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

If a pope speaks accurately in relaying the doctrine of the Church to others as it has been handed down in Tradition it follows that he speaks without error, but this is true of anyone who clearly proclaims the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Another work by Father Pottmeyer looks at Pastor Aeternus, using the proceedings of the formation of the document as primary sources. This was presented to the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue a few years ago and is one of the chapters in this book [paulistpress.com] .

The paper is most illuminating, and either answers or provides useful perspectives on a number of issues discussed in this thread. In fact, if one views "infallibility" without taking a similar perspective into account, IMO, one has no credibility on the issue.

[it's not available online, and I'm sorry, I don't think I should summarize it because it wouldn't be fair to the publisher. Moreover, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that a "dogma requiring full assent" requires some context available only from Catholic academic circles in order to be properly understood, something that has scanadalized many people on various boards. Either way, everyone here's literate so that shouldn't be a problem. ]

Dear brother MarkosC,

That was very well put. We really do need to look at the background debates/documents that went into the official decrees. You are absolutely correct that those who have not, or can't even bother, to investigate those sources on such an important topic really places their own credibility into question on the topic of papal infallibility/primacy as dogmatized by V1.

Many equate "ultramontanism" with the Absolutist Petrine view, when in fact, the High Petrine view won out at Vatican 1. The Absolutist Petrine perspective was promoted not by the "ultramontanists", but by the "neo-ultramontanists" (according to the jargon of the times).

Part of the problem is that many think that Hans Kung is the last word on the topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well said Stuart. The papacy is not a dogmatic concern.

Dear brother Byzbob,

That's an interesting perspective. Do you think that is a general Eastern perspective? I've personally never come across such a perspective from my Oriental background. Orientals believe that the Truths of God can never be fully plumbed. There is so much Mystery, and we are always looking through a glass darkly that we can never close ourselves off to the possibility that God will grant the Church through the Holy Spirit the opportunity to learn more about the divine revelation He has already given us.

Thus, I can't agree at all that Christian dogma has been exhausted. No new doctrine, indeed, but new dogma (which is an authoritative clarification of doctrine) is certainly a possibility. In fact, I think that is part of the Faith of the Church.

And on that principle, the organs of infallibility that God has given us will always be necessary and useful.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

See my two previous posts to brother Byzbob.

Blessings

I suspect, our understanding of infallibility is also different.

Blessings

Dear brother Scott,

Whoever said that has never studied the history of the Councils. The Second Ecumenical Council clarified the dogma of the First, the Third clarified the first two, the Fourth clarified further, and so on and so on. Please read my previous post to brother Byzbob. I hope you meditate upon the biblical Truth that we are always looking through a glass darkly, and that we can never fully plumb the Truths of God.

As with the rest of Christian dogmas of the past, it's not at all surprising. We are always growing in knowledge, and whoever claims we need no more growth is guilty of pride methinks.

Vatican 2 clarified all this (actually, the clarifications were evident from papal encyclicals before V2, and would also be evident if one takes the effort to study the background context of Vatican 1). It's not so much confusing as that some people have an agenda to make it confusing (I'm certainly not speaking of you, brother).


Why is an obvious explanation considered "mental gymnastics?" Is it or is it not true that the only ones who are making it a matter of "mental gymnastics" are the very liberals who wish for women priests? Why would an orthodox Catholic side with the liberals?

Again, it seems to me the only ones who are causing the confusion are the liberals who wish the Pope's statements here is an infallible permission for condom use. Seriously think about your examples, and I hope you can see that the real source of the confusion comes not from orthodox Catholicism, but those who have an agenda to cause confusion. I beg you not to give in to that agenda.

Interesting that you should express this view. I completely agree. But what I find interesting about your view is that you don't seem to realize that this was explicitly taught by V1. You don't even need to plumb the depths of the background debates at V1. What you express here is flat out part of the Decree. The Dogma explicitly states that the charism that the Pope exercises is simply "the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to have."

Nothing you've written is offensive.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bull.

It's in the canons of your own Church. If one willfully dissents from the canons of their own Church, it becomes a very serious matter.



Canon 597

1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held. 2. The college of bishops
also possesses infallible teaching authority if the bishops,
gathered in an ecumenical council, exercise their teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals for the
universal Church, declare that a doctrine of faith or morals must
be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout
the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and
with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman
Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and
morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive. 3.
No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is
clearly established as such.

