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

Dear brother Bob,

I'm confused. I thought you wanted to talk about my statement that "Papal Infallibility is contingent upon a call from the bishops." I gave you proof from the Proem. My point was that the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is appellate in nature - that's the way it's always been as clearly set forth in the Proem (the ancient rule). The Pope just can't wake up one morning and say to himself, "Yaaaawn. I think today is a good day for a new dogma." This is one of the ways that the Church is necessarily involved in the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallibility.

But now you bring up a section of the Proem that has nothing to do with that.???

I need to go. Just to let you know, I'm not sure when I'll be back. Hopefully later today or tomorrow. If not, it'll have to be after the weekend (Christmas obligations for the Latin side of my family, you know ).

Blessings,
Marduk

Since - as an Eastern Catholic - I do not accept the ecumenicity of the fourteen Latin Church particular synods the debate about Pastor Aeternus is a moot point. The discussion ultimately involves a lot of technical babble about a non-dogmatic issue.

Bob,

When I was a student at Franciscan University it was made very clear to me by my professors that the pope did not have to await a request from any other bishop or group of bishops, nor was he required to consult the universal episcopate, before issuing a decree; and that this - according to my professors - is clear from both the decree itself and the Official Relatio delivered by Bishop Gasser on 11 July 1870. In fact, in the Relatio Bishop Gasser went out of his way to affirm that the pope may consult the other bishops if he wishes, but he made it absolutely clear that the pope is not required to consult them, and that no form of necessity in consulting the universal episcopate could ever be placed upon the pope. Bishop Gasser stated that the pope can act with the other bishops or independently of them (see the Official Relatio of the Deputation de Fide, nos. 37-40), and that he must possess this ability if he is to be able to "confirm his brethren" in the faith.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I should make it clear that within a year after becoming Eastern Catholic I no longer accepted the Western theory of papal infallibility.

P.P.S - Below is a link to a paper I wrote on the Western theory of the papal magisterium while working on my master's degree at Franciscan University:

The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25 [web.archive.org]

Todd,
Thanks for confirming that. I have never run across the theory that the Pope needed to consult with his brother bishops prior to making an ex cathedra statement until this thread. In fact, everything I have heard and read on the topic conforms with what you were told at Steubenville. It wouldn't be as divisive a teaching if consultation was required. If Papal Infallibility were contingent upon the consent of the entire episcopate that would be a step in the right direction (not that I think we are ever going to see another ‘ex cathedra,’ statement again).

Yours,
Bob

I guess you're not going to resond to my previous post? That's OK.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here's a link that I think offers a good perspective on the subject and which might provide some enlightenment.

http://www.washtheocon.org/Pastor%2...0Newman%20on%20Papal%20Infallibility.pdf

Prayers to all for a blessed and joyous Nativity!

I think we simply disagree. Pius IX may not have gotten everything he wanted. Indeed, he did not want any limitations at all, so even the radical power vested to him in the form of an ex cathedra statement was, for him, a disappointment (the syllabus was out, but the Immaculate Conception still was a possible 'infallible utterance'). Be that as it may, there was and is no requirement that in order to make an ex cathedra statement he had to consult with his bishops, or anyone else for that matter.

Some Council Fathers insisted that the Pope’s infallibility was dependent on the collective agreement of the bishops. However, Cardinal Cullen, who is credited with drafting the final form of the definition, crushed his opposition by stating simply: “Christ did not say to Peter, 'Thou art the Rock provided you consult bishops or theologians; I give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, but on the condition you hear others before you use them.'" Cullen reiterated the point that infallibility does not proceed through the Church, but directly from God

I agree with you. I know that Councils have expanded on dogmas that were previously defined because the previous definition had only dealt with one aspect of it. All the Christological Councils are good examples of this, as you say. However, I hear this all the time from Latin Catholic clergy in speaking about development of doctrine and how the Church only defines something when it has reached its full flowering. It is described as if there is a spiral that continues to become smaller and smaller as more and more generations add thoughts about different doctrines of the Church. Then, once all the theological debate has occurred, the doctrine is defined infallibly by the Church and is codified forevermore, never to be changed or doubted. It has a rigid, legalistic ring to it, so it's not surprising that this is foreign to Easterners.

I don't think the Latin Church always understood things this way, and I do believe this is a modern concept, actually probably more a contemporary concept, but it is there nonetheless.


Oh, for sure. I agree completely.


Let's say that there are those who wish to make it confusing. I don't doubt that might be the case. However, it seems to me the confusion comes about when we try to explain away what is in the definition itself. I understand that it might be good to look at what was written "behind the scenes", but as it has been demonstrated by various posters here, it is possible to find any number of writings from different Fathers of Vatican I, which can be used to prove whatever position one happens to hold. All these quotes that are being thrown around do not really prove anything other than the fact that even the Council Fathers couldn't agree on what Pastor Aeternus really meant.

