www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Infallibility and Reception

I agree with the Ravenna Document issued by the international dialogue commission which holds that there have been no ecumenical councils since the East / West schism (See the Ravenna Document, no. 39).

Well said! The West has tried to dogmatize issues that are not really all that important in the life of the Church and her members.

Dear brother StuartK,


If you understood what papal infallibility is, that is really an irrelevant comment. Papal infallibility cannot be arbitrarily exercised by the Pope. It can only be exercised in response to the needs of the Church through the agency of her bishops. The only way your comment makes any sense is if you think the Dogma of papal infallibility permits the Pope to wake up one morning and say to himself, "I think today is a good day for a dogma." If this is what papal infallibility is, then it would indeed be foolish for the Pope not to ascertain that reception is ensured before making the Decree. But that is not what papal infallibility is.

No. The Ravenna Document did not yet discuss the unique role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church, and it admits that. So this comment is rash. As far as reception, it was referring to Ecumenical Councils, and it clearly stated that "reception" applies to the character of ecumenicity. It's inspiration by the Holy Spirit (i.e, its infallibility), on the other hand, is treated in a different paragraph.

Blessings,
Marduk

That's what I have said, repeatedly (though I deny that he can do even that), yet canonists insist on telling me that the Pope does not require the moral consensus of the Church as a precondition for making an ex Cathedra decree. Technically, they are correct--the Pope can just decide that he's going to do it, and who is going to gainsay him?

"No one may judge the Roman See", according to the Codex Canonorum (a misreading of the ancient aphorism, which was referring to Rome's final appellate status), which means that the Pope is the sole judge of his own case. The Pope, and the Pope alone, has the authority decide whether a statement needs to be made in response to the needs of the Church. He does not need to consult anybody, "The Pope is an absolute monarch, except when he chooses not to be", according to the Ukrainian canonist Fr. Victor Popshishtil, by which he meant the Pope's theoretical "plena potestas" is unlimited.

However, as I have said, many times, in practice the Pope is a constitutional monarch whose power is hedged about by all sorts of informal constraints. After all, the Pope can only enforce his decrees with the cooperation of the bishops, who have all sorts of ways to oppose Papal directives with which they do not agree.

And that is why reception of a doctrine is essential, and why the Pope would be an idiot to propose a doctrine without making certain it could be received in the first place. And, behold! That's precisely what Pope Pius XII did, when he woke up one morning and decided the Church needed to dogmatize the assumption of Mary (just what was the pressing pastoral need of the Church for that one?).

Now, the reason I say that reception is becoming more important is the ecclesiology of communion that recognizes the Church as a communion of Churches, and of true Churches outside of communion with Rome. For a decree to have moral unanimity, it must do more than simply poll the Latin bishops (as was the case in 1854 and 1954)--it must consider the opinions of the Eastern Catholic bishops, and also of the Eastern bishops not in communion with Rome. Since these will never agree to any infallible declaration (rightly so!), even if they agree with its doctrinal content, no Pope will ever attempt to employ that particular tool again.

As I have noted many times, it's a lot like a nuclear weapon--if you have to use it, you have failed. So, my guess (supported by a lot of other people smarter than me--they do exist!) is infallibility will remain on the books, fading into desuetude (like the temporal supremacy of the Pope), until either forgotten or "clarified" into irrelevancy.

Regarding the Ravenna Document, take what you want from it. My degree was in the history of diplomacy, so I am quite adept at reading obfuscation and circumlocution. If you take all of the agreed statements together, the trend is quite clear: primacy will be brought into balance with conciliarity, which necessarily means a relativization of pontifical powers. Reception has received greater prominence in each successive statement.

As for your distinction between "ecumenicity" and "infallibility", it is one without a difference: if a statement is recognized ecumenically, by definition it contains an infallible truth. Conversely, no infallible statement can be accepted as such until it is received ecumenically.

And when the hypothetical reunion council considered this, the question woulds be, "which bishops?" and "did the consultations satisfy the requirements of the infallibility doctrine?" If the requirements weren't satisfied, no infallible statement was made, leaving much more room for the notion to be denied.

Dear brother dochawk,

Those would be valid questions. And if the requirements were not satisfied, then there is certainly the greatest possibility that the infallibility of the Church was not being exercised by the Pope in that instance. But I don't think that necessarily negates the principle that the protos of the Church can exercise the infallibility of the Church in a unique way when circumstances necessitate the exercise, does it?

There are two circumstances I can think of that would necessitate that the infallibility of the Church be exercised by its protos. What if an issue of doctrine arises and:
(1) a good majority of bishops in the world were prevented from gathering in an Ecumenical Council? Can we really assume that God would leave the Church without an infallible voice since no truly Ecumenical Council can practically be called?
(2) the Church is literally split on a the doctrinal matter, and a majority cannot decide.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I basically agree with you. I think what you often intend to say is "papal infallibility is not really practicable in a reunited Church," but you sometimes come off as saying, "papal infallibility is non-existent and unnecessary."

I would agree with the first, but I can't agree with the second.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I think your position is highly problematic. If ecumenicity (partly determined by reception) is a true gauge of infallibility, then no Ecumenical Council can be considered infallible since there always was a group (often large groups) of Christians opposed to them. If ecumenicity was a true gauge of infallibility, then the Arians would have won the day. If ecumenicity was the true gauge of infallibility, then the official Christological Agreements between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches could not have occurred (such Agreements were based on the notion that the Truth existed in each Church without the evidence of ecumenicity).

Blessings,
Marduk

In both cases I believe that the law of liberty should prevail, as all the necessary Christian dogmas have already been given to us, the only things remaining are of secondary or tertiary importance.

