www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "Papal infallibility"

Hi Joe,

I don't know whether you had me in mind when you said; but given what I have said in the past it seems appropriate for me to respond to your statement.

I think that the clearest way for me to answer you would be to compare my beliefs concerning "papal infallibility" with those of Cardinal Newman, and explain where I differ from him.

The following is a passage from Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk [newmanreader.org], in which he considers how "papal infallibility" pertains to the case of Pope Honorius


This second paragraph is where is disagree with Cardinal Newman. (Although I think it goes without saying that agree with him that Pope Honorius wasn't making an ex cathedra statement.) Newman is making the argument that Honorius did not intend to make an ex cathedra statement, and therefore did not make one. But what's more important for our purposes is that Newman likewise implies that if a pope did intend to fulfill the conditions of an ex cathedra statement, that would guarantee that the conditions were fulfilled -- i.e. the pope is automatically exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians anytime he intends to do so.

This I quite disagree with -- I see no reason at all why a pope couldn't intend to exercise the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, and think he was doing so, when in fact he was not. (Likewise, I think a pope could exercise the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians without realizing that he was, but that seems less relevant.)

I honestly don't know whether I will be persecuted for believing this, but I am quite certain of one thing: Cardinal Newman himself would not support such persecution. On the contrary, Newman was opposed to "papal infallibility" being defined as a dogma at all. Once it was defined, he never complained that the definition didn't go far enough; rather he said: �I saw the new definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation � The terms are vague and comprehensive, and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it.� Clearly, in spite of what he himself believed regarding "papal infallibility", Newman was of the opinion that if Catholics are to be required to believe anything regarding "papal infallibility", it should be no more than what was stated by Vatican I, without any add-ons (i.e. " ... mainly a question intention", et al).

Peter, some very insteresting and insightful remarks. Also, know that I am not accusing anyone of being personally dishonest, intellectually. I always talk in terms of positions being advocated. And I suppose you could substitute the phrase "internally consistent" or "logically coherent" for "intellectually honest" and that would be fine.

For myself, I have a hard time understanding how anyone could really know with certainty exactly what Pope Honorius or anyone intended to do. While I do believe that to some extent authorial intent is recoverable (I am not a complete postmodernist) I do think that we rarely, if ever, retrieve such intent entirely or without any difficulties. So, attempt to adjudicate a long dead pope's intentions in writing a particular letter or document may not be very helpful in establishing the main purpose of the doctrine of papal infallibility( which is to have certitude about matters of faith). Now I am curious about your view that it is possible for a Pope to intend to speak infallibly yet not actually speak infallibly. Can you explain this more? Concrete example?

The same reason that Newman likes the definition (its 'vagueness' and comprehensiveness) is the same reason that I personally think that it is a useless doctrine. Because it is sufficiently vague to basically allow any future pope to rewrite the teaching on a doctrine and call it "development." The Pope simply has to say, "In past generations, my predecessors said...but what they really meant according to the inner mind of the church was...." Hence we also see all of the problems with the Vatican II documents and with some of the teaching of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, filled with ambiguity, equivocation, and sometimes historical revisionism. In my view, it ends up being the case that all that is needed is a clever enough theologian and just about anything can be made an infallible dogma. I'm all for nuance and qualification; but there comes a point where nuance and qualification turns into pure equivocation and revisionism and I guess I find this to not be intellectually cogent.

Joe

Peter,


Do you think you could give an example of how this could occur? How could the Pope intend to exercise infallibility, but actually not? And doesn't that basically nullify the entire doctrine itself? ("I know he intended to declare the Assumption infallibly, but it wasn't really infallible because...").

Personally, I think the definition of Vatican I limited the pope's "powers" more than extended them. There were Catholics back then (and even today) that thought everything the Pope taught was infallible, so this quite rightly corrects that erroneous notion.

Personally I see that reality as one of the great damages that creating Infallibility has caused. But while it seems corrected on paper ("this quite rightly corrects that erroneous notion.") the practical reality on the ground is that many Catholics use the logic of ... "If the Pope is Infallible and I align myself with the Pope .. than I too am speaking Infallibly". In other words "It is assured that I am right and I can not be wrong."

And what happens is that someone who thinks they understand what the Pope has said (and has actually misunderstand in some way) is now solidly entrenched in his mistaken position.

Let me say that in another way...

Papal Infallibility has this 'trickle down' effect. The working logic goes like this ... "If the Pope is Infallible than everything the Pope may say is connected to his Infallibility. This makes anything he may say tinged with that Infallibility."

