Infallibility - revisited

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

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?

Not at all, and forgive me for any miscommunication on my part. I’m admitting everything the dogma states. All I’m saying is that this statement cannot be interpreted to mean that the definition is a solitary act of the Pope. It NORMATIVELY includes the sensus fide of the present Church through the counsel of his brother bishops, and ALWAYS the witness of the Church down through the Ages in Sacred Tradition. It is a rare circumstance that the resolution of a doctrinal issue brought to the Pope is plainly obvious from Sacred Tradition, but it is possible, and the Council wished to take that into consideration in its decrees, by not making the consent (or counsel) of the Church an absolutely necessity. In this manner, the infallibility of the entire Church is exercised and evinced in every ex cathedra decree of the Pope on faith and morals.

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.

But what do you base that belief on? The only two times papal infallibility were exercised was in response to requests from the rest of the Church. Non-Catholics can complain that the dogmas were unnecessary, but they can’t deny that the dogmas were initiated not by papal self-interest but by the clamor of a large portion of the Church.

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.

That is certainly not true. The Council was called for the general purpose of combating the modernist heresy. Do you think an assertion of doctrinal authority by the Church is a proper response to modernism? Sadly, I think many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the only thing that came out of V1 were the papal dogmas. Not many probably know that V1 also promulgated a Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith which was a theological response to the modernist heresy. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church was intended as response to the heresy from an ecclesiastical perspective, though the only chapters voted on from that Constitution were the papal dogmas.

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,

Certainly not true. The Council was announced in a public consistory of 500 bishops, and it was the bishops themselves who determined the agenda for the Council. It’s possible Bulgakov took statements from bishops during the Council out of context. There was indeed a period early in the Council when the Pope imposed silence from all the bishops, because wild speculations due to leaks were being disseminated by the secular media. At that point, some (rather, a few) bishops complained of the secrecy. The secular media, naturally, blew it out of proportion and spread baseless gossip, which is most likely the source of Bulgakov’s mischaracterization.

weren’t given adequate time for deliberation,

This happened on ONE particular occasion during the Council, when a committee added a clause to the canon of the 3rd chapter on the infallibility when the entire text was scheduled for vote the next day. The normal procedure was for a committee to submit the whole text to the bishops, the bishops would submit emendations, the committee would decide which emendations to include, and change the text accordingly, then resubmit it to the bishops for vote. The committee very unwisely made a small amendment the day before the voting. The amendment did not change the meaning of the text, but members of both the Majority and Minority party complained vociferously about the irregularity of the action. For Bulgakov to generalize this singular instance is rather dishonest.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

and were told that not consenting would place them in conflict with the Pope.

Of over 700 bishops at the Council, 2 received personal remonstrances from the Pope. That’s it. That the Pope wanted the definitions is true. One bishop (I forget his name) wrote that the freedom of the bishops was diminished mostly because of their love and respect for the Pope (btw, many polemicists love using that quote, but always leave out the part about their love and respect for the Pope). To present the evidence as if the Pope sent personal letters to all the bishops, or personally told all the bishops, “I want this defined” – again, that’s just dishonest.

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.

As discussed in the beginning, “consent” is identical to “consult.” Permit me to explain further. There‘s only two possible scenarios that concern us here, because there’s only two possible scenarios when papal infallibility would and could be exercised:

1. When the Church requests the Pope to dogmatize a strong, ancient, and near-universal belief of the Church.
   In this scenario, it is possible that the Pope need not consult the Church. Since it is strong, ancient, and near-universal, we might presume the teaching is obvious from Sacred Tradition. In such an instance, the “consent” is inherent in the request. Of course, it is also possible that the Pope does not feel sure if the teaching is de fide. In that case, he is required to consult the Church, and the response of the Church would be considered the “consent” The Pope will base his decree on that response (i.e., whether to dogmatize the teaching or not). This is what occurred with two most recent Marian dogmas.
2. When there is a doctrinal disagreement between two parties of bishops.
   In this scenario, we certainly cannot assume that the matter is obvious from Sacred Tradition, especially since two groups are somehow interpreting something differently. Since the resolution is not obvious, the Pope is required to consult the bishops. Practially speaking, the Pope really need not request the bishops for their doctrinal positions, for in this instance, the bishops will no doubt approach the Pope with all the evidences from Sacred Tradition in tow as they ask the Pope to resolve the matter. The Pope considers the evidence and makes his Decree. Orthodoxy belongs to the side with which the Pope agrees. The consent of the Church is presumed from the inherent agreement of the prevailing party of bishops.

Brother dcointin, I would ask you – where in these two scenarios do you find the consent of the Church wanting?

NOTE: There were two instances when I stated that the Pope is required to consult the Church. This requirement is not absolute, but depends on the circumstances of the case, as evinced above. This is why I stated earlier that though the consent of the Church is NORMATIVE, it is NOT ABSOLUTE.

Polemicists like to pretend that there is a third scenario (which I mentioned earlier): The Pope gets out of bed one morning and decides on a whim to make a new dogma. This is indeed the only possible scenario that would merit a requirement of consent from the Church after a Decree has been promulgated. But it will never happen, and to inject such a ludicrous impossibility into any discussion on papal infallibility merits no response (note: I’m not saying you are doing this, brother Don).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthew

I always struggle with this one. The reasons are:

a. An Ecumenical Council (EC) has to be summoned by a pope;

Every head bishop has the prerogative to summon a council of bishops in his jurisdiction. Every Orthodox (EO and OO) will agree. This is mainly an administrative prerogative. The real question is whether the Pope is the head bishop of all the bishops of the world. If so, then he can certainly summon a Council composed of all the bishops of the world, n’est pas? The 2007 Ravenna Orthodox-Catholic committee agreed that in a united Church, the bishop of Rome is the head (protos) of the heads of the Churches.

b. The agenda for an EC has to be approved by the pope;

On the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34/35, which states that in a matter affecting the entire Church, the body of bishops cannot act without its head bishop, this must certainly be the case.

c. If the pope dies or resigns during an EC it is automatically suspended;

Since a body of bishops cannot act without its head in a matter affecting the entire Church, I don’t understand your concern.

d. The next pope may choose to continue the council or not;

Can you please explain your issue with this a bit more? I mean, I don’t see why it should be of any concern.

e. It decrees have to be approved by the pope

Again, on the basis of Apostolic Canon 34/35, this must necessarily be the case.

