Talk:Papal infallibility

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)

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)

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.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)

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)