A trick question (papal infallibility)

[Isa_Almisry]

To your question “Back when”, I meant in the times of the Early Fathers of the Church. My understanding is that saint Ephrem the Syrian wrote a lot of hymns to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that the Fathers of the Church did say many good things about her… Do you disagree, Hesychios?

Good things are besides the point: any say she was the woman of Rev. 12.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I personally find it interesting to see many people discount and argue against papal infallibillity while at the same time trying to have everyone believe there interpretation of the bible is the correct one.

For the Orthodox, that is because our interpretation is the Church’s. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the Fathers. (Acts 15:28).

I’m mean really, if the figure of the pope who was left in charge of the church

sure he was left in charge of the Church. Just ask him.

which can clearly follow it’s lineage back to the apostles

The Pope of Alexandria, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Antioch and that of Jerusalem can ALL trace their lineage back to the apostles (Antioch back to St. Peter before Rome), not meniton the Archbishop of Cyprus, Corinth, Thessalonica, all the other apostolic sees in the East.

can not be believed to be infallible how can anyone claim or even trust what they believe to be true.

The Church.

 

[VARC]

If the Pope made a false statement, it would not be an ex cathedra statement. You don’t need Vatican I to tell you that, but just simple logic: a false statement can’t be defined as a dogma, and hence it can’t be an ex cathedra statement.

It’s circular logic. That’s one of the real problems the the doctrine. No one can specify exactly when the pope is infallible and when he is not.

 

[VARC]

**Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality *, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

St. Vincent of Lerins*

The doctrine of papal infallibility is not catholic by any stretch of the imagination. It is completely and entirely sectarian. This is my biggest problem with the doctrine and the reason I left the Roman Catholic Church.**

 

[Peter_J]

Then where does this fit in?

LUMEN GENTIUM

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

I understand that statement from Vatican II is an ecumenical problem, but I don’t believe it in any way goes against the logic of what I’m saying here.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s circular logic.

I guess that depends on what the “it” you’re referring to is. I don’t think Vatican I’s statement in itself is circular.

On the other hand, if I assume:

(1) Y is an ex cathedra statement.
(2) That every ex cathedra statement is infallible (cf. Vatican I).

and if I conclude from this that Y is true, then you could say that I was using circular reasoning, since assumption (1) implicitly assumes that Y is a dogmatic definition, which in turn assumes that Y is a truth contained in (or referable to) the Deposit of Faith.

 

[tdgesq]

The Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when:

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.

As a result:

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.

If a pope speaks ex cathedra, the claim is that the doctrine expressed is true. It is without error.

If a pope states something that is not true, then there are at least two possibilities:

1. The pope is fallible when he speaks ex cathedra, or
2. The statement doesn’t meet the conditions of the infallibility criterion. It was not made ex cathedra.

One can claim that if a pope makes a false statement, then it cannot not have been made ex cathedra, perhaps on the basis that it must mean that the pope didn’t define doctrine. But that assumes from the outset that possibility #2 is all there is. It completely ignores possibility number #1.

In order to claim that the statement wasn’t made ex cathedra, there must be a showing (in the example given) that the pope didn’t define a doctrine. Otherwise we are begging the question - assuming at the outset that since the statement is false the pope must not have been defining a doctrine.

 

[Mickey]

One can claim that if a pope makes a false statement, then it cannot not have been made ex cathedra, perhaps on the basis that it must mean that the pope didn’t define doctrine. But that assumes from the outset that possibility #2 is all there is. It completely ignores possibility number #1.

In order to claim that the statement wasn’t made ex cathedra, there must be a showing (in the example given) that the pope didn’t define a doctrine. Otherwise we are begging the question - assuming at the outset that since the statement is false the pope must not have been defining a doctrine.

A good case for circular reasoning.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi tdgesq,

I think that the (apparent) disagreement between what you’re saying and what I’m saying is really due to a difference in what we mean by a “dogmatic definition”. In my understanding of that term, only a truth referable to the Deposit of Faith can be dogmatically defined (" … 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"). In particular, no false statement can ever be dogmatically defined.

 

[tdgesq]

A good case for circular reasoning.

Begging the question is circular reasoning. I’m not arguing with your conclusion.

Hi tdgesq,

I think that the (apparent) disagreement between what you’re saying and what I’m saying is really due to a difference in what we mean by a “dogmatic definition”.

I think you are right about the basis of our disagreement - that we mean something different from one another when we use the term “dogmatic definition” or “definition of doctrine.” Since we are discussing the question of when and whether the pope teaches infallibly, I believe we should use the terminology from the First Vatican Council.

In my understanding of that term, only a truth referable to the Deposit of Faith can be dogmatically defined (" … 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").

Whether or not this is true (and I agree it depends upon how you define a “dogmatic definition”) the language used by Vatican I is “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals.” A doctrine can be either true or false. False doctrines like Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. are not unknown to the Church. Vatican I declares that if a pope speaks *ex cathedra *, which includes defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals, then the resulting definition is “irreformable.”

