list of infallible Papal statements

ligonier.org/blog/sola-scriptura-bible/
-from R.C. Sproul, Jr.

*I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead. Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them? In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

**But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same. ***

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=110888

So if the Catholic Church gave us the “table of contents” for our Bible, determined what writings were the inerrant Word of God, and gave us the list of books for Canon of Scripture; can it provide a list of infallible Papal statements?

Has the infallible Magisterium provided a list of infallible Papal statements?
If yes: then please provide the list:
If no: then why not?

No. Because a complete official list would take years to address.

Vatican I has given you the criteria on what constitutes a infallible statement… And while some theologians, Priest or bishops’ might disagree with certain documents, in the end the Holy Mother Church has the final say. :wink:

Also no matter what the church says or you say or anyone it will not be sufficent.

but I will offer this americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug2004/Wiseman.asp

Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic. She says that the Church has spoken infallibly only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption.

I say that it has spoken infallibly many times, especially through its 21 ecumenical councils. Which one of us is right?

A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.

The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.

Since 1870, some people have argued that canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that assertion is a debatable point at this time.

Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are automatically infallible. The Nicene Creed (adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.) states the faith of the Church on a very crucial point: Is Jesus “of the same substance” [nature] as God the Father? The Council of Nicaea said that Jesus is and, therefore, took an existing Profession of Faith and inserted the term homoousious (“of the same substance”) at the proper place. This is an infallible statement of what the Church believes.

That same creed was expanded at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., stating more explicitly the Church’s belief in the Holy Spirit’s divinity. If you said the creed adopted in 325 was infallible, you might also argue that it could not be amended. The Catholic Church does not understand infallibility to mean that.

Ecumenical councils also make many prudential judgments and issue disciplinary decrees. Back in the 1960s, the world’s bishops asked themselves: Should Vatican II draw up a document on relations with non-Christians? Should the council’s treatment of Mary be a separate document or part of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church? Should Vatican II issue a document explicitly condemning Communism?

Even though councils have given infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, they have also made some prudential judgments about which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

A disciplinary decree approved by an ecumenical council can be binding without being declared infallible. A canon of the Second Lateran Council (1139) forbade Christians to engage in usury (charging any interest on a loan). Usury was later understood as charging excessive interest on a loan.

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra (“from the chair”). He must intend to teach infallibly and make this known at the time of that teaching.

Most papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the Church’s ordinary teaching authority (magisterium) and are understood as authentic teachings—but not infallible in the sense of Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility.

not that I expect that to saticfy.

Actually it was very satisfying

A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.

The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.

Thats 1

Since 1870, some people have argued that canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that assertion is a debatable point at this time.

Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are automatically infallible. The Nicene Creed (adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.) states the faith of the Church on a very crucial point: Is Jesus “of the same substance” [nature] as God the Father? The Council of Nicaea said that Jesus is and, therefore, took an existing Profession of Faith and inserted the term homoousious (“of the same substance”) at the proper place. This is an infallible statement of what the Church believes.

thats 2

That same creed was expanded at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., stating more explicitly the Church’s belief in the Holy Spirit’s divinity. If you said the creed adopted in 325 was infallible, you might also argue that it could not be amended. The Catholic Church does not understand infallibility to mean that.

ok thats still #2

Ecumenical councils also make many prudential judgments and issue disciplinary decrees. Back in the 1960s, the world’s bishops asked themselves: Should Vatican II draw up a document on relations with non-Christians? Should the council’s treatment of Mary be a separate document or part of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church? Should Vatican II issue a document explicitly condemning Communism?

Even though councils have given infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, they have also made some prudential judgments about which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

Is there a list of these “infallible teachings” to separate them from “prudential judgments”?

A disciplinary decree approved by an ecumenical council can be binding without being declared infallible. A canon of the Second Lateran Council (1139) forbade Christians to engage in usury (charging any interest on a loan). Usury was later understood as charging excessive interest on a loan.

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra (“from the chair”). He must intend to teach infallibly and make this known at the time of that teaching.

