Important Question about Papal Infallibity

[Vico]

There has been no time in my life when any matter has gone beyond my Bishop. There has been no matter from Rome that has contradicted my Bishop.

peace

Not a matter of faith or morals, but church discipline, Byzantine Metropolitan Archeparch Judson sought the restoration of the married priesthood, in keeping with Vatican II, to preserve one of the time-honored customs and traditions of the East. So in 1999, he received an approval from the Vatican of his canon law code for the Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States. Now the Byzantine bishops submit the names of married candidates to Rome for approval on a individual basis.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Schism Hater,

I think the VI definition is fairly clear: when the Bishop of Rome speaks ex cathedra (as the universal paster) on a matter of faith and morals, he is incapable of erring and his declarations are binding on the whole Church and “irreformeable”, regardless of who agrees or diagrees with it or whether the whole Church consents to it.

Given that this topic has come up in another thread, I feel obliged to move up my time-table in order to respond to this.

The all-important premise from Pastor Aeternus related to the blue portion of your statement above is this:
**It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing **

It is contained in a section of Pastor Aeternus traditionally known as the historic Proem. It was a detail of the manner, according to Sacred Tradition, by which “papal infallibility” has been exercised in the Church, and according to this Sacred Tradition, “papal infallibility” is exercised in the Church IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITUDE OF HIS BROTHER BISHOPS. When the primate of the American Church, Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore, returned to the U.S. after V1, he wrote to his flock that history itself is the guarantee that the Pope will not make new doctrine willy nilly. He was, of course, referring to the historic Proem. The historic Proem was added to Pastor Aeternus at the last session before the final voting, intended as a limitation on the exercise of “papal infallibility” due to the concerns of many Fathers from both the Majority and Minority parties at V1 that a statement should be added that intimately involves the bishops in the exercise of “papal infallibility.” The addition of it caused several NEO-ultramontanists (the Absolutist Petrine advocates) at V1 to leave the Council in disgust, complaining that Decree was now nothing more than an attenuated form of Gallicanism. FYI, one particular incident involving a certain Bishop LeCourtier stands out. He is reported to have thrown his copy of the decrees in the river when he left the Council. Non-catholic detractors of V1 often cite this incident as an example of the opposition that many bishops had to the papal “errors” of V1. In their ignorance, such detractors fail to realize that Bishop LeCourtier was a NEO-ultramontanist, an Absolutist Petrine advocate who saw in V1 a failure to properly invest in the papacy a unilateral monarchical power that he believed the papacy should possess.

This Truth is explicitly stated in our Canons, by the way:
In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office. (Latin 333 §2; CCEO 45 §2)

Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates twist the Church’s teaching (and non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates join them in this error). Though the Canon states only that the Pope has the right to determine HOW he will RESPOND to the needs of the Church, Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend that the Pope has the right to be the ONLY one who determines the needs of the Church. Therein lies the myth that the Pope can do anything he wants, wherever and whenever he wants, in unilateral fashion – but it is only a myth.

Without this important premise, both Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors have wrongly opined that the Pope can wake up one morning and decide to unilaterally make a new dogma for the Church, without anyone else’s (name removed by moderator)ut. I hope the previous facts correct any possible misunderstanding of “papal infallibility” you may have entertained on this particular point.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Now, the red highlighted portion of your statement is simply wrong. V1 nowhere taught your misinterpretation that the Pope can make an ex cathedra decree regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it or whether the whole Church consents to it. To understand the matter correctly, you need to look at not only the background debates at V1, but the explanation of Pastor Aeternus as set forth by the Committee De Fide that was responsible for formulating its decrees. The explanation is known as the Official Relatio, and was proposed by Bishop Gasser, who was selected as the spokesman for the Committee, in a speech given several days prior to the final voting on the decrees.

There are two issues here: (1) the relationship of the Pope to the Church/his brother bishops according to the Official Relatio during an exercise of “papal infallibility”; and (2) what the phrase in the dogma “not from the consent of the Church” actually means.

(1) The Official Relatio of V1 plainly asserted:

• “ We do not exclude the co-operation of the Church because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is bound by his office and gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils, or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc…It is said that once the Pope has issued a dogmatic definition, bishops no less than priests and laity are bound to submit to his infallible authority; but this is not so before the definition has been made. And the bishops should concur in the making of such a definition…The consent of the churches is the rule of faith which even the Pope should follow, and therefore before the definition he ought to consult the rules of the churches that he may be certain as to the consent of the churches…It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church united with its Head is the rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be declared from clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, of the holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors, or in other private ways, which suffice for full information.”

I hope that settles it. If you have any questions on this point, feel free to ask.

(2) When people read the clause “not from the consent of the Church” in the dogma on “papal infallibility,” most people think it means either that (a) the Church has no say in the matter, or (b) the dogma is irreformible just because the Pope said so. I pray the discussion in (1) above and on the premise contained in the historic Proem has convinced you of the error of (a).

The error of (b) stems from a simple misreading of the dogma. The text at issue runs: “Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformible by their very nature, not because of the consent of the Church.” Most people wrongly read the statement as “Such definitions are not from the consent of the Church.” But just a little thought will evince that the subject of the clause “not from the consent of the Church” is NOT the term “definitions,” but rather the term “irreformible” (i.e., the correct reading is “It is irreformible not because of the consent of the Church” The truth – much less God’s Truth - is never determined by consensus (the opposite opinion is a heresy of Modernism). God’s Truth is considered irreformible for no other reason than that our conscience is convinced that it is from God. My adherence to it, nor your adherence to it, nor the adherence of 99% of the Church to that Truth, has absolutely NO bearing on its status as Truth (i.e., its irreformibility). Consider the first Petrine ex cathedra dogma of the Church as recorded in Acts 11 (i.e., that the Gentiles should be included in the People of God). What Christian has the hubris to claim that the irreformibility (i.e., its status as objective Truth) of St. Peter’s decree depended on ANYONE’s agreement with it? Also, give heed to the fact that the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 (the apostolic/patristic basis for the Church’s teaching on collegiality) tells us that the only purpose of consensus is to ensure the unity of the Church. It does NOT - contrary to the opinion of many apostolic Christians – claim that consensus is necessary for the Truth to be objectively true (i.e., irreformible). So the statement at issue from the dogma does not contradict the ancient Apostolic Canon in the least. What the statement at issue is saying is nothing more nor less than this - though the consensus of the Church is necessary in the exercise of infallibility, and the Church is thus involved in the Pope’s exercise of infallibility, that consensus/involvement is NOT what guarantees the Truth or irreformibility of the dogma. Rather, what guarantees its Truth or irreformibility is *** the fact of the Holy Spirit’s help based on the promise of Christ to St. Peter ***.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The other problem is that many people (both Catholic Absolutist Petrine and non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates) misinterpret the phrase “by their very nature” to mean “because the Pope said so.” In their minds, the text runs “Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformible because the Pope said so, not because of the consent of the Church.” Vatican 2 gave the proper and only interpretation of the clause “by their very nature” thus: “*** “For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature, not by reason of the consent of the Church, INASMUCH AS THEY WERE MADE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT*…” **.” This is nothing more than the official position of the Committee De Fide at V1: “The third thing contained in the definition is the principle of the effective cause of infallibility: it is the protection of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Ghost.” Readers of the dogma very often miss a very important word in the clause at issue – the word “therefore.” That word is a direct reference to the prior clause in the dogma that states “through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter.” “By their very nature” refers to the foregoing statement. Those who MISinterpret the clause “by their very nature” to mean “because the Pope said so” are simply misrepresenting Catholic teaching, for the clause is not a reference to the person who is Pope, but rather to a charism that goes beyond the person.
.
At this point, I would like to address Cavadarossi’s argument in another thread that because the Council of Chalcedon investigated the merit of Pope St. Leo’s Tome, then this means they did not believe in “papal infallibility.” His opinion results from another gross misconception of the dogma of “papal infallibility.” The dogma nowhere states “what the Pope says ex cathedra must be believed just because he says so.” The dogma nowhere states, “what the Pope says ex cathedra must be believed or you will go to hell.” The simple fact is, the dogma on infallibility makes absolutely no statement on the enforceability of an ex cathedra decree. The dogma is simply a statement/teaching on one of the ways we recognize God’s Truth. The dogma nowhere attempts to demean the propriety and value of personal investigation on the matter of an ex cathedra decree for the sake of conscientious adherence. Just because I study an ex cathedra decree to convince myself of its truth or orthodoxy does not mean I am doubting the principle of “papal infallibility.” It simply means that I am a conscientious Christian. What the dogma of “papal infallibility” assures me is that since the matter of the decree is indeed God’s Truth, by God’s Grace my own prayerful investigation will result in adherence to that Truth. So starkly contrary to Cavaradossi’s opinion, the investigation of the Council Fathers yielded a dramatic affirmation of the dogma of “papal infallibility” because that investigation concluded that Pope Leo’s Tome was indeed God’s Truth.

Cavaradossi’s position also stems from an apparent ignorance of the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council. I explained above that the doctrine of “papal infallibility” does not contemn the place of conscience in religious belief. But it is not just a matter of conscience for the Fathers of Chalcedon to have investigated Pope St. Leo’s Tome. The Official Relatio of V1 asserts that in the context of an Ecumenical Council, ALL the bishops are judges with the Pope. No knowledgeable Catholic would doubt the propriety of the investigation of Pope St. Leo’s Tome by the Fathers of Chalcedon because as fellow judges, invested as a body with the charism of infallibility, that was their duty and their right. Please do not be misled by non-Catholic misrepresentations of the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility.

I hope this has helped.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Exsilivm]

The church itself is infallible.

As demonstrated by the first seven ecumenical councils.

 

[shdajeth]

why would they want to be separate at all?