Talk:Papal infallibility/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Undue weight

In the section on the Middle Ages, we spend four paragraphs discussing Olivi and John XXII. Is this really necessary? When discussing papal infallibility, does this incident really get that much space? Or, are we just doing it in reaction to the Orthodox section raising the point? It's an interesting story but, at the end of the day, it seems like an overly detailed "scenic route" that takes us away from the main thrust of the narrative. I propose that we find a way to get this text out of the main article text, either by deleting it, summarizing it or pushing the details into a Note. (Esoglou knows what I mean by "a Note". We did this for the lead of the article on the Catholic Church when we were discussing the use of the word "Roman" as applied to the Church) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that that, as long as the highly questionable one-sided account linking Olivi and Pope John XXII is given elsewhere in the article, there is much need for a more detailed balanced account of both questions, that of Olivi and that of the Pope, and that the two accounts should remain clearly visible. Esoglou (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you've not just wanted the 'balanced' (read: Catholic POV) article in the FOR side, but to 'balance' (read: Catholic POV) the bit about Olivi in the AGAINST section too. Montalban (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you imagine that anything that does not explicitly support your ideas is against them. Please read WP:NPOV#Balance and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You should actually respond to what what I write. Montalban (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done so. Where there is more than one view, you should not present one view anywhere in Wikipedia as undisputed fact instead of 1) attributing that view to whoever has stated it, and 2) informing about other views and those who state them. You should, of course, never, even outside of Wikipedia, miscite writers as if they supported a view that they explicitly reject. Esoglou (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Retouching statement about Olivi

I have been bold and changed the wording to say "One of the first assertions of papal infallibility was made by Franciscan priest Peter Olivi." Hopefully, this locution will satisfy both Esoglou and Montalban. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even mind if you added "It has been suggested that..." at the beginning of it.

Thank you for trying to broker an agreement.

Montalban (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. Can you now reword the (at least implied) claim that Pope John XXII condemned the belief "that communal renunciation of poverty was a possible way to salvation"? In my study of the question I found no support for that idea. As far as I know, what John XXII declared erroneous and heretical was instead the doctrine that Christ and his apostles had no possessions whatever, even collectively. But perhaps you or Montalban can find a source that makes the claim.

You will also have to get consent to removing the citation of Powell (who on the contrary says the doctrine of papal infallibility arose in the century after Olivi's death) in support of the statement (as now phrased) that "one of the earliest assertions of papal infallibility was made by Franciscan priest Peter Olivi".

Another question: Can you really follow (understand the drift of) the present text in what it says before it comes to a quotation from Hasler at the end? In this quotation, Hasler gives his personal view (based perhaps on his reading of Tierney, who however is more circumspect than Hasler) that John XXII did deny papal infallibility. This view is not a generally accepted one, and should not be presented as if it were. It might be helpful to read what Powell (yes, the same Protestant scholar misquoted about Olivi) says of Hasler's attitude. You will find him quoted at the end of the "Opposition to the doctrine" section. Esoglou (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

All I can do Esoglou, is recommend again to you to read what I write. I've discussed at some length Whelton's opinion on this issue. I think it's helpful Montalban (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, for a start, point out how you explained your citing Powell in support of a view that he actually rejects. Esoglou (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that even Montalban cannot find where he thought he had already explained away his misrepresentation of Powell, a misrepresentation that must surely be eliminated from Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, if you could stop accusing me of one thing or another and actually read what I write - more than half my responses are simply correcting you of errors. Here not only did you not read what I wrote you posted a short while later to say that I cannot explain something or rather. Here is word for word what I wrote from Whetlon on the matter which I suggested you read first:

As Whelton (in Two Paths p128) says The Franciscan leaders defended this cherished papal Bull (that of Nicholas) on the grounds that it was irreformable and its very 'irrefromability' logically presupposed Papal Infallibility. John XXII was not interested in his own infallibility any more than his predecessors. For him infallibility would place him, as it would his successors, in a straitjacket, i.e., limiting the powers of the reigning pope by the infallible declarations of his predecessors. He quotes the encyclical of John XXII (p129) What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith an morals with the key of knowledge stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it

I find your constant accusations highly toxic. Montalban (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So many words again, but still not even one to explain why you cite Powell in support of a view that Powell rejects. Whelton does not say that Powell supports that view. Why do you? Surely anybody else would simply remove the citation instead of insisting on its retention and defending it by talking around it, not about it. Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read Powell rejecting the view. He accepts that under one view of infallibility people have come to a conclusion that Olivi was the first instance. He notes that and their reasons. He goes to some length to do so. That's my understanding.

Furthermore your querry wasn't just about Powell. You've switched again what it is you're complaining about.

you stated In my study of the question I found no support for that idea. You then talk about what is generally accepted. Can you show me the survey done of the respective historians on the matter and show what the consensus was? Or is this more synthesis?

