Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[mardukm]

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.

A condemnation that was defined in Council. As it stands, that you can claim that a condemnation of conciliarism means that a Council cannot make the definition indicates your understanding is most likely incorrect. Can you please give us your understanding of conciliarism and why it was condemned? In the process, perhaps you can explain why you think a condmenation of conciliarism means that a Council cannot make a definition.

Why didn’t he just make an ex cathedra statement of infallibility?

You seem to think, like brother Malphono, that “papal infallibility” can make a definition at the stroke of a pen, that he can make a definition at his whim and fancy. Can I assume you have never read the Official Relatio of Vatican 1?

According to Vatican 1, even if he wanted to make an ex cathedra decree on the matter, he would still have to determine the consensus of the Church. Since an Ecumenical Council was already in session, can you give a reason why he shouldnt work through the Council?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NinjaSnark]

Dear sister NinjaSnark

I welcome any questions. Please do ask them.

Thank you.

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?

I was not aware of that- but that is infinitely reassuring, so thank you.

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?

To be honest my own perception of them is rather… unformed. I was just asking in a general sense what your thoughts were.

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.

I think we probably are agreeing here- as you say there are issues with the praxis of Primacy- I was commenting more to the pervading thought (or the majority mindset of your average lay Catholic) that supremacy and infallibility are often considered one and the same. I’m not arguing that this thought is correct, just that it’s there (and just in my experience).

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.

Thanks for those- I’ll look into it!

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.

Again, thank you. This helps immensely. I am glad to be set straight.

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.

I don’t really think this could ever happen from a Catholic perspective… or at least I don’t see how this could be achieved.

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

Thank you- I did read them.

As always, your questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you again!

 

[malphono]

The Issue of infallibility was not even on the original council 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.

While I’m not an expert or even an avid student of it, I am familiar with the history of Vatican I.

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.

What exigency? That the Papal States were destined to fall? That Pio Nono was destined to relinquish the “Gift of Pepin” and free the people of the Papal States from what amounted to indentured servitude? That there were some political rumors going on in the Italian press? What has any of that to do with matters of faith?

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…”?

If Pio Nono were not of a mind to change the agenda, the agenda would not have been changed, period. Not with 1000 signatures. But changed it was, and the rest is history.

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.

If it were to happen that way, it wouldn’t be worth a hill of beans. It reverts right back to the problem with Canon Law: it’s all in the mens of the lawgiver, and could be rescinded. The only way it could work once and for all is by way of a dogmatic pronouncement. The last and final such dogmatic pronouncement. That would put an end to the interminable discussions of the intent of Vatican I regarding both primacy and infallibility. Presumably, that would restore the playing field to what it was in the first millennium (and what it should have been in the second millennium and should be now in the third).

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?

I didn’t say or claim that there were “current examples” of this. It seems to me you’re reading something into what i wrote earlier. There need not be any “current” examples: the problem with papal infallibility lies in the very fact that it was defined (and quite unclearly so at that) at all.

 

[malphono]

You seem to think, like brother Malphono, that “papal infallibility” can make a definition at the stroke of a pen, that he can make a definition at his whim and fancy. Can I assume you have never read the Official Relatio of Vatican 1?

According to Vatican 1, even if he wanted to make an ex cathedra decree on the matter, he would still have to determine the consensus of the Church. Since an Ecumenical Council was already in session, can you give a reason why he shouldnt work through the Council?

Actually, it can. The business of “determining the consensus of the Church” (or the “College of Bishops” or however one wants to look at it) is very nice, but doesn’t really make much difference. That consensus is advisory only. It doesn’t make policy and it doesn’t declare dogma, unless it’s within the context of an Oecumenical Council (or at least a Local Council such as Florence, Trent, Vatican I & II, etc). If it were required to convene a Council, things would be as you say. Unfortunately, there is no such requirement.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

While I’m not an expert or even an avid student of it, I am familiar with the history of Vatican I.

So your question of whether it was circumstantial was a rhetorical question? It seemed like you were unaware that it was circumstantial.

What exigency?

That the secular powers were threatening to interfere with the Council.

