Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[mardukm]

Dear All,

I have received an inquiry by PM on this matter from someone trying to choose between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and have gotten permission from the inquirer to answer it here in the ECF. Here is the question:

I’ve seen you advocate for a “High Petrine model” of the papacy- how does this reconcile with papal infallibility? What is the purpose of Councils if papal infallibility is correct?

RESPONSE:

Some who are aware of the “High Petrine model”as it relates to the papacy probably normally think of it as only relevant on the question of the Primacy/Supremacy. It actually relates solidly on questions of the Infallibility as well. I would like to answer the inquirer’s first question (how does the High Petrine model reconcile with papal infallibility?) by explaining the differences between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views on the issue of “papal infallibility.”

The High Petrine position expresses primacy/supremacy in the context of collegiality, while the Absolutist Petrine position expresses primacy/supremacy of the Pope in terms of monarchy. Similarly, the High Petrine position places papal infallibility squarely in the context of the Church’s infallibility, while the Absolutist Petrine position tends to restrict it to the Pope alone.

On the matter of “papal infallibility,” the Absolutist Petrine view promotes the following opinions:
(1) The infallibility of the Pope is completely separate and unique from the infallibility of the Church;
(2) The infallibility of the Pope is exercised apart from the Church;
(3) The infallibility of the College of Bishops depends on the infallibility of the Pope (iow, if the Pope was not infallible, the College of Bishops could not be infallible).
(4) The natural corollary of (3) is, of course, the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council depends on the infallibility of the Pope (iow, if the Pope was not infallible, the Ecumenical Council could not be infallible).

Notice the monarchical intent of the Absolutist Petrine position, which tends to restrict the charism of infallibility to the Pope alone. The High Petrine position does not agree with these opinions, and they are mere opinions because they are not actually supported by the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church (as will be shown below). The High Petrine view as it relates to “papal infallibility” adheres to the following (in obedience to the Magisterial teachings of the Church):

(1) “Papal infallibility” cannot be separated from the infallibility of the Church, because “papal infallibility” is actually the selfsame infallibility that the Church possesses. According to the explicit teaching of Vatican 1: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra…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 or Morals.” According to the teaching of Vatican 1, when the Pope exercises infallibility, he is simply SHARING in a unique way the infallibility of the Church herself.

(2) “Papal infallibility” cannot be exercised apart from the Church. According to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1, which represents the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Decrees from that Council:
“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 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.”
Please see here for a recent thread related to this topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=561402
It is only 3 pages long and should be a quick read.

(3) The infallibility of the College of Bishops is not dependent on “papal infallibility.” This is one of the organs of infallibility recognized by the Catholic Church. Even while dispersed throughout the world, the College of Bishops can exercise infallibility when they teach definitively on a certain matter. It is not that the bishops are individually infallible, but that the bishops, including the Pope, are COLLECTIVELY infallible – i.e., the Holy Spirit protects the College AS A WHOLE. The Catholic teaching that the confirmation or approval of the Pope is necessary for the College to exercise this infallibility is not because the Pope grants infallibility to the College – but because the Pope COMPLETES the make-up of this infallible College. As an analogy, consider a car. A car cannot run properly without a steering wheel. But is the steering wheel the ONLY thing that makes a car what it is? Similarly, even while the Pope is necessary for the exercise of the infallibility of the College, it is not because the Pope ALONE makes the College infallible. The College is infallible AS A COLLEGE. The other bishops within this college are just as necessary as the Pope for this College to exercise infallibility. Here is the teaching of Vatican 1 according to the Official Relatio:
“Decrees of Faith even made by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope. The reason of this is not the one…alleged in this ambo, as if the infallibility of the Church were seated in the Pope and from the Pope derived and communicated to the Church…The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, that is to the Apostles along with Peter.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

It can be asked, “how many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?” There is no set number. The ideal is, of course, complete unanimity, but not even St. Vincent of Lerins, who espoused the well-known axiom for determining the de fide status of any teaching, required complete unanimity. The term “moral unanimity” is normally used. One or several bishops may not agree with a certain teaching, but if, say, 2000 bishops agree, but only relatively few disagree, then moral unanimity is considered acquired. In extreme cases, such as during the Arian controversy, it may be that moral unanimity cannot be achieved, much less a majority. Whatever the case may be, the Pope is the one bishop (because he is head bishop) whose agreement is always necessary (according to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34/35), though the agreement of the Pope alone is insufficient to guarantee Collegial infallibility. Going back to the analogy of the car, a car can have a back door, or a rear light or a side mirror missing, but it can still function properly as a car; but the car can never function properly without a steering wheel.