(and presumably he does not have to approve them).

This is the prerogative of every bishop. It’s called free will. I don’t understand your concern.

This being the case, I am never sure whether the Pope is bound by the decisions of an Ecumenical Council or not.

An Ecumenical Council is not considered Ecumenical unless it has the consent of the Pope. I can’t imagine that a Pope would oppose his own decisions. So I don’t understand the issue here. Perhaps you are referring to a Pope being bound by a past ecumenical council? If that’s the case – Yes, the Pope is bound by all past Ecumenical Councils and cannot act or make decrees contrary to them.

Is it higher in authority than the Pope or not?

As stated, the Pope is a member of an Ecumenical Council. He is its head. I simply don’t understand why one should dichotomize the body from its head, or vice-versa. Basically, I think this question is akin to “Can God make a rock He cannot lift?” It’s nothing more than a philosophical oxymoron, an artificial quandary.

The best answer to your question is: No, an Ecumenical Council is not higher in authority than the Pope — but neither is the Pope higher in authority than an Ecumenical Council. They are equal in authority. In fact, the canons specifically assert that the Pope, on the one hand, and the Ecumenical Council, on the other, are both organs of Supreme Authority in the Church. Is that a satisfactory answer?

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.

There are several relevant issues implied by your statement here:

1. Actually, you can appeal to an Ecumenical Council from the judgment of the Pope, according to V1. But there is a condition – you can’t appeal to the EC as if it is a higher authority than the Pope. It’s possible that in the setting of an EC, the Pope may change his mind. You just have to keep remembering that an EC cannot act without the consent of its head.
2. Practically speaking, the matters that require the judgment of the Pope will never get to an Ecumenical Council, because they normally involve local, disciplinary issues. You must understand that a judgment of the Pope comes in the context of an appeal, after other levels of the hierarchy have made judgments on the matter. If it involves a doctrinal issue that has the potential to affect the entire Church, it is more than likely that the lower levels of the hierarchy will transact the matter in such a way that it will not come up for the Pope’s judgment, but rather go directly to an Ecumenical Council (which will naturally involve the Pope anyway).
3. Yes, an Ecumenical Council is not a higher authority than the Pope, but not because the Pope has authority over an Ecumenical Council, but because the Pope is an indispensable member of an Ecumenical Council.

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

Your concerns here do properly belong in this discussion, because it has relevance for teaching authority.

I look forward to your responses.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

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.

1. Faith and Dogma; 2) Ecclesiastical discipline and canon law; 3) Religious orders and regulars; 4) Oriental Churches and foreign missions; 5) Relations of Church and State. #1 was composed of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (De Fide, composed of two parts), and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (De Ecclesia). #5 was later added to De Ecclesia.

The schedule/outline of De Ecclesiae had 15 Chapters/Decrees. The first 10 Chapters/Decrees set forth the Church’s teaching on the Church and its relation to Truth. Decree/Chapter 11 was on the Primacy. Chapter 12 was on the temporal dominion of the Holy See. Chapters 13 – 15 were on the relationship between Church and State. Several salient facts need to be pointed out about this Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

1. It did not include a Decree/Chapter on papal infallibility.
2. The only Decree of De Ecclesiae that actually made it to the General Assembly for discussion and voting, because of time constraints was Chapter 11 on the Primacy…
3. Chapter 12 was later replaced by the Decree on Infallibility, which was not formally included on the Agenda until March 6, 1870.

The proposed agenda was decided in a committee of 40 bishops which met in April, 1865. The Committee was formed by a commission of 5 cardinals, who were charged by the Pope to draw up an agenda for the Council. The commission decided to delegate the matter to 40 bishops, drawn representatively from all the various Churches in the Catholic Communion. This resulted in a composition of 34 Latin bishops, and 6 Eastern/Oriental bishops. 8 bishops suggested a definition on papal infallibility. The final form of the Agenda (the Schema) was published in the beginning of February, 1870.

For a better perspective, the Council was convened on December 8, 1869

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)

That would be very incorrect. The preparatory work of the committees responsible for formulating the decrees for the 5 items on the agenda took the better part of 4 months. The final drafts of the Decrees were ready to be presented by the first week of March, 1870, and it followed the order of the agenda (given above). The Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith, Part 1, was first in order, voted upon, and promulgated. Next in line was De Fide, Part 2, after which was De Ecclesia.

However, something occurred in February, 1870 that had a great impact on the direction of the Council. This event was the publication of the official schema (Agenda) of the Council (as mentioned earlier). It caused much agitation among the secular powers, especially given that matters of Church and State were included under a section that was intended for Faith and Dogma. Before this time, the debates outside the Council were restricted to the professional and amateur theologians (and the plain old controversialists). But now, the secular governments were involved, threatening to interfere. The following are some representative contemporary statements:

Bishop Ullathorne, a member of the Moderate Party at V1, from his personal diary:
“The Governments of the worlds are getting alarmed under the notion that the Council is going to revive old claims of the Church over the civil powers, and I have before me a letter of Mr. Gladstone privately addressed to a relative, recently converted, in which he says that with our unity, which we parade in face of other people’s divisions, we must expect to be all held as participators; and that if we intrude beyond religious questions into the civil order, we must expect the lex talionis, that is, I suppose, an intrusion of the civil power into our religious affairs.”

