Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

Can you please point to where I go wrong in the following reasoning?

Canon Law is essential.

 

[SCALCO]

Canon Law is essential.

Using Clement’s letter, can you please give a checklist for what would have to be said/done to constitute papal infallibility? What are the essentials? Can you “walk through” the example? It doesn’t have to be Clement’s letter if that’s not possible. Just For a frame of reference.

God bless,
Scalco

 

[SCALCO]

Canon Law is essential.

Thank you for the response. I’m not sure how to take the brevity and ignoring the “checklist” question, but I guess you’re trying to point me in the right direction.

God Bless.
Scalco

 

[SCALCO]

By the way, I meant to say that I have read the parts about papal infallibility and to the best of my poor knowledge, my opinion is still the same. You said you don’t see any such claim, but if you could explain why or even give the examples of what would be, that might help.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Cinette]

Hi All,

It is impossible for anyone who just happened to glance through the 15 page discussion to comment on the topic after analyzing all the posts.

But after reading many posts, I believe some are expecting an affirmative phrase in the Bible as “Papal Infallibility” ? I hope all are not Protestants, if those who claim to be catholic expect such a “proof” what makes them not so “sola scriptura” followers?

Imagine Marian Dogmas are supported by Scripture, but dos scripture says the same words that we use today as, “Divine Motherhood”, “Perpetual virginity”, “Immaculate conception” are used in Bible? Yet we decipher and understand them as truth. Then why is it so hard to understand the Papal Infallibility ??

I am sorry if I am too out of the context!!

Joe

*I am coming in here, having also not read all the posts. However I believe that once Jesus founded His Church, when he said to Peter "And upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail…I give you the keys of the Kingdom…The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth etc etc etc. I will be with you always etc … It is implicit that God would prevent the Church from teaching error. It makes sense. The individuals themselves are not infallible but the teachings are.

To me this is so clear. It is implicit.

We know that the Church has to keep fighting heresy and there will be lots of Judases! Even Jesus chose a Judas. This is the nature of things.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

*

 

[Vico]

Can you clarify where the Catholic Church teaches this? I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that gives “veto” power to the Pope. Thank you.

Veto is an antonym of ratify. To not ratify is to veto. The ratification of the Supreme Pontiff is needed. Lumen Gentium 22.2.

Re: “which is juridically irreformable,”

Again, where does the Catholic Church teach this? Thank you.

Pastor Aeternus, 1870, Vatican I. Irreformable in a juridical sense not infallible in a philosophic sense (as if the “doctrine to be held” is incapable of further development). See also p. 448 Vol 7, New Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[Vico]

I am coming in here, having also not read all the posts. However I believe that once Jesus founded His Church, when he said to Peter "And upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail…I give you the keys of the Kingdom…The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth etc etc etc. I will be with you always etc … It is implicit that God would prevent the Church from teaching error. It makes sense. The individuals themselves are not infallible but the teachings are.

To me this is so clear. It is implicit.

*We know that the Church has to keep fighting heresy and there will be lots of Judases! Even Jesus chose a Judas. This is the nature of things. *

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Excellent. That is exactly the biblical quote (Matt 16:18) used by Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4.

 

[Vince1022]

By the way, I meant to say that I have read the parts about papal infallibility and to the best of my poor knowledge, my opinion is still the same. You said you don’t see any such claim, but if you could explain why or even give the examples of what would be, that might help.

Thanks and God bless.

Are you replying to something I posted? If so, can you please clarify and restate your question more specifically? Thanks!

 

[Vince1022]

Veto is an antonym of ratify. To not ratify is to veto. The ratification of the Supreme Pontiff is needed. Lumen Gentium 22.2.

Lumen Gentium does not use the word “veto” does it? I couldn’t find it there. Thanks for the reference, though.

I also couldn’t find “veto” in the Catechism.

If as I suspect the Church does not describe the Pope’s role in terms of “veto” than it would seem to be beneficial to not introduce such a secular term into discussions about the Pope’s role, without further clarification. Thanks again.

 

[Vince1022]

Pastor Aeternus, 1870, Vatican I. Irreformable in a juridical sense not infallible in a philosophic sense (as if the “doctrine to be held” is incapable of further development). See also p. 448 Vol 7, New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Thanks, yes, but does Vatican II teach this, or the current universal Catechism?

 

[SCALCO]

Are you replying to something I posted? If so, can you please clarify and restate your question more specifically? Thanks!

Dear Vince,

Sorry for not being more clear.

Yes, you said before, that you do not see anything in Clement’s letter that implies papal infallibility.

1. Can you please explain why Clement’s letter would not be considered an example of papal infallibility? How do you arrive at this conclusion? What is missing, etc?
2. Canon Law is essential. What are the essential references to papal infallibility?

I hope I’m not asking too much.

God Bless,
Scalco

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SCALCO,

Dear Vince,

Sorry for not being more clear.

Yes, you said before, that you do not see anything in Clement’s letter that implies papal infallibility.

1. Can you please explain why Clement’s letter would not be considered an example of papal infallibility? How do you arrive at this conclusion? What is missing, etc?

At times, I don’t understand the point of brother Vince’s questions or requests, but I do agree with him here. The reason that Pope St. Clement’s letter cannot be taken as evidence of papal infallibility is because Pope Clement was addressing a disciplinary issue, not a doctrinal one.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Lumen Gentium does not use the word “veto” does it? I couldn’t find it there. Thanks for the reference, though.