When the College of Bishops exercises infallibility, it is normally referred to as an exercise of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

(4) The infallibility of an Ecumenical Council is not dependent on “papal infallibility.” All the considerations given for Collegial infallibility in (3) above is equally applicable here. When the Ecumenical Council exercises infallibility, it is normally referred to as an exercise of the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

In case you are wondering, the difference between the Ordinary Magisterium’s exercise of infallibility, on the one hand, and the Extraordinary Magisterium’s exercise of infallibility, on the other, is that the Extraordinary Magisterium is called to judge a matter that is being disputed. It is the exercise of the Extraodinary Magisterium that results in what is normally called DOGMA. In distinction, the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium applies to the day-to-day teaching of the Church that is for the most part never disputed.

That is why “papal infallibility” as defined by Vatican 1 is not the determining factor in the infallibility of the College of Bishops. “Papal infallibility” as defined by V1 was a definition of the Pope’s exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, not the Ordinary Magisterium. “Papal infallibility” as defined by V1 are for those instances when the Pope is called by the Church to JUDGE a matter that is in dispute. As noted, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, on the other hand, is not about judging a disputed matter, but merely the handing down of de fide teaching that for the most part has never been disputed. So “papal infallibility” as defined by V1 is not an active principle in the Ordinary Magisterium’s exercise of infallibility. The Ordinary Magisterium’s exercise of infallibility is always a COLLEGIAL infallibility.

One can glean as well from the previous discussion why “papal infallibility” is not the determining factor in the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council. As noted, the exercise of infallibility by both the Ecum Council and the Pope are considered EXTRAordinary, because the infallibility is called upon not merely to preserve and hand down a teaching, but also to JUDGE a teaching. When an Ecumenical Council is called to exercise the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium, ALL THE BISHOPS ARE JUDGES, NEVER THE POPE ALONE. This is explained in the Official Relatio of Vatican 1:
“The most solemn judgment of the Church on Faith and Morals is, and always will be, the judgment of the Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishops of the Catholic world sitting and JUDGING ALONG WITH HIM.”

In distinction, when the Pope is called upon to exercise the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium, HE ALONE IS THE JUDGE. The Pope is called upon by the Church to exercise the infallibility of the Church in a personal manner either when (a) the bishops of the world cannot agree on a matter in dispute, and/or (b) when it might be impractical or impossible to call together an Ecumenical Council for a matter that needs to be resolved for the Church. It might be well at this point for you to refer back to the discussion in (2) above – though the Pope alone is the judge in an exercise of “papal infallibility,” he never exercises this prerogative apart from the Church; the Church is always intimately involved in that exercise of “papal infallibility.”

So, what is the purpose of Councils if papal infallibility is correct?

There are two ways that this second question can be construed:
(a) If the Pope is the ONLY organ of infallibility, then a Council is obsolete.

(b) If the Pope IS an organ of infallibility, then conciliar infallibility is obsolete.

The answer to the first (previous) question should be sufficient to answer the first form of this current question (if there are those who feel it is not, please respond by stating the reasons).

However, even presupposing that the Papacy is not the ONLY organ of infallibility in the Church, the second form of the current question still poses a concern to many.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Practically speaking, the existence of two (or more) equal things does not necessarily dictate that one or the other becomes obsolete simply because the other exists. This is so for two reasons:
(i) Having more than one of the same thing is actually a practical necessity, especially if one breaks down, and the other is on hand to supplement the want (for example, I usually keep a lot of back-up items - batteries, extra socks, etc.). This is the normative intention for the exercise of papal infallibility – if the Church as a whole through the bishops themselves cannot agree on a matter, there has to be a court of final appeal for the Church.

(ii) The existence of two equal things is necessary if the existence of both is necessary for the whole to properly function (e.g., if an appliance requires two batteries, it certainly will not work with just one battery). As explained earlier, papal infallibility is neither completely separate from the infallibility of the Church, nor can it be exercised apart from the Church. And according to the most ancient canons and praxis of the Church, any grouping of bishops cannot function without its head bishop on a matter important for the whole.

STILL, others will insist, if it is the Pope’s prerogative to call an Ecumenical Council, can he not choose to NEVER call an Ecumenical Council again, and simply exercise infallibility on his own?

The fact of the matter is, the calling of an Ecumenical Council is a purely administrative/ canonical prerogative, not a doctrinal one. Thus, the calling of Ecum Councils is governed primarily by practical necessities. The calling of an Ecum Council is necessitated only if the Pope and the bishops together agree that a Council needs to be called. The First Vatican Council itself was convened only on the advice of bishops, some of whom were members of the Minority Party of V1! Another practical/canonical consideration is that an Ecum Council can deprive local Churches of their bishops for a lengthy period of time, which is why an Ecum Council can never be convened without due deliberation by the bishops of the world (i.e., it can never be the decision of the Pope ALONE). If the bishops of the world feel that an Ecum Council is needed for on an issue of Faith that is disputed, then an Ecum Council will exercise the Extraordinary Magisterium. If the bishops of the world feel the Pope himself should judge on the matter (and remember, the Church will be involved in the formulation of the Decree anyway), then the Pope himself will exercise the Extraordinary Magisterium.

To the inquirer: I realize I have relayed a good amount of information. I pray I have not confused you. If you want any matters clarified, ask away.

Since you have expressed interest in Orthodoxy, I would like to point out that, in relation to the Papacy, just as there are two Petrine views in the Catholic Churches (the High Petrine view which is the Magisterial position, and the Absolutist Petrine view which is only an opinion, though certainly a strongly held opinion), there are also two Petrine views within the Orthodox Churches. There is a Low Petrine view, apparent primarily within Eastern Orthodoxy, which claims that the Papacy is not necessary. The High Petrine view also exists, mostly acknowledged by Oriental Orthodox and also many Eastern Orthodox, which, in adherence to the standards of the early Church, accepts the relative necessity for a/the Papacy, but does not currently accept the Papacy of the Catholic Church because it is either perceived to be in serious error or in heresy.

If you agree with the High Petrine position, it would seem the next course of action would be for you to focus on the doctrinal issues which currently separate – or are perceived to separate - the several apostolic Churches. We would be happy here at CAF to answer your questions on other doctrinal issues as well. Always remember – if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, please ask a Catholic. If you want to know what the Eastern Orthodox teaches, ask an Eastern Orthodox. If you want to know what the Oriental Orthodox teaches, ask an Oriental Orthodox. In general, always let the horse tell about the horse – don’t go to the cow to tell about the horse. Sometimes, it is unavoidable if you want to compare and contrast to ask the horse to tell about the cow, or vice-versa. One side might focus on differences, or try to create differences where there are none; another side might focus on similarities, and try to find common ground on apparent differences. In such instances, listen to what side A tells about side B IF AND ONLY IF side B corroborates it. On this point, keep in mind that the Catholic Church has official Magisterial teachings that you can always point to in order to answer the question, “What does the Catholic Church teach on this issue?” Many times, non-Catholics will try to pass off mere opinions from Catholic theologians as “what the Catholic Church teaches.” Please, just be wary of that.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[militantsparrow]

bump

 

[malphono]

marduk, you know I agree with the “High Petrine” view in principle, but as I’ve said umpteen times in various and sundry threads here, that’s all it is: a principle. I fervently wish it were more than that, but it’s not. It’s quite clear that the “situation on the ground” is far different, and not to see that is to wear blinders. Rome could clarify matters officially with the stroke of a pen, but that hasn’t happened and I daresay it isn’t going to happen, at least not anytime soon. Until such time as Rome weighs-in with that ever-elusive clarification, one can deliver apologetics until the cows come home, but it isn’t going to make the situation on the ground anything other than what it is (and what it has been since early in the second millennium).

OK, so much for my :twocents: …

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Thank you for your response. Can you please clarify some statements for me?

It’s quite clear that the “situation on the ground” is far different, and not to see that is to wear blinders.

It appears you are referring to the issue of primacy/supremacy. On that, I partially agree with you. But we’re talking about infallibility.

Rome could clarify matters officially with the stroke of a pen, but that hasn’t happened and I daresay it isn’t going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

If it has never happened that way, on what basis do you assume that the Pope “could clarify matters officially with the stroke of the pen?”

If the Pope could actually do such a thing, can you give a concrete scenario of how that might happen?

Until such time as Rome weighs-in with that ever-elusive clarification, one can deliver apologetics until the cows come home, but it isn’t going to make the situation on the ground anything other than what it is (and what it has been since early in the second millennium).

