[The first portion of this document was written by the moderator. Readers may want to know that the moderator is not a Catholic, and does not accept papal infallibility.] First, it's important to understand what infallibility is *not*. It does not claim that the Pope is infallible in whatever he does. Nor does it claim that the Pope himself is somehow above sin or error. The Catholic Church acknowledges that there have been a number of wicked popes, as well as popes who have held erroneous opinions. The claim is that the Holy Spirit will preserve the pope from making erroneous statements in a fairly specific circumstance. The best-known is when he is making pronouncements on faith and morals "ex cathedra". Ex cathedra ("from the throne") means a specific kind of formal pronouncement. Very few of these have been made. In an ex cathedra pronouncement, the pope defines a doctrine infallibly. Note that ex cathedra papal definitions are not the only way in which something can be known infallibly. They are not even the only way in which the pope can teach infallibly. In an ex cathedra definition, the pope defines a doctrine himself. The pope can also make statements that recognize doctrines as having been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world. The doctrine of infallibility is really a consequence of the general Catholic view that the Church is protected by God from error. This idea was present quite early (though I don't have a list of citations with me). It is based on the famous promise of Christ to Peter, Mat 16:18ff. Note that it is not critical whether Christ really meant to identify Peter with the rock or not (though even evangelical scholars now seem to be admitting that the text probably means that -- the NIV seems to adopt that view). It is the church as a whole that is protected. The pope is acting for the church, not as a private person. The most recent doctrines make it clear that the pope does not need to take a vote -- he can make infallible statements entirely on his own. Yet he does so representing the Church as a whole, and in fact has always consulted widely throughout the Church before making any pronouncements. (Historically this consultation has involved only the Roman Catholic Church. However there is some reason to think that the Pope has abstained from defining Mary as coremptrix primarily because of the scandal that this would cause among non-Catholics.) There seems to be some disagreement among Catholic as to what exactly is infallible. The narrowest interpretation is that it includes only the following. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec 1854, Defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov 1950, Defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin The following posting, from a conservative Catholic, uses a somewhat wider definition, and includes additional statements (though still not a very long list for 2000 years of teaching): ----------quotation----------- From: paulk@convection.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky) Subject: Infallible statements of the Extraordinary Magisterium Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 10:53:00 EST > Briefly, the Pope is infallible only when solemnly declaring a Dogma. > It's happened THREE times only in the last 150 years! Although notice is taken of the "briefly", this is still not quite accurate. Any act of the extraordinary magisterium, teaching with regard to faith or morals, is infallible. That doesn't just mean solemn definitions of dogmas. There is also another important point which sometimes seems to be missed. The teachings which a Catholic is bound to accept are not limited to just to those that carry the charism of infallibility. The doctrine that Our Lady is Mediatrix of all grace has not yet been defined infallibly, but it does not follow that Catholics are free to reject the doctrine without committing sin. Here is a list of all of the ex cathedra pronouncements *outside* of councils, from "That Catholic Church," Radio Replies Press, 1954 (this was published in Australia, too, I think): Leo I, Lectis Dilectionis Tuae, 13 June 449, On the divinity of Christ. Agatho, Omnium Bonorum Spes, ~680, On the divine and human wills in Christ. Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302, On papal supremacy in the Church. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, 29 Jan 1336, On the heavenly destiny of saints. Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 15 June 1520, Condemning the errors of Martin Luther. Innocent X, Cum Occasione, 31 May 1653, Condemning the errors of the Jansenists. Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor, 19 Nov 1687, Condemning the erros of the Quietists. Clement XI, Unigenitus, 8 Sept 1713, Condemning the false teachings of Paschasius Quesnel. Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug 1794, Condemning the false teachings of the Synod of Pistoia. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 Dec 1854, Defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. also, Quantae Cura, 8 Dec 1864, Condemning the erros of secularism and communism. Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sept 1896, Condemning Anglican orders as null and void. also, Testem Benevolentiae, 22 Jan 1899, Condemning merely Naturalistic interpretations of Christian Activities. [A few theologians say these two are not technically ex cathedra.] Pius X, Lamentabili, 3 July 1907, also, Pascendi, 7 Sept, 1907, Condeming the errors of the Modernists. Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 31 Dec 1930, Calling contraceptive birth control a grave violation of the Law of God. Quadragesimo Anno, 15 May 1931, Condeming materialistic socialism. [These two are "very probably" ex cathedra, according to my source.] Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 Nov 1950, Defining the dogma of the Assumption. John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994 Defining the restriction of ordination to men as belonging to the deposit of faith [this entry added by the moderator] pjk -----end of quotation----- However in my opinion the longer lists tend to confuse ex cathedra definitions with other types of infallible teaching. This has recently been clarified by the Commentary by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the pope's statement Ad Tuendam Fidem, http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=1592. This outlines the various ways in which something can be known infallibly. This includes - an ex cathedra proclamation by the Pope - a definition of a ecumenical council - a doctrine that has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. It then discusses cases where the Pope confirms something as infallibly known, but without issuing a new definition himself: Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.[17] The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church. This isn't what people typically think of as papal infallibility. In particular, it's not the kind of ex cathedra definition described by Vatican I. Rather, it is the Pope stating that a doctrine is *already* known infallibly, by virtue of having been taught universally by the entire Church. Other categories of things that can be known infallibly without an ex cathedra definition are items that are connected to revelation by logical or historical necessity. Some of the statements in the list above seem to fall into this category. In particular the Commentary does not classify Apostolicae Curae as ex cathedra, but does say that it is to be held definitively (i.e. infallibly, I believe). It seems to classify Ordinatio Sacerdotalis similarly. Note that the postings include below (and the longer list of possibly infallible statements above) were written before the Commentary. I would suggest that the Commentary is a significant contribution to this whole discussion. It justifies the desires of what one contributor below calls "maximilists" to cover as much as possible under infallibility, but retains the fairly narrow definition of ex cathedra papal definitions. The author of the Commentary might well accept the longer lists as infallible, but it appears that he does not consider many of them as ex cathedra. -------------------------------- From: "Mike Martin" Subject: RE: Ex Cathedra Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [I had intended to consider this subject closed. However this posting is the first from a Catholic source that actually addresses the issue of why there doesn't seem to be an agreement on which pronouncements are infallible. As such, it seemed worth posting. My filter for this area still remains fairly tight. --clh] In regards to the question concerning <> pronouncements and what Papal pronouncements have been declared <>, and our moderator's confusion (plus a lot of others, no doubt) over what is or is not <>, let me take a crack at explaining the intricacies and some of the problems surrounding it. I realize this posting is rather long, but a great deal of theology, definitions, and history need to be covered to understand the issues involved. Hopefully this will shed some light on the matter. A couple of definitions: ********Dogma (Latin word for belief) - A dogma is one of the basic tenets of the faith that MUST be adhered to by the faithful or they are in a serious state of heresy. Dogma contains the highest level of teaching authority in the Church and is by nature irreformable and unalterable. Dogma is usually only defined at great crisis points in Church history and most commonly in the great councils of the Church. For example, the councils of Constantinople and Nicea refined the dogma pertaining to Christ's dual nature, human and divine. This was in response to the threat of the Arian heresy which denied Christ's divinity. Only those items that the Church has clearly taught and central to the faith through the centuries can be defined as Dogma. By this definition there can actually be no 'new' dogmas in the sense of something that has not been taught before. Each definition of a 'new' dogma is but the formal expression of a teaching already contained in the faith. Sometimes the words 'infallible teaching' will be used instead of the word 'dogma'. A Dogma is an infallible teaching. ********Doctrine (doctrina - Latin for a teaching) -A doctrine is a teaching of the Church. Not all doctrines are created equal as such. All dogmas, are by nature, doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. There is a hierarchy of doctrines, that is there are those more central to the faith versus those that are not. The faithful are bound to these doctrines just as they are to dogma, but the situation is a bit more complicated. The formulation and re-formulation of doctrines, unlike dogmas, can be an ongoing process. For example, medical science has given us new challenges in the areas of medical ethics and morality, particularly in the area of life support of the terminally ill or permanently incapacitated. As doctrines such as these are formulated, they are open to honest and frank discussion by bishops until such time as the issues are resolved and an official pronouncement is made concerning the Church's position on the matter. Then, at least in theory, the matter is settled and the faithful are bound to it. A little theology behind the Church's teaching authority; All teachings of the Church are supported by three things, Scripture, Tradition, and the Holy Spirit. None of the three, by the very nature of the promise given to St. Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, may disagree, but rather each supports the other. Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined the canon of the New Testament. The New Testament, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, proclaims the traditions of the early Church. The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, formed the traditions of the early Church. All three are inexorably intertwined with one another. To do violence to one is to do violence to the others. This teaching authority is exercised in three ways; through the Pope, through an ecumenical council, and through the Bishops in unity with the Pope. Not everything said by the aforementioned three is immediately a teaching of the Church as such. Some statements may simply be pastoral in nature. However, whenever authentic DOCTRINES or DOGMAS are proclaimed, they are EXPLICITLY stated as such and "Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Vat II, Lumen Gentium #25). Now having the above under our belts, let's move on to <> pronouncements. The Church is infallible in matters of teaching faith and morals (dogmas) because Christ promised that He would be with the apostles and their successors in their work of teaching until the end of time. Thus, if we believe in Christ's promise, it would be unthinkable that an institution established by God for the salvation of souls could lead men and women into error and turn them away from God. Thus when the Church defines infallible teachings (dogma), we have Christ's promise and the seal of the Holy Spirit ensuring its veracity. The Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, has a special charism to guard and guide the Christ's flock here on earth. This charism is promised us by Christ and is protected by Christ even when a Pope may be unworthy of the office. Jesus will guard His Church from false teachings, we have His word on it. Given this special charism promised by Christ, Catholics believe in the 'infallibility' of the Pope. This means that when explicitly exercising the full teaching authority of his office as successor of St. Peter, the Pope is protected against errors in teaching matters of faith and morals and is thus 'infallible'. This full exercising of authority is referred to as teaching <> (Latin - from the chair, that is from the Chair of St. Peter). So, how often has this been done? If you look it up in a good catechism, you will find that only two teachings have been explicitly pronounced as <>. They are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These two and these two ALONE have been proclaimed as official DOGMA of the Catholic Church. No other Papal statements have been made explicitly ex cathedra. Now then, why the difference of opinion in the list of <> statements? There we must return to our definitions of Dogma vs Doctrines. Dogmas are not open to dispute as such. They are final. Any disputes with Dogma result in heresy. Heresy can lead to excommunication. Doctrines on the other hand can be more slippery fish to get hold of sometimes and to explain what's happening requires some more history. Vatican II saw a great need to view the Church and our faith from a more 'mature' perspective. To this end, the Council propagated the notion of religious freedom. While dealing largely with the political notion of religious freedom, the Council also dealt with religious freedom within the Church. The idea was that the 'mature' Catholic, guided by the teachings of the Church, should make up his own mind free from overt coercion. In essence the Council said that religious freedom "has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters". (Dignitatis Humanae) We are endowed with free will and therefore also privileged to bear personal responsibility for our actions. Sin requires the individual to be in willful and knowing disobedience to God. It has been a long standing theological position that one cannot unknowingly commit a serious sin. It is here that we have a very large collision, between teaching authority and 'free will'. Some liberals took the bit and ran with this notion of free will. They say that since they are 'acting in good faith', they cannot be committing heresy (sin) when they disagree with Church doctrines if they do so in accordance with their conscience. They do no accept many of the Church's doctrines, only its dogmas. Anything less than full and explicitly stated dogma they say they are free to disagree with. The problem here is that this philosophy invariably leads to a moral relativism, an anything goes mentality. They essentially have denied at one time or another all of the Church's doctrines while carefully tip-toeing around Dogmas lest they be accused of heresy. They have denied the physical resurrection of Jesus (a