Was Alexander VI Infallible?

[aldini]

I am a high church Anglican considering "swimming the Tiber"

Does anyone know if Pope Alexander VI made any infallible statements? Does papal infallibiliyt on faith and morals apply only to ex cathedra statement or to any magesterial work on faith or morals?
If the Holy Spirit prevents error then I assume the holy Spirit and all catholics support the work of Alexander VI?

Thanks much for your replies

[jezic]

um what did he do?

[Era Might]

Yah, it would be easier to reply if you specified what exactly you're unsure about.

[LouisvilleFan]

The pope is only infallible when making a statement ex cathedra concerning faith or morals. Since the doctrine was defined relatively recently (but I don't know when exactly), there are only two infallible statements: Immaculate Conception and Assumption. However, all the bishops gathered together can also teach with infallible authority. The first seven ecumenical councils, for example, are accepted as infallible by both Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

Wikipedia has an entry on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI"]Pope Alexander VI[/url]. He was notorious for his love of greed, money, and women, and the ten children he had with is mistresses, so he's pretty much the archetype of corrupt medieval popes. It says a lot when his successor, Pope Pius III forbade the saying of a Mass for Alexander VI's soul calling it "blasphemous to pray for the damned." (Of course, Pius' statement was not infallible.

While Catholics view the Pope is the physical head of the Church, Jesus is the spiritual head who will assume the physical headship at the Second Coming. We trust the words of Christ assuring Peter and all of us that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church. Papacies like Alexander VI's reveal a bit of prophesy in those words. Satan continues to attack the Church with all his might, if not through a corrupt Pope, then by more shrewd means (such as atheism, postmodernism, and the relative wealth that most of us enjoy). While Catholics should respect and pray for all earthly authority, it's another thing to admire and support the actions of those in authority.

When you get down to it, every pope is a sinner. They go to Confession just like the rest of us -- and more often! Pope Alexander VI was such a notorious sinner, we have no reason to believe he held any faith in Christ at all. However, maybe in his final moments of life, he repented. I pray that he did... one of the beautiful things about Christianity is that we'll be spending eternity with a whole bunch of notorious sinners who are saved by grace through faith . (Hope that doesn't sound too evangelical )

[jswranch]

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.


My sophmoric $.02
1) I believe the doctrine of infallibility was defined during Vatican I in the 1800's
2) A pope must intend to make an infallible statement within his limits.

Therefore, any pope before Vatican I could not have made an infallible statement.


I recently converted from high Anglican. My dad is ordained episcopal and usually celebrates only high mass.

[she_who_is_not]

All us converted high church anglicans should get together sometime for some virtual plainchant.

[jswranch]

[quote name='she_who_is_not' date='Feb 21 2006, 11:28 AM']All us converted high church anglicans should get together sometime for some virtual plainchant.
[right][snapback]893760[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Sure,
I am not ashamed to say I miss/prefer the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer (76 and earlier) and wish the kneeling rails were still around. I also miss the old rituals: first fire of the new year etc, our priest almost burned the church down. There was soot from the back of the church to the front on the alter

[Aloysius]

[quote name='jswranch' date='Feb 21 2006, 12:12 PM']Therefore, any pope before Vatican I could not have made an infallible statement.
[right][snapback]893745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is not true. If the pope intends to bind the whole Church in a doctrine of faith or morals, and excercises his petrine office in order to confirm his brethren, it is an infallible statement.

There are only two EXTRA-ORDINARY cases of an ex-cathedra papal definition which was infallible. But the supreme pastor enjoys an ordinary infallibility, and all popes had this from the very beginning of the Church (Vatican I was not defining what powers the pope would have from then on, but what powers the pope had always had... no council had explicitly taken the time to define that but it was always understood) enjoyed this charism.

Meaning it has always been impossible for the pope to bind the whole Church in error; God will never intervene upon anyone's free will except in this case-- God will not allow the pope to use his will to bind the Church in error. Therefore, everything the pope intends to doctrinally bind upon the Church on matters of faith and morals meeting those criteria, before or after infallibility was defined, is infallible.

Ordinary papal infallibility is nothing more than giving a name and citation to accepted universally taught truth. For example: Pius XII taught in Humanari Generis against polygenism saying that there must have been two original parents who we call Adam and Eve who actually sinned in an event we call original sin. This was the ordinary infallible magisterium of the pontiff, we can cite that as something that Piux XII taught infallibly. Of course, that was taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium infallibly from the beginning of the Church, but Pius XII's infallibility gives a face to it.

Any statement of a pope in which he acts as the universal shepherd and intends to bind the whole Church doctrinally in a matter of faith or morals is infallible.

The cool thing about sinful popes like Alexander here is that throughout history when we have popes such as this they tend to be so much more interested in their sinful behaviors and their own power seeking that they never attempt to bind the Church in any doctrinal teaching. Coincidence or providence? you decide.

