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

Dear ByzBob,

I was about to leave and noticed this last bit of info from you. I'll respond to it since it will require no research from me.

Yes, indeed, that quote from the Pope is in direct contradiction to the idea that the Pope needs to consult with the episcopacy. I haven't read the article, and I am not inclined to read anything from that liberal publication which has expressed opposition to the Church's teaching on homosexuality and women priests. But I will bet (in line with its heterodox agenda) that it never mentioned that Archbishop Guidi's position actually won the day. The very title of the Decree on the infallibility was changed from "The Infallibility of the Pope" to the "The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope." This just goes to show you what a bunch of malarchy is spewed forth from anti-papal advocates who try to enforce the lie that the Pope had dictatorial control of Vatican 1.

Btw, the many members of the Minority Party actually crowded around Archbishop Guidi as he stepped down from the ambo after his speech to congratulate him on it.

Blessings,
Marduk

So what about Unam Sanctum?

To be Catholic, must I believe that this Papal Bull was infallible?

Must I believe that Luther, Elizabeth I, Photius, and Gregory Palamas (all of whom died outside the Roman Communion, and without being subject to the Roman Pontif) are in hell?

I wasn't so much interested in the publication as I was in giving the context of the quote that I mentioned. As an aside I believe this the very question of infallibility, along with Rome's understanding of the developement of doctrine, are the reason these sorts of groups don't take no for an answer.


In fact Cardinal Guidi did not win the day. The rebuke from Pope Pius IX came after his the very speech you are referencing. At the next session Bishop D'Avanzo upbraided Guidi in the name of the commision on faith, saying he was worse than Gallican. The infallibilists demanded that he recant his speech publicly in the newspaper. On July 13, 1870, he gave his assent to the constitution, though with reservations; five days later he finally went along with it completely.

MichaelB

I answered in your PM rather than de-railing the thread here on Unam Sanctum.

Why would anyone want to believe that St. Photios and St. Gregory Palamas are in hell.

You seem to suspect many things about me. Would it not be easier to simply accept the fact that I reject your theories about the importance of the papacy, rather than to constantly accuse me of being an intellectual moron.

Are they recognized as Saints by Rome?

If they are, how can the statement that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature that they be subject to the Pontiff of Rome" (Unam Sanctum) be infallible?

(Particularly in the case of Photius, who rejected the universal jurisdiction claimed by the Pope.)

BTW: I believe homosexuality is a sin, I'm against abortion, and I don't believe women should be ordained to the Priesthood.

I read that, and it made sense to me.

Thank you.

They're in my Typicon.

Dear brother Bob,

I wouldn't be overly concerned about an off-hand remark by Pio Nono. I'm more concerned about what is contained in Magisterial documents, and I've found no echo of that sentiment from Magisterial sources. I agree with you that such isolated bits of info do seem to obtain much purchase in the minds of detractors of the papacy (and I consider Absolutist Petrine advocates as much detractors of the papacy as Low Petrine advocates).

OK. Let's compromise and say that Cardinal Guidi only won 98% of the day.

Here are some other facts:
(1) Behind the scenes, on the same day that Cardinal Guidi was rebuked by the Pope, several leaders of the Minority and Majority parties met and discussed the possibility that the schema could be revised based on Guidi's speech. They approached one of the Council Presidents Cardinal de Luca on the matter, and everyone agreed. However, it was decided that any change would have to come after the course of the debates had run.
(2) Bishop D'Avanzo's speech specifically opposed the changing of the Title on the Chapter on Infallibility (i.e., "the Infallibility of the Pope"). Obviously, Cardinal Guidi won that battle hands down.
(3) One of the changes enacted to the schema as a result of Guidi's speech was the addition of the historic proem to the Decree on Infallibility. Its addition addressed in essence the very concerns that Guidi expressed against the idea that the Pope can exercise infallibility apart from the Church.
(4) The addition of the proem to the Decree was vociferously opposed by the neo-ultramontanists at the Council (neo-ultramontanists were those who adhered to an Absolutist Petrine view), so much that a few of them walked out of the Council in disgust, thinking that the Decree was how nothing more than Gallicanism in disguise!!!

So the only thing that Guidi "lost" was his proposal that the Pope can never exercise infallibility apart from the Church and his brother bishops be included in the definition itself. It was indeed not incorporated as part of the definition, but was nevertheless included in essence in another part of the Decree. As noted in earlier post, the conditions from Sacred Tradition include:
(1) The Pope has no authority to make an ex cathedra decree unless the Church through her bishops call for it;
(2) The Pope cannot make new doctrine, but can only make dogma based on what is already the accepted teaching of the Church.

