Dear brother ematouk,
Here are the problems I have found (with accompanying refutations) with Valentine’s piece. Unfortunately, I found a problem in almost every paragraph from Valentine, so this criticism will span several posts:
But, if one were to grant absolute authority over the Church to an individual, it would be necessary, even essential, for that person to have the same infallibility on a personal basis in order to prevent that person from imposing an incorrect teaching on the Church as a whole. And this is precisely what the Vatican has done with its pope: it has made him the Church’s head and thus needed to give that head infallibility.
From the get-go, Valentine’s analysis of papal infallibility is fraught with error. First of all, the Vatican Fathers
explicitly rejected the use of the word “absolute” in preparing the decree on Infallibility – for in fact, there are many limits to papal infallibility. That itself should indicate to the fair-minded reader that we are dealing here with a false interpretation of papal infallibility, not what the Vatican Council itself taught. Thus, Valentine’s syllogism that absolute authority necessitates infallibility fails miserably from the outset.
Second, the Pope does not possess infallibility “on a personal basis.” Infallibility is not invested in the person who is Pope, but in the office of the Pope. It is the difference between saying Simon is infallible and Peter is infallible. In fact, Simon was NOT infallible, though indeed Peter – in his special and unique responsibility as the rock on whom the Church would be built (not to be falsely dichotomized from his confession, on the one hand, nor from Christ Himself, on the other) – was infallible. If perchance a Pope retires from his office, he would not retain infallibility (which could be done if it was “personal”) because he has left the OFFICE. Thus, Valentine is simply wrong claiming that infallibility is possessed “on a personal basis.”
the Roman papacy underwent a tremendous transformation, becoming something it had not previously been. Preludes to this transformation included Old Rome’s isolation from the other patriarchates which led to a loss of the communal understanding of the Church and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and subsequent takeover by Germanic tribes of all the power structures — including the papacy by the early part of the eleventh century. The papacy became one of several political centres in Western Europe seeking to expand its power at the expense of others. One of the focal points of this struggle was the Investiture Controversy (also see here). One of the most powerful and effective tools used by the papacy in its power struggles with kings and princes were the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, better known as the False Decretals — a collection of mostly forged documents thought to have been written in the ninth century that claimed to have been written in the third century. These forgeries were instrumental in permitting the pope of Rome to increase his power in Western Europe and to transform the papacy into a monarchy.
This is the gist of Valentine’s ludicrous analysis. The papocaesarism of the Middle Ages, which Catholics of every stripe and color admit was conditioned by historical circumstances, and do not reflect the true nature of the papal office, is utilized by Valentine as the whole basis of his analysis of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility only relates to theological/moral matters, NOT to the relationship of the papacy with the secular power. I could go into a whole diatribe on how the secular government has infected the Eastern Orthodox religion, but that is not the topic of our discussion. I just mention that to indicate the measure of hypocrisy that pervades this portion of Valentine’s essay. As a matter of fact, the secular powers were themselves on the edge during the Vatican Council, because they feared that a decree on infallibility would invest the Pope with absolute authority even in the secular sphere. But, of course, this is not what infallibility was/is about. More will be said on Valentine’s flawed syllogism later.
It was commonly held that the pope of Rome was subject to an assembly of the Church’s bishops. This was clearly taught by the Council of Constance (1414-1418) when it deposed three popes (Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII) and elected Martin V as the new pope rather than allowing the cardinals of Old Rome to conduct the election.
First of all, what does it matter if a Council deposes false popes (Benedict XIII and John XXIII)? In fact, the legitimate Pope Gregory XII was NOT deposed by the Council, but rather abdicated. This abdication was a condition to which he already agreed when he was elected in 1406 (several years before the Council of Constance was even a twinkle in the eye). This agreement stated that, to facilitate peace in the Church, the next Pope to be elected – i.e., Gregory XII - would willfully abdicate when the other would-be Popes relinquished or were effectively deprived of power. When this occurred, the Cardinals, along with a few representatives of certain States, voted Martin V into the papacy. This is the ACTUAL course of events, not the caricature presented by Valentine.
Today, the Vatican regards the latter sessions of the Council of Constance to be an Ecumenical Council, but refuses to grant that status to the earlier sessions which taught that
… a general council, representing the catholic church militant, has power immediately from Christ, and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith
This was also the teaching of the Council of Basel (1431-1439):
This holy synod also declares that … it cannot be dissolved even by a pope, and that a council actually assembled cannot be dissolved or moved from place to place by a Roman pontiff without the express consent of the council itself…
It is well and good that later generations rejected these earlier sessions of Constance and Basel because these earlier sessions actually violated the prescriptions of Apostolic Canon 34 – they were held without the approval of the head bishop, the Pope. Every body of bishops must recognize who is their head and not do anything of import without the consent of their head. If later generations rejected these earlier sessions, it was in accordance with the dictates of the Apostles themselves.
And btw, there is nothing technically wrong with the statement from the Council of Constance above, for indeed, even the Pope is bound by the decrees of an Ecumenical Council. The problem with it was that it was working off of the flawed premise that a general council does not have a head bishop, whose consent, along with the other bishops, is necessary for a council to be valid. It is often claimed that Latins give too much regard for the head without heed to the body; personally, as an Oriental, I can’t even conceive of a body without a head and vice-versa. But I guess it is relatively easy for Easterns to conceive of a body without a head, if Valentine thinks that the earlier sessions of Constance and Basle could possibly have any validity…
Even as late as the nineteenth century, Roman Catholic bishops taught that the pope was subject to a General Council (i.e., an Ecumenical Council). Such was the testimony of Roman Catholic bishops to a Parliament Royal Commission in 1825. As long as the pope of Rome was regarded as subject to an Ecumenical Council, as long as a pope could not dictate doctrine solely on his authority, there was no need to grant him the status of infallibility
Here is another great error in Valentine’s (and generally the non-Catholic’s) understanding of papal infallibility. The Pope’s infallibility is possessed not as a separate charism from the Church’s infallibility, but is one and the same infallibility possessed by the Church – i.e., the infallibility of God. The Vatican Council was NOT
granting the Pope infallibility. It was simply defining the infallibility that was ALREADY his by virtue of being the head of the infallible body which is the Church. The Council only intended to DEFINE and REFINE infallibility as manifested in the head bishopric of the Church. As the Decree itself teaches: “…possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer
wished His Church to be endowed.”
As a matter of fact, in the 19th century, infallibility was very often MISunderstood by the State as a reference to the absolute sovereignty of the Pope over secular rulers. This was the fear that the Royal Commission intended to address in 1825 (and it was a fear that pervaded the minds of many heads of State during the Vatican Council!), and it was in response to this MISconception of papal infallibility that the Latin bishops gave their testimony. As far as
theological infallibility, however, there was never a doubt in the minds of the Latin bishops.
CONTINUED
