An official clarification on the Dogma of Papal Infallibility?

[Seamus_L]

Nothing there I’d disagree with Marduk. John Paul II I believe, said he did not have the power to ordain women as priests. If by Papalism, you simply mean misconceptions held to by lay people, then I’d say those beliefs are far more common among non-Catholics. I’ve personally heard people say that Infallibility meant everything from, the Pope is never wrong about anything, to he’s sinless.
Returning to the original topic though, I have heard more than a few EC's openly reject Papal Infallibility and say that it only applies to the Latin Church, and that they are not required to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[mardukm]

Nothing there I’d disagree with Marduk. John Paul II I believe, said he did not have the power to ordain women as priests. If by Papalism, you simply mean misconceptions held to by lay people, then I’d say those beliefs are far more common among non-Catholics. I’ve personally heard people say that Infallibility meant everything from, the Pope is never wrong about anything, to he’s sinless.

The errors of papalism are not limited to errors about what papal infallibility is. It also has to do with the diminution of the role of the episcopal office and the rest of the Church in the upbuilding of the Body of Christ. The idea that the Church’s infallibility, or an Ecumenical Council’s infallibility, or the infallibility of the body of bishops, is dependant on papal infallibility is one of these notions that demeans the episcopal office and the rest of the Church.

Returning to the original topic though, I have heard more than a few EC’s openly reject Papal Infallibility and say that it only applies to the Latin Church,

If that’s your experience, I’ll trust you on that. Is it posssible that what they are rejecting is merely the papalist extremes of the dogma? Perhaps they think that the papalist extremes are what the dogma intends and thereby reject it? To be honest, if the papalist views are what V1 actually intended, I would never have joined the Catholic communion.

and that they are not required to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

They would be wrong. but is it possible that they believe it, but simply don’t believe it should have been dogmatized. There is a difference between, “I don’t accept the IC,” and “I don’t accept the dogma.” It could also be the case that they misunderstand the dogma. If they reject it based on that misunderstanding, then its proscriptions don’t apply to them.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

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.

Papalism is not the same as belief in Papal infallibility.

Papalism is a near-heresy that denies the authority of the ordinary magisterium, instead placing all of the episcopal power over the declaration of doctrine and dogma solely with the pope. It also tends to include the belief that every word and act of the pope is infallible. It thus also denies the literal text of the Vatican I and Vatican II councils on the role of the papacy.

It is most prevalent in the Roman Church Sui Iuris, tho’ it also has adherents in the Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and Maronite churches (for some members of each have expressed papalism in writing and on the web).

Papalism is, fundamentally, infallibility and authority of the pope taken beyond reasonable levels.

 

[Madaglan]

Papalism is not the same as belief in Papal infallibility.

Papalism is a near-heresy that denies the authority of the ordinary magisterium, instead placing all of the episcopal power over the declaration of doctrine and dogma solely with the pope. It also tends to include the belief that every word and act of the pope is infallible. It thus also denies the literal text of the Vatican I and Vatican II councils on the role of the papacy.

It is most prevalent in the Roman Church Sui Iuris, tho’ it also has adherents in the Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and Maronite churches (for some members of each have expressed papalism in writing and on the web).

Papalism is, fundamentally, infallibility and authority of the pope taken beyond reasonable levels.

Would Curialism fall into the same category as Papalism?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Would Curialism fall into the same category as Papalism?

Can you please explain what “curialism” is exactly? There seems to be a general definition, but also one that is specifically conditioned by the debates of the 16th century with the Protestants. The two are not identical. So I would first ask, once again, what your definition of “curialism” is?

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Would Curialism fall into the same category as Papalism?

No clue, as I have never before encountered the term Curialism.

 

[Seamus_L]

By Papalism are you referring to the particular beliefs of individual lay people within the Catholic Church ? I personally may or may not fit into that category. For instance, I don’t regard Veritas In Caritate as an infallible document, however I do believe if a Bishop is somehow preventing the Latin Mass from being said in his Diocese, I believe the faithful have the right to appeal directly to the Pope, who’s authority, even in the Diocese, supercedes that of the local bishop. It should be done as the last resort though.