Gladstone, the English Prime Minister, in his letter to Bishop Ullathorne:
"The undeniable fact is that the proceedings at Rome are producing effects in this country very unfavourable to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects; nor can it be wondered at, for…those who extend religious authority, or the claim of it, into the civic sphere must be prepared for the lex talionis.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The fears of the secular governments were best expressed by Count Daru, Foreign Minister of France:

**So long as the matters before the Council were concerned with things of the purely spiritual and religious order, the French government had determined to stand aside and leave the Council in untrammeled fashion. But the recently published schema and canons ‘de Ecclesia’ show that matters of a mixed order affecting the State are going to be discussed. The Emperor’s Government, as heir to the Concordat to all the rights and privileges in respect to the Curch enjoyed by the Old Monarchy, has the right to make known its views and wishes to the Holy See and the Council by the presence of an ambassador at the Council…the Government claims the right of making known its views on the aforesaid mixed questions, which incontestably tough the political order. They may be reduced to two points:

1. The infallibility of the Church is made to extend not only to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith, but to everything necessary for guarding that Deposit. That is to say, not only what has been revealed, but facts of history, of philosophy, or science, when judged necessary for the defence and exposition of revelation, are embraced in the Church’s prerogative of infallibility;
2. The Church being a divine and perfect society, her power reaches to externals, and she is absolute in the legislative, judicial and penal orders: this power should be exercised freely, independently of any secular power. And as there is question of declaring the Pope infallible, all these powers of the Church will be vested in him.
   The consequences that flow from these [two] principles [are that] there are subject to the supreme magisterium of the Church, the constitutive principles of society – the political rights and duties of citizens; their electoral and municipal rights also whatever in the legislative and judicial order contains what is licit or illicit in view of the natural or divine or even ecclesiastical law [such as] marriage, the civil rights and duties of married people, of fathers, of children, the rules of administration and of the public functions of officials, the rights of corporations, education, [etc. etc. etc.] – all this is nothing else than the consecration of the supreme authority of the Church over society, and the absolute subordination of all the political and civil rights of every authority whatsoever to the Papacy, proclaimed infallible. ”**

This statement, communicated to the world governments by Count Daru on February 21, 1870, garnered the approval of Bavaria, Austria, England, Spain, and Portugal.

NOTE: The highlighted portion in red in this communiqué from the French foreign minister proves that the Papal Infallibility was not, at this stage in the Council, included on the Agenda.

There were two reactions within the Council on the matter, and it was not a strictly Majority vs. Minority Party debate. One side of this debate felt it even more necessary to include papal infallibility on the agenda in order to provide the world the Truth about what it really means and thereby mollify the fears of the world governments. Meanwhile, the opposition felt the solution was to ensure the exclusion of the matter from the Agenda and increased their efforts to that end. Accordingly, both sides submitted petitions to the Pope. The group calling for a definitive clarification produced petitions containing 500 signatures; the opposition garnered 136 signatures for their own petitions. The Pope delegated the decision to a committee of 26 bishops, which included from the Minority Party Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, Melkite Greek Patriarch Jussef of Antioch, and Archbishop Riccardi Di Netro of Turin. The committee came back with a positive vote to include papal infallibility on the Agenda. The one dissenting vote came from Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna. Accordingly, on March 6, 1870, Pio Nono formally announced the inclusion of papal infallibility on the Agenda. By the end of March, the world governments had promised not to interfere in the Council. Interestingly, the rhetoric was that since none of the secular powers were invited to the Council – unlike all the other Ecum Councils of the past – this should be seen as a decisive break between Church and State.

Brother Michael, the papal dogmas were the last items on the agenda not because the Council planned to have a climactic finish. Rather, as I have repeatedly stated in the past, to the incredulity of many I’m sure, PAPAL INFALLIBILITY WAS NOT ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA OF THE COUNCIL TO BEGIN WITH. Another proof of this is the fact that whereas the final draft of the decrees on every other item on the Agenda was completed and ready for submission to the General Assembly for debate and voting was completed by the first week of March, the deputation De Fide, responsible for formulating those drafts, had only begun doing so in March, and did not even finish the final draft for the papal dogmas until April 27, 1870. And that, brother Michael, was the real reason that the papal dogmas were “last on the list” The papal dogmas were not even “last on the list,” nor were they the last things to be deliberated at the Council before its formal prorogation. The fact of the matter is that the Council was originally expected to last 2- 3 years, with appropriate breaks due to the season (the summer months were supposed to be a break, but the rumors of war forced the schedule to change).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

, 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.

A decree on bishops was indeed on the original Council agenda (it fell under the rubric of “Ecclesiastical Discipline and Canon Law,” the second item on the agenda as noted above). Though it was not voted upon due to time constraints, it was very promising as far as establishing a foundation for any future considerations on the question of collegiality. Here is an excerpt from the text of the proposed Decree, which basically mirrors what was promulgated by a near-unanimous vote at V2 (the highest percentage of “placets” for any single matter on the V2 Council agenda):

“Bishops hold the highest grade in the divinely instituted hierarchy, and so great is their dignity that in Holy Scripture they are decorated with the title of ‘angels.’ For, being placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God, they are higher than priests; in the place of the Apostles, to whom they have succeeded in the episcopacy, they exercise a legation for Christ. Hence, it pertains to them to feed the flock of Christ, to guard the deposit of Faith, and out of the plenitude of the priesthood which they enjoy, to ordain the ministers of Christ. So great being the height of the Episcopal order, let all, laity and especially clergy, yield to them all rightful honour, reverence and obedience.”

