High Petrine view in the early Church

[steve_b]

The Pope CANNOT act alone. A Church of one is no Church at all.

LG actually identifies some of what the pope does alone.

“he (the pope) alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.”
P:

his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment (43)

The document here is speaking of the definitions, not the process the led to those definition.

True it doesn’t talk about the process

don’t you find it odd, the document doesn’t say directly or clarify in a footnote, that it’s the pope + the body of bishops in union with him that makes all definitions, never the pope alone?.
P:

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

So the consent of the Church as a whole cannot be wanting? Sounds to me like the balance that we are looking for.

footnote (44) says, definitions by the body of bishops, are never wanting WHEN the body of bishops is with the pontiff. Clearly a condition that must be met.

Consider the following

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it …[snip] .(45*)

Q:

Re: either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment

why make that distinction either/or?

either pope, or bishops + pope?

WHY not just say* the body of bishops with the pope *and call it a day instead of saying either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him
R:

Understood in its historical context, the qualifier “without the consent of the Church” was meant to correct the Gallican bishops who wanted to re-vote on the definitions after the Pope had declared the dogma. This was thought to be superfluous because the bishops would have already been consulted and a consensus would’ve already been reached prior to the Pope making any dogmatic and binding declaration. Once more, historical context is everything. Without it we are doomed to misunderstanding dogma and bad theology.

Vat 1 condemned Gallicanism which limited the authority of the Pope in relation to the bishops, and subordinates the rights of the Church to the power of the State, and it condemned Conciliarism also in 1870.

*Conciliarism *

*"formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063). *

*In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.) *
*
P:

Sorry about the “bolds” and the awkward method of response. I still haven’t figured out how to do a multi-quote response.

Have you looked over the tutorials to help?*

 

[johnnykins]

Professor Jay Carney’s short paper on Infallibility is interesting.

washtheocon.org/Pastor%20Aeternus%20in%20Perspective–Vincent%20Gasser%20and%20John%20Henry%20Newman%20on%20Papal%20Infallibility.pdf

Pastor Aeternus in Perspective:
Vincent Gasser and John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility

"As for the definition itself, Gasser begins by discussing the three key descriptors of papal authority as “personal,” “separate,” and “absolute.” While his committee left such incendiary phrasing out of the text for fears of misinterpretation, Gasser goes to some length to explicate an appropriate usage of such terminology. First, language of “personal infallibility” helps to avoid false distinctions people might try to make between the Roman See and its current occupier (GR 41). “Personal” does not refer to the pope’s “private person” or to the pope as a “private teacher,” but rather to the Roman pontiff as a “public person…as head of the Church in its relation to the Church universal” (GR 42). In this role as ecclesial authority, the pope is the “supreme judge in all matters of faith and morals” and father and teacher to all Christians. Crucially, however, the pope only enjoys the divine charism of infallibility ex cathedra, “when he really and actually exercises his duty as supreme judge and universal teacher of the Church” by making a “solemn judgment” about faith and morals for the universal Church (GR 42). 18

"The pope’s infallibility is “separate” in that he enjoys a “special and distinct privilege” not equivalent to the ordinary infallibility of the bishops united with the Roman Pontiff. Gasser contends that such language does not separate the pope from the church, as the pope is only infallible when he is “exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church” (GR 43). 19 Likewise, an infallible statement always implies the “consent of the Church”, even if the pope does not have to obtain this consent either a priori or a posteriori. 20

"As for the final term, “absolute,” Gasser surprises by initially rejecting any easy association of the term with the pope. “In no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived” (GR 45). The Vicar of Christ can, however, claim a more limited “absoluteness” when speaking as universal teacher and supreme judge concerning faith and morals for the whole church. Furthermore, such a charism does not relate to the pope’s “conscience” but rather to a statement on the “public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church.” Gasser does not worry about a pope forcing a false doctrine on the church, for he believes that the same Holy Spirit that inspires infallibility will impede the enunciation of a “false or heretical doctrine” (GR 46).

Anyone who has written or discussed Infallibility in a serious and/or scholarly manner has referenced the Relatio because to not so so is to miss the Deputation’s explanation of what the Deputation meant when it drafted the language. Who better to say what the definition means than the spokesman for those who wrote it?

