Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hooray! GKC did it! He commented on a thread not pertaining to Anglicans!

Uh oh, he’s busting out the canon law books. I’m outa here!

Could you discuss that a little, with reference to the Code of Canon Law, Book III, Canons 749-753.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hooray! GKC did it! He commented on a thread not pertaining to Anglicans!

Uh oh, he’s busting out the canon law books. I’m outa here!

Remember that thread, back about 2 months ago, on Exsurge Domine?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Baby steps, baby steps…Exsurge Domine was a history-related Reformation-type topic that is up your alley. This is modern. You’re scaring me now!

Remember that thread, back about 2 months ago, on Exsurge Domine?

GKC

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

So essentially there is NEVER a time when a pope can be wrong. When a pope is not speaking ex cathedra his opinions are binding upon my intellect and will. So he can make a statement that is bogus and I have to buy into it if this is the case.

You don’t seem to understand the concept of Magisterium. As I noted to sister Anna, I think you are confusing “Magisterium” with the notion of authority. The “Magisterium” does not refer to everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth, even when he is teaching. You don’t expect us to seriously believe that if the Pope stated, “Roger Federer is going to win Wimbledon next year,” that he is speaking infallible truth, do you? Do you seriously think that such statements are an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (never mind the extraordinary Magisterium). From your comments, it seems that is what you believe. No Catholic believes that – if you believe that, I guess that is why you are not Catholic?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother GKC,

Could you discuss that a little, with reference to the Code of Canon Law, Book III, Canons 749-753.

I’m not exactly sure what to discuss. From my understanding, my statements were just a concise summary of what the Canons teach. If you understand my statements otherwise, can you show where I may have misinterpreted the canons? We can proceed from there.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I could care less about Federer. Make Benedict pronounce my San Francisco Giants victorious today against the Padres so we can clinch a playoff birth and I’ll give him my will, intellect, brains, and cash! Go Giants!

That aside, you, respectfully, have not given me any good examples or laid-out well the case for the ordinary magisterium’s infallibility. You haven’t made the case to me as to how we know when we can disregard his statements and when we cannot.

And I have no confusion between teaching office and authority; you are inventing my confusion on that one. But that’s ok…

You seem to be saying, “the pope is infallible in the ordinary magisterial role and his private opinions and statements, as per LG, are infallible except when you as the individual deem them to not be infallible like Roger Federer predictions.” So his ordinary teaching is infallible and I must submit my brains to it except when I intellectually deem it not pertinent. We can throw in Wimbilton jokes but essentially I don’t see how things are spelled out as to what I must assent and not assent to…

Like I said, put in a good word with the Holy Father today for my Giants if he does have this kind of power. The Giants could use the Chair!

Dear brother Gurney,

You don’t seem to understand the concept of Magisterium. As I noted to sister Anna, I think you are confusing “Magisterium” with the notion of authority. The “Magisterium” does not refer to everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth, even when he is teaching. You don’t expect us to seriously believe that if the Pope stated, “Roger Federer is going to win Wimbledon next year,” that he is speaking infallible truth, do you? Do you seriously think that such statements are an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (never mind the extraordinary Magisterium). From your comments, it seems that is what you believe. No Catholic believes that – if you believe that, I guess that is why you are not Catholic?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear sister Anna,

It seems your concern then is “I would be expected to submit to teachings that may turn out to be wrong.” Your concern is 1) how to identify the Truth, and 2) how to identify whether that Truth is necessary for salvation. Is that correct?

Before continuing, I need to ask whether you understand

• the difference between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.
• that the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium are both infallible.

Blessings

The Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Universal Magisterium are infallible.
The Ordinary (not universal) Magisterium is not infallible.

Per the Code of Canon Law, I think you are correct. But I also think assent to the Ordinary Magisterium is also required.

GKC

It would seem so.

Not exactly. I think you are confusing “Magisterium” with “authority” in general. The “Magisterium” specifically refers to teaching authority (specifically, the teaching authority of God).

The ordinary Magisterium is objectively infallible. We recognize it as such when it is universal.

