A trick question (papal infallibility)

[Peter_J]

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.

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.

I think you’re worrying about a non-existent disagreement.

Let’s say, for example, that we are trying to convince someone (e.g. Mickey) that Pope Pius IX made an ex cathedra statement in 1854. Surely, Mickey isn’t about to disagree with our claim that Pope Pius IX intended to make an ex cathedra statement, so the whole question of “How do we know that was his intention?” can be left to the side. The real meat of the matter is the question, How do we know (or how do we convince Mickey) that this statement which was intended to be ex cathedra, was in fact ex cathedra? (Simply repeating over and over that it’s “mainly a question of intention” isn’t likely to convince anyone that it’s mainly a question of intention, so I think we can rule that out.)

 

[tdgesq]

I think you’re worrying about a non-existent disagreement.

I am? I agree with Newman. If you agree with him too, then great. We are all in agreement.

Let’s say, for example, that we are trying to convince someone (e.g. Mickey) that Pope Pius IX made an ex cathedra statement in 1854. Surely, Mickey isn’t about to disagree with our claim that Pope Pius IX intended to make an ex cathedra statement, so the whole question of “How do we know that was his intention?” can be left to the side.

Well, if it is a case like Honorius, you often have non-Catholics argue that the statement was made ex cathedra or that the pope intended to speak infallibly or both. In that case, it is entirely appropriate to say that the pope did not intend to speak infallibly. The test you would use to demonstrate that he didn’t is the infallibility criterion of Vatican I. That is exactly what Newman does.

In a case where a Catholic is trying to show a non-Catholic that a statement was made ex cathedra, all you would need to show is that it meets the infallibility criterion. I agree that it is highly unlikely that the non-Catholic would argue with you about the pope’s intention in that case.

The real meat of the matter is the question, How do we know (or how do we convince Mickey) that this statement which was intended to be ex cathedra, was in fact ex cathedra?

I believe you are conflating concepts here. Whether it is the real meat of the matter or not, non-Catholics readily accept it when a Catholic claims that a statement meets the elements of an ex cathedra declaration. They then try to show that it contradicts other statements that we know are infallible or that the pope contradicts himself, all in an attempt to demonstrate that the pope does not have the charism of infallibility at all.

It isn’t whether a statement was made ex cathedra that non-Cs have a problem with. They have a problem with the teaching of Vatican I that ex cathedra statements are of themselves infallible and irreformable. How we convince them that the teaching of Vatican I is legitimate is certainly an issue, but not the issue of whether questions about papal infallibility are a trick question - which is what this thread is about.

(Simply repeating over and over that it’s “mainly a question of intention” isn’t likely to convince anyone that it’s mainly a question of intention, so I think we can rule that out.)

I didn’t simply repeat over and over again that it is mainly a question of intention. I didn’t bring up intention at all. You did in posting up Newman, to which I responded. Neither does Newman simply repeat over and over again that it is mainly a question of intention. He rightly claims that teaching, especially infallibly, is a question of intention. He then goes on to show that this couldn’t have been Honorius’ intention because the elements of the infallibility criterion of Vatican I were not met. At least, that is how I read the excerpt. Maybe you have a different interpretation of what Newman was saying.

 

[hays1122]

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.

If “the woman” is indeed Mary, why didn’t John mention her by name? Isn’t this the same John that Jesus asked to take care of his mother,Mary?
I tend to agree with the Eastern fathers. It just makes sense that John would have called her by name or referred to her as the mother of Jesus.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you’re worrying about a non-existent disagreement.

Well in a way, yes, but I can also see your point about Honorius – there are, in fact, instances about which people disagree over what the pope’s intention was. My apologies for the lack of precision.

non-Catholics readily accept it when a Catholic claims that a statement meets the elements of an ex cathedra declaration.

Yes, I too have noticed that about a lot of non-Catholics, especially on the internet. It’s very puzzling, isn’t it? I guess they have a different understanding of the phrase “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”.

(Simply repeating over and over that it’s “mainly a question of intention” isn’t likely to convince anyone that it’s mainly a question of intention, so I think we can rule that out.)

Once again, you’ve asserted that it’s “a question of intention”, but as far as I can see you haven’t said anything that would convince anyone of that.

 

[Peter_J]

non-Catholics readily accept it when a Catholic claims that a statement meets the elements of an ex cathedra

declaration.

Yes, I too have noticed that about a lot of non-Catholics, especially on the internet. It’s very puzzling, isn’t it? I guess they have a different understanding of the phrase “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”.

For any non-Catholics reading this, would you care to share whether or not you believe e.g. that Pope Pius IX made an ex cathedra statement in 1854? In particular, whether or not you believe that he “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”?

 

[Mickey]

Let’s say, for example, that we are trying to convince someone (e.g. Mickey) that Pope Pius IX made an ex cathedra statement in 1854. Surely, Mickey isn’t about to disagree with our claim that Pope Pius IX intended to make an ex cathedra statement, so the whole question of “How do we know that was his intention?” can be left to the side. The real meat of the matter is the question, How do we know (or how do we convince Mickey) that this statement which was intended to be ex cathedra, was in fact ex cathedra? (Simply repeating over and over that it’s “mainly a question of intention” isn’t likely to convince anyone that it’s mainly a question of intention, so I think we can rule that out.)

Mickey cannot be convinced of something that the ultramontanists pushed through and Pius IX defined in 1854.