But you are correct that collegiality was never part of the agenda, originally, nor after the papal infallibility was added. The reason for that is not because of some imagined self-serving aggrandizement by the Pope. The real reason is that the issue of collegiality had no bearing on the dogmatic purpose of the Council – i.e., to combat the modernist heresy of Rationalism. Dogmatically speaking, the Council was concerned principally with combating modernist notions against God (there is no God), the nature of Truth (there was no objective truth but it was determined by consensus), the nature of the Church (the Church is not supernatural, but is merely another secular society that can be subject to the secular power), and the relationship between the Church and Truth (the Church cannot propose Truth, nor has any means to do so). It is no mere coincidence that Pio Nono’s submission of an initiative to his brother bishops on the possibility of holding an Ecumenical Council (December 6, 1864) and the promulgation of his condemnation of Modernism in the Syllabus of Errors (December 8, 1864) occurred within two days of each other!!!

Collegiality does not fit into any of the categories above, but is rather a question of internal Church function. Nevertheless, I believe the Council laid the foundation for future deliberations on the matter in three ways: 1) the teaching on the office of bishop, quoted above; 2) the addition of the Proem to the Decree on Infallibility which explains the normative role of bishops and/or an Ecumenical Council in the formulation of a dogmatic decree with the Pope, and 3) the following excerpt from De Ecclesiae, chapter 9:

“The object of infallibility extends as far as the deposit of faith and as far as the office of guarding it demands…this infallibility [of the Church], the purpose of which is to maintain in the society of the faithful unsullied truth in its teaching of the faith and morals, belongs to the teaching authority which Christ instituted in perpetuity in his Church [through the Apostles].”

Though #1 and #3 did not make it to the General Assembly for voting due to time constraints, it was the fruit of the work of the Council’s theologians and can be regarded as a valid representation of the Church’s self-understanding at that time. Thus, since I became Catholic (actually, some time before then since the foregoing information came to me when I was still not Catholic), I have never accepted the idea that the ecclesiology of V2 was a 180 degree turn from the ecclesiology of V1.

Needless to say, all the facts mentioned above threw a wholly different light on the issue of papal infallibility in my eyes, for the facts demonstrated to me that the definition was not engineered by a self-aggrandizing Pope, but was a real work of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking of which, during the very promulgation of the Infallibility, a sudden lightning storm appeared, that shook the Council chambers. The lighting actually entered the chambers. The Te Deum was sung after the promulgation amidst rumblings of thunder. In the Old Testament, thunder and lighting was the evidence of the Presence of God, especially prominent during the giving of the Law to Moses. In their relation of the events of V1, many bishops did not fail to see the connection, and rightly so, IMO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Thank you again for taking the time to write such comprehensive and well informed posts!

The idea which I continue to find unacceptable is that any single person could infallibly promulgate dogma. I view infallibility as a possession of the Church as a whole, and therefore only expressed in an absolute sense when the Church meets together in its ultimate expression of catholicity, an ecumenical council. I appreciate your explanation that the Pope would not do so without a request from a significant portion of the Church, or without the unambiguous support of Holy Tradition, which helps to calm the fears that he would act independently or selfishly. It remains, however, that the decision to promulgate dogma is his to make without necessarily having the approval of the Church. I understand that this is only comprehensible with a prior understanding of a special promise of infallibility to St. Peter and that it passes to his successor who is the Pope, which is why the Vatican I decree on infallibility treats this prior to its definition of infallibility. I do not share this understanding, but would be open to hearing your arguments regarding it.

 

[Vince1022]

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;

History clearly shows these two points have not always been required. Most significantly, with the earliest such Councils (the ones all or most Christians agree on).

 

[Vince1022]

I view infallibility as a possession of the Church as a whole,

That is a true and excellent starting point when considering what the Catholic Church teaches about teaching infallibly.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Dear brother Matthew

Every head bishop has the prerogative to summon a council of bishops in his jurisdiction. Every Orthodox (EO and OO) will agree. This is mainly an administrative prerogative. The real question is whether the Pope is the head bishop of all the bishops of the world. If so, then he can certainly summon a Council composed of all the bishops of the world, n’est pas? The 2007 Ravenna Orthodox-Catholic committee agreed that in a united Church, the bishop of Rome is the head (protos) of the heads of the Churches.

On the ancient principle of Apostolic Canon 34/35, which states that in a matter affecting the entire Church, the body of bishops cannot act without its head bishop, this must certainly be the case.

Since a body of bishops cannot act without its head in a matter affecting the entire Church, I don’t understand your concern.

Can you please explain your issue with this a bit more? I mean, I don’t see why it should be of any concern.

Again, on the basis of Apostolic Canon 34/35, this must necessarily be the case.

This is the prerogative of every bishop. It’s called free will. I don’t understand your concern.

An Ecumenical Council is not considered Ecumenical unless it has the consent of the Pope. I can’t imagine that a Pope would oppose his own decisions. So I don’t understand the issue here. Perhaps you are referring to a Pope being bound by a past ecumenical council? If that’s the case – Yes, the Pope is bound by all past Ecumenical Councils and cannot act or make decrees contrary to them.

As stated, the Pope is a member of an Ecumenical Council. He is its head. I simply don’t understand why one should dichotomize the body from its head, or vice-versa. Basically, I think this question is akin to “Can God make a rock He cannot lift?” It’s nothing more than a philosophical oxymoron, an artificial quandary.