A bishop who teaches his own opinion that is contrary to Sacred Tradition is not exercising the ordinary Magisterium.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is an interesting article by John Young (lay theologian from Australia,) entitled, “THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM.” Link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

Young says (Emphasis is mine throughout):

Clarifying terms

Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise,** the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible**. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.

Does Young have it right?

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That was always my understanding…

It would seem so.

There is an interesting article by John Young (lay theologian from Australia,) entitled, “THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM.” Link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

Young says (Emphasis is mine throughout):

Clarifying terms

Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise,** the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible**. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.

Does Young have it right?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

That was always my understanding…

Thanks gurney.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It seems like some here are saying that the Ordinary magisterium, the pope’s opinions about things like women priests, sexuality, scientific ethics, etc. are infallible but we use our intellect to somehow know when what he’s teaching isn’t pertinent or just private opinion and we can diregard it? The pope’s private opinions are not infallible but how do we know when they are official or not? The Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. That’s a no-brainer. But the ordinary is more subject to interpretation and yet one must sign one’s will and intellect over to the braintrust in that regard. I find that unsettling as you do, Anna.

Magisterial language is so maliable. You can bend and mold it to fit anything? If you want to proclaim a pope’s opinion infallible, there’s always a way to spin it as such. And when a pope says something wacky, you can spin it as just private opinion not binding on the intellect of anyone?

I think it’s revealing watching how many Catholics on CAF think some things are infallible, others do not. There isn’t the unity they claim of one mind in these areas. I’ve observed that.

Thanks gurney.

 

[GKC]

Deleted: duplicate.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Baby steps, baby steps…Exsurge Domine was a history-related Reformation-type topic that is up your alley. This is modern. You’re scaring me now!

But the issue was partially the same: the teaching authority of the Church.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It would seem so.

There is an interesting article by John Young (lay theologian from Australia,) entitled, “THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM.” Link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

Young says (Emphasis is mine throughout):

Clarifying terms

Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise,** the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible**. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.

Does Young have it right?

Anna

As Gurney says, that is my understanding also. But assent is still required.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

Gurney, I think you are asking the wrong question here. If you want to find dirt (wrongdoing) on the part of the popes, history is replete with examples.

Papal infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. Popes, beginning with Peter in the NT made fallible decisions.

Yes, there have been holy popes especially in this last century. There are holy teachings, strong moral stances, theological guidance, etc. However, I think there are just as many examples of “fallible decisions” that can be offset against them. In fact, it is the human propensity toward fallible decisions that puts us all in a position to need the gift of infallibility.

 

[Anna_Scott]

As Gurney says, that is my understanding also. But assent is still required.

GKC

Thanks GKC. I understand assent is still required. In fact, “assent” or “submission” is really the issue for me, no matter how you define fallible or infallible teachings.

Anna

 

[mardukm]

There is an interesting article by John Young (lay theologian from Australia,) entitled, “THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM.” Link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html

Young says (Emphasis is mine throughout):

Clarifying terms

Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise,** the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible**. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.

Does Young have it right?

I would agree with Young, with a qualification. “Magisterium” is commonly understood as “teaching authority.” But it has two underlying and distinct connotations:

1. An objective character of God as the Source of Truth.
2. The tactile representation of God’s teaching authority on earth (the college of bishops).

Theologians normally utilize “Magisterium” according to the first sense - in that sense, it is not merely “teaching authority,” but “divine teaching authority.” Apologists and laymen normally utilize “Magisterium” according to the second sense - in this sense, merely “teaching authority” would be the appropriate definition.

I suspect Young is utilizing “Magisterium” in the second sense. I am utilizing it in the first sense - hence my statement that the Magisterium is always infallible.

Whichever sense “Magisterium” is used, it should never refer to mere opinions of bishops or the Pope, even when they are teaching, and even when they are referring to faith or morals.

For example, a bishop proposes a teaching to his local Church. Later, it is determined that he was teaching heresy. Was the bishop exercising the Magisterium - divine teaching authority - when he was proposing the error even before it was defined? No, he wasn’t.

When LG uses the term “Magisterium,” I am pretty sure it is using it in the theological sense as divine teaching authority, not merely in a canonical sense of “the authority to teach.”

