Exclusive: Controversial swiss theologian pleads with pope francis to solve problem of infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
The whole Eastern Orthodox Church and the whole Oriental Orthodox Church were both shut out of Vatican I.
Click to expand...
Do the Orthodox attend Ecumenical Councils since the Schism?

But regarding the OP- there is nothing to really discuss regarding infallibility. It is a pretty foundational doctrine of the Church.
 
zz912 said:
Who could call for one that all the Orthodox Churches would respond to?
Click to expand...
I would think any of the ancient patriarchates, including Rome, as long as the entire Church could fully participate.
 
zz912 said:
I would hazard a guess…

The encyclical Humanae Vitae, which not only forbade as grave sins the pill and all mechanical means of contraception but also the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy, was universally regarded as an incredible challenge. Invoking the infallibility of papal, respectively episcopal teaching, the pope pitted himself against the entire civilised world. This alarmed me as a Catholic theologian. I had by then been professor of theology at the Catholic theological faculty of Tübingen University for eight years. Of course, formal protests and substantive objections were important, but had the time not now come to examine this claim to the infallibility of papal teaching in principle? I was convinced that theology — or, to be more precise, critical fundamental theological research — was called for. In 1970, I put the subject up for discussion in my book Infallible?: An Inquiry. I could not have foreseen at the time that this book and with it the problem of infallibility would crucially affect my personal destiny and would present theology and the church with key challenges. In the 1970s, my life and my work were more than ever intertwined with theology and the church.
Click to expand...
The Pope pitted himself against the whole civilized world? Where’s the problem with that? If the whole civilized world is climbing into a handbasket for a trip someplace warm, I’d hope the Pope would speak up.

So, in other words, if he and the church don’t agree, it must be the church that is wrong, huh (at least in his mind)? That to me seems like nothing more than arrogance.
 
I’m pretty sure Fr. Kung’s beef is with the infallibility of the Church in general, and not limited to the very rare exercises of papal infallibility. Obviously if papal infallibility is out, then so is the infallibility of ecumenical councils (as Vatican I would have to be declared to have been in error). Humanae Vitae has been brought up in this thread. This is a great example. Humanae Vitae was NOT an exercise of papal infallibility…no dogma was defined. Papal infallibility has only been exercised in that sense once since Vatican I - for the dogma of the Assumption (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined shortly before Vatican I’s definition I believe). Humanae Vitae is not itself an infallible document, but in it the Pope, by his supreme authority, definitively clarified what the Ordinary Magisterium (pope and bishops in every time and place) infallibly teaches: contraception is contrary to natural law.
Fr. Kung, unless I am much mistaken, wants to overthrow not only the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium as exercised by councils and popes, but also the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium…
 
twf said:
I’m pretty sure Fr. Kung’s beef is with the infallibility of the Church in general, and not limited to the very rare exercises of papal infallibility. Obviously if papal infallibility is out, then so is the infallibility of ecumenical councils (as Vatican I would have to be declared to have been in error). Humanae Vitae has been brought up in this thread. This is a great example. Humanae Vitae was NOT an exercise of papal infallibility…no dogma was defined. Papal infallibility has only been exercised in that sense once since Vatican I - for the dogma of the Assumption (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined shortly before Vatican I’s definition I believe). Humanae Vitae is not itself an infallible document, but in it the Pope, by his supreme authority, definitively clarified what the Ordinary Magisterium (pope and bishops in every time and place) infallibly teaches: contraception is contrary to natural law.
Fr. Kung, unless I am much mistaken, wants to overthrow not only the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium as exercised by councils and popes, but also the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium…
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that the ordinary magisterium was infallible.
 
Tomdstone said:
I didn’t know that the ordinary magisterium was infallible.
Click to expand...
It can be infallible assuming it meets the criteria as laid out in section 25 of Lumen Gentium. In particular the following:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
Click to expand...
The problem is that some will assert if there are any bishops that dissent on a teaching then there is not “one position as definitively to be held”. Because of the Winnipeg Statement, some argue the Humanae Vitae is not infallible because many bishops disagreed. On the otherhand, because of the long held teaching on the intrinsic sinfulness of contraception, one can argue that since it has been held by popes and the body of bishops as sinful that it has already been infallible defined ages ago and current dissent of bishops have no bearing on teachings that are already infallibly defined.
 
