Jump to content

Talk:Papal infallibility/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

old comments

Let me point out that the Catholic Encyclopedia online, for all its usefulness, was published in 1911. It does not represent the Catholic position given once and for all -- that in itself is a misunderstanding of the Catholic ideal of the "development of doctrine". I am not at all sure that a NPOV means "give a link from two sides of an argument", as though there are only two positions. For instance, to take one NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON misunderstanding, popes does not practice infallibility habitually. MOST statements by the papacy are not taken by anyone, even the most rigid Roman Catholics, as infallible. --MichaelTinkler, 20:52, 19 September 2001‎ (UTC)

New to this list - but great to see the response. Created a page about The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility to go with the "UNOFFICIAL" Pope John Paul II at: http://zpub.com/un/pope/

Here are the comments people have added about Papal Infallibility since August 6, 1998 http://www.greenspun.com/com/zpub/un/pope/infal.html

... I welcome the responses and the chance to participate in this project. - rp

The 'critique' is a tad - ahem - chip-on-the-shoulderish in tone (and spelling). NPOV does demand that wikipedia should present other views, but this one is going to have to be (a) researched (e.g., what bishop said what?) and (b) edited. --MichaelTinkler

Link http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/papal.htm don't work for me. Could somebody correct this ?

This bishop was Joseph Georg Strossmayer iirc. --Taw

Merge

This article needs a history merge with Papal Infallibility and end up here. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've history merged the article. Graham87 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vatican I

Your list of criteria from Vatican I is merely your own ideas which have no support in the documents of Vatican I. Therefore, I have replaced it with a list of criteria which is nothing but quotes from Vatican I. --Ronconte 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Rewrite

I think this rewrite section should be archived. --Ronconte 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition of papal infallibility given in this article includes criteria never mentioned by the First or Second Vatican Councils. The article is factually and substantially in error and should be rewritten. --Ronconte 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Vatican I and Vatican II did not teach in vacuums. They used technical theological terms that included a lot of meaning in them. If you read the debates at Vatican I and Vatican II, you will see that the bishops gathered there understood exactly what these terms meant, and chose their words very carefully.
Since we cannot assume that Wikipedia's audience understands these terms, they need to be explained in detail. Therefore a short phrase in a council document becomes a long description on this page. While I wouldn't have phrased the five bullets in the Papal infallibility#Conditions for papal infallibility in exactly the way they appear here, all of these are indeed required conditions. In fact, there are additional conditions that aren't listed -- such as the need that the pope be freely exercising his judgment (not held at gunpoint). Lawrence King 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: I edited this section to clarify some points, and remove redundancies. Lawrence King 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite the section on the criteria for papal infallibility, using only quotes from Vatican I and II to list the criteria. You can then add whatever commentary or explanation you think is needed. --Ronconte 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error - The criteria listed in this article is not the criteria listed by Vatican I or Vatican II. The criterial listed by those councils did not include mention of the Pope's intention, nor of duress.

This point was addressed by my response above.
You have worded the criteria in your own words, according to your own unique ideas. I am rewriting it with nothing but quotes from Vatican I and II. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What you call "my unique ideas" are exactly the conditions for infallibility that you will find in Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", Francis Sullivan's "Magisterium", and any other standard theology textbook. Lawrence King 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error - the claim that the Pope can declare something infallible other than what has been revealed. Vatican II specifically stated the limits of papal infallibility: “And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”.

You truncated this sentence. The rest of the sentence has often been interpreted to include non-revealed matters. THat is in fact how the CDF interprets it in this document signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998: [1]. Section 6 addresses this issue explicitly and section 11 gives several examples of infallible statements in this category. (Non-revealed truths that are taught infallibly are called the "secondary object of infallibility", and are discussed in "paragraph two" of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei to which Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary refers.)
I read that reference. It clearly says the exact opposite of what you claim. The truths that cannot be said to be divinely-revealed are 'to be held definitively' which is a phrase specifically used to describe adherence to non-infallible teachings. This article is Lawrence King's own opinions and interpretation. It is not an encyclopedic description of what Catholic's believe or what the Catholic Church teaches. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Read it again. Pay attention to the parts I have put in bold:
The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks "ex cathedra" or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda". Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.

Factual error - the claim that canonization is an example of an infallible teaching or infallible statement. Lists of infallible papal statements, including one by Cardinal Raztinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, do not include any canonizations as infallible statements.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Again, see the document I linked to. Section 11 specifically lists "the canonization of saints" as falling within the secondary object of infallibility.
Again, I read that section. It clearly says 'to be definitively held' which is used to refer to the type of assent given to non-infallible teachings. This article is about papal infallibility. Ratzinger himself gives a list of infallible papal teachings and he does not include canonizations. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"To be definitively held" does refer to infallible teachings, as is clear in the passage I have quoted. If you look at section 10 you will see that the assent required by non-infallible teachings is "religious submission of will and intellect". Lawrence King 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten. Also, the section on dissent is too long.

I agree that it seems excessive to include separately "what Methodists believe", "what Reformed churches believe", etc. But I don't feel strongly on this issue either way.

This is not a debate, it is an encyclopedic description of an idea. --Ronconte 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now it's an encyclopedic description of an idea and the impact it has had on the world. This impact includes reactions to the idea. I don't see why this isn't encyclopedic. Lawrence King 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)\
It is not encyclopedic because no other Catholic in the world has this same view that you are expressing. You have taken your own unique understanding and made it an article in an encyclopedia. --Ronconte 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I have taken the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, now the current pope. I am reverting your changes. Lawrence King 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid edit war

Before we get into a full-blown edit war, please read the entire document that I linked to: [2]. You will see that Cardinal Ratzinger very carefully and systematically divides doctrines into three categories:

1. Definitive teachings that are part of revelation. Theologians usually call these dogmas. These are discussed in Paragraph One of the Professio Fidei, and in sections 5 and 8 of the CDF document I linked to. These are infallible, as Ratzinger states in section 5. Catholics must accept these teachings with "the assent of theological faith".

