Jump to content

Talk:Papal infallibility: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m uh... did i miss those?
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{Talk header}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=Mid |theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject European Microstates |importance=Mid |Vatican City=yes |Vatican City-importance=High }}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-07-18|oldid1=440151009|date2=2012-07-18|oldid2=502910284|date3=2014-07-18|oldid3=617431594|date4=2015-07-18|oldid4=671924252}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 8: Line 18:
|archive = Talk:Papal infallibility/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Papal infallibility/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}
* <nowiki>[[Papal States#Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States|spoliation of the Holy See]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/739682142|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States","appear":{"revid":14261463,"parentid":14228620,"timestamp":"2005-05-25T20:32:17Z","removed_section_titles":["Existence","Rome: From Papal States to Italian capital"],"added_section_titles":["The Donation of Pippin and the Holy Roman Empire","The Renaissance","Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States"]},"disappear":{"revid":739682142,"parentid":739331664,"timestamp":"2016-09-16T08:30:49Z","replaced_anchors":{"The Avignon papacy":"The Avignon Papacy"},"removed_section_titles":["The Avignon papacy","French Revolution and Napoleonic era","Italian nationalism and the end of the Papal States"],"added_section_titles":["The Avignon Papacy","Reformation","Napoleonic era","Italian unification"]}} -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=C |importance=Mid
|catholicism=yes |catholicism-importance=High
|theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=High }}
{{WikiProject European Microstates |class=C |importance=Mid
|Vatican City=yes |Vatican City-importance=High }}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-07-18|oldid1=440151009|date2=2012-07-18|oldid2=502910284|date3=2014-07-18|oldid3=617431594|date4=2015-07-18|oldid4=671924252}}

== 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

[[User:Thangalin|Thangalin]] ([[User talk:Thangalin|talk]]) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80"><sup>m</sup><u>bork<sup>3</sup></u></span>]]!) 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?
[[User:Montalban|Montalban]] ([[User talk: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". [http://www.itccs.org]" 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. [[Special:Contributions/67.164.140.139|67.164.140.139]] ([[User talk:67.164.140.139|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 01:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 1870 Capture of Rome & dogmatic definition of papal infalliability ==

[[File:Popepiusix.jpg|thumb|160px|right|[[Pope Pius IX]] (1846-1878), under whose rule the Papal States passed into secular control during 1870.]]

[[User:Esoglou|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 [[User:Esoglou|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 :

[[File:PapalStates1700.png|thumb|right|180px|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 [[dogmatic definition|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]]<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624002/First-Vatican-Council "First Vatican Council".</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624002/First-Vatican-Council "First Vatican Council".</ref>"

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.
{{reflist-talk}}
–[[User:Bee Cliff River Slob|Bee Cliff River Slob]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Papal_infallibility&diff=501344132&oldid=500589198#Claim_that_Vatican_I_was_to_dogmatize_papal_temporal_power 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]]?" [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 09:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

== Bismarck's reaction ==

Contested section [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Papal_infallibility&diff=566932829&oldid=566329785 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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk: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" ([http://books.google.com/books?id=gIFfXCyAYmoC&pg=PT283&dq=McGrath+insult+potential+threat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SRj9UZOwFobR7Aaji4GgAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=McGrath%20insult%20potential%20threat&f=false 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!" ([http://books.google.com/books?id=dsmHlEHkRY4C&pg=PA19&dq=Farmer+%22anti-Protestant+to+the+core%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KhP9Ub_6PMSEhQfzsoDQDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Farmer%20%22anti-Protestant%20to%20the%20core%22&f=false source]); or "The First Vatican Council became notorious to liberals everywhere in Europe because it resulted in the Declaration of Papal Infallibility" ([http://books.google.com/books?id=twCXU4ROpRkC&pg=PA275&dq=Steinberg+%22notorious+to+liberals%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6hP9UZaFGYiphAf5r4DoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Steinberg%20%22notorious%20to%20liberals%22&f=false 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. [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Italus|Italus]] ([[User talk:Italus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Italus|contribs]]) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::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. [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Italus|Italus]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Italus|Italus]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:SYNTH|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:
:::::::#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";
:::::::#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. [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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 [...]"[[User:Italus|Italus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Italus|Italus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Esoglou|Esoglou]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gillartsny|Gillartsny]] ([[User talk:Gillartsny|talk]]) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|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? –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

