Has there been any time when an infallible statement by the RCC was actually proven wrong?

[Thanatos]

I don't mean if the Church has merely X or Y stance, but if any supposedly infallible statements were later shown to be, well, fallible.

[basics]

Thanatos,

The very first thing that comes to mind is when all Christians, Roman Catholics, were to expect the arrival of Jesus Christ in the year beginning 1,000 as identified by Rome. It, Rome, was infallably wrong and when they made another date it was wrong in that too.

But then its been infallably wrong on infant baptism, the mass, the infallability of the bishops, among many other things that if spread on these pages would take a long time to cover.

[justicar5]

Thanatos,

The very first thing that comes to mind is when all Christians, Roman Catholics, were to expect the arrival of Jesus Christ in the year beginning 1,000 as identified by Rome. It, Rome, was infallably wrong and when they made another date it was wrong in that too.

But then its been infallably wrong on infant baptism, the mass, the infallability of the bishops, among many other things that if spread on these pages would take a long time to cover.

The 1000 AD apocalypse idea came about before the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility had been passed (first vatican council 1868) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility , those other positions you stated are about dogma, and that does differ among christian denominations, (Papal infallibility is a pre-requisite of being a catholic, not being a chrisitian. )

[SigniferOne]

The 1000 AD apocalypse idea came about before the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility had been passed (first vatican council 1868) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility , those other positions you stated are about dogma, and that does differ among christian denominations, (Papal infallibility is a pre-requisite of being a catholic, not being a chrisitian. )

The theology of the RCC has the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit act through the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ himself, on earth. Thus the doctrine of infallibility has been part of the RCC from the beginning of the idea of Papal primacy, i.e. 8th century AD or so. In the 19th century it was merely codified according to the standards of 19th century canon law and everything. The Pope explicitly claimed infallibility for at least 1000 years before that -- in the 16th century during the Reformation, in the 12-13th centuries during the medieval era, etc.

That's an argument that frankly has little substantiation. It's nothing but the de-religionized version of the Protestant dribble.

Concepts such as Apostolic Succession, Tradition (of which Scripture is naught but a part) and the transmission of doctrine through a spiritual lineage of bishops, theologians and Fathers is the bread and butter of a religious tradition such as Christianity.

That's interesting, because the Church Fathers had no interest in Tradition, or transmission of doctrine through 'spiritual lineage' of bishops, theologians and Fathers. They found all of their doctrine in Scripture, and recommended for all others to do the same

The fact is that there's no evidence at all of this supposed "break" with the pre-300 past, as a cursory analysis of patristics before/after shows.

The break is not in 300, but around 500 or so. With the collapse of the Western Empire, the Eastern Church likewise collapses, and there disappear thinking men or men with any serious or profound insights. The Western Church rebounds during the Medieval Era but even more so during the Renaissance, while the Eastern Church, living amidst third-world improverished countries, having no thinkers, slavish to tin-pot secular despots and often helping them, has been mired in ignorance and superstition for the last 1500 years

[Dominicvs]

Yes, as a Catholic, I am very willing to make clear that the Roman Catholic Church has made many mistakes in the past.
Then again, we are not the only church that has, we have just been around the longest. More time to make more mistakes

[Viriconium369]

There's a very long, very dense article at:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The problem is that people conflate Church attitudes (towards Jews, homosexuals etc) with a rather vague idea of papal infallibility, which was only instituted as a firm concept at the First Vatican Council (1870). Even so, 'infallibility' only referred to 'ex cathedra' (literally, 'from the chair') pronouncements on matters of faith or morals, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia states:

'As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching'.

A famous instance is the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pronounced in 1854.

The question is not really possible to ask, then, in a way, because pronouncements on faith and morals cannot really be 'wrong', although they may be subject to revision (I suppose, although I cannot think of any). Certainly we should not mistake Papal Infallibility for 'not getting it wrong' - the Church has (although often tardily) apologised for wrong-doing, but has maintained a remarkably consistent line on matters of faith and morality.

Sorry for the long post!

[Hilarion]

we have just been around the longest.

Not so, friend.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.
• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
• If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
• If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
• If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.
• If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
• If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.
• If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.
• If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
• If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.
• If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.
• If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium.

http://www.stanthonysorthodox.org/in...9&limitstart=1

[Manco]

Not so, friend.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.
• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
• If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
• If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
• If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.
• If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
• If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.
• If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.
• If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
• If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.
• If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.
• If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium.

http://www.stanthonysorthodox.org/in...9&limitstart=1

You do realize that from the RCC's pov it's the Orthodox that broke away?
The RCC and the Orthodox Chirch are just as old. Oh, and it wasn't founded in 33 CE. There's no evidence for a year 1 birth of Jesus, in fact the available evidence contradicts it, hence he couldn't have died in 33 CE if he actualy was 33 years old. (it would be 34 regardless, since there's no year 0 and 1+33 is 34)

[Hilarion]

You do realize that from the RCC's pov it's the Orthodox that broke away?

Considering it was the RCC who amended the Nicene Creed (therefore the reason for the filioque controversy), and its radical and divergent doctrine of papal infallibility, it's a weak argument.

[Squiggle]

You do realize that from the RCC's pov it's the Orthodox that broke away?
The RCC and the Orthodox Chirch are just as old. Oh, and it wasn't founded in 33 CE. There's no evidence for a year 1 birth of Jesus, in fact the available evidence contradicts it, hence he couldn't have died in 33 CE if he actualy was 33 years old. (it would be 34 regardless, since there's no year 0 and 1+33 is 34)

30-33 is the time period in which all scholars agree Jesus was crucified, the majority go for 30 AD.

[leeho730]

Perhaps the longest surviving institutionalized religions are Buddhism and Judaism, and confuciusm, and some african totemism...

Regardless, religions are made by humans, therefore they're bound to make mistakes...

[Manco]

As someone with no affiliation to either, it's a perfectly valid one. One side argues they had the authority, the other argues they didn't. They both base themselves on the exact same collection of documents to justify it.
But I don't expect you to agree. Your religious affiliation pretty much guarantees bias in this matter.

[Hilarion]

As someone with no affiliation to either, it's a perfectly valid one. One side argues they had the authority, the other argues they didn't. They both base themselves on the exact same collection of documents to justify it.
But I don't expect you to agree. Your religious affiliation pretty much guarantees bias in this matter.

Really? Well if you say it's perfectly valid, please present the evidence and we'll see how it holds up.

About my religious affiliation, I'm officially a member of the Presbyterian Church USA, so I should have as much affiliation to either as you do.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The doctrine of infallibility was introduced by Pius IX in 1854 and is entwined with the concept of Magisterium (the teaching authority of the church). It was codified by the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus (1870) and outlined that when the Roman pontif spoke on matter of the faith he was infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit.

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

Realistically Pius IX wanted a far greater range of infallibility to extend beyond the boundaries of matter of the faith alone, but he was rejected this by the council. This was at a time when the Papal states and the power of the pope in particular was being shaken to the core by rebellious groups within the papal states themselves and a growing movement to unify Italy as The Kingdom of Italy as opposed to the warring group of city states it has been for fourteen centuries since the collapse of the WRE.

The RCC has recognized seven instances where papal infallibility was exercised historically and reaffirmed as statutes of Christian dogma. The Assumption of Mary, regarding the two complete (both god and man) natures of Christ, the two wills of Christ, rejecting jansenistic teaching, the immaculate conception, condeming more jensenistic teachings, and some vision of heaven the righteous have just before they die. This was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium.

So far none of the seven have been rescinded. The Church will be very careful about what it will say is infallible. If they are proven wrong about something that will be a huge blow to credibility.

@ Squiggle

The early registration for the census of Quirinius occurred in 12 BCE and the census was held in 6 CE. So if you want to say that Jesus died in 30-33 CE you would be off by some years if the bible is any authority in the christian faith.

Luke 2:1-7

2:1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to his own town to register.

That places Jesus' death at ~26 CE if again the bible is to be considered a credible source for christianity in which Luke places Jesus at around 30 when he died.

To sum up:

The answer to this question is not really, basics is wrong, and there have been SEVEN uses of papal infallibility since 1870 five of which have been chosen to apply retroactively. Only two statements have occurred since 1870 which have been considered infallible.

[Hilarion]

Papal infallibility is basically an extension of papal supremacy. True, it wasn't clarified as an official doctrine until 1870, but traces of the theory certainly appeared in the 11th century.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Papal infallibility is basically an extension of papal supremacy. True, it wasn't clarified as an official doctrine until 1870, but traces of the theory certainly appeared in the 11th century.

I would argue that the Holy See had assumed it was considered infallible. When people started getting uppity I think it decided to take a firmer stance and make infallibility official. Pius IX's disappointment with the result would indicate that he had wanted to doctrine to be much more comprehensive though.

[kentuckybandit]

I can't remember which one it is now, but one source states that in Urban II's later preaching after the Council of Clermont (the actual speech did not mention Jerusalem as an end goal) he stated that if Jerusalem was not taken and held from the Muslims that the world would end because of God's wrath. When it was lost again the world was not smote so I guess this counts.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Not sure how you make the fantastically magical leap that if Luke is off by a few years [he was] Luke, let alone the entire Bible, is somehow a write off historically.

I'm not saying the bible or Luke is completely ahistorical [they are, as nearly any scholar of ancient history would tell you] just that your argument is demonstrably incorrect and not considered dogma.

I can't remember which one it is now, but one source states that in Urban II's later preaching after the Council of Clermont (the actual speech did not mention Jerusalem as an end goal) he stated that if Jerusalem was not taken and held from the Muslims that the world would end because of God's wrath. When it was lost again the world was not smote so I guess this counts.

While I would love to agree I can't. Since infallibility wan't officially established until 1870 we have to let this one go on a technicality.

[Squiggle]

@ Squiggle

The early registration for the census of Quirinius occurred in 12 BCE and the census was held in 6 CE. So if you want to say that Jesus died in 30-33 CE you would be off by some years if the bible is any authority in the christian faith.
That places Jesus' death at ~26 CE if again the bible is to be considered a credible source for christianity in which Luke places Jesus at around 30 when he died.

Not sure how you make the fantastically magical leap that if Luke is off by a few years [he was] Luke, let alone the entire Bible, is somehow a write off historically.

[Boer]

The early registration for the census of Quirinius occurred in 12 BCE and the census was held in 6 CE. So if you want to say that Jesus died in 30-33 CE you would be off by some years if the bible is any authority in the christian faith.

I have not heard about this "early registration" and would like more information about it, although this may not be the best place for such a discussion, it being off the topic and all.

I have seen people attempt to place a "first census" under Quirinius at 12BCE (with the 6CE census being a second one), but their argument for the earlier date tend to henge on Vardaman's "microletters" or, worse, McRay's and/or Stroble's claims about Vardaman's "microletters".