An official clarification on the Dogma of Papal Infallibility?

[mardukm]

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

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. Also, the Pope could never himself 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 not 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

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mardukm:

Dear brother Madaglan,

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.

Right… but while the conditions might be different today, and while many Americans and others dismiss the notion of divine-right, the Latin Church has continued to hold into the modern era that rulers receive their right to rule, authority and power from God–a clear statement on these is found in Diuturnum Illud, an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, 1881.

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).

That’s what I’ve read concerning episcopal conferences. Archbishop Elias Zoghby laments that these episcopal conferences are simply advisory, or as he puts it, consultive.

There was a time in the West when bishops of certain regions formed synods and resolved doctrinal and disciplinary matters. Does the Roman Curia obviate such local councils in the West, and in those countries where Latin Catholicism has taken root (e.g. South America, Africa)? I know that when I was Latin Catholic, de-centralization was often identified with bishops’ submission to temporal authority and novel ideas, any local council lacking the assurance of infallibility that comes from Roman decision making.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Right… but while the conditions might be different today, and while many Americans and others dismiss the notion of divine-right, the Latin Church has continued to hold into the modern era that rulers receive their right to rule, authority and power from God–a clear statement on these is found in Diuturnum Illud, an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, 1881.

I wouldn’t make anything of that beyond the biblical truism that all things exist by the Grace of God.

That’s what I’ve read concerning episcopal conferences. Archbishop Elias Zoghby laments that these episcopal conferences are simply advisory, or as he puts it, consultive.

The Latin Church is more united administratively than the Eastern or Oriental Churches. The Latins seem perfectly fine with their situation, so I wouldn’t judge them in any way. It would only be detrimental if they attempt to impose their ecclesiological constitution on the Eastern or Oriental Churches. From a comparative perspective, its a give and take. Though Latin particular Churches give up some autonomy, the problems of jurisdictionalism are much less likely (if at all) to take root within the Latin Church.

There was a time in the West when bishops of certain regions formed synods and resolved doctrinal and disciplinary matters. Does the Roman Curia obviate such local councils in the West, and in those countries where Latin Catholicism has taken root (e.g. South America, Africa)?

Synods are held periodically and commonly in the Latin Church. They are summoned by the Pope. Africa is going to have one very soon. These types of synods which have a national or regional participation was re-established by V2. Of course, the diocesan synod has always been a constant feature of the Latin Church.

I know that when I was Latin Catholic, de-centralization was often identified with bishops’ submission to temporal authority and novel ideas, any local council lacking the assurance of infallibility that comes from Roman decision making.

That’s an interesting perspective. This was pre-V2 days?

Blessings

 

[Roman_Army]

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?

The arguments have already been addressed by Vatican 1 and 2. There is no need to clarify them any further since they are already as clear as it can get. Maybe if people actually read them, then they would understand that. In the case that the Papal seat is vaccant we have already a treasure of infallible declarations from past Popes and Councils to guide us as well as the Bishops teaching unanimously or there is the religious assent of mind and will binding on the Faithful to individual Bishops exercising ordinary magisterium courteosy of Vatican 2 as a safeguard. Again, you’re mixing apples with oranges and attempting to pass off your fallible lay proposals as official infallible doctrine and labeling anyone who disagrees with the derogatory term “Papalist.”

If it’s more collegiality that you want, you already have it and it can certainly be recommended in a re-union council. Though to render an Ex Cathedra decree invalid just because there was no prior consultation is absurd and contrary to the teachings of both Vatican 1 and 2 as well as both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[mardukm]

The arguments have already been addressed by Vatican 1 and 2. There is no need to clarify them any further since they are already as clear as it can get.

Obviously, they still need clarification, because these misconceptions still abound, which the plain text does not address. Since you are so confident that the plain text is sufficient, why don’t you respond to these accusations by quoting the plain text WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION?

In the case that the Papal seat is vaccant we have already a treasure of infallible declarations from past Popes and Councils to guide us as well as the Bishops teaching unanimously or there is the religious assent of mind and will binding on the Faithful to individual Bishops exercising ordinary magisterium courteosy of Vatican 2 as a safeguard.

Funny that you claim the text of V1 of V2 is sufficient, yet you resort to this explanation to respond to that non-Catholic objection. Why don’t you just cite the plain text?

Though to render an Ex Cathedra decree invalid just because there was no prior consultation is absurd and contrary to the teachings of both Vatican 1 and 2 as well as both Scripture and Tradition.

I explained this to you thoroughly in the other thread many hours ago. It’s telling that you did not respond to it (though you responded to other points in that post), but then come over here merely repeating this empty claim.:tsktsk:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

That’s an interesting perspective. This was pre-V2 days?

Blessings

Afterwards actually.

 

[Roman_Army]

Mardukm,

Well, Vatican I and Vatican II might not address those arguments explicitly, thourhg one can say how it does so implicitly. It teaches that the Pope is infallible only when speaking Ex Cathedra in matters of faith or morals, and that when he’s not speaking Ex Cathedra it only demands religious assent. It also says that the Bishop’s individual teaching demands religious assent and when all the Bishops in union with the Pope teach unanimously on something they are infallible. It would not be much of a stretch to say that when the Papal See is vacant for a long period of time the Bishops still have that power.

If you want them to explicitly address those arguments, then that would be good, but I think the two Councils together have addressed it implicitly. I guess the council fathers did not wish to say “it is possible for the Pope to preach heresy,” that he can impose bad disciplinary laws, or somehow make people think that the Papacy itself is unnecessary or superfluous. It would kind of not look good or sound nice in an official decree of an Ecumenical Council. They perhaps want to focus on the positive side.

May God bless you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brethren in Christ,

I am glad there has been more participation in the poll. This thread is not exactly meant to discuss the content of the clarifications I proposed (that is what the other thread in the Apologetics Forum is for). This thread is to discuss the usefulness of the clarifications in our dialogue with our Orthodox brethren, and what other clarifications can be proposed.

For any who feel it would not help our dialogue, can you please give a reason why this is so?

Now, I understand that the main objection of the Orthodox is that they don’t believe that one person can enjoy this infallibility.

Would not the re-inforcement of the collegial nature of the Church through these clarifications serve to mollify that objection?

Wouldn’t clarifying that papal infallibility is not personal or separate from the infallibility of the Church do enough to settle that matter?

What other objections can you think of that would be an impediment to agreement on the issue of papal infallibility?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Brother,

The fundamental problem with any formal clarification is twofold

1. Some of the Orthodox would claim the church was de-dogmatizing the Papalist view, and use that to claim the Catholic Church defined dogma differently enough to be heretics
2. it would cause a clear schism in the Roman Church, as Papalism isn’t yet formally a heresy, and such clarification would de facto render them heretics.

1 is bound to happen, and its likely to be pretty much the same group that claims we erred by declaring new dogma in the first place.

2 is far more troubling.

 

[Formosus]

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

I wasn’t aware that before modern times, that any eastern church was ever governed by the Latin Patriarch’s curia officials. The Oriental Congregation has no business existing and is an affront to the dignity of Eastern Churches as self governing bodies. If Rome had attempted such a thing in the first thousand years of the Church, then that alone would have caused the east-west schisms (and to be honest, its not that far from what Rome was attempting when the actual schism between the Byzantines and the Latins did occur). Even if the oriental congregation composed of just oriental clergy, it would still be an affront. The highest authorities in my church are the Patriarch and his synod, not a roman bureaucracy.

To the topic on hand though, any clarification of Papal infallibility would have to be done in the context of an Ecumenical Council with participation of the Orthodox Churches (both oriental and eastern), Otherwise it would not be effective and would most likely cause as much harm as the original declaration of infallibility to begin with.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

The fundamental problem with any formal clarification is twofold

1. Some of the Orthodox would claim the church was de-dogmatizing the Papalist view, and use that to claim the Catholic Church defined dogma differently enough to be heretics.