2. Definitive teachings that are not included in revelation. Theologians usually call this the secondary object of infallibility. These are discussed in Paragraph One of the Professio Fidei, and in section 6, 7, and 8 of the CDF document I linked to. These are infallible, as Ratzinger states in section 6 (see my quote above). Catholics must accept these teachings with "firm and definitive assent". In section 8, Ratzinger reminds the reader that although # 1 and # 2 differ in the kind of faith involved, "there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings".

You have completely misunderstood what he is saying in that document. No truth outside of revelation can be taught infallibly. The phrase 'firm and definitive assent' is only applied to things that are non-infallible. The reason for the different type of assent is that it is non-infallible.
Another problem is that you are basing your assertions on only one document. It is much more likely that you have misunderstood when you have only one source. You are unable to cite another source that says that the Magisterium can teach infallibly outside of Divine Revelation. Please stop citing the same document from the CDF again and again.
I am looking at many documents, as you know because we have discussed this already. I will list more of them here:
* The "Professio Fidei" itself, which every Catholic teacher on this planet is required to swear to.
* The CDF commentary on the Professio Fidei which I linked to above.
* A commentary published by Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, when he was Secretary of the CDF: “Theological Observations by Archbishop Bertone,” L’Osservatore Romano, Italian edition 12/20/1996, English edition 1/29/1997.
* The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 88 says that the "fullest extent" of the church's teaching authority is used when either defining a matter in revelation or when defining something that "has a necessary connection" with revelation. These are, respectively, the categories called # 1 and # 2 above.
*The near-unanimous consensus of Catholic theologians. For example:
* Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (the most important pre-Vatican II textbook)
* Francis Sullivan's Magisterium and Creative Fidelity (he was a professor at the most important Catholic university on the planet, the Gregorian University, from 1956 to 1992, serving under five popes as the acknowledged expert in ecclesiology)
* The writings of conservative theologians who study infallibility, such as Germain Grisez, Lawrence J. Welch, Livio Melina, Mark Lowery, Avery Dulles
* The writings of liberal theologians who study infalliblity, such as Hermann J. Pottmeyer, Richard R. Gaillardetz.
All of these sources agree that truths outside of revelation can be taught infallibly. For example, Article 6 of Pope Alexander VII's bull Ad Sacram Beati Petri Sedem (1656) taught infallibly that the propositions listed in Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione really were in Cornelius Jansen's book, a matter of fact (not revelation) that the Jansenists had disputed.
You are right that if I "only had one source" I might be misunderstanding it. Are all these theologians misunderstanding it? Was Poe Alexander VII misunderstanding it? Lawrence King 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The CDF's Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973) says the following: "According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded. (30) The extension however of this infalliblity to the deposit of faith itself is a truth that the Church has from the beginning held as having been certainly revealed in Christ's promises" (n.3). --Bpeters1 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If a teaching is found only in one document of the CDF, and nowhere else, it cannot be a teaching of the Church.
That is false. What do you think the CDF is? It is the Vatican's doctrinal office. Their job is to release doctrinal pronouncements, and there is an entire section on the Vatican website devoted to their documents. This is how the church teaches most of the time. Papal encyclicals are rare.


Furthermore, the idea that canonizations fall under papal infallibility is incorrect. The Catholic faithful in general do not believe that papal infallibility extends to canonizations. The Catechism makes no such claim. The canonization documents themselves do not use any of the language that you yourself say is associated with infallible papal teachings. Neither Vatican I nor Vatican II makes any such extension of papal infallibility to canonizations or to anything beyond the Deposit of Faith.
An encyclopedia article on this topic should state what is generally agreed upon. Some of your points are not, they are, at best, controversial interpretations of magisterial documents. We should keep the article to what is clearly Catholic teaching. --Ronconte 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am doing. You are the one who insists on taking a passage from Vatican I, a passage from Vatican II, and interpreting them yourself without looking at any other facts. Lawrence King 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence King - Chew on this: here's a passage from "The Survival of Dogma" (1971) by Avery Dulles (who you cite above as a conservative authority on matters of infallibility): "In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries we went through a period when some theologians were claiming infallibility for all sorts of statements that could hardly, by any stretch of the imagination, be found in the original Christian revelation. For example, it was taught that the Church could infallibly pronounce that a given saint was really in heaven. Today most theologians speak far more cautiously" (p. 146). --Bpeters1 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Non-infallible teachings. These are discussed in Paragraph One of the Professio Fidei, and in section 10 of the CDF document I linked to. Although these are not infallible, Catholics must accept these teachings with "religious submission of will and intellect.".

In section 11, there are examples of each of these kinds of teachings. Canonization of saints is included among those of type # 2, and are therefore (according to Ratzinger) infallible. Lawrence King 20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the teaching of the Church about infallibility. You have based your claims on one document only from the CDF, not on any document from Popes, Ecumencial Councils, or the Catechism. The document you cite is fallible, not infallible. This article should not contain your own interpretation of one document from the CDF, nor the particular opinions of certain theologians. It should be a general statement about Catholic belief on papal infallibility. --Ronconte 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you haven't read anything I wrote above. I cited the Catechism, several CDF documents, documents from two popes, and nine different theologians. If you aren't going to be reasonable then I have two choices: an edit war, or abandoning this page. I choose the latter. This page is yours; feel free to edit it however you want. Lawrence King 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ronconte suggests at the head of this section that it should be archived. I suggest that he or she should follow WP convention and add new comments to the foot of the relevant section. And I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this very recent and not overly long disagreement should be archived. No, it should stay right where it is to increase the likelihood that other qualified editors will note the issues raised and edit the article for the better. -- Hoary 14:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Views of Reformed Churches

The whole part about the Pope being the Antichrist has been removed from the Reformed version of the Westminster Confession for some time now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.131.181 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 February 2006.

