Infallibility - revisited

[mardukm]

A fellow member of ECF has agreed to let me attempt to convince him of the dogma of papal infallibility, so I hope everyone forgives my pretentiousness for starting a new thread on this matter.

I suppose the best way to start the thread is to present what I had thought papal infallibility was when I was not yet in the Catholic communion. The following were my (mis)conceptions about the dogma. Let me know which ones reflect your own concerns, and we can discuss them. If you have any other concerns regarding papal infallibility, please jot them down too.

I thought the dogma of papal infallibility taught that:

1. Every teaching of the Church depends solely on the infallibility of the Pope;
2. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, his brother bishops are not true teachers but are merely his yes-men;
3. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, an Ecumenical Council is superfluous;
4. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, then nothing prevents him from canceling Truth or establishing falsehood (#5 and #6 below are natural corollaries);
5. The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to the rest of the Church;
6. The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to Sacred Tradition;
7. Papal infallibility is the only infallibility in the Church;
8. Conscience has no place in the Church since all Truth is determined by what the Pope says (i.e., the “just because the Pope says so” argument).

Needless to say, my misconceptions were conditioned by my dependence on non-Catholic sources to inform me about Catholic teaching. But my reading of Catholic magisterial documents, as well as the comments of the Fathers of V1 were a good remedy for my misunderstanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

I would like to address the fifth point you made to begin. It was:

“5) The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to the rest of the Church”

This seems to be confirmed by the decrees of Vatican I, as in the following:

“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff * are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

And again:

“The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.”

Also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” [bold mine]

In light of this, how is your fifth point incorrect?

In Christ,

Don*

 

[Dan-Man916]

I recommend the book, Towards a Primacy in Communion, by Father Hermann Pottmeyer, for a very excellent theological and historical treatment of this subject.

**

1. The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to the rest of the Church;

**
**

a power which he can always exercise unhindered

**
It does not mean that the pope can do what he wants as he feels or that the he can only act with permission of the the rest of the Church. The Pope and the Bishops are the witnesses to the Tradition and this is meant only within that framework.

One needs to remember that infallibility is a character of the office. Jesus tells Peter to confirm his bretheren. However, the opposite is not true. This is what Pottmeyer identifies as the rationale for understanding without recourse.

 

[Dan-Man916]

I think it is important to also recognize what Vatican II then went on to say about the Bishops in their collegial relationship to the Pope in Lumen Gentium:

Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church

It is certainly a valid interpretation to see the collegial relationship between the Pope and Bishops as the operative way to interpret the quotes from Vatican I.Vatican II saw the Bishops and Pope as an organic whole, which moved quite far away from the notion and interpretation of an absolute monarch model, which is often how Vatican i is interpreted.

However, that single interpretation need not be the only one that is reconcilable when seen as a whole.

 

[Hesychios]

HI Dan,

I think it is important to also recognize what Vatican II then went on to say about the Bishops in their collegial relationship to the Pope in Lumen Gentium:

Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church

It is certainly a valid interpretation to see the collegial relationship between the Pope and Bishops as the operative way to interpret the quotes from Vatican I.Vatican II saw the Bishops and Pope as an organic whole, which moved quite far away from the notion and interpretation of an absolute monarch model, which is often how Vatican i is interpreted.

However, that single interpretation need not be the only one that is reconcilable when seen as a whole.

… and never apart from him

How does one interpret this phrase?

I suppose that it means they must agree with him. However, is there anything that requires the bishop of Rome to similarly agree with the greater body of bishops in order to have supreme and full authority over the universal Church? I don’t see it.

If there was, it would seem to reverse or negate the dictum of Vatican I which does say “… the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered”

So it seems to me that the body of bishops are morally and legally bound to agree with the bishop of Rome, but not vice versa. That is not really collegial.

 

[5Loaves]

…so I hope everyone forgives my pretentiousness for starting a new thread on this matter…

Blessings,
Marduk

I say Hallelujah! – for starting this and also for you starting the “Filioque - revisited” thread. I have no problem with the various good discussions of both these topics, I’m just really burned out on them eventually cropping up in every third thread here.

Virtual chocolate chip cookies coming your way, Marduk.

 

[Vince1022]

I

“5) The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to the rest of the Church”

This statement would NOT be an accurate understanding of papal infallibility as taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

Thank you for your interest in this thread.