 

[johnnykins]

don’t you find it odd, the document doesn’t say directly or clarify in a footnote, that it’s the pope + the body of bishops in union with him that makes all definitions, never the pope alone?.

footnote (44) says, definitions by the body of bishops, are never wanting WHEN the body of bishops is with the pontiff. Clearly a condition that must be met.

Consider the following

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it …[snip] .(45*)

Q:

Re: either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment

why make that distinction either/or?

either pope, or bishops + pope?

WHY not just say* the body of bishops with the pope *and call it a day instead of saying either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him

The answer is pretty clear - Bishops can and have fallen into heresy, error and schism. Whole parts of the Church have wandered off into the wilderness, as it were. The Pope is one person. If 1000 of 5000 bishops fall into heresy, the ones with the Pope are still orthodox. The Bishops with the Pope are infallible. The Pope with the consent of the Church that never is absent under such circumstances is infallible. The phrasing simply keys off that difference between a multitude of Bishops and a singular Pope. That’s why. I’d cite the site on the Relatio, but it could have issues. I like the line that the infallibility of the Pope is perhaps better understood as “distinct” rather than “separate.” Otherwise you get into a numbers game - unless you have unanimity which is rarely evidenced in history.

 

[malphono]

Why does this thread give me that feeling of déjà vu? Could it possibly be because this thread has become almost a carbon copy of another (now locked) [thread=580188]thread[/thread]? Now let me see …

 

[steve_b]

Here is the applicable part of the Relatio:
Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous defense of papal infallibility (the Relatio) at the First Vatican Council, discussed the aspects of collegiality and community:

I’ve read the cite before that you reference, and in particular that page.
j:

"We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .

“We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

No body is suggesting the pope operates in a vaccuum. The pope still makes the decision regardless of suitable or non suitable influences.
j:

“Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail… "

that opening statement seems to be a contradiction to footnote (43) Lumen Gentium referencing the Relatio

“his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment (43)”

unless what’s being stressed here, that consent of the Church can’t be laid down as a condition either antecedent / prior to, or consequent / following the result, of a papal decision.

iow an advisory role, not consent and approval role.
j:

"Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is “absolute.” I reply and openly admit:** in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute**, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. *The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions. *

Of course. That’s the old Protestant jab at the papacy. The old whatever he says is infallible nonsense.
j:

Now what follows from the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, as far as these conditions are concerned? He promised Peter the gift of inerrancy in Peter’s relation to the Universal Church: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it …” (Mt. 16:18). “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:13-17). Peter, placed outside this relation to the universal Church, does not enjoy in his successors this charism of truth which comes from that certain promise of Christ.

No one is saying that the pope can wander off into all kinds of subjects outside faith and morals, making infallible pronouncements
j:

Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason “of the subject,” that is when the Pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the “object,” i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the “act” itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful. emphasis added

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise16.html

Absolutely
j:

The body of the Church cannot be separated from the head; nor the head from the body. Lumen Gentium is along the exact same lines as the Relatio.

Here’s some other quotes from the Relatio

“Christ said to Peter: “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once turned, confirm your brothers” (Lk. 22:32). This, therefore, is the relation of the Pontiff to the bishops which is contained in the promise
of Christ. If these words of Christ are to have their necessary force, then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers, that is, the bishops, in order that they be firm in the faith, need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors, and not vice versa…”

to be continued

 

[steve_b]

(cont)

steve b:

quotes from the Relatio + (Gasser muses about various heresies that were condemned at Vat I, i.e. Conciliarism and Gallicanisn)

“Are not the laity, among whom there are very many who are outstanding in knowledge and piety, and, even more, are not the priests who exercise the duty of teaching their parishioners, are not they all members of the Church? Who would doubt it? Therefore, should these also help the Pope by their advice and aid when he makes dogmatic judgments? By no means. And why not? Is it not because they do not belong to the Church teaching? All right, but at the same time it is evident that the analogy about the head and members limps. But now it is asked whether the bishops also - although they are constituted by God as witnesses, teachers and judges of the Christian faith - do not relate to the Pope as disciples to teacher, when he is defining for the whole Church and exercising his duty as universal teacher. Such is the case. For this is what the words of Christ and the words “supreme judge,” “universal doctor,” and “pastor of the whole flock of Christ” signify. So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls…”

“[W]hoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth.”

