# How far does this "papal infallibility" stuff go? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2025, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956 "2025-05-06T13:55:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/21 "2025-05-07T01:17:18Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > The notion of papal infallibility is something that non-Catholics get their panties twisted about, but Catholics know that it is just one of the many arcane legalistic-with-a-theological-topdressing ideas that have accreted to the body Catholic over the centuries and of no particular interest or consequence. It’s very rarely used, and when it is, it’s to give a seal of approval to something that has already been received dogma for a thousand years. I think the last pronouncement was that Mary was born without sin, or something like that. This, more or less. Theologically speaking, the charism of infallibility isn’t a gift to the _pope_; it’s a gift to the _church_. The pope doesn’t pronounce infallibly on what the pope believes, but on what the church believes; the pope’s role is discerning and proclaiming the church’s authentic and authoritative belief. The papacy is, if you like, the institution (or one of the institutions) through which the church’s infallibility is exercised. Which means that, if a pope were to come out with something completely off-the-wall, as outlined in the OP, he wouldn’t be speaking infallibly. He couldn’t be, because that’s patently not what the church believes. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/22 "2025-05-07T01:30:13Z")
So there might be some sort of crisis about how to manage the situation, but nobody would actually take the position that “If the Pope said it, we have no choice but to obey, because _ex cathedra_”? That’s the sort of thing I was trying to get at with the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/23 "2025-05-07T01:42:09Z")
I found this: > Papal infallibility, formally defined at the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), is the Catholic doctrine that the Pope is preserved from error when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. This protection applies only under specific conditions: the Pope must be speaking as the supreme teacher of the Church, explicitly defining doctrine for the whole Church to hold, and addressing matters of faith or morals. Despite common misconceptions, this doesn’t mean the Pope is sinless or that everything he says is infallible. > > In practice, this authority has been formally exercised only twice in modern history—for the dogmas of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (1854) and her Assumption (1950). As Popes Benedict XVI and John XXIII themselves acknowledged, papal infallibility is extremely rare and limited in scope. The doctrine remains controversial both inside and outside the Church, with recent debates centering on whether teachings like “Humanae Vitae” (on contraception) are covered by infallibility. For faithful Catholics, it provides a spiritual anchor in complex moral debates, while for critics and non-Catholics, it presents historical and theological challenges that continue to impact ecumenical relations. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/24 "2025-05-07T02:38:38Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > So there might be some sort of crisis about how to manage the situation, but nobody would actually take the position that “If the Pope said it, we have no choice but to obey, because _ex cathedra_”? Yeah. There’s always scope for quibbling about whether this or that pronouncement does or does not fall into the category of “infallible”. And, after that, there’s always scope for quibbling about what this or that pronouncement “really means”. For example, at one point John Paul II issued a pronouncement about the question of women’s ordination. After you’ve finished arguing about whether or not it’s infallible, you can point out that the core of the document is a statement that the church lacks the authority to ordain women — therefore, it’s a teaching about the nature, authority, etc of the church; not about the nature, capacity, etc of women. Which leaves open all kinds of possibilities, if you want it to. I think the general view within the thinking part of the church has long been that infallibility is a bit of a niusance. Very often far more attention is paid to whether a teaching can be classed as infallible or not than to the substance and detail of the teaching. A catholic, the argument goes, should be taken church teachings very seriously whether or not they are technically infallible, so a great deal of heat is generated over a question that is in fact of secondary importance. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2025, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/25 "2025-05-07T02:44:10Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > There’s always scope for quibbling about whether this or that pronouncement does or does not fall into the category of “infallible”. The Pope is the headmaster…head teacher on all things Catholic. He is not infallible if he says 2+2=5. He can be infallible if he says Mary was immaculately conceived. Papal Infallibility is restricted to Catholic dogma I think and even there it seems rarely used. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/26 "2025-05-08T09:50:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > He can be infallible if he says Mary was immaculately conceived. Just to be clear: can the next Pope be infallible if he says she _wasn’t?_ ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/27 "2025-05-08T16:05:49Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > So there might be some sort of crisis about how to manage the situation, but nobody would actually take the position that “If the Pope said it, we have no choice but to obey, because _ex cathedra_”? The Pope is only infallible under certain conditions - one of which is that he must be defining doctrine. That means there is nothing really to obey , except perhaps if you stretch “obey” to mean “hold a belief”. Doctrine isn’t “Don’t ordain women” which is something that a bishop could obey or not. It’s more “We have no authority to ordain women” - which really isn’t something that can be obeyed. How can you obey/disobey the dogma that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her time on earth? ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/28 "2025-05-08T16:28:31Z")