"In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity."

Another distinction without a difference.

We have very different definitions of ecumenicity, apparently.

I find it very interesting that we are constantly told that when the Church officially defines a dogma, it is because this dogma has reached its full flowering and is ready to be codified. The definition of the dogma is supposed to clear up any questions, and everything is to be made clear.

However, with the definition of papal infallibility, that does not seem to be the case. If anything, it seems more confusing now than before Vatican I. No one seems to agree on when the Pope is exercising it. It seems to have made the role of Councils basically obsolete. (After all, if the infallibility of the Church can be expressed by papal edict, than what is the purpose of a Council anymore?) Plus, it has reduced the role of bishops in the Church, so that no one really considers them to be the authentic teachers that they are. Especially in our age of modern communication, it seems that most Catholics bypass their local bishops to go directly to what the Holy Father has to say. There is just too much confusion on the part of ordinary Catholics.

There seems to be a constant blurring of the lines regarding this that would not be there if it weren't for this defined dogma. Two examples come to mind. When Pope John Paul II was asked if his statement on the prohibition on women's ordination was an infallible statement, he responded in the affirmative. This caused much confusion because he was not speaking ex cathedra. For me and many other people, this seemed like the Pope was making an infallible statement that wasn't ex cathedra. Now, I realize that one can make the argument that he was just stating that this is part of the ordinary magisterium and because it has always been taught by the Church, it is, therefore, an infallible statement; however, it seems to me that such mental gymnastics should be unnecessary, and this constant harping about the ordinary versus extraordinary magisterium only adds to the confusion and is very reductionist. All of the sudden you have a bunch of Christians, who seem more concerned over figuring out how much we actually have to believe rather than seeking to embrace the fullness of the faith and all that it entails.

The second example is the current book with the interview of the Holy Father and all the hubbub about his statements on the use of condoms. If there weren't the whole idea of papal infallibility, this would never have been an issue. Now, I'm not saying that the statements would not have caused some raised eyebrows, but there wouldn't have been the buzz about a change in Church teaching if it weren't for papal infallibility. If it weren't possible in one way or another for one man to single-handedly define dogmas, then this would not even come up.

Now, I recognize that the Holy Father is still within the Church and that his prerogative of papal infallibility should be exercised together with the bishops of the world; however, in the mind of most Catholics, this isn't really seen this way. I think one solution would be to reframe the discussion. Let's go back to speaking about how the gift of infallibility is given to the Church, and this gift is expressed and communicated to the world in different ways. I think that might help to clear up some of the confusion and puts the focus of infallibility where it should be, i.e. on the Church as a whole and not on one man.

I hope that makes sense. If I have offended or written something wrong, please forgive me and offer a correction, and please pray for me, a sinner.

In Christ,
Scott

I think the problem comes in a false comparison that it is either the councils or the pope. If the pope, then no more need of the councils.

What you are asserting has never been proposed, nor used, nor even understood in that way by Rome.

The infallibility of the Pope is not distinct from the infallibility of the Church. I think that you are separating the two, when Mardukm has tried to explain that they cannot be separated, for the Pope's infallibility is only founded within the context of the infallibility of the Pope to confirm his bretheren.

i think that the suspicions are due to a lot of mistrust. Unfortunately, that mis-trust was earned over many many years of estrangement and acting against each other.

What contributes, I think, to the understanding the Pope's "infallibility," being distinct from that of the church is the definiton given at the First Vatican Council. Especially number 9 of Pastor Aeternus:

Thanks for the post. My point was not really to comment on how this dogma has been proposed by Rome, but rather to comment on how this dogma is perceived by many. I think perception has something to do with how a dogma is received, so I think it's a valid point to consider.


I agree that there is often a false comparison between the two and an understanding of papal infallibility that seems to set one against the other. However, here again it has to do with perception and the way this dogma is explained. This is why I think it is important to begin with infallibility as a gift to the Church in all our discussions before we speak about Councils and the papal office. Infallibility must first be understood as a gift to the Church as a whole. If we understood that better, I don't know if we would set the two against each other.

This reminds me how many Christians want to set Scripture against Tradition, not realizing they encompass the whole of Revelation and that each is part of the other.


I'm not disagreeing with you, but my point had to do with how this is understood by the majority of Catholics, not to mention those outside the Catholic Church. When I was on my journey into the Catholic Church, I never discovered a catechism or any other discussion that framed the dogma in these terms. There was a clear explanation of when a Pope was speaking infallibly, but the discussion was never framed in terms of the Pope confirming the brethren. Confirming the brethren was discussed regarding encyclical letters and other papal statements. I would assert that most Catholics see papal infallibility in relationship to the Pope defining dogmas, not as the Pope keeping the Church from error.

If this dogma does not separate Councils and the papal office (and I'm not asserting it does), then it raises some questions that have yet to be answered:

1. Why do we need Councils if the Pope can just consult with the bishops and then, after doing so, speak infallibly? I mean the Pope can still work within the Church, gathering the bishops, asking for their input, discussing doctrine with them, asking them if something should be defined. Then, once he has their consent, he defines the dogma, and that pronouncement is infallible. How is that different than a Council? I don't mean to be problematic, but I have yet to read a really good explanation that answers these questions.

2. If the dogma is clearly understood, why have there been so many subsequent documents clarifying the dogma?

3. If there was no understanding that this dogma separated the Pope from the rest of the Church, why did the Melkite Synod of Bishops only accept Vatican I with a disclaimer that protected the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs?


I agree with you. This will only be corrected with lots and lots of prayer.

-Scott