papal infalliblity

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/infallible-informal-how-binding-is-the-new-encyclical-on-catholics-24963/

Encylicals remain very important teaching documents. No pope since 1870 has designated an encyclical as an exercise of papal infallibility, which requires three conditions: 1) the subject is a matter of faith or morals, 2) the pope must be teaching as supreme pastor, and 3) the pope must indicate that the teaching is infallible

-- 

quote from comment 42 found here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/02/on-the-usefulness-of-tradition-a-response-to-recent-objections/

Thus popes are not personally infallible; rather, the Holy Spirit always finds a way to ensure that they do not bind the Church to doctrinal error. When they do use their authority to bind the Church to a doctrine, either unilaterally or, more often, by ratifying the decrees of a general council, the doctrines so propounded are truths.

There have been other, relevantly similar examples of how the Holy Spirit works in this regard. In the mid-4th century, Pope Liberius was coerced by a cruel, imperially enforced exile into excommunicating St. Athanasius and signing a semi-Arian confession of faith. He revoked those actions when, the Arian emperor having died, he returned triumphantly to Rome. Those actions could not have fairly been seen as binding on the whole Church, and everybody knew it. In later cases, such as the “Three Chapters” controversy in the 6th century involving Pope Vigilius, and the “monothelite” heresy freely endorsed by Pope Honorius in the 7th century, it was also clear that the popes in question were not binding the Church to their errors. In the 14th century, Pope John XXII wanted to define his heretical view about the “beatific vision” as dogma, but was prevented from doing so by the clever machinations of the canonists.

The Fathers of Vatican I framed their definition of papal infallibility with just such cases in mind. Protestant and Orthodox apologists have noted that, and accordingly accused the Catholic Church of writing that dogma retrospectively, as a transparent rationalization of a position that cannot be presented as the historic belief of the whole Church. What they fail to take account of, however, is that heretics have often said the same about many other doctrines rightly held by some Protestants and all Orthodox as well as by Catholics. This is why the “development of doctrine” is so important for a proper understanding of Tradition.

As Vatican II says:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (Dei Verbum §8; footnote omitted, emphasis added)

That passage makes Orthodox and conservative-Protestant hair stand on end, but it applies just as well to many doctrines of that “mere Christianity” which confessional Protestants, Anglicans, and Orthodox hold in common with Catholics, as to distinctively Catholic doctrines. So granted, as a matter of historical fact, that doctrine does develop in the way indicated, the question is only how we are to distinguish between legitimate developments of doctrine and corruptions. The dogma of papal infallibility is part of the Catholic answer to that question, and I haven’t seen a truly workable proposal from those who oppose that answer.

from comment 15 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/02/the-papacy-and-the-catholic-act-of-faith/

“the act of Catholic faith includes faith in Christ regarding each successive pope, specifically faith that Christ will protect each pope in his exercise of the papal office from promulgating any false doctrine.”

Interestingly, the late Fr William Most, in an article on the “de auxiliis” issue (thomism vs molinism), points out two cases which show that, if necessary, this protection will even be at the expense of the Pope’s physical life. Quoting from:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/2THOMIST.TXT

When debates became acute in Spain, and people were becoming disturbed, Clement VIII in 1597 ordered both sides to send a delegation to Rome to have a debate before a commission of Cardinals.

In March 1602 Clement VIII began to preside in person. In 1605 he very much wanted to bring the debate to a conclusion. So he worked long into the night, and finally came up with a 15 point summary of Augustine’s doctrine on grace, intending to judge Molina’s proposals by it. That would have meant condemnation of Molina and probable approval of the so-called Thomists. But according to an article in 30 Days, No. 5 of 1994, on p. 46, “But, it seems barely had the bull of condemnation been drafted when, on March 3, 1605 Clement VIII died.” Another Pope had died at the right time centuries earlier. The General Council of Constantinople in 681 had drafted a condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy – which was untrue – Pope Agatho had intended to sign it. But he died before being able. The next Pope, Leo II, having better judgment, agreed only to sign a statement that Honorius had let our doctrine become unclear, in his letters to Sergius, which did not teach the Monothelite heresy, but left things fuzzy.

see also  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/the-chair-of-st-peter/


More than two times: http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2013/08/papal-infallibility-more-than-twice.html

from comment 9 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/reformation-day-2013-the-most-love-filled-sect-i-have-ever-seen/

People criticize some of those old sin filled Popes:

If I say that adultery is a sin, and then go out a week later and commit adultery, that only means that I am a sinner. It doesn’t mean that my teaching was false. If someone rebukes me, he’s rebuking my sin, not my teaching. (In fact, if my teaching was false, he could hardly rebuke me at all.) When the Scripture says that all men are sinners, that includes church leaders, and that’s true whether those leaders are Protestant or Catholic. It is important to differentiate between the truth of the teaching and the sin of the actions. I have been Catholic for three years now, and I’ve met no one who goes around with a “romanticized” notion of a church of Perfect People and Perfect Priests and Perfect Popes. We are Catholic because we believe that what the Church teaches is true, not because we believe that everyone somehow lives it perfectly. That doesn’t happen in your church; it doesn’t happen in ours.

end of quote


  from Frank Sheed’s book, The Church and I.
“In the eyes of the onlooker, the Church is to be judged not by the sinners, not even by the average, but by the saints. That may seem like loading the dice, but it is not…A medicine, I said, is to be judged by those who take it, not by those who throw it down the sink: the Church is to be judged by those who know its teachings, obey its laws, receive its sacraments. The saints have done all these things with all their heart: those of us who have done them partially or not at all are less useful as evidence of their value.”