Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Since there is a thread for it now, I’d like your thoughts on what papal infallibility is, exactly. If something less than, “what the pope says is the rule is the rule” then it seems kind of illusory.
It's essentially that, but not quite so reductive. For infallibility to be invoked, the Pope has to be speaking on certain subjects in a certain capacity. Consider it like the actual holding of a Supreme Court case vs. dicta, or a Justice just speaking off the cuff about what he thinks the law is/ought to be at a dinner or something. At least that's my understanding (which is probably still pretty oversimplified). If you want the dogmatic answer, here's the Catechism's explanation:
"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. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm
Here's Catholic Answers' (Church apologists/scholars) discussion on infallibility:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility
That generally makes sense to me, but it still seems intentionally vague. “Infallibility” has some pretty strong connotations. If the doctrine is really just that “since the Pope is the head of the church, there is no check on his authority to determine rules and doctrines in the Catholic Church,” then no duh. That’s going to be the case in any hierarchy with a single person at the top and no mechanism for kicking him out.
Yeah, it's confusing and I honestly don't know in the outs beyond what I've said here -- and we're kind of getting deep into the weeds. Generally, it comes in the form of some grand writing and it's clear that what's being said is cloaked in infallibility.
I think where it makes sense is in some of the nuanced and kind of obscure unsettled dogmatic questions. One example is whether John the Baptist was born without original sin. Some Catholics believe yes (for various reasons), others believe no (for various reasons), and under current dogma, neither belief is considered right or heretical. If, for whatever reason, the Pope steps-in in an official capacity and says, "listen up, the official Catholic dogma on this question is ____," then that would be considered infallible and attain the status of dogma. If, in an unofficial capacity, he says "here's what I believe: ____" then no, not infallible in that context.
Likewise, him opining that the Latin Mass isn't great in an unofficial capacity or taking steps to curtail traditional elements within the Mass isn't deemed infallible, and Catholics can disagree with him on those issues.
Anyway, Cannon law is complicated and I'm way out over my skis talking about it.
