Does this refute Papal Infallibility?


There is an example about abortion in this link:


no no no no no.

You don’t get to do that. You made allegations in your opening post, so I’m holding you to that. Your link is irrelevant, and I won’t even let you derail this thread.

You’re going to either prove that your allegations above meet the three criteria defined by the Catholic Church, or you will concede that you were wrong.


Ummm… no??

Do you think papal infallibility means the inability to sin?

Papal infallibility is an extension of the church’s infallibility, which surely you accept as an Orthodox Christian. The key is that, because the Pope can speak for the faith of the church as the center of the universal church’s unity, then he cannot bind the entire church into error.

Papal infallibility is not a personality adjustment. Grace causes holiness: Infallibility does not. Infallibility is the gift for the sake of the church’s faith.


Since I haven’t researched them in detail I can’t determine if they meet the criteria so I’ll admit that I’m not sure if they do meet the criteria. But it doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church has officially accepted doctrines on certain moral issues which could have only be done through the papal infallibility claim, then later this is totally contradicted by a later Pope who invalidates a certain doctrine through ex Cathedra or vice verse.


No I know that infallibility doesn’t mean perfection or morals, but it means when the Pope sits on Ex Cathedra he can’t make mistakes on morals or matters of faith.


but you forgot to include the followin…“in matters of faith and morals”…important distinction.


There is nothing you can point to in which the Pope has pronounced from the Chair of Peter on a matter of Faith and Morals that you can point to that has been contradicted. Has the Pope done some stupid stuff? Heck, yeah.

But trying a dead Pope (Formosus) has nothing to do with faith and morals. Nor was it done from the Chair of Peter.


The pope doesn’t sit on anything.

Ex cathedra means “from the chair” as in, from the position of his office.

The Pope speaking to the church - the whole church, to all Christians - is prevented from binding error precisely because (1) the church is infallible and (2) the pope is the visible source of the church’s unity and communion.

It’s number 2 that Orthodox would have difficulty with. But if we can talk about that first, then 1 + 2 should lead to papal infallibility.


My understanding of Papal Infallibility is that it has to do with teaching issues and not the sins of the pope. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ but he is still a man, we all sin.

Here is what Catholic Answers has to say about it,
I believe there have only been very few times the Pope has taught through this method.


Yes that’s what I have the main problem with.


No, it doesn’t.


What about say abortion:


I think the ruling was correct, myself (and I’m not RC).

Was the wording of the statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS consistent with the view that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was formally issued ex cathedra, infallibly?


I have another thread going that I have not caught up with.

Its about how the sticking point between Catholics and Orthodox is the necessity of communion with Rome.

Catholics say communion with Rome’s bishop is not optional because he is the successor of Peter’s office, which is steward of the church.

Christ expressed this office when he gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, a symbol of stewardship, as in Isaiah 22 where the steward of the Davidic household carries the key.

Jesus, the new Davidic King, is making it clear in Matthew 16:18-19 that Peter is the rock and steward of the church.

This office is one of succession.


Was the teaching of JPII rejecting the ordination of women priests infallible?


You may be surprised to learn that many popes never or very rarely avail themselves of the chair of Peter to make an ex-cathedra (and thus presumably infallible) declaration. Popes make ordinary decisions all the time that are not pronouncements on faith and morals. The appointment of so-and-so as bishop of some place is simply not an area where infallibility applies. How many bishops have turned out to be bad eggs?

I’m not Catholic, and Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that Benedict XVI ever made an ex-cathedra pronouncement and I am pretty sure Francis has not either thus far. John-Paul II may have on the issue of not ordaining women, but I am not sure even that was ex-cathedra.

If it is not an ex-cathedra statement, it is not, as far as I understand it, not to be considered infallible. Again, Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.


n this series Patrick Madrid answers and refutes many misconceptions about the Papacy and the Office of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. He refutes the myths of a so-called woman pope named Joan, the accusations leveled at the Papacy due to the Spanish Inquisition, the alleged failure of Pope Pius the XII to do more to denounce and stop the Nazi’s. He also explains and refutes many misconceptions about the Office of the Pope like the difference between infallibility and and impeccability, the Scriptural references that indicate the Apostle Peter’s designation by Christ as the Leader or Pope of the Apostles and His Church, the scriptural references where the Apostles handed down their authority as Bishops.



The pope is infallible mostly insofar as he speaks in Union with the bishops throughout the world, carrying on and proclaiming the Tradition of the Faith as it has been passed on and developed from the first century on.

Ex cathedra is also not a totally independent thing, so non-Catholics shouldn’t fear dictatorship. It just means the Pope has the capacity to speak for the universal church and the faith of his brother bishops, precisely because he is chief bishop.


I’m confused. What about it? There is no official document from the Church that says abortion is permitted at any point in the history of the Catholic Church.


Papal infallibility shouldn’t be looked at in isolation. We are tempted to because that’s often how Apologetics presents such topics.

But really, it’s part and parcel of Catholic ecclesiology (what it means to be church) and the infallibility of the entire church.

The OP is Orthodox, and so we should all remember that Orthodox also tend to believe in infallibility. They just believe that the Orthodox Church is the enduring manifestation of the One Infallible Church.

The Catholic needs to show the role of Rome as the extension of Peter’s office — established by Christ — and therefore show the Pope’s privileged position to speak for the Church’s faith.

And then papal infallibility will follow.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit