[Athos]

I can find only two instances of the Catholic Church specifically claiming infallibility. They are both related to the Blessed Mother - the Assumption (1954) and the Immaculate Conception (1854). Are there any others?

Please, if you don't believe in infallibility, no need to reply. Thank you.

[Choux]

Hisstorical 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;
* 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.

For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.

The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

From Answers dot com.

[Tj3]

I can find only two instances of the Catholic Church specifically claiming infallibility. They are both related to the Blessed Mother - the Assumption (1954) and the Immaculate Conception (1854). Are there any others?

Please, if you don't believe in infallibility, no need to reply. Thank you.

That is because the doctrine of papal infallibility itself is so recent (1870).

[RickJ]

Sidenote: here is a good article about Infallability:
Papal Infallibility

[De Maria]

I can find only two instances of the Catholic Church specifically claiming infallibility. They are both related to the Blessed Mother - the Assumption (1954) and the Immaculate Conception (1854). Are there any others?

Please, if you don't believe in infallibility, no need to reply. Thank you.

Lest we forget, the first infallible Papal statements are here:

1 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Peter

2 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, Second Epistle Of Saint Peter

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Lest we forget, the first infallible Papal statements are here:

1 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Peter

2 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, Second Epistle Of Saint Peter

Sincerely,

De Maria

Both links came up with blank pages

[Athos]

Thanks Choux.

DeMaria, I also got a blank on your link.

[De Maria]

Thanks Choux.

DeMaria, I also got a blank on your link.

I don't know how to fix them.

[Tj3]

I don't know how to fix them.

I thought that was in fact your answer - there is no validation in scripture for papal infallibility.

[Athos]

I thought that was in fact your answer - there is no validation in scripture for papal infallibility.

Actually, TJ3, there is strong validation in scripture for infallibility. See the Gospel where Jesus says "whatever you loose/bind on earth shall also be loosed/bound in heaven". Sorry, don't have the exact verse, but I'm sure you know it.

[Tj3]

Actually, TJ3, there is strong validation in scripture for infallibility. See the Gospel where Jesus says "whatever you loose/bind on earth shall also be loosed/bound in heaven". Sorry, don't have the exact verse, but I'm sure you know it.

That is not referring to papal infallibility. Indeed you may not be aware but Pope John XXII referred to the belief in papal infallibility in the Bull Quia quorundam as coming from the "father of lies". Here is a brief excerpt.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions—not without much punishable temerity, unless they retract and lean themselves [once more] upon the truth, which these contain—of which one begins: “Ad conditorem canonum,” the other indeed: “Quum inter non nullos,” arranged diligently by previously held deliberation certainly as much with Our brother Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, as with many Archbishops and Bishops, and other prelates of the [local] churches, and not a few masters of sacred theology, and professors of both [kinds] of law [i.e. civil and canon], and promulgated on the counsel of Our aforementioned brothers: lest by daring [and] pernicious deeds their pestiferous doctrine shake the souls of the simple so much, and prevail to lead them into the deviation of their own errors, on the counsel of certain brother [cardinals] We judge soberly to make provision concerning this matter, as follows [below]. Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to impugn the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They say that “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” although concerning those things, which have been ordained by [means of] the key of power, they assert it to be otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was the Pope wrong on this important matter?

If indeed it is Biblical, why were the Popes unaware of this?

[Athos]

Are you sure that pope was speaking infallibly? Are his words more important than the words of Jesus?

[Tj3]

Are you sure that pope was speaking infallibly? Are his words more important than the words of Jesus?

Good questions.

But then again if the Pope is wrong on a matter of how you define doctrinal truth, then how could he be right on a matter of doctrine itself?

And, I agree that Jesus' words are more important than the Pope's words, but in saying so, are you not likewise acknowledging that the Pope's words must be submitted to and tested by the word of scripture?