Again, you seem to be focused on Primacy/Supremacy. That is not the focus of this thread. Or do you have something else in mind? If so, can you please explain more? Thanks ahead of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

It appears you are referring to the issue of primacy/supremacy. On that, I partially agree with you. But we’re talking about infallibility.

It’s both things together. Unfortunately, because of the two Vatican councils, the issues are so intertwined as to be nearly impossible to separate in any meaningful way.

If it has never happened that way, on what basis do you assume that the Pope “could clarify matters officially with the stroke of the pen?”

If the Pope could actually do such a thing, can you give a concrete scenario of how that might happen?

It’s really quite simple, and would be merely a once-and-for-all clarification of the actual teaching (for lack of a better word) of Vatican I. Of course I know that there are those who claim that Vatican II clarified matters, but I’m not among that group.

As I see it, the waters remain muddied on both the primacy and infallibility issues. It’s a matter of theory and practice. The theory (principle) can be read as you’ve done, but it can also be read as the Absolutists do. OTOH, I don’t see the current practice (either of primacy or infallibility) to be anything other than what the Absolutists say.

 

[Biedrik]

Brilliant post Marduk.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

It’s really quite simple, and would be merely a once-and-for-all clarification of the actual teaching (for lack of a better word) of Vatican I. Of course I know that there are those who claim that Vatican II clarified matters, but I’m not among that group.

I’m not among that group either, but probably for a very different reason. I don’t believe V2 clarified much because every collegial aspect of V2 can already be gleaned if one has sufficiently studied the background of the V1 debates and the documents that were prepared by the theologians (which unfortunately were not presented for voting due to the impending war).

I believe the matter will be clarified through the canons, which still requires some work to truly reflect the High Petrine ideal. But as stated in another thread, I believe the Absolutist Petrine character of some canons is only due to the existing state of Schism. It is only natural (IMO) that if there is quarrelling among family members, the head of the household will exercise a more than usual heavy hand to maintain unity in the family. I have hope (and desire) that these particular canons will be revised or disappear when reunion is achieved.

It’s a matter of theory and practice. The theory (principle) can be read as you’ve done, but it can also be read as the Absolutists do.

I agree, but I am convinced that Absolutist Petrine advocates (and the Low Petrine detractors who share their view) can only defend their position by a mypoic cut-and-paste caricature of the teachings of the Catholic Church. They have no real doctrinal basis for their exaggerated position, though I readily agree that such a position (very unfortunately) still exists in the Catholic Church.

OTOH, I don’t see the current practice (either of primacy or infallibility) to be anything other than what the Absolutists say.

Can you please give some concrete examples of an exercise of infallibilty that reflects the Absolutist Petrine position? I can think of a few right now that Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend supports their position. I’m interested to see if the examples you are thinking of are the same that I have often heard from them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Biedrik,

Brilliant post Marduk.

I normally don’t respond to complements, but I feel especially compelled to salute Latin Catholics who support the High Petrine view.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I’m not among that group either, but probably for a very different reason. I don’t believe V2 clarified much because every collegial aspect of V2 can already be gleaned if one has sufficiently studied the background of the V1 debates and the documents that were prepared by the theologians (which unfortunately were not presented for voting due to the impending war).

I have always found it most fascinating that, impending “war” notwithstanding, there was time at Vatican I to present (and vote on) infallibility itself but the not on those matters which might have clarified and put the Absolutists in check. Was that merely circumstantial? Methinks not, but that’s me. I also find it fascinating that Pio Nono resorted to a Council to make the declaration in the first place.

I believe the matter will be clarified through the canons, which still requires some work to truly reflect the High Petrine ideal. But as stated in another thread, I believe the Absolutist Petrine character of some canons is only due to the existing state of Schism. It is only natural (IMO) that if there is quarrelling among family members, the head of the household will exercise a more than usual heavy hand to maintain unity in the family. I have hope (and desire) that these particular canons will be revised or disappear when reunion is achieved.

You may be right, but the problem I have with clarification via “canons” (which has to mean Canon Law) is that it merely reflects the mens of the lawgiver. A subsequent lawgiver could easily change it. As I see things, the requisite clarification (to both the primacy and infallibility issues) would have to come as (and hold on and get ready for this one) what would end up to be the last and final unilateral infallible pronouncement. Tain’t very likely, is it?