== Removed content ==

The following was {{diff|Papal infallibility|prev|690064351|removed in this edit}} from {{Section link|Papal infallibility|Denial by Catholics}} (I added additional outbound links etc. on this talk page to the removed content).
{{talkquote|text=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,<ref>Jackson, G. L., (207) ''Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant: a doctrinal comparison of three Christian Confessions''p185.{{Self-published source|date=November 2015}}</ref> with regard to a statement by [[Pope Nicholas III]] was rejected by [[Pope John XXII]].<ref name="Hasler, A. B. 1981">Hasler, A. B., (1981) ''How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion'' (Doubleday; Garden City, NY),pp 36–37</ref><ref>Tierney, B., (1972) ''Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350'' – A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (E J Brill; Leiden, Netherlands), p171</ref><ref name=Turley>[http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/03044181/v01i0001/71_iitcopjx Thomas Turley, "Infallibilists in the Curia of Pope John XXII"] ''Journal of Medieval History'' (April 1975), 1 (1), pp. 71–101 (Abstract)</ref> 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,"<ref name="Tierney, p. 171">[http://books.google.com/books?id=Dn4eAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA171&dq=Brian+Tierney+%22sheer+good+luck%22&hl=en&ei=RWeUTpqMCYOBhQf536GmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Tierney, p. 171]</ref> as [[Guido Terreni]], a member of Pope John XXII's court,<ref name=Turley>[http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/03044181/v01i0001/71_iitcopjx Thomas Turley, "Infallibilists in the Curia of Pope John XXII"] ''Journal of Medieval History'' (April 1975), 1 (1), pp. 71–101 (Abstract)</ref> did in 1330 in terms "closer to the nineteenth century doctrine of papal infallibility than any that had been developed earlier"<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Brian+Tierney+%22Guido%27s+position%22&btnG= Tierney, p. 250]</ref> and closely anticipating the doctrine of the First Vatican Council.<ref name="google.com">[https://books.google.com/books?id=CpofCEGMTJAC&lpg=PA34&dq=Powell%20%22change%20hardly%20a%20single%22&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=Powell%20%22change%20hardly%20a%20single%22&f=false Mark E. Powell, Papal Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue (Eerdmans 2009 ISBN 978-0-8028-6284-6), p. 34]</ref>}}{{reflist-talk}}

*''Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant'' by Jackson is [[WP:SELFPUBLISH]]ed (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 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Dn4eAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA171 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:{{quote|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. {{interp|...|orig=Founded about 1314 by Peter de la Palu, this group developed the idea of the absolute infallibility of the local Roman church first to defend the privileges of the mendicant orders, then to defend the whole church against heresy. Its members included Guido Terreni, who from 1318 seems to have taken the lead in the development of the idea, and}} 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 {{highlight|existence of this group {{interp|...|orig=of 'curial infallibilists'}} 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. {{interp|...|orig=Peter de la Palu and Guido Terreni in 1318 were not even aware that Peter Olivi, the formulator of the Franciscan conception, had taught a theory of infallibility. In fact, they condemned him for not doing so. If Olivi's theory had any influence on Palu's initial conception, it was through the very simplified version of an intermediary.}}}}
*''Papal Infallibility'' (2009) by Powell [https://books.google.com/books?id=CpofCEGMTJAC&pg=PA33 discusses Tierney's opinion] and Powell wrote:{{quote|text=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, [https://books.google.com/books?id=ptVKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92 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 {{Section link|Papal infallibility|Theological history}}. E.g. Tierney discusses the 19th-century [https://books.google.com/books?id=Dn4eAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA171 Manning vs Döllinger polemics] (pp9–13{{gray|?}}) and discusses the period 1150–1250 (pp14–57{{gray|?}}) which the article glosses over. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 12:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


