Comments for Understanding Papal Infallibility at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 21 May 2013 20:55:17 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-13171 I once read that when Cardinal Spellman was asked about Papal infallibility he replied, "I'm not sure but he keeps calling me Spillman." Whether true or not it's an amusing story. - Alvin Steingold Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:37:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11204 A very important footnote: When Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, he did so without the need for an Ecumenical Council (In fact, by that time, most bishops might have opposed it). The reaction, from both the ecclesial as well as the secular worlds, was so overpowering (so many Catholics were benfitting from the two-income families which contraception allowed), that Paul VI never wrote another encyclical, dying ten years later (1978). This had to have an effect on his successor. Why did Paul write and issue it? The Holy Ghost guides the Church-we merely serve it. - Manfred Thu, 03 May 2012 11:23:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11203 Was it not St. Ambrose,who said "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, ibi Deus" (Where Peter is, there is the Church, there is God)? Was this not what the Anglican heresy was about- A king with Catholic (at that time) Bishops as his Council? Is this not why Thomas More and Bp. John Fisher chose martyrdom rather than accept a secular "pope"? Remember that it was the Anglican "church" which broke with 5,600 years of Mosaic Judaism/Roman Catholicism in 1930 and allowed married couples to contracept. The Reformation "churches" today have become irrelevant. - Manfred Thu, 03 May 2012 11:02:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11197 Professor Kainz, This is an excellent essay and a very useful perspective on Papel Infallibility with the long view. Such intellects as Lord Acton fell for the same error as GBS in missing the forrest for the tree, thank you very much. - Achilles Thu, 03 May 2012 06:59:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11196 Papal infallibility is a complex subject, and Professor Kainz's column leaves out important distinctions between Papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I ("ex cathedra"), the infallibility of councils, and infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium (the ban on supporting or discussing women's ordination falls into the last category). Glossing over these distinctions has led to the oft-repeated criticism of "creeping" infallibility: the impression that all pronouncements by the Pope or a Vatican congregation are of equal importance and are all infallible. Fr. Ladislas Orsy, SJ, in various writings, unpacks these theologically dense issues in a manner readable for lay people. I do agree with Professor Kainz about recognizing the historical and cultural context of Vatican I, and also about the unique value of the Petrine ministry in the context of today's world. For inspiration, I observe how two recent popes exercised their authority with both charity and humility: - Blessed John XXIII, who said "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly, but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible." - Blessed John Paul II, who invited non-Catholic Christians to enter into a dialogue about how the Petrine ministry could better serve the cause of Church unity. - DS Thu, 03 May 2012 06:30:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11193 The definition of the doctrine of papal infallibility, as opposed to belief in the infallibility of general councils, or the indefectibility of the church, as a whole, was, I believe an answer to a renewed and growing interest, throughout the 19th century, in church history. By what standard do we judge the Nestorian churches wrong and the rest of Christendom right? Or the Churches that follow Chalcedon, as against the Monophysites? The West, as against the East, at the time of the Great Schism? Is it simply a question of counting heads? And how do we meet the challenge of the Reformers? There is a danger of falling into tautology - “The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.” Against this, as Mgr Ronald Knox pointed out, Vatican I gave a clear answer: The faithful, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome. This alone furnishes us with a test for defining the faithful without the question-begging preliminary of ascertaining who the faithful are, from an examination of their tenets. I accept this test for three reasons: firstly, it really is a test, secondly, it is the only one on the market and thirdly, it is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances. - Michael Paterson-Seymour Thu, 03 May 2012 04:08:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11192 As a new Catholic and a Protestant of man years, the subject of papal infallibility was at best a perplexing issue and at worst, a point of visceral contempt. I can assure you that Protestants sneer at this one and behind the doors of Protestant Christian education from teenagers to adults, the issue of papal infallibility is a hot button issue that Protestant clergy love to debunk to their audience. The problem is two fold. First the Protestants have absolutely NO idea what papal infallibility is and the Catholics don't know how to explain it...until now. Father Robert Barron provides IMHO the best explanation of the Holy Father's infallibility in the last part of Episode 6 on the Church. From Peter's declaration of Matthew 16:13-19, Fr. Barron states that, "The Pope is infallible because he knows who Jesus is." In thinking about this, Fr. Barron provides an insight to Peter and his 265 successors. Of the 12 Apostles, Peter knew the Jesus the best with respect to his divinity and understood the full implications of the person of Jesus. Thus, in this category, Peter was first among the equals of his peers. Thus, I would posit the argument that when a Pope is elected in Conclave, it is primarily the conclusion (we would at least hope) that among his peers in the College of Cardinals, the elect demonstrates a knowledge, understanding, and divine charisms of who Jesus is better than his colleagues and therefore will lead the Church given this special knowledge and insight. Given this, I can accept and support without equivocation, the infallibility of the Holy Father and I think when explained to Protestants in such a context, the burden to refute will not be upon the Catholic in the conversation. - Frank Thu, 03 May 2012 03:44:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/understanding-papal-infallibility.html#comment-11190 In my opinion, the greatest act of Papal Infallibility in our time was Paul VI's issuance of Humanae Vitae in 1968. Even dissident Hans Kung admitted this document had the mantle of infallibility. As we know, many (most?) in the Church had adopted the practive of contraception with the tacit understanding that the Church had "changed" Its teaching on this subject. Now, some forty years later, Cdl Timothy Dolan is admitting that the teaching against contraception is among the "neglected catechetics" the Church has not taught for decades. - Manfred Thu, 03 May 2012 02:17:13 +0100