Questions About Papal Infallibility

[One Bad Pig]

The winning side got to write the Athanasian Creed, the Arians didn't get their formulation accepted. The winning side rejected the gnostic writings in the early centuries. The winning side condemned the heresies of Arianism, Monothelites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Pelagians.

Would you prefer that the losing side gets to define Christianity?

The Arians were on the winning side of several councils which gave the alternative creeds which were more acceptable to them. The so-called Athanasian Creed wasn't written by Athanasius, and is AFAIR Western (and non-conciliar) in origin. This is pretty much beside the point, however, since the 'anti-popes' weren't generally labeled as heretical, merely unworthy of the chair and/or schismatic. Further, the emphasis of what bugs me is not "winning side" but "post facto nature." All those other 'winning sides' of which you speak held their positions prior to winning.

[Rushing Jaws]

Not interested in a debate - just looking for information.

Play nice!


Okay, my understanding is that the formal doctrine of papal infallibility is a relative late comer and that it concerns matters of doctrine only (the pope's doctrine is infallible but his church history can be way off). I have the following questions about it:
1) Is it retroactive?
2) If so, what about times when there were more than one claimant to the papacy?
3) If not, why not? Why are only modern popes infallible?
4) Where does it come from officially (what document or documents)?

Thank you!

authoritativeauthentic teaching of the Church, is that which she recognises as her own teaching, whether infallible or not25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)


And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)




http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html


The same authentic doctrine of V2 is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

Sorry about the length of this. All of that is meant only as information - not as apologetic for this dogma. It is very difficult to give clear info on this very controversial subject, without touching on a variety of other subjects.

[Teallaura]

authoritativeauthentic teaching of the Church, is that which she recognises as her own teaching, whether infallible or not25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)


And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)




http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html


The same authentic doctrine of V2 is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

Sorry about the length of this. All of that is meant only as information - not as apologetic for this dogma. It is very difficult to give clear info on this very controversial subject, without touching on a variety of other subjects.

Thanks, RJ - I appreciate the effort!

[Rushing Jaws]

....I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't mean "whitewash" as in "dishonest, ignorant, or hiding anything." It's more "we've decided after the fact that this guy wasn't worthy of being pope, so we'll call him an anti-pope."

[Rushing Jaws]

I don't mean "whitewash" as in "dishonest, ignorant, or hiding anything." It's more "we've decided after the fact that this guy wasn't worthy of being pope, so we'll call him an anti-pope."