# Papal Infallibility **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394 "2005-04-21T12:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/1 "2005-04-21T12:12:16Z")
Back in the 50’s and 60’s, I can recall numerous discussions on the concept of papal infallibility. It was my understanding that it was the major item of disagreement between protestants and catholics. In recent years, I can’t recall ever hearing that term at all. In fact, I hear of many catholics challenging the pope on birth control, abortion and homosexuality. In fact, I’ve read of more orthodox catholics like Mel Gibson challenging Vatican II. Is the concept of papal infallibility dead or dying in the Roman Catholic church? ---
**Author:** ![JohnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/848f3c/32.png) [@JohnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnM)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/2 "2005-04-21T12:28:05Z")
No, it is not dead, but it is far more circumscribed than the popular understanding of the phrase. This [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility) entry is a good survey. In summary, the pope speaks infallibly only when he speaks _ex cathedra_ on a matter of faith and morals. To quote the article: > [@](#): > > Invocations of the Pope’s Solemn (or “Extraordinary”) Magisterium are rare. Since 1870 only one statement exercising the Solemn Magisterium has been made, Pope Pius XII’s explicitly defining in 1950 the doctrine concerning the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Some commentators regard the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility itself in 1870, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854, to be other recent examples of infallible pronouncements. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/3 "2005-04-21T13:37:54Z")
I thought the following explanation, originally written by David Currie, and reported by some competent Catholic apologists of my acquaintance, was really worthwhile for understanding the differences in Catholic teaching: > [@](#): > > **Deposit**. Left by the Apostles. Includes both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Infallible, cannot be altered, changed, added to, or subtracted from. > > **Dogma**. Promulgated by ecumenical councils or declared by reigning Pontiff. Also infallible, also cannot be changed—but also cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, or previous infallible statement or another dogma. > > **Doctrine**. Explanation of some aspect of the Faith. Not infallible, can be changed, evolved, condemned, abandoned. > > **Discipline**. Rule established by the Church to help the believer walk the straight and narrow path; includes both celibacy and not eating meat on Fridays during Lent and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. > > **Devotion**. Lowest level of Catholic belief; usually more or less up to the individual believer to practice or not. Includes 99% of all Marian practices, including the Rosary, First Fridays, and belief in apparitons of Mary such as Lourdes or Fatima. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/4 "2005-04-21T13:40:40Z")
Am I correct in thinking that Popes have been very careful to stick to matters of faith and morals, and never say anything _ex cathedra_ that is falsifiable? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/5 "2005-04-21T13:41:15Z")
> [@JohnM](#): > > In summary, the pope speaks infallibly only when he speaks _ex cathedra_ on a matter of faith and morals. True, but when he says he wants Chinese tonight instead of Italian again I bet none of the Cardinals argue with him. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/6 "2005-04-21T13:50:58Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Am I correct in thinking that Popes have been very careful to stick to matters of faith and morals, and never say anything _ex cathedra_ that is falsifiable? Well, for all the furore about Papal Infallibility, there has been a grand total of **one** (1) dogma pronounced infallibly by a Pope _ex cathedra_ since Vatican I defined the doctrine: the Assumption of Mary, in 1950. And that is eminently falsifiable, at least theoretically: find the Virgin Mary’s skeleton or corpse, and prove that it was indeed her. Ecumenical councils have been defining dogma since Nicaea, presumably infallibly. The thing is, a great deal of what they taught is solid Protestant teaching as well: the Dogma of the Trinity, the Two Natures in Christ, etc. You will often hear of Popes having defined doctrine using the Extraordinary Magisterium, which as far as I can tell ( **Tom~, Bricker** , clarification needed here!), means that while not infallible, it is at a level where every Catholic is obliged to give it full religious assent: Something like, “I may not understand or accept this as a matter of my personal faith, but I accept it as what the Church teaches on the subject, and will attempt to conform my beliefs to its teachings.” ---