The key thing that this shows is that the doctrine of papal infallible was rejected by the popes prior to the 14th century, and only made doctrinal for that one denomination in the 19th century.

It is interesting to note that Pope John XXII said that anyone opposing his Bull would be both a rebel of the church and an enemy of God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides after [having taken] the counsel of the same brother [cardinals] We forbid more broadly that [anyone] impugn with insane daring Our above said constitution, Ad conditorem canonum, which they are [doing], as has been shown, so that no one may, in word or writing, approve or defend anything knowingly against the things defined, ordained or accomplished by the same. If anyone truly would presume [to do such] against [it], let him be treated by all as contumacious, and a rebel of the Roman Church.

Therefore [it is in nowise licit] to any man [to infringe this page of Our declarations, statements, composition, command, constitutions, judgments, and dispositions, nor it is licit to such a one to oppose this by rash daring: if any one however would presume to attempt this, let him know that he has incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.]

Given at Avignon, on the fourth day before the Ides of November, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Athos]

Good questions.

But then again if the Pope is wrong on a matter of how you define doctrinal truth, then how could he be right on a matter of doctrine itself?

And, I agree that Jesus' words are more important than the Pope's words, but in saying so, are you not likewise acknowledging that the Pope's words must be submitted to and tested by the word of scripture?

The key thing that this shows is that the doctrine of papal infallible was rejected by the popes prior to the 14th century, and only made doctrinal for that one denomination in the 19th century.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was or wasn't. Yes, any Pope's words claiming infallibility must be tested by the word of Scripture. The Catholic Church, in my opinion (yours may be different), has met that test when the discussion is kept within the confines of the Bible. I understand that Protestant sects do not hold to this doctrine but, I remind you, my original question was not whether the doctrine is true, but what specific examples have there been? That's why I hoped to avoid getting bogged down in inter-Christian squabbles on the topic.

[Tj3]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was or wasn't. Yes, any Pope's words claiming infallibility must be tested by the word of Scripture.

Then it is scripture that would be infallible.

The Catholic Church, in my opinion (yours may be different), has met that test when the discussion is kept within the confines of the Bible. I understand that Protestant sects do not hold to this doctrine but, I remind you, my original question was not whether the doctrine is true, but what specific examples have there been?

Let's be clear. I am not protestant.

That's why I hoped to avoid getting bogged down in inter-Christian squabbles on the topic.

That is fine. I was merely responding to De Maria's comments.

[Athos]

Then take it up with DeMaria.

[Athos]

Sidenote: here is a good article about Infallability:
Papal Infallibility

Interesting article, Rick, but it didn't answer my question.

[Tj3]

Then take it up with DeMaria.

I did.

[JoeT777]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was or wasn't. Yes, any Pope's words claiming infallibility must be tested by the word of Scripture. The Catholic Church, in my opinion (yours may be different), has met that test when the discussion is kept within the confines of the Bible. I understand that Protestant sects do not hold to this doctrine but, I remind you, my original question was not whether the doctrine is true, but what specific examples have there been? That's why I hoped to avoid getting bogged down in inter-Christian squabbles on the topic.

Ex Cathedra means: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv)

There are many other encyclicals that are implicitly ex Cathedra. It’s my understanding that Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus are the only two encyclicals that are explicit in their claim of teaching ex Cathedra:

1) Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
2) Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

Both contain language similar to the following: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine…”

It’s my understanding that the Pope also speaks ex Cathedra in his acceptance of each of the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils. The Council is called by the Pope and requires a cooperative effort between its members and the Pope. The Pope is to rule as the Vicar of Christ over the council and the council is to support and strengthen that rule. So, in a sense all ecumenical councils are examples of doctrine by “ex Cathedra”.

I wouldn’t put much credence in what some have written here, read it for yourself:

Ex Cathedra (link)
Infallibility (link)

JoeT

[Tj3]

Again, as I said, the fact that there are very few specifically identified is because it is only a recent doctrine (1870 it was declared).