== "Theological definition (Catholicism)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
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. [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 15:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Theological definition (Catholicism)]] and has thus listed it at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological definition (Catholicism)]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
== "Theological Definitions" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Theological Definitions]] and has thus listed it at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological Definitions]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
== "Definitions, Theological" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Definitions, Theological]] and has thus listed it at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Definitions, Theological]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
== "Dogmatically defined" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Dogmatically defined]] and has thus listed it at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Dogmatically defined]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== "first comma" and "ex cathedra" ==


I quote the article:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


"A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998 listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list. The list included as ex cathedra pronouncements Ineffabilis Deus, Munificentissimus Deus, and Benedictus Deus.[67]"
I have just modified 13 external links on [[Papal infallibility]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=771701426 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906142233/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906142233/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429072610/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161223063726/http://www.theanglocatholic.com/tag/pastor-aeternus/ to http://www.theanglocatholic.com/tag/pastor-aeternus/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023184617/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Theological_Definition to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Theological_Definition
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411205321/http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur373.htm to http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur373.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112205625/http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wadc.html to http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wadc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112210308/http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wcumint.html to http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wcumint.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112204455/http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html to http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810175256/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118205206/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009051500/http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7029 to http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7029
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429072610/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM


This is not totally true. The commentary presents mariological dogmas (ineffabilis deus and munificentissimus deus) and beatific vision after death (benedictus deus) as exemple of truth of the "first comma", i.e. revealed magisterium. The revealed magisterium is made up of the proposition that are affirmed as "revealed by God" by the Pope ex cathedra, the universal ordinary magisterium, or a council. The commentary doesn't say if these are dogmas by virtue of a ex cathedra declaration or universal magisterium of a council.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Moreover, there are many instances of infallible affirmations by the pope that are not ex cathedra but just ordinary magisterium, i.e. every single time that the pope re-state a dogma, or teaches something that is already teached universally (even if he doesn't know it and doesn't say that it is a dogma), or he explicit a "secondary object of infallibility", i.e. something that is entailed or presupposed by an explicit dogma. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/151.18.63.38|151.18.63.38]] ([[User talk:151.18.63.38#top|talk]]) 17:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Loss of Papal States ==
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}


An important historical context was the secular setback of losing a large section of the Papal States a decade earlier. That was an important source of revenue for the Vatican. One can speculate that declaring papal infallibility in 1869-70 was in part a response to this loss. [[User:Oxfreudian|Oxfreudian]] ([[User talk:Oxfreudian|talk]]) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 00:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:52, 14 October 2024

"Theological definition (Catholicism)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theological definition (Catholicism) and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological definition (Catholicism) 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)[reply]

"Theological Definitions" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theological Definitions and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological Definitions 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)[reply]

"Definitions, Theological" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Definitions, Theological and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Definitions, Theological 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)[reply]

"Dogmatically defined" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dogmatically defined and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Dogmatically defined 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)[reply]

"first comma" and "ex cathedra"

[edit]

I quote the article:

"A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998 listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list. The list included as ex cathedra pronouncements Ineffabilis Deus, Munificentissimus Deus, and Benedictus Deus.[67]"

This is not totally true. The commentary presents mariological dogmas (ineffabilis deus and munificentissimus deus) and beatific vision after death (benedictus deus) as exemple of truth of the "first comma", i.e. revealed magisterium. The revealed magisterium is made up of the proposition that are affirmed as "revealed by God" by the Pope ex cathedra, the universal ordinary magisterium, or a council. The commentary doesn't say if these are dogmas by virtue of a ex cathedra declaration or universal magisterium of a council. Moreover, there are many instances of infallible affirmations by the pope that are not ex cathedra but just ordinary magisterium, i.e. every single time that the pope re-state a dogma, or teaches something that is already teached universally (even if he doesn't know it and doesn't say that it is a dogma), or he explicit a "secondary object of infallibility", i.e. something that is entailed or presupposed by an explicit dogma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.63.38 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Papal States

[edit]

An important historical context was the secular setback of losing a large section of the Papal States a decade earlier. That was an important source of revenue for the Vatican. One can speculate that declaring papal infallibility in 1869-70 was in part a response to this loss. Oxfreudian (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Papal_infallibility&oldid=1251035217"