the Catholic church isn't infallible

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
two points to this debate... contradictions in the Catholic church and lack of evidence and contraindications in the early church for infallibility. 

CONTRADICTIONS
an infallible church can't contradict itself when the pope teaches on faith and morals. that is self evident. however it contradicted itself on limbo, salvation of non catholics and the death penalty. 

-----------------
limbo - 
Popes of the Roman Catholic Church have taken four contrary positions regarding the fate of infants who die without baptism. The lot assigned by popes to the infants has gradually changed from including hell fire, through involving the pain of loss only and then no pain at all, to full beatitude in heaven.

The new Catechism, published by John Paul in 1992, encourages us to hope that unbaptized infants go to heaven.
“As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.”
Answer: The Council of Florence stated the following about hell: The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains (Session 6 — July 6,1439).

The teaching of Carthage was infallibly approved as a rule of the Faith by Pope Zosimus and Pope Innocent I and by the ecumenical councils, which were approved by other popes.
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].”

“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of the Catholic Church

The XVI Council of Carthage (418) condemned the Pelagian fable that there is some place anywhere where infants who died without baptism live in happiness (Limbo).
The Council taught the Catholic doctrine that infants go into the fire to be eternally punished with the devil, being on the left hand at the judgement.

Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job.
Gregory the Great: “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence ‘Truth’ says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Hence Paul says, We were by nature the children of wrath even as others. He then that adding nothing of his own is mined by the guilt of birth alone, how stands it with such an one at the last account, as far as the calculation of human sense goes, but that he is ‘wounded without cause?’ And yet in the strict account of God it is but just that the stock of mortality, like an unfruitful tree, should preserve in the branches that bitterness which it drew from the root. Therefore he says, For He shall break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause. As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; ‘With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?’” (Moralia 9: 32)

According to Pope Innocent, infants suffer the pain of knowing that they have lost the vision of God but they do not have the pain of fire.
“Pope Innocent’s teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer ‘no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God.’ It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment.” (Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910, Limbo)
-------------

salvation of non catholics
noncatholics aren't saved versus they could be saved. the 'strict' teachings are bolstered by the fact that the laity and people in the church understood that no one could possibly be saved as a noncatholic when those teachings came down. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".[34] At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men".[35] The Catechism also states that the Catholic Church "is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter", and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways".[36]


Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church". The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".[26]
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved".[25]

morality of the death penalty
death penalty is admissible and morals versus it is inadmissible and immoral
 In 2018, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised to read that "in the light of the Gospel" the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" and that the Catholic Church "works with determination for its abolition worldwide."[3][4][5]

Pope Innocent I in his letter Ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum (PL 20, 495) defended the death penalty:[11]
It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister [Romans 13:1–4]. What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God's authority.


Topic's author
#2
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5


EARLY CHURCH CONTRA INDICATIONS
there isnt much talk in the early church that the church can't err on faith and morals. there is talk that the bishop of Rome should be listened to, but that's it.  read Cyprian, iranaeus, Augustine, aquanis, among others. they talk about church structure and unity and authority but they almost never talk as if the church can't err on faith and morals. 'the silence is deafening'. the idea of infallibility took hundreds of years and even thousands to fully develop. in the early church, the great 7 councils of Catholic/orthodox were not led by the bishop of Rome, weren't called by the bishop of Rome, and some didn't even have representatives from Rome. in some councils, the bishop of Rome was excommunicated. this doesn't disprove infallibility but it's evidence or weight against the idea. on the idea that Rome must be listened to, read Catholic apologetics and all you will find is vague references and distortions. Augustine sometimes made reference to councils trumping the pope. some popes said they can contradict past popes and their teaching is trumped. 