Montalban (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Powell question is treated below and may perhaps be approaching solution. Let's leave other questions until after. Esoglou (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Olivi and Pope John XXII

Hi everyone, I'm responding here to an email by Montalban. If this is still disputed, then we should probably kick this up to a higher step in the dispute resolution system. I am wavering between whether it should go to RfC or the Mediation Cabal, but I think on balance mediation would probably be the best way to resolve things. Let me know what your thoughts are. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very much so still disputed. I will do my best to prevent this becoming Catholic Q&A Montalban (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Whelton states quite well what the Olivi incident shows in relation to Pope John Montalban (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Dispute Resolution is best. Could we start by deciding whether to remove the citation of Powell as a supporter of the statement that "One of the earliest assertions of papal infallibility was made by Franciscan priest Peter Olivi" (Papal infallibility#Opposition to the doctrine)? Olivi lived and died in the thirteenth century, while Powell, after recounting Tierney's theory about Olivi being the first, concludes instead: "We can say that the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims". Whatever view Powell did hold on the matter, he surely was not arguing that Olivi was one of the earliest, and should not be cited as if he did. Esoglou (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark E. Powell makes the statement

We can say that the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims… Powell, M. E., (2009), Papal infallibility: a Protestant evaluation of an ecumenical issue, p34.

However he does note that others date things to Olivi (pp34-5), therefore if one reads the last part of his sentence one can understand the point

…in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims…

That is it was itself part of a long proceeding before it. Therefore Olivi could be seen as a type of pre-figurement of the argument.

Montalban (talk)

You (not Powell) say that Olivi could be seen as a "prefigurement". Powell did not say that Olivi was the author of "one of the earliest assertions of papal infallibility". Yet you present Powell as saying that Olivi was that. Remember WP:SYNTH.Esoglou (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your argument - Powell notes that there is opinion that points to Olivi. I cited the page. The quote you use notes a trend that pre-dates the fourteenth century.

Montalban (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I think the best one could do from this is that one could note that Powell acknowledges a lead up to his dating and that some accept the earlier date. I think therefore one the basis of that one could remove Powell as a direct supporting reference

Given the pretence that Papal Infallibility always existed it's remarkable how difficult it is for historians to show from when it was first exercised!

Montalban (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I should like to add that Synthesis is again a faulty charge. I am happy to accep that 'pre-figurement' is my term, but it is my term to describe what he is saying, not to 'suppose' what he is saying.

Montalban (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if your argument (a synthesis, therefore) that Powell saw Olivi as a prefigurement were valid, the fact would still remain that Powell does not make the statement attributed to him in the article. Will you, or may I, act on your statement that "one could remove Powell as a direct supporting reference". Will you do it, or may I? Esoglou (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to. Montalban (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and congratulations. Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening section lacking in citations

The opening section of this article is riddled with unsubstantiated claims. I have left citation tags identifying the need for sources. Esoglou, your efforts would be better spent attempting to substantiate these claims with WP:RS than edit warring with others.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion can only make for a better article. Thank you.

Montalban (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You will doubtless have noticed that I attended to this citation request on the day it was made. Would that all such citation requests were attended to promptly! Esoglou (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What you did was a quick rush job which didn't with stand close scrutiny. I had to throw out a few of your references, and change the text in one place because it didn't reflect the content of the citation. Would that you took citations seriously!--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the two corrections that you "had to" make: your throwing out of the reference to what Cardinal Gibbons said because, you said, it was not a reliable citation supporting the claim made (as a result reliable citations explicitly supporting the statement have been inserted) and your appreciated rewording of a statement to fit the cited source. Since you considered that "irrevocable" was not supported by a citation that said "immutable", I have changed to the latter word.

I hope you did not think that the editor I referred to as disattending to citation requests was you. It certainly was not you. Esoglou (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the citations referring to that anecdote use it as an example of "A doctrine proposed by a Pope as his own opinion", so I have removed all the spurious citations. You need to find an example of "A doctrine proposed by a Pope as his own opinion". And no, I didn't think the editor to whom you were referring was myself.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question also of personal opinions of popes on matters of faith and morals. I have provided an example of such opinions also, as well as the papal opinion already mentioned "on other matters". Cardinal Cushing also responded to a Pope who recommended to him the use of bicarbonate of soda as a remedy for stomach ulcers: "Thank God Your Holiness is not infallible on medicine. That would be the very worst thing to use." Esoglou (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Who has said this?

The statement

Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302,[5][6] Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441,[7][8] and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854[9][10] have all spoken "ex cathedra."[11]

seems to suggest that source [11] Wilhelm, Joseph and Thomas Scannell. Manual of Catholic Theology. Volume 1, Part 1. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd. 1906. pp 94-100 supports this. I searched through this source and can't find any mention of the terms Eugene, or Cantate Domino

The source doesn't say these incidents are incidents of infallibility.

One can check this out for themselves here http://www.archive.org/stream/manualofcatholic01scheiala#page/94/mode/2up

Another source claims that Unam sanctum deals with infallibility and gives this source.

Fisher, George Parker. History of Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1896. page 543

That page has no mention of Unam sanctum. A quick search shows that the only mention of this is page 253.