doctrine, not a dogma, remember that dogmas only get proclaimed when the Church faces a great crisis. The reason, perhaps, is it not dogma today is simply because the Church has never faced a serious attack within the Church on the resurrection. Until recently, the denial of the resurrection has always been from non-believers. This attack is a modern phenomena). Others teachings under attack include; abortion, sex outside marriage (homosexual acts or heterosexual acts), even the very notion of sin. As long as they do not step over the dogma line, they are technically 'safe'. The conservative backlash to this attack on Church teachings has been to go back and re-examine Papal pronouncements in light of Church tradition and authority. If the pronouncement can be supported by tradition and authority, some conservatives have declared such pronouncements as <> and therefore not open to such attacks. This gives them ammunition to charge the liberals with heresy. So you will see the list of Papal pronouncements dealing with those teachings attacked by liberals as being 'infallible'. The error they make, while commendably upholding and supporting Church teachings in light of this liberal silliness, is that they have raised 'everything' to the level of Dogma. As much as it would be nice in many cases to have these doctrines declared infallible, they are not (at least not yet, many certainly could be). The more conservative elements of the Church error here in proclaiming them as such. In one respect, they are usurping the authority of the Pope and the bishops. The attack by liberals on Church teachings is grossly in error though. These liberals very nicely quote the part about free will and conscience, but they leave out the rest of the text: they "are bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth one they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth." (Dignitatis Humanae) Those that dispute these teachings also forget that it is the Church who is the teacher of this truth that they are bound conform their consciences to the teachings of the Church, not Church teachings to their consciences. Mike Martin aardvark@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) Subject: Papal Infallibility--A Possible FAQ Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Papal Infallibility: A Summary I) Introduction This is a lengthy reflection on the question of papal infallibility. Several months ago this question was debated here on the net, and the moderator lamented the lack of consensus among Roman Catholics and the resulting inability to create an FAQ for this question. After much delay and several futile attempts to obtain the expert opinion of a canon lawyer, I have reviewed some of the basic literature on the question and here summarize what I have learned. There is no way that I can claim that this document is definitive; but, barring its complete rejection or destruction by other Catholics on the net, I submit it as an FAQ. II) The Context of Papal Infallibility The doctrine of papal infallibility cannot be properly understood in isolation. Taking it out of context distorts its meaning and seems to place the papacy over both scripture and tradition. The following quotation from Avery Dulles, SJ, I think establishes the proper setting for and the plausibility of papal infallibility. It is found on p. 83 of [6] below. "Like many other confessional assertions, papal infallibility depends on testimony and cannot be rigorously deduced from other beliefs used as logical premises. It simply declares how the papal office understands its teaching authority and how that authority is understood in the Roman Catholic Church. As a faith claim, infallibility has a certain plausibility for Christians who accept certain other beliefs, such as the following: "1) God provides for the Church effective means by which it may and will in fact remain in the truth of the gospel till the end of time. [This is sometimes called indefectibility. DCU] "2) Among these means are not only the canonical Scriptures but also, as an essential counterpart to the Scriptures, the pastoral office. Without such a pastoral office the Christian community would not be adequately protected against corruptions of the gospel. "3) The pastoral office is exercised for the universal Church by the bearer of the Petrine office (which means, for Catholics, by the pope). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the pope is equipped by God with a special charism (or grace of office) for correctly interpreting the gospel to the universal Church, as circumstances may require. "4) In order that the papacy may adequately discharge its function of preserving unity in the faith and exposing dangerous errors, the papal charism must include the power to assert the truth of the gospel and to condemn contrary errors in a decisive and obligatory manner. Authoritative pronouncements from the Petrine office that are seriously binding on all the faithful must have adequately certified truth, for there could be no obligation to believe what could probably be error." There are several points which I want to develop further. First, the idea of infallibility is not restricted to the papacy. Ultimately, it is God alone who is infallible in any absolute sense; to protect His Church God has granted it a restricted charism of infallibility to preserve until the last day. The first to be protected was Scripture, which Catholics hold