M
mardukm
Guest
Denzinger’s is a reference book, and nothing more. It cannot make any judgment regarding the beliefs of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status
Blessings,
Marduk
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Marduk,
You have a way of saying things in such a clear and straighforward manner. I have yet to master this art. I’m with you 100%.
Ignoring the official Relatio is simply bad history. And, when theology and dogma are involved, bad history leads to bad theology and misunderstood dogma.
ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip
S
steve_b
Guest
I would be interested in your thoughts on the following footnotes referencing the Relatio… Particularly note #43 then #'s 44, 45, (all emphasis to the doc is mine)
Gasser’s (Relatio) had 4 references in VII (they’re from supplementary notes end of document) vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Footnotes from Lumen Gentium, (Dognatic constitution on the Church) Chapter 3 Section 25, THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
(43) Cfr. ecplicatio Gasser in Conc. Vat. I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.
(44) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1214 A.
(45) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.
(46) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1213.
And therefore 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. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)
*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)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)
The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*)
Q:
*]Can the Pontiff define, and make irreformable decisions of themselves, without consent or approval of his fellow bishops?
*]Can one appeal a decision of the pontiff to any other judgement?
*]Can the bishops make an irreformable decision without consent of the Pontiff?
*]Can one appeal the bishops decisions to another judgement?
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Hello Steve,
This would be another example where bad history leads to bad theology and misunderstood dogma.
Many people focus on the sentences and phrases that you highlighted and then misinterpret that to mean that the Pope can wake up one morning and decide to define a dogma without speaking to anyone before hand. I was once speaking to a professor of theology and ecumenism at the Catholic University of America who clarified those things for me. What they basically mean is that after the Pope has defined something, no further discussion is needed (of course this does not mean theological speculation on the dogma is now impossible). It presumes that all discussion has taken place prior to the definition of whatever dogma. An essential part of defining a dogma is that the Pope has consulted his fellow bishops and some sort of concession has been made. After the agreement the Pope can then stand up and speak on behalf of his fellow bishops in proclaiming orthodox teaching of the Church. Historically those sentences were inserted to correct the Gallican faction of bishops who believed that after the Pope had made the proclamation it then needed to be (re)approved by the other bishops. This was seen as excessive since all agreement and approval had been reached before any infallible declaration had been made. In this way, the Pope cannot make binding dogmatic declarations apart from his fellow bishops (and the rest of the Church for that matter), nor can the bishops make dogmatic declarations apart from the Pope. As head of the college of bishops the Pope needs his college in order to speak authoritatively. So too does the college need its head in order to speak authoritatively. Hence the insistence on (comm)union between the bishops and the Pope.
I hope this helps. Marduk is really much better at explaining all this than I am. And he’s also much more informed than I.
This would be another example where bad history leads to bad theology and misunderstood dogma.
Many people focus on the sentences and phrases that you highlighted and then misinterpret that to mean that the Pope can wake up one morning and decide to define a dogma without speaking to anyone before hand. I was once speaking to a professor of theology and ecumenism at the Catholic University of America who clarified those things for me. What they basically mean is that after the Pope has defined something, no further discussion is needed (of course this does not mean theological speculation on the dogma is now impossible). It presumes that all discussion has taken place prior to the definition of whatever dogma. An essential part of defining a dogma is that the Pope has consulted his fellow bishops and some sort of concession has been made. After the agreement the Pope can then stand up and speak on behalf of his fellow bishops in proclaiming orthodox teaching of the Church. Historically those sentences were inserted to correct the Gallican faction of bishops who believed that after the Pope had made the proclamation it then needed to be (re)approved by the other bishops. This was seen as excessive since all agreement and approval had been reached before any infallible declaration had been made. In this way, the Pope cannot make binding dogmatic declarations apart from his fellow bishops (and the rest of the Church for that matter), nor can the bishops make dogmatic declarations apart from the Pope. As head of the college of bishops the Pope needs his college in order to speak authoritatively. So too does the college need its head in order to speak authoritatively. Hence the insistence on (comm)union between the bishops and the Pope.
I hope this helps. Marduk is really much better at explaining all this than I am. And he’s also much more informed than I.
