Infalibillity Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter expectthebest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

expectthebest

Guest
Can the Pope declare infallibly a teaching that is not officially supported by a plurality of the Bishops?
 
If the Holy Spirit should so move the Pope to do so, I don’t see what rule there is that the Spirit is not allowed to do so. However, I can think of no example where your scenario has been the case anyway. The Spirit is with the other bishops too.
 
expectthebest said:
Can the Pope declare infallibly a teaching that is not officially supported by a plurality of the Bishops?
Click to expand...
yes. as I recall Vatican II for example was very clear about that: that strictly speaking his authority as to doctrine does not require the assent of anyone on earth
 
Thank you.

If that is the case, why couldn’t the Pope easily answer some of the hard quesitons and put them to rest by simply making a public attemp to pronounce something infallibly? If the statement is not true, God would not allow him to utter the words. If it is true, God would allow him to utter the words.

For example, it has been mentioned on this forum many times that the Church simply does not know what happens to infants that were not Baptised. The Pope could come up with a list of possibilities and then attempt to pronounce them as infallible. Those possibilities which are true would be clearly spoken with the Grace of God. For those that are not true God would render the Pope speachless. What do you think?
 
expectthebest said:
Thank you.

If that is the case, why couldn’t the Pope easily answer some of the hard quesitons and put them to rest by simply making a public attemp to pronounce something infallibly? If the statement is not true, God would not allow him to utter the words. If it is true, God would allow him to utter the words.

For example, it has been mentioned on this forum many times that the Church simply does not know what happens to infants that were not Baptised. The Pope could come up with a list of possibilities and then attempt to pronounce them as infallible. Those possibilities which are true would be clearly spoken with the Grace of God. For those that are not true God would render the Pope speachless. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Wait. You want the Pope to basically ‘force God’s hands’.

The Holy Spirit has not (yet) revealed the full truth about ‘what happens to infants not baptized’.

So you want the Pope to ignore the fact that the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed this and just come up with a list of possibles --NONE of which might in fact be the reason. . .

and then waltz up to St. Peter’s podium and start to say, I INFALLIBLY declare with the idea that anything that isn’t ‘true’ will just gag in his throat?

I must say that is a BAD idea.

It’s presumptuous in that it assumes that he is going to get the truth pretty much by going through lists of possibilities. It’s presumptuous in him making a statement when he doesn’t KNOW the truth himself. It’s presumptuous in trying to ‘make’ God reveal a truth not in God’s time but in our time. IMO.
 
expectthebest said:
Thank you.

If that is the case, why couldn’t the Pope easily answer some of the hard quesitons and put them to rest by simply making a public attemp to pronounce something infallibly? If the statement is not true, God would not allow him to utter the words. If it is true, God would allow him to utter the words.
Click to expand...
There is an old Catholic pious legend – I’m sure some of the forumgoers have heard it – that Pope John Paul the First basically did exactly this. He decided to write an encyclical declaring that artificial birth control was a-okay. He started right away and figured it would take him a few months to finish and publish it.

He had a heart attack and died less than a month in his papacy.

I don’t know if that story is true, but even if it isn’t, the point is clear: testing God that way is risky, man! (It’s also not very loving.)
 
What sort of hard questions are you thinking about? I find that most questions have good answers out there if you do the research into them. Trying to turn the Pope into the Zoltar machine from the movie “Big” is missing the point of the office. He’s a leader.
 
I still don’t understand why the Pope could not simply do what I described. He has the power. There is the assurance that he couldn’t speak anything but truth. Why then would this not be used? Certainly truth could be gained using the method.
 
expectthebest said:
I still don’t understand why the Pope could not simply do what I described. He has the power. There is the assurance that he couldn’t speak anything but truth. Why then would this not be used? Certainly truth could be gained using the method.
Click to expand...
Um, no. The Pope is not He-Man. He does not have the power to make what he says ‘be infallibly true’ just because he decides, “I’m going to speak on faith and morals, therefore what I say will have to be true by the power of Greyskull–I mean, the Holy Spirit!” It doesn’t WORK like that.
 
expectthebest said:
I still don’t understand why the Pope could not simply do what I described. He has the power. There is the assurance that he couldn’t speak anything but truth. Why then would this not be used? Certainly truth could be gained using the method.
Click to expand...
The Pope would be moved by the Holy Spirit and not the other way around. Inspiration (literally meaning ‘breath of God’) is the auspice that papal infallibility operates under. The Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church and with the pope via sensus fidei fidelium (sense of the faith).
 
This sounds similar to one of the tests the devil posed to Jesus. And His response was to quote Scripture about not putting the Lord God to the test.

Let God work in His time. When the Holy Spirit leads the Pope and the Church into fuller Truth, they will trasmit that Truth.
 
Thanks for the “Heads up!”, Marduk.

There are two levels here:

On a theoretical level, YES. He has the “power” and the authority.

On a practical level, NO. It simply will not be done without recourse to the good judgement of brother bishops and patriarchs.
 
Dear brother JamestheOlder,
JamestheOlder said:
Thanks for the “Heads up!”, Marduk.

There are two levels here:

On a theoretical level, YES. He has the “power” and the authority.

On a practical level, NO. It simply will not be done without recourse to the good judgement of brother bishops and patriarchs.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is on both a practical and theoretical level. That is what the Fathers of Vatican 1 affirmed. I don’t have time to bring up my quotes from Vatican 1 right now, but I will do so later in the day.

I hope this will generate some good discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
patricius79 said:
yes. as I recall Vatican II for example was very clear about that: that strictly speaking his authority as to doctrine does not require the assent of anyone on earth
Click to expand...
The initiation of the papal exercise of the Church’s infallible Magisterium is not unilateral, but involves the solicitude of his brother bishops for the Faith of the Church (the Pope cannot wake up one morning and say to himself, "Gee, I think today is a good day to proclaim a dogma). This is outlined in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus itself.

The formulation of the Decree requires the consensus of the Church, which is implied in Pastor Aeternus, and explicit in the Offical Relatio of Vatican 1.

After that formulation, it is guaranteed to be true (i.e., infallible). But it is not the consensus that guarantees its status as the Truth (i.e., its infallibility), but rather the Holy Spirit Himself.

That is what the Vatican 1 Dogma means when it states that an ex cathedra decree is “irreformible (i.e. infallible) because of its very nature, but not because of the consent of the Church.” It is not saying that the consensus of the Church is not necessary for the formulation of the Decree, but merely and rather that the TRUTH of the Decree does not come by virtue of consensus, but because of the aid of the Holy Spirit Himself who has worked through the Church. Consensus never determines Truth, but consensus indeed is constitutive of the UNITY of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Ideas expressed in the Relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican I, before the vote was made on infallibility, address this question:
  • Papal authority is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
  • the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions.
  • there is not a strict and absolute necessity of seeking consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops, because consent of the Church may be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent.
Some quote of Bishop Gasser were posted here three months ago:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7583935&postcount=262
 
Please take a look at Paragraph #891 of the Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm

This appears to cover both the simple authority of the Pope, plus the authority of the Magisterium, separately.

I await your wise counsel.
 
Ok, it appears that there is disagreement on my first question.

Can the Pope declare something infallibly without conferring with the Bishops? If not, what % of Bishops must agree with the Pope in order for him to proclaim an infallible statement?

Depending on this answer my second question may or may not even be relevant.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top