It is so often misunderstood, even by Catholics, including me, this article does shed some light on the subject.
Personally, while I believe in the concept of the Church as ultimately infallible I do not believe papal infallibility as reserved for the pope.
Papal infallibility, solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council in its 1870 dogmatic constitution “Pastor Aeternus,” has long been controversial and frequently misunderstood inside and outside the church. Some Catholics after the Council argued that with an infallible pope, there was no need for future church councils. Protestants generally find the teaching unbiblical and contrary to the teachings of the early church, though Catholics point to Christ’s promise to remain always with his church and to send the Spirit to “teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” (Jn 14:26).
But theologians continue to disagree about how declarations of the papal magisterium should be interpreted, as recently became evident when the Pontifical Academy for Life tweeted the suggestion that “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI’s encyclical condemning artificial contraception, was not covered by papal infallibility.
In June 2014, the International Theological Commission published an important text entitled “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church,” developing Francis’ understanding of the people of God as a subject. In focusing on the sensus fidei (sense of the faith) and the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful), the text reclaimed a principle long overlooked in recent Catholic history but deeply rooted in both Scripture and the theological tradition. As the commission’s text explains, the faithful “are not merely passive recipients of what the hierarchy teaches and theologians explain: rather they are living and active subjects within the Church.”
While the sense of the faithful cannot be reduced to majority opinion and needs to be discerned by the magisterium, the faithful have a role in the development of the church’s doctrine and moral teaching, and they should be consulted. Theologically, the old distinction between a teaching church (ecclesia docens), identified exclusively with the hierarchy, and a learning church (ecclesia discens), is no longer appropriate. The unity between the two is organic. Thus, the council banished “the caricature of active hierarchy and a passive laity” (No. 4).
It is not always easy to recognize when a doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the ordinary magisterium, as historians have often pointed out. Nor is what the church believes always clear. Many consistent teachings of the ordinary magisterium have ultimately been changed because of the way in which they were received by the church. In his 1992 book Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion, Luis M. Bermejo gave a number of examples, among them the impossibility of salvation outside the church, taught by Lateran IV (l215) and Florence (1442); the tolerance of slavery, sanctioned by Lateran III (1179), Lateran IV (1215), Lyons V (1245) and Lyons II (1274); and the justification of the use of torture by Lateran II (1179) and Vienne (1311).
During Pope John Paul II’s pontificate, a flood of documents on magisterial authority were issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the prefect of the congregation at the time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, drawing charges of a doctrinal maximalism, or “creeping infallibilism.” A case in point is Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” which declared that the church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this judgment is to be definitively held. When questions were raised about the authority of the letter, the C.D.F. published a statement declaring that the pope’s teaching belonged to the deposit of faith and has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
But many theologians continued to question the accuracy of that declaration. Writing in America, the distinguished Jesuit canonist Ladislas Örsy, S.J., argued that the C.D.F.’s response reflected only the interpretation and authority of that congregation; it did not affect the weight of the apostolic letter. Francis Sullivan, S.J., then the premier authority on magisterial authority, wrote that a question remained as to whether or not the bishops of the church were unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth. He concluded, “Unless this is manifestly the case, I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.”
America recently quoted Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who described the academy’s role as providing a space for scholarly discussion; it is not limited to explaining texts of the magisterium. This reflects the approach of Pope Francis, who continues to emphasize the relation between conscience, norms and discernment. He prefers this to condemnation.
Papal infallibility is often misunderstood. Here’s what it means—and what it doesn’t. | America Magazine
Personally, while I believe in the concept of the Church as ultimately infallible I do not believe papal infallibility as reserved for the pope.
Papal infallibility, solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council in its 1870 dogmatic constitution “Pastor Aeternus,” has long been controversial and frequently misunderstood inside and outside the church. Some Catholics after the Council argued that with an infallible pope, there was no need for future church councils. Protestants generally find the teaching unbiblical and contrary to the teachings of the early church, though Catholics point to Christ’s promise to remain always with his church and to send the Spirit to “teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” (Jn 14:26).
But theologians continue to disagree about how declarations of the papal magisterium should be interpreted, as recently became evident when the Pontifical Academy for Life tweeted the suggestion that “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI’s encyclical condemning artificial contraception, was not covered by papal infallibility.
In June 2014, the International Theological Commission published an important text entitled “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church,” developing Francis’ understanding of the people of God as a subject. In focusing on the sensus fidei (sense of the faith) and the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful), the text reclaimed a principle long overlooked in recent Catholic history but deeply rooted in both Scripture and the theological tradition. As the commission’s text explains, the faithful “are not merely passive recipients of what the hierarchy teaches and theologians explain: rather they are living and active subjects within the Church.”
While the sense of the faithful cannot be reduced to majority opinion and needs to be discerned by the magisterium, the faithful have a role in the development of the church’s doctrine and moral teaching, and they should be consulted. Theologically, the old distinction between a teaching church (ecclesia docens), identified exclusively with the hierarchy, and a learning church (ecclesia discens), is no longer appropriate. The unity between the two is organic. Thus, the council banished “the caricature of active hierarchy and a passive laity” (No. 4).
It is not always easy to recognize when a doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the ordinary magisterium, as historians have often pointed out. Nor is what the church believes always clear. Many consistent teachings of the ordinary magisterium have ultimately been changed because of the way in which they were received by the church. In his 1992 book Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion, Luis M. Bermejo gave a number of examples, among them the impossibility of salvation outside the church, taught by Lateran IV (l215) and Florence (1442); the tolerance of slavery, sanctioned by Lateran III (1179), Lateran IV (1215), Lyons V (1245) and Lyons II (1274); and the justification of the use of torture by Lateran II (1179) and Vienne (1311).
During Pope John Paul II’s pontificate, a flood of documents on magisterial authority were issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the prefect of the congregation at the time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, drawing charges of a doctrinal maximalism, or “creeping infallibilism.” A case in point is Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” which declared that the church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this judgment is to be definitively held. When questions were raised about the authority of the letter, the C.D.F. published a statement declaring that the pope’s teaching belonged to the deposit of faith and has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
But many theologians continued to question the accuracy of that declaration. Writing in America, the distinguished Jesuit canonist Ladislas Örsy, S.J., argued that the C.D.F.’s response reflected only the interpretation and authority of that congregation; it did not affect the weight of the apostolic letter. Francis Sullivan, S.J., then the premier authority on magisterial authority, wrote that a question remained as to whether or not the bishops of the church were unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth. He concluded, “Unless this is manifestly the case, I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.”
America recently quoted Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who described the academy’s role as providing a space for scholarly discussion; it is not limited to explaining texts of the magisterium. This reflects the approach of Pope Francis, who continues to emphasize the relation between conscience, norms and discernment. He prefers this to condemnation.
Papal infallibility is often misunderstood. Here’s what it means—and what it doesn’t. | America Magazine