1 is bound to happen, and its likely to be pretty much the same group that claims we erred by declaring new dogma in the first place.

Yes, it seems that those of a polemical bent (and we certainly meet enough of those on the I-net) will inevitably have a triumphalistic attitude.

Part of me thinks, “So what? We can sacrifice a bit of Catholic pride for the sake of reunion.”

Part of me believes, “Triumphalism is a sinful attitude, and the Christian spirit is not wanting in Orthodoxy so it will be corrected soon enough.” This belief is borne of my experience as an Oriental Orthodox. When the Agreements on Christology were enacted between the CC and the OOC, all the participants were humble in their attitude and did not seek to go around casting claims of “See, you were wrong.” Of course, it is a bit different with the EO, especially with such a faction as powerful as Mt. Athos which generally sees no value in even trying to understand the other apostolic Churches (from what I’ve read).

I believe the solution would be to get a translation of the acts and speeches of the V1 Fathers into publication to prove that papalism was in fact combatted by V1, and that collegiality was supported. One example among many (that I’ve mentioned several times in these Forums) is the fact that the fathers changed the title of the Decree on papal infallibility from “The Infallibility of the Pope” to “the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.” The intent of the title is very often lost unless one has knowledge of what it replaced. Few probably know of the many objections papalists, who thought the definitions (on Primacy and Infallibility) were too restrictive, formally lodged with the Commissions at the Council. Few probably know of the influence the Minority party actually had on the final text of the decrees, an ignorance no doubt influenced by the senseless complaints of men like Dollinger, and sensationalized by the anti-Catholic press in the U.S., England, France, and other countries, which created the myth that the Minority Party were completely ignored at V1.

2) it would cause a clear schism in the Roman Church, as Papalism isn’t yet formally a heresy, and such clarification would de facto render them heretics.

2 is far more troubling.

Thank you, brother. You have increased my knowledge. This is something I never thought of. Part of me wants to pay them no mind, but that would not be a Christian attitude. It appears that before we can engage our Orthodox brethren, we need to clean up house. Part of me actually thinks that the papalist attitude will work in our favor in this instance, for if they truly believe the Pope is the be-all and end-all of Church teaching, the Pope’s official support of such clarifications should be enough to change their minds on the matter.

However, can we really expect to do away with these intransigent atitudes completely - on both sides of the fence?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

I wasn’t aware that before modern times, that any eastern church was ever governed by the Latin Patriarch’s curia officials. The Oriental Congregation has no business existing and is an affront to the dignity of Eastern Churches as self governing bodies. If Rome had attempted such a thing in the first thousand years of the Church, then that alone would have caused the east-west schisms (and to be honest, its not that far from what Rome was attempting when the actual schism between the Byzantines and the Latins did occur). Even if the oriental congregation composed of just oriental clergy, it would still be an affront. The highest authorities in my church are the Patriarch and his synod, not a roman bureaucracy.

Admittedly, the Congregation on the Oriental Churches is something about which I am almost completely ignorant. I always thought it was an agency set up by the Pope to aid the Oriental Churches, not to control them. I know that curial members were very Latinizing in the 19th century, and often came at odds with the Pope himself over their Latinizing attitudes. But that’s about all I know. Why are you opposed to this Congregation? In what ways do you feel that it violates the self-governance of the Eastern and Oriental Churches?

To the topic on hand though, any clarification of Papal infallibility would have to be done in the context of an Ecumenical Council with participation of the Orthodox Churches (both oriental and eastern), Otherwise it would not be effective and would most likely cause as much harm as the original declaration of infallibility to begin with.

As stated earlier, the ways and means that this clarification will come about is not my concern. OK. Suppose there is an Ecumenical Council. Given your knowledge of the EO, do you feel these clarifications that I proposed will help (remember, I’m not claiming these will settle everything on the issue of papal infallibility)? Given your knowledge of the EO, can you suggest any other clarifications that would help?