S
steve_b
Guest
Thanks for your thoughts.
staying with the footnotes pertaining to the Relatio, since that has been the benchmark that seems to be the main point of interest
let’s look at the footnotes again. I’m interested in your thoughts.
There are clear distinctions made that I’m going to highlight and offer for discussion
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 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)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)
the distinctions I draw your attention to
In (43) the Pontiff doesn’t require
- consent of the Church
- approval of others
- Is anybody left out of that? If there WAS anyone as an exception, it would be good to add them here as an exception…agreed? But no exceptions are made.
- Infalibility resides in the body of bishops WHEN they are united with the Pontiff.
either the Roman Pontiff with the body of bishops or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment,.
That’s not what the footnote says
Footnote (45) "either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, "
One might observe, why not simplify and say, the Roman Pontiff AND the body of bishops is always taken collectively and leave it at that? Unless that’s not the way it must be?
iow, as Lumen Gentium says (emphasis mine) "it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops".
see the distinction AND the clarification? The Roman Pontiff CAN act alone. It’s NOT a must he always acts collegially. That doesn’t mean he will act without collabortation, it just says he CAN. And THAT is up to him.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Indeed and its lack of the relatio as a reference tells us something, namely that it wasnt considered a reference.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Ignoring a relatio that isnt available on the vatican website or the de facto official theological textbook is hardly bad historyMarduk,
You have a way of saying things in such a clear and straighforward manner. I have yet to master this art. I’m with you 100%.
Ignoring the official Relatio is simply bad history. And, when theology and dogma are involved, bad history leads to bad theology and misunderstood dogma.
ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip
H
Hesychios
Guest
Good points.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
As Marduk mentioned, Denziger’s book is merely a reference book and, therefore, doesn’t tell us much about Catholic belief. Also, again as Marduk pointed out, making an argument from absence/omission constitutes bad rhetoric. In fact, it is no argument at all. It would be like me saying that if Denziger didn’t site the Bible or the Liturgies of the Church, then they do not constitute a source (a very important source at that) for dogma. Plus, as has been mentioned, there could be many reasons for the omission. One could be the reason that you’ve given, another could be Pius IX’s own religio-political agenda, another could be human error, etc., etc., etc… Your understanding that it was a deliberate omission is purely hypothetical. It therefore renders your argument hypothetical at best. Certainly not something to on which to base one’s understanding of the sources of Catholic dogma.
Again, if Denzinger had intended to compile an exhaustive source book for Catholic dogma it would’ve been voluminous, perhaps taking up an entire library. This would be so because it would not only have to cite all the Papal letters and other official Church documents, but would also have to cite the writings of the various saints and Church leaders who aided in reaching the understanding of whatever particular dogma. This is just good history. But, obviously, his book is not exhaustive. It was, therefore, a *selection/I] of the sources that he (and perhaps Pio Nono) thought most pertinent. The omission of a source says less about the Church’s understanding of a dogma, and more about the author/compiler(s) of the book. Subjectively he/they found certain sources more pertinent than others. That does not render the others less important.
What makes the Relatio so important is that it was/is the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus, commissioned by and given on behalf of the Committee that was assigned the task of writing the dogmatic constitution. It was therefore the Committee’s understanding of Pastor Aeternus, and the understanding upon which the Fathers of Vatican I cast their votes. Setting it aside because it is not mentioned in Denziger’s book does indeed constitute bad history; and it potentially leads to an improper understanding of the dogma.*
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
As a side note, I’m yet to be convinced that Denziger is the “official theological textbook.” I’ve been studying theology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels for a number of years now. Not one of my theology professors have ever mentioned Denziger; and they are all solid orthodox Catholic theologians. Plus, from the description you’ve given, Denziger is less of a theological textbook and more of a source book. The theology would be found in the sources that he cites.Ignoring a relatio that isnt available on the vatican website or the de facto official theological textbook is hardly bad history
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The Pope CANNOT act alone. A Church of one is no Church at all. Again, the document is speaking of the definitions themselves, and not the process that led to those definitions. 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.Thanks for your thoughts.
staying with the footnotes pertaining to the Relatio, since that has been the benchmark that seems to be the main point of interest
let’s look at the footnotes again. I’m interested in your thoughts.
There are clear distinctions made that I’m going to highlight and offer for discussion
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.
*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.
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)
Again, this is speaking of the definitions themselves, not the process that led to those definitions. As can be seen in the previous quite, the consent of the Church as a whole cannot be wanting.
the distinctions I draw your attention to
In (43) the Pontiff doesn’t require
In (44) there’s a condition on the body of bishops not mentioned for the Pontiff.
- consent of the Church Yes he does.
- approval of others cf. previous response.
- Is anybody left out of that? If there WAS anyone as an exception, it would be good to add them here as an exception…agreed? But no exceptions are made.
Is that restriction put on the pope in reverse? iow, does footnote (45) say
- Infalibility resides in the body of bishops WHEN they are united with the Pontiff.
either the Roman Pontiff with the body of bishops or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment,.
That’s not what the footnote says
Footnote (45) "either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, "
One might observe, why not simplify and say, the Roman Pontiff AND the body of bishops is always taken collectively and leave it at that? Unless that’s not the way it must be?
iow, as Lumen Gentium says (emphasis mine) "it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops".
see the distinction AND the clarification? The Roman Pontiff CAN act alone. It’s NOT a must he always acts collegially. That doesn’t mean he will act without collabortation, it just says he CAN. And THAT is up to him.
Sorry about the “bolds” and the awkward method of response. I still haven’t figured out how to do a multi-quote response.
M
mardukm
Guest
Where does it say that the Roman Pontiff can act alone when defining a doctrine? All it says, as I have pointed out in this thread, is that the Pope is the one who is DEFINING. In other words, he is the only one exercising the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. But where do you get the idea that the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium is not being exercised by his brother bishops?
There can NEVER be a time when the Pope ALONE possesses the infallibility of the Church, because the Catholic Church plainly teaches that it was NOT to St. Peter alone that infallibility was promised by Christ. Given this, then there must be other bishops in the Church who are exercising the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium, preaching and preserving the Truth which the Pope has absolutely no authority to contradict when defining a matter ex cathedra.
When the Pope defines ex cathedra, he CANNOT act alone because he MUST NECESSARILY FIRST ensure he will be in agreement with the teaching of these orthodox bishops who always exist. True enough, he need not directly consult the bishops for he has other means by which to determine this consensus. BUT - make no mistake about it - he MUST determine this consensus FIRST before he can make an ex cathedra decree.
You cannot get around the plain truth of this. The only haven of Absolutist Petrine advocates are (1) their misinterpretation of the V1 statement regarding “not from the consent of the Church,” and (2) their heterodox opinion that infallibility was promised to the successor of St. Peter alone, but not to the successors of the college of Apostles. Both have already been refuted in this thread. IIRC, you placed me on your ignore list, which is probably why you failed to address any of the points that already refuted everything you have stated in this post.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Phillip,
Blessings,
Marduk
This is a GREAT point. Does anyone know? Does Denizenger’s include the Liturgies of the Church in his sources of dogma? If not, that is a HUUUUUUUGE omission.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
It started with about ~128 early Church documents. Papal statements and council canons are included, and since some canons involve the liturgy, you will find those there.
1854 1st edition
Vatican I, 1869-1870
6th edition was last by D.
D. died 1883
1910 10th edition, revised and enlarged. Ignatius Stahl1911 11th edition
1946 24th edition
1955 30th edition
1967 34th edition
…
An version with the old numbering is here in English:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
J
johnnykins
Guest
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:
"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.
“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… "
"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. What those conditions may be should be deduced not “a priori” but from the very promise or manifestation of the will of Christ. 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. 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
When you read the Relatio, you find Mardukm is completely and amply supported. 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.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
:clapping::tiphat:
J
jmj1984
Guest
All I will say is that it is the referencing text book used by the Vatican. I did not say it was the theology textbook per se, I said it was the text book for sources of catholic dogma i.e when someone wants to reference authority for a statement they are making they are more likely to give a reference to Denzinger (DS) then name the actual document particularly if its secure.
J
jmj1984
Guest
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The complete Relatio of available in the book “The Gift of Infallibility” available from Ignatius Press. The book also relates the importance of the Relatio and how it came to be. I recommend starting there.
J
johnnykins
Guest
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.
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.
- Status