A trick question (papal infallibility)

[Peter_J]

On a recent thread, I happened to ask a fellow Catholic (rinnie) whether she believes that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals, to which she responded “this is kind of like a trick question”.

Although I didn’t actually intend it as a trick question, I think in a way she is absolutely right. Indeed, I think the reason that Papal Infallibility is such a difficult issue is that whole thing is a trick question.

I mean, if you ask me “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility?” my first instinct is to say: No, how could I believe that the Pope is infallible?

But if we dig a little deeper, however, we see that Vatican I, for example, said that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks ex cathedra, that is whenever in exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, he dogmatically defines, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church.

There’s 3 conditions there, but I want to focus on just one of them, defining a dogma.

But wait a minute … if something isn’t true, then it can’t be dogmatically defined. (Not only that, but indeed only those truths which are in, or connected to, the Deposit of Faith can be dogmatically defined. As Cardinal Newman wrote " … the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum".)

So then, if the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, we do not need Vatican I to tell us that it’s a true statement (since we already know that if the Pope were making a false statement it would not be a dogmatic definition, and hence it would not be an ex cathedra statement just by definition (no pun intended)).

With that in mind, I think applying a little common sense will show you that “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility?” is a trick question.

 

[SIA]

On a recent thread, I happened to ask a fellow Catholic (rinnie) whether she believes that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals, to which she responded “this is kind of like a trick question”.

Although I didn’t actually intend it as a trick question, I think in a way she is absolutely right. Indeed, I think the reason that Papal Infallibility is such a difficult issue is that whole thing is a trick question.

I mean, if you ask me “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility?” my first instinct is to say: No, how could I believe that the Pope is infallible?

But if we dig a little deeper, however, we see that Vatican I, for example, said that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks ex cathedra, that is whenever in exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, he dogmatically defines, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church.

There’s 3 conditions there, but I want to focus on just one of them, defining a dogma.

But wait a minute … if something isn’t true, then it can’t be dogmatically defined. (Not only that, but indeed only those truths which are in, or connected to, the Deposit of Faith can be dogmatically defined. As Cardinal Newman wrote " … the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum".)

So then, if the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, we do not need Vatican I to tell us that it’s a true statement (since we already know that if the Pope were making a false statement it would not be a dogmatic definition, and hence it would not be an ex cathedra statement just by definition (no pun intended)).

With that in mind, I think applying a little common sense will show you that “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility?” is a trick question.

Problem is, one can define virtually anything as a matter of faith and morals. It really becomes a necessary mechanism in the Catholic faith for certain things to be forced upon the faithful.

 

[Lapell]

Problem is, one can define virtually anything as a matter of faith and morals. It really becomes a necessary mechanism in the Catholic faith for certain things to be forced upon the faithful.

No, it really doesn’t. It’s all based on the Word of God and Sacred Tradition. One doesn’t have the power and the right to bring a false prophesy in, God would not leave it unpunished! (Whether in this world or in the World to come is another question…)
As a sidenote, the Assumption of Mary is not per se in the Bible, but then how did John see her in heaven clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars around her head (Revelation 12)? How is she in heaven unless she was brought up there?

 

[chris_molter]

Problem is, one can define virtually anything as a matter of faith and morals. It really becomes a necessary mechanism in the Catholic faith for certain things to be forced upon the faithful.

Please give an example of things being “forced” on the faithful ex-cathedra.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, it really doesn’t. It’s all based on the Word of God and Sacred Tradition. One doesn’t have the power and the right to bring a false prophesy in, God would not leave it unpunished! (Whether in this world or in the World to come is another question…)
As a sidenote, the Assumption of Mary is not per se in the Bible, but then how did John see her in heaven clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars around her head (Revelation 12)?

Answer: he didn’t. But supporters of the Assumption saw it in there.

Does any one have an EARLY i.e. before the 20th century interpretationof the Woman being the Theotokos?

How is she in heaven unless she was brought up there?

That’s a seperate issue.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Please give an example of things being “forced” on the faithful ex-cathedra.

Actually, can we get an definitive list of “ex cathedra” statements?

If infallibility is so useful, it shouldn’t be hard.

 

[ralphinal]

Actually, can we get an definitive list of “ex cathedra” statements?

If infallibility is so useful, it shouldn’t be hard.

An ex cathedra list of ex cathedra statements?

 

[Peter_J]

Problem is, one can define virtually anything as a matter of faith and morals. It really becomes a necessary mechanism in the Catholic faith for certain things to be forced upon the faithful.

If you mean “define” in the sense of “dogmatically define”, then what you said is incorrect.