If I align myself with what the Pope is saying (at any time) I do connect myself with his infallibility. I am directly linked with what Jesus guarantees is right. Thusly: I can not be wrong (even if tens of people try to debate and argue with me). Reason, justification, and support - are unnecessary due to the guarantee.

And thus, on the ground, what we experience among Catholics is that several (holding dis-similar positions) each believing they are infallibly right and can not be wrong. We Catholics are now instant experts without the drudgery of having to reason, justify, or have real support - other than RC say-so. Cool! This makes debating most Catholics a useless null.

Reason, justification, logic, supports, none of these are needed if one is guaranteed to be 'right'. And so any discussion with someone who believes he is aligned with Papal Infallibility (and has misunderstood the Papal declaration anyway) is hopelessly entrenched and immovable by use of any reason, justifications, or support for another view.

Every Catholic becomes (feels his is) Infallible! No matter that they all may be saying differently. This makes it especially difficult to talk reason to a Roman Catholic. Because they feel that if they doubt their position (the position they are sure the Pope has) they are now outside of the Catholic church (no salvation). Reason and logic are now suspended in us - except as to be used as tools to convince others of our rightness.

I say this because (upon examination) I was just this kind of Roman Catholic. I *had* the truth (guaranteed!) so my task when in discussions was not to understand anyone else's position ... but rather always to try harder and in more convincing ways to get others to see my 'right' position. The more I could convince others to my position = the better Catholic I was.

That .. in my opinion.. is the great damage that the dogma of Infallibility has caused as rippling throughout the Roman church. It unites us (if we really do understand what is declared) and it divides us (good Catholics agree with me - bad bad Catholics hold some other view).

(just my opinion).

-ray

I don't think there's any historical instance in which I can prove that such-and-such pope intended to exercise the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, and also prove that he did not in fact do so.

If you believe that the pope is necessarily infallible every time he wishes to be infallible, we may very well have to agree to disagree. But there is something we can agree on (or should I say "agree to agree on" ) namely, we both agree with what was dogmatically defined by Vatican I, and hence there is no reason why we can't both be Catholic.


I think that's a very, well, interesting (for lack of a better word) thing for you to say. Catholics are, of course, required to agree with the dogma of the assumption. Now (as I see it) if you were pope, you could issue a statement saying "It is no longer sufficient for Catholics to just agree with Munificentissimus Deus (the 1950 document which defined the Assumption). They are now required, under pain of excommunication, to also believe that it was an ex cathedra statement."

No offense intended, but I'm actually kind of glad that you aren't the pope.

God bless,
Peter.

That which is infallible .. is .. infallible.
That which is not really infallible .. is not infallible.

That is the way I see it.


To understand that .. one has to find out what the philosophical and theological definition of 'infallible' actually is.

The following is what I found according to my research.

In practical definition it can mean 'with out error' and so we do say that something (some object or thought') is 'infallible'.

But in a philosophical and theological context 'infallible' is an act ... an action. Example: the baseball player swings his bat. The swinging of the bat is not the player and it is not the bat. The swing is not an object - is it is an action.

From Plato to Thomas Aquinas ... infallible is the act of something attaining its goal. Example: the arrow is shot and hits the very center of the target. Hitting the target is not false. Hitting the target is entirely true. You can almost think of it in modern binary terms where '0' is false and '1' is true.

But also .. in classical philosophy and theology, from Plato to Aquinas, nothing appropriate to the senses or to the psychological mind can be infallible .. because these two natures (soma and psyche) are not appropriate vehicles capable to either receiving, or transmitting, what is infalible. Both are subject to falsehood and error.

This is clear in Plato's famous analogy of the men chained to a wall in a cave. The shdows on the wall of the cave are our sense perceptions, what the men chained to the wall think the shadows on the wall are is our thoughts and mind ... and when a man is freed to turn around and see the fire that is direct enlightenment. (refer to the analogy)

Aquinas puts it this way ... the judgments of our senses can be in error ... and our thoughts and reasoning can be in error. (I have simplified that). Therefore: by having the capacity of error - these have not the capacity for what is infallible.

That which is infallible are the intelligible (the essence or 'quaddity of a thing). In simple terms this is the same as saying ... pure understanding (without use of thoughts or senses) is infallible ... intuitive enlightenment. The impact of that enlightenment on the lower natures of mind and senses is in degrees - but never equal to infallible which only 'person' (differentiated from both psychological mind and body) can receive.

But again. That which can be infallible is not an object, nor a state, nor a condition. It is an immediate act ... reaching its goal without any degree of falsehood.

If any man were to receive the infallible ... it is an immediate existential experience, full understanding and enlightenment, that does not come with association to either thoughts or senses.