Can you please give some concrete examples of an exercise of infallibilty that reflects the Absolutist Petrine position? I can think of a few right now that Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend supports their position. I’m interested to see if the examples you are thinking of are the same that I have often heard from them.

I’m not sure where you’re going with that. Have there been more than 2 such infallible papal pronouncements, one immediately before Vatican I, and the second nearly a century later? Neither was, to my mind, particularly earth-shaking (all of the EO polemics notwithstanding). It may be that you’re looking at something else entirely that I’m missing. Sometimes, one (in this case me) can’t see the forest for the trees.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Thanks for answering, Marduk. I’m taking it all in and trying to process it- so I may have some questions pertaining to your explanation to come.

In the meantime- is my perception of the diminished role/importance of bishops in the Catholic Church currently totally off-base? What are your thoughts about the College of Cardinals generally speaking? Do you see this as a valuable, profitable part of the Catholic Church or more superfluous?

I tend to agree with malphono about the inextricability between supremacy and infallibility- at least in pervading thought.

However, I think this makes a great deal of sense:

This is the normative intention for the exercise of papal infallibility – if the Church as a whole through the bishops themselves cannot agree on a matter, there has to be a court of final appeal for the Church.

Can you give me any examples of when papal infallibility has worked this way since the doctrine was defined?

It’s hard not to be discouraged about the state that exists between these two Churches. I can see how your High Petrine model is different than the Aboslutist view you’ve also mentioned, and perhaps it’s possible that this thinking could offer a sort of “middle ground”… but from an outsider’s perspective (and I could be totally wrong as I still have much to learn here) it seems like the idea that any one bishop has infallibility (whether it is separate from the Magisterium or not) is alien to Orthodox, but that Catholics- who have infallibly defined this infallibility- have painted themselves into a corner with it. This will be a hard hurdle to jump, as I can’t imagine the Pope (or the Catholic Church) would be willing to redefine the role of the papacy to perform as the Patriarch of Constantinople performs now. It really makes me wonder why this was defined as it was at all- especially knowing that it (the role of the papacy) was a point of contention between the two Churches… why not wait to deal with papal infallibility until after reunion was achieved instead driving the wedge even further?

I could be totally out in left field here, of course… I’m still very new to this and learning, so please feel free to correct me anybody.

 

[Harpazo]

I have always found it most fascinating that, impending “war” notwithstanding, there was time at Vatican I to present (and vote on) infallibility itself but the not on those matters which might have clarified and put the Absolutists in check. Was that merely circumstantial? Methinks not, but that’s me. I also find it fascinating that Pio Nono resorted to a Council to make the declaration in the first place.

You may be right, but the problem I have with clarification via “canons” (which has to mean Canon Law) is that it merely reflects the mens of the lawgiver. A subsequent lawgiver could easily change it. As I see things, the requisite clarification (to both the primacy and infallibility issues) would have to come as (and hold on and get ready for this one) what would end up to be the last and final unilateral infallible pronouncement. Tain’t very likely, is it?

I’m not sure where you’re going with that. Have there been more than 2 such infallible papal pronouncements, one immediately before Vatican I, and the second nearly a century later? Neither was, to my mind, particularly earth-shaking (all of the EO polemics notwithstanding). It may be that you’re looking at something else entirely that I’m missing. Sometimes, one (in this case me) can’t see the forest for the trees.

A Maronite priest told me the same thing. He couldn’t understand why the pope couldn’t just declare himself to be infallible, as per the declaration at Vatican 1. I don’t really disagree with him.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

I have always found it most fascinating that, impending “war” notwithstanding, there was time at Vatican I to present (and vote on) infallibility itself but the not on those matters which might have clarified and put the Absolutists in check. Was that merely circumstantial? Methinks not, but that’s me.

The Issue of infallibility was not even on the original council agenda. The secular press was stirring up a frenzy by insinuating that the deposing power of the Pope would be dogmatized as part of papal infallibility. In February, 3 months after the Council was convened, the world governments were threatening to interfere in the Council. This forced the bishops to include the matter on the agenda and give that matter particular focus. The infallibility was formally included on the agenda in early March, 4 months after the Council was convened. The preparatory documents for other issues were already finished, but the work of the Council was shifted to the definition of the Infallibility due to the exigency just mentioned.