In order for something to be dogmatically defined, it must be true. Indeed, even some truths cannot be dogmatically defined; e.g. there could never be a dogma saying that St. John was the last of the Apostles to die – which is a historical truth but not part of the deposit of faith.

(Of course, if you mean “define” in the general sense of “define terms”, then that’s a whole other story. But I don’t think that’s what you meant.)

 

[Hesychios]

On a recent thread, I happened to ask a fellow Catholic (rinnie) whether she believes that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals, to which she responded “this is kind of like a trick question”.

Although I didn’t actually intend it as a trick question, I think in a way she is absolutely right. Indeed, I think the reason that Papal Infallibility is such a difficult issue is that whole thing is a trick question.

I mean, if you ask me “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility?” my first instinct is to say: No, how could I believe that the Pope is infallible?

But if we dig a little deeper, however, we see that Vatican I, for example, said that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks ex cathedra, that is whenever in exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, he dogmatically defines, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church.

As I read it, if the Pope merely speaks on some subject of Faith and Morals, that is not from his infallible wisdom, or charism, or whatever you may call it. The “formula” is required. A clerics’ whole life is a statement on Faith and Morals, whether he speaks on them or just lives them out. Didn’t Saint Francis say “Preach the Gospel at all times and if necessary use words.”?

99.999% of all the things Latin Catholics believe are not derived from the infallible teaching authority of the Pope. But a Pope’s opinions are studied because he is the boss.

Even though no Catholic is required to believe in the post-Apostolic revelations of saints with visions, a Bishop of Rome can promote devotions to these same by making pilgrimages to the notable sites, and commemorate the event on the church calendar. He can even grant indulgences for them. This has nothing to do with the defined infallibility, it is completely based upon the power of Universal Jurisdiction and his own personal opinion.

That goes for the contents of the CCC as well. It is not because of Papal Infallibility that the CCC is “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion”. It is because of Universal Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. The approval of it came from his office and he is the boss, it can be changed or adjusted later on the same basis of authority. I other words, the CCC itself may possibly contain errors. And we can see it is a work in process, because many of the editions have gone through further editing, or “corrections”.

This is precisely what has happened to the Canons of the church. They are modifiable and deletable, new Canons can be added at any time without the necessity of a Council. That has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility as defined. It is all about Universal Jurisdiction.

There’s 3 conditions there, but I want to focus on just one of them, defining a dogma.

But wait a minute … if something isn’t true, then it can’t be dogmatically defined. (Not only that, but indeed only those truths which are in, or connected to, the Deposit of Faith can be dogmatically defined. As Cardinal Newman wrote " … the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum".)

So then, if the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, we do not need Vatican I to tell us that it’s a true statement (since we already know that if the Pope were making a false statement it would not be a dogmatic definition, and hence it would not be an ex cathedra statement just by definition (no pun intended)).

With that in mind, I think applying a little common sense will show you that “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility?” is a trick question.

I don’t know if I can agree with this. Either he’s got it or he doesn’t.

The problem for me here is that the first time an Ex Cathedra statement was made, the “formula” for determining it’s authority was not yet defined and it would be no surprise to me if some people felt free to doubt it. Conveniently, under the same Pope sixteen years later, a Council approved a formula which covers it nicely, after the fact.

Prior to this development only heretics pronounced dogma on their own solitary authority, and the known heresies are often called by the names of these first promoters.

 

[Peter_J]

The problem for me here is that the first time an Ex Cathedra statement was made, the “formula” for determining it’s authority was not yet defined and it would be no surprise to me if some people felt free to doubt it. Conveniently, under the same Pope sixteen years later, a Council approved a formula which covers it nicely, after the fact.

But if you look closer at the “formula” you’ll see that one of the ingredients is defining a dogma. The Pope simply can’t make an ex cathedra statement without defining a dogma (by definition). If something isn’t true, it can’t be dogmatically defined.

As a Catholics, one of the things that’s frustrating to me is when I heard Protestants and Orthodox say things like “Such-and-such a false, but it has been dogmatically defined.” But in fact, if you believe that such-and-such is false, then clearly you don’t really believe that it has been dogmatically defined.

P.S. I reminded of a not-too-closely related point that was brought up earlier today:

Contarini;4215876:

Also, just because Rome claims not to change doctrine doesn’t mean that the claim is true. I’m baffled as to why someone who rejects much Catholic teaching would accept this particular claim so uncritically.

Good point, Edwin. If you don’t believe that the RCC is the One True Church, it doesn’t make much sense to believe that the RCC’s teaching will never change.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As a sidenote, the Assumption of Mary is not per se in the Bible, but then how did John see her in heaven clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars around her head (Revelation 12)?