You should update that section, then! Lawrence King 04:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of content from this talk page

Do not delete content from this talk page, unless this content is blatantly offensive, is obvious spamming, or otherwise is indisputably undesirable. As you have agreed to license your contributions under the GFDL, you are no more qualified to delete your own comments than you are to delete anybody else's. If the content of this page becomes burdensome, archive old arguments and only then delete them from here: please see this explanation of why and how to do this. Thank you. -- Hoary 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section on critical rationalism

The section on critical rationalism has very little to do with papal infallibility. It does not belong in this article. --Ronconte 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Maybe it could be moved to the Infallibility article, in the subsection Infallibility#In philosophy. Or it could just be deleted, since it's pretty short and hard to understand. - Lawrence King 02:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dissent

A few months ago I tried to remove the following (I was using an IP address) and found it was reinserted and gave up. However, I think that at least part of it really doesn't belong in the article:

According to Roman Catholic theology, to the extent that a person's rejection of a dogma is deliberate, that person has separated himself from the Church. The Church does allow for the possibility of invincible ignorance, in which case a person would not be culpable. Catholic theology does teach, however, that it is a duty to be familiar with the details of one's faith (e.g., 1 Pet 3:15).

See particularly Wikipedia:No original research#Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. This paragraph puts forward the opinion that if Catholic doctrine is interpreted in a certain way certain conclusions might be drawn. No reference is made to Church teaching, only an original interpretation based on the Bible. In the words of the original research guidelines:

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".

Does anyone have a good argument for this not to be deleted? Or alternatively can anyone provide a source that shows that the Catholic Church holds this particular view; that such a requirement to be familiar with one's faith might specifically eliminate or diminish any mitigation provided by one's ignorance; and that the authority used for such a teaching is Biblical (and specifically that it is based, at least in part, on the named reference)?--Lo2u 23:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations: Code of Canon Law: Canon 751 and Canon 1364 §1 Catechism: 2087-2089 I don't know who wrote that paragraph, but it is not a new idea, nor a new synthesis of ideas. You can add the above citations, if you wish. --Ronconte 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps (although none of those references seems to say anything about a duty to find out about Church teaching). I wasn't trying to say that such teachings don't exist. My problem with the paragraph is that it comes at the end of a section detailing various prominent Catholics who've disagreed with teaching and attempts to speculate about whether their "rejection of dogma" constitutes a sin. Even with citations showing what Catholics are expected to believe there still needs to be some evidence that the Church has made such arguments in this particular context - otherwise it's just speculation on the part of editors about what the Church's view might be if it gave it. A valid paragraph might read (along the lines of):

"Such dissent is condemned by Church teaching which argues that those that reject Catholic dogma separate themselves from the Church. Although it is accepted that such a separation might be mitigated by ignorance the Church nevertheless stresses that it is the duty of individuals to find out about their faith [followed by citation]".

The citations at the moment don't even justify the first sentence. It is important that (and I quote the original research guidelines again):

that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.

This isn't just pedantic - at the moment the paragraph just doesn't read like an encyclopaedic article but rather it resembles an (admittedly correct) piece of original scholarship about the status of dissenters within the church.--Lo2u 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To claim that dissenters are "within the Catholic Church" is taking an explicit POV. It equates with agreeing with the dissenters in their contention that the dogmatic definition isn't really dogmatic. That's why I today altered the article. --Antonio Basto 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this change; the section title should use "within the Catholic Church". That Hans Küng is "within the Catholic Church" is not a point of view, it is a matter of fact. Fr. Küng is a Catholic priest in good standing, who recently met with Pope Benedict XVI. Only Küng's theological credentials have been revoked. --Cat Whisperer
Hans Kung is not in good standing. And meeting the Pope is not proof of good standing. Thw pope also met Archbishop Fellay, the head of the SSPX, a organization of explicitly excommunicated schismatics. The excommunication of those who dissent from dogma and accordingly find themselves in heresy is latae sententiae (automatic). It needs not to be solemnly proclaimed to be in effect.--201.79.32.233 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hans Küng writes in his Catholic Chruch: A Short History, emphasis added:
You can speculate as much as you want as to whether Fr. Küng has automatically excommunicated himself from the Church, just as you can with any other person. However, until the Church formally declares this, he is just as much a Catholic as anyone else.

To claim that those who disagree with the DOGMA of papal infallibility "don't face excommunication" is POV and is totally contrary to the core teachings of the Catholic Religion. Disagreement with a dogma of Catholic Faith while one continues to hold Christian views constitutes heresy; if one rejects Chistianism that's apostasy. Both heretics and apostates are subject to automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication under the Church's canons. That is why the dogmatic definition itself contains the "anathema sit" warning. Papal infallibility is not just like any other teaching. It is a dogma pronounced by the extraordinary magisterium of an Ecumenical Council. To claim that those who dissent from it are still "whithin the Church" is POV, and is a point of view contrary to the Church's teaching, as expressed in several documents. The subject of this article is a dogma of the Catholic Religion. Thus using the language of dissenters is not appropriate. It shows that the article itself explicitly dissents from the belief being explained. --Antonio Basto 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of Recent Edits

An edit claiming that all church teaching is by definition infallible was removed by reverting to most recent version because the Church teaches that its own teachings are only infallible under certain circumstances. If all Church teaching were infallible, then there would be no need for an article on the criteria for Papal infallibility. Also the edit describing the canonization of Saints was incoherent and incorrect. --Ronconte 04:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Reformed Churches, Redux