If that man were to try to express (what he had infallibly received) into the limitations inherent to human language ... it can not be done. It can not be transmitted either by language or thoughts .. these things can point to it (as a sign might point us in the right direction) but do not have the capacity to transmit it in any way. They are not 'it' and can not contain or transmit 'it'.

If a man receive infallible enlightenment .. (pure understanding of essence) it is by way of an existential infusion (meaning not by way of thoughts or senses). This is the reason that contemplation is largly katophatic (a negation of thoughts and senses) and not apophatic (reasoning by way of positives). By contemplation we do our part to remove the obstacles to the act of enlightenment.

If a man (any man of human nature - so this also included the fully-human nature of Jesus Christ) if any man receive something infallible ... human nature is such that what he has received as enlightenment (biblically called 'seeing with the eyes of the heart') he can not transmit it to any other person by way of human senses nor thoughts and reasoning.

If it were possible (that what is infallible be transmitted by human nature in some way) since infallible is an act (like the swing of a baseball bat) than whoever did receive it would be immediately, fully enlightened with no mix of falsehood and without the intermediary of his senses or his thoughts and reasoning. In other words: the arrow MUST immediatly hit its goal without any element of falsehood.


In the case of the humanity of Jesus Christ - if his humanity was capable of infallibility - tan anyone who saw him, heard him, or even thought of him .. would immediately be fully enlightened about him with no degree of falsehood involved. And we know that was not the case. ("Father forgive them - they know not what they do.")

In fact we find in the gospels that even his closest disciples often misunderstood Jesus. Even when Jesus went out of his way to explain the 'secrets' of the Kingdom. And in the event of the enlightenment of Simon (Matthew 16 the revelation to Simon that Jesus is the Son of God) Jesus used a Jewish phrase often found in the OT "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you" .... which has the same meaning of the Greek use of soma and pshyche. In other words it was humanly impossible for Simon to figure that out for himself.

Mary, Joseph, the prophetess and the good priest in the Temple (plus Simon) ... John, James, etc... these all had the necessity of direct angelic enlightenment ... that Jesus was the Son of God.

That which is indeed infallible can not fail in its infallibility (its act and action of being fully recievd as complete, immediately, and entirly understood, with no falseness associated, and without the use of thoughts and senses).

The area of the senses and the mind (where there is capacity for error and no capability for the infallible) are areas of faith and belief. Only the 'person' that inner and uncommunicable inner "I" ... (what John Paul called the 'acting person') is capable of receiving that which is infallible - and only as essence (not in form in any way).

So it seems to me. So it is in the mystical theology of the RC up to at least Thomas Aquinas.

Any other word bu "Papal ... Infallibility" would have been better.


Peace to all churches.
-ray

So ... there wasn't "certitude about matters of faith" during the first 18 centuries of Christianity?



I don't think I can. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that a pope can "turn on" infallibility whenever he wants, like turning on a light switch.

BTW, I was just thinking that the quote from Cardinal Newman did say "mainly a question of intention" (emphasis added). It seems possible, then, that even Cardinal Newman didn't completely rule out the possibility of a pope thinking he was making an ex cathedra statement when he in fact was not. (Not that it really matters -- even if Cardinal Newman did rule out such a possibility, Catholics still wouldn't be required to agree with his opinion, only to agree with what was defined. I just mention it because I find it interesting.)



Let me clarify that when we speak of Newman liking the definition for its "vagueness and comprehensiveness", I see that in a strictly relative sense. Specifically, Newman continued to maintain his view that the council ought not to have defined the dogma at all, but he points out that the council could have done worse, which I take to mean defining a stronger (more ultramontane) dogma.


Your charges here are difficult to understand. For one thing, I really would have thought you'd at least agree with Newman's view that Vatican I ought not to have defined "papal infallibility"; and yet you complain that the formula is "useless", and that it doesn't stop future Catholics from doing this or that. It seems then that you believe Vatican I needed to define the dogma, but in a different way.

I hope that helps, although I think I could answer better if I understood what your position is.

God bless,
Peter.

Peter,

Thanks for your comments. I will think about them a bit. For the record, I am Orthodox Antiochian and I do not believe in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as stated in Catholic Doctrine. I do believe what the Orthodox Church believes, that prior to the schism, the Bishop of Rome held the place of "first among equals" among the patriarchs.

Joe

P.S. I think I should change my screen name since I used to be Melkite but I am no longer. Perhaps, this is confusing people?

Yes.

It does leave some unfamiliar with your journey confused...