That the Papal States were destined to fall? That Pio Nono was destined to relinquish the “Gift of Pepin” and free the people of the Papal States from what amounted to indentured servitude?

What does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

That there were some political rumors going on in the Italian press? What has any of that to do with matters of faith?

Because, as indicated by the quotes I gave (in the links provided), there was an impression, imposed by the exaggerations of the secular press, that papal secular dominion would be dogmatized.

If Pio Nono were not of a mind to change the agenda, the agenda would not have been changed, period. Not with 1000 signatures. But changed it was, and the rest is history.

But Pio Nono was clearly responding to the request of the Council Fathers, and did not do so on his own initiative. By stating that the Pope “resorted to a Council,” you make it seem as though he called the Council just for the purpose of defining the papal dogmas, which would be a wrong assumption.

If it were to happen that way, it wouldn’t be worth a hill of beans. It reverts right back to the problem with Canon Law: it’s all in the mens of the lawgiver, and could be rescinded. The only way it could work once and for all is by way of a dogmatic pronouncement. The last and final such dogmatic pronouncement. That would put an end to the interminable discussions of the intent of Vatican I regarding both primacy and infallibility. Presumably, that would restore the playing field to what it was in the first millennium (and what it should have been in the second millennium and should be now in the third).

I’m not saying that the colloquies would have authority to settle the matters. That’s not how those commissions work. Such commissions are always advisory. I’m saying that the commissions are where all the discussions and proposals, and hammering out of the details will occur.

I didn’t say or claim that there were “current examples” of this. It seems to me you’re reading something into what i wrote earlier. There need not be any “current” examples: the problem with papal infallibility lies in the very fact that it was defined (and quite unclearly so at that) at all.

You wrote, “I don’t see the current practice (either of primacy or infallibility) to be anything other than what the Absolutists say.” “Current practice” would normally translate to “a current exercise of infallibility.” That’s why I asked you for an example of this “current practice.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

You wrote, “I don’t see the current practice (either of primacy or infallibility) to be anything other than what the Absolutists say.” “Current practice” would normally translate to “a current exercise of infallibility.” That’s why I asked you for an example of this “current practice.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I can’t speak for Malphono, but he does say “the current practice (either primacy or infallibility)”. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be referencing current uses of infallibility.

Though there probably are examples of infallibility on issues of morals (as is sort of being discussed elsewhere on this forum) that are somewhat current. I can’t think of any ex cathedra examples on Faith except maybe the pronouncement on Women and Priesthood made by JPII.

 

[mardukm]

I can’t speak for Malphono, but he does say “the current practice (either primacy or infallibility)”. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be referencing current uses of infallibility.

True

Though there probably are examples of infallibility on issues of morals (as is sort of being discussed elsewhere on this forum) that are somewhat current. I can’t think of any ex cathedra examples on Faith except maybe the pronouncement on Women and Priesthood made by JPII.

That’s what I was thinking of. There are certain moral issues that have been pronounced infallibly through the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (which is collegial by nature), but some (especially Absolutist Petrine advocates) like to present them as examples of papal monarchy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I can’t speak for Malphono, but he does say “the current practice (either primacy or infallibility)”. So it doesn’t necessarily have to be referencing current uses of infallibility.

Thank you. You got it in one.

 

[malphono]

That the secular powers were threatening to interfere with the Council.

How? By storming the palace? Oh, come on. The winds of war were a blowin’ well before that Council was ever convened and you know it. It didn’t happen overnight that Garibaldi decided, “gee, tomorrow I’m going to invade the Papal States.” I mean, really …

What does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

Quite a lot, actually, particularly in regard to “secular powers were threatening to interfere with the Council” and such things.

Because, as indicated by the quotes I gave (in the links provided), there was an impression, imposed by the exaggerations of the secular press, that papal secular dominion would be dogmatized.

And? What’s the difference?

But Pio Nono was clearly responding to the request of the Council Fathers, and did not do so on his own initiative. By stating that the Pope “resorted to a Council,” you make it seem as though he called the Council just for the purpose of defining the papal dogmas, which would be a wrong assumption.