Also, as others have written, this dogma is never presented to Latin Catholics saying that the Pope needs to consult other bishops. I know it is presented in a way that says the Pope cannot change dogmas that have already been defined and that he is not outside the Church. However, I always understood it to mean that, while the Pope may consult bishops, he does not have to do so in order to exercise this prerogative.

I will add that all of this has made me more interested to read the sources for myself and to read more about what went on at Vatican I.


The mental gymnastics do not come about because the Holy Father was giving an obvious explanation but rather because of how this is understood by most Catholics. Most Catholics understand that the Pope of Rome is infallible. Most Catholics learned what that meant in their CCD classes. They would have learned there the three criteria for the Pope to speak infallibly. They know that he just can't speak infallibly whenever he wants to. However, when he announced that this teaching on women's ordination was infallible and irreformable, he was not speaking ex cathedra. It appeared that he was defining an infallible dogma of the Church but was not speaking ex cathedra. He was merely responding to a question from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. All of the sudden, as perceived by most Catholics, the Pope of Rome is making an infallible statement that isn't ex cathedra. I mean there was no formal ceremony in St. Peter's in which the Holy Father used the language that his predecessors had used when defining dogmas. As I said above, this causes a great amount of confusion and only fuels debates about when is the Pope really speaking infallibly and how much consent must we give to his writings. Yes, Marduk, I think your position makes sense in an ideal world, but how it is presented to and understood by average Catholics in the pews, it is "mental gymnastics".


Marduk, I agree with you that this is being used by the liberal Catholic and secular media to discredit and sow doubt amongst the Faithful about the teachings of the Church. However, that wasn't really my point. My point was basically that these sorts of discussions would not have been an issue had the definition of papal infallibility never occurred. I'm not saying we still wouldn't see the role of the Pope of Rome as very important and that his voice would not stand out from his brethren. However, had Pastor Aeternus not happened, people would not glom onto every word of the Pope as if he held the fate of Christian doctrine in his hands. They would have recognized that this is just one opinion and understanding and that it will be decided at the next Council.

This discussion is helping me to clarify my understanding of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome and how we relate to the Bishop of Rome. I do believe that the Holy Spirit was at work in Vatican I and that this was defined for some reason. It becomes harder and harder to understand why this happened, but it did. Now, we must deal with it.

I appreciate your responses and your thoughts, Marduk.

Again, I am open to correction on anything I have written. I hope and pray I have not offended anyone. If so, please forgive me and pray for me.

A Blessed Nativity celebration to all!

Yours in Christ,
Scott

It certainly wouldn't negate the principal. It would, however, solve some practical problems between the Churches regarding particular statements already made.


Err, didn't St. Photius die in communion with Rome?

Marduk,

This is something I would like to discuss. It does puzzle me. I don't know if this is accurate, but it seems to me that this is a latter understanding of how infallibility works in the Church. I'm not sure how this was exercised in the days of the Church prior to our modern means of communication or if this is just a distinction without a difference, as Stuart is fond of saying.

Yours,
Scott

Dear brother Bob,


On facts???


So he was not the absolute ruler of the Council, as detractors of V1 suppose?

Before engaging on this topic, I request a clarification. There are three points at issue here:
1) The activation of the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallibility
2) The manner by which the Pope formulates a Decree
3) The authority to promulgate the Decree.
We need not discuss #3 at this point. I am confused as to whether you are referring to #1 or #2. I have been referring to #1. It seems you are referring to #2, but I am not at all sure now. Are you saying that the Pope can indeed wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide that the Church needs a new dogma, and then impose it on the Church without any say from the rest of the bishops of the Church? And this, after all the quotes I gave you indicating that the Pope cannot exercise the Church's infallibility at his whim and fancy?

Yes, and these Low Petrine advocates did not get their way. And some Council Fathers insisted that all infallibility flowed only from the Pope. These Absolutist Petrine advocates did not get their way either.

Cardinal Bilio, one of the Council presidents, takes the actual credit. Cullen had been advised by him, according to the diary of one of the Council Fathers Bishop Senestrey of Ratisbon.


Really? If his argument was so strong, I wonder how the Council could have failed to utilize the giving of the keys as Scriptural support for papal infallibility(???). Your source makes a sensationalist claim to make Cullen's contribution more important than it actually was.