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Heidelburg Catechism, etc. still say the pope is an (not the) antichrist - certain reformed churches no longer hold to that part of the creed, that's all. And btw, the supposed list of Bible verses in support is really, really weak. Take out all but two or three, because there's only that many that can by any stretch of reason and debatedly support papal infallibility. --69.17.67.11 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I've merged ex cathedra section with this article. --Ronconte 02:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Theological History, Scriptural Evidence

Arguably the strongest piece of Scriptural Evidence has been omitted: When Jesus says to Peter that "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mt 16:19. Binding and loosing were rabbinical terms for promulgating rules, so the theory is that Jesus was giving the first Pope legislative power over heaven (I need a cite for this last bit before inclusion, of course). But what do folks think about the statement, generally? Thomas B 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitions and dissent

I've removed a quote claiming that the Catholic Church defined papal infallibility because it doesn't look like a definition to me - simply an assertion of papal and episcopal authority. "Dissent by those who claim to be Roman Catholics" implies strongly that they aren't real Catholics. As well as not being very grammatical it doesn't present a neutral point of view. And removing unsourced assertion implying that those who disagree with (rather than act against) any dogma are heretics - they're not. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It may not look like a definition to you but it is a dogmatic definition, according to the own words of the Conciliar Constitution Pastor Aeternus. The fact that those who dissent from it are not real Catholics stems from Catholic teaching and Canon Law itself. Those who disagree with a proclaimed dogma of the Catholic Faith, while retaining other elements of that same faith and retaining Christian views, are heretics. ( If one rejects Christianism itself that´s apostasy. Well, under canon 1364, paragraph 1 of the Code of Canon Law, heretics, as well as apostates and schismatics, are subject to latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication. That´s the reason for the "anathema sit" warning at the end of the dogmatic definition itself. To say that those who dissent with the DOGMA of Papal infallibility are still Catholics is the equivalent of taking side with the dissenters, agreeing with their claim that the dogma is not really a dogma. Thus, the really neutral language when reffering to dissenters who call themselves Catholic is to say that they claim to be Catholics. One does not say then if one agrees or disagrees with that claim. But to say that dissent comes form Catholics, from within the Church, is taking sides with a POV, namely, the point of view that the dogma isn´t really a dogma, and hence dissenters are not heretics and accordingly do not suffer automatic excommunication. So, Lo2u, in my view, the language you employ is the real violation of the neutral point of view. This article has a dogma of the Catholic religion for subject, and to use language that explicitly takes sides with those who think that the dogma is not a real dogma is what is innapropriate. Its POV and it is a point of view in total disagreement with the teaching of the Catholic religion that is the subject of this article. Thus, the "claim" language is the really neutral one, for it is the only one that does not take sides. --201.79.32.233 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. First of all very little of this article is my words, and certainly none of the bits you've objected to - I've mostly removed things and reverted actually because I thought the article was alright apart from a few missing sources or uncited sources and a little too much on the positions of lots of religions that obviously reject infallibility.
You didn't actually use the phrase "dogmatic definition" as a specialist term in your edit. As I understand it, you called what you quoted "the definition of papal infallibility" but maybe it's just something that needs clarification.
Your source (I presume) for the assertion that those rejecting infallibility face excommunication is the Vatican I document and if it's some other source you need to cite it. I'm not aware of someone actually being formally excommunicated for rejecting infallibility.
The reference to "those claiming to be Catholics" implies that there's controversy about this. To say "this is the definition of a Catholic" and then "these people don't fit this definition so are not Catholic" is the original assimilation of published sources to advance a point of view - a form of original research - unless you can find something, apart from your own opinion, that says the controversy exists in this case. The title just isn't acceptable. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed other comments under my Dissent thread and thought this called for further comment. Antonio, I think we need to get this page sorted out and find a version we can both agree on.

Short summary: You can't call people heretics. You have to find a source calling them heretics.

But let me summarise what I think you're saying: 1. Papal infallibility is a dogma 2. Those that reject a dogma while continuing to hold Catholic (or Christian?) views are guilty of heresy. 3. Heretics face automatic excommunication

Now I don't have a problem with 1. 2 is a different matter - even if this is correct, what you've just done is original research unless you can find a source that supports your assertion that rejection of infallibility specifically is heresy. 3 is possibly also a problem because according to heresy, "The penalty for a baptized Catholic above the age of 18 who obstinately, publicly, and voluntarily manifests his or her adherence to an objective heresy is automatic excommunication ("latae sententiae")". I presume this information wasn't plucked out of the air and the writers have some reason to say that, even if a source is somewhat lacking.

I'm also not aware of anyone having been excommunicated simply for rejecting infallibility in recent years (or ever), the consequence of recognition by the Church that someone's actions constitute heresy.

What you need to do is find where those rejecting Papal infallibility are accused of heresy, and add something to the article saying they have been accused using this information as your source. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Ideas

Since I'm new here, I thought I'd run some ideas for this article past the group before I go and do them. Here they are:

  • Discussion of papal primacy is off-topic. It should be moved/merged to Papal_primacy.
  • Add discussion of primary and secondary objects of infallibility.
  • Add discussion of sensus fidelium.
  • Add discussion of theological issues.
    • Whether a post-Vatican II pope can teach infallibly without knowing it. (Lio vs. Chirico)
    • Whether the subject matter of an infallible teaching is a requirement or a consequence of an ex cathedra teaching. (Sullivan vs. Grisez)
    • Küng's objections.

In the mean time, I'm going to make some localized word-smithing changes. Please let me know if any of them are problematic. Thanks!