I would like to address the fifth point you made to begin. It was:

“5) The Pope can make doctrinal rulings without recourse to the rest of the Church”

This seems to be confirmed by the decrees of Vatican I, as in the following:

“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff * are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”*
There are two facets of this statement to consider:

1. This is not a statement on the criteria needed for an irreformible definition to be made. In other words, it’s not saying, “The Pope’s say-so is the only thing needed to make this definition”; nor is it saying, “the consent of the Church is not needed to make this definition.” Read the statement carefully, and you will realize that the statement presupposes that the definition has already been made. The definition having been made, it automatically obtains the quality of Truth. Thus, this statement is merely nothing more nor less than an affirmation against the modernist error that consensus determines Truth (I don’t know if you know this, but modernism was one of the principle errors that V1 was convened to specifically address).
2. When the Pope gives a definition ex cathedra, he is doing so in response to the needs or concerns of the Church. He naturally consults with his brother bishops, who themselves are in constant touch with the laity. So the Church is involved before he gives the definition. The mistake of non-Catholics is their misunderstanding that the Pope formulates a definition without the involvement of the Church. With that misconception, they will not unnaturally expect the Church will be involved AFTER the definition is made in the form of “consent.” Of course, in the Catholic understanding, the Church was already involved - that is, in the formulation. In the Catholic understanding, the infallibility of the Church as a whole was already exercised in the formulation. The body as a whole having aided in the formulation of the definition (which can be seen as an infallible act of the Church as a whole), it is now the job and responsibility of the head to infallibly define the matter, and promulgate an ex cathedra decree.

And again:
“The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.”

” [bold mine]
Again, this excerpt has nothing to do with infallibility. It’s about the primacy. But I know this excerpt in particular is a real cause of much misconception. So let me provide the following link, which I hope will address your concerns adequately:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6598593&postcount=32

In light of this, how is your fifth point incorrect?

I hope my responses have been sufficient. Let’s discuss further, if necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dan-Man916]

HI Dan,
… and never apart from him

How does one interpret this phrase?

I suppose that it means they must agree with him. However, is there anything that requires the bishop of Rome to similarly agree with the greater body of bishops in order to have supreme and full authority over the universal Church? I don’t see it.

If there was, it would seem to reverse or negate the dictum of Vatican I which does say “… the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered”

So it seems to me that the body of bishops are morally and legally bound to agree with the bishop of Rome, but not vice versa. That is not really collegial.

Hi Michael,

Certainly, one can interpret this in the way that you propose. And I would even go on to say that it has been assumed that this is the sole way to interpret it.

However, I think that another interpretation that also fits is that a collegiality between the Pope and the Bishops will necissarily lead to a dialogue between the Pope and his brothers so that the dialogue is not one way, Pope down to Bishops, but is a two way conversation. It does recognize the Pope as the “court of last appeal” if you will, where Peter discerns among his brothers.

Now, there is a difference in saying that this interpretation fits within that framework and the actual practice of it being achieved. On the former, I think that collegiality can still fit in as one particular way to interpret this, (which the minority of Vatican I proposed and Vatican II seemed to move toward) is mroe theologically correct. On the latter, I think that Rome still needs to take collegiality seriously and hesitates for political reasons.

The theology is there, but the politics have controlled the interpretive framework of the councils.

If we are to take Josef Ratzinger’s comments seriously, that we cannot expect more from the East than the understanding of Church of the first millenium, then we need to move beyond the interpretive framework of V1 and V2 of pope as monarchy back to the traditional model of pope. The problem is that even the Eastern Churches cannot agree as to what exactly that first millenium model was.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

1. Since the Pope is the final determinant of Church teaching, an Ecumenical Council is superfluous;

I always struggle with this one. The reasons are:

a. An Ecumenical Council (EC) has to be summoned by a pope;
b. The agenda for an EC has to be approved by the pope;
c. If the pope dies or resigns during an EC it is automatically suspended;
d. The next pope may choose to continue the council or not;
e. It decrees have to be approved by the pope (and presumably he does not have to approve them).

This being the case, I am never sure whether the Pope is bound by the decisions of an Ecumenical Council or not. Is it higher in authority than the Pope or not? As no one can judge the Pope and there is no recourse to appeal from the Pope’s judgements I assume that an Ecumenical Council is not a higher authority than the Pope.