And Bishop Gasser, the official spokesman for the commission that proposed the text of the Decree, asserted that neither does infalliblity flow through the Pope, but directly from God. Did your source mention that? Would it be correct to say that your source is only interested in giving a an Absolutist Petrine caricature of Vatican 1?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Scott,

I have met my fair share (too many, imo) of Latin apologists who parade St. Augustine's "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" around as if it were dogma (every time I hear or read that, I am always sure to point out that the historic context of that quote actually dictates a collegial understanding of papal decisions ). So I know what you're talking about. I admit I have some advantage since I never grew up Catholic and was never immersed/constantly exposed to these kinds of excesses (though I don't know what your own background is). So I hope you'll forgive me if I seem to always lock heads with Easterns who take a more cynical (from my subjective pov, not that this is actually the case on their part) view towards the papacy.

Btw, did you know that this quote from Augustine was actually proposed as part of the Decree on Infallibility, but the Council Fathers struck it down?

I can partly agree with that assessment. First of all, instead of "confusion," would it be valid to take it rather as a sign of hope that the Absolutist Petrine perspective was indeed not the position that was intended by V1, and that there might actually be a chance of rapprochement with our Orthodox brethren?

Secondly, it seems a lot of the confusion lies in the fact that people are so focused - and so used to focusing - on the definition itself, that they forget about or neglect (purposefully or out of habit) the rest of the Decree, which is an authoritative explanation of the definition. I'd like your comment on that. As one example, let me take the Primacy debate. I have actually crossed swords with Latins in the Absolutist Petrine camp who were completely unaware that, despite the definition on the Primacy, the Decree itself actually states that the Pope's authority cannot impede the local authority of the local bishop (paragraph 3 of the Decree on the Primacy). Reactions to my pointing this out have ranged from surprise and agreement to silence and avoidance. My current discussion with brother Byzbob is another case in point (we'll have to see how that progresses).

I partly agree with you. I seriously doubt any Latin Catholic questions the matter unless they are faced by an Eastern or Oriental (whether Catholic or Orthodox). I doubt they will get a sympathetic presentation of the matter from Orthodox. Whatever Orthodox say will sound to Latins like nothing more than the Protestant position - it's either/or. Either you have the Pope or you don't. If there's any hope of combatting the Absolutist Petrine view, it will have to come from us, their fellow Catholics.

Now, I stated I partly agree with you because I am actually not averse to the precept that the Pope need not consult the bishops. What I oppose is the precept that the Pope need not ever consult the bishops. I suspect this is the caricature that many Latins accept, and which we have to combat. This is, I think, what non-Latins (Catholic and Orthodox alike) actually oppose, as well, instead of the very sensible first precept. Do you see the difference between the two? Let's discuss further if you are interested (though some of such a forthcoming discussion may potentially be covered in my exchange with brother Byzbob). For now, let me just say that I truly believe that any fair reading of the entire Decree on Infallibility (not a myopic focus on the definition itself) easily reveals that consultation with his brother bishops in the formulation of a decree is the norm according to Sacred Tradition and the ancient practice of the Church. With that understanding, the idea that the Pope need not ever consult his brother bishops is merely an impossibly fantastic and false scenario.

I think some have suggested a really good book earlier. I've not read it yet. I also strongly suggest The Vatican Council: 1869 - 1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler.

I see what you mean. But let me put it this way. Instead of an instance of confusion, can't we rather view this as an opportunity for clarification and learning? Seriously, just apply it to yourself. When you are confused about something, do you just throw up your arms and give up, or do you seek to learn? In that sense, I think this situation has highlighted two very important aspects of the Catholic teaching that Catholics would not normally learn about in CCD classes (unless someone were smart enough to bring up a scenario covering it) - namely, (1) that infallibility is not the Pope's alone, and (2) that not even the Pope is above Sacred Tradition.

I'm not sure about that. I think that even without the concept of infallibility, his comments would obtain just as much coverage and speculation, simply because he is the leader of the Catholic Church (as if the media would cease to take any opportunity to malign the Catholic Church with or without the teaching on infallibility!). To me, it is just another opportunity for clarification. I guess I expect such adversity and would rather meet it with peace and prayer rather than fear or anger (please don't take that wrongly).

What a humble spirit you have, brother. You put me to shame!

Blessings,
Marduk

In all of this, you have never actually explained why it is necessary that the Pope be infallible.

Yes, we disagree on the facts, the definition, and practically everything else associated with it.

He was working behind the scenes. He may not have gotten everything he wanted, but what he got was more than enough. The Church has never fully recovered. Witness the liturgical wreck that has occurred in the west, the multiple schisms [old Catholics, SSPX, sedevacantists, etc].
Yes, he could do that. There is nothing stopping him in the definition. Nor could anyone judge him for doing so, or appeal to a council. That is what the definition says.

Are you suggesting that the basis of Papal Infallibility isn’t the tortured reading of Mat 16?

Quite the opposite. The “source” would defend Vatican 1, while opposing those who think the Pope has absolute authority. It would appear then that there are differing accounts of what happened, who said what, etc., even from those who agree on certain aspects of the council? Not surprising. Yours is truly the most novel that I have read.