And you’re making it sound like, for once the dictator was responsive to the electorate.

The fact is that those of the Absolutist camp manipulated both circumstances and perhaps, to an extent at least, Pio Nono himself, in order to further their agenda. (That last unless he was in that camp to begin with, which is where my money is in this race, but I digress.) As I said above, it was no big secret that a war was impending. And particularly when one considers that the reason for that impending war was the dissolution of the Papal States, it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that the “fruits” of that Council were mainly directed to bolstering the position of the papacy. As it turned out, the efforts of the Absolutists were for naught in the political realm, but have caused much dissent in the ecclesiastical realm.

I’m not saying that the colloquies would have authority to settle the matters. That’s not how those commissions work. Such commissions are always advisory. I’m saying that the commissions are where all the discussions and proposals, and hammering out of the details will occur.

Yes, I know the workings quite well. But whatever from a commission or a canon still wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

How? By storming the palace? Oh, come on. The winds of war were a blowin’ well before that Council was ever convened and you know it. It didn’t happen overnight that Garibaldi decided, “gee, tomorrow I’m going to invade the Papal States.” I mean, really …

I don’t understand what the “winds of war” in Europe have to do with the threat of interference at the Council. Please explain.

Quite a lot, actually, particularly in regard to “secular powers were threatening to interfere with the Council” and such things.

I completely don’t understand your train of thought here. What relation do the papal states have with the secular power threatening to interfere with the Council?

And? What’s the difference?

At this point, I don’t know, because I have absolutely no idea what your papal states comment has to do with the topic of how the Infallibility was forced to be defined by the Council.

And you’re making it sound like, for once the dictator was responsive to the electorate.

He always was. His direct involvement in the Council proceedings only came in the last month and a half of a Council that lasted almost 8 months. He intervened on 2 or 3 particular occasions during that time. He gave remonstrances to two bishops out of over 700. I am not aware of the dictator you speak of.

The fact is that those of the Absolutist camp manipulated both circumstances

Which 2 circumstances, exactly? You mean they deliberately manipulated the secular press to cause the Secular Governments to threaten interference and thus force the Council to add the Infallibility on the Agenda? Conspiracy theory anyone?

and perhaps, to an extent at least, Pio Nono himself, in order to further their agenda. (That last unless he was in that camp to begin with, which is where my money is in this race, but I digress.)

Pio Nono was definitely in the Absolutist Petrine camp – which is a wonder why the extravagances of the Neo-ultramontanists did not win out at V1. Either the Council was truly free and Pio Nono was not the dicator he is painted to be, or the representations of the Council from its detractors are just exaggerations.

As I said above, it was no big secret that a war was impending. And particularly when one considers that the reason for that impending war was the dissolution of the Papal States, it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that the “fruits” of that Council were mainly directed to bolstering the position of the papacy. As it turned out, the efforts of the Absolutists were for naught in the political realm, but have caused much dissent in the ecclesiastical realm.

I don’t understand your train of thought here. How was the dissolution of the Papal States related to the impending war? What did the purpose of the Council have to do with the impending war? Do you have any solid evidence connecting the purpose of the Council to the impending war? If the Absolutists had the upper hand and were directing every detail of the Council, how come their efforts were “for naught?” Why did Absolutist Neo-Ultramontanists such as Bishop LeCourtier of Orleans leave the Council in disgust calling it nothing more than a mitigated form of Gallicanism?

I hope you can answer my questions above. Your understanding of the events on the face seems like a conspiracy theorists’ dream (or nightmare). I hope I am incorrect.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

marduk, it seems that we’ve reached a point where we’re either talking past one another or you’re just not getting my drift. Either way, you have to admit that this exchange isn’t going anywhere, and so I think it’s time for me to bow out as gracefully as I can.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

marduk, it seems that we’ve reached a point where we’re either talking past one another or you’re just not getting my drift. Either way, you have to admit that this exchange isn’t going anywhere, and so I think it’s time for me to bow out as gracefully as I can.

Forgive me for misunderstanding you. I am genuinely interested in an explanation because your ideas are something that I have never come across. I hope you can entertain my own ignorance and provide an explanation.

