“You expect me to believe that?”
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
From a comment on a blog discussing Anglicanorum coetibus:
“Papal Infallibility for me is the dogma that prevents me from joining the Roman Catholic Church.”
In my work with potential converts to the Catholic faith, I can’t remember how many times someone has told me, “I just can’t accept ______” (fill in the blank). It might be the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, or some other Catholic doctrine. My response is always, “Tell me what you think the Church teaches about that.” When they tell me, it’s not surprising they’re having trouble accepting it. I wouldn’t be able to, either.
Taking just the matter of papal infallibility, it’s remarkable how many people confuse it with impeccability, thinking we’re claiming that the Pope can’t sin. Or they imagine that it applies to every single thing he says, and every random thought that crosses his mind. Frequently, people have a too-narrow idea of it, not understanding that it belongs to the whole Church, and flows from an adherence to the Magisterium.
Some people think it gives a kind of super-power to the Pope, when in reality it limits him simply to teaching the truth.
So if someone says they can’t accept infallibility, or the Marian dogmas, or any other aspect of the Faith, let’s make sure what they “can’t accept” is what the Church really teaches.
about 1 month ago
If you have any questions, go to the source! Many times untruths or misunderstandings about the Catholic church comes from talking with those who agree with you about those misunderstandings. When asked how can I accept the Holy Father’s AC and the infallibility that goes with it my response is, “Easy. For years I was led to believe in the infallibility of General Convention. Look where that’s gotten me!”
about 1 month ago
To go to the source would be to read the actual documents of Vatican One; and the emphasis is slightly different from that given here. In the actual source the Pope’s infallibility is personal and works independently from any other source of authority, either bishops, councils, or tradition.
about 1 month ago
891 lands the papal infallibility smack dab in the college of bishops with the pontiff as primus inter pares. Why any thinking Anglican (indeed anyone else who professes some sort of confidence in apostolic succession) would have any trouble with this definition is beyond me. Unless, as Fr. Phillips wisely states, they have only their own idea – one probably FAR from what the Church teaches.
Another excellent posting. Thank you, Father.
about 1 month ago
Can you imagine!? Knowing what you’re talking about.
about 1 month ago
Fr. Phillips-
As you know, the Catechism can tend to present our Catholic faith in a “cookie cutter” fashion with pat answers to many questions. Confusion is inevitable. Too bad there is not a good cross-reference between the Catechism and Vatican II. Unfortunately, following the footnotes is a bit difficult.
Within the Catechism the following paragraphs may also be helpful, as they clearly outline the role of the laity, guided by the Holy Spirit, in the sensus fidei; a role which is incomplete, except for the participation of the bishops (which includes the Pope) AND the laity.
As the laity cannot err in matters of faith, I have heard it argued that there is an implicit “infallibility” in the entire body of the lay faithful. The evidence for this argument is actually in the Papal declaration of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Pope declared these doctrines as infallible only because they were already believed by the faithful everywhere and forever (I cannot remember which Church Father said, and I’m even going to butcher my paraphrase, “What has been believed by the people everywhere and forever, this is the Catholic faith”). In other words, the Pope merely elevated the overwhelmingly popular belief of the People of God regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary.
And, while Lumen Gentium (Vatican II) did not specifically address the sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful), the documents clearly indicate a role for all of the baptized in the sensus fidei (understanding of the faith), again with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (The numbers refer to the paragraphs in the document).
Again, LG speaks to this sensus fidei:
I hope this is helpful.
Blessings,
Clark
about 1 month ago
As an Anglican sick and tired of hearing this phrase abused the by historically-challenged, I’ll offer the answer: St. Vincent of Lerins. This phrase from the saint’s Commonitorium is referred to as the “Vincentian Canon” and has become the slogan for private judgement amongst certain “classical Anglicans.”