I appreciate that this is more about primacy than infallibility but this one on your list always troubles me.

 

[dcointin]

My concern is not if the Pope consults with the Church before promulgating dogmas, but that he does not require the consensus of the Church when doing so, and my arguments are based on that concern. I should have given more explanation as to why I thought those quotations were relevant.

Let me first refer to the quotation about the Pope’s judgments since you thought it had no relevance to the issue of infallibility. I interpreted this as applying to the Pope’s judgment in doctrinal matters that were referred to him, not just judicial ones. I had in mind the example of Pope Honorius when Sergius wrote to ask his opinion of the orthodoxy of the expression “one operation of the Incarnate Word.” I understand this to mean that the Pope’s judgment in such matters cannot be appealed to another authority such as an ecumenical council. If this is not what it is referring to, and I’ll leave that to your judgment, I’m willing to drop the point.

I would like to respond to your two points on the other quotations. In point one you argue that the Vatican I’s statements do not say that the Pope’s promulgations are in and of themselves infallible. This seems to me, however, to be exactly what it says! It states that “when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church… he possesses… that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." It says “when he defines”, and “when he speaks ex cathedra,” which do not presuppose only a previous definition, but apply to any future definition as well. Are you saying that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra that his dogmatic promulgations are not in and of themselves infallible?

In point two you argue that the Pope does not act alone but in consultation with the Church. I don’t dispute that, but I do question how often he’s acting in response to a genuine need in the Church, and not acting in his own interests. I read an essay by Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov where he argues that there was no particular need at that time for the proclamation of Papal Infallibility i.e. no widespread heresy in the Church which demanded an official response. He argued that the bishops of the Vatican I were pressured to consent to it by not being told beforehand the reason for its calling, weren’t given adequate time for deliberation, and were told that not consenting would place them in conflict with the Pope. He relied on statements and documents provided by bishops at the council, and provides extensive references for his quotations. But regardless of how you view Vatican I, my concern is that the Pope does not require the consent of the Church in promulgating a dogma, regardless of how much he consults with the Church beforehand.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Although Vatican I defined papal infallibility it was of course something that had been claimed before then. The problem is Vatican I was never finished because of war. Hence we were left with the definition of papal infallibility. But, that council never got round to discussing the collegiality of all the bishops.

I cannot recall at this moment what all the conditions are for a dogma to be classed as infallible but ex cathedra on its own is not enough. As an example it is generally accepted that since Vatican I defined papal infallibility it has only been used once in 1950 when Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Dan-Man916]

. But, that council never got round to discussing the collegiality of all the bishops.

Vatican II had the possibility of doing so when it addressed the clergy in Lumen Gentium. While it reaffirmed that the Pope is head, it also clarified that the Pope always acts along with the Bishops as a whole. That was as far as collegiality went in Vatican II. The question still has not been ultiamtely defined in a council.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Michael,

Certainly, one can interpret this in the way that you propose. And I would even go on to say that it has been assumed that this is the sole way to interpret it.

However, I think that another interpretation that also fits is that a collegiality between the Pope and the Bishops will necissarily lead to a dialogue between the Pope and his brothers so that the dialogue is not one way, Pope down to Bishops, but is a two way conversation. It does recognize the Pope as the “court of last appeal” if you will, where Peter discerns among his brothers.

I though that the following comment was interesting, I don’t know how many Latin or Eastern Catholics will publicly agree with it, but it’s out there and being taught in seminary in Rome, according to this well respected poster…

…

One thing that we have to be careful is not to make popes slaves to Canon Law. When I was theology student in Rome, we have a wonderful Canon Law professor who said, “Canon law is meant to govern you and me, not the pope. He decides when it applies to him, how it applies to him and when it is to be ignored, because he is the law giver in Locus Christi.” He went on the explain that the pope can even tell you that the law does not apply to you, even though the written word says that it does. That is the extent of the authority of the papacy. This stems from the three titles of the pope: Ruler of the World, Vicar of Christ and Sovereign Pontiff.

 

[Hesychios]

Although Vatican I defined papal infallibility it was of course something that had been claimed before then. The problem is Vatican I was never finished because of war. Hence we were left with the definition of papal infallibility. But, that council never got round to discussing the collegiality of all the bishops…

As I understand it the likelihood that the Council would be cut short occasioned a change in the itinerary, the discussions on Universal Jurisdiction first, and Papal Infallibility second, were moved up and thus tackled first.