At the same time, I pray you will not be averse if I express eventual disagreement with the reasons for your position, while I explain my own reasons for that disagreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear All,

Actually, it can. The business of “determining the consensus of the Church” (or the “College of Bishops” or however one wants to look at it) is very nice, but doesn’t really make much difference. That consensus is advisory only. It doesn’t make policy and it doesn’t declare dogma, unless it’s within the context of an Oecumenical Council (or at least a Local Council such as Florence, Trent, Vatican I & II, etc). If it were required to convene a Council, things would be as you say. Unfortunately, there is no such requirement.

I missed this post earlier, which makes an important point requiring a response.

The highlighted portion above is actually not true. I quoted the Official Relatio earlier that specifically refutes this notion. The Official Relatio calls the necessary consensus the RULE OF FAITH, and uses terms such as “ought” and “should” (denoting duty and responsibility, not mere choice) when it comes to the consensus of the Church. There is absolutely no indication in the Official Relatio that the Pope has the option of contradicting the consensus of the Church or of the present teaching of the whole Magisterium.

There are three possible sources for the misunderstanding:
(1) The Official Relatio affirms that the consultation of the bishops is not absolutely required. Do not confuse consultation with consensus. For the formulation of a Decree, the consensus can be determined by means other than direct consultation with the bishops of the world.
(2) It is true that the Canon of the Decree on the Infallibility states that the irreformibility of an ex cathedra Decree is not by virtue of the consent of the Church. As brother Ignatios had been corrected in the other thread, this statement simply means that once an ex cathedra Decree has been formulated and promulgated, the Truth of it (i.e., its irreformibility or infallibility) is not determined by consensus. This is nothing more than a mere restatement of the well known axiom against the Modernist heresy that claims Truth is determined by consensus. It has no bearing on the separate issues of (a) the fact that the consensus of the Church is necessary for the formulation of an *ex cathedra Decree, and (b) the Apostolic Canon that states consensus is necessary for the sake of the unity of the Church.
(3) There are 2 or 3 Canons indicating that for any body during a legislative or judicial process, though the consultation of other parties may be required for certain acts of a superior to be valid, the consultation need not be accepted by the superior of that body. Please understand that such canons apply only to purely canonical/disciplinary matters. Matters of canon and discipline that are primarily ecclesiastical should not be confused with matters of doctrine and morals which are in the realm of the divine.

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[malphono]

Forgive me for misunderstanding you. …

… I pray you will not be averse if I express eventual disagreement with the reasons for your position, while I explain my own reasons for that disagreement.

I fully expect continued disagreement, and I certainly don’t expect that you (or anyone else, for that matter) will magically arrive at my position. At the same time, though, I have to say that I have reached a certain position, and I’m not backing away from it. Just you will not back away from yours.

I missed this post earlier, which makes an important point requiring a response.

The highlighted portion above is actually not true. I quoted the Official Relatio earlier that specifically refutes this notion. The Official Relatio calls the necessary consensus the RULE OF FAITH, and uses terms such as “ought” and “should” (denoting duty and responsibility, not mere choice) when it comes to the consensus of the Church. There is absolutely no indication in the Official Relatio that the Pope has the option of contradicting the consensus of the Church or of the present teaching of the whole Magisterium.

I think it is true. The trouble is that there is equally no indication therein that the Bishop of Rome does not have the option of contradicting the so-called “consensus.” The wording is vague. Notice the absence of must (or is required). What a person “ought to” or “should” do is not necessarily what the person is required to do.

Please understand that I do not argue against the theory you present. However, to that I have to add that I am more than passingly familiar with Roman ecclesiastical lingo, so arguments that “should” and “ought” mean that something is binding are not sufficient. The fact is that when Rome wants to use the imperative, it does. It did not in this case.

In the end, I stand by my position.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

I fully expect continued disagreement, and I certainly don’t expect that you (or anyone else, for that matter) will magically arrive at my position. At the same time, though, I have to say that I have reached a certain position, and I’m not backing away from it. Just you will not back away from yours.