Again one can read the source for themselves http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofchristi96fish#page/542/mode/2up

There seems to be an enormous amount of synthesis. Montalban (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You will doubtless have noticed that I attended to this citation request on the days you made it. Would that all such citation requests were attended to promptly. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood their use and application. The reference from Fisher does not relate to the Bulls, but is rather one of an authority explaining what "ex cathedra" means because that is its first appearance in the lead. This is why the reference appears after the term "ex cathedra." The Wilhelm reference is merely one of many that exist showing that Unam Sanctam was delivered "ex cathedra." That reference addresses one point in the Bull itself. The statement is found approximately 2/3rds of the way down the page, but it's in small print so I can understand how you might have missed it. To satisfy any possible concern you have that the reference is insufficient I have added one from a book written by Cardinal Manning (who received votes for Pope in the Papal conclave of 1878) that the Bull was delivered "ex cathedra" and that its precepts are considered free of moral or doctrinal error. Therefore, the references to which you refer are accurate and used appropriately. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Saints

The article suggests canonization of saints is an issue of infallibility. But is it the infallibility of the Pope, or of the church - which are two different isses.

In the context of the article (following two comments about popes), and the fact it's in an article about Papal Infallibility it would seem that it's there to suggest another proof of infallibility. Montalban (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Roman Catholic Church only the Pope canonizes, and his declaration that someone is in heaven with God is seen as an infallible papal declaration. So what's your problem? Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

this is not stated in the article - do you have a source? Montalban (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What is it that is "not stated in the article"? And how can one demand a source for something "that is not stated in the article"?

If you were instead to ask for a source for something that is stated in the article, I would either provide a source, reword the statement to fit the source, or remove the statement. If that is not done, any editor may remove the unsourced statement (as can be done to your unsourced statement that "the popes had argued against adding to the Creed" before 589.) Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wait a minute, please. Maybe I'm just ignorant but I've never seen the canonization of saints mentioned wrt papal infallibility. (That is, until just now, see the CE entry on Beatification and Canonization quoted below.) I've read in many places that there are only two occasions for which papal infallibility has been invoked: the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) and the Doctrine of the Corporeal Assumption of Mary (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950). If the canonization of saints were considered to fall under papal infallibility, we'd be talking about what, thousands of instances? There seems to be a disconnect here.

In its entry on Beatification and Canonization, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. ... In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church."

I have to admit that (begging the pardon of our Orthodox brothers), "it's all Greek to me". I don't quite understand what is meant by "This infallibility, however according to [Saint Thomas], is only a point of pious belief." Nor do I understand what is meant by "Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter." or by "many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church."

I'm wondering if the point is that the theological belief that "there are saints" is infallible but "a particular papal decree declaring a specific individual to be a saint" might not be infallible but rather "theologically certain" and that it would be "impious and rash" to disbelieve such a decree.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this source explains it much more lucidly for those of us who are not accustomed to the kind of jargon that the CE entry employs:

The Canonization of Saints by the Pope
The cause for canonization of a Saint requires an examination of the facts of that person’s life. If witnesses are still alive who knew the Saint personally, they provide testimony. Copies of the Saint’s writings, sometimes in their own handwriting, are examined, along with records of that Saint’s life. Lastly, evidence of a miracle, received after praying for that Saint’s intercession, is presented. The evidence is frequently in the form of a miraculous healing, so that medical testimony or other evidence is examined. Without such evidence, the cause for canonization could not go forward, and no conclusion could be reached about that person’s sanctity.

The decision of the Church on the canonization of a Saint is necessarily and almost entirely dependent on the claims of fallible human persons and on a subjective evaluation of evidence that is not certain. This evidence and testimony establishes their sanctity, and its degree, and its perseverance, and its manifestation in reported miracles due to their intercession. But none of this evidence is infallible. None of this evidence is found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). But the Magisterium is absolutely limited to teaching the truths found, explicitly or implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. Therefore, the Magisterium is completely unable to teach that any person is a Saint (except for those persons mentioned in Tradition or Scripture). Neither the Pope himself, nor the entire Body of Bishops united with him, can teach that such a person is a Saint. The Pope cannot teach this infallibly, under papal infallibility, nor can he teach it even fallibly, under the Ordinary Magisterium. Likewise, the Bishops united with the Pope, even in an Ecumenical Council, cannot teach that such a person is a Saint. For the Magisterium is unable to teach truths found entirely outside of the Deposit of Faith.

Now the Saints who are mentioned in Tradition and Scripture, such as Saint Peter the Apostle, are a separate case. Since their lives and holiness is attested to in infallible Divine Revelation, the Church can infallibly teach their holiness and can infallibly declare them to be Saints. But most Saints have lived long after the canon of Scripture was closed. For unless the life of a Saint is a part of Sacred Tradition (e.g. the mother of the Virgin Mary), or unless a Saint is mentioned in Sacred Scripture (e.g. the father of the Virgin Mary, called Heli), such a Saint’s canonization cannot be considered a part of the teachings of the Church, nor of the Magisterium, neither infallibly nor fallibly.