It is true that the Council broke up during the process. First the 'Inopportunists" dribbled out when they saw the Council moving away from their position, then the “Opportunists” fled, which is why there was nothing in the way of closure.

I did read that the first act of Vatican Council II was to formally close Vatican I, true or not I don’t know, but that would make it binding, I believe.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I did read that the first act of Vatican Council II was to formally close Vatican I

I have just finished reading a biography of Pope Paul VI. As you would imagine quite a significant part of it was devoted to the Council. This was not mentioned but that is not proof positive. It did say the Council dealt with the collegiality that should have been addressed at Vatican I. It did say Paul VI struggled greatly with this issue. He was to a certain extent in favour of collegiality but was also concerned in maintaining the primacy of his office.

 

[Hesychios]

I have just finished reading a biography of Pope Paul VI. As you would imagine quite a significant part of it was devoted to the Council. This was not mentioned but that is not proof positive. It did say the Council dealt with the collegiality that should have been addressed at Vatican I. It did say Paul VI struggled greatly with this issue. He was to a certain extent in favour of collegiality but was also concerned in maintaining the primacy of his office.

If you have any further information on Vat I this would be interesting to know. I am specifically interested in the original agenda items which were not attended.

As I stated, my older reading many years ago stated the agenda were changed, placing the two Papal dogmas in front of everything else (placing them originally among the last items suggests perhaps a climactic finish to the council was planned), but I don’t know that the role of bishops and ‘collegiality’ were ever intended to be discussed at Vatican I, it could have been something else. Supposing they were going to discuss the bishops role and collegiality, we don’t know which way it was expected to go but it was clearly not as important to the controllers of the event as the discussions of papal powers. Once the two new papal dogmas were passed the greater majority of attendees got out of Rome any way they could as fast as they could, presumably asking for the Popes blessing as they departed, hoping to get out before the Italians occupied the city.

 

[Nine_Two]

This being the case, I am never sure whether the Pope is bound by the decisions of an Ecumenical Council or not. Is it higher in authority than the Pope or not? As no one can judge the Pope and there is no recourse to appeal from the Pope’s judgements I assume that an Ecumenical Council is not a higher authority than the Pope.

I appreciate that this is more about primacy than infallibility but this one on your list always troubles me.

The Council of Trent specifically dealt with this issue, at its final session it declared “In all things the authority of the Apostolic See shall remain untouched.”, I assume that means a later pope can make a decree contrary to that which has been pronounced by the council, but I’m not completely sure.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

My concern is not if the Pope consults with the Church before promulgating dogmas, but that he does not require the consensus of the Church when doing so, and my arguments are based on that concern. I should have given more explanation as to why I thought those quotations were relevant.

Thank you for the response (I believe this is also brother Michael’s [Hesychios] main concern). The position of the Catholic Church is that the Pope NORMATIVELY requires the consensus of the Church, but not ABSOLUTELY.

First, let me explain what “consensus” means in the Catholic understanding as far as infallibility is concerned. This requires the establishment of some basic principles:

Principle #1) You have to understand that the Catholic Church does not in any way teach that papal infallibility is a stand-alone charism or prerogative. Rather, papal infallibility is merely an EXTENSION of the infallibility of the Church. This was affirmed by the Fathers of V1 by, as one example among several, changing the title of the Decree on infallibility from “The Infallibility of the Pope” to “the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.” Unfortunately, not many know that this change acutally took place, so it’s relevance is lost. Another, much more explicit indication of the Catholic Church’s position at V1 is the addition of the following important clause (highlighted in red) to the very definition on Infallibility:
“We…teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra…(faith and morals, etc.)…possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”

The way this decree is worded is very important (syntax was a point of debate at the Council). It shows 2 things: 1) that when the Pope exercises infallibility, he is exercising the infallibility of the Church; 2) that the act of defining doctrine concerning faith or morals is a formal act of the Church, not merely of the Pope.