Would you mind answering the questions I asked so I can understand your statements? I hope you do, just for the sake of understanding, if not agreement. Who knows? Maybe I’ll agree with you to a certain extent.

I think it is true. The trouble is that there is equally no indication therein that the Bishop of Rome does not have the option of contradicting the so-called “consensus.” The wording is vague. Notice the absence of must (or is required). What a person “ought to” or “should” do is not necessarily what the person is required to do. Please understand that I do not argue against the theory you present. However, to that I have to add that I am more than passingly familiar with Roman ecclesiastical lingo, so arguments that “should” and “ought” mean that something is binding are not sufficient.

The words “ought” and “should” have more than one sense. Look it up in any dictionary of your choice. But common experience can guide you as well.

(1) You should or ought to do something because of necessity (by law or some other imperative).
(2) You should or ought to do something because of utility (it is useful but not necessay).

Given that the consensus is considered a “RULE OF FAITH,” I think you have little or no basis for assuming the second understanding of the terms, when the first understanding is the most obvious. If you are willing to admit that the Pope can violate what the Church regards as a Rule of Faith, then there is no reason to believe that the Pope is not free to create new doctrine in violation of Divine laws.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

I just spoke to a friend of mine who is an expert in Latin. He stated that “he must do this” is equivalent to “he should do this” according to the context because Latin cannot transliterate the phrase “he must do this.”

That info, along with the propositions I proferred in the previous post should settle the issue.

What say you?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

mardukm is always in error about his consensus understanding.

He made consensus a pre-requirement of papal infallibility where it is actually an automatic, for lack of a better word, consequence of papal infallibility (if we follow, and I’m not sure whether we should, +Vincent Ferrer Gasser’s word).

That is, It’s not that you have to have consensus for papal infallilibity (an anathema contrary to the definition itself) but if the charism of infallibility is exercise by the pope there will always be members of the Church who will consent.

I will get back to the old Vatican Dogma thread latter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

mardukm is always in error about his consensus understanding.

He made consensus a pre-requirement of papal infallibility where it is actually an automatic, for lack of a better word, consequence of papal infallibility (if we follow, and I’m not sure, +Vincent Ferrer Gasser’s word).

That is, It’s not that you have to have consensus for papal infallilibity (an anathema contrary to the definition itself) but if the charism of infallibility is exercise by the pope there will always be members of the Church who will consent.

Apparently you have not read the Official Relatio.

“Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascerting the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils, or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc.”

Your opinion is that the Pope can unilaterally proclaim a dogma apart from the Church and the Church just kowtows to that Decree. The Fathers of Vatican 1 disagree with your Absolutist Petrine understanding. The Church through her other bishops is not called to judge when the Pope is called upon by that selfsame Church to exercise the Church’s infallibility for the determination on a disputed issue. But the Church is indeed necessary for the formulation of the Decree, as consistently stated, for the very reason stated above from the Official Relatio.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

I should also add that the quote I gave above from the Official Relatio is in fact asserted in Pastor Aeternus itself:

*However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together Ecumenical Councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they found consonant with the Holy Scriptur and with the apostolic Tradition. The reason for this * is that the HOly Spirit was promised to teh successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that which His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or Deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles.

Absolutist Petrine advocates normally completely neglect this portion of the V1 Decree, and focus just on the Definition (just like, I might add, the Low Petrine detractors of the Vatican Council). It is almost natural, for modern Absolutist Petrine advocates reflect the same opinion as their predecessors at V1, the Neo-ultramontanists. The above excerpt given from Pastor Aeternus is part of what is normally known as the historic Proem. It was added after much debate, and was the cause of the departure of several Neo-ultramontanists from the Council. The Neo-ultramontanists were vociferously opposed to the Proem because they thought it placed too many limits on the exercise of “papal infallibility.” The orthodox Fathers of V1 obviously disagreed.

I pray you will somehow divest yourself of your own Absolutist Petrine tendencies and submit to the true teaching of the Fathers of Vatican 1.

Blessings,
Marduk**

 

[beng]

Do you or do you not consider consensus to be pre-requirement for the Pope to exercise his infallibility?

My position is the Catholic one. It’s not any of the labels you’ve put on it.