From Chapter 2 of the Commonitorium:
There’s nothing wrong in this, of course, but the Vincentian Canon coupled with a selective reading of Church history provides the justification for the rejection of all manner of Catholic doctrines by protestant Anglicans.
about 1 month ago
Christian-
While it is true that many Christians want to be their own Pope, it is only through their own error and complete abuse of the Vincentian Canon. Lumen Gentium makes it perfectly clear clear that the laity, following in the teaching of their bishops, cannot err. Conversely, the bishops, together in union with the Pope, cannot err. The laity alone can err. This, of course, would be because of their own lack of holiness and NOT following in the teachings of the Church.
A fairly easy concept, but there are as many variations as there are angels on the head of a pin.
Blessings,
Clark
about 1 month ago
Given the kind of power given to the Bishop of Rome with respect to infallibility, [it is remarkable that] this power has never been abused.
about 1 month ago
Oops, I almost forgot, for a comprehensive Anglican commentary that foreshadowed Vatican II, see John Henry Newman’s book On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, ed. by John Coulson (1859, reprinted by Sheed & Ward, 1961).
Blessings,
Clark
about 1 month ago
Papal infallibility is essentially a conservative, dare I say a negative guarantee – that the Pope, when solemnly defining such-and-such, will not err in teaching the true faith (lest the Church be led astray).
As a commenter put it above, the pretended infallibility of Anglican synods, especially in matters of declaring moral what every Christian everywhere at all times thought immoral, seems a far more extensive power!
about 1 month ago
One problem with Papal infallibility is not what Vatican I actually taught as Catholic dogma. You will find the formula on the Internet. Had I been around in 1870, I would certainly have gone along with the inopportunist line of Newman, Bishop Kettler of Mainz, Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans and others.
The real problem that lead and still leads people astray is the ultramontanist ideology 19th century political reactionaries tried to use as a tool to bring back the Throne and Altar Alliance. The old order had been overthrown by the French Revolution and similar movements in Italy, Germany and other countries. What little that survived this hecatomb was destroyed in the two wars of the 20th century. We have to get used to the fact that the Church must be independent of its establishment by the State, and can exist by virtue of faith and religion, and not politics or privilege received from secular authorities.
The SSPX essentially campaigns for the re-establishment of the Church in Europe with restored monarchies! And whilst the old monarchies cannot be restored, in their minds, authoritarian totalitarian juntas are an acceptable substitute.
The conciliar definition of 1870 was a compromise between the Ultramontanists and the remaining Gallicans and other “national Catholics”. The definition teaches what the Pope is and can do within the framework of his Episcopal Ministry to teach, govern and sanctify the Church.
about 1 month ago
Perhaps a lesson for us?
When we look for actual applications of Papal infallibility in the Church we find only maybe one: the proclamation that the priesthood is exclusively male. While at face the Vatican One declaration on Papal infallibility looks menacing and despotic, in practice it is definitely not. Is there a parallel lesson to learn videlicet Anglicanorum coetibus?
Note that the Apostolic Constitution’s “Anglican Catholic” detractors insist its words must be strictly interpreted, similarly the Roman Catholic detractors insist Apostolicae curae’s words be strictly interpreted. Both groups of detractors likewise strictly interpret Papal infallibility either absolutely rejecting it or absolutely promulgating it. Both groups of detractors (myopia being their shared condition, only seeing what immediately benefits them) are in for a great surprise. Great men, Joseph Ratzinger is a great man, aren’t the type to set upon the wilderness without map and compass, to wander as a poor babes in the woods crying and dying; but they deliver the burden, like as Moses told Pharoh, “There shall not an hoof be left behind!” This is our Pope.
Infallibility is as mysterious as the Holy Trinity or as the dual nature of Christ; we know that the Church is the entity *through* which saving grace flows, but we don’t know how this happens. Infallibility (otherwise known as “truth”) is: we only know what it is when we obey it.
To summarizes:
Too many chiefs, not enough indians. “Ours is but to do and die,” we are chargers of the Light Brigade.