I agree with you that every statement ex cathedra of a pope must derive from the deposit of faith, but that doesn’t mean the resulting statement was explicitly recognized as such. I found it interesting that you referred to Cardinal Newman in the O.P. and that another poster here referred to St. Vincent of Lerins because both of them affirm the notion of development of doctrine.

In particular, no false statement can ever be dogmatically defined.

It can certainly be claimed to be dogmatically defined. If you want to say that “dogma” = “it must be true,” then that is fine, but “dogmatically defined” is not the language used in Vatican I. Nor would it really be reasonable to say that if a papal statement is found to be false that by definition the pope didn’t “define] a doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

Take for example Munificentissimus Deus. Suppose (just as a thought experiment) that the Church made a renewed historical inquiry and found that Mary was not bodily assumed. Could you really say that Pius XII didn’t define a doctrine concerning faith or morals that she was bodily assumed? Simply because it turned out to be a false statement doesn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t a papal definition of doctrine.

I don’t bring this up to be overly critical of your analysis. It’s just that I don’t think Catholics always need to view the question of “do you believe in papal infallibility” as a trick question.

 

[Peter_J]

tdgesq,

Excellent post. You’ve clearly given this matter a lot of thought.

I was thinking about something recently, which I think is pretty closely related to what your saying (or at least much of what your saying). Namely, that Cardinal Newman himself said that fulfilling the conditions for an ex cathedra is “mainly a question of intention”. (Actually, he used this in a negative context, “he [Pope Honorius] could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfill them”, but that’s beside the point.)

But two objections (or count-objections, depending how you look at it ) need to be made here, one minor and one major.

The minor one is, by using the qualifier “mainly”, doesn’t he still leave open the remote possibility that a Papal statement which was intended to be ex cathedra, might not be ex cathedra?

The major objection is that Newman’s “mainly a question of intention” idea is his own opinion, and not contained the statement by Vatican I that all Catholics are required to agree with. (It’s interesting to note in this connection, that Cardinal Newman opposed the decision by Vatican I to define Papal Infallibility, despite the fact that he himself believed an even stronger form of Papal Infallibility than that which was defined.)

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Here’s the context of those Newman quotes:

1. I will not pass from this question of History without a word about Pope Honorius, whose condemnation by anathema in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, is certainly a strong primâ facie argument against the Pope’s doctrinal infallibility. His case is this:—Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, favoured, or rather did not condemn, a doctrine concerning our Lord’s Person which afterwards the Sixth Council pronounced to be heresy. He consulted Pope Honorius upon the subject, who in two formal letters declared his entire concurrence with Sergius’s opinion. Honorius died in peace, but, more than forty years after him, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was held, which condemned him as a heretic on the score of those two letters. The simple question is, whether the heretical documents proceeded from him as an infallible authority or as a private Bishop.

Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has determined that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedrâ , and that, in order to speak ex cathedrâ , he must at least speak “as exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church” {316} (though Mr. Gladstone strangely says, p. 34, "There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedrâ "), from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ , and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility.

I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the question about the Sacraments; external and positive acts, whether material actions or formal words, speak for themselves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis , and mainly a question of intention. Who would say that the architriclinus at the wedding-feast who said, “Thou hast kept the good wine until now,” was teaching the Christian world, though the words have a great ethical and evangelical sense? What is the worth of a signature, if a man does not consider he is signing? The Pope cannot address his people East and West, North and South, without meaning it, as if his very voice, the sounds from his lips, could literally be heard from pole to pole; nor can he exert his “Apostolical authority” without knowing he is doing so; nor can he draw up a form of words and use care and make an effort in doing so accurately, without intention to do so; and, therefore, no words of Honorius proceeded from his prerogative of infallible teaching, which were not accompanied with the intention of exercising that prerogative; and who will dream of saying, be he Anglican, Protestant, unbeliever, or on {317} the other hand Catholic, that Honorius on the occasion in question did actually intend to exert that infallible teaching voice which is heard so distinctly in the Quantâ curâ and the Pastor Æternus ?

What resemblance do these letters of his, written almost as private instructions, bear to the “Pius Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei, Sacro approbante Concilio, ad perpetuam rei memoriam ,” or with the “Si quis huic nostræ definitioni contradicere (quod Deus avertat), præsumpserit, anathema sit” of the Pastor Æternus ? what to the "Venerabilibus fratribus, Patriarchis primatibus, Archiepiscopis, et Episcopis universis , &c., with the “reprobamus, proscribimus, atque damnamus,” and the date and signature, “Datum Romæ apud Sanctum Petrum, Die 8 Dec. anno 1864, &c., Pius P.P. IX.” of the Quantâ curâ ?

Secondly, it is no part of our doctrine, as I shall say in my next section, that the discussions previous to a Council’s definition, or to an ex cathedrâ utterance of a Pope, are infallible, and these letters of Honorius on their very face are nothing more than portions of a discussion with a view to some final decision.