The Eastern fathers deny that this is the Theotokos, as the woman of Revelation “cried out in pangs of childbirth”, and the Theotokos suffered NO pains when she brought forth Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

The issue with a list of ex cathedra statements is that there is no list. We know the basic three, but some hold that Cannonization is one as well, as the saints declaired to be in heaven by the regualr process are said to be there infallibly.

As to the Assumption, I say it is not in there because she had not died before Acts was written, or at least before Paul left for Rome.

 

[TheWhim]

Papal Infallibility is one of the topics one never comes to an end with. If you think you’ve found a solution, you will suddenly see that another problem surges up.

Newman said, not word by word, but according to content: “The Council has defined that whenever the Pope speaks ex cathedra he’s infallible. But it has not defined when he’s speaking ex cathedra.”

Newman was perhaps the first to realize that the dogma was somehow deprived of content; and if you ask two Catholic theologians for a list of infallible declarations, you’ll get probably three lists at once. There’s universal confusion.

I think one can only incorporate the dogma into a logical belief system if one assumes that every single declaration of the Pope is infallible and that if the Pope should revert a former decision on faith and morals(let’s take the issue of religious freedom) this is simple proof that the former decision hadn’t been declared in a manner that was infallible. Sounds like circular thinking? But that’s the only way to cope with the dogma.

Anyway, why can’t Catholics nowadays do as they did in former times? They simply “thought with the Church”, sentire cum ecclesia, as Ignatius Loyola put it. They weren’t in the rebellious, and, from a religious point of view, very awkward situation to fuzz around with each and every Papal statement and to search with the loop for signs of Papal infallibility and to gladly disobey their religious leader, the Pope, if such signs presumably cannot be found(as some Catholics do regarding pronouncements on contraception). The dogma is, viewed from a religious angle, somewhat superfluous and better is not thinking too much of it.

 

[Peter_J]

Good post, Whim. freesmileys.org/smileys/happy119.gif

 

[Lapell]

Answer: he didn’t. But supporters of the Assumption saw it in there.

Does any one have an EARLY i.e. before the 20th century interpretation of the Woman being the Theotokos?

Theotokos: Mother of God. I think Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote something about her.

That’s a seperate issue.

I brought it as an example of things not explicitly in the Scriptures, but certainly at least implicit, Isa!

 

[Lapell]

As to the Assumption, I say it is not in there because she had not died before Acts was written, or at least before Paul left for Rome.

ralphinal, the quote was from the book of Revelation, not the Acts!

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal, the quote was from the book of Revelation, not the Acts!

I know that. I also know that using it to prove the Assumption is not found in older writings. If she had died during Acts, the Assumption would be in the Bible. I hold that she died after they went their separate ways, so there is no mention of it.

 

[Peter_J]

Papal Infallibility is one of the topics one never comes to an end with. If you think you’ve found a solution, you will suddenly see that another problem surges up.

Newman said, not word by word, but according to content: “The Council has defined that whenever the Pope speaks ex cathedra he’s infallible. But it has not defined when he’s speaking ex cathedra.”

Newman was perhaps the first to realize that the dogma was somehow deprived of content; and if you ask two Catholic theologians for a list of infallible declarations, you’ll get probably three lists at once. There’s universal confusion.

I think one can only incorporate the dogma into a logical belief system if one assumes that every single declaration of the Pope is infallible and that if the Pope should revert a former decision on faith and morals(let’s take the issue of religious freedom) this is simple proof that the former decision hadn’t been declared in a manner that was infallible. Sounds like circular thinking? But that’s the only way to cope with the dogma.

But to be fair, a similar criticism can be made of Sola Scriptura. Namely, that someone who accepts Sola Scriptura still needs to somehow accept that the Church “got it right” in the second half of the 4th century, when they laid down which books are in the New Testament and which aren’t. (I won’t even get into the Old Testament.)

 

[Lapell]

I know that. I also know that using it to prove the Assumption is not found in older writings. If she had died during Acts, the Assumption would be in the Bible. I hold that she died after they went their separate ways, so there is no mention of it.

Well, did they have to prove the Assumption back then? Anything back then that would speak of the Assumption or of the crowning of Mary in heaven, even just in passing, not to “prove it”?

 

[Lapell]

As a sidenote, the Assumption of Mary is not per se in the Bible, but then how did John see her in heaven clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars around her head (Revelation 12)?

The Eastern fathers deny that this is the Theotokos, as the woman of Revelation “cried out in pangs of childbirth”, and the Theotokos suffered NO pains when she brought forth Christ.

What makes you say that they “deny” it? They didn’t have a problem with the Blessed Virgin Mary back then, you know…