Infallibility question

[Guyonthestreet]

I found the following information on an agnostic site. I’m not linking as I dont want to appear to be promoting the site.

The Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler provides a detailed analysis of the First Vatican Council, and how the passage of the infallibility dogma was orchestrated.[10] Roger O’Toole identifies the distinctive contributions of Hasler as follows:[11] "

It weakens or demolishes the claim that Papal Infallibility was already a universally accepted truth, and that its formal definition merely made de jure what had long been acknowledged de facto.
It emphasizes the extent of resistance to the definition, particularly in France and Germany.
It clarifies the ‘inopportunist’ position as largely a polite fiction and notes how it was used by Infallibilists to trivialize the nature of the opposition to papal claims.
It indicates the extent to which ‘spontaneous popular demand’ for the definition was, in fact, carefully orchestrated.
It underlines the personal involvement of the Pope who, despite his coy disclaimers, appears as the prime mover and driving force behind the Infallibilist campaign.
It details the lengths to which the papacy was prepared to go in wringing formal ‘submissions’ from the minority even after their defeat in the Council.
It offers insight into the ideological basis of the dogma in European political conservatism, monarchism and counter-revolution.
It establishes the doctrine as a key contributing element in the present ‘crisis’ of the Roman Catholic Church."

On another site I also found:

Who originally came up with the idea of papal infallibility? It was the creation of Peter Olivi, a Franciscan who was more than once accused of heresy (an auspicious parent for the concept of infallibility, wouldn’t you say?). His reason for attempting to limit papal power seems to have been to prevent future popes from rescinding a ruling favorable to Franciscans made by Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280). Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

The sources are not well referrenced.

Im sure catholics have heard it all before, and will rebutt, so I’d like to hear the rebuttal and if there is any truth in any of the above. Particulary in the (alleged) statement made by Pope John XXII.

 

[josie_L]

I found the following information on an agnostic site. I’m not linking as I dont want to appear to be promoting the site.

On another site I also found:

The sources are not well referrenced.

Im sure catholics have heard it all before, and will rebutt, so I’d like to hear the rebuttal and if there is any truth in any of the above. Particulary in the (alleged) statement made by Pope John XXII.

Guy, this thread should be in the apologetics forum (you realize it may very well be removed). And your signature sounds a tad self-righteous (you might want to reedit).

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Guy, this thread should be in the apologetics forum (you realize it may very well be removed). And your signature sounds a tad self-righteous (you might want to reedit).

Thanks josie L. I wasnt too sure where would be the best place to post it - as I spend most of the time here and have been given good answers I though why not here. Im sure a Mod will be along shortly and move it if appropriate.

Why would it be removed? Im asking a question regarding infallibility, which Im trying to get my head around.

I read somewhere that as a dogma it must be belived by all catholics. If Im being called to the catholic church then I have to believe this, so would like to hear the rebuttal to the pieces I quoted as I found them troubling.

Am I not allowed to say so and ask for more information - which is what Ive done. This is non catholic forum afterall.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Guy, this thread should be in the apologetics forum (you realize it may very well be removed). And your signature sounds a tad self-righteous (you might want to reedit).

As for my signature, you may or may not have noticed I change it regularly - each signature contains a message If it doesnt apply to you, you wont get it

 

[Religio71]

Where is Pope John XXII’s alleged statement from? It is VERY vague, and could have been taken from any statement, so you need to provide the document that it is from.

And yes, this should be in Apologetics, not Non-Catholic Religions, since you are not discussing…a “non-Catholic religion”.

Read these documents on Papal Infallibility if you have not already:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm

 

[josie_L]

As for my signature, you may or may not have noticed I change it regularly - each signature contains a message If it doesnt apply to you, you wont get it

I do get it but I find it mean nevertheless, furthermore you’re asking God for humility, this may be the time to start?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I do get it but I find it mean nevertheless, furthermore you’re asking God for humility, this may be the time to start?

Indeed - make me humble and not a triumphalist See

Anyhows, got any info on John XXII and his alleged statement regarding infallibility? I could find little or nothing on a general search on the net - keep getting pages on JPII

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Where is Pope John XXII’s alleged statement from? It is VERY vague, and could have been taken from any statement, so you need to provide the document that it is from.

And yes, this should be in Apologetics, not Non-Catholic Religions, since you are not discussing…a “non-Catholic religion”.

Read these documents on Papal Infallibility if you have not already:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm

Thanks Relligio - Ive read the links - Im not sure where the allegede statement is from that’s what Im trying to track down - and Im aware in advance it may not be true or at the very least a misrepresentation of what he said.

 

[josie_L]

Thanks josie L. I wasnt too sure where would be the best place to post it - as I spend most of the time here and have been given good answers I though why not here. Im sure a Mod will be along shortly and move it if appropriate.

Why would it be removed? Im asking a question regarding infallibility, which Im trying to get my head around.

I read somewhere that as a dogma it must be belived by all catholics. If Im being called to the catholic church then I have to believe this, so would like to hear the rebuttal to the pieces I quoted as I found them troubling.

Am I not allowed to say so and ask for more information - which is what Ive done. This is non catholic forum afterall.

If this is catholic dogma, then it should be in the evangelization section of apologetics as you are attempting to ask Catholics the question, right? Or do you want a panoply of answers that will leave you even more confused? This would not exactly be the best way to approach the topic or further your understanding of it.

p.s. Why don’t you buy a couple of books on infallibility?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I’ll report my own post and ask a mod to move it.

Edit - Ive reported myself

 

[Religio71]

Thanks Relligio - Ive read the links - Im not sure where the allegede statement is from that’s what Im trying to track down - and Im aware in advance it may not be true or at the very least a misrepresentation of what he said.

Ok, well we’ll wait for the source of the quote, since it seems very out of context, and could have been drawn from practically any statement.

The links provide sufficient background in Papal infallibility and any doctrinal development associated with it.

 

[Religio71]

also, I don’t think this is a good site to get information on anything Catholic (or any of the other non-Catholic websites that come up when i search “work of the devil, Pope John XXII”)…

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/infallibility.htm

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Found it - it’s from Quia Quorundam.

[3] However, it is evidently clear from the following that the premiss of the above argument–namely, that those things which through the key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of power–is entirely contrary to truth.

humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html

I dont know if this is a good translation or not. Ive read through it and Im really struggling to understand it - Im finding it very disjointed and difficult to follow. All and any help appreciated.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I read somewhere that as a dogma it must be belived by all catholics. If Im being called to the catholic church then I have to believe this, so would like to hear the rebuttal to the pieces I quoted as I found them troubling.

Papal infallibility is a dogma that must be believed by all Catholics. It was formally defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Catholic Church from error, that’s all you need to know.

On a human level, Pope Pius IX, the pope who orchestrated the formal definition of his infallibility, was a megalomaniac. This is the main subject of your first quote, which is regarding the book “HOW THE POPE BECAME INFALLIBLE: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuation” by Father Bernhard Hasler. The book is a popular exposition of his more detailed two volume dissertation on the same subject.

Your second quote relates more to the origin of the dogma itself. This is discussed in tedious detail in the book “Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350” by Brian Tierney. I’ll provide some details of this in my next post.

 

[Religio71]

Found it - it’s from Quia Quorundam.

humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wqq.html

I dont know if this is a good translation or not. Ive read through it and Im really struggling to understand it - Im finding it very disjointed and difficult to follow. All and any help appreciated.

I’m not sure I’m following your argument. That excerpt says that once something is defined, it is illicit for a succeeding Pope to call into question that dogma, which is what we believe today.

I don’t see where the Pope is calling into question infallibility here, nor do I see the quote from the OP.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Papal infallibility is a dogma that must be believed by all Catholics. It was formally defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. If you believe that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Catholic Church from error, that’s all you need to know.

On a human level, Pope Pius IX, the pope who orchestrated the formal definition of his infallibility, was a megalomaniac. This is the main subject of your first quote, which is regarding the book “HOW THE POPE BECAME INFALLIBLE: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuation” by Father Bernhard Hasler. The book is a popular exposition of his more detailed two volume dissertation on the same subject.

Your second quote relates more to the origin of the dogma itself. This is discussed in tedious detail in the book “Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350” by Brian Tierney. I’ll provide some details of this in my next post.

Thanks JL - in recognition of your efforts Ive copied Bunny

 

[Just_Lurking]

In 1279, Pope Nicholas III issued the bull Exiit qui seminat (see here), which came out in favor of the Franciscan values of simple living and voluntary poverty. In detail, the bull tended to favor a particular group of Franciscans who held that spartan frugality was the more important virtue than a simple renouncing of the ownership of earthly goods.

Pietro Olivi, a leader in that group, proceeded to argue that Exiit was infallible because the pope himself was infallible, and came up with a definition of the precise conditions for papal infallibility that are eerily reminiscent of the Vatican I declaration. This was the first time that infallibility was theologically tied to a single person instead of to the entire “Church at Rome”.

Forty years later, the battle among the different groups of Franciscans lived on, and Pope John XXII authorized a new debate on the issues. The group that won out in 1279 argued that such a debate would be pointless, because Nicholas III had already given an infallible ruling in their favor.

Pope John XXII disagreed that he was bound by Nicholas III’s decision. In his 1322 bull Ad conditorem canonum (see here), he said that he can change prior papal decisions, whether by himself or by his predecessors, whenever he sees advantage in doing so. That bull then goes on to reverse Exiit.

Needless to say, the now disenfranchised group of Franciscans rejected Ad conditorem canonum using the papal infallibility arguments of Olivi. The 1324 bull Quia quorundam (see here) addresses this dissent, and condemns the point that “whatever, through the key of knowledge, the Roman pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals persists so immutably that it is not licit for a successor to call it again into doubt nor affirm the contrary.” Quia quorundam goes on to give a lengthy rebuttal of Olivi’s ideas of papal infallibility, invoking at one point the example of Pope Honorius, who was condemned as a heretic by the ecumenical council of Constantinople III.

 

[Just_Lurking]

That excerpt says that once something is defined, it is illicit for a succeeding Pope to call into question that dogma, which is what we believe today.

The excerpt actually condemns the “pestiferous” proposition that it is illicit for a succeeding Pope to call into question previously defined dogma.

Just FYI, in the language of Quia quorundam:

“defined through the key of knowledge” = doctrine or dogma

“ordained [decreed] through the key of power” = discipline

 

[Just_Lurking]

Thanks JL - in recognition of your efforts Ive copied Bunny

Thanks for coping Bunny! Good luck in your search.

 

[Nita]

The excerpt actually condemns the “pestiferous” proposition that it is illicit for a succeeding Pope to call into question previously defined dogma.

What the encyclical is condemning is what many falsely asserted was in the writings of the previous popes – and then claiming these false statements were infallible because they were written by popes! It calls “pestiferous” their citing of the teaching of papal infallibility to try and push through their view of poverty for the religious order.

A brief excerpt regarding the falsehood of what they were claiming was infallible/unchangeable because a pope said it:
**What is afterwards put forward **in the above argument–namely that in the confirmation and explanation of the rule of the Brothers Minor given by some of our predecessors, namely Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV and Nicholas IV, the following words are contained, “This is the gospel rule”, etc., quoted above, up to “clearly consisted also solely in bare use of fact”–**altogether contradicts the truth. **Honorius, indeed, confirmed that rule without any explanation, and in **his confirmation there is no mention of the above words, as can be apparent to anyone who looks into his confirmation: **except insofar as the gospel life is mentioned in the confirmed rule itself, when it says, “This is the rule of the Brothers Minor, namely to observe the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, by living in obedience, without property, and in chastity”. It cannot be inferred from these words that this predecessor of ours defined the things that they assert in the above words [namely, that Christ and the Apostles had nothing].

Either the one who cited Quia Quorundam
*failed to read the whole encyclical,
*or was unable to understand it (it is a little difficult),
*or deliberately lied – no doubt figuring that most of his readers wouldn’t bother to check it out thoroughly.

The encyclical certainly doesn’t deny papal infallibility:
But if they mean that those keys extend to the general power given in the commission of the pastoral office to blessed Peter, and in his person to his successors (a commission which indeed evidently seems to have granted them everything without which universal pastoral care cannot suitably take place or the office be discharged),