A Judgment of the Temporal Authority

Instead, such canonizations fall under the Temporal Authority of the Church (not under the authority of the Magisterium itself, which applies only to teachings from the Deposit of Faith). The Temporal Authority of the Church is never infallible and it does not teach, but it can make practical rules and judgments. In the case of Saints, it judges that a person lived a holy life, most probably died in a state of grace, and therefore most probably dwells in Heaven. As to whether or not any of the Saints ever had to pass through Purgatory, however briefly, the canonization of a Saint does not determine the answer to that question.

That makes more sense to me although the canonization of "saints who are mentioned in Tradition and Scripture" is not usually mentioned in discussions of papal infallibility. One can only conclude that many sources who discuss papal infallibility are themselves fallible wrt their knowledge of the subject matter.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think those are reliable sources, by all means cite them. I don't think it is worth my while to check them, since I see no need to go in this article into the question of whether canonizations are infallible, as, it seems, most theologians hold with regard to the heavenly status of the persons canonized and proposed for obligatory veneration (that is the basis of their argument). They do not claim that there is an infallible declaration that the persons canonized really did live a holy life, only that they are actually in heaven. Traditionalist Catholics have recently been stressing this in connection with the recent beatification of Pope John Paul II, whom they consider to have been far from holy, and they have taken comfort in the fact that, unlike a canonization, a beatification is only a permission to venerate, not a positive declaration. If you want more sources for the view that canonizations are infallible declarations, there are plenty. Taiwan boi deleted two, in one case seemingly on the grounds that, though it affirmed with certainty that canonizations are infallible, it was not saying, as the article did, that the majority of theologians held that view. Here are some. http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=canonization+infallible+%22matthew+bunson%22&btnG= Here are some more.] Here is one that declares: "It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff." Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and ask whether this article needs a section on the infallibility of canonization. I think it does but you seem to think it doesn't. I don't understand the argument that if "most (presumably Catholic) theologians believe canonization is infallible" then we don't need to discuss it. I think we need to have a section especially since the topic is omitted from most discussions of papal infallibility. Many, many sources only cite the two instances that I cited earlier and completely gloss over the issue of whether canonizations are infallible. Moreover, there seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether canonizations are infallible cf. the argument that the sainthood of individuals mentioned in Scripture and Sacred Tradition is infallible whereas the sainthood of individuals canonized through the normal process is not. I think all of this should be discussed with the sources that have been presented. I have my doubts about www.catholicplanet.com as it appears to be a self-published website. However, even if we leave that source out as unreliable, there are plenty of other sources to support a section on the topic. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought is not at all that, if most Catholic theologians believe canonizations are infallible, there is no need to discuss it. On the contrary, my view is that, if there is no agreement on the infallibility of canonizations, no conclusions of any kind can be drawn, and there is no need to say more than "It is disputed whether canonizations are infallible declarations" - if even that much. Indeed, if it really is only "most Catholic theologians" that say they are infallible, what is said at present is also enough. However, if you or some other editors wish to insert evidence of the view among present-day Catholic theologians that they are not infallible, by all means go ahead. Likewise, if you or some other editors wish to show with reliable sources that in reality all present-day Catholic theologians, not just most, hold that the are infallible, do go ahead. I am happy with whatever conclusion is reached. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now had the curiosity to look up the source that you thought gave a clearer explanation. It is a sedevacantist site, not a Catholic site. In the Catholic Encyclopedia article, Camillo Beccari like perhaps all 20th and 21st century Catholic theologians supports the infallibility classification, while saying that, for 13th-century Aquinas, belief in the actual infallibility of canonization was a pious belief, but one that Aquinas evidently approved. I wonder if there is any present-day Catholic theologian who holds that canonization is not an infallible declaration. The phrase in the article about "most" theologians was not inserted by me. The Taiwan boi-approved source given for it is not a Catholic source. If we were to limit ourselves to present-day Catholic sources, we might find unanimity for the view that all present-day Catholic theologians hold that canonizations are infallible. I feel no urge to investigate.

The last phrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia that puzzled you means simply that the infallibility of a canonization declaration is not something included in scripture and so is not classified as de fide divina, nor has it (as of this moment) been defined by the Church and so is not classified as de fide ecclesiastica; but, according to the writer, it is theologically certain, theologice certa, which is what infallibilists were able to say about papal infallibility in general before the First Vatican Council. Esoglou (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Scriptural support for Peter's primacy among Christians

I have included greater detail in one or two verses. Given that our determination of what is true in this regard should not be based on an English translation, being less specific, I believe the citation with the inclusion of the Greek words is closer to completion, especially in light of their being the very foundation of an entire religion. Without them, it's assumed that the lay reader already knows the Greek background, or perhaps the editor is saying that it's insignificant.

