Papal infallibility

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I haven't done a great deal of reading on this subject yet, but I wanted to get a couple answers from users who are better versed in Catholic dogma.

1. Is papal infallibility still a popular belief among Catholics?
2. Given the new Pope's tone (or perceived tone) on culture issues, salvation for atheists, etc., could this potentially lead to more conservative Catholics rejecting the doctrine if it is still taught?

[DC Al Fine]

1) The forum Catholics know better than I do.

2) This is a common misunderstanding among Protestants. AFAIK Papal infallibility only applies to a limited set of circumstances. Very few views held by the Catholic church actually fall under the Papal infallibility umbrella (The Assumption of Mary & the Immaculate Conception are the only examples I know of), and the Pope's change in tone certainly wouldn't apply.

[TJ in Oregon]

1. Yes

2. As noted, papal infallibility applies only to a small number of things:
a. An ex cathedra decree of faith and morals written as a definitive statement of faith to be held by the entire Church universal. This has happened extremely rare, as noted. Interestingly, when the Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared ex cathedra, Pope Pius IX asked every Catholic bishop in the world if they believed in it and noted unanimous agreement before making the decree. Also amusingly, Pope John XXIII once said "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".
b. The declaration by an ecumenical council where the pope, in union with the bishops of the world, makes a statement on faith and morals.

[Blue3]

Also, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is actually new... it only began in the 1700's or 1800's, if I remember correctly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It had been around unofficially long before then; it's really just the logical conclusion of having a supreme and absolute leader who's legitimacy comes from apostolic succession.

[Blue3]

Yet the Apostles... especially Peter himself, were always shown as flawed in the Bible.

[The Mikado]

Yet the Apostles... especially Peter himself, were always shown as flawed in the Bible.

That's nothing to do with Papal Infallibility, though.  Infallibility is, first and foremost, a guarantee that you will not be eternally damned for following Church doctrine.  It basically functions as insurance for Catholics against error in dogma by the Holy See: if the Church can't be wrong in defining doctrine, you can't be wrong for following it.  If Church doctrine changes tomorrow, you won't be damned for following the current doctrine today.  Papal infallibility is key to avoiding a trap where every time the Church does change doctrine everyone who ever followed the old doctrine is retroactively reclassified as Hellbound.

[Blue3]

I wasn't talking about infallibility in that post, I was responding to this:

It had been around unofficially long before then; it's really just the logical conclusion of having a supreme and absolute leader who's legitimacy comes from apostolic succession.

It is NOT the logical conclusion, that comes from being the ultimate successor of  the Apostles.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point is that the authority of the Pope is inherited. Inherited authority that can be disputed ceases to become authority very quickly.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

How does one judge infallibility in the first place? If we are the products of God and live in service to him (however he chooses, regardless of whether we want to!), who are we to say that a person is fallible or not?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Regardless, I believe that no person is infallible on spiritual or moral issues, whether it's the Pope or anyone else.  Only God has that authority.