I also couldn’t find “veto” in the Catechism.

If as I suspect the Church does not describe the Pope’s role in terms of “veto” than it would seem to be beneficial to not introduce such a secular term into discussions about the Pope’s role, without further clarification. Thanks again.

No need to use the word veto. This is how Lumen Gentium states it:
This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)

 

[Vico]

Thanks, yes, but does Vatican II teach this, or the current universal Catechism?

Regarding “Pastor Aeternus, 1870, Vatican I. Irreformable in a juridical sense not infallible in a philosophic sense (as if the “doctrine to be held” is incapable of further development). See also p. 448 Vol 7, New Catholic Encyclopedia.”

First p. 448 Vol 7, New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Definitions, then, are “irreformable” in a juridical sense, but are not said to be “infallible” (in a philosophical sense), as if they were absolutely incapable of further development.”

The Supreme Pontiff makes a judgement on behalf of the Church, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The preceeding comment is based upon Vatican I “definition of the Roman Pontiff are, of themselves, not by the consent of the church, irreformable”, which we also see in Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
Lumen Gentium, appendix states that the hierarchical communion also takes a juridical form:

“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”
…

1. A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. Cf. n. 22, end of 1 1.

In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word “functions [munera]” is used deliberately instead of the word “powers [potestates],” because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ’s will. It is evident that this “communion” was applied in the Church’s life according to the circumstances of the time, before it was codified as law.

For this reason it is clearly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity. Hence the Commission, almost unanimously, decided that this wording should be used: “in hierarchical communion.” Cf. Modus 40 and the statements on canonical mission (n. 24).

 

[SCALCO]

The reason that Pope St. Clement’s letter cannot be taken as evidence of papal infallibility is because Pope Clement was addressing a disciplinary issue, not a doctrinal one.

Dear Marduk,

I appreciate your response. Is this the only reason not to consider Pope Clement’s letter an example of papal infallibility? If I understood correctly, I thought Vico had also said that Pope Clement’s letter implied papal infallibility, so it seems this issue is not an easy one.

I was thinking the issue was both disciplinary and doctrinal.

The disciplinary component seems obvious. However, Pope Clement says the laiety cannot expel their leaders; disobedience would amount to grave sin. This underlined part is what I’m wondering about. The laiety can never expel their leaders for any reason. Pope Clement calls them to repentance. What if the Corinthians rejected the Pope’s instruction and authority on this matter?

Could you offer a little more regarding this question? Why it’s not doctrinal? Admittedly, I’m struggling to tell the difference.

I’m also still interested in Vince’s response.

God Bless.
Scalco

 

[Vico]

The topic does pertain to faith and morals:

“If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger.” - Pope Clement

 

[Vico]

It was Pope Gregory VII (Supreme Pontiff: 1073-1085) that recognized Constantinople IV of 869 as the eighth ecumenical council, from May 1077 letter to Hugh of Die specified using canon 22 from council of 869. Lay investitures were forbidden in a decree of Pope Gregory VII.

See pp. 177-179, The chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny: reform and the investiture contest in the late eleventh century, By Patrick Healy (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006)

Also:
fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-invest1.html

This is the canon approved by Pope Hadrian II, referenced by Pope Gregory VII, from Constantinople IV (869).

“Canon 22
This holy and universal synod declares and decrees, in agreement with earlier councils, that the promotion and consecration of bishops should be done by means of an election and decision of the college of bishops. So it promulgates as law that no lay authority or ruler may intervene in the election or promotion of a patriarch, a metropolitan or any bishop, lest there be any irregularity leading to improper confusion or quarrelling, especially since it is wrong for any ruler or other lay person to have any influence in such matters. Rather he should be silent and mind his own business until the election of the future bishop has been completed with due process by the ecclesiastical assembly. But if any lay person is invited by the church to join in the discussion and to help with the election, he is permitted to accept the invitation with respect, if he so wishes. For in this way he may be able to promote a worthy pastor in a regular manner, to the benefit of his church. If any secular authority or ruler, or a lay person of any other status, attempts to act against the common, agreed and canonical method of election in the church, let him be anathema- this is to last until he obeys and agrees to what the church shows it wants concerning the election and appointment of its leader.”

piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm

 

[PJM]

***The Present Code of Canon law has this to say:

THE ROMAN PONTIFF***

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

God Bless,
Pat

Can. 333 §1]. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. 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.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

**Can. 335 **When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.

 

[Vince1022]

Thanks for the follow up!

Yes, you said before, that you do not see anything in Clement’s letter that implies papal infallibility.

1. Can you please explain why Clement’s letter would not be considered an example of papal infallibility? How do you arrive at this conclusion? What is missing, etc?

Well, nowhere does this letter mention the Pope, or the Bishop of Rome, or infallibility. That’s all.

1. Canon Law is essential. What are the essential references to papal infallibility?

I agree, Canon Law is essential. And it’s essential definition of infallibility is not met by the Letter of Clement.

 

[Vince1022]

No need to use the word veto. This is how Lumen Gentium states it:
This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)

Thanks! Agreed, “veto” is not helpful. Appreciate the reference.