An official clarification on the Dogma of Papal Infallibility?

[mardukm]

Dear Oriental and Eastern brethren,

I started a thread entitled “We Need an Official Clarification on the Dogma of Papal Infallibility” in the Apologetics Forum (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=381885) to sound the opinions of our Latin brethren.

What I would like to know from everyone in this Forum is whether or not you think it would help in our efforts at reunion.

If you feel any further clarifications are necessary, we can discuss it here, or in the Apologetics Forum.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Such a clarification would basically require either a bull or a general council to have the force needed for ecumenical purposes.

Further, it’s quite possible that the clarification would be on the side of Pope as Voice of God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Such a clarification would basically require either a bull or a general council to have the force needed for ecumenical purposes.

Further, it’s quite possible that the clarification would be on the side of Pope as Voice of God.

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. I was referring to the clarifications I proposed in the thread to which I linked.

For the sake of expediency, let me repeat them here. The following are the clarifications I believe should be officially promulgated, which I believe will help in our dialogue with our Orthodox brethren:

1. Any entity in the Church is said to be infallible only by the virtue of its exercise of the infallible Magisterium.
2. Though a decree ex cathedra is promulgated by the infallible Magisterium invested in the office of the papacy for the confirmation of the Faith, the constitution of the Church requires that it be formulated collegially.
3. The ex cathedra infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope is not exercised during an Ecumenical Council. Rather, the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council is a collegial infallibility.
4. Infallibility is God’s and God’s alone to give. Just as the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope is given directly by God and not through the Church, the infallible Magisterium of the Church, of the Ecumenical Council, and the body of bishops is likewise directly given by God, and not through the Pope.

I urge anyone interested to read the linked thread. Here it is again:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=381885

It offers further explanation of these points.

So, I ask again, will these clarifications help or not?

Blessings

 

[Cluny]

One of the curious things about Papal infallibility is that it’s actually a dead issue.

There is no general agreement about which Papal statements fall into the category of infallible statements.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Bad poll as both answers say that there needs to be a clarification.

There already is a clarifiction, just read the Documents from Vatican I.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cluny,

One of the curious things about Papal infallibility is that it’s actually a dead issue.

I would tend to agree, practically speaking. I don’t see it being exercised in a united Church with our Orthodox brethren. Nevertheless, we can’t consider it a dead issue because our Orthodox brethren don’t believe it is. Further, we can’t really know for sure if its exercise would not be necessary in the future. After all, our Lord gave us this office for confirming the Faith. I’m sure He knows better than us, right? There might come a time when an issue of Faith needs to be resolved, and the bishops of the world are prevented from coming together. We can’t predict what the future holds. But we do know that our Lord gave the Church this office of confirmation for the upbuilding of the body of Christ.

There is no general agreement about which Papal statements fall into the category of infallible statements.

True, but there is nevertheless a basic agreement. At the very least, all lists admit the following (AFAIK): 1) the Tome of Leo; 2) Pope Benedict XII’s encyclical Benedictus Deus; 3) the dogma of the IC; 4) the dogma of the Assumption.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Bad poll as both answers say that there needs to be a clarification.

There already is a clarifiction, just read the Documents from Vatican I.

I actually thought about the option “No clarification is necessary.” But given all our debates about the matter with our Orthodox brethren, and all the misunderstanding that still exists among both Catholics and non-Catholics on the matter, I assumed every Eastern or Oriental would want a clarification of the Dogma.

You’ve proven that all things are possible (with a lot of , and a little bit of ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Here are my comments on the subject previously posted on the Apologetics forum thread:

The first seven ecumenical councils where not convoked by the pope or even presided by him. In fact, some canons where rejected by the pope and accepted by the other patriarchs. It seems that an ecumenical council today is not what it was 1600 years ago. Since the infallibility of the pope has no restrictions and the infallibility of an ecumenical council depends on the approval of the pope, then why have ecumenical councils at all? Even the dogma of papal infallibility defined/confirmed by the First Vatican Council did not need of such council. The Holy Father could have just spoken ex cathedra to define his own infallibility.

One thing is clear; our Eastern Catholic brethren have a different understanding of papal infallibility than us Latin/Western Catholics, hence the need for clarification. As for our Eastern/Oriental Orthodox brethren, I’m not sure a clarification of this dogma would change the fact that they only recognize a primacy of honor for the bishop of Rome. They do not (and will not) accept the infallibility of the pope as dogma, especially if the infallibility of an ecumenical council (which they do believe in) is subject or subordinate to that of the pope.

As a separate note, not all Orthodox Christians are necessarily opposed to having a universal pastor, but not if his authority is defined as “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can ALWAYS (emphasis mine) freely exercise.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Can. 43)

God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Brother Ad Gentes,

I will respond to you in the Apologetics Forum.

I’d like to request everyone who wants to participate in the discussion to stop posting the same responses in both threads?

Thank you.

Blessings

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I actually thought about the option “No clarification is necessary.” But given all our debates about the matter with our Orthodox brethren, and all the misunderstanding that still exists among both Catholics and non-Catholics on the matter, I assumed every Eastern or Oriental would want a clarification of the Dogma.