to be infallible on the subject of faith and morals. (Here infallible needs to be distinguished from inerrant. For more information see [3] below.) Second, there is Tradition, the faithfully preserved teachings of the apostolic church. Third, the bishops collectively may teach infallibly in Christ's name. This has typically been done by an ecumenical council, though Vatican II pointed out that the bishops may teach infallibly without coming together in a council. (See [2] below.) Scripture, tradition and the early ecumenical councils are inextricably intertwined and form the so-called deposit of faith of the Church. Finally, the whole people of God must share in this charism of infallibility in some sense: collectively they must ultimately hold to the truth lest the whole Church be led astray. III) The Exercise of Papal Infallibility The first Vatican council laid down the following conditions for the pope to teach infallibly: 1) He must be teaching on a matter of faith and morals. [Note that this is the same condition as for Scripture to be infallible.] 2) The teaching must be universal, that is, to be held by the whole Church. 3) He must make clear his intention to exercise his charism to teach definitively--i.e. to teach _ex cathedra_. The first Vatican council brought out two other points which need to be mentioned. First, while the Pope is "negatively" protected from error, he is obliged to research the question carefully to insure his fidelity to Scripture and Tradition. It is important to stress that the Pope can _never_ teach infallibly and in doing so contradict the deposit of faith. Second, the council wanted to stress the fact that the Pope taught infallibly by virtue of the charism of his office and was not dependent on the consent of the Church. This was specifically in response to a movement called Gallicanism which asserted that a teaching is infallible only after it is ratified by the bishops in council. (I will return to this point below.) The conditions laid down by Vatican I are fairly restrictive and the authority has been rarely used--even the most conservative Catholic theologians estimate that it has been invoked less than 20 times in the past 2000 years. (See Appendix I.) The two most recent uses were the definitions of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption by Pius IX and Pius XII. (I personally think that the fact that it was used to proclaim Marian doctrines has had an adverse impact on ecumenical discussions of infallibility.) More typically, the Pope and the bishops have acted together in an ecumenical council. It is worth noting that even in the case of the two Marian pronouncements, both popes went to great lengths to consult with the bishops to determine the sense of the whole Church. Thus, in practice and in light of the Second Vatican council's emphasis on collegiality, the exercise of papal infallibility should be seen as an act in union with, as opposed to over and above, the Church. Finally, while infallible pronouncements are dogma, and as such are not reformable, the notion of "irreformability" must not be understood in an absolutist sense. As the Vatican pointed out in [4], doctrinal pronouncements are often made in response to a particular error, and thus must be understood in light of what they are responding to. (Thus Trent must be understood in light of the Reformation.) Similarly, pronouncements are affected by the language and paradigms in use at the time they are formulated. Therefore, while something might be a doctrine, its contents are to be distinguished from the mode of expression. (This of course presupposes the existence of objective truths which can be expressed in different ways in different philosophical/theological frameworks.) Finally, while a doctrine may be infallibly true, it may be an incomplete expression of the truth and subject to further elucidation. (The successive councils which debated the nature of Christ and the trinity are a case in point.) IV) The Historical Invocation of Infallibility As reflected in prior discussions on the net, there is some dispute as to when the Pope has exercised the charism of infallibility. In Appendix I below is a list of papal teachings around which many conservatives rally. In the theological literature the conservative position is referred to as "Maximalism" (as opposed to the "Minimalism" of Hans Kung and others). It is often associated with the position that ordinary papal teachings (or more generally the ordinary magisterium of the Church) can be (and has been) in some cases infallible. Doctrinally, Maximalism is not strong position: it seems to rely more on what certain bishops at Vatican I held and on what the text of _Pastor Aeternus_ did not say than on what this document did teach. It is worth noting that the Vatican itself does not appear to hold to this position in _Mysterium Ecclesiae_ (see [4] below). Ultimately, there is no authoritative list of infallible teachings (either papal or conciliar). (In [4] the Vatican studiously avoided enumerating infallible pronouncements.) Lists have been formulated by various theologians who have examined the documents to see if they meet the criteria laid down by Vatican I. Currently, this is usually done by conservative theologians, though, oddly enough, liberal theologians such as Hans Kung have argued that many papal teachings were given infallibly in order to discredit the whole notion of infallibility. (See [5].) Moderate theologians are incredibly loathe to name any teaching, with the exception of the two Marian doctrines, as infallible. (Personally, I am somewhat more conservative than the so-called "moderate infallibilists" in this regard, though I do not know the source material well enough to conclusively give any other examples. Reading up on this issue I got the sense that these theologians were deliberately dancing around this question.) The discernment of which papal teachings are infallible, like the discernment of the true meaning of scripture, is an ongoing exercise which requires the active intervention of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Some theologians like to point out that the complement of papal infallibility is the infallibility of the People of God in their belief--that infallible doctrines can be recognized by their ultimate acceptance by the whole Church. (It must be stressed, however, that infallibility does not derive from acceptance. In particular, non-acceptance, as in the case of artificial birth control or the ordination of women, is not adequate grounds for presuming that the Magisterium is in error.) Finally, I would like to address the infallibility of one papal pronouncement in particular: _Quanta Cura_(QC), given by Pius IX. This encyclical and the accompanying _Syllabus of Errors_ were normative of the response of the Church to the Enlightenment until Vatican II. At that time the bishops gave (and Paul VI approved) _Dignitatis Humanae_(DH), a document which is at odds in substance and in outlook to QC. Many conservatives reject DH on the grounds that QC is infallible. (One bit of evidence cited for this is the article on the _Syllabus_ in the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ of 1910.) It is unclear to me whether QC meets the formal criteria of Vatican I; at least one theologian [7] argues that its infallibility rests on the Maximalist position that the ordinary magisterium can be infallible. However, the fact that DH was given by the bishops in an ecumenical council, was ratified by Paul VI and accepted by his successors is strong evidence that QC was not infallibly given. This is not to say that QC was wrong and DH was right; the Church may yet again change its mind. But I think it is wrong to argue (as some extreme conservatives have) that the Church has fallen into heresy because of this. (Certainly the notion the infallibility of the Church seems to preclude this, arguments adduced from the Arian controversy notwithstanding.) V) On Papal Teaching Authority I wanted to conclude this document with a few remarks about papal teaching authority, since this is closely related to the discussion of papal infallibility. Certainly, when the Pope or a council teaches infallibly, the question is closed to the extent that all Catholics must hold as a matter of _faith_ the doctrines pronounced. For this reason, if no other, determining what was taught infallibly must be done carefully: papal infallibility must not be used as a club for bludgeoning your (more liberal) theological opponents. But even when the Pope teaches non-infallibly, his teaching is vested with a certain authority due to his office as universal pastor. The authority varies both with respect to the subject (the "hierarchy of truths" enunciated by Vatican II) and to the means of delivery (papal encyclical to whole Church, a letter to a specific bishop or area, a public address, etc.). Depending on these two sliding scales, all Catholics are bound to a greater or lesser degree to accept these pronouncements as a matter of _obedience_. (Though often invoked by conservatives against liberals, it may be fairly said that this works both ways: _Centisimus Annus_ is as much an authoritative papal encyclical as _Humanae Vitae_.) Any decision to reject an authoritative papal teaching, while protected by the freedom of conscience of an individual, is a singularly momentous event which must be approached with a great deal of caution. VI) Annotated Bibliography The following documents and books are basic references on the subject of infallibility. The books all contain excellent bibliographies for further information. [1] _Pastor Aeternus_, The dogmatic constitution of the first Vatican council, approved by Pope Pius IX, 1870. This document definitively set forth the dogma that the pope teaches infallibly and outlined the conditions under which he does so. [2] _Lumen Gentium_, The dogmatic constitution of the second Vatican council, approved by Pope Paul VI, 1964. This document discussed (among other things) the notion of collegiality and its relationship to papal infallibility. It also indicated that under certain circumstances, the bishops may, collectively, teach infallibly. [3] _Verbum Dei_, The decree on divine revelation of the second Vatican council, approved by Pope Paul VI, (date?). This document discussed the sources of divine revelation to the Church and emphasised the authority scripture. [4] _Mysterium Ecclesiae_, A decree of the Congregation of the Divine Faith, 1973. It provides an authoritative commentary on the teachings of the first and second Vatican councils on the subject of infallibility. It was issued in response to the teachings of several theologians, particularly Hans Kung. [5] Hans Kung, _Infallible? An Inquiry_, 1971 & 1983. A highly controversial book in which Kung seems to reject as completely untenable any notion of papal infallibility. This