“For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., “The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church,” and that well-known 4th article which says: “in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it”? In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.”

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Why does this thread give me that feeling of déjà vu? Could it possibly be because this thread has become almost a carbon copy of another (now locked) [thread=580188]thread[/thread]? Now let me see …

Probably because nearly every single thread involving papal infallibility becomes a carbon copy of its predecessors. I’m done here. Y’all are welcoming to continue discussing. But for my part, I find I just keep repeating myself. And, frankly, that has gotten old rather quickly. I knew there was a reason I don’t normally get involved in threads like this.

 

[jmj1984]

Good points all. Go ahead and purchase this book by Jim O’Connor from BC. Then report on back as to just how bad the “random” site is. Here from the page on Google

books.google.com/books/about/The_Gift_of_Infallibility.html?id=4ClPRR0HrHEC

The Gift of Infallibility:
The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I (Google eBook)
James T. O’Connor
0 Reviews
Ignatius Press, 2008 - Religion - 158 pages
Infallability is a deeply misunderstood idea, within as well as outside the Catholic Church. It remains a subject of great theological debate, especially regarding papal infallibility and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. In The Gift of Infallibility, theologian James T. O’Connor clarifies the idea of infallibility. He provides a helpful translation of the “relatio” or official explanation by Bishop Gasser given at Vatican I, the Church council that defined the dogma of papal infallibility. Also included in this important volume is the first draft of chapter 4 of the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus, as well as the final, official chapter of the constitution. The volume concludes with a recently updated theological summary on the topic of infallibility by Father O’Connor. The Gift of Infallibility is immensely important for theologians and others who wish to understand the way by which the Holy Spirit safeguards the Church from error.

A book by ignatius press hardly carries the same weight as Denzinger, Denzinger is a respected academic text the book published by the ignatius press is not and certainly would not be a heavyweight like Denzinger. Besides which I find it hard to believe that such an important document would not be in the public domain, seeing as all the acts of the councils and hundreds of papal encyclicals to say nothing of many of the fathers are.

The website by the way states ‘*©2003, Appendix D was edited by I. Shawn McElhinney. It is a compilation of texts from a speech presented by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council. (On how the proposed dogma of papal infallibility was to be properly understood.) *’ A speech provided by a bishop to the fathers is not ‘protected’ by the charism of infallibility, I’m sure we can all agree on this. What is more perplexing however is whether it is even part of the magisterium It is largely unknown, not a papal pronouncement nor is it a pronouncement of the council and it cannot claim to have been repeated by numerous bishops. It is unclear therefore whether it would even belong to the ordinary magisterium.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

A book by ignatius press hardly carries the same weight as Denzinger, Denzinger is a respected academic text the book published by the ignatius press is not and certainly would not be a heavyweight like Denzinger. Besides which I find it hard to believe that such an important document would not be in the public domain, seeing as all the acts of the councils and hundreds of papal encyclicals to say nothing of many of the fathers are.

The website by the way states ‘*©2003, Appendix D was edited by I. Shawn McElhinney. It is a compilation of texts from a speech presented by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council. (On how the proposed dogma of papal infallibility was to be properly understood.) *’ A speech provided by a bishop to the fathers is not ‘protected’ by the charism of infallibility, I’m sure we can all agree on this. What is more perplexing however is whether it is even part of the magisterium It is largely unknown, not a papal pronouncement nor is it a pronouncement of the council and it cannot claim to have been repeated by numerous bishops. It is unclear therefore whether it would even belong to the ordinary magisterium.

I will say this again (for the third time), the book from Ignatius Press is the ONLY place you will find a COMPLETE translation of Bishop Gasser’s Relatio. In fact, the Relatio constitutes the majority of the book. The rest of the book contains earlier drafts of Pastor Aeternus, and a brief commentary on Gasser’s Relatio. It is, indeed, an academic/scholarly book, especially since it, again, contains the only complete translation of the Relatio. The fact that it was not translated into English for ca. 200 years says nothing about whether or not it is an important document. History itself dictates that it is, and unless/until you are willing to admit this fact, then this discussion is pointless.

Indeed, the speech itself may not have been “protected by the charism of infallibility,” but (again I repeat myself) Bishop Gasser was asked to give this particular speech on behalf of the Commission that drafted Pastor Aeternus. It constituted the official understanding of Pastor Aeternus according to the Commission which drafted the document. As such it constitutes the understanding of Pastor Aeternus that was officially voted on. So it may not be a public pronouncement of the Council, but it is most certainly how the Council Fathers understood Pastor Aeternus. It is, therefore, the correct understanding of that document, and particularly of Papal infallibility.

 

[steve_b]

I will say this again (for the third time), the book from Ignatius Press is the ONLY place you will find a COMPLETE translation of Bishop Gasser’s Relatio. In fact, the Relatio constitutes the majority of the book. The rest of the book contains earlier drafts of Pastor Aeternus, and a brief commentary on Gasser’s Relatio. It is, indeed, an academic/scholarly book, especially since it, again, contains the only complete translation of the Relatio. The fact that it was not translated into English for ca. 200 years says nothing about whether or not it is an important document. History itself dictates that it is, and unless/until you are willing to admit this fact, then this discussion is pointless.

Indeed, the speech itself may not have been “protected by the charism of infallibility,” but (again I repeat myself) Bishop Gasser was asked to give this particular speech on behalf of the Commission that drafted Pastor Aeternus. It constituted the official understanding of Pastor Aeternus according to the Commission which drafted the document. As such it constitutes the understanding of Pastor Aeternus that was officially voted on. So it may not be a public pronouncement of the Council, but it is most certainly how the Council Fathers understood Pastor Aeternus. It is, therefore, the correct understanding of that document, and particularly of Papal infallibility.

Pastor Aeternus complete text ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

 

[steve_b]

The answer is pretty clear - Bishops can and have fallen into heresy, error and schism. Whole parts of the Church have wandered off into the wilderness, as it were. The Pope is one person. If 1000 of 5000 bishops fall into heresy, the ones with the Pope are still orthodox. The Bishops with the Pope are infallible. The Pope with the consent of the Church that never is absent under such circumstances is infallible. The phrasing simply keys off that difference between a multitude of Bishops and a singular Pope. That’s why. I’d cite the site on the Relatio, but it could have issues. I like the line that the infallibility of the Pope is perhaps better understood as “distinct” rather than “separate.” Otherwise you get into a numbers game - unless you have unanimity which is rarely evidenced in history.

I’m not sensing that answers the point, and the distinction, of the following either/or
either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment (45)

especially in context of this footnote
“his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment (43)”

do you see what I mean?

 

[mardukm]

I’m not sensing that answers the point, and the distinction, of the following either/or
either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment (45)

Already explained. The distinction here is merely between the ordinary Magisterium and the EXTRAordinary Magisterium.

When it says, “the Roman Pontiff or the Body of bishops together with him,” it is only referring to the FORMAL exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium either personally by the Pope or collegially by an Ecumenical Council. When it is referring to the Roman Pontiff singularly, it is only referring to his personal exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. He alone is exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisteirum in the circumstance described in the V1 dogma, but that does not mean that he alone is exercising infallibility period. The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium and the infallibility of the sensus fidelium are also ever-present. But there is only one infallibility, utilized in different ways by different organs of the Church. When the Pope is exercising infallibility in an EXTRAordinary manner to define Truth as asserted by the V1 dogma, he has absolutely no authority to contradict the Truth that is preached by the ORDINARY Magisterium, or contained in the sensus fidelium. Thus, before he can even define a doctrine, he must first determine and himself submit to the consensus of infallible Truth preached by the orthodox bishops and contained in the sensus fidelium.

especially in context of this footnote
“his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment (43)”

Sorry. Where does it say that the definition is justly styled irreformible, “because the Pope said so?” It says that the definition is irreformible because of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not because “the Pope said so.” In any case, as the statement indicates, the definition has ALREADY been made - the aid/consensus of the Church already came to pass. All this is saying, as others have stated, is that no one can gainsay the definition after it has been given, as was the position of the Gallicans.

do you see what I mean?

No. We don’t see where you are getting your Absolutist Petrine ideas.

Too bad I am on your ignore list. Maybe you might learn something.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Why does this thread give me that feeling of déjà vu? Could it possibly be because this thread has become almost a carbon copy of another (now locked) [thread=580188]thread[/thread]? Now let me see …

Indeed, brother. But I imagine there are many people who lurk that tend to read only current threads. So we can’t miss the opportunity to refute the Absolutist Petrine errors when given the chance, or else some unwary soul might be misled.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No body is suggesting the pope operates in a vaccuum.

All your arguments suggest the opposite - “Pope acts alone” position?

The pope still makes the decision regardless of suitable or non suitable influences.

Yes, the Pope makes the decisiion, but you’d better think twice before believing that he can disregard the “SUITABLE influences.” This latter is that very portion of the Church that infallibly preaches and preserves the Truth. The Pope has absolutely no authority to contradict that “influence.”

that opening statement seems to be a contradiction to footnote (43) Lumen Gentium referencing the Relatio

“his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment (43)”

unless what’s being stressed here, that consent of the Church can’t be laid down as a condition either antecedent / prior to, or consequent / following the result, of a papal decision.

There’s no contradiction. The statement is NOT an indication that the Pope is acting ALONE when exercising the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium. All it is saying is that he is the
only one who is exercising the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium. Do you see the difference?

The first statement prohibits the involvement of anyone else on the heterodox assumption that ONLY the Pope possesses infallibility.

The second statement understands that there is only ONE infallibility - the infallibility of God - that can be exercised in two ways, in an ordinary manner and an EXTRAordinary manner. The only thing asserted by the V1 dogma is that the Pope is the only one who is exercising infallibility in the EXTRAordinary manner during the rare and specific occasion defined by V1. But there is also the ORDINARY manner of exercising infallibility, and this is ALWAYS exercised by all the orthodox bishops, even while the Pope is exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. The infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope can no more be separated from the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium exercised by all orthodox bishops (nor from the infallibility of the sensus fidelium) - because there is only ONE infallibility - than the head can be separated from the body. Unfortunately, this is the very thing that Absolutist Petrine advocates constantly do - separate the head from the body.

It is consistent to say that the consensus of the present preaching of the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope, on the one hand, and to say that consent is not necessary either antecedently or consequently, on the other. The first statement refers to the necessary role of the Church and her orthodox bishops as WITNESSES to the Faith (the exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium), while the second statement is simply saying that no one else has the role of JUDGE (the exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium) during the rare and unique circumstance defined by V1.

Absolutist Petrine advocates imagine contradiction where there is none, which merely demonstrates the irrationality of their position.

iow an advisory role, not consent and approval role.

The Pope has absolutely no authority to contradict the orthodox preaching of the ordinary Magisterium. So while the existing orthodox bishops may not be exercising the EXTRAordinary Magisterium as judges, their role is much more than advisory.

Of course. That’s the old Protestant jab at the papacy. The old whatever he says is infallible nonsense.

You have yourself claimed in a past debate that the Pope is not confined to responding to the need of the Church when exercising his Petrine resonsibility. You even said that the definition of V1 cannot restrict the Pope’s exercise of his prerogatives. So you’ll forgive me for seeing your statement here as nothing more than empty sophism.

No one is saying that the pope can wander off into all kinds of subjects outside faith and morals, making infallible pronouncements.

I don’t think anyone is claiming you Absolutist Petrine advocates are saying that. What we are objecting to is your consistent attempts to separate the head from the body.

Here’s some other quotes from the Relatio

“Christ said to Peter: “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once turned, confirm your brothers” (Lk. 22:32). This, therefore, is the relation of the Pontiff to the bishops which is contained in the promise
of Christ. If these words of Christ are to have their necessary force, then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers, that is, the bishops, in order that they be firm in the faith, need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors, and not vice versa…”

And your point is? This is not saying that the Pope does not need the aid of the Church, nor that the Pope can be separated from the Church in the exercise of the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium. All it is saying is that in the specific and rare circumstance defined by V1, it is the Church that is approaching the Pope for help, not the other way around. This does not mean that the Church has nothing to offer the Pope, nor that the Pope does not at any point need the aid of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

A book by ignatius press hardly carries the same weight as Denzinger. Denzinger is a respected academic text the book published by the ignatius press is not and certainly would not be a heavyweight like Denzinger.

We’re not talking about the book by Ignatius press. We’re talking about the Official Relatio itself.

Besides which I find it hard to believe that such an important document would not be in the public domain, seeing as all the acts of the councils and hundreds of papal encyclicals to say nothing of many of the fathers are.

You are absolutely wrong here. The Official Relatio is contained in Mansi, which contains the texts of all the Councils. The collection commoly referred to as Mansi was begun by an Archbishop in the 18th century. It was later annotated to include Vatican 1. In terms of completeness, it has about 15 volumes (IIRC). How many volumes does Denzinger have?

A speech provided by a bishop to the fathers is not ‘protected’ by the charism of infallibility, I’m sure we can all agree on this.

No, we can’t. If the speech reflects the constant teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, it is.

What is more perplexing however is whether it is even part of the magisterium It is largely unknown

How parochial of you to say this. How do you know it is largely unknown? It certainly was not so to the Fathers of Vatican 2.

not a papal pronouncement nor is it a pronouncement of the council and it cannot claim to have been repeated by numerous bishops.

I know that John Henry Newman did. I know that the Archbishop of Baltimore did when he returned to his flock from V1. I know that the entire German episcopate did after V1. I know that the entire Swiss episcopate did after V1. I know that V2 did.

It is unclear therefore whether it would even belong to the ordinary magisterium.

If you compare the statements and ideas of the Official Relatio with that of the teaching of Sacred Tradition, then you can be sure it is part of the ordinary Magisterium. The Absolutist Petrine view has no support from Sacred Tradition, so it is understandable that its advocates would look down on the relevance of the Official Relatio. The Absolutist Petrine misinterpretation of V1 has much less of a claim to being part of the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium than the understanding proposed by the Official Relatio.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

We’re not talking about the book by Ignatius press. We’re talking about the Official Relatio itself.

A text available only in a book that is not an academic book or even a particularly noteworthy reference book and is likewise left out by the standard theological reference book used by the Vatican.

You are absolutely wrong here. The Official Relatio is contained in Mansi, which contains the texts of all the Councils. The collection commoly referred to as Mansi was begun by an Archbishop in the 18th century. It was later annotated to include Vatican 1. In terms of completeness, it has about 15 volumes (IIRC). How many volumes does Denzinger have?

Denzinger is the standard referencing system used by most theologians including the Vatican. Its number of volumes or otherwise is not therefore relevant.

No, we can’t. If the speech reflects the constant teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, it is.

How parochial of you to say this. How do you know it is largely unknown? It certainly was not so to the Fathers of Vatican 2.

I know that John Henry Newman did. I know that the Archbishop of Baltimore did when he returned to his flock from V1. I know that the entire German episcopate did after V1. I know that the entire Swiss episcopate did after V1. I know that V2 did.

If you compare the statements and ideas of the Official Relatio with that of the teaching of Sacred Tradition, then you can be sure it is part of the ordinary Magisterium. The Absolutist Petrine view has no support from Sacred Tradition, so it is understandable that its advocates would look down on the relevance of the Official Relatio. The Absolutist Petrine misinterpretation of V1 has much less of a claim to being part of the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium than the understanding proposed by the Official Relatio.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ultimately when you say ‘the ordinary teaching of…’ you are relying on your interpretation of that ordinary teaching. The very website that was given to me as a link states ‘the unknown Vatican 1 relatio’ completely aside from the fact that it appears to have been left out in sources where one might expect to find it. The text in and of itself is unlikely even to belong to the ordinary magisterium, as for Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman, I have read some of his works and seeing as he doesnt seem to mention the relatio or adopt your point of view he either doesnt know about it or believes it says something else.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jmj,

A text available only in a book that is not an academic book or even a particularly noteworthy reference book and is likewise left out by the standard theological reference book used by the Vatican.

Vatican sources also use Mansi - which DOES contain the Official Relatio - so, again, you are incorrect.

Denzinger is the standard referencing system used by most theologians including the Vatican. Its number of volumes or otherwise is not therefore relevant.

If one wants to study the Councils before Vatican 2, the primary reference is not Denzinger, but Mansi.

The number of volumes is important, as noted by brother Philip, because it is an indication of the intended exhaustiveness of the work. If it is not large, it is not exhaustive, and thus cannot be relied on to reflect the COMPLETE teaching of the Church. Denzinger is probably useful for referencing REGULARLY sought documents, or perhaps those of interest to LATIN Catholics, but beyond that, it loses its usefulness and thus relevance.

Btw, I was mistaken in assigning to Mansi only 15 volumes. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Mansi’s standard work on the Councils comprises 31 volumes. Now THAT’s a reference work.

