Infalibillity Question

[jmcrae]

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.

This is true. There are two possible reasons that the Holy Spirit has not revealed this:

1. Parents not able to baptize their children before death would despair, knowing that their child is in Hell.
2. Parents would delay baptizing their children, thinking that it doesn’t matter, since the child will get to go to Heaven anyway (not realizing that the child still needs the grace of the Sacrament to live his life on earth, as well).

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?

I think you misunderstand the nature of infallibility. It isn’t a super power. The Pope is not an X-man.

 

[Vico]

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

It is not required for the Pope to confer, as Bishop Gasser explained:

• 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.

 

[mardukm]

I think you misunderstand the nature of infallibility. It isn’t a super power.

The Pope is not -]an X-man/-] Superman.

Oh, goodness. Are you a Marvel heretic, too? (I hope brother Gurney doesn’t read this.)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JamestheOlder,

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.

As you’ll notice, the link you gave explicitly states that the exercise of papal infallibility “confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

The very word “confirm” indicates that the Faith being defined is ALREADY part of the Faith of the Church.

Pastor Aeternus assures us of this when it asserts: “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but, rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the Apostles.”

The Official Relatio of Vatican 1, quoted earlier by brother Vico, makes this even more explicit: “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.”

If you are not already aware, permit me to say a few words about the Official Relatio. The Official Relatio was the official interpretation of the Vatican Decrees given by the Committee De Fide at Vatican 1, the Committee responsible for formulating the Decrees on which the Bishops were to vote. This official interpretation was given to all the bishops two days before the final voting, and when the bishops voted for the Vatican Decrees, they voted for it with this official interpretation in mind (note: a lot of bishops left or had died before this Official Relatio was distributed).

So please don’t let any non-Catholic or misinformed Catholic deceive you into thinking that when the Vatican Decree states that the ex cathedra Decrees of the Pope on faith and morals are “irreformible by their very nature, not from the consent of the Church,” then this means that the Pope can create doctrine out of the blue or apart from the consensus of the Church. A lot of Catholics have unfortunately left the Catholic Church after being deceived about this matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother expectthebest,

Ok, it appears that there is disagreement on my first question.

Can the Pope declare something infallibly without conferring with the Bishops?

As explained by brother Vico, Yes he can. That is because the consensus of the Church can be determined by avenues other than directly conferring with the Bishops. The Pope can just as well determine the consensus of the Church by, for example, polling the laity, reading the catechetical materials of the local Churches, inquiring of the matter from theologians, reading Holy Scripture, reading the Fathers, etc. etc., or a combination of any of these. Conferring with his brother bishops is normative, but it is not absolutely necessary. The main point is that the consensus of the Church - no matter how it is determined - is a necessary factor in the formulation of an infallible ex cathedra Decree.

If not, what % of Bishops must agree with the Pope in order for him to proclaim an infallible statement?

That question cannot be answered. Which is why making direct conference with his brother bishops an absolute necessity for the formulation of a dogmatic ex cathedra Decree is an actual dogmatic impossibility. For example, during the days of the Arian controversy, if the % of bishops who adhered to a particular position was the final determinant in establishing the Truth of a certain doctrine, then we would all be Arians today (or at least be Jehovah’s Witnesses ). And what if a particular doctrinal issue needed to be settled, but a good number of bishops were impeded from communicating their own positions to the Pope? Does that mean the true orthodox position of the Church can never be known? How silly is that?

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

I did not notice a second question. All questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[expectthebest]

So, the Pope could never declare something infallible that wasn’t already a known part of the Faith anyway? In this case you would be saying that the HS could never move the Pope to declare a Truth that wasn’t already known.

 

[mardukm]

So, the Pope could never declare something infallible that wasn’t already a known part of the Faith anyway?

Yes.

In this case you would be saying that the HS could never move the Pope to declare a Truth that wasn’t already known.

Yes. It is the solid dogmatic position of the Catholic Church that all public revelation ended upon the death of the last Apostle. As Pastor Aeternus explicitly asserted, the Holy Spirit will not make known new doctrine or revelation through the Pope, but simply aid the Pope in guarding or explaining the existing Faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmcrae]

So, the Pope could never declare something infallible that wasn’t already a known part of the Faith anyway? In this case you would be saying that the HS could never move the Pope to declare a Truth that wasn’t already known.

Pretty much.

When the Pope makes an infallible declaration, usually what has happened is that, the teaching was well-known - then, some kind of heresy arose contradicting that teaching - then, the people became confused - so, the Pope, in making the infallible declaration, is simply reminding the people of what they used to know, and reaffirming that the original teaching of the Church is correct, and that the new teaching from the group or groups of heretics is, in fact, heresy.

A relatively recent example of this is when Pope John Paul II reaffirmed in 1994 that only men can become Catholic priests. From 30 AD until the time of the women’s liberation movement, it was always fully understood that women cannot become priests. But the question arose, and various women’s groups started advocating for women to become priests, and even started “ordaining” women to the priesthood - so the Pope made a declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to clarify that only men can become priests.

This was not a new teaching, unheard of before now - rather, it is the same old teaching, being clarified for a new generation that is being led astray by heretical ideas.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Yes.

Yes. It is the solid dogmatic position of the Catholic Church that all public revelation ended upon the death of the last Apostle. As Pastor Aeternus explicitly asserted, the Holy Spirit will not make known new doctrine or revelation through the Pope, but simply aid the Pope in guarding or explaining the existing Faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Marduk,

I agree with your answers to expectthebest. However, I do not know if you agree or disagree with my comments regarding paragraph #891 of the Catechism.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

In spite of the marginal construction of the first sentence, the last sentence trumps any talk of a reigning pontiff coming up with some goofy assertion. My ONLY point is that the pope may act without the (complete) consent of his brother bishops. I do not PROMOTE this position; I find it highly unlikely. yet the authority is there, and it belongs to the See of Peter alone.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JamestheOlder,

Dear brother Marduk,

I agree with your answers to expectthebest. However, I do not know if you agree or disagree with my comments regarding paragraph #891 of the Catechism.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

In spite of the marginal construction of the first sentence, the last sentence trumps any talk of a reigning pontiff coming up with some goofy assertion. My ONLY point is that the pope may act without the (complete) consent of his brother bishops. I do not PROMOTE this position; I find it highly unlikely. yet the authority is there, and it belongs to the See of Peter alone.

I am not certain I understand your position. Can you please explain more clearly? From what I can glean, the last statement refers to the infallibility of the Church. In point of fact, the Vatican dogma explicitly states that “papal infallibility” is merely the Holy Spirit granting to the Pope in a unique way for a unique circumstance the infallibility of the Church.

If you are not aware, permit me to point out that the original draft of the Decree on the infallibility was entitled “The infallibility of the Pope.” The Fathers protested that this was improper, as it made it seem as if infallibility was vested in the person of the Pope alone (as the infallibility of the Church, though indeed de fide, had not yet been defined). Thus, the Fathers explicitly changed the title to “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.” Since the Magisterium is not exercised by the Pope alone, but the whole body of bishops, it was less likely to be construed in a wrong manner. Unfortunately, not many today know of the history of this change in the title of the Decree, so the relevance is lost on many, if not most Catholics.

That infallibility belongs to the See of Peter alone was the last thing on the minds of the Fathers of Vatican 1.

In any case, in lieu of the explanation above, can you please explain your statement more clearly? Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JamestheOlder]

Dear brother Marduk,

As we have continued this thread, I have begun to understand your position, and believe mine is completely in agreement with yours.

I don’t think there are any remaining questions which need be addressed in this thread; hopefully all participants are of a similar opinion.

Thanks for your introduction to this thread, and thanks for your thorough research. I look forward to future posts from you.

Peace.

Jim