book has met with scathing criticism from and outright rejection by a number of prominent theologians, first among them being Karl Rahner. [6] Paul Empie ed., _Teaching Authority & Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VI_, 1978. This book summarizes the results of the ongoing ecumenical dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics in the United States. While the joint statement cannot be regarded as authoritative, it and the accompanying articles provide excellent insights and historical background. [7] J. Robert Dionne, _The Papacy and the Church_, 1987. In this book the author examines the development of doctrine from the time of Pius IX to Vatican II. While he concentrates primarily on the ordinary magisterium, much of what he says bears directly on the question of infallibility. Of particular interest is his analysis of the change in Catholic teaching from _Quanta Cura_ to _Dignitatis Humanae_. [8] Peter Chirico, _Infallibility: Crossroads of a Doctrine_, 1977. I did not get this book, but it was recommended by Avery Dulles, SJ, in an article in the Catholic/Lutheran dialogues. Appendix I: Purported Infallible Statements This list comes from the book _That Catholic Church_, Frs. Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, 1954. If you are not familiar with this group: Radio Replies was a radio program in Australia active in the 1930's to 50's. The contents of their radio broadcasts were gathered into a three volume set; this book was published as an addendum to this set in the United States. I have no idea of the quality of the contents--apologetics from this period are either very good or extremely bad. The book is currently being reprinted by a very conservative Catholic publisher. It needs to be repeated that this list has _no_ official status and is probably in error. Leo I. Lectis Dilectionis Tuae. 449. Agatho. Omnium Bonorum Spes. 680. Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctum. 1302. Benedict XII. Benidictus Deus. 1336. Leo X. Exsurge Domine. 1520. Innocent X. Cum Occasione. 1653. Innocent XI. Coelestis Pastor. 1687. Clement XI. Unigenitus. 1713. Pius VI. Auctorem Fidei. 1794. Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus. 1854. Pius IX. Quanta Cura. 1864. Leo XIII. Apostolicae Cura. 1896. * Leo XIII. Testem Benefolentiae. 1899. * Pius X. Lamentabili. 1907. Pius X. Pascendi. 1907. Pius XI. Casti Connubii. 1930. % Pius XI. Quadregesimo Anno. 1931. % Pius XII. Munificentissimus Deus. 1950. * It is noted that some Catholic theologians hold that these encyclicals fall short of the technical requirements for being "ex cathedra." % It is noted that some statements in these encyclicals "very probably" comply with the requirements of an "ex cathedra" decision. From usenet@agate.berkeley.edu Tue Aug 4 12:31:22 1992 Received: from ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10534; Tue, 4 Aug 92 12:31:22 EDT Received: from agate.Berkeley.EDU by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.63/1.43) id AA26406; Tue, 4 Aug 92 09:30:46 -0700 Received: by agate.berkeley.edu (5.64/1.33) id AA25524; Tue, 4 Aug 92 09:31:17 -0700 To: soc-religion-christian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Path: durban.berkeley.edu!conan From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Papal Infallibility--A Correction Date: 4 Aug 1992 16:31:17 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. Lines: 49 Message-Id: <15mbclINNoti@agate.berkeley.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: durban.berkeley.edu By e-mail I received some insightful criticism of my recent post on papal infallibility. As a result, I need to make some corrections/ emendations. First, I wrote: "It is often associated with the position that ordinary papal teachings (or more generally the ordinary magisterium of the Church) can be (and has been) in some cases infallible." This was a slip of the keyboard. The technical term "ordinary and universal magisterium" refers to the ability of the all the bishops to collectively teach infallibly. This was taught by Vatican I and II. Therefore, this parenthetical phrase should be deleted. Second, I wrote: "The conditions laid down by Vatican I are fairly restrictive and the authority has been rarely used--even the most conservative Catholic theologians estimate that it has been invoked less than 20 times in the past 2000 years. (See Appendix I.)" I refer to Appendix I to give an example of a list of documents held by conservatives as infallible. This was not meant to imply that this list was exhaustive or that the authors were to be numbered among "the most conservative Catholic theologians". Therefore, this parenthetical phrase should be changed to: "(Appendix I contains a list compiled by one pair of theologians. More conservative authors have compiled more extensive lists.)" Also, the figure "20" needs to be revised upwards, perhaps to "30". (Though here I am guessing.) Finally, commenting on the list in Appendix I, I wrote: " It needs to be repeated that this list has _no_ official status and is probably in error." The first part is true--there are no official lists. However, the comment on it being in error is a considered judgement on my part based on the comments of other theologians. It therefore should be emended to read: "offical status. Other theologians would argue that it is in error in one or more places." Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO