www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Question on Papal infallibility

Here is something that popped up on the Catholic-Pages forum.


I stated that the Pope can not really do the second, that is he can not declare something infallible out of the blue.

Am I right in this?

I was told;


I am looking for guidence here, can the Pope out of the blue declare that, say for example, that Judas is the is Co-Redemptrix?


David

Dear Friend:

This is getting tiresome.

This topic has been discussed quite extensively in the past.

If you just search out infallibility on the Forum and you will get your answer.

But just to make things simple:

Infallibility is a negative charism exercised by the pope.

He cannot make that which is wrong right; he can only confirm that which the church has held for ages as being true.


defreitas

Hi David --

According to Vatican I, the Pope can make an infallible statement whenever he wants. There is no language in the council documents that state otherwise. In essence, the pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spriti, is the medium in which dogmatic truths are revealed to the pilgrim church on earth. Only the pope alone or bishops in agreement with the pope can define a dogmatic statement...not bishops without the pope's consent.

Many Catholic apologist would agree that the pope could make a dogmatic statement "out of the blue" (which would be in line with Vatican I), but (as the disclaimer goes) he would never do this. What they are saying is that the pope would never define anything that fell outside of the college of bishops' consent. If that is the case, then why consider Vatican I as dogma and necessary for salvation?

BTW, to understand Vatican I or the infallibility of the pope or his universal jurisdiction otherwise is in direct contradiction to the offical teaching of the magisterium. This is one of the reasons why I left the RC church and became Orthodox.

I hope that this helps...

Greg

defreitas,

Dear Friend:

By the tone of the rest of your reply, you do not mean this, anyways I do not know you "friend".

This is getting tiresome.

Then don't read it

This topic has been discussed quite extensively in the past.

Yes it has, and to my mind it has yet to be settled and until the time that I am satisfied with an the answer I will continue to ask.

If you just search out infallibility on the Forum and you will get your answer.

I did and as I said, nothing there has satisfied me as of yet.


But just to make things simple:

Infallibility is a negative charism exercised by the pope.

He cannot make that which is wrong right; he can only confirm that which the church has held for ages as being true.


Now thank you for this, it has helped a bit, but you didn't comment on Vatican I or the comment that my thoughts show my Orthodox leanings.

Was that so hard, did you have to start of antagonisticly?

Until such time as we have a section of FAQ's (frequently asked questions for those that don't know what a FAQ is) we will have to put up with the same old questions being asked.

Also the last time this was brought up was in November of last year, since then we have many, many new users. Maybe, just maybe, one of them has some insight to it, we shouldn't leave them out of the discussion.

Never hurts to bring something back up as we are all growing and learning, ya never know.


David

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Dear David,

Whether the Pope's teaching reflects the tradition of the Church is certainly what is at issue with the Orthodox Church and the Protestant communities (and traditionalist RC groups in schism from Rome today).

You've truly put your finger on a central issue that we've not put to rest!

The Filioque is certainly something that the Pope continues to teach - and yet it was not an issue for most of the first millennium of Christianity, even Pope John VIII rejected it in agreement with St Photios.

The other doctrines of the Latin Church are certainly new definitions that were developed much later in the Church's history to protect certain ancient truths, although others would debate whether they reflect those truths.

And, from the perspective of non-RC's, the papal infallibility doctrine and primacy of jurisdiction have no precedent in the first 1,000 years of Christianity and should therefore have never been the subject of papal infallible pronouncement.

The RC side would argue that these doctrines reflect doctrinal development that is both legitimate and has scriptural and traditional sources.

Ultimately, the issue of whether the Pope has "done right" revolves over the issue of whether one is in communion with him or not.

Was it Pope Pius XI who said, when asked about Church Tradition, "I am the Church's Tradition."

Alex

Dear DavidB,

There is a good short article on infallibility in The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, pp. 664-665. Its author is John T. Ford.

In my opinion, it summarizes the teaching of Vatican I, the Teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and the ensuing debates among theologians quite well. The article ends with this sentence, "In any case, the doctrine of infallibility is much too complicated to be summarized in the simple sentence 'The pope is infallible.'"

The article's conclusion and the current Pope's invitation to the Orthodox Churches to find ways in which the ministry of Peter can be exercised among the Churches should be seen as part of the context for discussion. They are a sign that the final word on the Churches' infallibility has not been spoken. As Ford points out in talking about Vatican I, "the council did not define what "infallibility" is, but only the way in which the pope is to exercise it.

I think that it is safe to say that Catholics believe that the pope, in his role as pastor of all of the Churches, is empowered to exercise the infallibility that is the Churches' in extremely limited circumstances. He could not invent new truth. Rather, he helps us to see more clearly what the truth is. This empowerment of the Pope and the bishops with him is part of his ministry of service to the Churches and theirs.

The discussion from Catholic Pages seems to assume that the Spirit would allow the Pope to teach infallibily outside of this context. Personally, I do not believe that this is possible. I find support for that belief in the knowledge that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did not assert their claim to infallibility for their decrees and constitutions.

Come to think of it, neither did the Pope.

Ecumenical discussions will, I think, help to clarify the extent of Christ's gift of infallibility to His Churches and its meaning and how it works. Perhaps a future Council preceding or following the reunion of the Churches will answer some of our questions about what the gift really is.

I think that the Spirit is guiding the Churches to understand the extent to which He will go to help us experience His Truth without wondering what it was He is telling us.

Just my thoughts. Hope they add to the discussion.

Steve

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear DavidB:

Sorry if I seemed abrupt.

No offence intended.

Have a blessed Pascha.


Sincerely
defreitas

[I'm on old calendar too]

I have always thought that some Catholics, but not the Catholic Church take too much of an Anglo-American "constitutionalist" approach to this. I.e. just as the US Constitution lays out the various powers and limitations of various parts of government.

I do think the Catholic Church is a little better than this. The starting principle is Christ's promise to the Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevail and that He would be woith the Church until the end of time. Some differences in understanding between Catholics and Orthodox exist as to exactly how this operates, but I think the Catholic Church would affirm that the first principle is the Holy Spirit protecting the Church. It seems hard to imagine, if that is true, how a pope and the college of bishops could be of such opposite opinions as in the example.

Am I right?

Axios

Brethren,
The Catholic understanding is that the Pope is infallible in and of himself!
That being said he cannot just comeup with a doctrine on his own out of the blue, it has to be a part of the "Deposit of the Faith" to begin with. For instance he cannot say tommorrow that the teaching of the Church is wrong and that we do not need to believe in the Trinity! Good heavens that would be heresy.
It is also the teaching that public revelation has closed with the death of the last Apostle. There can be no further revelations, that being said the Church can grow and develope in its understanding of doctrine as for instance in its formulating belief and the doctrine of the Trinity etc.
Stephanos I

Dear Alex and Greg,
May I fraternally suggest that you delve into this issue a little more in depth for your version of it is certainly not the understanding of the Catholic Church.
Stephanos I

"I do think the Catholic Church is a little better than this. The starting principle is Christ's promise to the Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevail and that He would be woith the Church until the end of time. Some differences in understanding between Catholics and Orthodox exist as to exactly how this operates, but I think the Catholic Church would affirm that the first principle is the Holy Spirit protecting the Church. It seems hard to imagine, if that is true, how a pope and the college of bishops could be of such opposite opinions as in the example."

Am I right?

Axios

Dear Axios,

Sounds to me like you're right on target, once again!

Steve

Below are excerpts from the documents of Vatican I:

Chapter 1:4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

--- Has �always been understood by the Catholic Church�? I think that is stretching it quite a bit.

Chapter 1:6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2:4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.

Chapter 3:2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

---Ouch! Rome has spoken! Steve wrote: �The article's conclusion and the current Pope's invitation to the Orthodox Churches to find ways in which the ministry of Peter can be exercised among the Churches should be seen as part of the context for discussion. They are a sign that the final word on the Churches' infallibility has not been spoken.�
---I think Vatican I has made it more than clear that the case is closed.

Chapter 3:4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

---Unfortunately, you will find many Byzantine Catholics who completely reject the above, and hence stray from Catholic dogma.

Chapter 3:9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4:9 �when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

---I hope that these excerpts make the situation clearer.
Greg

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Gregory ]

Dear Gregory,

I agree. Rome has spoken. In reality, though, Rome did not stop speaking when Vatican II ended. The Church spoke in the various decrees and constitutions produced by the Second Vatican Council. The Church speaks through the Ordinary Magisterium.

Rome is speaking through the Petrine Ministry of Pope John Paul II. He is asking our Orthodox Sister Churches to work with him to find a way that will enable that ministry to benefit all of us in the Catholic and Orthodox Communions. It seems to me that this search will inevitably include discussions about Infallibility in the Churches. In my opinion, the talks will explore how the Holy Spirit uses and can use the Pope to make clearer God's Truth.

There is a short article on infallibility in The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, pp. 664-665. Its author is John T. Ford. It, along with the context of Vatican II and John Paul II's ecumenical request provide a good summary of the reasons for my suggestion that "the final word on the Churches' infallibility has not been spoken."

I am not sure what the excerpts from Vatican I that you shared have to do with my posting. Can you explain what case it is that I was talking about that they close? How do you see them as applying to my posting?

Respectfully, I have another request. Can you provide evidence for your assertion that, "Unfortunately, you will find many Byzantine Catholics who completely reject the above, and hence stray from Catholic dogma." This was in reference to "Chapter 3:4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation."

I ask this because, to my knowledge, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics. They are Catholics who share the expression of our faith as found in the Orthodox Church.

Did I miss something? Which Byzantine Catholics are rejecting dogma? What dogma are they, as Byzantine Catholics, rejecting?

If that's true, and I don't think that it is, it's news to me.

Thanks!

Steve

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Inawe

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Hi Steve --

I think a critical step in this discussion is to agree to the fact that the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is a universal dogma of the Catholic Faith, included in the Roman, Byzantine, etc churches. Vatican I in fact declared that affirmation of this dogma is "necessary for salvation", and, as such, a portion of the Deposit of Faith. Therefore, since it is dogma, it cannot be changed. Furthermore, even the exercise of papal infallibility cannot be "amended" since it is clear that the pope alone has the divine right to proclaim dogma.

Let me use another example. The doctrine of the Trinity is Catholic dogma, just like papal infallibility is Catholic dogma. The Trinity consists of three distinct persons, yet remains one God. We all agree on this. Now, lets say that the Catholic Church is looking for reconciliation with a "Christian Group" that does not believe in the Trinity. Would it be right if the Catholic Church tried to "compromise" on this issue? Of course not. If this "Christian Group" is to be reconcilied with the Catholic Church, then by necessity they must accept the dogma of the Trinity. It is okay if their liturgical or spiritual expression of this dogma is different from, lets say, the Roman Church. However, they cannot stray from the underlying fact that God is Trinity.

So, the same can be applied to Papal Infallibility. The underlying fact that the pope is infallible cannot be "up for debate". Orthodox Christians are not just concerned with the "exercise of the pope's infallibility" but the fact that papal infallibility is dogma itself.

Steve, you wrote: "Respectfully, I have another request. Can you provide evidence for your assertion that, "Unfortunately, you will find many Byzantine Catholics who completely reject the above, and hence stray from Catholic dogma." This was in reference to "Chapter 3:4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation."
I ask this because, to my knowledge, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics. They are Catholics who share the expression of our faith as found in the Orthodox Church."

This is what I am getting at. An Orthodox is Orthodox because of the Faith he holds, not because of the liturgical rite in which he participates in. Byzantine Catholics may use the same liturgy as Orthodox, but it does not mean that they share the same Faith. Bottom line: you cannot remain true to the Catholic Faith while affirming the Orthodox position (rejection) of Papal Infallibility.

"Did I miss something? Which Byzantine Catholics are rejecting dogma? What dogma are they, as Byzantine Catholics, rejecting?"

They reject the exercise of papal infallibility as defined by Rome. DavidB posted this topic because he is fustrated with the lack of a firm response. That is because Byzantine Catholics cannot agree on this issue, which is crazy to me since it is Catholic dogma.

DavidB, if you want to know what Byzantine Catholics are required to believe concerning Papal Infallibility (it is the same thing that Roman Catholics are required to believe), please refer to the documents of Vatican I.

I know I am going to get killed for this one, but here goes: Byzantine Catholics share the same universal dogmas as Roman Catholics do, but worship with a non-Latin liturgy.

Greg

I know I am going to get killed for this one, but here goes: Byzantine Catholics share the same universal dogmas as Roman Catholics do, but worship with a non-Latin liturgy.

Greg[/QB][/QUOTE]

Greg, you talk just like me! See everbody has a double .

Robert K.