 

[Aramis]

OK, I think I see your error, Seamus.

You’re counfounding Papism, and Papalism. Papism is a more generic term which means only acceptance of the pope. (It’s also used as a derogatory term for Catholics.) Papalism is a particular hyper-papism bordering on, if not actually, heretical.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Can you please explain what “curialism” is exactly? There seems to be a general definition, but also one that is specifically conditioned by the debates of the 16th century with the Protestants. The two are not identical. So I would first ask, once again, what your definition of “curialism” is?

Blessings

The dictionary identifies it with ultramontanism.

What I mean in using it is the situation in which Churches are unduly governed by one or more of the congregations of this Curia.

I perceive this view in a book by Archbishop Elias Zoghby that I just finished.

 

[mardukm]

By Papalism are you referring to the particular beliefs of individual lay people within the Catholic Church?

From my understanding, yes. It is not a formal movement, but a certain type of mindsent or paradigm.

I personally may or may not fit into that category. For instance, I don’t regard Veritas In Caritate as an infallible document, however I do believe if a Bishop is somehow preventing the Latin Mass from being said in his Diocese, I believe the faithful have the right to appeal directly to the Pope, who’s authority, even in the Diocese, supercedes that of the local bishop. It should be done as the last resort though.

The idea that the Pope supercedes the authority of a bishop in his diocese is dangerously erroneous. Vatican 1, on the contrary, taught infallibly that the authority of the bishop is meant to be “asserted, confirmed and vindicated” by the authority of the Pope. The relationship between the Pope and his brother bishops is not the same as the relationship between a bishop and his priests. The authority that bishops hold in their own diocese is by divine right. In distinction, the authority of priests in their parish is almost completely vicarious – i.e., they are exercising the authority of their bishop. So it could be lawfully stated that a bishop supercedes the authority of a priest in his parish (which is vicarious), but it cannot be stated that the Pope supercedes the authority of a bishop in his diocese (which is by divine right).

The Pope may correct and discipline bishops if and only if the bishop violates or is in opposition to the Church’s Faith and morals. It should also be noted that though I sincerely believe that the Pope also has the authority to discipline a bishop for carelessly violating a universal canon of the Church, our Canons recognize that a bishop, for the good of his flock, has the authority to dispense even from a universal canon.

There is one other important thing to consider.

That the celebration of the Eucharist (i.e., the celebration of the Divine Liturgy or Mass or Holy Qurbono) is intimately tied to the divine-right authority of the local bishop is one of the most ancient standards of the Catholic Church, as evinced by St. Ignatius’ epistles. It is part and parcel of the divine Constitution of the Church. At no point in the history of the Church has this ever been challenged – that is, until modern times. This is evident from your own statement, that you believe the Pope has the authority to supercede the authority of a local bishop in this matter. It is also sadly evident in other Churches within the Catholic communion. Sadly, it is also evident in Eastern Orthodoxy, where schisms have occurred over such matters.

ISTM that those who oppose their bishop in the matter of the Liturgy really have little concern about whether the Pope can supercede the authority of the local bishop. It is well for traditionalist Latin Catholics to have a Pope who favors the TLM. But what happens if there is a Pope who does not? Would they form another schism? Rather, the real issue is that those who oppose their local bishop have a problem with authority altogether. I ask your forgiveness for expressing an opinion that is rather harsh.

Having said that, if Latins believe the Latin Church should be governed in such a way that her bishops really have no authority, then I think that is your prerogative. But please don’t expect to impose that paradigm on the other Churches of the Catholic Communion.