Two other verses I removed because of their contextual inaccuracy. In Luke 10, Jesus is speaking to the 70 he sent out, not to Peter, so it's irrelevant in establishing the primacy of any singular man among the 70. Indeed, the context shows us the opposite as it establishes the equal authority given to all of Jesus' apostles, none given any greater authority _in this instance_ than another. In Acts 15, it was not only the apostles who spoke by the unction of the Holy Ghost, as one might suppose from the editor's comment. "The apostles and elders" were the ones speaking, all of whom must be reckoned to have been given at least some authority, and again, no singular man in this instance is reckoned as being given special authority over any other. This citation, then, is also irrelevant in establishing Peter's primacy. If nothing else, it's wrong to say that "the apostles speak," as that's misleading. Actually, both of the citations, without further details, are misleading. Would you leave Luke 10, and include something along the lines of, "When Jesus says the following to a group of 70 men, he's really saying that Peter is chief." It sounds silly, no? But it's the truth of what's being attempted.

Finally, the heading of this section regards the scriptural support for Peter's primacy, not a theologian's support for Peter's primacy. If 1 Corinthians 15:5 is important to establish Peter as chief, why not just cite the verse, instead of citing a man who cites the verse? Additionally, only four of the eight references given hold Peter out in some different regard than others. Perhaps the remaining four can be added with respective comments? Because only four of Mr. Ott's references are in any way relevant, it seems best to remove his citation to maintain the consistency of the "scriptural support."CalebPM (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be thanked for drawing attention to this section, whose content violated Wikipedia rules on original research. Wikipedia isn't a place for placing personal arguments or statements or our own personal interpretations of verses in Scripture. Wikipedia is only for reporting what is already said by reputable published sources. I have therefore replaced the previous text with a report of what is stated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You and others are free to add reports of the interpretation by Ludwig Ott or any other reputable theologian. Neither you nor I nor anyone else is free to post what we think is the significance of verses of Scripture that we claim have significance for the question of the primacy of Peter.

As you will have noticed, I have moved your intervention on this Talk page to the end, which is the place for starting new discussions. Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Things said NOT ex cathedra.

Various Popes have obviously made important pronouncements on all sorts of things over the years, perhaps we might have a list of significant things that were not said under papal infallibility? For example, pronouncements about homosexuality, evolution, divorce and remarriage, contraception, priests and marriage, abortion, atheist governments, infant stem cell harvesting. All of these were/are controversial, but were they said ex cathedra, or were they fallible? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are papal statements that were not pronounced ex cathedra but that are considered infallible, not fallible. See what the article says about the apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. If they;re not ex cathedra, then under what criteria are they considered infallible? Old_Wombat (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Read what the article's section "Instances of infallible declarations" says about the ordinary and universal magisterium. Esoglou (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

1870 Capture of Rome & dogmatic definition of papal infalliability

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), under whose rule the Papal States passed into secular control during 1870.

Esoglou appears to be engaging in repeated non-RPOV edits (removing both image files/captions and paragraph providing historical context of the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility in context with the Third War of Italian Independence and the 1870 Capture of Rome) to the Papal Infallibility wiki article without maintaining or disregarding WP:RNPOV and the Esoglou contributions list itself reveals a long list of article edits related to the Roman Catholic Church and suggests to me that Esoglou is attempting to exercise ownership of the article :

Map of the Papal States (green) in 1700 (around its greatest extent), including its exclaves of Benevento and Pontecorvo in Southern Italy, and the Comtat Venaissin and Avignon in Southern France.

"This doctrine of papal infallibility was defined dogmatically during the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, immediately following the Third Italian War of Independence that was waged by the Kingdom of Italy against the Austrian Empire, with an outcome for the Kingdom of Italy culminating with the Piedmontese troops occuping Rome on September 20, 1870 (Capture of Rome) and collapse of the Papal States within a smaller legal territory known since 1929 under the Lateran Treaty as the Vatican City. Pius IX suspended the First Vatican Council indefinitely on October 20, 1870."

Placement of image files/captions would follow placement as within the History page of the article (the map of the Papal States was to provide readers with an understanding of the temporal and territorial reach of the Papal States); placed left here with Talk for clarity. This information is all relevant to the Papal Infalliability article.

References

–Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed caption "Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), under whose rule the Papal States passed into secular control during 1870" does seem less relevant to an article on papal infallibility than the caption at present in the article: "Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), during whose pontificate the doctrine of papal infallibility was dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council".

The article is about papal infallibility, not just about the dogmatic definition in 1870. However, the supposed relationship between papal infallibility and the extent of the Papal States in 1700, "including its exclaves of Benevento and Pontecorvo in Southern Italy, and the Comtat Venaissin and Avignon in Southern France", is, to say the least, unclear and is certainly unsourced.

The supposed connection between papal infallibility and "the Third Italian War of Independence that was waged by the Kingdom of Italy against the Austrian Empire, with an outcome for the Kingdom of Italy culminating with the Piedmontese troops occuping (sic) Rome on September 20, 1870 (Capture of Rome) and collapse of the Papal States within a smaller legal (sic) territory known since 1929 under the Lateran Treaty as the Vatican City" needs to be demonstrated by citing a reliable source that supports it. The only source cited says nothing whatever about the supposed connection between these events and papal infallibility or even between them and the calling of the First Vatican Council, which it says was called instead to deal with "the rising influence of rationalism, liberalism, and materialism".