**Author:** ![JohnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/848f3c/32.png) [@JohnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnM)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/7 "2005-04-21T13:56:03Z")
**manhattan** , that made me think of something; do the Vatican chefs know how to make wiener schnitzel and spaetzle? **Revtim** , IMO, it’s not so much that they want to avoid saying anything falsifiable, as they are very careful to stay “inside the lines” of what has already been taught. Think of it as if the U.S. judiciary had 1,800 years of established precedent (instead of just over 200), and SCOTUS believed that said precedent had divine authority. With that kind of weight of history, you want to be very careful with what you say. Plus, Catholics believe that anything defined _de fide_ (of the faith; i.e., central and necessary beliefs) is preserved by God from error. That would correspond to the first two Ds in **Polycarp’s** excellent list above. And on preview, **Polycarp** , you’re correct that the faithful are required to give assent to the doctrinal teaching of the Church as well as the dogma, though I believe that is the ordinary magisterium, not the extraordinary, which IIRC is only exercised by the pope _ex cathedra_ or by a Council with papal assent. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/8 "2005-04-21T18:14:37Z")
**Polycarp** , **JohnM** , thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/9 "2005-04-21T20:16:20Z")
What is usually called Papal Infallibility actually means the common voice of the bishops as spoken through the pope. The pope alone cannot speak _ex cathedra_. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/10 "2005-04-21T20:24:06Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > What is usually called Papal Infallibility actually means the common voice of the bishops as spoken through the pope. The pope alone cannot speak _ex cathedra_. Well, while we Anglicans, the Old Catholics, and the Orthodox would definitely agree with your position, **smiling bandit** , the fact of the matter is that Vatican Council I declared that he **could** , and that’s been the standard for the (Roman) Catholic Church for 134 years now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/11 "2005-04-21T21:04:56Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > What is usually called Papal Infallibility actually means the common voice of the bishops as spoken through the pope. The pope alone cannot speak _ex cathedra_. _sigh_ Yes, the Pope alone CAN speak _ex cathedra_. There are only about a zillion cites for this truth, so I’ll offer [this one](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html). When the Pope and the bishops teach one matters of faith or morals with unanimity, supply a definitive judgement, and demand assent from the faithful in that teaching, that is also infallible - but it’s not “_ex cathedra_”. It’s an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium refers to the unanimous teaching of the Pope and the bishops on a matter, but without a solemn, definitive judgement. The Ordinary Magisterium is simply to day-to-day teaching office of the Pope and bishops, as a whole. It is not necessarily infallible. The Code of Canon Law, Can. 752, provides: > [@](#): > > While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. **Polycarp** , I hope that answers your questions. It’s easy to confuse the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. Good thing there’s no pop quiz this week! ---
**Author:** ![Kearse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f04885/32.png) [@Kearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearse)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/12 "2005-04-21T21:07:24Z")
> [@JohnM](#): > > …circumscribed… Wasn’t this a religious activity? Actually I’m just being funny but the first time I read it, it did read like circumsize! ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/13 "2005-04-22T01:26:38Z")
Others are doing a much better job than I could explaining this. I’d just like to point out to the OP that “American Catholocism” is usually much more liberal than the more traditional strain practiced by the majority of the world’s Catholics. If anyone could answer this, I’d appreciate it. Is it true Lutherans don’t believe in the Virgin Mary, or something like that? If so, that seems a pretty big difference in P’s and C’s. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/14 "2005-04-22T03:21:00Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Others are doing a much better job than I could explaining this. I’d just like to point out to the OP that “American Catholocism” is usually much more liberal than the more traditional strain practiced by the majority of the world’s Catholics. Good point. Although there are plenty of conservative American Catholics. > [@](#): > > If anyone could answer this, I’d appreciate it. Is it true Lutherans don’t believe in the Virgin Mary, or something like that? If so, that seems a pretty big difference in P’s and C’s. It depends on what you mean by “believe in the Virgin Mary.” Certainly Lutherans, along with the rest of Protestants, believe she existed; as denominations, and probably the majority of the membership, they believe in the Virgin Birth. Very few of any branch of Protestantism, but a fair number of Anglicans, believe in prayers seeking her intercession. As regards Catholic Marian dogmata, none of them are popularly accepted by more than a very few Protestants. That would include the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, as well as the popular devotional titles of Queen of Heaven and Co-Mediatrix (which doesn’t mean what it sounds like, by the way, a particularly sore point). Probably all creedal Protestants would agree to the doctrine of the Theotokos, once it and the reason for it are explained to them. I know it’s affirmed by reference in Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist doctrinal statements, but odds are that you could pool a thousand members of those denominations before getting an accurate statement of it. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/papal-infallibility/300394/15 "2005-04-22T03:37:08Z")
> [@](#): > > the fact of the matter is that Vatican Council I declared that he could, and that’s been the standard for the (Roman) Catholic Church for 134 years now. Huh. Must’ve gotten 'em all mixed up. Oh well. All that theology makes my brain hurt.