www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Papal Authority

Expanding further on the dogma of the Chruch's infallibility, it is expressed and exercised through 3 organs from the point of view of the Catholic Church:

(1) solemnly in an Ecumenical Council, presided over by the Pope;
(2) through the Pope in union with the world's Catholic bishops; and
(3) by the Pope, singly, when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

The 3rd is the dogma of papal infallibility. As stated by BOB/theophan above, the Pope's exercise of his infallibility has been done only twice thus far: his declarations of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and of the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Amado

Isn't it the number of times the Pope has spoken ex cathedra debatable? I know many theologians who would say that Unum Sanctum is ex cathedra teaching. If you read it, it certainly has all the marks of something being proclaimed ex cathedra.

Joe

Amado is correct when he lists the three ways in which infallibility can be utilized in the Church, although the first listed: "solemnly in an Ecumenical Council, presided over by the Pope" is not exactly correct. The Pope did not preside over a number of ecumenical councils, but he did confirm their teachings. This is all that is necessary, from a Catholic point of view, for a council to exercise infallibility.

But Joe is also correct - it is a debatable point as to how many times a Pope has spoken ex cathedra. Everyone agrees that the two Marian declarations - the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - were exercises of papal infallibility, but there are other instances - such as Unum Sanctum - which might also be considered exercises of papal infallibility. In Unum Sanctum, for example, the Pope writes:


This "we declare, we proclaim, we define" is exactly the language that most proponents of papal infallibility say must be used to make something ex cathedra. Compare it, for example, to the declaration on the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus):


So I can't see how one can be considered ex cathedra and not the other.

Joe,

I have heard the same said about certain arguments in Evangelium Vitae, that those points met all the conditions to be infallible.

Terry

Collin,
Of course that does not mean there are "no" limitations on the Pope teaching infallibly. There are.
#1. It cannot be just a matter of his own personal belief.
(That is why it must be limited to faith and morals and be solemnly defined. ) In other words he has to say this is infallible teaching.
Also he has to be limited by revealed faith. It cannot be a new doctrine but must have a basis in the deposit of faith.
(In this sense, it is a clarification of some truth devinely reveasled.)
Stephanos I

The Pope has only spoken twice under what qualifies as infallible:
#1. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
#2. The doctrine ot the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

Stephanos I

Or as Patriarch Maximos IV once suggested, a phrase might be added to something he found (and read out loud on the floor of Vatican II) in the Meditations of John Bosco. Bosco wrote:

"Il Papa e Dio sur la terra. Gesu l'a posita al sopre di angeli, al sopre di precurso, al sopre di Madonna. . . " and the suggested addition would be:

"Il Papa e al sopre di EVERYBODY!"

But back to the quote with which I began. The hole in the argument even at first glance can be expressed in one simple question: What Is Jurisdiction?
The concept is by no means a simple one - which is, perhaps, why that word occurs in the Vatican II documents only about half-a-dozen times.

If we look in the Gospels, we find that Our Lord, God, and Saviour, Jesus Christ (is the Pope "al sopre di Gesu Cristo" also?) appeared to recognize "jurisdiction" in precisely two human beings: Pontius Pilate and King Herod. I have not noticed Pope Benedict XVI claiming to be the successor of either one of them, let alone both.

Unam Sanctam (please note the correct spelling) is in reality an excellent example to prove that the Pope really cannot do whatever he pleases to whomever he pleases whenever he pleases. Do read the whole text, and then read the conciliar teachings on the subject. Yes, Boniface VIII used all the magic words. No, they didn't work, and they still don't.

Stephanos points out - and he is firmly rooted in the majority of Roman Catholic theologians - that there are two and only two Papal "definitions" which fit the criteria for an exercise of "papal infallibility" (an expression not to be found in Vatican I, incidentally). Right there we have a serious problem. Is it truly possible to believe that such a momentous charism was given to the Church - not frivolously, but for the good of the Church - and then lay dormant for about 18 centuries? At the very least, that would require serious explanations. And were the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption honestly issues of such dogmatic urgency that Pius IX and Pius XII could have been justified in invoking that long-dormant charism to require belief in them as necessary to salvation?

Those are questions, not answers. I am not the first Catholic to find this all a bit difficult, and I will not be the last.

Fr. Serge

P.S. I can't deal with Italian diacritical marks on this program - sorry.

Padre,

Can you translate?

Gratzi! Gratzi!

Gordo

I don't think you can state this categorically - after all, you are not infallible.

Seriously, I used to make this same statement, but I just don't see how it can be reconciled with the history of the papacy. At other times than the two times you listed (most notably and problematically in Unam Sanctam) the Pope has declared things that fall under the "requirements" for something to be "infallible". Yet why do you (and most Roman Catholic theologians) not consider them infallible? Because the Church doesn't really teach them anymore?

Note: I am not trying to be antagonistical, I am honestly wrestling with these issues myself.