An editor who wishes to introduce material stating that the historical situation at the time of the definition of the doctrine influenced either the doctrine or its definition should develop the idea in the body of the article with the support of reliable sources (which may very well exist), not just insert the idea sourcelessly into the lead. One place where it could be introduced is in the section "Claim that Vatican I was to dogmatize papal temporal power", about which one editor has commented: "Is there some reason that these speculations receive attention? Are these opinions generally recognized as of historical importance? Are they the subject matter of any substantive contextualizing WP:RS?" Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you folks give diffs for edits supported ot disputed? This is very hard to follow. Thanks. From what I do understand Esoglou's prefered caption seems much more relevant and he is correct to suggest that any argument tying infallibility to the geopolitical situation needs to be hashed out with good sources in the body of the article. BCRS's desire that a map of the papal states during the relevant era be included also seems reasonable, but the caption for such an image shouldn't be arguing some point. μηδείς (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Errors

The following page contains a number of issues that should probably be examined and addressed:

http://www.catholicplanet.org/articles/wikipedia-papal-infallibility.htm

Thangalin (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I found that site startling, especially the admission that since Vactican I people don't know how many times the pope spoke infallibly.

What was the point in defining it? Montalban (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe someone typed this: "The Roman Catholic Church putting all of its moral eggs in one apostolic basket in this way has damaged its credibility and ability to control the fallout of the child molestation crisis it has found itself embroiled in for the past couple of decades, as Pope Benedict became personally implicated in it. Seeking immunity from prosecution hardly fits any definition of "infallibility". [1]" This author wants to attack the church but doesn't have a clue as to what infallibility means. Popes sin like everyone else but these accusations are unfounded. 67.164.140.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Bismarck's reaction

Contested section added, removed, re-added.

Removal seems to be on the basis that Non Expedit was not an infallible statement, although there is no contest of the claim that Bismarck was concerned by it. I've re-added this as I consider it relevant: if Non Expedit had concerned Bismarck, then any use of dogmatic infallibility would worry him even further! If political reaction to the power of Papal influence, or Papal infallibility, is considered relevant to this article (i.e. we're covering external politics, not merely theology), then this would seem to belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I applaud your decision to bring this question up on the Talk page.

It is undoubted that Bismarck attacked the dogma of papal infallibility (as, I think, did Gladstone and many others). But are you correct in saying that "Bismarck feared that Pius IX and future popes would use the infallibility dogma as a political weapon for manipulating Catholic voters"? Are you, above all, correct in making Wikipedia declare it an absolute fact, not just an opinion, that "this was no idle fear". Just think: in what concrete way could any pope "use the infallibility dogma as a political weapon for manipulating Catholic voters"? Take present-day Pope Francis and the United States or Argentina, for instance. You surely know what papal infallibility means. If so, you do not think that "Papal infallibility" is more or less the same thing as "Papal influence".

That there is no need for this questionable explanation of Bismarck's attack on the dogma is shown by writers who do not posit such a difficult-to-imagine use by popes of the dogma of infallibility. Take: "Bismarck regarded the dogma as an insult to German Protestants and a potential threat to the emerging authority of the German state" (source); "If it is asked: how could the dogma of papal infallibility imperil the relations between Germany and the Church of Rome?, the answer is clear. Germany was a nation in which Protestant principles were dominant. This dogma seemed to Protestants to be anti-Protestant to the core!" (source); or "The First Vatican Council became notorious to liberals everywhere in Europe because it resulted in the Declaration of Papal Infallibility" (source).

(You of course realize that "a potential threat to the emerging authority of the German state" can refer to matters that in the Kulturkampf Bismarck treated as coming under state authority and the Church in Germany saw as exclusively religious.)

I am sure you are quite capable of revising the paragraph in such a way as to make it acceptable. Esoglou (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read "Bismarck's confidential diplomatic circular to German representatives abroad," Berlin, 14 May 1872. In: F.B.M. Hollyday, Bismarck, (Great Lives Observed, Prentice-Hall (1970) pp. 42-44, you would have seen that it was prompted precisely by the promulgation of infallibility dogma. I am glad that Andy Dingley restored this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italus (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, whom I wrongly supposed to have been the person who made the insertion into this article that I see was yours, doubtless has more sense than to insist that one person's interpretation of one book is sufficient basis for presenting an opinion as a fact. Since Hollyday's book is not freely available, I must ask you to quote Hollyday's statement that Bismarck feared that the popes (not just the Catholic Church, in particular the Catholic Church in the newly extended territory that he ruled) would use the infallibility dogma (not just their papal authority in general) to manipulate Catholic voters. That is one request. But more important is the request that (supposing Bismarck really had this notion) you provide good grounds for your declaration that this notion was in fact "no idle fear". Even if Hollyday did say what you attribute to him, would that mean that Bismarck's alleged fear of the popes' use of the dogma was any better founded than the idea Biesinger in his Reference Guide to Germany from the Renaissance to the Present (p. 517) attributes to Bismarck of a link between German unification and the Catholic Church's definition of the doctrine? Surely, even if Bismarck thought it was because of German unification that the Church defined the doctrine, you can't really think that was in fact the Church's reason for defining it and declare that his idea "was no idle notion". Alan Farmer also says that it is debatable whether Bismarck really believed that the anti-Prussian political alignment in the Reichstag was a papal-inspired conspiracy of malcontents bent on destroying the Reich, or whether he was only putting forward that idea as a politically useful weapon in what David Gibson calls his strategy to eliminate the Catholic Church's political and social influence in the Prussian-dominated German state, from which he had already succeeded in excluding Catholic Austria.

