*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.

I noticed many questions about how to figure out or what exactly constitutes an infallible statement from the Pope of the Catholic Church. Since it is infallible Dogma within the Catholic church to believe that the Pope can make these infallible *ex Cathedra* statements on matters of faith, there must be a single agreed upon list of these statements... but I cannot seem to find one. The Vatican’s website or Denzinger’s *Sources of Catholic Dogma* compile key papal teachings, but they don’t explicitly label statements as *ex cathedra*... Are these statements just so rare that there are literally only 2 (making my search kinda silly?): 1. The Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX, *Ineffabilis Deus*, 1854), declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin. 2. The Assumption of Mary (Pope Pius XII, *Munificentissimus Deus*, 1950), declaring that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. But... considering things like Vatican II which changed Mass significantly... or Pope John Paul II’s *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* (1994) on the male-only priesthood (which feels like just a reconfirmation of something that had existed for 1900ish years)... I'm not trying to poke holes in the concept of Papal infallibility, but is there really no list of infallible statements, if Catholics must believe in this Dogma?

Most people think that Papal Apostolic Constitutions (which have higher level of authority than most other types of papal documents) are infallible, but in fact only Papal *ex cathedra* statements having 4 characteristics are infallible (see the *Necessary Conditions* section [here](https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-229/)) : 1. Exercising role as the supreme teacher, not simply as private theologian 1. On a matter of faith or morals, not on practical or disciplinary matters 1. Makes an explicit declaration of his intention to define a doctrine Catholics are obligated to assent 1. Makes clear that ALL Catholics, including in all future ages are bound in conscience to this teaching and there have been only [2 instances of this faculty being used](https://uscatholic.org/articles/201105/is-there-a-list-of-infallible-teachings/) , namely for the dogmas of the: 1. Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854, [*Ineffabilis Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm) by Pope Bl. Pius IX) 1. Assumption of Mary (1950, [*Munificentissimus Deus*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12munif.htm) by Pope Pius XII) which were defined and taught through an *ex cathedra* [Apostolic Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution) . **Why the two Popes found it expedient to declare the 2 dogmas of Mary using the rare facility of infallible pronouncements (i.e. *ex cathedra*)?** I'm primarily interested in the **historical situations** which must have contributed to the (first?) use of this facility for a Pope to *personally* teach infallibly. Why wouldn't the two Popes use a less authoritative vehicle (such as a *regular* Apostolic Constitution or through a canon of an ecumenical council)? Was there an urgent "heresy" to be dealt with, as it was during the early days of the Protestant Reformation by the Council of Trent? Even if it was urgent, surely a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement wouldn't be less dogmatic for Catholics? Also, given debate in previous centuries regarding the Immaculate Conception, wouldn't a council be a more appropriate venue for the dogma to be clarified by the whole Church? ----- #### P.S. Impact on ecumenism Now that Vatican II is almost 60 years behind us, the issue of the infallibility of the Pope and these 2 infallible Marian dogmas remained the top reasons why Protestants are hesitant to convert because they would like to see that all that are **necessary** to be believed need to have an *explicit* Biblical basis like every proposition in the Apostle's Creed, for instance. (Just to clarify, *sola scriptura* does NOT say Tradition does NOT have a role, only that Scripture has to NORM Tradition. So as a Protestant who is *not* a Biblicist / proponent of "naked scripture" I can also say that although the 2 dogmas don't have *explicit* support, they are not inherently condemned by Scripture either. For example, even Elijah had his assumption to heaven, and Jesus was immaculately conceived. So I acknowledge that the reasons that most Protestants adduced are largely irrelevant to Catholic way of constructing dogmas, which look to both Scripture and Tradition, with her own hermeneutical principle to interpret Scripture. But STILL, I agree with the Protestant principle that doctrines that do *not* have explicit support should be **optional**, such as baptismal regeneration or the nature of the Eucharist, which Protestants regard as *less* essential than the Trinity, which has become the basis for ecumenism among Protestants.) But history has shown in the past 150 years or so, that both Papal infallibility and Marian dogmas has remained THE single most persistent barrier of entry for **MOST** Protestants to "come back" to the Catholic fold (now *more* than justification by faith alone, for a hint see [2017 Pew Research Survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/08/31/u-s-protestants-are-not-defined-by-reformation-era-controversies-500-years-later/) , 7% and 9% respectively). Because Catholicism elevates them to the status of "**required**" *on the same level of the Trinity*! So it seems **less prudent** (ecumenically) in the age of ecumenism especially since Vatican II that embrace adherents of other religions with its inclusive language regarding the fate of non-Catholic adherents (*cf* *Lumen Gentium*) and designate Protestants as "ecclesial communities" rather than heretics who are anathema, to clarify the 2 Marian teachings as two infallible dogmas using the *ex cathedra* personal pronouncements by the two Popes. To Protestants, it's a **"double whammy"**. Surely both Popes realized this? Why incur the unnecessary ecumenical cost when a non-*ex cathedra* pronouncement PLUS a council document would have sufficed to clarify the matters for Catholics? Yes, the historical **time** is opportune to clarify the Marian dogmas (as Ken Graham pointed out in his answer), but what historical **situation** made it expedient to clarify the dogmas *using* the *ex-cathedra* facility? It's not as though there was an intra-controversy within the Catholic church that risk rupturing the church like the Arian / Donatist controversies, for instance. Or the situation leading to Council of Ephesus declaring that Mary is *theotokos* which Protestants **DO** affirm and consider it as an important support (against heresies) for proper understanding of the Incarnation (see [Gavin Ortlund's arguing for it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwgHGsODNDw)) . Was it necessary for Catholics to have the matters clarified *ex cathedra*?

Bishop Strickland was recently deposed by Pope Francis, ostensibly because he tweeted something about the Pope "undermining the deposit of faith". Is that a technical term or just a euphemism for heresy? Is it licit, under the auspices of Vatican I, to suspect that the Pope could be doing such a thing?

There are plenty of questions in this site about infallibility (e.g. [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15547/which-roman-catholic-doctrines-are-infallible) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/list-of-papal-teachings-considered-infallible) , and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34712/does-the-pope-teach-infallibly-only-when-he-speaks-ex-cathedra)) . All of them take for granted a certain definition of "faith and morals", which is the area upon which doctrines are to be potentially considered infallible. But, **what precisely is meant by faith and morals?** In other words, **which is the precise and demarcated scope of infallibility?** The [Catholic Encyclopedia](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV) on this same topic is far from clear. Faith and morals are words that can be colloquially stretched significantly, so it is essential to me that there is theological clarity on what exactly the Church means. Having a precise demarcation we can then analyse the full range of **potential** areas of infallibility. For example, regarding "moral" issues like paying taxes, polluting the environment, being in the army, gambling, etc; or "faith" issues like the number of wings of angels (if any), the day Moses died (for a potential "Feast of Moses"), whether the rich go to heaven or not, etc.

I am not asking if Roman Catholics find a biblical basis for burning an heretic; that question has been asked here . This question has to do with infallible statements by a Pope regarding how the faithful **must** think about the burning of heretics. In the Papal Encyclical Exsurge Domine (1520) given by Pope Leo X we find, among other things, the following: > With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. **By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication….** One of the theses listed within the encyclical (which I understand to have been given ex cathedra and therefore to be infallible ) which is under condemnation is the thesis that "the burning of heretics is against the Holy Spirit": > 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. Here is a link to a scholarly paper describing how *Exsurge Domina* meets all five of the criteria for papal infallibility. This paper also describes how the development of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, dogmatically defined in 1868, was always intended to incorporate the "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions already issued by the Roman see over the history of the Church: > In other words, (Bishop) Gasser was able to assert “in passing”--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been “thousands and thousands” of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see! Even if he did not intend to be taken quite literally and meant only to make the point that “a great many” such definitions were “Ex-Cathedra,” it is obvious that he was not only referring to solemn definitions of revealed truth, such as Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception a few years previously. There have in fact been only a few such definitions. So Gasser obviously meant to include the many Papal definitions of secondary truths, including censures less than heresy, as genuine “Ex-Cathedra,” infallible definitions. According to Pope Leo X it is infallibly declared that "We restrain in all the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication that all the faithful of both sexes must regard as condemned, reprobated, and rejected the idea that the burning of an heretic is against the will of the Holy Spirit". If the burning of heretics is not against the will of the Holy Spirit then God must either favor the action or be indifferent towards it. There is nothing within this encyclical indicating which of these two options is correct but it is clear that one cannot be both a faithful Catholic **and** believe that burning heretics is against the will of God. Also in this encyclical, there is a command to gather and publicly burn any and all works containing or promulgating any of these theses: > Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. **We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them.** They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. **Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.** So it appears that every Roman Catholic is specifically commanded not to believe "that heretics should be burned is against the will of the Spirit" and disobedience incurs automatic major excommunication. Are Roman Catholics in general taught, and do they understand, that they are infallibly commanded, under penalty of automatic major excommunication, to believe that; 1) God favors (or is at least indifferent to) the burning of heretics and, 2) that Roman Catholic Bishops and regular clergy should be regularly collecting and publicly burning anything promulgating Martin Luther's ideas ... or has something occurred which has rendered this injunction fallible?

**Does the Catholic Church consider all encyclicals infallible?** > Although the term "encyclical" originally simply meant a circulating letter, it acquired a more specific meaning within the context of the Catholic Church. In 1740, Pope Benedict XIV wrote a letter titled *Ubi primum*, which is generally regarded as the first encyclical. The term is now used almost exclusively for a kind of letter sent out by the pope. > > For the modern Roman Catholic Church, a papal encyclical is a specific category of papal document, a kind of pastoral letter concerning Catholic doctrine, sent by the pope and usually addressed especially to patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops who are in communion with the Holy See. The form of the address can vary widely and may concern bishops in a particular area, or designate a wider audience. Papal encyclicals usually take the form of a papal brief because of their more personal nature as opposed to the formal papal bull. They are usually written in Latin, and like most papal documents the title of the encyclical is usually taken from its first few words (its incipit). - [Encyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical)

The website of the University of Dayton has a page dedicated to the dogmatic status and meaning of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. In it we find means by which the Church may have assurance of the infallibility of certain teachings: > There are other norms by which the Church may have assurance that a teaching has been infallibly revealed by God: **consensus fidelium** (i.e. general agreement among the entire body of believers "from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" [Lumen Gentium #12]); and "**universal ordinary magisterium**" (i.e. frequent authoritative teachings affirming one perspective on a topic given by the Pope alone, or by the episcopate in general). Later on in the article we see this applied to the teaching of Mary's Perpetual Virginity: > On the topic of Mary's perpetual virginity, we have **double assurance** that the teaching may be considered as infallibly revealed in light of the statement of the fifth Ecumenical Council and **by virtue of its constant use in the life of the Church afterwards** (i.e. consensus of the faithful and universal ordinary magisterium). So, one of the means by which the Church may be assured that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an infallible teaching is *by virtue of it's constant use in the Church* following it's statement in the 5th Ecumenical Council. However there are anathema's associated with denying the perpetual virginity of Mary which were announced, not only at that council, but in councils which followed. The official acts of the 5th council contain an anathema condemning those who deny "that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her.". The Lateran Council of 649, convened by Pope Martin I contained this condemnation associated with denying the Perpetual Virginity: > If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that **holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate**, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and **gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned**. A teaching is given to the Church, if you deny the teaching you are condemned, and then all the believers in the teaching are pointed to as proof of the infallibility of the teaching! What choice did they have when the only ones who get to stay in the Church are those who accept the teaching? * It has been clarified to me elsewhere that a denier of a doctrine has separated themselves from the church rather than having been expelled but there appears to be no practical distinction as regards this question as they are, in either case, recognized by the Church as separated and their opinion is excluded from 'consensus fidelium'. My question is, How can the universal acceptance of a teaching within the Roman Catholic Church stand as assurance of that teaching's infallibility when the teaching itself assigns condemnation to deniers of it and considers them to be separated from the Church and, therefore, removed from consensus fidelium?

Is an individual bishop in communion with the Church and Supreme Pontiff prevented from teaching/approving heresy via formal acts under the doctrines of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the "biblically supported" doctrine that the church is the *custodian of truth*. What is the scriptural support for the Catholic church's claim that they are the custodians of truth? What does it mean to be the *custodian of truth.* Does this mean that they believe in modern revelation and receive direction from God?

The Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility (P.I.) wasn't officially defined until 1870. This doctrine, defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, is claimed to have existed in medieval theology and to have been the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation. Thus, Catholics can say that at the 4th Council of Trent the canon of Scripture was infallibly defined even though it took place 324 years prior to Vatican I. Indeed, I have found it declared that all Ecumenical councils derive their authority through the infallibility of the Pope who ratifies the council's documents. There are 19 councils recognized by the Catholic Church prior to the 1870 dogmatic definition of P.I. Of these, there are 4 that took place prior to the beginning of medieval times: 1) FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 2) FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE - 381 3) COUNCIL OF EPHESUS - 431 4) COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON - 451 While there is apparently some church history and debate as far back as 519 when the notion of the Bishop of Rome as the preserver of apostolic truth was set forth in the Formula of Hormisdas , most of the theological references that smack of P.I. come from much deeper into the medieval period; 1073 and beyond. Rather than challenge the claim that Papal Infallibility existed in common medieval theology, I am asking after proof that this doctrine existed prior to the beginning of the medieval period in 476. related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89471/how-is-the-claim-that-the-doctrine-of-papal-infallibility-has-always-existed-wit

According to the Catholic Church, what was the first infallible statement made by a pope, *by himself*, outside an ecumenical council?

Say for example a Pope infallibly declares that Mary was not a virgin, and is currently rotting in Hell. This obviously contradicts established Catholic Dogma. What would happen in this case? Would the cardinals get together and kick the Pope out of his office? Is a heretical ex cathedra definition cause for an automatic loss of the Papal position which would lead to a sedevacantism situation?