The best answer to your question is: No, an Ecumenical Council is not higher in authority than the Pope — but neither is the Pope higher in authority than an Ecumenical Council. They are equal in authority. In fact, the canons specifically assert that the Pope, on the one hand, and the Ecumenical Council, on the other, are both organs of Supreme Authority in the Church. Is that a satisfactory answer?

There are several relevant issues implied by your statement here:

1. Actually, you can appeal to an Ecumenical Council from the judgment of the Pope, according to V1. But there is a condition – you can’t appeal to the EC as if it is a higher authority than the Pope. It’s possible that in the setting of an EC, the Pope may change his mind. You just have to keep remembering that an EC cannot act without the consent of its head.
2. Practically speaking, the matters that require the judgment of the Pope will never get to an Ecumenical Council, because they normally involve local, disciplinary issues. You must understand that a judgment of the Pope comes in the context of an appeal, after other levels of the hierarchy have made judgments on the matter. If it involves a doctrinal issue that has the potential to affect the entire Church, it is more than likely that the lower levels of the hierarchy will transact the matter in such a way that it will not come up for the Pope’s judgment, but rather go directly to an Ecumenical Council (which will naturally involve the Pope anyway).
3. Yes, an Ecumenical Council is not a higher authority than the Pope, but not because the Pope has authority over an Ecumenical Council, but because the Pope is an indispensable member of an Ecumenical Council.

Your concerns here do properly belong in this discussion, because it has relevance for teaching authority.

I look forward to your responses.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have given this some thought. I am not able to respond to you. This is because I am not fully sure what your answers mean. This is probably due to the fact that I did not phrase my question very well.

 

[mardukm]

I have given this some thought. I am not able to respond to you. This is because I am not fully sure what your answers mean. This is probably due to the fact that I did not phrase my question very well.

Ask away, brother. That’s what this thread is for.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

The idea which I continue to find unacceptable is that any single person could infallibly promulgate dogma. I view infallibility as a possession of the Church as a whole,

Forgive me for being obtuse, but I thought I had covered this in posts #19, #20 and #22. I would urge you to reread them. I know I related an inordinate amount of info in my last several posts (including that doctoral dissertation to brother Hesychios ), so certain bits of information may have slipped your mind by the time you finished reading it all. Please permit me to repeat two of the most salient points:

1. 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;
2. The Dogma on papal infallibility is worded in such a way to teach that: a) when the Pope exercises infallibility, he is exercising the infallibility of the Church; b) the act of defining doctrine concerning faith or morals is a formal act of the Church, not merely of the Pope.

You state, “I find it unacceptable that any single person could infallible promulgate a dogma.” Before I go on, I invite you to ponder two things:

1. “Why is it so hard for me to believe that the head of an infallible body can share in the infallibility of that body?”
2. “Is it possible that there can be an occasion when the whole Church is in such turmoil and uncertainty about a teaching that her only recourse is to appeal to the guidance of her head bishop?”

and therefore only expressed in an absolute sense when the Church meets together in its ultimate expression of catholicity, an ecumenical council.

The Catholic Church teaches that the infallibility of the Church can be expressed “in an absolute sense” (I put that in quotes not just because I am quoting you, but also to indicate that the CC does not teach that infallibility can be exercise absolutely by the Church – only God can do that) through: 1) its visible Magisterial head (the Pope); 2) the formal, visible Magisterial body with its head (Ecumenical Council); and 3) the informal, visible Magisterial body with its head (bishops of the world teaching unanimously and definitively). Am I correct in understanding that you believe the exercise of infallibility is restricted to just #2?

I appreciate your explanation that the Pope would not do so without a request from a significant portion of the Church, or without the unambiguous support of Holy Tradition, which helps to calm the fears that he would act independently or selfishly.

Actually, it’s not that the Pope “WOULD not” do so, but that the Pope “COULD NOT” do so. I have always asserted that knowledge of the background debates at the Council is indispensable for a proper understanding of V1. This is another of the many instances where this knowledge is necessary. I will explain it more in my response to your next sentence.

It remains, however, that the decision to promulgate dogma is his to make without necessarily having the approval of the Church.

In order to give a proper response to this, I would humbly ask that you re-read post #22 above, and answer the question I posed: “Where in these two scenarios do you find the consent of the Church wanting?”

If you agree that the consent of the Church is not wanting in those two scenarios, then does that not answer your concern on the necessity of the approval of the Church?

But even if you agree, another, very natural question that will cross your mind, I’m sure, will be, “how can you be sure that these are indeed the only two scenarios possible?” In other words, if there are other possible scenarios, then it is also possible that there is a circumstance wherein the consent/approval of the Church is indeed wanting.

ANSWER:As stated, a knowledge of the background debates at V1 is indispensable. The Proem of the Decree on Infallibility was actually not part of the initial draft of the Decree; it was added through the diligence of members of both the Majority and Minority Parties who were concerned about the limits within which papal infallibility could possibly be exercised. The text of the original draft only answered the questions: 1) how can we recognize whether a decree is infallible (i.e., ex cathedra, universal scope and purpose, intention to define)? and 2) what is the proper subject of an exercise of papal infallibility (i.e., a doctrine on faith or morals)?

It did not address two other questions of great concern to the Council Fathers:

1. How is the Church involved?
2. What are the sources that the Pope can utilize for a dogmatic decision?
   Many ask – why wasn’t collegiality dogmatically defined? I answered this question in the previous post (because it was not germaine to the Council’s dogmatic purpose to combat the Modernist heresy). But the Majority Party and the Presidents of the Committees also had a more practical response – namely, it was not necessary because the collegial nature of the Church is sufficiently evident from Sacred Tradition.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

All the concerns of the previous paragraph were intended to be addressed by the addition of the Proem to the Decree. Someone reading the Decree will look at the Proem and think, “those are some nice historical facts.” But the Proem was not added for the purpose of being a historical lesson. Rather, it was added to assert the norm of Sacred Tradition that serve as the boundaries within which the Pope is permitted to exercise the charism of infallibility. Thus, for example, when the Proem relates, “Therefore, 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 the Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith,” this establishes the rule by which the Pope is alerted that the charism of infallibility needs to be exercised by his Petrine Office. This obliterates any possibility of that ludicrous scenario mentioned in a previous post (the Pope wakes up one day and decides he is going to make a new dogma) from ever occurring. The Proem is the guarantee that the Pope exercises infallibility only as a response to the needs of the Church through the bishops (i.e., this is the way it happened according to Sacred Tradition, so this is the only way the Pope can do it today).