We read in the acts of the seventh Carthaginian synod under Cyprian (and the eighth of which we know), that all were invited to speak freely. This synod is considered by most to be a response to the Pope’s rejection of Cyprian’s logic, sent via two former synods of A.D. 255–256. He gathered together a larger number of Bishops (87 in attendance) and once again set forth in turn, with the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, the declaration that those who were baptised by heretics must be baptised in the “one baptism of the Church”, solemnly repudiating Stephen’s position. The Council declares in the midst of this:
Neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. — 7th Synod of Carthage under Cyprian
Cyprian's colleague responded....
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24). 
----------
a lot of church history and quotes . both for and against the weight of the papacy


#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,082
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Bible does say that those in authority have final say, so Church being authority has final say. Plus bunch of times Bible says Church is great.

Just to be clear, definition of "infallible" isnt from dictionary in that specific debate which this might be about.

Its basically just about who gets the final say regarding Bible, Church or some other group.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,814
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '_Albert Einstein
Topic's author
#5
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
I think you should look into arguments from the orthodox church about the bishop of romes claims. The early church is orthodox, not catholic
#6
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
I'm not catholic but to determine whether it is infallible requires certain understanding doesn't it? 

After all, what is infallibility? What makes something infallible? Who determines it?  

Isn't the Catholic teaching that the church is the body of Christ? That's probably the teaching of most of the church too. 

Isn't it also the teaching of the Catholic church that Jesus is the head of the church? 

So if Jesus is the head and the church is his body, aren't they the same? 

Hence, why wouldn't it be true to say that the Church is infallible if its head is Jesus and Jesus is infallible? 


#7
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 260
2
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
2
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Do you know what the conditions are for infallibility?

Do you know how many times the Church has actually infallibly defined something?
#8
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 80
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@n8nrgim
The Catholic position firmly asserts that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, holds a unique and divinely instituted authority within the Church. This is grounded in scriptural evidence, such as Matthew 16:18-19, where Christ explicitly grants Peter the keys to the Kingdom, signifying supreme authority. Historically, the primacy of the Roman bishop is attested in early Church writings, including those of St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus, who referred to Rome as the church with preeminent authority. While the Orthodox Church emphasizes conciliarity, the Catholic view argues that this does not negate the special role of the Petrine office, which has served as a unifying factor for the global Church from its earliest days.
Topic's author
#9
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@MAV99
for something to be infallibly defined, it has to have the following elements: the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. there's a myth floating around that the church has acted infallibly only a handful of times or less. that's blatantly untrue and not historical.
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
you didn't show evidence for infallibility in the early church. it's just not there, or scarce. yes there's evidence that the pope should be listened to, but that doesn't indicate infallible. a lot of the quotes that the catholic church uses to support even papal power, are distorted in translation. you also say papal primacy was in the early church, but no one contests this, not even the orthodox. primacy doesn't prove supremecy, papal supremacy. you also did a very poor job responding to all my points in my opening posts. the catholic church has contradicted itself several times, which an infallible agency cannot do. you didn't respond to the authority behind early church councils and the context of that, and you didn't show any supporting evidence for men like aquanis, augustine, irenanaous, or cyprian. it's pretty clear you are deeply brainwashed if my arguments haven't changed your perception. 
Topic's author
#11
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
also you point to peter and the keys in the bible. but jesus later gave all the apostles the power of binding and loosing. explicitly. so what makes peter so special? 

i could get behind the idea that if the catholic and orthodox churches were reunited, the pope should be reqjuired to be a part of the church, unlike how the east is now. and all can agree a 'first among equals'. they can't be first if they are excommunited. but the catholics should drop the idea of infalliblity of the pope, or at least not require faith in that teaching to foster unity. 
Topic's author
#12
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
the be more precise, the pope isn't infallible. you have a certain logic that jesus is infallible and thus the church is by extension as both are the body of christ. however, the church is only infallble when it's consistent with jesus. no church, protestants, catholic, or orthodox, teach consistently such that they can be said to be always infallible. the orthodox church might be, but how they define their authority and submission elements aren't defined very well and are open to interpretation and there's lots of contradicting teachings, depending how you define it. maybe the catholic church could be said the same thing, but only if it dropped the obviously false teaching of infallibility .
#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
the be more precise, the pope isn't infallible. you have a certain logic that jesus is infallible and thus the church is by extension as both are the body of christ. however, the church is only infallble when it's consistent with jesus. no church, protestants, catholic, or orthodox, teach consistently such that they can be said to be always infallible. the orthodox church might be, but how they define their authority and submission elements aren't defined very well and are open to interpretation and there's lots of contradicting teachings, depending how you define it. maybe the catholic church could be said the same thing, but only if it dropped the obviously false teaching of infallibility .
But now you have opened the door.  You agree that the church is infallible when it's consistent with Jesus.  So the question becomes: is the church ever consistent with Christ? And if so, then it is infallible.  Hence, to ask to drop an obviously false doctrine would imply that the church is NEVER consistent with Jesus. And that I propose is a pretty big call on your part.  