Blessings

 

[Roman_Army]

I will abstain from voting because the above poll is biased. The First Vatican Council and the Second Vatican Council’s decrees on the subject are clear enough already. Perhaps prior consultation with the Bishops might be recommended and prized in a future Ecumenical Council decree, but it cannot be a requirement in order for an Ex Cathedra decree to be valid and infallible on its own. Perhaps a similar wording can be used as was used for the use of Latin or Gregorian chant in the mass that is that it holds “pride of place in the liturgy.” So, it can be said that prior consultation with the bishops holds pride of place in the hierarchy of the Church and that it is the ordinary means of making an Ex Cathedra definition though not an absolute requirement.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Roman Army,

I will abstain from voting because the above poll is biased. The First Vatican Council and the Second Vatican Council’s decrees on the subject are clear enough already. Perhaps prior consultation with the Bishops might be recommended and prized in a future Ecumenical Council decree, but it cannot be a requirement in order for an Ex Cathedra decree to be valid and infallible on its own. Perhaps a similar wording can be used as was used for the use of Latin or Gregorian chant in the mass that is that it holds “pride of place in the liturgy.” So, it can be said that prior consultation with the bishops holds pride of place in the hierarchy of the Church and that it is the ordinary means of making an Ex Cathedra definition though not an absolute requirement.

The poll is really just for Eastern and Oriental Catholics. You have already expressed your papalist views in the other thread, so it is to be expected that you will not agree.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

The dictionary identifies it with ultramontanism.

What I mean in using it is the situation in which Churches are unduly governed by one or more of the congregations of this Curia.

Oh, ok. Several explanations are in order, then.

First of all, ultramontanism, as with many such names, originally had a pejorative connotation. It was the ecclesiology of Italy as opposed to France. From France’s perspective, it was the ecclesiology of those “over the mountains” in Italy - hence “Ultramontanism.” Ultramontanism was identified as opposing anything and everything that Gallicanism represented.

Eventually, ultramontanism came to be identified with the ecclesiology of Vatican 1. The thing is, Vatican 1 did not repudiate everything that Gallicanism proposed. The following three propositions of Gallicanism were not opposed by Vatican 1 – (1) the divine right of bishops to rule; (2) that the Pope is bound by the Canons of the Church; (3) that the secular power legitimately and fully exercises its authority in its own sphere of influence, without interference of the ecclesiastical power into its affairs.

Curialism is often identified with Ultramontanism, but it is the Ultramontanism that existed before Vatican 1 – the one that was defined by its general opposition to all things Gallican.

Now, the idea that the Churches are governed by the Curia is not in itself objectionable, especially if the Curia has Eastern and Oriental members in the relevant offices. In this sense, the Curia can be seen as an exercise of the Church’s COLLEGIAL authority. If the papal Curia was completely composed of Latin bishops, then that would be an unacceptable situation (as it was before the 20th century).

Blessings

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear brother Roman Army,

The poll is really just for Eastern and Oriental Catholics. You have already expressed your papalist views in the other thread, so it is to be expected that you will not agree.

Blessings

Hmmm, so since I have expressed the same concerns that Roman Army has here does that mean my views are papalist? or are his views just stated as being so because of other posts and not counting this one?

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

(3) that the secular power legitimately and fully exercises its authority in its own sphere of influence, without interference of the ecclesiastical power into its affairs.

Isn’t that part and parcel of the Two Swords doctrine, first made popular by Pope Gelasius and clarified by Pope Boniface VIII?

Now, the idea that the Churches are governed by the Curia is not in itself objectionable, especially if the Curia has Eastern and Oriental members in the relevant offices. In this sense, the Curia can be seen as an exercise of the Church’s COLLEGIAL authority. If the papal Curia was completely composed of Latin bishops, then that would be an unacceptable situation (as it was before the 20th century).

Blessings

Archbishop Elias Zoghby points out that in his time the Congregation for the Eastern (Oriental) Churches was essentially Latin in membership and outlook, and therefore not in tune with the interests of the Eastern Churches.

Roman Curia as exercise of the Church’s collegial authority. All right. Same with episcopal conferences?

Anyhow, it does seem that the Roman Curia has improved by including better Eastern and Oriental representation.