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Guanophore,

Two things:

a) I am not out to dig up “dirt” on popes. I wouldn’t be as close to reverting to Catholicism or be reading and praying about these things to the level I am right now if I just wanted to trash some popes

b) I am well aware of infallibility vs. impeccability; I have talked about them ad nauseum on CAF for years. Surely you’ve noticed.

I’m looking at Lumen Gentium 25:
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

In CAF and everywhere else it is frequently pointed out that we don’t have to adhere to or submit intellectually to the popes outside of Ex Cathedra pronouncements. How often do we hear “but that’s not an infallible statement by the Holy Father, you’re free to believe as you want about that________” in here? LG seems to contradict that.

Please don’t make assumptions about motivations by posters. I’m not a trasher here. Like Anna, I just want to make sense of this. Defend it. Explain it. Just don’t label posters as trashers just for asking questions. God bless.

Gurney, I think you are asking the wrong question here. If you want to find dirt (wrongdoing) on the part of the popes, history is replete with examples.

Papal infallibility has nothing to do with impeccability. Popes, beginning with Peter in the NT made fallible decisions.

Yes, there have been holy popes especially in this last century. There are holy teachings, strong moral stances, theological guidance, etc. However, I think there are just as many examples of “fallible decisions” that can be offset against them. In fact, it is the human propensity toward fallible decisions that puts us all in a position to need the gift of infallibility.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For usually being pin-point direct, explicit, law-based, and leaving little to the imagination, it’s too bad you have to be “pretty sure” here instead of the Church spelling it out better for you. It’s not clear.

Also, it’s amazing how we don’t see such deep legalistic lingo in the Early Church or through the first millenium. All these splitting hairs and canonical wranglings and fine points argued don’t seem to be the spirit of Christianity, a simple faith. The undivided Church didn’t seem to operate this way. The canons of the great councils sure were simple to read “back in the day.”

Discussing all these different forms of magisterium and operating levels and circumstances where this and that is infallible and when it is not and legalistic analysis, doesn’t seem to be in spirit with the traditional faith. I find it a bummer.

When LG uses the term “Magisterium,” I am pretty sure it is using it in the theological sense as divine teaching authority, not merely in a canonical sense of “the authority to teach.”

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

I’m concerned about this too–the lack of evidence for a “Papal universal jurisdiction” in the early Church. Catholics keep repeating the Scriptures regarding Peter/Rock/Keys; but these Scriptures do not prove the Catholic position of primacy and authority over all of Christendom. The need to discuss this is not intended to offend Catholics in any way. It is a serious issue for any of us considering Catholicism.

Anna

I think the Apostles could not possibly imagine the present fracturing of Christendom. For them, those that opposed or rejected the authority given to them by Christ were schismatics, heretics, or apostates. They conceived of One Faith, One Body, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all - only One Church, with One Head.

Jesus is the only Head of that Church, which is His Body. Therefore, only He holds the authority that he has entrusted to the Apostles for the care of the flock. As scripture states “all authority comes from God”.

What “proof” would you accept for the primacy and authority of Christ in His Body?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s hard for us to imagine what they would not have been able to imagine. We could speculate that all day.

Perhaps they’d have been shocked at a universal papal jurisdiction, infallibility, different magisterial modes, the treasury of merit, purgatory, indulgences, etc. I’m sure they’d have been shocked that the Patriarchate of Rome separated from the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The Vatican II liturgy and modern abuses that go on at Mass probably would shock as well. The death of conciliarism that so strongly marked the first millenium suddenly becoming a system in which the bishops are vassals of the pope in a centralized hierarchy would’ve shocked Cyprian, Fermillian and his cohorts.

This speculation is something that can be viewed in many lights.

In your last paragraph, you’re stating the obvious for Anna, IMO. Protestants and Catholics would agree with that.

I think the Apostles could not possibly imagine the present fracturing of Christendom. For them, those that opposed or rejected the authority given to them by Christ were schismatics, heretics, or apostates. They conceived of One Faith, One Body, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all - only One Church, with One Head.

Jesus is the only Head of that Church, which is His Body. Therefore, only He holds the authority that he has entrusted to the Apostles for the care of the flock. As scripture states “all authority comes from God”.

What “proof” would you accept for the primacy and authority of Christ in His Body?