I’m sure many EO would say, “just get rid of the dogma.” But instead of automatically retorting, “well, we can’t do that,” I would rather wend the discussion towards identifying the REASONS for the rejection. From my debates with EO, ISTM that the four clarifications I proposed would go a long way towards promoting understanding (and hence unity) on the issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk,

First of all, ultramontanism, as with many such names, originally had a pejorative connotation.

This is the very first time I have ever read that Ultramontanism was originally a pejorative. I thought differently, and have never used it that way.

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.

This last (#3) is most interesting.

It is a direct formal repudiation of the position of Boniface VIII on the subject as expressed in the bull UNAM SANCTAM, addressed to Philip the Fair, king of France in 1302AD.

To Wit:
…one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power.

Addendum:
I see that this was already brought up by Madaglan in post #35

 

[Holly3278]

Can I vote since I’m a Roman Catholic and not an Eastern Catholic? Just thought I’d ask first to be polite.

 

[mardukm]

Can I vote since I’m a Roman Catholic and not an Eastern Catholic? Just thought I’d ask first to be polite.

Yes, sister. If you have a good knowledge of the relationship between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, please do so.

And your comments would be appreciated as well.

On that note, I hope our Eastern or Oriental Orthodox or ACOE members participate in both the poll and the thread.

Let’s keep it at a discussion level as an exchange of knowledge and ideas, instead of a debate.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Hi Marduk, This is the very first time I have ever read that Ultramontanism was originally a pejorative. I thought differently, and have never used it that way.
This last (#3) is most interesting.

It is a direct formal repudiation of the position of Boniface VIII on the subject as expressed in the bull UNAM SANCTAM, addressed to Philip the Fair, king of France in 1302AD.

To Wit:
…one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power.

Addendum:
I see that this was already brought up by Madaglan in post #35

I hope we can get the benefit of your thoughts on the main topic of this thread. Aside from “just get rid of it” (not that I’m saying you will say that as an EO), do you feel these clarifications can help in understanding?

Can you also offer some ideas on the objections of EO that are not met by these clarifications? As an OO, these clarifications satisfied me in my move to Catholicism (of course, as brother Roman Army has stated, these points are only implicit in the papal dogma, and it was only after over two years of research into the papacy that I came to see the actual truth of the matter). But the OO mentality is different from the EO mentality because the OO generally believe in the unique place of St. Peter among the Apostles. On that basis, you may have a different perspective as an EO that I did not possess as an OO.

I hope you will join the discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk,

Dear brother Michael,

I hope we can get the benefit of your thoughts on the main topic of this thread. Aside from “just get rid of it” (not that I’m saying you will say that as an EO), do you feel these clarifications can help in understanding?

Blessings,
Marduk

I only just now came across this thread (well, a couple of hours ago ).

I may have comments later, I have not studied the proposal with any degree of thoroughness.

I do have some initial concerns over the term ‘clarification’. It almost sounds like a buzzword for ‘develop’, ‘evolve’, or ‘modify’. I am sure that is not what you mean.

I think a straightforward explanation of the belief is all that is necessary, we can take it from there. However, I must add that it is your church and people who must decide whether or not a dogma or set of beliefs has been properly explained to us. You might judge by our reactions that we just don’t “get it”, on the other hand we might really “get it” and still not agree that it is true.

I am sorry if this is not helpful to the discussion.

Your friend,

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Hi Marduk, This is the very first time I have ever read that Ultramontanism was originally a pejorative. I thought differently, and have never used it that way.

As an interesting historical aside, the term was ironically used by the Italians derogatorily of the non-Italian Pope during the Avignon schism. After that period, it fell into disuse for several hundred years. It was taken up again during the Reformation by imperial Protestants to refer derogatorily to Catholics who were considered a foreign power. Before the Council, it was used by the Gallicans derogatorily of the papal extremists in Italy. By the time of the Council, it was a standard way of distinguishing between Gallican excesses and the moderate papal theology of Vatican 1. In all cases, the term literally meant “over the mountains.”

I do have some initial concerns over the term ‘clarification’. It almost sounds like a buzzword for ‘develop’, ‘evolve’, or ‘modify’. I am sure that is not what you mean.

