and sinful man.
July 13, 2008 at 1:28 pm |
I’ve always found that the best answer to this question is the truth……the last time the Pope did anything “infallible” was, I think, 1950’s, the Immaculate Conception.
July 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
That isn’t really true I don’t think. What about Humanae Vite, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Only men ordained to priesthood).
I am a little suspicious of people (not you but those who told you this), who want to relegate the infallibilty of the pope to only two times in the past…ie. immaculate conception…. I suspect that it is their way of continuing to ignore, the Church’s teaching on contraception, abortion, male priesthood and any other teaching that they don’t like or agree with.
July 13, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
bfhu,
Perhaps we ought to take a ‘via media’ between both of your positions. On the one hand, we ought to be careful not to reduce what ought to be believed by Catholics to only what has been infallibly declared by an extraordinary act of the magisterium. On the other hand, we do need to be frank and precise about the structure of infallible proclamations which the Pope may make according to an extraordinary act of the magisterium.
The first Vatican council gives an outline of how we may know which acts of the Pope are indeed infallible, and so we ought to judge something infallible *in virtue of an extraordinary act of the Papal office* only when it meets these guidelines.
However, we may still judge things to be infallible based on the full extent of the Church’s infallibility, which is also manifested by Councils in union (infallibility of the councils) with the Pope and by the universal assent of the bishops (the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium).
With regard to Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, neither documents are infallible in virtue of papal infallibility. If you check the guidelines of the first Vatican council, they do not meet them. That’s ok though. What PJPII did in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was to point out that it was held universally in the ordinary magisterium. A responsium ad dubium clarified that this meant it was part of the deposit of faith– but as regards the ordinary magisterium. Infallible, but not by means of papal proclamation.
What we need to do, I think, in order to fight the thought of those who try to relegate what needs to be believed only to those doctrines which are infallibly defined, is to heartily admit that, 1. infallibility is wider than papal infallibility, 2. Catholics must hold to doctrines which are not infallibly defined. The development of doctrine which is occuring in the wake of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, regarding the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium is really apropo to this, especially how PJPII invoked it, and Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed it in the responsium ad dubium.
If we respond to these dissenters by playing infallibility ball, then they’ll just try to find ways to say that these aren’t indeed infallible. Rather, we need to argue that infallibility is not necessary for assent to doctrine.
July 13, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
I am no expert but you got me interested in knowing what is perceived as truth
regarding “infallibility” etc. I went the the internet Catholic Encyclopedia and found this…..• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
•
• infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
o 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.
o Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
o 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.
o 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.
•
July 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
Fr. J
Well, then i stand corrected. What criteria did HV & Ordinatio Sac. not meet. I was under the impression from my reading that if the Pope issued a teaching to be believed by the the whole Church on faith and/or morals it was infallible. It seems to me that HV and OS meet that criteria. What is the criteria it did not meet?
I do understand that the constant teaching of the Church, Church councils and the Pope in union with the Bishops also are infallible in teaching. So, HV and OS ARE infallible teaching but they are infallible b/c of constant teaching of the Church rather than by papal proclamation. Is that it?
So if someone says, ” HV is not infallible.” they are wrong? or right?
The teaching in HV is infallible but the document is not? I think I can understand that…there just might be something in the document, since it was written by one man that is NOT infallible even though most everything in the document is infallible? It that it?
I would really like to understand this. But my brain hurts…maybe I am too dumb.