Interesting.
Hans Kung sees Pope Francis as a source of hope for his ultimate vindication on the subject.
 
Tomdstone said:
Were they invited as participants or as observers only?
Click to expand...
Every validly ordinated bishop, by right, may attend an Ecumenical Council.

Likewise, every validly ordained bishop, by right, may vote, as he sees fit, on the documents and decrees presented at the Council
 
Brendan said:
Every validly ordinated bishop, by right, may attend an Ecumenical Council.

Likewise, every validly ordained bishop, by right, may vote, as he sees fit, on the documents and decrees presented at the Council
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that the Eastern Orthodox bishops were allowed to vote at Vatican II. I thought they were invited as observers.
 
Brendan said:
Every validly ordinated bishop, by right, may attend an Ecumenical Council.

Likewise, every validly ordained bishop, by right, may vote, as he sees fit, on the documents and decrees presented at the Council
Click to expand...
I am willing to bet that Orthodox bishops could not have voted at Vatican I. They were considered schismatics.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I am willing to bet that Orthodox bishops could not have voted at Vatican I. They were considered schismatics.
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to agree.

I know they were invited, but I’d be interested in sources for bishops not in communion with Rome being allowed to vote.
 
Usige said:
True, he was simply stripped of his ability to teach theology in pontifical universities for his obstinate opposition to the dogma of infallibility. Let’s see, he has been belly aching about it for 45 years so not really sure why this is an “Exclusive”. Then again the exclusive story went to The Tablet and National Catholic Reporter. They only missed Crux to hit the heterodox trifecta.
Click to expand...
Dear Usige,

Well said!👍

I always stay away from National Catholic Reporter & Crux, I do not like them at all. Sadly, they are linked on CAF almost daily :o Very liberal sites…

I love the way you put it, the heterodox trifecta 😉 Now, I need to avoid The Tablet as well.
Thanks for your post & (name removed by moderator)ut.👍

You are in my prayers, best of wishes during your formation. God bless.

+PAX :highprayer:
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I am willing to bet that Orthodox bishops could not have voted at Vatican I. They were considered schismatics.
Click to expand...
They could have voted if they so chose. But in voting, it would be a recognition that the Council is valid and that it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They would have committed themselves to recognize the results as the decisions of a valid Council.

The decision to not vote was theirs. Their validity as bishops is unquestioned, ergo their right to attend, and their right to vote is unquestioned.

Remember that even after Great Schism, Eastern Orthodox bishops attended, and voted in the Council of Florence.

They were no less schismatic then.
 
Brendan said:
They could have voted if they so chose. But in voting, it would be a recognition that the Council is valid and that it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They would have committed themselves to recognize the results as the decisions of a valid Council.

The decision to not vote was theirs. Their validity as bishops is unquestioned, ergo their right to attend, and their right to vote is unquestioned.

Remember that even after Great Schism, Eastern Orthodox bishops attended, and voted in the Council of Florence.

They were no less schismatic then.
Click to expand...
Were Eastern Orthodox bishops allowed to vote at Vatican II or were they invited as observers?
 
Brendan said:
They could have voted if they so chose. But in voting, it would be a recognition that the Council is valid and that it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They would have committed themselves to recognize the results as the decisions of a valid Council.

The decision to not vote was theirs. Their validity as bishops is unquestioned, ergo their right to attend, and their right to vote is unquestioned.

Remember that even after Great Schism, Eastern Orthodox bishops attended, and voted in the Council of Florence.

They were no less schismatic then.
Click to expand...
Of course, wasn’t part of the purpose of the Council of Florence the reunification of the two churches? So the purpose of allowing them to vote then was that they would no longer be schismatic. Again, I’ve known that they were invited to the council, I’ve never heard anything regarding them supposedly having the option of voting. I reiterate my request
ChaosGamma said:
…I’d be interested in sources for bishops not in communion with Rome being allowed to vote.
Click to expand...
because I am really legitimately curious about this now.
 
ChaosGamma said:
Of course, wasn’t part of the purpose of the Council of Florence the reunification of the two churches? So the purpose of allowing them to vote then was that they would no longer be schismatic. Again, I’ve known that they were invited to the council, I’ve never heard anything regarding them supposedly having the option of voting. I reiterate my request
Click to expand...
They voted.

And once again, there is no such case as a validly ordinated bishop ‘being allowed to vote’. It is their right to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top