I have to go, but I'll return in abit with statements from some of the Council Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

I must say I disagree with most everything you wrote, but rather than get bogged down in what really happened at the council, I would like to focus on the above quote. I would ask were you are getting this notion from? I have already read the attempt to make Vatican 1 the author of this notion, but I found it rather unconvincing. Newadvent.org does not list this as a condition of an ex-cathedra statement, nor does Ludwigg Ott. Both agree that the three conditions are 1. teaching concerning faith and morals. 2. That he speaks as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority and finally #3 that he has the inention that the definition be held by all.

Dear brother Bob,

Your reaction is completely understandable to me, because I used to have the same attitude. I didn't want to hear or read anything that could possibly make me change my mind about the papacy. In my earlier years, I rested on the laurels of Hans Kung, other liberal Catholics, and non-Catholic sources to inform me of what went on at the Vatican Council. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but please at least point out which portions you disagree with. I will supply some information in response, and you don't have to engage me on them.

It's only natural that the standard manuals will focus only on the conditions that are contained in the definition itself, for that is what is normally what is at issue. But the Decree as a whole is another thing, and that contains other conditions as well, conditions based on the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Our apparent issue here is similar to the issue on what made the ruling against female priests an infallible teaching of the Church - was it by virtue of a dogmatic ruling (an extraordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium of God), or by virtue of teaching what is already contained conclusively in Sacred Tradition (an ordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium of God).

Thus, I would direct your attention to the historic proem of the Decree on Infallibility (paragraph 5 of the Decree), which contains these words: "Therefore, the bishops of the world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matter of faith."

According to the ancient rule, the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallible Magisterium was, is, and is to be utilized as a response to the solicitude of the bishops of the Church, in exercise of their own apostolic ministry.

I gather you did not know (perhaps because none of your sources have informed you) that the historic proem was not part of the original draft of the Decree, but was added only after the debates which included Guidi's speech. It was added specifically to meet the concerns of bishops in both the Minority and Majority party (which were expressed during the debates) that the Decree made it seem as if the Pope could act apart from or without the concourse of the Church.

Dom Cuthbert Butler (The Vatican Council:1869 - 1870, Longmans, Green & Co., 1930) summarizes the attitude of the neo-ultramontanists, based on the minutes as recorded in Mansi:
"They called for the suppression of the piece [i.e., the proem], that the Popes in exercising their infallibility had convoked Councils or had ascertained the mind of the Church, as imposing conditions on the Pope...that the new form of the definition was virtual Gallicanism...that the it made the infallibility of the Pope to be derived from the infallibility of the Church...many objected to the limitation of the infallibility to definitions of faith and morals, wishing it extended to far wider circles."

In his pastoral to his local flock after the Council, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, England, wrote concerning the Proem, "the past is the guarantee for the future, and prescribes the principles and rules by which the Popes are guided."

The Swiss Synod of Bishops wrote a Pastoral to their flock, explaining: "It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition...he is tied up and limited by the divine law and the constitution of the Church."

Interestingly, Pio Nono responded to the Swiss bishops: "nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than their pastoral." Apparently, the Pope himself submitted to the will of the Council and let go of his own private opinions about being "the only Tradition of the Church" or whatever he stated to Guidi.

Across the Atlantic, Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore in his own Pastoral to his flock, wrote similarly on his explanation of the Proem: "Hence, it is manifest that the Pontiffs cannot define any new doctrine not contained either expressly or impliedly in the original Deposit of Faith, much less can they define merely according to their own will and caprice, as their enemies are not ashamed sometimes to assert...for nowhere is precedent more rigidly adhered to, or regarded as more sacred, than in the Roman Church, as every one knows."

As previously stated, Archbishop's Guidi's proposals won the day (at least 98% of it ).

I'll leave you with the words of Bishop Gasser, the official spokesman for the Deputation De Fide. His words represent the official understanding of the text that was proposed to the Council Fathers for vote:

"[W]e do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church, at any rate in the sense that we do not exclude such co-operation and such concourse of the Church. The end is the preservation of Truth in the Church, generally when controversy arises, and some question is referred to the Holy See for settlement. Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope's infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence, the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils, or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc..."

Basically, the participation of the Church through her bishops in the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallibility is regarded as a practical and moral necessity, but not a dogmatic one.

Blessings,
Marduk

A third distinction without a difference.

By the law of averages, you say it often enough, I guess it had to happen some time.

Agreed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Mardukm,

As you so clearly defined I am not up to your level yet, so please bear with me. What I am reacting to is your statement that the definition from Pastor Aeternus makes Papal Infallibility contigent upon a call from the bishops. I still do not see it in the definition, nor in the quotes you provided. Indeed Chapter 4 appears to militate against that notion. In no 5 we read:

Is the council not saying that the Popes had used councils, or synods to achieve their end (infallible declarations), and other means? The first two may give the appearance of supporting your contention (though a synod is hardly a call from all the bishops), but the 'other circumstances,' would indicate, to me, that it wasn't always a collegial decision. Furthermore, this paragraph would lead the reader to believe that there were multiple ex cathedra statements given by Pope prior to 1870 - if that is the case wouldn't we need a list of them?