In 1075, Pope Gregory the Seventh decreed the [*Dictatus Papae*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae) , also called the Papal Dictats. One part of the document makes the claim that: > 22. The Roman Church has never erred. Nor will it err, to all eternity--Scripture being witness. It also says: > 23. The Roman Pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made holy by the merits of St. Peter, St. Ennodius Bishop of Pavia bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As it is contained in the decrees of Pope St. Symmachus. (The second statement claims that all dully ordained Popes become a saint) Were these two claims made [*Ex Cathedra*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2133/when-does-the-pope-speak-ex-cathedra) ? If so, isn't that incompatible with infallibility as the Church has admitted it has erred in the past (in its actions, not doctrine), and there have been horrible Popes who couldn't possibly be saints (Pope John XII as an example)?

I was listening to the Megyn Kelly show [Episode 193](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1dRLnle1ogX2duOycsHRQ2?si=015271e5f0154711) about 1:30 into it with her interview with Alan Dershowitz he called her something like a heretic for having views contrary to Pope Francis on the subject of vaccines (not that she wasn't already vaccinated herself, but she's apparently opposed to mandates). Now, Mr. Dershowitz is Jewish and probably not a great authority on Catholicism, but I thought I'd ask this question here because if a smart person like him can think that any utterance of the Pope is infallible, then that is probably a common misconception. However, I'm guessing there's some sort of respect we should give the Holy Father's opinions on matters of health, politics and science. So I'd like to know, on the scale of 10 to 1 (Dogma, being 10, and unapproved private revelation, being 1), where do comments from the Holy Father fit? Does it matter if he gives those comments to reporters on an airplane vs. in an official address at St. Peters. What about the various kinds of writings (motu proprios, encyclicals, etc...)

As the question asks, which verses in the Bible show that Jesus Christ consecrated the disciples as apostles during his lifetime. Also are there any verses(with words of Jesus in his lifetime) which talk in general about their infallibility. Please support your answer with **authentic** references. And the definition of authentic according to me is ... Authentic - If a source is authentic, then it is proved that it is not fake or fabricated over time by the people passing it, but in fact it was in its true form real and original. **Update:** As suggested below I would like to ask the same question this way, if this is what the community prefers... **What biblical evidence, does the Church use to support the claim, of the papal infallibility in the Catholic Church, and under what grounds does it claim infallibility and it’s ability to teach without error?**

After reading https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2133/when-does-the-pope-speak-ex-cathedra I became curious and searched for a list of statements, but couldn't find one. Does such list exist and if not, why is this the case?

Currently the Catholic Church has a Pope Emeritus (Benedict XVI). This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that such position has existed. There have been and still are plenty of bishop emeritus elsewhere, but this is the first time it happens in the diocese of Rome. Is he infallible? This is more of an hypothetical question, as it seems unlikely Benedict XVI will ever attempt to speak about moral or faith issues _ex cathedra_. So far, he has rather kept a very low public profile. If he ever tries to, it will probably be with the consent (and perhaps sponsorship, if not directly under the name) of the Pope. My guess is that he is not. In [my view](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/68572/22426) , the Chair of St. Peter is occupied by Pope Francis and not by Benedict XVI, so he has lost the infallible protection the Holy Spirit gives to the occupier of that Chair. But maybe I'm wrong. Any ideas?

Could the proposition >The human soul is created at the moment of conception. be defined as dogma? (question idea courtesy Peter Turner, who asked "What paths exist in the Catholic Church for a certain theological position to become recognized as dogma? ")

My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible, because what he says in such instances is divinely protected from error. There are a lot of questions that the Church considers open, e.g. the question of whether infants who die without being baptized are saved. It seems like it would be a great idea for the Pope to *attempt* to assert ex cathedra that they are saved. Either the pronouncement would succeed, in which case we would know with certainty that it is true, or else something would prevent the pronouncement from going through, in which case we would have a hint that it is false. I assume that I am misunderstanding something about papal infallibility and there is a catch somewhere. **What's the catch?** Naturally, I'm interested in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Here are a couple of possible answers: - Technically, the Pope *could* "exploit" infallibility in this way, but it would be immoral. - If the Pope decided to try this sort of thing, he would be divinely prevented from making the ex cathedra pronouncement regardless of whether the doctrine in question was true or false, so we wouldn't actually learn anything from the exercise. In either case, I'm left wondering: What exactly differentiates "legitimate" ex cathedra pronouncements, like the pronouncement of the immaculate conception in Ineffabilis Deus, from the sort of "illegitimate" ex cathedra pronouncement that I suggested?