Recently some Catholics are having reservations about Papal infallibility or the authority of the Holy See itself. To summarize simply, a few controversial teachings from more recent Popes are apparently in conflict with the First Vatican Council’s explanation of Papal authority. The dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus (session IV), chapter IV, teaches the following about the Roman See:
“So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their
predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The firstcondition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.”
This is from what is delineated as "paragraph 2," it will be referred to as such moving forward.
Later in the same chapter the dogma of Papal infallibly is defined:
“...when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”
We will refer to this as “paragraph 9” as this is how several outlets also delineate this section as well.
Now, some people look at recent Popes like Francis and start to doubt infallibility The concern is that these Popes do not “preserve unblemished” the Catholic faith and they do not hold in honor sacred doctrine. One such example they cite is Pope Francis’ allowance for certain people to receive Holy Communion as found in the Apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (paragraph 305 and footnote 351) as well as Francis' affirmation the Argentinian Bishops worrying interpretation of these directives. Another example is the erroneous teaching that non-Catholics can be martyrs for the faith as found in John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint (84).
For this article, we are not going to analyze these recent Popes and their teachings. Instead, we are approaching this issue as if recent Popes did in fact taught error in their official documents. Taking the example of Amoris Laetitia one might easily dismiss this whole thing because Pope Francis never defined anything infallibly. Well, that is correct. So, what is the issue then? The doubts about infallibility are reflected in paragraph 2 which might be a result of broad interpretation of the text.
Since Pope Francis did not “preserve unblemished” the teaching of the Church, then there is something amiss with the infallibility of the Church. This is not because Pope Francis made an infallible decree (which he did not), but because the teaching in paragraph 2 should itself be infallible in describing the inerrancy of the Apostolic See. Therefore, Pope Francis should not be able to blemish Church teaching. Read again:
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.”
However, is there another interpretation here? Examining both paragraph 2 and paragraph 9 (definition of Papal infallibility), either two conclusions can be made:
A) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 9 are talking about two different things: I.e., the Pope is infallible when making a formal decree and the Apostolic See has always preserved doctrine unblemished apart from formal infallible decrees.
B) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 9 are talking about the same thing: I.e., they both mean formal infallible decrees applied to the whole Church, not every single teaching in every papal document.
If paragraph 2 is talking about something different than paragraph 9 (conclusion A), then why does paragraph 9 explicitly put limiters on infallibility? Meaning, if paragraph 2 is stating all teachings from the Roman See have always been “preserved unblemished” then why turn around and limit infallibility to specific conditions?
The First Vatican Council never explicitly stated that every time the Pope teaches something in any capacity and in every way he is infallible. Rather, it explicitly teaches that certain conditions must be met for infallibility to be achieved. Hence, paragraph 2 is not talking about every single teaching a Pope puts into words and writing as if it were all-encompassing. Paragraph 2 must include the limiters placed upon infallibility as seen in paragraph 9. Otherwise, the council is teaching that the Apostolic Roman See is infallible in all teachings without formal conditions/limiters and then simultaneously turns around and says infallibility is met under certain conditions/limiters. That is illogical.
Further, the entire chapter's descriptions about the office of the Papacy is all tied together and summed up in the final decree that sets limits/conditions on infallibly. For example, leading up to the definition we read in paragraph 7 that the seat of Peter has the “gift of truth and never-failing faith.” Then in paragraph 8, right before the formal definition of Papal infallibility, it reads, “…we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.” After this, paragraph 9 proceeds to define Papal infallibly with limitations. Hence, everything in this document needs to be read in this context together.
For Pope Francis to defy the teachings of the First Vatican Council, he would need to teach something erroneous with the same binding declarative language as seen in Unam Sanctam (no salvation outside the Church) or Munificentissimus Deus (Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) to name some examples. Since this has not happened, and since paragraph 2 can be read to include the limiters as defined in paragraph 9, there is nothing to worry about at least in this regard.
Nevertheless, there should be a serious discussion over Papal infallibility's limits and how the First Vatican Council leaves the possibility for a Pope to err when those limiters laid out in paragraph 9 are absent. Yes, all ecumenical councils can word things poorly, the greatest example is of course the Second Vatican Council. The First Vatican Council's definition of Papal infallibility was produced under time constraints and through compromise, the latter being normal procedure. We hope that a future Pope or council would further explore, develop, and clarify this topic albeit prudently as to not spread doubt in the authority of the Church. It may even help quell the current so-called “extreme ultramontanism” which has had a hand in producing both sedevacantism and Catholic “neo-conservativism.”