If you don’t believe me, perhaps you will believe the statement of a local Synod of bishops and Pio Nono himself. After the Council, the Swiss bishops issued the following Pastoral Instruction in June, 1871:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our present discussion].”

POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

FYI, the V1 Fathers holding the Absolutist Petrine view (writers of that period called them “neo-ultramontanists,” to be distinguished from the ultramontanists who adhered to a more High Petrine view) lobbied to have the Proem removed, some calling its contents nothing more than the Gallican heresy in disguise!

I understand that this is only comprehensible with a prior understanding of a special promise of infallibility to St. Peter and that it passes to his successor who is the Pope, which is why the Vatican I decree on infallibility treats this prior to its definition of infallibility.

Actually, I share your understanding completely. It is absolutely important to understand that THE DOGMA ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DOES NOT TEACH THAT THERE WAS A “SPECIAL PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY TO ST. PETER.” (most everyone who just read that has probably just spit out whatever it was they were eating, or I’m sure probably thinks I’ve finally gone over the deep end ; and there are probably some who are wringing their hands in anticipation thinking "This is it! Today Marduk falls! ). What the dogma of papal infallibility teaches is that, according to the exact words of the Dogma:

“The Roman Pontiff…possesses THROUGH THE DIVINE ASSISTANCE promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the INFALLIBILITY WITH WHICH THE DIVINE REDEEMER WILLED HIS CHURCH TO BE ENDOWED in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.”

The statement “Pope has a special promise of infallibility” indicates, or at least makes it appear as if, the infallibility of the Pope is something unique that no one else has. What he has is the “special promise of divine assistance” to possess the infallibility OF THE CHURCH. As I’d mentioned in an earlier post, the infallibility of the Pope is nothing more than an extension of the infallibility of the Church. This is a basic principle of the High Petrine View which does not seek to separate the head from the body nor the body from the head. We often use the term “the infallibility of the Pope” or “papal infallibility” for the sake of ease and utility, but those are technically inaccurate terms. The more accurate terminology is “the infallibility of the magisterium of the Pope” or “the infallible magisterium of the Pope” (you can see why the other two terms are more easy to use – these latter two terms are a mouthful!). Again, as I stated in an earlier post, V1 actually changed the title of the Dogma from “Infallibility of the Pope” to “Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope,” for the exact purpose of making obvious that papal infallibility is not separated or different from the infallibility of the Church.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I do not share this understanding, but would be open to hearing your arguments regarding it.

By this I am assuming you mean the idea that the special assistance promised to Peter is handed down to his successors? I guess the answer would come in two parts. First, I’d have to demonstrate that Jesus promised a special assistance to Peter. Secondly, I’d have to demonstrate that this special assistance was handed on to Peter’s successors.

1) The special assistance to Peter was given by the Lord in Luke 22:31-32 – “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [Apostles], that he might sift you [Apostles] like wheat. But I have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you [Peter] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Non-Catholics normally interpret this passage in three ways that attempt to diminish its value for the Catholic position.
a) Jesus is only praying for Peter so he will have the strength to turn back to Jesus. His charge to strengthen his brethren has nothing to do with that prayer.
RESPONSE: Jesus does not say that he is praying for Peter to have the strength to return to him. He states specifically that he is praying that his faith may not fail. If this is in reference to Peter’s faith at that moment, then Jesus’ prayer failed, for Peter indeed did fall away. This means that the prayer must refer to Peter’s strength of faith in general, which would then include his strength of faith to strengthen his own brethren.
FURTHER, if this refers only to Peter’s strength to be able to return, it would not make any sense for Jesus to mention the rest of the Apostles in verse 31. Peter’s strength through Jesus’ singular prayer for him must be seen as the remedy against Satan not only for himself, but also for his fellow Apostles.

b) Jesus’ is only praying for Peter so he will get through this whole ordeal of Jesus’ death. He is simply telling Peter to give his fellow Apostles the appropriate pep talks to get through that same sad and stressful ordeal.
RESPONSE: Peter’s strength of faith did not return to him until Jesus’ Resurrection. At that point, ALL the Apostles were renewed and did not need Peter’s pep talks (well, Thomas was a bit of a Johnny-come-lately). So the strengthening of which Jesus speaks that Peter must do for the rest of the Apostles must not be referring to pep talks to get them through the ordeal of Jesus’ death, but rather to some other and greater vocation.

c) Jesus is only praying for Peter because he is the one who denied Jesus among all the Apostles. Therefore, the prayer is appropriately only for Peter, and we need not attach any significance to the fact that verse 31 refers to the apostles, while verse 32 refers to Peter only.
RESPONSE: All the Apostles except St. John denied Jesus. None were willing to be with him at his Crucifixion except St. John. Jesus does not pray for them, but only for Peter. Thus, Jesus’ singular prayer for Peter’s faith was the remedy against Satan not only for himself, but also for his fellow Apostles.

COMMENT1: Peter exercised the infallible Magisterium when he announced to the Jewish Church that the Gentiles had no impediment to enter the Church.