What is the standard for determining whether a Church is consistent with Christ or not? And how should we know that such a standard is itself a correct standard that we can absolutely - (infallibly) trust? 


Topic's author
#14
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm not saying the church is inconsistent thus fallible. I'm saying the church is only infallible when it is consistent with Jesus... when its not consistent it isnt really the church speaking. Its a truism... the church is infallible when its infallible. That means it is infallivle even if individuals mess it up. How can we tell when that's the case? Only by interpretation. A lotta folks might not like that answer but it's the best we got. Plus even catholics and orthodox have to figure out what's official teaching v not and have their own room for interpretation. Plus 
Topic's author
#15
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
The church is infallible. The individuals are not. And what is infallible is open to interpretation. Just the way it is
#16
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 80
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Sorry for the confusion, my comment wasn't meant to respond to all of your posts, just the one where you said: "I think you should look into arguments from the orthodox church about the bishop of romes claims. The early church is orthodox, not catholic." If I have time I will consider looking over your initial arguments.

As for your most recent claims, your point about all apostles receiving the power to bind and loose is valid, but the Catholic position emphasizes that Peter’s role is distinct and foundational. While authority was shared among the apostles, Peter was explicitly singled out as the rock upon which the Church would be built (Matthew 16:18). His name change to “Peter” (rock) and Christ’s personal entrusting of the keys signify a unique responsibility to lead and unify. This primacy is further reflected in Peter's prominent role in the New Testament — he speaks for the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2), leads in crucial decisions (Acts 15), and is often mentioned first among the Twelve. The papacy is understood as the continuation of this Petrine office.

As for infallibility, it serves as a safeguard for preserving the Church's unity in truth, not as a personal privilege of the pope. The doctrine is rarely invoked and only pertains to teachings on faith and morals, ensuring that the Church remains free from doctrinal error. Would unity be more secure if each bishop retained equal authority, risking potential doctrinal fractures, as seen historically?
Topic's author
#17
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
i still dont think you are responding  to most of my points in the opening two points. but if the pope is the 'root and matrix' of catholic (and orthodox) as cyprian said (who as i previously mentioned fought against the pope exerting his will over other bishops) and has a primacy of honor as the orthodox teach, then it should call into question about who should be listened to when there's disagreements. i think all bishops have equal authority, but rome's authority is greater, it has higher persuasive power and where the pope goes is where the church goes. at least if the west and the east were to one day be reunited. i'm kind of a liberal catholic or maybe non denonminational or 'orthodox curious', so i have very unique views. but the orthodox churches teachings are more historical than catholocisms other than to say the pope did and should have a special role. 
#18
CatholicApologetics
CatholicApologetics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 80
0
1
6
CatholicApologetics's avatar
CatholicApologetics
0
1
6
-->
@n8nrgim
i still dont think you are responding  to most of my points in the opening two points.
That's because I have not read over them. If I have time I will consider reading through and responding. Sorry for the confusion.