So how is the Church involved in the papal decree? The Church is involved in its formulation. The problem with the non-Catholic polemic misconception of papal infallibility (a misconception I used to hold) is that it presumes the Pope can one day wake up at 7:00 A.M., get out his typewriter (there’s an ancient concept!) at 8:00 A.M., formulate a decree from 8:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., then go out to St. Peter’s at 3:00 P.M. and formally announce to the Catholic world, “THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE FROM NOW ON.” And this must be done on a Wednesday or it is invalid! (Just kidding on that one, but IIRC, his public audience is normally on Wednesday). Based on that caricature, the polemicists complain, “the Pope can’t do that. His decree needs to be approved by the rest of the Church to be valid.”

That caricature is so far from the truth I’m ashamed to admit that I once held it. The fact is, the Pope must normatively consult the Church (see explanation on “normatively” below).

Principle #2) You have to understand that “the Church” is not merely composed of those who are living, but of every member from the first century whose opinions and teachings are contained in Sacred Tradition.

Principle #3) You have to understand that the Pope cannot go outside the bounds of Sacred Tradition when defining an issue of Faith and morals. Where is this stated in the Decree on infallibility? It is contained in the Proem:
“There, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith, so that here where the faith can suffer no diminution, the harm suffered by the faith might be repaired. However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the condition of the times and circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and apostolic Tradition. The reason for this is that 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 handed down through the apostles.”

Keeping these three principles in mind, “consensus” according to the Church’s understanding does not refer to the Church’s judgment upon what a Pope decrees. Rather, “consensus” refers to the sensus fidei of the Church upon which the Pope must base his decree.

Do you have any problems with that concept?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Now, let me explain what “NORMATIVELY, but NOT ABSOLUTELY, requires” means. I will let a greater authority than myself do the talking:
“We do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church. The end is the preservation of Truth in the Church…Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc…We ought to piously believe that in the divine assistance given to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is included a promise as to the means necessary and apt for making an infallible judgment by the Pope…Infallibility was given by Christ to the entire Magisterium of the Church, that is to the Apostles along with Peter…The consent of the churches is the rule of Faith which even the Pope should follow; and therefore before the definition he ought to consult the rules of the churches that he may be certain as to the consent of the churches. It is here we come to the crucial point. It is true that the Pope in his definition ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church united with its head is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often by deduced form the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, the holy fathers, from the opinions of doctors, and in other private ways, which suffice for full information…It is agreed that this rule of the consent of the churches is valid…namely, that whatever the universal Church unanimously by its present preaching receives and venerates as revealed…[is the basis for] the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiffs.”

This statement is from Bishop Vincent Gasser of Austria. He was a member of the Majority Party at V1, and was the spokesman for the deputation De Fide, the most important committee at V1, which was responsible for sifting through all the propositions from the bishops, and for formulating the Decrees to be presented to the General Assembly of bishops for their vote.

Let me first refer to the quotation about the Pope’s judgments since you thought it had no relevance to the issue of infallibility. I interpreted this as applying to the Pope’s judgment in doctrinal matters that were referred to him, not just judicial ones. I had in mind the example of Pope Honorius when Sergius wrote to ask his opinion of the orthodoxy of the expression “one operation of the Incarnate Word.” I understand this to mean that the Pope’s judgment in such matters cannot be appealed to another authority such as an ecumenical council. If this is not what it is referring to, and I’ll leave that to your judgment, I’m willing to drop the point.

I see what you are saying, and thanks for the example. I would point out that the quote you gave is specifically nestled in the Decree on the Primacy, so there should be no doubt that it refers only to disciplinary judgment in the exercise of the Primacy. I know there are objections to that teaching from V1, and there are strong Catholic responses to those objections. But that is not the purpose of this thread (we can start a thread on Primacy, if you wish, though it would probably consist of links to other threads from my end, since the issue of Primacy has been discussed rather thoroughly here – though it would never be tiring nor inappropriate to repeat salient points).

You can relate the matter to doctrine, but the reference you should have given is Canon 333-3 of the Latin Code (Canon 45-3 of EEOC):
“There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff.”
However, referencing this canon would mute the relevance of your example, because this Canon is in the context of the Pope “fulfilling his office as Supreme Pastor of the Church” (this statement is contained in section 2 of the Canon). In this context, it refers to a public judgment or decree by the Pope intended for the universal Church. And let’s face it, Pope Honorius’ response to Sergius was neither public, nor intended for the entire Church, but was a private and personal (if injudicious) instruction to Sergius.

CONTINUED