 

[Peter_J]

Mickey cannot be convinced of something that the ultramontanists pushed through and Pius IX defined in 1854.

Peter thinks that Mickey didn’t read carefully enough: “Let’s say, for example, that we are trying to convince someone (e.g. Mickey) that Pope Pius IX made an ex cathedra statement in 1854.”

 

[Peter_J]

Mickey, do you believe that in 1854 Pope Pius IX “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals [in this case, the Immaculate Conception] to be held by the whole church”?

 

[tdgesq]

Once again, you’ve asserted that it’s “a question of intention”, but as far as I can see you haven’t said anything that would convince anyone of that.

I’ve only asserted (just like Newman) that teaching is mainly a question of intention. He isn’t making any kind of profound observation. I mean, am I teaching every time I post something on these forums? No, because much of the time I am just giving my opinion or trying to understand someone else’s opinion. Sometimes I do post something to teach it. Ultimately it comes down to my intention as to whether I am teaching or not. I suppose it seems self-evident to me, although I admit I could be missing your point.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi tdgesq.

Sorry I didn’t respond the other day to you latest post.

I’ve only asserted (just like Newman) that teaching is mainly a question of intention.

Truth is, I’m not really interested. If I misrepresented you, I apologize – I thought you were also saying that whether or not the Pope “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church” is also mainly a question of intention. But quite frankly, I don’t really care whether you believe that or not: I respect your right to believe whatever it is that you believe, but I just don’t take any interest in it.

Thank you for the conversation and God bless you,

 

[Peter_J]

For any non-Catholics reading this, would you care to share whether or not you believe e.g. that Pope Pius IX made an ex cathedra statement in 1854? In particular, whether or not you believe that he “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”?

I ended up starting a new thread for this question. If anyone cares to respond (beside Isa who has already) you should do so over there rather than here.

Thanks,

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, do you believe that in 1854 Pope Pius IX “defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals [in this case, the Immaculate Conception] to be held by the whole church”?

No.

 

[tdgesq]

Hi tdgesq.

Truth is, I’m not really interested. If I misrepresented you, I apologize – I thought you were also saying that whether or not the Pope “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church” is also mainly a question of intention. But quite frankly, I don’t really care whether you believe that or not: I respect your right to believe whatever it is that you believe, but I just don’t take any interest in it.

That’s fine. I wasn’t all that interested myself until you raised it as an issue. And you certainly don’t have to accept my belief or Newman’s belief on the matter. I do want to be clear on those beliefs though - that all Church teaching, including teachings made ex cathedra, are questions of intention. Maybe somebody who believes otherwise will be interested in commenting how they aren’t.

 

[Peter_J]

A good case for circular reasoning.

Mickey et al,

When trying to understand Papal Infallibility, I think it’s an enormous help to keep in mind Unum Sanctum. This doctrine/dogma says (paraphrasing) that anyone who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, goes to hell.

I can hardly count how many times I’ve heard Protestants and Orthodox point to this and say, “See, that contradicts Vatican II. Non-Catholics aren’t subject to the Pope, so according to Unam Sanctum they all go to hell.”

But that’s not what Unum Sanctum say. It (like Papal Infallibility) is a conditional statement: If someone is not subject to the Pope, then he or she goes to hell. It certainly does not say, If someone does not appear to be subject to the Pope, or does not choose to be subject to the Pope, etc, then he/she goes to hell.

If the question of Papal Infallibility is a “trick question” (and I believe it is), then the question of Unam Sanctum is no less a “trick question”.

 

[Mickey]

But that’s not what Unum Sanctum say. It (like Papal Infallibility) is a conditional statement: If someone is not subject to the Pope, then he or she goes to hell. It certainly does not say, If someone does not appear to be subject to the Pope, or does not choose to be subject to the Pope, etc, then he/she goes to hell.

So Unum Sanctum says that I am going to hell?

 

[Peter_J]

So Unum Sanctum says that I am going to hell?

I guess you didn’t read what I just posted. Unum Sanctum does not say you are going to hell.

They’re both a conditional statements. Unam Sanctum say you are going to hell if you are not subject to the Pope; Pastor Aeternus say that the Pope exercises infallibility if in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

 

[Mickey]

I guess you didn’t read what I just posted. Unum Sanctum does not say you are going to hell.

They’re both a conditional statements. Unam Sanctum say you are going to hell if you are not subject to the Pope;

I read it my friend. Please help me in my confusion.

Unum Sanctum says that if I am not subject to the Pope, then I am going to hell. As an Orthodox Christian, I am not subject to the Pope–therefore, Unum Sanctum says I am destined for hell.

 

[Peter_J]

I read it my friend. Please help me in my confusion.

Unum Sanctum says that if I am not subject to the Pope, then I am going to hell. As an Orthodox Christian, I am not subject to the Pope–therefore, Unum Sanctum says I am destined for hell.

Are you just being facetious, or are you serious?

 

[Mickey]

Are you just being facetious, or are you serious?

Perhaps I am flat out stupid and ignorant–but I am completely serious.

 

[Peter_J]

As an Orthodox Christian, I am not subject to the Pope

So then, you’re saying that you (and the rest of the Orthodox Christians) are going to hell.

I mean, you said that you are not subject to the Pope; so since anyone who is not subject to the Pope is going to hell, you’re saying that you’re going to hell.