But this did not yet interfere with the normal agenda of the Council. By early April, the more ardent infallibilists were clamoring to change the agenda to place the papal dogmas at the forefront. But the Cardinal Presidents did not want the agenda changed. On April 19, a delegation of infallibilists approached the Pope to override the Agenda, and the Pope responded “I will do what seems right.” The infallibilists expected an immediate change in the Agenda, but the next day, no pronouncement came for a change in the Agenda. At the next session of the Deputation De Fide on April 21, the infallibilists were again disappointed that there was no pronouncement of a change. After two more sessions over the next week, it was evident that the Pope was not willing to change the Agenda.

At that point, the infallibilists actively campaigned to have the Agenda changed, and were able to present a petition to the Pope with almost 100 signatures. Surely this would move the Pope, right? Wrong. After two more sessions, there was no pronouncement from the Pope to change the Agenda. The more ardent infallibilists now worked overtime, and on April 28, managed to obtain a petition with 400 signatures. On April 29, the Pope conceded and changed the Agenda.

That’s what happened. The next month-and-a-half was focused on the papal dogmas.

I also find it fascinating that Pio Nono resorted to a Council to make the declaration in the first place.

I don’t know what you are trying to imply. The Council was not called to define the papal dogmas, but to deal with the question of modernism. As mentioned above, the issue of papal infallibility was not even on the original Council Agenda, so can you please explain what you mean by “Pio Nono resorted to a Council…”?

Here’s three consecutive posts from a past thread wherein I give greater detail on the matter:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7079842&postcount=24
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7079849&postcount=25
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7079868&postcount=26

You may be right, but the problem I have with clarification via “canons” (which has to mean Canon Law) is that it merely reflects the mens of the lawgiver. A subsequent lawgiver could easily change it. As I see things, the requisite clarification (to both the primacy and infallibility issues) would have to come as (and hold on and get ready for this one) what would end up to be the last and final unilateral infallible pronouncement. Tain’t very likely, is it?

I agree it’s not likely that such a resolution will come unilaterally (though I don’t mind if it does). I suspect it will come through the agency of the Orthodox-CC dialogues.

I’m not sure where you’re going with that.

You claimed there were current examples of the practice of infallibility being Absolutist in nature. So I asked for such examples. Could you provide some?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

A Maronite priest told me the same thing. He couldn’t understand why the pope couldn’t just declare himself to be infallible, as per the declaration at Vatican 1.

Because the First Vatican Council was NOT called to define the papal dogmas. There was no intention at all in the Pope’s mind when he convened the Council that it should defined. The occasion for the definition of the papal dogmas were basically circumstantial - it was circumstances OUTSIDE the Council which eventually FORCED the matter to be defined.

If you have contact with the Maronite priest again, perhaps you can explain that to him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Harpazo]

Because the First Vatican Council was NOT called to define the papal dogmas. There was no intention at all in the Pope’s mind when he convened the Council that it should defined. The occasion for the definition of the papal dogmas were basically circumstantial - it was circumstances OUTSIDE the Council which eventually FORCED the matter to be defined.

If you have contact with the Maronite priest again, perhaps you can explain that to him.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think the point still stands. If the pope was really infallible, why did a council need to declare it so? I made no mention of the purpose of the council at its inception to be the proclaiming of papal infallibility, BTW.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[NinjaSnark]

Because the First Vatican Council was NOT called to define the papal dogmas. There was no intention at all in the Pope’s mind when he convened the Council that it should defined. The occasion for the definition of the papal dogmas were basically circumstantial - it was circumstances OUTSIDE the Council which eventually FORCED the matter to be defined

Aaah… this I did not know. You learn something new every day!

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister NinjaSnark

Thanks for answering, Marduk. I’m taking it all in and trying to process it- so I may have some questions pertaining to your explanation to come.

I welcome any questions. Please do ask them.

In the meantime- is my perception of the diminished role/importance of bishops in the Catholic Church currently totally off-base?

May I ask where you got this perception? Even after Vatican 1, though the Pope was clearly on the side of the Easterns, he did not have such authority that he could just override the local authority of the Latin bishops in the U.S. and allow the Easterns to have married priests in the U.S. There is so much more to the Vatican 1 Council than meets the eye. But to be more concise, can you give some concrete examples of why you think the role of the local bishop is diminished in the Catholic Church. Even Vatican 1 explicitly affirmed that the Pope has no authority to impede the authority of the local bishop in his diocese. Were you aware of that?

What are your thoughts about the College of Cardinals generally speaking? Do you see this as a valuable, profitable part of the Catholic Church or more superfluous?

