From Wikipedia [your mileage may vary - link below in first post]:
Papal Infallibility
"The doctrine of Papal Infallibility was not new and had been used by Pope Pius in defining as dogma, in 1854, the Immaculate Conception of Mary the Mother of Jesus. [5] However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time. [5]
...
Pastor aeturnus
There was stronger opposition to the draft constitution on the nature of the church, which at first did not include the question of papal infallibility, [2] but the majority part in the Council, whose position on this matter was much stronger, [5] brought it forward. It was decided to postpone discussion of everything in the draft except infallibility. [5] On 13 July, 1870, the section on infallibility was voted on: 451 voted simply in favor (placet), 88 against (non placet), and 62 in favor but on condition of some amendment (placet iuxta modum). [5] This made evident what the final outcome would be, and some 60 members of the opposition left Rome so as not to be associated with approval of the document. The final vote, with a choice only between placet and non placet, was taken on 18 July 1870, with 4333 votes in favour and only 2 against defining as a dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra. [2]
...
2. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, First Vatican Council
...
5. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Pius IX
What’s the point?
Obviously no human, save the Word Made Flesh, is infallible.
And what’s the second one about? The infinite regress idea is funny, but how does it fit in with the fallible infallibility theme?
I hardly think popes are infallible. They are human just like the rest of us mere mortals and therefore subject to sin and error. Look at the current pope’s most recent on economics as proof that popes are not always right.
The idea that Mary herself was conceived of an immaculate conception is simply absurd and something made up out of whole cloth. There is no documenation for this.
Even more bizarre is the claim that Mary was ALWAYS a virgin. She was married to Joseph and she and Joseph had other children including James which is mentioned in the Bible.
Churches have the right to develop their own institutions,traditions, rules, and rituals. But NO church as the right to rewrite history or to rewrite the Bible.
I have great respect for the Roman Catholic Church; but the notion that (very) fallible humans could decide that another human (however saintly his character, however elevated his position) was infallible when speaking on all subjects or any subject strikes me as bizarre.
And the notion that any person who is wholly human - as opposed to human and divine - was conceived immaculately is truly bizarre.
For question a, see Acts 15. Infallibility is not said to inhere in persons. It is attached, rather to certain sorts of acts in certain situations. Or that’s a way of looking at it.
If you want to tussle, I’m no longer interested. But the Catechism is online, and a great many notions are usefully (if nio persuasively — which is not the goal of the Catechism) explained. So if getting a notion of what we teach is your goal, I’d start there.
Two what? Immaculate conceptions?
You need to study a little harder before trying to come up with "gotchas."
If God can do anything, can he make a rock that’s even too heavy for him to lift?
They didn’t even ‘possess’ the Holy Spirit.
They were utterly lost pagans creating their pontifus maximus.
.
EXPLAINING THE IDEA OF INFALLIBILITY [Catholic Caucus]
Infallibility
Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term
Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
Radio Replies Second Volume - Infallibility
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Infallibility: The Magisterium
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Truth Handling: Infallibility
Radio Replies First Volume - Infallibility
Infallible Infallibility
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Pope: may all recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
“You are Peter and on this Rock, I will build my Church.”
It’s all about the Biblical Rock of Christ, and as explained by others, infallibility is quite a limited concept. FWIW, the deeper things of God are always easy to skew, misrepresent or misinterpret.
I asked the same question in another thread to various posters and never received a response.
Scripture is infallible.
And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
__________________________________
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
_______________________________
Logically, unity of faith can only be preserved if the head of the Church is the final authority on a question of faith.
FWIW,
The idea of papal infallibility was not broached for the first time by the Vatican Council. See, for example, this... written in 418 AD.
109 Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such (Treat authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.
From Denzinger, “Sources of Catholic Dogma”, http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma2.php
Again...fwiw
BFLR
The RC will say yes, as infallibility promised to the office, and not contingent upon the holiness of the person, and is assured whenever the world wide bishops in an ecumenical assembly speak together in union with the pope on faith and morals, or the pope himself, even autocratically regardless of what the bishops think or do .
In support they will invoke Caiaphas, who being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, by advising that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. (Jn. 11:49-52)
The problem with that is that there was no assurance when he would prophecy, which Pharaoh (Ex. 10:28) and the people of the Jews also did (Mat_27:25). There was no assurance even when he would speak truth, but this text simply supports that he would at some time.
Moreover, while his counsel was a prophetic truth, that one man should die for the people, he was actually leading his people into wrath by the intent in which it was given.
Furthermore, in Scripture we see both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation) , and Truth preserved, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and too often in spite of the magisterium. Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, being the stewards of Scripture, not upon the premise of assured magisterial infallibility.
Thus both Caiaphas and Scripture at large it fails to support the premise that the office of the pope alone or the magisterium of ecumenical counsels with him will perpetually be infallible when ever they universally speak on faith and morals.
In addition is the Scriptural and historical testimony against Peter and early successors being looked upon as exalted supreme infallible heads over all the church.
The question then is, what is the basis for RC assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church? History, Scripture and Tradition can only authoritatively mean what Rome says they do.
And the reality for a RC is that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was?
The question being, if Mary could be preserved sinless though having impure progenitors, so could Christ have been. And God brought forth His pure written word thru imperfect men.
Moreover, the fact is that the Holy Spirit characteristically records notable exceptions to the norm, from extreme ages, to height, to talking donkeys, to extra toes, to long-term virginity, etc. to sinlessness, thus Christ is at least thrice recorded as being so.
Based upon the silence hermeneutic Catholics invoke in support (it does not say she sinned) of the IC and other aspects of the hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism beyond what is written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) then Paul never manifestly sinned after his conversion, while it could be taught that Mary will be one of the two witnesses in Revelation.
C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility
That posses no problem in erroneous RC theology, as see the first question. Neither scenario fits the RC criteria, but neither does Paul's description of James, Cephas and John (in that order) "who seemed to be pillars", and his subsequent rebuke of Peter, support RC papal adulation and feet kissing,which Paul says nothing akin to.
Of course, then you have the 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy (parody)
D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"
Indeed.
Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed
, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side.
The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989, p.196; http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)
The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
I don’t know if this has been said yet but what the council did then was to recognize and formally define the infallibility the Pope always had through the centuries.
So it’s not like that council needed to be infallible in of itself to somehow “confer” infallibility either retroactively or proactively to all Popes past and future.
Hope that helped.
So infallibility came about by a vote...If they voted against it, would a pope be infallible anyway???
No.
It's only when a majority vote in a certain way that infallibility occurs.
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Mary; can you make a millisecond of your precious time available to hear MY plea?)