Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]

Catholic.com ^

[ichabod1]

I was being semifacetious, but the great schism was all I could think of that happened about a thousand years ago, and I think all the ferocious debate over the filioque is rather ludicrous. How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway?

[HarleyD]

With all due respect, I see nothing in this article that tells me what papal infallibility means or how the doctrine actually developed within the Church. For the reader's sake here is a very brief history of the development of the doctrine of papal infallibility:

The First Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" --Infallibility at the Catholic Encyclopedia [1913]

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." --Papal Infallibility - at Catholic Answers

To the mind of the general reader, mention of the Vatican Council will usually recall two facts: that it was the occasion of the definition of the doctrine popularly called Papal Infallibility, and that many of the bishops present were opposed to the definition. The more erudite will add that their opposition was not to the doctrine itself, but to the policy of choosing this present moment to proclaim it--the definition, they would say, was held not "opportune." ... The leading critics of the "definition policy" were French, German, and Hungarian --CHAPTER 20

Following the first Vatican Council, 1870, a dissent, mostly among German, Austrian and Swiss Catholics, arose over the definition of Papal Infallibility. The dissenters, holding the General Councils of the Church infallible, were unwilling to accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Many of these Catholics formed independent communities which became known as the Old Catholic Church.

At the First Vatican Council he was one of the most notable opponents of papal infallibility, and distinguished himself as a speaker. The pope praised Strossmayer's "remarkably good Latin." A speech in which he defended Protestantism made a great sensation. Afterwards another speech, delivered apparently on 2 June, 1870, was imputed to him. It is full of heresies and denies not only infallibility but also the primacy of the pope. The forger is said to have been a former Augustinian, a Mexican named Dr. José Agustín de Escudero. --Joseph Georg Strossmayer, the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913

Papal Infallibility

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you for this good post. I believe Cardinal Newman was also against the idea.

But it's important to understand that the idea pertains not to the person but to the office. We are not saying that Popes are not sinners or are not afflicted with the same injuries that afflict all sinners, faithful or not.

We are saying that while God lets us as individuals mess up incredibly awfully, he still provides us with reliable testimony to His truth. The doctrine, from the point of view of the Catholic, is about the love of God for his poor confused people, not about some guy in Rome.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway?”

Fascinating question. This is something of a hoax. Dorothy Sayers spent a great deal of time trying to find a single instance of this question ever actually being debated in the Middle Ages, but failed. Why is it such a commonly held belief that scholastics in the Middle Ages “wasted time” debating this question? Apparently it was made popular as a one sentence condemnation of medieval scholasticism by Rev. Chillingworth - a 16th-17th century Anglican with an axe to grind against the Catholic Church.

A medieval professor I had in graduate school, however, opened my eyes about this issue. He once said that it made perfect sense to ask the question because it is about space and corporality. Do incorporeal beings occupy space? Angels have no bodies. They are pure spirits even though they are given physical attributes in the scriptures. How can an angel sing, however, if it is a pure spirit since that would require physicality (a voice box)? The question about angels dancing on the head of a pin is actually an excellent question. Can more than one incorporeal being occupy a certain physical space at a time? How would you come to your answer without being able to see an example of such or performing any kind of experiment? A medieval scholastic could only use logic, scripture and philosophy.

Every once in a while I really appreciate what my old professors taught me.

[ThomasThomas]

“How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway?”

Any Baptist, well some Baptist know that angels loyal to God don’t dance./Sat

[ichabod1]

I can’t diasagree with you. I love theology, and I think we can learn a lot about God and his will for us by studying it. However, as a wise priest once told me, we can know everything about God through theology except for the really important things. So, I say we discuss whether there is a rock too heavy for God to lift, or whether angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we don’t go to war over it, we don’t have schism over the wording of a document. In the end the only answer is that it’s a mystery and we’ll find out sooner or later. It’s a mystic religion, and i like it.

[ichabod1]

I can’t diasagree with you. I love theology, and I think we can learn a lot about God and his will for us by studying it. However, as a wise priest once told me, we can know everything about God through theology except for the really important things. So, I say we discuss whether there is a rock too heavy for God to lift, or whether angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we don’t go to war over it, we don’t have schism over the wording of a document. In the end the only answer is that it’s a mystery and we’ll find out sooner or later. It’s a mystic religion, and i like it.