Ultimately when you say ‘the ordinary teaching of…’ you are relying on your interpretation of that ordinary teaching.

No, I am relying on the Official Relatio, which was produced by the Committee of theologian bishops responsible for formulating the papal dogmas of V1. The explicit words of the Official Relatio are a much more trustworthy source to interepret the Decrees of V1, rather than your mere argument from silence.

The very website that was given to me as a link states ‘the unknown Vatican 1 relatio’

It was not unknown to the Fathers of Vatican 2, so what do you pretend your quote proves? At best, your quote refers to the ignorance many laity, such as yourself, have about the Official Relatio and the teachings contained therein. That does not mean it is not the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

completely aside from the fact that it appears to have been left out in sources where one might expect to find it.

According to whom, you? A diligent student of ecclesiology or the Councils would know where to look - Mansi. He wouldn’t look to Denzinger.

The text in and of itself is unlikely even to belong to the ordinary magisterium,

That it was produced by the theologian bishops at V1 responsible for formulating the V1 papal dogmas, that it was quoted by the Second Vatican Council which enshrined collegiality as the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, is a MUCH greater indication that it DOES belong to the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, than your own invalid argument from silence to try to demonstrate that it does not.

as for Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman, I have read some of his works

Reading SOME of his works does not give you any qualifications to judge his ecclesiological perspective.

and seeing as he doesnt seem to mention the relatio

Yes, you are not sure, because you have not read enough of his works.

or adopt your point of view, he either doesnt know about it or believes it says something else.

There is a very erudite and avid British student of Bl. John Henry Newman in these Forums named AmbroseSJ. Please contact him so he may correct your POV.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnnykins]

that opening statement seems to be a contradiction to footnote (43) Lumen Gentium referencing the Relatio

“his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment (43)”

unless what’s being stressed here, that consent of the Church can’t be laid down as a condition either antecedent / prior to, or consequent /following the result, of a papal decision.

iow an advisory role, not consent and approval role.

The Relatio also seems to be at odds with the very definition proposed by Gasser and the Deputation that was explained by the Relatio to the Council Fathers (hence the need to explanation by Gasser!):

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

The fact is the Relatio is not at odds with either Pastor Aeternus or Lumen Gentium. He, the Pope, is not acting separate from the Church, but as an integral part of the Church - hence the consent of the Church is not missing, and it is in fact an integral part of the the Pope’s actions. Yet it is not the Consent which makes it infallible, but the very assistance of God Almighty. There is a nuance here that you are missing. The Pope and the Church are not separated as you would have us interpret Pastor Aeternus. The infallibility is “that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine” yet the charism comes from God not the Church. That is, the Consent of the Church is there, the source of infallibility is, however, God. Hence, votes, minority and majority positions, etc., are not an issue.

 

[jmj1984]

Dear brother jmj,

Vatican sources also use Mansi - which DOES contain the Official Relatio - so, again, you are incorrect.

If one wants to study the Councils before Vatican 2, the primary reference is not Denzinger, but Mansi.

The number of volumes is important, as noted by brother Philip, because it is an indication of the intended exhaustiveness of the work. If it is not large, it is not exhaustive, and thus cannot be relied on to reflect the COMPLETE teaching of the Church. Denzinger is probably useful for referencing REGULARLY sought documents, or perhaps those of interest to LATIN Catholics, but beyond that, it loses its usefulness and thus relevance.

If one wants to study the sources of Catholic Dogma, the standard reference is denzinger. The number of theologians that reference it and the number of Vatican documents that use it are in the hundreds. Its authority isnt up for question for anyone who has proper orthodox theological training.

Mansi and Denzinger aim to do two different things, Mansi collects all the documents relevant to councils, I presume all the speeches made and so forth, without making any claim on their authority or otherwise. Denzinger on the other hand collects the most important sources of Catholic dogma and thereby makes a claim that it contains all the important sources of catholic dogma. Setting Mansi against Denzinger is therefore entirely pointless as they do two entirely different things.

No, I am relying on the Official Relatio, which was produced by the Committee of theologian bishops responsible for formulating the papal dogmas of V1. The explicit words of the Official Relatio are a much more trustworthy source to interepret the Decrees of V1, rather than your mere argument from silence.

As this thread and others have proved there is no agreement on what the relatio actually states, so it is not ultimately a trump card.

It was not unknown to the Fathers of Vatican 2, so what do you pretend your quote proves? At best, your quote refers to the ignorance many laity, such as yourself, have about the Official Relatio and the teachings contained therein. That does not mean it is not the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

You would first have to show that it reflects the ordinary Magisterium of the church in order to back up your claim, this is not something you have done.

According to whom, you? A diligent student of ecclesiology or the Councils would know where to look - Mansi. He wouldn’t look to Denzinger.

Again setting Mansi against Denzinger is pointless, a diligent student of theology would know better than to do this.

That it was produced by the theologian bishops at V1 responsible for formulating the V1 papal dogmas, that it was quoted by the Second Vatican Council which enshrined collegiality as the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, is a MUCH greater indication that it DOES belong to the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, than your own invalid argument from silence to try to demonstrate that it does not.

I think this was dealt with before, Vatican II itself does not explicitly state things in favour of your position, you reply on your pre-formed opinion in order to interpret what it says as favourable to your position. The quoting of it by Vatican II proves only that the ordinary magisterium approves of those sections as the council understood them, it is not a carte blanche acceptance of everything the document states or the way you are interpreting it.

Reading SOME of his works does not give you any qualifications to judge his ecclesiological perspective.

Perhaps if you could supply a quote from his works to support this claim? That would constitute prima facie evidence whereas at the moment you are merely representing your opinion.

Ultimately this thread is descending into as you said a carbon copy of another thread, I have no interest in being part of that. I merely pointed out that Denzinger ommited it which means that:
1)It is not a source of catholic dogma
2)It is not particularly controversial
3)It is not important

If any of these claims are true it is fatal to your claims regarding the relatio. That is all

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Ultimately this thread is descending into as you said a carbon copy of another thread, I have no interest in being part of that. I merely pointed out that Denzinger ommited it which means that:
1)It is not a source of catholic dogma
2)It is not particularly controversial
3)It is not important

If any of these claims are true it is fatal to your claims regarding the relatio. That is all

Okay, I’m going to leave the rest of your objections to Marduk, but I can’t let this one go. It has been pointed out, time and again, that making an argument from absence is no argument at all. The fact that Denziger ommits any reference to the Relatio says nothing about the Relatio itself. Your three points are pure speculation on your part. I could just as vailidly say, "Denziger ommits the Relatio, which means:

1. He was unfamiliar with it (which shows possible ignorance).
2. It did not support his conception of Papal infallibility.
3. He simply forgot about it when compiling his book.

Now if I were to follow your rhetoric I would have perfectly good grounds to say that Denziger was either ill-informed, or was alined to a theo-political view of the papacy that supported what we have come to call the “Absolutist Petrine” view, and that chose to forward that view even against the dictates of history and good theology. I’m not saying that this is the case, simply pointing out that such speculation is possible.

Finally, as you have pointed out, Denziger is a textbook. Scholars know that in any sort of research - theological, philosophical, historical, etc. - a textbook is only a point of reference and does not substitute for the primary sources. Any argument made from a textbook is automatically debunked by an argument from the sources. Primary sources, in any form of research, always take precedence over secondary and tertiary sources such as textbooks and source books.

If you insist that Denziger is not a textbook, but a source book, then, as I’ve pointed out many times, it is not an exhaustive source book. Any ommission made says nothing about the documents ommitted. It only says that the author himself, usually for the sake of space, felt that it was more important to include certain texts. Compilers of sources have to make these sort ommissions constantly. Some times they make them with great hesitation. But for the sake of space the ommission is made. It says nothing about the authority of the text ommitted.

Again, as has been pointed out several times, the Relatio is a primary source for understanding Pastor Aeternus. It was commissioned by the Committee that drafted all the drafts of Pastor Aeternus. Bishop Gasser was asked to give this address to the Vatican Fathers in order that they might understand exactly what it was they were voting on. It therefore represented the official understanding of Pastor Aeternus voted upon by the Fathers of the Council. History itself dictates that the Relatio is an important, if not the most important, document for understanding Pastor Aeternus. Any denial of this is simply bad history, which, in turn, has led to bad theology and misunderstanding. And if you think that bad history and certain ommissions for the sake of forwarding one’s own position does not go on in the Church, then simply do an honest and open study of the 1054 Schism.