[LouisvilleFan]

I also find that the sinful popes only strengthen my own faith that Catholicism is the Truth. Satan has obviously attacked the Catholic Church at every level of authority. Let's say the Catholic Church really were the "Whore of Babylon." Satan would do everything in his power to make every priest, brother, sister, bishop, and pope, and even lay Catholics, to look like such faithful, wonderful servants of God that Baptists would be flocking to their neighborhood Catholic parishes (and for more than cheap beer!). But that clearly isn't the case.

Of course, Jesus always did hang out with the prostitutes... ironically, it makes sense that one would literally find Jesus here ;-)

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='Feb 19 2006, 04:30 PM']The pope is only infallible when making a statement ex cathedra concerning faith or morals. Since the doctrine was defined relatively recently (but I don't know when exactly), there are only two infallible statements: Immaculate Conception and Assumption. However, all the bishops gathered together can also teach with infallible authority. The first seven ecumenical councils, for example, are accepted as infallible by both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. [right][snapback]891903[/snapback][/right][/quote]
here's an infallible statement made by JPII in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis [/i](Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) :[list]4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
[/list]

[Era Might]

Small quibble:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible document in itself, because it did not define something. Rather, it confirmed a previous teaching of the Church, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger explains:

[quote]It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. [b]In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church[/b].

[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordisace3.htm[/url][/quote]

The most important thing for us to understand is that a doctrine can be taught infallibly even if a particular document is not infallible. A doctrine of the Church is infallible not only when the Roman Pontiff defines it in a special way (such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption), but also when it is the firm, constant, repeated teaching of the Church. As we see in this case, Pope John Paul II did not have to personally define the Church's condemnation of female orders for this teaching to be infallible. He simply confirmed a teaching which was already infallible through the witness of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Also, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption do not constitute the only "Ex Cathedra" definitions of the Church. Although they are probably the only "Ex Cathedra" definitions given directly by the Pope, all the dogmatic canons of the Ecumenical Councils constitute the highest form of dogma, because they are taught not only by the Council, but ratified personally by the Pope. Hence, his approval is an "Ex Cathedra" act, although it is done through the ministry of the Council.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Era Might

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
2/24 - Seventh Friday
[quote name='she_who_is_not' date='Feb 21 2006, 11:28 AM']All us converted high church anglicans should get together sometime for some virtual plainchant.
[right][snapback]893760[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
At least y'all still have good music. :

[thessalonian]

[quote name='aldini' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:58 PM']I am a high church Anglican considering "swimming the Tiber"

Does anyone know if Pope Alexander VI made any infallible statements? Does papal infallibiliyt on faith and morals apply only to ex cathedra statement or to any  magesterial work on faith or morals?
If the Holy Spirit prevents error then I assume the holy Spirit and all catholics support the work of Alexander VI?

Thanks much for your replies
[right][snapback]888592[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The doctrine of infallibility is not a blanket the Pope shall committ no errors. Statements are only infallible when a) dealing with faith and morals, b) the Pope is excercising his authority as the successor of Peter, c) the declaration is binding on the whole Church. There are actuallually few statements of papal infallibility in this positive sense. Ludwig Ott's Dogma of Catholicism is the book that is perhaps the best on this subject and it lists only about 20 papal infallible statements. I don't know of any by Alexander the six. I'll try to look it up.

We must remember that while there is the positive element that the Popes have made such statements there is also the element that no popes have made statements meeting the infallible criteria listed above that we errant. The Holy Spirit's protection works both ways.

Having said all this we should also not look on papal statements as fallible because they are not under the criteria. Many times the Popes are making judgements concerning infallible statements by councils or that are under the infallibility of the ordinary magesterium (which most moral issues are). This is when it is stated that the Church has always taught this, for instance Women in the priesthood. The Popes are Supreme in authority in the Church and so we have an obligation to obey them in all matters of faith and morals regardless of whether the statement is infallible under the criteria or net.

Hope that helps.

Thess

[jswranch]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 22 2006, 04:44 AM']This is not true.  If the pope intends to bind the whole Church in a doctrine of faith or morals, and excercises his petrine office in order to confirm his brethren, it is an infallible statement.

There are only two EXTRA-ORDINARY cases of an ex-cathedra papal definition which was infallible.  But the supreme pastor enjoys an ordinary infallibility, and all popes had this from the very beginning of the Church (Vatican I was not defining what powers the pope would have from then on, but what powers the pope had always had... no council had explicitly taken the time to define that but it was always understood) enjoyed this charism.

[right][snapback]894582[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thank you Aloysius, I stand corrected. Looks like I am not infallible. Just dont tell my wife.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 24 2006, 04:21 AM']Small quibble:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an infallible document in itself, because it did not define something. Rather, it confirmed a previous teaching of the Church, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger explains[/quote]
the paragraph i cited does constitute an infallible [i]statement[/i], tho, right? that's all i was trying to say.