For these two reasons the condemnation of Honorius by the Council in no sense compromises the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. At the utmost it only decides that Honorius in his own person was a heretic, which is inconsistent with no Catholic doctrine; but we may rather hope and believe that the anathema fell, not upon him, but upon his letters in their objective sense, he not intending personally what his letters legitimately expressed. {318}

 

[tdgesq]

Namely, that Cardinal Newman himself said that fulfilling the conditions for an ex cathedra is “mainly a question of intention”. (Actually, he used this in a negative context, “he [Pope Honorius] could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfill them”, but that’s beside the point.)

I agree with Newman, which probably doesn’t surprise you. It is very much a question of intention. However, intention can only be judged by the words and actions of the pope making the declaration. We cannot see inside another person’s mind to judge intention. That is why Vatican I gives us the criteria to understand the Roman Pontiff’s intention on any given statement concerning faith or morals.

Partial quote from your post on Newman:

Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has determined that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedrâ , and that, in order to speak ex cathedrâ , he must at least speak “as exercising the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the universal Church” {316} (though Mr. Gladstone strangely says, p. 34, "There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedrâ "), from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ , and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility.

I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above conditions of an ex cathedrâ utterance, if he did not actually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the question about the Sacraments; external and positive acts, whether material actions or formal words, speak for themselves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis , and mainly a question of intention.

I have debated the issue of Honorius many many times on these forums, and I don’t particularly wish to do so again here. It is enough to say that Honorius by his very words was not defining something to be held by the whole Church, nor was he exercising his office of teacher of all Christians. There is no language in the secondhand accounts of the letter to Sergius that we have that remotely suggests he did, or that the letter was meant to be a message to the entire Church.

Yes, it is a question of intention. And although normally teaching is not sacramental and inherently opus operantis, we now have the infallibility criterion by which to judge such statements. Unfortunately, there are many who attribute infallibility to statements without consulting the “sign” given to us by Vatican I.

 

[Mickey]

I’m not arguing with your conclusion.

 

[Mickey]

It is enough to say that Honorius by his very words was not defining something to be held by the whole Church, nor was he exercising his office of teacher of all Christians.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Peter_J]

I have debated the issue of Honorius many many times on these forums, and I don’t particularly wish to do so again here. It is enough to say that Honorius by his very words was not defining something to be held by the whole Church, nor was he exercising his office of teacher of all Christians. There is no language in the secondhand accounts of the letter to Sergius that we have that remotely suggests he did, or that the letter was meant to be a message to the entire Church.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Council of **Constantinople

**”**To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!****”

I think we’re getting a little off-topic when we start talking about Honorius.

 

[Mickey]

I think we’re getting a little off-topic when we start talking about Honorius.

Sorry. But I so often hear Roman Catholic apologists try to minimize Honorius’ heresy with circular reasoning.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with Newman, which probably doesn’t surprise you. It is very much a question of intention.

Assuming you (and Newman) are correct on that point, nevertheless I can’t see the Church dogmatically defining this whole mainly-intention notion any time soon. (Consider that the ultra-montanists at Vatican I didn’t define it.)

Also, I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, but when Cardinal Newman learned of Vatican I’s definition, he was simultaneously disappointed (remember that he didn’t want any dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility) and relieved at the wording they had chosen (since he had feared a more ultra-montane wording). So surely the last thought on his mind was “What?! Why didn’t they also say that Catholics are required to believe that fulfilling those conditions is ‘mainly a question of intention’?”

 

[tdgesq]

Assuming you (and Newman) are correct on that point, nevertheless I can’t see the Church dogmatically defining this whole mainly-intention notion any time soon. (Consider that the ultra-montanists at Vatican I didn’t define it.)

Newman isn’t saying the test to determine when a pope makes an infallible declaration is “mainly the intention” of the pope. He is saying - and rightly so - that teaching is mainly a question of intention. And that is certainly true of any teaching that is infallible and irreformable. Newman goes on to point out that the test set down for an ex cathedra declaration is the objective manifestation of intent. Then he shows that this test was not met in the case of Honorius. It is the fulfillment of the elements of an ex cathedra statement that let us know the pope’s intent.

Also, I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, but when Cardinal Newman learned of Vatican I’s definition, he was simultaneously disappointed (remember that he didn’t want any dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility) and relieved at the wording they had chosen (since he had feared a more ultra-montane wording). So surely the last thought on his mind was “What?! Why didn’t they also say that Catholics are required to believe that fulfilling those conditions is ‘mainly a question of intention’?”

Right. He doesn’t believe the test of an ex cathedra statement is “mainly a question of intention,” as if we could ever actually see inside the pope’s mind. We all agree here so far as I can tell. Teaching, especially infallibly, is still mainly a question of intention. It’s just that the objective test for that intention is the infallibility criterion of Vatican I.

 

[Nickkname]

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.

It’s not so much a trick question as it is the interpreation of the question. For example, the questioner may be asking if you believe the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks, but you may understand the question to mean do you believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks under the three conditions. So you could very say “Yes, I believe the Pope is infallible,” and go on to explain the three conditions necessary for him to be speaking infallibly.