COMMENT2: Most Catholic apologists utilize the Matthean passages in support of papal infallibility. I’m not one of those. The Matthean passages should only be used in support of the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, not its infallibility (nor, by extension, the Pope’s). In fact, V1 did not use the Matthean passages as the basis for papal infallibility, but rather the Lucan passages.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

2) Arguments in support of the inheritance of Peter’s special assistance from Jesus to his successors.
a) The need of the Church. Jesus understood that even the Apostles, the leaders of the Church, needed confirmation in their Faith. And he gave this office of confirming the brethren to Peter. Unless we can say that the Church is more prefect now than in the time of the Apostles, unless we can say that the bishops are more perfect now than the Apostles were, then it stands to reason that the office Christ established for confirming the brethren in the first century, must still exist today.

b) The Apostolic succession. Every charism that the Apostles received except for inspiration (to write Scripture) for the building up of the body of Christ was handed down to their successors for the building up of the body of Christ. Since the office of confirming the brethren is for the building up of the body of Christ, it stands to reason that it was handed down in the Apostolic Succession and inherited by the successor of Peter.

c) Scripture. There are many passages supporting the principle of Apostolic Succession. Such passages would certainly imply the perpetuation of the unique Petrine office for confirmation of the brethren, but there is more direct evidence that such an office was passed on. In Matthew 24: 45 – 51, Jesus gives a lesson and a prediction in the form of a parable that when He leaves, He will set one servant over his household in order to feed that household. He also states that when He returns, the servant will still be holding the position as the one who feeds the household. St. Luke gives us more information validating that this refers to the unique Petrine office. St. Luke records in 12: 41-48 that the Lord gave this parable in response to a question from none other than St. Peter himself. Further, St. John confirms the prophetic nature of the parable, recording in the Gospel that after Jesus’ resurrection, He took St. Peter aside and charged him to “feed my sheep.” As St. John has confirmed the prophetic nature of the parable, we cannot doubt that there will be a servant holding this office that is responsible for feeding the entire household of Christ. No one but the bishop of Rome has ever claimed to have the awesome responsibility of feeding the entire household of Christ. It is the bishop of Rome who is the Successor of Peter, and who has inherited not only the responsibility of feeding the Church, but consequently, of confirming his brethren as well.

d) The Fathers. The evidences are too numerous to count, both from individual Fathers and Councils. Besides, the back-and-forth on patristic texts is not the purpose of this thread. I will point out, however, that St. John Chrysostom interpreted the Scripture passages mentioned above as referring to Peter and the bishops of Rome.

COMMENT: The issue of whether it was the bishop of Antioch or the bishop of Rome who was the rightful successor of Peter is a question of Primacy, not Infallibility, so I hope no one brings that up.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Ask away, brother. That’s what this thread is for.

Blessings,
Marduk

To begin with a digression, why do we call them œcumenical councils when they only concern the Catholic churches (Eastern and Latin)? The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental churches are not involved. Not to mention the Anglicans and, at least, the mainstream Protestants. I humbly suggest ‘general council’ would be a more appropriate name.

I strongly believe that the Supreme Pontiff is higher in authority than an œcumenical council because he alone can determine if one is held, he alone can determine the matters it discusses and he alone determines its final decrees. Basically an œcumenical council produces what the Supreme Pontiff wants rather than what a majority of the council fathers may want.

I think I should continue to address this matter with my five original points.

An œcumenical council has to be summoned by a pope.
Œcumenical councils in contemporary times are only summoned by the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, no Supreme Pontiff has to have an œcumenical council during his pontificate. If we really had episcopal collegiality I believe that the world’s bishops could ask for a council. I suppose they can and if they did the Supreme Pontiff might summon one but it would still ultimately be his decision.

The agenda for an œcumenical council has to be approved by the pope
This means that an œcumenical council is restricted to dealing with those matters that the Supreme Pontiff wants it to deal with. Therefore, that cannot be considered collegiality if only the head of the œcumenical council can determine what the œcumenical council discusses. There are two very good examples concerning this point. The council fathers at Vatican II wanted to discuss two issues: artificial contraception and priestly celibacy. Pope Paul VI denied them these opportunities.

If the pope dies or resigns during an œcumenical council it is automatically suspended.
I can understand practical reasons for doing this. If the pope has died it would be a mark of respect during the period of mourning. During the conclave to elect the next pope all the cardinals under 80 years old would be absent from the council. As for the head of the body of bishops being absent that is not, I don’t believe, significant other than in a symbolic way. The Supreme Pontiff is normally physically absent from most meetings of the œcumenical council. So as the Holy See is only sede vacante for a matter of a few weeks I don’t believe that practically there would be any real problem in continuing with an œcumenical council. I think the real reason is so that the next Supreme Pontiff is not placed in a position where he has to continue with an œcumenical council.

The next pope may choose to continue the council or not.
This is not a concern. I think it just further points away from true collegiality and confirms that an œcumenical council is completely subject to papal authority. Even if an œcumenical council is temporarily suspended while the Holy See is sede vacante, I believe that it should automatically resume after the election of a new Supreme Pontiff.

**Its decrees have to be approved by the pope and presumably he does not have to approve them.
**This I think is another example that demonstrates that an œcumenical council is truly subject to papal authority. The supreme pontiff can clearly overrule what the majority of the council fathers at an œcumenical council may want.

This being the case, I am never sure whether the Pope is bound by the decisions of an œcumenical council or not. To which you replied: “An Ecumenical Council is not considered Ecumenical unless it has the consent of the Pope. I can’t imagine that a Pope would oppose his own decisions. So I don’t understand the issue here. Perhaps you are referring to a Pope being bound by a past ecumenical council? If that’s the case – Yes, the Pope is bound by all past Ecumenical Councils and cannot act or make decrees contrary to them”.