Maybe I am wrong. Show me. Esoglou (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a quotation in the article. Scanned segments of Hollyday's book are at http://books.google.com/books?ei=cCIBUoTuIoaHygHs5oHgAQ&id=L17jt4wyy04C&dq=bismarck%3A+great+lives+observed&q=infallibility . Other scanned segments can be found if you search for other keywords.Italus (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The quotation you have given doesn't say Bismarck feared the popes "would use the infallibility dogma as a political weapon for manipulating Catholic voters": it speaks instead of relations between the popes and governments. I think you should rephrase your statement to correspond to what your source says.

You have made no attempt to deal with what I called the more important question: On what grounds do you say that the fear that you attribute to Bismarck was well founded? That statement seems to be just an expression of your own personal judgement alone. That's what is most crying out for sourcing, and it would be doing so even if you found a reliable source for your statement about what it was that Bismarck feared. You shouldn't have removed the "dubious" tag without, as requested, discussing the question. Will you respond now? Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A competent editor should read Hollyday's entire translation of Bismarck's confidential circular and determine if what I have posted in the article is relevant.Italus (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor who follows Wikipedia rules puts into Wikipedia only what is explicitly stated in a reliable source (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE. He does not, by synthesis or otherwise, impose his own personal interpretation, and if his first edit is found not to correspond to what the cited source states explicitly, he modifies his edit to make it correspond. So please:

1. Quote in any language the part of the famous Papstwahldepesche that you think explicitly says that Bismarck feared that the popes "would use the infallibility dogma as a political weapon for manipulating Catholic voters";
2. Cite any reliable source that declares well founded the fear that you attribute to Bismarck.

You know that, if you fail to support an edit by citing an explicit statement by a reliable source, or if you refuse to modify the edit to make it correspond to what a cited source actually says, the edit must be deleted from Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the scanned segment from Page 6 at http://books.google.com/books?ei=cCIBUoTuIoaHygHs5oHgAQ&id=L17jt4wyy04C&dq=bismarck%3A+great+lives+observed&q=infallibility , Hollyday wrote: "Bismarck's attention was also riveted by fear of what he believed to be the desire of the international Catholic church to control national Germany by means of the papal claim of infallibility, announced in 1870. If, as has been argued, there was no papal desire for international political hegemony [...]"Italus (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That snippet too says nothing about popes manipulating Catholic voters. And since you are still making no attempt to justify placing in Wikipedia your personal opinion about whether the fear you attribute to Bismarck was or was not well founded, your unsourced comment on that question must now be removed. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

According to you, what does the snippet say? Perhaps, in my first sentence, I should replace "manipulating Catholic voters" with "establishing international political hegemony" or with "controlling national Germany." I appeal to a competent editor to decide.Italus (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed an excellent idea to modify your first sentence so that it will reflect something that either Bismarck or Hollyday did say and attributing the statement to whoever said it, perhaps quoting that person's exact words. Esoglou (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A Really Badly Written Article

I'm an ex-Catholic with a good Catholic education. I've read this article twice now, and if I didn't already understand papal infallibility I wouldn't have a clue as to how it functions after reading this. The article is so bloated with useless repetitions, yet so uninformative about how infallibility has been used and how often — for instance only twice in the last 160 years — that there is no easily available answer to the questions most non-Catholics would have about the doctrine contained in this piece. May I suggest a summary at the beginning that at least includes the fact that most popes have explicitly chosen NOT to use ex cathedra speech, as well as the fact that since the doctrine was proclaimed in 1870, it has been invoked exactly once (declaring the bodily assumption of Mary the mother of Jesus into heaven). I think many non-Catholics incorrectly assume that Catholics believe whatever the pope says is by definition infallible. Gillartsny (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gillartsny: I agree. Many articles about the Catholic Church have similar problems. A couple of editors who seem to promote other religions add lots of explanations about why the Catholic Church is wrong and the articles devolve from an explanation of what something is into critique of why something isn't so. How about if you edit this article down? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed content

The following was removed in this edit from Papal infallibility § Denial by Catholics (I added additional outbound links etc. on this talk page to the removed content).