 

[Roman_Army]

Hmmm, so since I have expressed the same concerns that Roman Army has here does that mean my views are papalist? or are his views just stated as being so because of other posts and not counting this one?

He cannot accept the fact that he’s in error, so he resorts to name calling. I’m by no means a “papalist.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byzcath,

Hmmm, so since I have expressed the same concerns that Roman Army has here does that mean my views are papalist? or are his views just stated as being so because of other posts and not counting this one?

It’s his comments in the other thread. You haven’t denied the content of these clarifications, from what I’ve seen you write. Brother Roman Army has. I believe these clarifications will go a long way in re-inforcing the collegial nature of the Catholic Church to our Orthodox brethren. Anyone who places collegiality in opposition to the Vatican 1 decrees is a papalist, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Isn’t that part and parcel of the Two Swords doctrine, first made popular by Pope Gelasius and clarified by Pope Boniface VIII?

From what I know, the Two Swords doctrine in the Medieval Latin Church included the deposing power of the Pope. That was an aspect of the doctrine that only had political ramifications and conditioned by the times. It is no longer relevant in the Church today, since governments generally don’t claim Divine-right to rule anymore.

Archbishop Elias Zoghby points out that in his time the Congregation for the Eastern (Oriental) Churches was essentially Latin in membership and outlook, and therefore not in tune with the interests of the Eastern Churches.

That would be accurate.

Roman Curia as exercise of the Church’s collegial authority. All right. Same with episcopal conferences?

Not exactly, for two reasons. First, episcopal conferences, from what I undertand, is an institution unique to the Latin Church. The Papal Curia is an institution of the universal Petrine office of the Pope. Second, episcopal conferences have only a largely advisory role (unlike the Synod in the Eastern and Oriental Churches, which have legislative, executive, and judiciary powers). In distinction, the Papal Curia has legislative, executive and judiciary powers (though they are delegated and vicarious, not ordinary and proper - i.e., they exercise the Pope’s authority; in distinction, the authority of a Synod is ordinary and proper).

Anyhow, it does seem that the Roman Curia has improved by including better Eastern and Oriental representation.

Indeed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear brother Byzcath,

It’s his comments in the other thread. You haven’t denied the content of these clarifications, from what I’ve seen you write. Brother Roman Army has. I believe these clarifications will go a long way in re-inforcing the collegial nature of the Catholic Church to our Orthodox brethren. Anyone who places collegiality in opposition to the Vatican 1 decrees is a papalist, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hmmm, branding someone as a “papalist” (a derogatory term) because he disagrees with your clarifications seems a bit strong.

Rather than brand someone with such a term maybe a discussion of what the disagreement is.

After all, I disagree with your clarifications.

The Church has already issued such clarifications through an Ecumenical Council.

I do not see the need for anything further out side of an Ecumenical Council, either with or without the Orthodox participating.

 

[mardukm]

Hmmm, branding someone as a “papalist” (a derogatory term) because he disagrees with your clarifications seems a bit strong.

Rather than brand someone with such a term maybe a discussion of what the disagreement is.

That’s what we’re doing in the other thread.

After all, I disagree with your clarifications.

So how would you respond to non-Catholics who argue:

1. Since the Pope is himself infallible, then all his canonical decrees, all his disciplinary judgments must be infallible, and the Pope can NEVER fall into heresy.
2. The Pope is separated from the Church in his ex cathedra definitions because he does not need the agreement or even the advice of the Church.
3. There is no need for an Ecumenical Council since only the Pope’s infallibility makes the Council infallible.
4. Since the Pope’s confirmation is required for all teachings in the Church, then the Church loses its infallibility when a Pope dies or abdicates until such time as the Church elects a new Pope. Therefore, there must have been many times in the Church’s history when it was not actually infallible, since there was no Pope at the time.

None of these arguments can be met from the plain texts of V1 or V2, so how would you respond?

Blessings,
Marduk