You’ve proven that all things are possible (with a lot of , and a little bit of ).

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
I do not think there is any need or any help in the Catholic Church providing any further clarification on this issue.

This is something that would need to be worked out by a reunion council of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

How can the Catholic Church clarify something without the (name removed by moderator)ut of those who the clarification is for?

 

[Aramis]

Marduk,
I do not think there is any need or any help in the Catholic Church providing any further clarification on this issue.

This is something that would need to be worked out by a reunion council of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

How can the Catholic Church clarify something without the (name removed by moderator)ut of those who the clarification is for?

Br. David:

The groups who most desperately need a clarification are not outside the Church… hard-line papal supremacists are the ones we have most to worry about; they are also the group that gives the Orthodox worries. Further, they are the ones claiming every utterance of the pope is infallible and binding.

 

[Seamus_L]

You’re worrying about Papal Supremacists Aramis ? Actually, I’m seeing EC’s (mainly converts) on various forums, who are openly denying Papal Infallibility.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Seamus,

You’re worrying about Papal Supremacists Aramis ? Actually, I’m seeing EC’s (mainly converts) on various forums, who are openly denying Papal Infallibility.

It seems most EC’s and OC’s here on CAF worry about the papalists (including me).

PAPALISM: An attitude toward Church teaching and life which exaggerates the Petrine ministry of the Pope, while ignoring the role of other bishops and what can be learned from the People of God.
(Gerald O’collins, S.J. and Edward Farrugia, S.J., A Concise Dictionary of Theology, Paulist Press, 1991)

I’ve met only 2 EC’s in CAF or any other Website who actually deny Papal infallibility, and they view it as a theologoumenon of the Latin Church (though I certainly have not been on all websites).

Also, make sure to distinguish between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view. The collegial High Petrine view does not deny the papal dogmas in any way. It simply rejects papalism.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The groups who most desperately need a clarification are not outside the Church… hard-line papal supremacists are the ones we have most to worry about; they are also the group that gives the Orthodox worries. Further, they are the ones claiming every utterance of the pope is infallible and binding.

I agree, brother Aramis. An EC deacon at ByzCath.org noted that Orthodox and papalists use the SAME misconceived arguments - the former to deny the papacy, the latter to affirm it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother David,

I do not think there is any need or any help in the Catholic Church providing any further clarification on this issue.

This is something that would need to be worked out by a reunion council of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Agreed. My question does not cover the ways and means that this will come about. I’m just asking if these clarifications will help. And neither am I assuming that these clarifications will solve the matter entirely. Again, I’m only asking if these will help.

How can the Catholic Church clarify something without the (name removed by moderator)ut of those who the clarification is for?

On this point, I’m in complete agreement with brother Aramis.

Blessings

 

[Seamus_L]

Marduk
Are you suggesting that Papal Infallibility only applies to the Latin Church, and if so do you believe that was what Pope Pius IX intended.

 

[Aramis]

Papalism is a very real threat to the church. Its the most common Roman Rite problem I’ve encountered.

 

[Seamus_L]

Marduk and Aramis
Rather then get in a heated debate I'll just give you something to ponder. A majority of people within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church already reject Papal Infallibility, along with quite a few other teachings of the Church. However, if you were to ask those Latin Rite Catholics who attend mass weekly, go to confession regularly, attend adoration, say the rosary daily, etc, you'll find that an overwhelming majority of them, along with there priests, believe in Papal Infallibility for the Universal Church. So that leaves you with two groups in the Latin Church you ultimately may not be happy with.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Seamus,

Are you suggesting that Papal Infallibility only applies to the Latin Church, and if so do you believe that was what Pope Pius IX intended.

No. I reject papalism, not the papal dogmas. Are you suggesting that papalism is what Pope Pius IX intended?

I quoted the following in the other thread, but perhaps it will be relevant here, as well (I admit I’m violating my own exhortation earlier, but perhaps everyone will agree that it is warranted in this instance):

The following is the Pastoral Instruction of the Swiss Bishops issued June, 1871, after the Council:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleaser, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this previous line has great relevance to our discussion about the Pope’s relationship to his brother bishops, and the participation of his brother bishops for an ex cathedra decree]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

If papalism was the intention of V1, then we should expect that these Swiss bishops would have been given the anathema maranatha! by Pio Nono! However, here is POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.” I venture to say that these bishops and Pope Pius IX has maybe just a little more authority than papalists on the matter. Agreed?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Rather then get in a heated debate I’ll just give you something to ponder. A majority of people within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church already reject Papal Infallibility, along with quite a few other teachings of the Church. However, if you were to ask those Latin Rite Catholics who attend mass weekly, go to confession regularly, attend adoration, say the rosary daily, etc, you’ll find that an overwhelming majority of them, along with there priests, believe in Papal Infallibility for the Universal Church. So that leaves you with two groups in the Latin Church you ultimately may not be happy with.

Are you suggesting that validating papalism would mitigate the problems in the Latin Church? Disobedience is a problem of all Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. That fact really has no relevance for this discussion, IMO. I would say let the Latins take care of their own problems. This thread is about an issue that has great concern for Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

Blessings.