Dear brother Byzbob,

This is where brother Markos' exhortation to study the background context of Vatican 1 becomes invaluable. There is so much to learn from such a study which would clarify so much. Just to take your example, if you made a study of the background of V1 to understand what they meant, you would discover that when V1 decreed "not by the consent of the Church," the Fathers of the Council were not saying that the exercise of the Church's infallibility by the Pope is solitary or that the Church is not at all involved. Rather, what they meant was that:
1) Truth needs no consensus.
2) Since the Pope has already determined before promulgating an ex cathedra decree the mind of the Church on the matter, and making his decision in agreement with it, then no one is permitted to question it after the Decree. Since the Decree already reflects the mind of the Church, then those who disagree with it is opposing the Church.

Dear brother Scott,

That's so true. Personally, I oppose the Absolutist Petrine interpretations of V1 (as well as the Low Petrine view of non-Catholics).

As stated in my previous post, what you propose here is already the explicit teaching of V1. The problem is that the real teaching of V1 has been smothered under all the polemics from the Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates. Both groups are misrepresenting V1 in the same way, but simply with different agendas (the former to promote the papacy, the latter to oppose it).

A wise and concise comparison!

I agree. To put it another way, many Catholics (especially Latin Catholics) see papal infallibility as the Pope imposing doctrine as a monarch, instead of the Pope meeting the needs of the Church as her servant.

That's a very valid question. Let me pose a question to you, and if you can answer my question, then it will perhaps answer to your own question (if not, then we can discuss further):

The Catholic Church also recognizes that infallibility can be exercised by the bishops of the world in union with their head bishop (the Pope) even while they are geographically spread throughout the world when they teach definitively on a matter. I gather you will agree with that. My question to you is - if infallibility can be exercised in this way, why is there a need for an Ecumenical Council?

I think I already answered this in a previously, but let me repeat dialectically. If dogma is clearly understood, why did the dogma of the First Ecumenical Council need to be clarified by the Second? Why did the Fourth need to be clarified by the Fifth and Sixth?

The issue here was the Primacy, not the Infallibility.

Regarding infallibility, Melkite Patriarch Jussef in a speech on February 9 in the Congregation de postulatis (this was a group of 26 bishops nominated by the Pope, responsible for sifting through the many proposals made by the bishops for the matters to be laid before the Council - Patriarch Jussef was a member of that Congregation) expressed his personal belief in papal infallibility, while noting that the definition would be an obstacle to reunion with the EOC. His speech for the formal debate on the infallibility was given on May 19, 1870. He expresed in stronger terms his opposition to the definition as it would "destroy all hope of reunion." He proposed that only the Decrees of Florence be reenacted, and the rights of the Patriarchs respected.

It should be noted that Patriarch Jussef at all times expressed his desire that the rights of the Patriarchs be respected, even beyond the May 19 speech, so one should not take his mention of it in a speech during the Infallibility debates as indicating that the "rights of the Patriarchs" had anything to do with the question of Infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

Perhaps you can provide some of the background to which you refer? As it stands, I am not following your thought process. The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible. So if the Pope alone decrees the mind of the Church on the matter, then defines, by himself what is to be held under pain of anathema, how is that with the consent of the Church? Forgive my ignorance, but I recall Pope Pius IX's famous, or infamous, words when challenged on a certain point, "I am the tradition" he said. I must wonder then if he held your more moderate view?

Dear brother Todd,

I suspect you really don't understand what infallibility is. Infallibility is first and foremost a character of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of God. The only ones who can exercise Magisterium (i.e. the teaching office) are bishops. So it is not just "anyone."

And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that when the bishops teach in a definitive manner on a topic in union with the head bishop of the Church (i.e. the Pope) even when geographically separated throughout the world, they are exercising the infallible Magisterium of God.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Bob,

Thanks for your interest. However, I'm afraid I have exhausted my time on the I-net. I'll return later in the day, and hopefully my response can satisfy your request.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is the context of the quote I referenced above. It appears to me, that the quote is in direct contradiction to the idea that the Pope needs to consult with the episcopacy (i.e. the Church).

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2118