The College of Cardinals elects the Pope, and are the Pope’s consultors in a lot of matters. I think they are just fine in that role. What is your own perception of the College? Is there anything about the College that you yourself would or have heard someone else criticize?

I tend to agree with malphono about the inextricability between supremacy and infallibility- at least in pervading thought.

In what way? I believe the exercise of infallibility is thoroughly collegial, both in teaching and practice. There are issues with the praxis of the Primacy, but I think the matter of the infallibility is unimpeachable.

Can you give me any examples of when papal infallibility has worked this way since the doctrine was defined?

Not really, though some have expressed the view that the Marian dogmas were defined as a response to Protestantism. Keep in mind that defining a doctrine implies the doctrine always existed. If you simply asked “can you give me any examples of when papal infallibility has worked this way” I am happy to oblige.

The Tome of Pope St. Leo in the 5th century.
The Decree of Pope St. Agatho regarding the Monothelite controversy in the 7th century.
Pope Benedict XII’s Decree on the Beatific Vision in the 14th century.

You will find different lists of ex cathedra decrees by the Pope from Catholics, but those three are common to all the lists of which I am aware. Those three were brought to the Pope for his judgment after much controversy between bishops in the Church at large.

It’s hard not to be discouraged about the state that exists between these two Churches.

Agreed.

it seems like the idea that any one bishop has infallibility (whether it is separate from the Magisterium or not)

This is a thorough misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on “papal infallibility”(I’m not blaming you, but it’s probably what you’ve often heard from non-Catholics) To be more concise, the Church does not teach that when the Pope exercise “papal infallibility” he is the ONLY ONE IN THE WHOLE CHURCH that has infallibility. The doctrine of “papal infallibility” merely states that it is the Pope that exercises the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium in such specific circumstances. It in no way claims to teach that the bishops do not have the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium during those same instances. At any time that the Pope is called to exercise the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, those bishops who represent the consensus of the Church upon which the ex cathedra Decree will be based ALWAYS exercise the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium of the Church. The non-Catholic perception that the Pope is the ONLY ONE who has infallibility during an exercise of “papal infallibility” is utterly false.

This will be a hard hurdle to jump, as I can’t imagine the Pope (or the Catholic Church) would be willing to redefine the role of the papacy to perform as the Patriarch of Constantinople performs now.

That’s a whole other issue. But yes. I seriously doubt, and I hope it will never come to be, that the Church redefines the Papacy according to the Low Petrine novelty that a head bishop only has a primacy of mere honor in the Church. The Low Petrine view is as much an innovation as the Absolutist Petrine view.

It really makes me wonder why this was defined as it was at all- especially knowing that it (the role of the papacy) was a point of contention between the two Churches… why not wait to deal with papal infallibility until after reunion was achieved instead driving the wedge even further?

I hope you have read my previous responses to brother Malphono (please read them, as well as the links I gave him). As explained, the definition of the papal dogmas was purely circumstantial. It was not the intent of the First Vatican Council, but it was FORCED on it due to the frenzy stirred up by the secular press outside the Council, and the subsequent threats of the Secular Governments to interfere in the Council. Because of the agitation caused by the secular press, the Vatican Council was forced to define (i.e., authoritative clarify) the teaching on papal infallibility.

As always, your questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

I think the point still stands. If the pope was really infallible, why did a council need to declare it so?

There’s two ways to take this:
(1) If the Pope was really infallible, why did the Council need to define (i.e., clarify) it?

OR

(2) If the Pope was really infallible, why did they have to create a new doctrine?

Which one are you intending?

I made no mention of the purpose of the council at its inception to be the proclaiming of papal infallibility, BTW.

I know, but that is the normal misconception of many people. I suspect the priest you spoke to also shares that misconception.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Harpazo]

Dear brother Andrew,

There’s two ways to take this:
(1) If the Pope was really infallible, why did the Council need to define (i.e., clarify) it?

OR

(2) If the Pope was really infallible, why did they have to create a new doctrine?

Which one are you intending?

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me either way. The fact of the matter is, he had a council proclaim it which I find to be a total contradiction. After all, the Roman church did condemn “conciliarism” a few centuries beforehand. Why didn’t he just make an ex cathedra statement of infallibility?

I know, but that is the normal misconception of many people. I suspect the priest you spoke to also shares that misconception.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, he knew why it was called.

In Christ,
Andrew