This actually reveals one of the difficulties of overdefining things. The ministry of the papacy (or for any bishop) is not exclusively to define infallible dogmas. He is, however, to preach and teach the Gospel authoritatively, which, in this post-apostolic age means according to the charism of the episcopate guided by the Holy Spirit. When I read the teachings of, say, Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II my first reaction is not "Is this infallible?" but "What is the Holy Spirit saying through him?" I should have the same response (or at least a similar one) when I receive letters from my bishop/eparch. (except for fundraising letters, of course! ) Sophia!

"He who has ears to hear let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches!"

I think that this is why Lumen Gentium went to great lengths to demonstrate that infallibility is a charism of the Church and of the whole episcopate when they teach in unity with the Successor of Saint Peter. As spokeperson and head of the college of bishops, he can exercise and has exercised on a few occasions this Petrine teaching authority to define dogma definitively for all Catholics. But I would not limit infallibility to those specific moments. Again, if I read Vatican II correctly, all bishops can teach infallibly so long as they teach in agreement with the depositum fidei and in communion with the college of which the Pope is the elected head. In this regard, the Church can thus speak with "one voice" as Saint Irenaeus said.

Just a few shekels...

In ICXC,

Gordo

Because not everything the Church teaches is infallible!
Some are plausable opinions.
Stephanos I

This is a good thread. I will have to read it more carefully over the next few days.

However, I have two things I'd say about some things I've seen:

1. re: domilsean's question: no. This idea was - reportedly - explicitly rejected in the notes and proceedings of the commission which wrote up that document at the First Vatican Council*.

2. re: Unam Sanctam. I hold no thorough understanding of scholastic or academic theological studies. But I'd make two comments:

a. is it specifically said in any Vatican document or commentary that you can tell what dogmas are infallible by looking for buzzwords in a Pope's statement?

b. like any statement, the context, intention, and intended readership must be taken into account. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia which is on New Advent discusses this in relation to Unam Sanctam. It was enough for me to reject a maximalist view of that document.

*Unfortunately, I am only aware of one reference to this in the English. The original text, and much of the research on this, is apparently in languages other than English. Perhaps they would be available at a Catholic university library. My reference to this is Hermann Pottmeyer's paper from an officially sponsored Orthodox-Catholic academic symposium in Rome held in 2003, which has been translated from German to English. Ref: "The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue", Newman Press, 2006.

For that matter, Dr. Pottmeyer states that a maximlaist, ultramontane interpretation of the infallibilty doctrine which has become popularized is an incorrect interpretation of the intention of the council Fathers.

Markos

I thought that this priest has a good way of summarizing the issue:


http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/the-pope-bishops-magisterium/

Now, the precise manner or manifestation of the concurrence among the bishops is unclear. What is clear, is that what is NOT referenced here is an Ecumenical Council. I would like to see the implications of this teaching explored further. I think it has been rather neglected myself...

Another interesting read...this one pertaining to the question of the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

http://catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

Gordo

Markos,


No, it is not a matter of buzzwords (and I didn't mean to suggest that), but the language used in Unam Sanctam does seem to fit the modern criteria of an infallible statement from the pope. The "declare, proclaim, define" language, while not strictly necessary, is a common indicator that the proclamation is to be binding on the faithful. A typical modern view of papal infallibility states that an infallible definition must meet four criteria:

(1) Office: The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra -- that is, from his position as supreme or universal pastor
(2) Mode: He must be defining a doctrine, not merely explaining, commenting, observing, exhorting or discussing, etc.
(3) Content: The doctrine must concern faith or morals.
(4) Recipient: It must be addressed to all the Church, not merely one segment of her.
(see this article [stjohn17v20-21.com])

On all counts, Unam Sanctam appears to apply. Furthermore, a later Latin Council affirmed this teaching. The Fifth Lateran Council declared: "That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff".

So how can Unam Sanctam not be considered a infallible statement of the pope if both the declarations on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are? How exactly is it disqualified?


The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article (found here [newadvent.org]), states that the Bull is universal in nature. Do you reject the maximalist view because you find the article unconvincing?

The biggest problem with this issue that it was developed by the Roman Catholic Church only...it excluded from the Eastern Church participation to the Vatican Council I.

Of course as most of you know that there are only 7 ecumenical councils.

I don't think it's very credible for the Catholic Church to define such very sensitive and controversal "dogma" of papal infalibility BY HERSELF. She should have included the Orthodox brethren in the council. But alas one big problem: Both Churches aren't in full physical communion with each other....YET. That's the big problem.

So it is my personal opinion that the Catholic Church should DROP the papal infallibility until the Churches are re-united. We can go on FOREVER discussing this. It would not go away...it's like a leech that keeps sucking the life out of the path towards Catholic-Orthodox unity. It's a real sore. Why open the wounds when we should be focusing on unity...then we can take care of the problems during that process.

Quite frankly, I wish it was NEVER discussed in the first place until the right time comes. Because it's divisive even among Catholic circles.

It's not that it's a bad concept...but it was the WRONG time to discuss the dogma at the time.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine