Infallibility question

[Guyonthestreet]

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.

If your referring to me - see post #13 -

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 stated clearly I am having problems understanding it. Im not deliberatley lying no doubt figuring most readers wouldnt bother to check it thoroughly as in one of your suggestions. In the apologetics forum

Im asking for help understanding the proof for the infallibility of the papacy as this is a dogma I will have to embrace to become catholic - amongst others. Quia Quorundam was being quoted on an agnostic site as evidence of the fact Popes themselves rejected the idea of being infallable. I read the document and couldnt understand if it was making that case as the language and disjointedness (to me) lost me.

Im not trying to make a case against infallibility, Im trying to understand the case for it !!!

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.

You’re not making any sense at all. I’ve read Brian Tierney and also Klaus Schatz’s rebuttal (in Papal Primacy) of Tierney’s work, and I’ve never seen anything remotely along the lines you seem to be talking about. Do you have a reference to a Catholic theologian for your above claim?

In any event, the bulls seem quite straightforward, if tedious. Ad conditorem canonum starts out with:
There is no doubt that it is the business of the maker of the canons to take action when he sees that statutes issued by himself or by his predecessors harm rather than help, before they can do further harm.
The “maker of the canons” is the pope himself, and John XII is saying that he is not at all bound by his prior decisions, nor the decisions of his predecessors.

Quia quorundam attacks the concept of papal infallibility on doctrine and dogma (“key of knowledge”) about faith and morals:
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.

John XII then goes on to deny Olivi’s division of papal decisions into discipline (“key of power”) versus doctrine and dogma (“key of knowledge”):
First, indeed, according to those who hold that the spiritual key is by no means knowledge, but the power to bind and loose, it is clear that the before mentioned assertors, in stating that it is knowledge, have erred. The definition the learned give of the key supports them *: “The key is a special power of binding and loosing, by which the ecclesiastical judge should admit the worthy, and exclude the unworthy from the Kingdom”.

John XII also points out that when popes receive their orders, they do not generally receive some supernatural infusion of knowledge, just the power to bind and loose:
Again, because the keys of which we speak are given in the conferring of the priestly order; but it is certain that knowledge is generally not conferred on one ordained to the priesthood: therefore, according to them, it seems that knowledge is not a key, but only the power to bind and loose should be called a key.*

 

[mardukm]

Dear Guyonthestreet,

If your referring to me - see post #13 -

I stated clearly I am having problems understanding it. Im not deliberatley lying no doubt figuring most readers wouldnt bother to check it thoroughly as in one of your suggestions. In the apologetics forum

Im asking for help understanding the proof for the infallibility of the papacy as this is a dogma I will have to embrace to become catholic - amongst others. Quia Quorundam was being quoted on an agnostic site as evidence of the fact Popes themselves rejected the idea of being infallable. I read the document and couldnt understand if it was making that case as the language and disjointedness (to me) lost me.

Im not trying to make a case against infallibility, Im trying to understand the case for it !!!

I read through the link. Here’s the crux of it.

Some Franciscans were trying to claim that their “Rule” (each religious Order has their own Rule, which is the standard of discpline by which they live) was on the same level as theological doctrine/morals. They asserted that their “Rule” which prior Popes approved is infallible and therefore cannot be changed.

The Pope who wrote Quia Quorundam was simply explaining that their “Rule” was not on the level of theological doctrine/morals, and can be revised.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nita]

If your referring to me - see post #13 -

No, I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the author of the second quote in your opening post.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Pope who wrote Quia Quorundam was simply explaining that their “Rule” was not on the level of theological doctrine/morals, and can be revised.

What John XII actually wrote was that nothing a pope could promulgate on his own authority is at the level of theological doctrine/dogma - i.e., that popes are only given one “key”, to bind and loose, and not two “keys” (“knowledge” = doctrine/dogma, “power” = discipline) as Olivi claimed.

Anyway, the internet is the last place anyone should be learning about infallibility, whether papal or otherwise. The definitive book to read on this subject is Brian Tierney’s “The Origins Papal Infallibility 1150-1350”. I will warn that I found Tierney extremely dull. A more popular, though slightly less accurate book, is “Power and the Papacy” by Robert McClory. For understanding the concept of infallibility, as opposed to its origins, “Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium” by Rev. Francis A Sullivan, S.J., can’t be beat. Sullivan taught for three decades at the Gregorian University in Rome.

Theologically, I’m not sure what the big issue is. After Vatican I defined papal infallibility, it is clear that John XII made an error about a matter of faith in his bull Quia Quorundam. But since Pope John XII was not teaching infallibly (indeed, he didn’t recognize such a concept), it shouldn’t matter that he erred.

 

[Langdell]

JL – First off, thanks for the learned expositions and the book recommendations.

… Theologically, I’m not sure what the big issue is. After Vatican I defined papal infallibility, it is clear that John XII made an error about a matter of faith in his bull Quia Quorundam. But since Pope John XII was not teaching infallibly (indeed, he didn’t recognize such a concept), it shouldn’t matter that he erred.

I agree. I think that many people (including some Catholics) have trouble with the doctrine of infallibility because they don’t understand the conditions that must be present for something the pope writes to be considered infallible.
.

 

[Nita]

The definitive book to read on this subject is Brian Tierney’s “The Origins Papal Infallibility 1150-1350”. I will warn that I found Tierney extremely dull.

I have not read the book, but did a little checking on Tierney – on the internet of course . He appears to be biased against infallibility. I found the following site helpful in that it quoted quite a few paragraphs written by Tierney in his introduction to the book you mention.

web.archive.org/web/20070222011928/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ165.HTM

 

[Nita]

You’re not making any sense at all. I’ve read Brian Tierney and also Klaus Schatz’s rebuttal (in Papal Primacy) of Tierney’s work, and I’ve never seen anything remotely along the lines you seem to be talking about. Do you have a reference to a Catholic theologian for your above claim?

My apologies for not expressing myself clearly.

A quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article that I referenced:
A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.
That is the crux of what I was getting at. The Franciscans were trying to establish a clavis scientioe (key of knowledge, infallible doctrine) basis. In the process they claimed previous popes had said things they hadn’t, and interpreted the Scriptures erroneously also. (Those were the points I intended to verify with the quotes I included from the encyclical.)

Edit: Whoops. I see I lost a post somewhere that gave the Encyclopedia site
The following entry on the “power of the keys” from the Catholic Encyclopedia is interesting in connection with this thread. It speaks of the controversy that occurred regarding the two keys. Also mentions Pope John XXII.

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

(Must not have hit the submit button the first time around.)

 

[Just_Lurking]

I have not read the book, but did a little checking on Tierney – on the internet of course . He appears to be biased against infallibility. I found the following site helpful in that it quoted quite a few paragraphs written by Tierney in his introduction to the book you mention.

web.archive.org/web/20070222011928/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ165.HTM

Thanks for the links here and in your subsequent post. I will take a good look at them.

In the past, I have found a vast difference between the world of Catholic theologians (those having Doctorates in Sacred Theology, and publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals) and Catholic apologists. In particular, a large portion of the Dave Armstrong webpage is devoted to an ad hominem attack against Tierney and his motivations rather than his historical findings and conclusions. I find that I have learned more from the academic theologians than from the apologists, so I have largely neglected the latter. But that’s just me.

Hopefully all of us together have given the OP what he needed to continue his faith journey.

 

[Langdell]

In the past, I have found a vast difference between the world of Catholic theologians (those having Doctorates in Sacred Theology, and publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals) and Catholic apologists. In particular, a large portion of the Dave Armstrong webpage is devoted to an ad hominem attack against Tierney and his motivations rather than his historical findings and conclusions. I find that I have learned more from the academic theologians than from the apologists, so I have largely neglected the latter. But that’s just me.

That’s very interesting. I’ve had the same experience, though I’ve never articulated it. Peter Kreeft’s apologetics, for example, have always left me cold. I think it’s because they’re so cut-and-dried.
.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Hopefully all of us together have given the OP what he needed to continue his faith journey.

Probably more than you will ever know. God Bless.

 

[steve_b]

What John XII actually wrote was that nothing a pope could promulgate on his own authority is at the level of theological doctrine/dogma - i.e., that popes are only given one “key”, to bind and loose, and not two “keys” (“knowledge” = doctrine/dogma, “power” = discipline) as Olivi claimed.

Anyway, the internet is the last place anyone should be learning about infallibility, whether papal or otherwise. The definitive book to read on this subject is Brian Tierney’s “The Origins Papal Infallibility 1150-1350”. I will warn that I found Tierney extremely dull. A more popular, though slightly less accurate book, is “Power and the Papacy” by Robert McClory. For understanding the concept of infallibility, as opposed to its origins, “Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium” by Rev. Francis A Sullivan, S.J., can’t be beat. Sullivan taught for three decades at the Gregorian University in Rome.

Theologically, I’m not sure what the big issue is. After Vatican I defined papal infallibility, it is clear that John XII made an error about a matter of faith in his bull Quia Quorundam. But since Pope John XII was not teaching infallibly (indeed, he didn’t recognize such a concept), it shouldn’t matter that he erred.

Francis de Sales wrote a series of pamphlets combined into a book. Here is a section on papal authority. Francis de Sales lived from 1567-1622. He wrote at the height of the Protestant revolt. The issue of infallibility was discussed by de Sales also ( note ch 13 and 14)
goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/pope-authority.html

Here is the book online
goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear Just Lurking,

What John XII actually wrote was that nothing a pope could promulgate on his own authority is at the level of theological doctrine/dogma - i.e., that popes are only given one “key”, to bind and loose, and not two “keys” (“knowledge” = doctrine/dogma, “power” = discipline) as Olivi claimed.

Anyway, the internet is the last place anyone should be learning about infallibility, whether papal or otherwise. The definitive book to read on this subject is Brian Tierney’s “The Origins Papal Infallibility 1150-1350”. I will warn that I found Tierney extremely dull. A more popular, though slightly less accurate book, is “Power and the Papacy” by Robert McClory. For understanding the concept of infallibility, as opposed to its origins, “Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium” by Rev. Francis A Sullivan, S.J., can’t be beat. Sullivan taught for three decades at the Gregorian University in Rome.

Theologically, I’m not sure what the big issue is. After Vatican I defined papal infallibility, it is clear that John XII made an error about a matter of faith in his bull Quia Quorundam. But since Pope John XII was not teaching infallibly (indeed, he didn’t recognize such a concept), it shouldn’t matter that he erred.

I disagree wholeheartedly. All that Pope John XII was saying was that the ability to define is not based on the power of the keys. Thus it was wrong for those certain Franciscans to appeal to that biblical passage.

If you read the definitions of Vatican 1, the Fathers of the Council in fact do not appeal to that phrase as the biblical justification for infallibility. Rather the Fathers at the Council appealed to the phrase “You are Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church,” and the Johannine verses asserting that Peter is to “feed my sheep.” In distinction, the Fathers of the Council appealed to the keys as justification for papal PRIMACY, not infallibility. And that’s simply and exactly what Pope John XII was asserting.

Blessings,
Marduk