It does seem that way off hand. As noted to brother Aramism, the clarification would involve a direct reference to the acts and discussions of the Vatican Council “behind the scenes” to evince the case. Is it really a “development” or a “modification” if one appeals to the actual intentions of the Vatican Fathers from their own words?

I think a straightforward explanation of the belief is all that is necessary, we can take it from there.

I am assuming that the straightforward explanation would be the clarification (since the current text does not appear to be straightforward enough, given all the debates and misunderstandings that arise over it). I’ll leave it to you to determine if it is straightforward enough. I suspect that down the road in our discussion, it might necessitate a contextual presentation of what concerns from the Orthodox these clarifications are supposed to assuage. I am hoping it is evident (if one is an Orthodox, or at least someone who has been privy to many debates about the matter).

However, I must add that it is your church and people who must decide whether or not a dogma or set of beliefs has been properly explained to us.

The Catholic Church is willing, if the offer of our Popes to openly discuss the papacy in light of the standards of the First millenium is any indication. And preliminary indications from Ravenna are hopeful that the EO are willing to discuss the matter in a spirit of understanding and brotherhood, as well.

But I don’t want to be misunderstood. The papal dogmas, from my perspective, are clear enough FOR ME. But that is only because I took the time for over two years to intensively research the matter (my journey to the CC took over three years, if the time it took me to resolve the matter on the papacy is any indication that this was one of the hardest points of belief for me to resolve). After several years of debate on the matter with non-Catholics, I might just be getting lazy, but I think the Church should take some of the load off her apologists and make these official clarifications.

You might judge by our reactions that we just don’t “get it”, on the other hand we might really “get it” and still not agree that it is true.

Let’s cross that bridge when we get to it.

I am sorry if this is not helpful to the discussion.

All your (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated. I hope after some ponderings from your end, you will give us the benefit of your conclusions.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,
[snip]
Thank you, brother. You have increased my knowledge. This is something I never thought of. Part of me wants to pay them no mind, but that would not be a Christian attitude. It appears that before we can engage our Orthodox brethren, we need to clean up house. Part of me actually thinks that the papalist attitude will work in our favor in this instance, for if they truly believe the Pope is the be-all and end-all of Church teaching, the Pope’s official support of such clarifications should be enough to change their minds on the matter.

However, can we really expect to do away with these intransigent atitudes completely - on both sides of the fence?

Blessings

The problem is that a lot who hod such attitudes would claim any pope abrogating their view has forfeit the papacy. In fact, some already claim such; they are called sedevaticanists.

 

[malphono]

I wasn’t aware that before modern times, that any eastern church was ever governed by the Latin Patriarch’s curia officials. The Oriental Congregation has no business existing and is an affront to the dignity of Eastern Churches as self governing bodies. If Rome had attempted such a thing in the first thousand years of the Church, then that alone would have caused the east-west schisms (and to be honest, its not that far from what Rome was attempting when the actual schism between the Byzantines and the Latins did occur). Even if the oriental congregation composed of just oriental clergy, it would still be an affront. The highest authorities in my church are the Patriarch and his synod, not a roman bureaucracy.

Yes, quite so. The “Oriental Congregation” is, IMO, about as patronizing a thing as could be imagined. I agree, it should not exist, and I say that irrespective of whether the Prefect (or pro-prefect) is an Oriental or an Easterner.

About the only thing that Congregation has come up with that is of any value is the “Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches” and even that is not universally heeded. Beyond that, what does it do other than baby-sit us rambunctious little children?

To the topic on hand though, any clarification of Papal infallibility would have to be done in the context of an Ecumenical Council with participation of the Orthodox Churches (both oriental and eastern), Otherwise it would not be effective and would most likely cause as much harm as the original declaration of infallibility to begin with.

Again, I have but to agree. And of course it brings us back to the “Petrine Views” that was discussed at length a while back in another thread. The OO and the RC might come to accept the restoration of the “High Petrine View” but it’s doubtful that the EO (particularly MP) would even consider it.