That’s a very useful distinction, thanks. But it sounds like there is at least an obligation to not openly disagree with this doctrine, even though your actions reveal that you don’t agree with it? For example, I know that there are some Bishops who have called on the Church to ordain women. If the Pope were to declare _ex cathedra_ that the Church can’t ordain women, would they be obligated to not argue further? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2025, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/29 "2025-05-08T17:22:28Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > If the Pope were to declare _ex cathedra_ that the Church can’t ordain women, would they be obligated to not argue further? I don’t know that they would be obligated not to argue further - but I would absolutely expect that sort of disagreement to result in schism. Not because they aren’t permitted to argue, but because I would expect that those bishops who would be inclined to argue would just leave the RCC and ordain women anyway , which [has](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Seven) happened. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2025, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/30 "2025-05-09T18:57:05Z")
Uncle Cecil already answered this: [What’s the deal with papal infallibility?](https://www.straightdope.com/21344363/what-s-the-deal-with-papal-infallibility) > There are two criteria, essentially, for an infallible pronouncement: that it be made _ex cathedra_ — literally, “from the chair,” i.e., in the pope’s capacity as the church’s supreme leader — and that it concern “faith and morals.” ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2025, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/31 "2025-05-09T19:03:14Z")
The logical conundrum, “If the Pope announced he wasn’t infallible, could he be wrong about that?” is one bar-room philosophers have liked to argue about, but as mentioned, infallibility is so circumscribed that it’s more a debating point than than a real possibility. ---
**Author:** ![f.coli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/eada6e/32.png) [@f.coli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/f.coli)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2025, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/32 "2025-05-10T20:35:04Z")
I am pretty certain that the Pope has spoke “ex cathedra” only two times in history. Pius IX in 1854 declared that Mary was born without original sin, i.e. the Immaculate Conception. (I suppose Jesus was considered so obvious that it didn’t need to be said.) The other was from Pius XII in 1950 to the effect that Mary was bodily taken up to heaven after her death, i.e. the Assumption. These are obviously matters of faith, and papal infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals, according to the nun who taught me in eighth grade. ---
**Author:** ![scudsucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scudsucker/32/14101_2.png) [@scudsucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scudsucker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/33 "2025-05-11T21:57:03Z")
> [@f.coli](#): > > Mary was born without original sin, i.e. the Immaculate Conception. I am nominally catholic, and have always thought it was Jesus who was born without sin. Perhaps I should repeat year one of Sunday School with the old nuns… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/34 "2025-05-11T22:02:53Z")
Mary was, too, through a different miracle, so that Jesus could be born with sinless parents, basically. At least, that’s my simplification of the Catholic position. Most protestants see no reason that Mary needed to be immaculate herself, but Catholics use the “Hail Mary, full of grace” line from the angel to say she was. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/35 "2025-05-11T22:05:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Mary was, too, through a different miracle, so that Jesus could be born with sinless parents, basically. Wait — if it’s possible to just do a different miracle so that Mary gets born without sin, why not just do a different miracle so that _everyone_ gets born without sin? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/36 "2025-05-11T22:08:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > Mary was, too, through a different miracle, so that Jesus could be born with sinless parents, basically. ⁢ > > Wait — if it’s possible to just do a different miracle so that Mary gets born without sin, why not just do a different miracle so that _everyone_ gets born without sin? ⁢ unfortunately, I don’t know the logic behind it, theologically. My own non-catholic interpretation is that Mary was so important, having replaced a lot of the old virgin cult goddesses, that people wanted her to have a special status above other women. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/37 "2025-05-11T22:12:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Pope is the headmaster…head teacher on all things Catholic. He is not infallible if he says 2+2=5. He can be infallible if he says Mary was immaculately conceived. What if a Pope declared ex cathedra that Satan and the Holy Spirit were one in the same. Who would or could say that’s not correct? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/38 "2025-05-11T22:20:33Z")
Whether you or I believe it or not, the theology is that the Holy Spirit will prevent it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/39 "2025-05-11T22:21:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What if a Pope declared ex cathedra that Satan and the Holy Spirit were one in the same. Who would or could say that’s not correct? I honestly do not know how the Catholic Church would handle that. It is a literal contradiction and absolutely not possible according to Christian dogma. The Holy Spirit is God. So, this would be saying God is also Satan. This would almost certainly need a brain addled Pope (dementia of some sort). Not sure how the Catholic Church as an organization would put a stop to that but I am pretty sure they’d find a way to put a stop to that. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2025, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956/40 "2025-05-11T22:25:04Z")
> [@scudsucker](#): > > > [@f.coli](#): > > > > Mary was born without original sin, i.e. the Immaculate Conception. > > I am nominally catholic, and have always thought it was Jesus who was born without sin. > > Perhaps I should repeat year one of Sunday School with the old nuns… What about Mary’s parents? And her grandparents? It’s immaculateness all the way down… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-far-does-this-papal-infallibility-stuff-go/1017956.md?page=3)