but if the pope is the 'root and matrix' of catholic (and orthodox) as cyprian said (who as i previously mentioned fought against the pope exerting his will over other bishops) and has a primacy of honor as the orthodox teach, then it should call into question about who should be listened to when there's disagreements. i think all bishops have equal authority, but rome's authority is greater, it has higher persuasive power and where the pope goes is where the church goes. at least if the west and the east were to one day be reunited. i'm kind of a liberal catholic or maybe non denonminational or 'orthodox curious', so i have very unique views. but the orthodox churches teachings are more historical than catholocisms other than to say the pope did and should have a special role.
The Catholic view holds that the Pope’s primacy is essential for unity, rooted in Christ’s commission to Peter as the rock (Matthew 16:18-19) and supported by the early Church's recognition of Rome’s unique authority. St. Cyprian acknowledged Rome as the "matrix and root" of unity, even amid disagreements. The "first among equals" model, while appealing, risks deadlock in doctrinal disputes. History shows that without a definitive authority, unity can fragment — as seen in the divisions among some Orthodox jurisdictions. How would the Church preserve universal doctrinal consistency without a clear, binding authority?
Topic's author
#19
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
for something to be infallibly defined, it has to have the following elements: the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. there's a myth floating around that the church has acted infallibly only a handful of times or less. that's blatantly untrue and not historical.

to be more precise, the pope must 'bind' something. not necessarily just teach. that's why learned catholics have a good argument, that the catechism isn't always infallible, cause it's contradicted itself over time, and that's not necessarily insincere if infalliblity is true. but still, the church has done a 'binding' on dogmas that are not consistent. and by the context of the teachings, it has did 'binding' teachings countless times, not rarely as is the common myth 
Topic's author
#20
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
it would behoove you to read the opening two posts if you are sincerely interested in learning about the history of infalliblity. 

also, you keep making the point that the pope is special or has primacy, or should be listened to, but you aren't arguing its infallible other than by your own preference or inference. if the church really was infallible, it woudln't have taken over a thosuand years for it to become clear. or talked about. even when the orthodox split with the pope, there wasn't talk of inerrancy on faith and morals. even when it was defined at vatican I, the pope squashed the dissenters and cast them out, and the historicans who disagree with the teaching were excommunited. infallibility isn't historical. the pope being special is, but that's a sepaarte point. 

"How would the Church preserve universal doctrinal consistency without a clear, binding authority?"

as i said to the other poster, the church moves into truth. the church is infallible, the individuals are not. we might not like lack of definitiveness, but the issue is one of interpreation. the spirit guides thechurch and the individials interpret how the church and spirit are moving. i think the pope should be head of the church, and the orthodox should rejoin, but it would require a thorough reexamining of what the pope's role should be. 
Topic's author
#21
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@CatholicApologetics
see above
Topic's author
#22
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
there's actually an interesting argument that traditionalist catholics are right about recent popes not being legitimate. if that were true,  the teachings would need to be such that non catholics are condemned and unbaptized infants are condemned and the death penalty is moral. those teachings were officially taught, but the contradictions of those teachings were not necessarily dogmatically taught. when a teaching in taught infallibly, the context must be there that the teaching was 'binding' and a lot of the modern teachings might not be 'beinding' based on context. or if the current popes are legitimate, the their offical looking teachings are not which casts doubt on them as beacons of truth. 
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,660
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
there's actually an interesting argument that traditionalist catholics are right about recent popes not being legitimate. 

Would Jesus have handed the reigns over to someone he didn't trust and labeled Satan?
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Different regional GOD clubs, different approach to ritual and worship.

Different buildings with varying excesses of interior and exterior design, usually associated with regional and national wealth.

Different associated ideology aimed at population control.

Not disputing the connection between church and intellectual development though.

Varying approaches to penis vagina angst, which eventually got RC's into a spot of bother.

All based upon Middle Eastern folk tale creation theory myth.

And further afield there are other clubs doing all sorts of other whacky stuff.

Life's rich tapestry, as it were.
#25
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,195
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@n8nrgim
The church teaches that infallibility is a charism entrusted by Christ to the whole church, whereby the Pope, as "head of the college of bishops", enjoys papal infallibility.

The church would lose its credibility if it accepted it is fallible. Which would make it just another human institution.