Ideas of papal infallibility broader than that defined as dogma by the First Vatican Council have been explicitly denied even by popes. Thus the claim of infallibility advanced by Franciscan Spirituals in the 14th century, and that has been attributed also to 13th-century Peter Olivi, with regard to a statement by Pope Nicholas III was rejected by Pope John XXII. The terms in which John XXII condemned the position of the Franciscan Spirituals "...left a way open for later theologians to re-formulate the doctrine of infallibility in different language," as Guido Terreni, a member of Pope John XXII's court, did in 1330 in terms "closer to the nineteenth century doctrine of papal infallibility than any that had been developed earlier" and closely anticipating the doctrine of the First Vatican Council.

References

• Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant by Jackson is WP:SELFPUBLISHed (www.lulu.com/shop/gregory-l-jackson-phd/catholic-lutheran-protestant-a-doctrinal-comparison-of-three-christian-confessions/paperback/product-12559513.html) and needed to be removed.
• How the Pope Became Infallible (1981) by Hasler has no Google Book preview.
• Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350 (1972) by Tierney has a chapter titled "John XXII and the Franciscans" (pp171ff) so this is reliable content
• the abstract of "Infallibilists in the Curia of Pope John XXII" in Journal of Medieval History (1975) by Turley states:

  In 1324 the idea of papal infallibility was saved from condemnation at the hands of Pope John XXII through the influence of a small group of infallibilists in John's curia. [...] John Regina of Naples, whose argument in 1324 that infallibility was an "ancient teaching of the church" appears to have been decisive in averting Pope John's condemnation. The existence of this group [...] before 1324 revises the suggestion of recent research that the Franciscan, anti-papal conception of papal infallibility which surfaced in the early 1320's served as the inspiration for the development of a curial, pro-papal conception in the late 1320's. The curial conception was not a response to the Franciscan conception, but an independent, parallel development. [...]

• Papal Infallibility (2009) by Powell discusses Tierney's opinion and Powell wrote:

  Tierney's historical presentation is intended to serve as a critique of the contemporary doctrine. However, he notes that within a half- century of Olivi's proposal, Bishop Guido Terreni presented a doctrine of papal infallibility more like the one adopted at Vatican I. In fact, Francis Sullivan remarks that Terreni "so closely anticipated the doctrine of Vatican I that in the judgment of B.M. Xiberta, the Carmelite scholar who edited his work, 'if he had written it after Vatican I he would have had to add or change hardly a single word.' " Thus we can say that the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims.

So, it actually shows more than one thread of historical development into the 19th-century expression of the concept and not a denial of the concept. Nevertheless, removing the good sources – Tierney (1972), Turley (1975), and Powell (2009) – is a bad idea and should be incorporated into the Papal infallibility § Theological history. E.g. Tierney discusses the 19th-century Manning vs Döllinger polemics (pp9–13?) and discusses the period 1150–1250 (pp14–57?) which the article glosses over. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reworked to be less polemical

I have rearranged the article, revised and added heads (for "objections), removed some duplicated material complained about above, clarified who the objections were from, and removed a strange crypto-historical section that another editor had marked as 'speculative'. I have made sure the key section on the conditions was more tightly focussed.

I have added a section near the top on "limitations", because it is something that seems frequently missed in the fun (both by partisan untrapapist Catholic commentators and anti-papist Protestants neither of whom want to emphasize limitations), In fact, it suggests that many people who mention Pastor aeturnus have not actually read it: and indeed I have seen material on the WWW that clearly misstates the text. I have added texts and links to several papal encyclicals.

I think this makes the article much clearer. There is still a problem that a lot of the stuff is clearly written in Catholic-ese or Protestantian rather than modern plain English. I think the head section is horrible still, for the default case of a person coming to the page to get a good quick understanding: maybe the content is good, but it is not in a friendly idiom, to me at least: it looks like a 1950's priest's examination answer. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have also rearranged and added a note to the Catholic Objections sections. The previous list missed the basic point that when people at different times talked of infallibility, they meant different things. The argument about infallibility's limits and conditions and scope was going on. The Jansenist debate about 'fact' versus 'rights' for example. Under George III, it was all about regime change. Furthermore, the list was arranged purporting to show that people objected, when in fact most of the pre-1870 articles are just stating the truth that at that time there was no definition that required anyone to assent to Papal Infallibility. So I have rearranged things more strictly by order of year, and put in some subheadings because it was too long and rambling otherwise. I think it is much easier to follow now. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Short description

Changed it from the ambiguous, Dogma of the Catholic Church, to the qualified, A dogma of the Catholic Church. Infallibility is not the only dogma. Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Papal infallibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed long list of links; a technical TPO vio, but an improvement because it saves vertical space. Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Dogmatically define" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dogmatically define and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Dogmatically define until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Dogmatic definition" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dogmatic definition and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Dogmatic definition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Personal infallibility" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Personal infallibility and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Personal infallibility until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Theological definition" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theological definition and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological definition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)