I think a key statement in your response is “I can’t imagine that a Pope would oppose his own decisions.” Now, I don’t want to do what a lot of people do on these threads and take that one sentence out of the context of your whole answer. But, it does lend some credence to what I am trying to say, which is that the Supreme Pontiff is higher in authority than an œcumenical council because its decisions are his decisions. In other words, the council fathers will only have been able to discuss those topics that the Supreme Pontiff decided they could discuss. Also, the decrees of the œcumenical council will be what the Supreme Pontiff wanted so yes he will approve them because they’ll already meet his approval because he won’t have allowed the œcumenical council to draw up decrees that are contrary to what he wants.

You said: “… Pope is bound by all past Ecumenical Councils and cannot act or make decrees contrary to them”. Can another œcumenical council act or make decrees contrary to them? If you answer this in the affirmative then in practical terms I believe this means the Supreme Pontiff will be the one who amends decisions of a previous œcumenical council.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthew,

I can see that the purpose of your questions is going beyond the purpose of this thread. I have answered your questions so far because they had relevance for the involvement of the episcopate in the teaching office of the Church.

But your follow up response here indicates that your main concern is “who has authority over whom.” That is indeed a question on primacy. If you want to start a new thread on the primacy, I would be more than happy to respond to your questions there.

Blessings,
Marduk

To begin with a digression, why do we call them œcumenical councils when they only concern the Catholic churches (Eastern and Latin)? The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental churches are not involved. Not to mention the Anglicans and, at least, the mainstream Protestants. I humbly suggest ‘general council’ would be a more appropriate name…

You said: “… Pope is bound by all past Ecumenical Councils and cannot act or make decrees contrary to them”. Can another œcumenical council act or make decrees contrary to them? If you answer this in the affirmative then in practical terms I believe this means the Supreme Pontiff will be the one who amends decisions of a previous œcumenical council.

 

[mardukm]

Hi Everyone,

I need to insert another issue into this thread. The following is from another thread. It actually involves a more basic topic than papal infallibility – it involves the notion of infallibility itself. There seems to be misunderstanding from our non-Catholic brethren on what infallibility itself means. Of course, they are not to blame since “infallibility” is a Catholic concept and it’s our responsibility as Catholics to explain it (the natural corollary is, of course, that one should not depend on non-Catholic explanations of infallibility ). Thus:

josephdaniel29:

mardukm:

Yes. I didn’t say that EO are claiming their bishops did not have apostolic succession; I said that EO are claiming that their bishops did not inherit the promise of the Holy Spirit (that’s how I interpret your statement that bishops don’t have infallibility, even collectively).

Your mistake is equating the gift of the Holy Spirit with human infallibility. The Holy Spirit is indeed infallible, no human being is.

The Catholic Church does not teach that human beings are infallible. Indeed, the Catholic Church does not even teach that the Pope is infallible (as I explained in a rather dramatic way in my post#33 to brother Dcointin)

Permit me to offer the following basic axioms of the Catholic teaching on infallibility that I hope readers (especially non-Catholics) will keep in mind in any future discussion of the Catholic doctrine on infallibility (whether of the Pope, of an Ecum Council, or the Church):

1. Infallibility first and foremost belongs to God. It is in His power and His power alone to give to whom it pleases Him to give it.
   Corollary 1: The Church cannot grant infallibility to the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, because it is not the Church’s to give, only God’s.
   Corollary 2: The Pope cannot grant infallibility to the Church or an Ecumenical Council because it is not the Pope’s to give, only God’s.
   Corollary 3: The body of bishops around the world cannot grant infallibility to the Pope, because it is not their’s to give, only God’s.
2. Infallibility is a character of the Magisterium of God, not of any created being (Magisterium is the teaching authority of God).
   Corollary 1: the Magisterium is always infallible.
   Corollary 2: When we say that the Pope is infallible, it must be according to the Church’s understanding that it is the Magisterium of the Pope that is infallible.
   Corollary 3: When we say an Ecumenical Council is infallible, it must be according to the Church’s understanding that it is the Magisterium of the Ecumenical Council that is infallible.
   Corollary 4: When we say that the Church is infallible, etc.
   Corollary 5: The Church can exercise the infallible Magisterium in an extraordinary manner (definitions by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council) or an ordinary manner (the day-to-day definitive teaching of the bishops).
3. Infallibility is the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all Truth (i.e., correct teaching).
   Corollary 1: Infallibility is specifically connected with the teaching office of the Church, and has been given by God to the Church to defend and preserve the Truth.
   Corollary 2: Since the promise was given only to the Apostles while Christ had may other followers, it was intended by Christ to belong to a unique group within the Church, as St. Paul (Rom 12:3 – 8; I Cor 12) and St. James (Jam 3:1) affirm.
   Corollary 3: This promise was given first to the Apostles and handed down in the Apostolic Succession of bishops.
   Corollary 4: Infallibility preserves the indefectibility of the Church

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Dear brother Matthew,

I can see that the purpose of your questions is going beyond the purpose of this thread. I have answered your questions so far because they had relevance for the involvement of the episcopate in the teaching office of the Church.

But your follow up response here indicates that your main concern is “who has authority over whom.” That is indeed a question on primacy. If you want to start a new thread on the primacy, I would be more than happy to respond to your questions there.

Blessings,
Marduk

OK, I might do that. Although, my questions haven’t changed. They’re the same ones you answered before. I’ve only expanded on them with regards to your responses, which I said in a previous post I didn’t fully understand.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If you want to start a new thread on the primacy, I would be more than happy to respond to your questions there.

Could such a thread be in this forum or should it be in one of the other forums?