How many times in history has the pope spoken ex officio, or in flagrante delecto, or whatever the hell you call it when he is presuming upon his capacity for infallibility? I have a friend who claims he’s only really done it twice in the last two thousand years. Can that be right? Isn’t every heresy ever denounced done so from the point of view that the pope knows, through infallibility, better?
IIRC, the term is ex cathedra. Don’t know the exact number (only remember two), but it is very rare.
Infallibility FAQ’s
-
Two thousand years is the wrong time frame - Popes have declared they had the ability to speak infallibly since the 1870’s or so.
-
Popes may only speak infallibly on matters of faith and doctrine, which, under canon law, is a rather limited topic. For example, a pope may not speak infallibly on birth control (and, I believe, abortion).
-
The two infallible statements I can remember now were (a) declaring the ability to speak infallibly (neat trick, that one, eh?), and (b) that Mary was Immaculately conceived (i.e. she had no original sin).
That’s all I remember.
Sua
This had been answered recently, but to summarize from my vague memory:
-
The notion of papal infallibility is relatively new, I think as recent as the 1800’s
-
Not everything the pope says is infallible- only certain pronouncements. I forget the term for it.
-
It isn’t done very often.
I’m still waiting for a pope to invoke infallibility and say, “This statement is false!” 
Arjuna34
Wow, a simulpost with almost simulateneous answers!
Arjuna34
there have been three infallible statements so far. the first, as mentioned, was that the pope is infallible. The other two were the doctrine of the immaculate conception and the assumption of mary body and soul.
funny thing about infallibility, though, is that the pope is only infallible as head of the church, and when speaking for the unanimous church. so if he issued an ex cathedra re: birth control, either pro or anti, it’s standing as an infallible teaching would be very suspect.
From what I understand, Infallibility is overrated. The Pope is only infallible when delivering his opinion on a matter of interpretation of doctrine for Catholics. If there is a disagreement among theologians about a point of faith, the official and correct answer for Roman Catholics is the answer supported by the Pope.
Pretty darn trivial, if you ask me.
The Doc is right. Protestants have all of these wild notions about papal infallability, but all it really means is: “The pope is the boss in matters of faith and morals. When he settles a question about The Faith, that question is settled.”
I guess my friend was right. Thanks!
This is a quote from : http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Papal-Infallibility/papal-infallibility.html
The big thing about infallibility is that it cannot be taken back by future Popes.
One of Cecil’s columns discusses papal infallibility, http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html
The previous thread mentioned above is at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=25053
Jb (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION), infallability was invented because the One True Church has been wrong so often about so many things that people were starting not to pay much attention to the Pope anymore. So it was decided that the Pope could invoke the word of God directly to get their attention back. But since the Pope is elected, all of the cardinals who voted for him would have to be gifted in this way to have voted the way they did, and all of the others would have to be wrong. But that’s not what happens. The fact that someone who was elected to office by his peers can claim infallability for ANY reason boggles my mind. Nixon tried it, but he didn’t have any white vestments.
I mean no offense. But someone in the near future is going to have to eat Pope John Paul II’s words because, if the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are infallable, it would appear that women have an infallable right to be ordained.
I don’t think many women make good pro football players or boxers, but a woman would make a great Pope or President. Anyone who can raise kids has got to be a saint already.
lee, Ratzinger is out on the far right of the right wing of the RCC. When he issued his declaration that JP II’s statement on the ordination of women was infallible, JP II refused to support him on the subject.
JP II has not declared his position to be infallible.
The issue of papal infallibility arose as a specific issue because Pius IX declared, in 1854, that Mary was conceived without Original Sin (Immaculate Conception). A number of RCC theologians objected to that pronouncement, citing (as many Protestants do, today) any number of arguments relating to the inheritance of that sin by all the “children of Adam” and any number of other issues.
When the first Vatican Council was called in 1864 (it lasted 1865 - 1869), the issue had festered for ten years and the topic became one of the great debates of the council. In the end, papal infallibility was declared (by a vote that was not unanimous).
It still comes up as a sore point among various theologians. Some, such as Hans Küng, make it a battle issue and get their ears pinned back (Küng was forbidden to teach in Catholic Universities as a theologian–after taunting the church authorities for 20+ years).
The preparations for the first Vatican Council lasted from 1864 - 1869. The actual Council was held from late 1869 through most of 1870.
tc (may i call you tc?) you were kind of right about why papal infallibility arose, but there’s a much more basic reason. it comes down to two things, politics and the corrupting effect of power. throughout the years, the power of the pope had solidified and become concentrated. as a result, each pope had a hunger for more power…
the development is not that much different from the chinese divine right of kings, or any other kind of monarchical excesses.
tomndebb, yes, that was the most significant of events in the development of papal infallibility, but that’s not when the whole brouhaha started. notions of infallibility had been tossed about for quite some time before then. the reason the pope wanted infallibility was not to make the masses pay attention or cower before him in his absolute power, but because the pope was afraid of competition from the bishops and cardinals.
when the doctrine was finally spelled out in Vatican One, it was because the whole affair was a crooked one. i won’t go too much into the delicious specifics, but suffice to say the pope and his supporters stacked the rules in favor of themselves and were generally very courrupt.
finally, to really put too fine a point on it, the teaching does not specify that the pope is right; rather, it ensures that he is not wrong. this seemed like quite a bit of theological bullshit and dancing around the topic when i first learned of it, but keep in mind that it was a position of those allied against the cause of papal infallibility. it keeps a window open for the church to evolve in the future, and not be pinned down in specific areas of the past because of an extremely conservative pope.
No doubt. Can you imagine what a drag someone who’s always right would be at parties?
Yes- just ask the people who go to parties with Murray Gell-Mann.
-Ben
Maybe that’s why Cecil and I don’t get invited to parties anymore…
Of course you may call me TC. Not only is it my name (well, Tom actually), but it’s much more mellifluous than ‘asshole’. I think my answer parallels yours. If no one was listening to the Pope anymore, ne wanted more power. But I don’t care to debate the semantics since I am satisfied with either answer. The Pope is God’s direct representative on earth so he lusts after power. Yep, makes perfect sense.
And by the way, Murray Gell-Mann is not infallable. He completely missed the ramifications of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s paper on background radiation.
oh, you faithless infidel. you are so blinded by your worldly ways that you miss the truth and can never know it. Just because M_rray “missed the ramifications” of a few measley theoroticians does not mean that he made a mistake! M_rray (who all should know personally as the son of Gell, son of man) works in mysterious ways.
sometimes, TC, i want to reach into the computer and slap you around for you obvious arrogance in all things sacred. but then i realize that my own pride and anger have clouded my mind, and prevented me from following the eightfold path. i pray biweekly for your soul.
FriendOfMurray
HA! Bugger Murray Gell-Mann and the eight-fold way. May a Hadron lodge in your evacuation port. The simple fact is that he was cruising around in sunny Southern California in a drop-top Cadillac and completely mis-judged the amplitude of the background radiation or it would have been discovered 10 years earlier. As I recall, he was not a Big-Bang supporter, either.