Got it

**Most **papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the Church’s ordinary teaching authority (magisterium) and are understood as authentic teachings—but not infallible in the sense of Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility

So most of the Magisterium 's teaching is ordinary and authoritative but not infallible. ex: a chemistry professor has authority but is not infallible even on matters of chemistry; as new understandings may contradict his previous teachings

Now when Catholics claim the infallibility of the Catholic Church are they aware of how very few statements that actually applies to ?

Does Irish_Polock know that?

A lot may not know. (And a lot may not even know that the Catholic Church claims any statements at all as infallible.) But some of us do know. :slight_smile:

Not quite what you’re asking for, but a detailed and extensive - although not exhaustive - list can be found at:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Note that this was prepared by our current pope, before he became pope, and is not itself an infallible teaching.

The document is quite dense, even if brief, and takes quite a lot of focus to be properly understood (it wasn’t written with non-theologians in mind).

One other point: I think that a comprehensive and exhaustive list would only be of use if it were itself proclaimed infallibly by defining act, since there would be no purpose in attempting the deed unless it were going to be categorical, so as to avoid subsequent arguments. :slight_smile: That being so, I doubt that any pope or ecumenical council would feel able to take on such a mammoth undertaking. It would be helpful, though.

The question is more what is a Dogmatic Teaching and what is a discipline. Many confuse the 2 and at times it is hard to tell the diffence. I could not begin to guess what most catholic know or dont know. I know what I believe they should know, but then I know that I do not know all that I should. The great thing is If and when it becomes a issue I know where to go to at least begin to get the answer or clarification on it.

And as unpoppular as it became in the sixties sometimes the only answer there is, is the onw that was given alot " we don’t know. Its a mystery."

for discussion please look at the list here
[forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=390318&](http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=390318&)
of some ex cathedra statements prior to 1870

the previous post stated that

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.

These ex cathedra statements prior to 1870 are more than about faith or morals, but actually the salvation on non-catholics
ex:
*Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff*.”[ii]

So are these in fact actual ex cathedra statements or

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.

Can someone let me know? This seems very important!

I would say yes. Most Catholics I know are aware that it is not a long list, although it is in fact longer than some of the contributions in this thread might seem to imply to the uninitiated. A clarification to anyone reading this thread who may not be aware of it - which may be a list of zero people, for all I know - is that although not all teachings of ecumenical councils are infallible, some are, most clearly when taught by defining act as a dogmatic constitution e,g Lumen Gentium (1964) and Dei Verbum (1965).

I would say that a full understanding of the doctrine of infallibility is not held by many people, myself very much included. I’ve tried to study the subject over the last couple of years, and remain a rank amateur rather than an expert. Its a highly complex entity, and attempts to reduce it to something simple rarely work.

Just for the record, I have heard very few Catholics say that the church is infallible (I have heard many non-Catholics claim that we do, however). What is more commonly and appropriately stated is that the church can teach infallibly, but rarely does so, inasmuch as determing the final word on any given subject is no easy task.

What exactly is it that you wnat to know? Many things that seem very important are not all that important. IF there has been a teaching on that matter that has been declared as infallible I am sure everyone here will be more than happy to help locate it and get that ifo to you.

Indeed I do.

The only perfect and infallible act we as a Church can profess is our shared expression of faith found in the Creed.

If there are so few actual infallible statements ; then why did you say

"No. Because a complete official list would take years to address. "

??

Tester, I read your link by R.C. Sproul. I think it’s a cop out. At least he admits, “The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice”. But if Sola Scriptura is to believed wouldn’t it, by definition, be in Scripture?

This is a doctrine of the Church now, as it has always been. There is no salvation for heretics or schismatics until they have repented and returned to the Catholic faith.

Of course, there are those whom are invincibly ignorant, and those who have been baptized in blood or desire.

Because I am sure it would. :shrug:

Why do you find this troubling?

Tough questions!!

How does any infallible teachings list or lack thereof make the Apostolic Churches any more fallible than the Protestants’ all-over-the-map teachings?

I want to know exactly are the below statements infallible or
"Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes* inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible**."*

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”*

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[ii]

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:

“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[iii]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”[iv]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church*.”[v]

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:

“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”[vi]

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”[vii]

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”[viii]

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[ix]

Because Protestants don’t claim infallibility

Why would you accept such a belief “system”?

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