Also, the scriptual support for papal infallibility doesn't belong in the history section, as it discusses a modern day understanding of scripture, rather than how those pieces of scripture were understood in the early Church. -- Cat Whisperer 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with the heretic claim

I've put a "citation needed" on the claim "Denying papal infallibility as a doctrine of faith, makes these authors (Kung and Wills) in fact heretics in the eyes of the Church's teaching authority in the Vatican." Unless a citation is forthocming from the Church's teaching authority in the Vatican, i.e., the CDF, stating that Kung and/or Wills are heretics, I will remove this false statement. -- Cat Whisperer 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cat Whisperer. I've removed it. It's been removed and reinserted so many times and nobody's come up with a proper source. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Would it make sense to add some statement to the contrary to stop this repeated misunderstanding? For example:

Some conservative Catholics claim that Hans Küng is a heretic because of his writings and beliefs. However, the Church in her wisdom has declined to rush to such an extreme judgment.[1]

  1. ^ Fr. Küng writes, "to the present day I have remained professor of ecumenical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing," in his Catholic Church: A Short History (ISBN 0812967623), 2003.
What does everyone think? -- Cat Whisperer 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't put in anything saying too strongly that dissenters aren't heretics either. The Church seems to avoid committing to any position about their status and I think we need to too. But by all means say that Hans Küng hasn't been condemned as a heretic by the church. Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I guess I will leave it alone for now, and hope that the heretic claim doesn't get reinserted. -- Cat Whisperer 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checking: "A recent (1989-1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries... showed that 36.9% accepted the dogma of papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know." I'm not Catholic and can't look into this further myself right now. However, that quote from the "Dissent within the Catholic Church" section is very probably a typo. 36.9 percent accepted it and 36.9 percent denied it? What are the odds of that? Bizarrely enough, it does add up to 100 percent, I think. But can someone check those numbers to make sure it wasn't copied into the article wrong?

Edits by 24.145.212.217 on Oct. 13

The Catholic understanding of papal infallibility is that the Pope will not proclaim anything ex cathedra that is not already common belief in the Church or is inconsistant with previous Church teaching.

  • This is close to the position of Fr. Chirico, but it is hardly the understanding of the majority of Catholics.

Infallible statements by the Pontiff are infallible because they were first true even before an official proclamation was made, and not because the official proclamation was made.

  • This is completely incorrect. Infallible statments are infallible exactly because an ex cathedra proclamation is made.

The papal definition does not make the statement true, the statement is already true.

  • This statement is technically true, because "true" and "infallible" are different attributes. A better way to say this is "The Holy Spirit guarantees that only true statements will be defined in ex cathedra proclamations."

The official proclamation ex cathedra simply makes the definition binding for the whole Church.

  • The official proclamation ex cathedra gives the whole Church the absolute assurance that the statement being defined is true.

I hope this helps. -- Cat Whisperer 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

what if...

...you cloned the Pope. Would they both be infallible? István 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The Pope's infallibility derives from his office, not his DNA. -- Cat Whisperer 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

its all bull anyway i thought christians believed only God was perfect the pope's hat is gangsta though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.172.124 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the infallible/fallible wording correct in this sentence?

In Papal infallibilty, section Conditions for papal infallibility. , there is a sentence which reads: "Also, due to the sensus fidelium, an infallible teaching cannot be subsequently contradicted by the Catholic Church, even if that subsequent teaching is in itself fallible." Is there an error in that last "fallible", that it should be "infallible"? Otherwise, why is the "even if" clause there? --Seejyb 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence should be reworded if it is unclear. The paragraph as a whole is trying to explain the following table:
Prior Church teaching Subsequent contradictory Church teaching Possible/Impossible Explanation
fallible fallible could possibly happen N/A
fallible infallible could possibly happen 1st & 2nd sentences
infallible fallible could not ever happen 4th sentence (Also, due to the sensus fidelium ...)
infallible infallible could not ever happen 3rd sentence (Of course, an infallible teaching ...)

The "even if" clause is there in the 4th sentence because the infallible case is already covered by the 3rd sentence. - Cat Whisperer 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter

The article gives extensive Biblical quotes concerning Peter, but apparently gives nothing that would indicate a relationship between Peter and the Popes, explaining why Peter being the top disciple would make the Popes infallible. Can anyone add that connection?

David Vaughn

I can't add the connection, but I do think that the scriptural support section needs to be moved out of the theological history part, because it doesn't relate to how the Bible was understood in the first millenium. -- Cat Whisperer 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Catholic tradition, Peter IS the first Pope. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Last Time Papal Infallibility Used?

I was under the impression the in the 90's Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger declared the Women not being priest was not just an opinion of John Paul II but his dogma and therefore infallible (source life magazine) if so this article is incorrect in its assertion that it has not been used in 57 years ChrisLamb 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article, towards the end of the Papal infallibility#Instances of papal infallibility section, in the paragraph discussing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In particular, Ratzinger's letter [3] states:
"In this case, an act of the ordinary papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church."
Papal infallibility is the extraordinary papal magisterium. -- Cat Whisperer 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete idiot's guide

As a non practican catholic, I find offensive that the reference to the guide is so prominented placed in the introduction of the article. I think that that reference must be placed in the "Common Alleged Misconceptions About Papal Infallibility" section, with the title of the book in the footnotes section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoaac (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Papal Bulls

As a non-believer of Protestant background, I don't have much sense of how the Catholic Church addresses the existence of papal bulls such as Dum Diversas justifying slavery. I presume that these must be deemed to have been fallible as the Church can hardly assert that Nicolas V was infallible in granting permission to enslave negros in perpetuity. Could someone more familiar with Catholic thought add a bit on how the Vatican acted as a political arbiter among Catholic nations, and issued many papal bulls that were essentially political edicts and not theology, or something like that?Birdbrainscan 14:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Slavery is a cultural thing and is talked about in the Old Testament. The idea that slavery is inherently wrong is VERY modern and that is still not universally accepted. Jmclark (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article

  • The definition of papal infallibility begins with the phrase "In Catholic theology." Papal infallibility is a dogma and dogmas do not come from Catholic theology.
  • The official Catholic definition of papal infallibility was infallibly defined by the First Vatican Council, but the definition in this article does not agree with that definition.
  • The use of the term dogmatic teaching within the definition of what makes a papal teaching infallible and therefore dogmatic.
  • The claim that the Holy Spirit causes all Catholics to accept a teaching under papal infallibility is unsupportable. There are always some dissenters from any teaching.
  • The claim that the infallible teachings of the Pope need only not contradict Tradition and Scripture is incorrect.
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism is not a reliable source of Catholic teaching. It lacks the imprimatur and is not a commonly-used source book by Catholics in general.
  • The statement that "the church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent" is incorrect. Papal infallibility does not arise from the permission of the Church to be the ruling agent.
  • One paragraph claims that papal infallibility has only been used once since 1870. This is an opinion, and one which is often contradicted by various Catholic theologians.
  • The term "ex cathedra" is poorly-defined and misused throughout the article.
  • The section with the quote from First Vatican Council should not also attribute the quote to Catholic Tradition, because it is a quote from First Vatican Council. The idea can be attributed to Tradition, but not the quote.
  • Teachings of the Magisterium can be infallible or non-infallible, not merely fallible.
  • A distinction should be made between teachings of the Church and that of the Magisterium.
  • The sentence with the phrase "due to the sensus fidelium" is poorly-written and inaccurate.
  • The section on canonizations probably should not even be in this article, since the Magisterium has no teaching on that point. It is theological opinion.
  • There is a quote about "pious opinion..." which has no source. How can you give a quote and have no idea where it came from?
  • Describing the role of the Pope as "spokesman" is incorrect and offensive.
  • The definition given for the term "ex cathedra" is incorrect. It has nothing to do with intention. And the Second Vatican Council has the term as only one of several conditions for papal infallibility.
  • The paragraph that begins: "Some Catholic apologists trace the history..." is poorly written. The Church teaches that all dogmas are based on Tradition and Scripture. It is not merely the opinion of some apologists. Also, the primacy of the Pope is not at issue in this article.
  • The entire section on "how the passage of the infallibility dogma was orchestrated" is an opinion piece which attacks the dogma of papal infallibility.
  • The section referring to Klaus Schatz is the opinion of one theologian, an opinion not supported by Church teaching, nor by a majority of theologians.
  • The sentence which begins with "For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation..." contradicts the subsequent sentence: "The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible."
  • The "Common Alleged Misconceptions" section is poorly written and inaccurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.175.245 (talk)

Thanks for taking such a detailed look at this article. One quick question: Do you have a citation for any Catholic theologians who dispute that papal infallibility has been used only once since 1870? -- Cat Whisperer 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is important to distinguish between notable opinions from reliable sources, such as the opinions of respected Catholic theologians published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals or books, and other non-notable opinions. The former opinions certainly belong in Wikipedia articles, and in fact as secondary sources they trump primary sources, such as the original Pastor Aeternus text. The underlying idea is that these opinions will spread through out the scholarly community, and any flaws with them will be identified by other scholars. On the other hand, non-notable opinions, such as opinions published on the Internet by people who have no credentials in Catholic theology (i.e., an ecclesiastical degree from a pontifical university and a missio canonica), are not fit for Wikipedia, because the errors that they contain are not subject to any scholarly correction. -- Cat Whisperer 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholic teaching is not based on notable opinion. Catholic teaching is not those ideas which have spread through the scholarly community. In Catholicism, primary sources, such as an infallible papal statement, trump any interpretation of a secondary source. Most Catholic theology is published in books, not in a peer-reviewed journal. There is no single such peer-reviewed journal which represents anything like a mainstay of Catholic theology. Catholicism is based on the teaching of the Popes and the Bishops, not on the teachings of theologians. Most theologians do not have the specific credentials that you cite. The determination as to which theologians are notable and respected is entirely subjective.

Therefore, the principles required for writing or editing an article on Catholicism in Wikipedia are in direct contradition to Catholicism itself. As a result, this article, and many others on Catholicism, are at best inaccurate and poorly-worded, and at worst they misinform the reader as to the teachings of Catholicism.

One other point. If the only opinions that count are notable opinions from respected theologians, then how is it that anonymous persons with silly usernames are allowed to put themselves in charge of deciding what should or should not go into an article on Catholicism? --66.229.175.245 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

When people come to Wikipedia to read about a subject, whether on Catholicism or not, they want to find out what smart people think about that subject. This is based on the theory that smart people are usually right. I personally find that this principle applies equally well to Catholicism as anything else. So if you have a reliable, scholarly citation regarding the number of instances of papal infallibility since 1870 (or any of the other topics where you appealed to the majority opinion of theologians), then please provide it so that we can improve this article. If you have a non-scholarly but otherwise notable source on these topics, then there is probably a place in the article for this kind of information as well. It does not need to be in any particular peer-reviewed journal, and scholarly books are also very acceptable. In fact, the one section on the history of how the dogma of papal infallibility came to be promulgated at Vatican I came from the review (that was published in a peer-reviewed journal) of a scholarly book on the subject. -- Cat Whisperer 18:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The theological credentials that I mentioned were established by the Church, in Sapientia Christiana. -- Cat Whisperer 11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of the two bishops...

As per my recent trip to the Vatican, a plaque mentioned that "two bishops, out of 435, voted against the principle of papal infallibility" - I was curious if it was known which two bishops were dissenting, or if it were a secret ballot whose dissenters were never known? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas. See [4] for details. -- Cat Whisperer 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Much thanks, I spent ten minutes on google and couldn't find the answer - appreciate your help...now to go read up on those two bishops :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions

-- I have seen the article and have come to believe that the part about "Common Alleged Misconceptions About Papal Infallibility" should not be a part of this article. It appears to me that it is at the very least a violation of POV policies. Is is more fitting for a faith manual that an ecyclopedic article... please proceed to comment on the matter.--T.S.Boncompte 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It would be best to take the relevant content of this, if any, and word it in a simple declarative manner, instead of the "common misconceptions" approach that is there now. -- Cat Whisperer 23:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Factual Error: You Name the Wrong Clement

The epistle to the Corinthians known as 1st Clement was not written by Clement of Alexandria - who was bishop of Alexandria about over a century later. 1st Clement is attributed to "Clement of Rome', who according to Tradition was the 3rd Bishop of Rome. (Of course, nowhere in the epistle does the author claim any kind of authority - papal or otherwise - nor does he name himself as the heir or successor to Peter. All his arguments are supported exclusively by Scriptural prooftexts - all of them, most tellingly, Pauline.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormarm (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

Isn´t the infallibility of the pope redundant, when the church is already infallible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.208.71 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, at least not according to common sense logic, f.ex. a stmt: "the church is infallible but the pope is full of errors" (just an example). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Scripture Support for infallibility of the Pope

This section is embarassingly point-of-viewish! In order to fix it: a citation from an encyclica (primary source) is needed, where exactly these Bible verses are cited as an argument for the "papal infallibility". For me the verses in question proves nothing of that kind, and Wikipedia by itself proves nothing, it refers to proofs and arguments outside Wikipedia in order to reflect the common state of the all-humankind knowledge. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm putting a tag on this section. There need to be citations explaining most of these verses, both from the point of view of those who argue that the verses support infallibility and from the opposite point of view. --Atemperman (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of this section claims that this position is historically traceable to Scripture. If that is indeed the case, you certainly need to demonstrate it. You can't just claim it and expect everyone to say "Oh, ok, you say so." I don't think this can be demonstrated, so I'd favor taking that claim out entirely, assuming the section survives. Without a citation, it's just a collection of proof-texts that claim the unverified historical authority of "supporters," and that may as well be the people who put it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.52.6 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Scripture against the Infallability of the Pope

included this brief section to offset the views expressed in scripture supports the infallability of the Pope. This way people "for" have their own section for scripture they think relevant and people "against" have their own section for scriptures they think are against. The quality of the article is improved. The casual reader can see both sides, or even discover that there are two sides from scripture. The problem of bias is removed. Or at least equally shared with two sections. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I'm leaning toward the removal of both of these sections. Believe me, there are plenty of places on the web where Catholics and non-Catholics can have all the debates they want about what pieces of Scripture they believe support or detract from the doctrine of papal infallibility. Wikipedia IS NOT one of them!!! Please see Wikipedia:No original research for details; in particular Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
So Catholics, find and cite a reliable, published Catholic theologian who uses those particular Scripture references to support the dogma of papal infallibility. And non-Catholics, find and cite a reliable, published, non-Catholic theologian who uses those particular Scripture references to argue against papal infallibility. Until these secondary sources are found, the two sections are nothing more than the babbling of self-appointed Internet pundits. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I get the idea of citing reliable sources for information, however, When using scripture as a proof. The idea is to simply look at the scripture itself and let the reader judge for themselves. Not go down an endless path of "Fred" said, "Susan" said,......the Bible said. For the completeness of the article it is relevant to let readers know there is not universal agreement and that both sides rely on scripture. Finding a reliable source quoting scripture is not as easy as one might think. For example there is a copy of a speech given by Bishop Strossmayer at Vatican 1 with many quotes of scripture. But the Catholic Encyclopaedia claims the copy of the speech is a fake. Timh2007 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Timh2007

Regarding: "The idea is to simply look at the scripture itself and let the reader judge for themselves." I understand that is your idea, and there are many websites available for you to proceed with your idea, but Wikipedia is not one of them. If you want to get into a Scripture debate with other random people on the web, then you need to take it somewhere else. Here, if Fred or Susan is a reliable, published theologian, then Wikipedia does care about what they said. We need to follow Wikipedia rules here at Wikipedia. And the Bishop Storssmayer speech is an obvious fake. Try looking in the theology section of a university library to find some non-faked sources. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am flattered that you give me credit for the idea of "letting scripture speak for itself" but actually this is a product of the Reformation ( Sola Scriptura ). About sources, the Bible is the primary source for Scripture. Both sections seem to have a reasonable sampling of scripture to me. Is your objection simply that there are 2 sections refering to Scripture? Are you saying that in an article about the teachings of a Christian Denomination everything is acceptable except the Scriptures the teachings are based on ? I have already deleted the Bishop Storssmayer section because it is disputed as a fake,(though its use of Scripture makes it relevant to a section about Scripture, regardless of who was the author.) In terms of "spending some time in the theology section of a university library", if you took your own advice, you would quickly discover that both sections quote scriptures which have been commonly used for several centuries as relevant to the topic of the article. I understand that both sections fall short of the ideal standard for referencing, however at the same time, they do provide imho usefull and fair information.

Timh2007 (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Timh2007

Thanks for removing the Strossmayer section. As for the current discussion, recall my quote of Wikipedia policy above: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You have acknowledged that the Bible is a primary source for Scripture. Thus, according to Wikipedia policy, all claims that a particular piece of Scripture has any relevance at all to the dogma of papal infalliblity must be referenced to a secondary source. All I am asking is that Wikipedia policy be followed in this article. Is that too much to ask?
Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) also places the burden of finding such secondary sources on the editor who is advocating for the inclusion of the article text, not on the editor who is objecting to the article text as being original research. So it is really up to you to quickly locate these secondary sources that show the Scripture quotes as being commonly used for several centuries as relating to papal infallibility. After you do so, I will be able to look up the works and their authors to find the Catholic theologians who rebut such claims as showing a complete misunderstanding of what the dogma of papal infallibility is really about. But I can't do that until you first provide your secondary sources. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not too much too ask that Wikipedia policy be followed in this article. Thanks for patiently restating the policy about referencing to a secondary source. I have been looking for sources for both sections relating to scripture. I will continue to do so. At the moment I am in the unhappy position of knowing that both sections are fair representations of the positions without being able to give quoted sources. I am guessing that people have contributed to both sections out of good will, without knowing the referencing requirement, or having references available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timh2007 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding my concerns. I hope that you and the other Wikipedia editors will be able to find some reliable secondary sources to help improve the article.
Just FYI, from my perspective, I find both sections completely off target as far as the article is concerned. The pro-Catholic section just rattles off Scripture that is supposed to prove papal infallibility, yet the first millennium Church didn't have even the slightest conception of the notion of the individual infallibility of the Pope, just the infallibility of the collective "Church at Rome". I believe there is even a quote that says the Pope can be wrong individually, but the Roman Church will never be wrong. The anti-Catholic section is likewise completely off target, in that no one disputes that St. Peter made tons of mistakes, yet that is all the section discusses. The Vatican I council was not a bunch of idiots who never read the Bible, and they carefully framed the conditions for papal infallibility around the known instances of papal errors of the past, including the errors of St. Peter. Thus, the anti-Catholic section is likewise illogical. Now, if some smart and credentialed theologian were making these arguments, I would think to myself that I as a reader must be missing something and I would dig deeper. But as the article stands currently, I just skip over those sections as the inevitable nonsense that comes along when you let just anyone edit your encyclopedia. Sorry for the rambling, but I wanted to convey why I personally think that finding secondary sources will greatly improve the article. For me, this is more than mindlessly following Wikipedia policy. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the quote I was thinking of, from "Power and the Papacy" by Robert McClory, page 22-23:
Typical is this quote in the Gratian compilation: "For although the Roman pope has sometimes erred, this does not mean that the Roman church has, which is understood to be not he alone but all the faithful, for the church is the aggregate of the faithful."
The distinction we make today between official, infallible pronouncements and official but noninfallible pronouncements was apparently unknown to the students of canon laws and decrees. Says Tierney: "They were content to distinguish between the pope who could err--and err in any of his pronouncements so far as they knew--and the universal church whose faith could never fail. Ideas akin to the modern doctrine of papal infallibility never occurred to them." -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Severe anachronisms

The intro says that the Papal infallibility was erected dogma 1870, yet the section Anglican churches solely, without any refence to a specific post-1870 anglican reaction, refers to a document from 1571. This is not OK. Either some post-1870 anglican citation using exact that section must be cited, or the intro must (supported by the rest of the text) stress that the Papal infallibility debate was a debate of old, or the section is invalid. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Same for the Orthodox churches section – the document refd to is from 1848. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Invalid Redirect

Reverted invalid redirect to Catholicism 213.219.152.240 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Here is a section to discuss the dispute signified by the NPOV tag that was added by User:RebelzGang. Please indicate the parameters of this dispute so we can work towards a resolution. Thanks, Cat Whisperer (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If no discussion is forthcoming regarding the rationale for the NPOV tag, I will remove it per this sentence from WP:NPOV dispute: "If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." Cat Whisperer (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Supersessionism

Part of the theology behind papal infallibility seems to incorporate a certain kind of supersessionism, by which the Pope, when he speaks ex cathdrea, is almost equated to the great patriarchs of the Old Testament, such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses. For instance, when Moses promulgated the 10 Commandments, most theologians would agree that he was speaking with an extraordinary and infallible moral authority, an infallible moral authority that in many ways can be compared with the theology behind papal infallibility. There is also a related view that the Pope is the occasional mouthpiece of Christ, someone who can literally be the spokesman of the Holy Spirit. ADM (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words tag in opposition to infallibility section

This is a recent tag, and i see no discussion here, and would like to know specifically what wording this animal refers to in this section. ThanksDaniel1212 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Origional research?

Certain Catholic authorities, such as John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, are cited as supporting this understanding, with Augustine stating, "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built."[13], an interpretation which the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) also allows.[14]

The part i am disputing is the last part, the catachism does not support this claim. the citation is given as Catachism 424, which reads exactly this

"424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

Notice how it clearly says "On the ROCK OF THIS FAITH CONFESSED BY ST.PETER(emphasis added), christ built his church. I dont know how much more clear that can be the rock is the faith of Simon Peter NOT christ himself. I'm going to change this if anyone objects please revert it and discuss. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Infallible vs. fallible teaching

The article says:
so, due to the sensus fidelium, an infallible teaching cannot be subsequently contradicted by the Catholic Church, even if that subsequent teaching is in itself fallible.
What is that supposed to say? Is any fallible teaching not only fallibly true (as we know), but in addition it is (with less fallibility) true that a teaching does at least not contradict previous infallible teaching? Not that I would not like to believe so, but I think such an enormous claim should get its proper source at least if there is one in the (fallible? infallible?) Magisterium or in the (semi-magisterial -:) ) works of St. Thomas Aquinas, or somewhere... --84.154.60.3 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Protestant positions

Should "Anglican" really be under the section Protestant Positions, as Anglicans identify themselves not as "Protestant" but as "Reformed Catholic"? Also, some Anglicans, such as the Anglican Use (now in the Latin Rite) certainly must accept this dogma. And what about the Continuing Anglican churches, who are seeking full communion with Rome, their views are different than that of the Anglican Communion. Willthacheerleader18 --(talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is shockingly biased. A great deal of the article is written in such a way as to defend the dogma of Infallibility as reasonable and "Scriptural" rather than a neutral and unbiased presentation of the facts. Wikipedia isn't about spreading religious dogma or proving one's faith, it is an encyclopedia. This article needs A LOT of work. Pastorrussell (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good article; bibliography

This article is very good and complete with whole problematic of this question. Where is however written References, I changed and put Bibliography, because it is there. --Stebunik (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Papal_infallibility/Archive_1&oldid=1039852032"