Actually, I was taking for granted your being Orthodox. But, yes, that could be confusing for some people, so perhaps I too should have been a little clearer, for example �I really would have thought that you, as an Orthodox, would agree with Cardinal Newman that Vatican I ought not to have defined the dogma.�

-Peter.

Peter,


I'm not looking for a historical example; just an example of how it could (theoretically) happen. My point is that I don't see how, in practice, a pope could intend to declare something infallibly, and it not be infallible based on the teaching of Vatican I. I'm open to there being a way, I just don't see it, and would like to see how you think it even possible.


I'm making no statement on whether you are Catholic or not; I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. How exactly can one know if a doctrine is infallible, if even the pope doesn't know himself about his own statements? Would it require an ecumenical council to support it? If so, what is the purpose of the Vatican I declaration?

I simply don't see how in practice such uncertainty doesn't undermine the entire doctrine itself.


I picked the Assumption because it is agree by all that the Pope declared this ex cathedra. Not that all agree with the definition, but at least agree with the reality that the pope did intend to declare this infallibly. In fact, the pope uses the typical "ex cathedra" language in the document itself:


So I see no reason to question it being an "ex cathedra" statement. In fact, if this definition is not "ex cathedra", none really can considered to be.

But of course it is more important, as a Catholic, to simply accept the doctrine as true, not whether it is "ex cathedra" itself.

Francis,

I agree with you. I think the charism of infallibility preserves the Church, the Pope, and the bishops in communion with the Pope, of the kind of "mistaken infallibility" being discussed. That would be almost the worst imaginable situation of truthlessness: an ecclesiastical "sorcerer's apprentice".

I haven't studied Cardinal Newmans's views on the question of infallibility, but from a superficial acquaintance with the contemporary arguments pro- and con- the definition of Vatican I, I would say that he sounds relieved that the extreme expressions did not win out, a sign of the Cardinal's own prudence and sagacity. Some of them tended to the "sorcerer's apprentice" model.

Best regards,
Michael

Whenever the issue of papal infallibility comes up there is a firestorm and it seems to me that it quickly beomes a straw man to attack and argue over.

First of all it has been used twice in history. Both times to reaffirm doctrines that seemed to be in need of reinforcement because of some reason arising out of Western secular history. The Immaculate Conception comes in the middle of the 19th century when there was a resurgence of secular intellectual attacks on the doctrines of the Faith in the Western world. Some of this eventually moved east to Russia where the intellectuals seemed to move away from the Faith. The second time it was used was in the middle of the 20th century and seemed to reaffirm something already believed--in the East already firmly enshrined in the liturgical texts.

I had the chance to discuss the hisoty behind why Vatican I seemed to think that this was necessary to put forward. According to what I was told, the Western Church was in danger of fragmenting into individual national Churches with no link to each other. It seemed necessary to keep the Church united by defining one source of final authority, whether that seems necessary today or not and whether it seems to be necessary to our Eastern brethren or not. That question is for another place. One might look to the Anglican Church and the Scandinavian Lutheran national Churches to see what might have been the West's future today had this Vatican I definiton not happened. In Sweden, for example, Parliament defines what the Chruch believes and today there seems to be little that is held to be necessary for belief. It seems to be the case in the Church of England, too, though there the thrust is to allow any and all opinions in order to keep the house together. And I say this with all charity. Utlimately, one must ask if there is a unified body of belief that must define a Christian--and it seems that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe that there is, though they may not necessarily agree today on what that body should contain.

Two copper pennies for this afternoon.

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Francis,

I enjoy conversing with people that I disagree with. There are, however, limits. I don�t mind conversing with those who say �All Catholics believe that Munificentissimus Deus was an ex cathedra statement (with the possible exception of a very few bad �Catholics� who aren�t even disserving of the name and should be excommunicated)�, even though I find such a claim to be a little silly and more than a little offensive (BTW, I myself am Catholic and I don�t have an opinion, one way or the other, about whether Munificentissimus Deus was an ex cathedra statement). This is, in fact, what you insinuated in your 11-29-2007 post, but I still wished to continue our conversation in spite of that.

But now it seems that even such a statement is not ambitious enough for you:


You here claim that everyone � all Catholics and all non-Catholics alike (unless I�m taking you way too literally and by �all� you meant �all Catholics� or �all good Catholics�) -- believe that Munificentissimus Deus was ex cathedra statement � that is, �in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church� (cf. Vatican I).

In view of this, I have no further interest in conversing with you (just as I would be reluctant to converse with someone who said �Everyone agrees that Trent was an ecumenical council, but they disagree about whether an �ecumenical council� is necessarily infallible�).

Feel free, of course, to response to this post, but I consider this conversation to be ended. Thank you,
Peter.