The pope's infallibility

[devnull]

Greetings all

During a debate about the pope's infallibility and what a crock it is, I was challenged to come up with a single instance of a pope declaring something infallibly (that is, the pope is speaking ex-cathedra, about a matter of faith or religion) and then later being found wrong or being overturned.

I duly pulled out the pope's statements about Galileo (suddenly,it wasnt a matter of faith but science, despite evidence to the contrary) and Pope Sixtus' bible (apparently because they recalled it, it doesnt count.... the delusion is amazing).

Does anyone have any good instances of papal infallibility being overturned by later popes, or something that the pope declared ex-cathedra which was later shown to be wrong? It seems everytime they mess up they redefine infallibility, or claim some sort of deathbed recanting....

 

[Fiona]

So far as I know there are only two ex-cathedra pronouncements: one on the immaculate conception and one on the assumption

 

[devnull]

Nah, there's quite a few. Sometimes they suddenly ignore an instance, or suddenly claim it wasn't infallible because Mercury was in retrograde on an off-pay-week, but there have been many.

Sixtus V was an interesting case. He spoke ex-cathedra, urging everyone to only read the bible he edited, because it was correct and infallible. Even the RCC admit that the instance met all 3 conditions of infallibility.

Unfortunately, the bible was full of errors. He sent it out to a lot of bishops, along with a "bull" urging everyone to read it. To an unbiased observer, it is an open and shut case.

The RCC work around this instance by claiming that a) they recalled all copies of the bible after his death (irrelevant anyway), and/or b) he didnt actually promulgate it (altho he sent it out with a "bull", so this is easily dispatched), and/or c) on his deathbed he recanted (irrelevant in any case).

Apparently at the time the printers were even blamed by the following pope, but later in his autobiography he withdrew this and admitted the original text was full of errors introduced by Sixtus V.

If you happen to run this past a catholic, let me know the response. Apparently only a third of catholics accept papal infallibility anyway, but the guy I was debating just offered blanket denial ("I am happy that this has been effectively dealt with by the church"). Amusing.

 

[Fiona]

Sorry Devnull but where are you getting this information? It is not my understanding at all.

 

[devnull]

which information specifically? Much of this information is repeated on many RCC sites, including the 3 conditions and many examples. Its important to note that everything the pope says is not considered "infallible" - the 3 conditions must be met.

Even canonisations are considered infallible.

Ratzinger once produced an incomplete list of infallible declarations, and I doubt there was only 1 thing on the list

Oh,Ive just realised the confusion: the 2 instances you mention were declared *after* papal infallibility was declared in 1870 - but I believe it was retroactive... at least, the RCC treats previous statements meeting the conditions as "infallible".

 

[Bonnacon]

A quick wiki check (insert usual wiki precautions here) shows:

'Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
* Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary."

The article doesn't specifically state the list is all inclusive.

Other than an animus toward Jansenists, the ex cathedra documents seem to be concerned with the finer points of Catholic dogma.

 

[Fiona]

which information specifically? Much of this information is repeated on many RCC sites, including the 3 conditions and many examples. Its important to note that everything the pope says is not considered "infallible" - the 3 conditions must be met.

Even canonisations are considered infallible.

Ratzinger once produced an incomplete list of infallible declarations, and I doubt there was only 1 thing on the list

Oh,Ive just realised the confusion: the 2 instances you mention were declared *after* papal infallibility was declared in 1870 - but I believe it was retroactive... at least, the RCC treats previous statements meeting the conditions as "infallible".

It was retroactive but there are few, if any, pronouncements which are agreed to have been made ex-cathedra prior to the 1870 doctrinal statement. I think this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the catholic position. Since it is their game they get to make the rules and that is what they have done. I honestly think this is a straw man

 

[devnull]

I also remember a case where it is argued that a pope declared something infallibly, which was declared heretical by a later pope. I forget the details, if I dig it up Ill post it.

 

[devnull]

I honestly think this is a straw man

Perhaps, but one could argue that if they make and change the rules at will, what value does it have? Unless the rules are clearly defined and adhered to, how can they possibly claim infallibility?

Me: I can flip heads on a coin at will
You: show me
<I flip a coin and it shows tails>
You: you failed! its tails!
Me: Thats what I meant - I can flip tails at will.... see? Im 100% accurate......

 

[PingOfPong]

It's not important in the big picture. You can argue all you want but the truth is that infallibility has only been invoked a handful of times and each time it was about theological matters.

The pope says plenty of harmful things without invoking infallibility (like saying condoms will make the AIDS problem worse in Africa). Protestant leaders say plenty of damaging things too. That's what should be focused on IMHO.

You can make fun of infallibility, the trinity, or the resurrection all you want but I don't think you'll ever impress the faithful.

 

[Fiona]

Perhaps, but one could argue that if they make and change the rules at will, what value does it have? Unless the rules are clearly defined and adhered to, how can they possibly claim infallibility?

Me: I can flip heads on a coin at will
You: show me
<I flip a coin and it shows tails>
You: you failed! its tails!
Me: Thats what I meant - I can flip tails at will.... see? Im 100% accurate......

They did make the rules and so far as I am aware they stick to them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perhaps, but one could argue that if they make and change the rules at will, what value does it have? Unless the rules are clearly defined and adhered to, how can they possibly claim infallibility?

And I'd say this approach is a better and more legitimate criticism than saying you think there were ex cathedra pronouncements that have been overturned or found wrong.

 

[godless dave]

It's not important in the big picture. You can argue all you want but the truth is that infallibility has only been invoked a handful of times and each time it was about theological matters.

The pope says plenty of harmful things without invoking infallibility (like saying condoms will make the AIDS problem worse in Africa). Protestant leaders say plenty of damaging things too. That's what should be focused on IMHO.

While true, it is also true that the idea of any human being ever being infallible is both ludicrous and dangerous.