Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[dvdjs]

But was this a private letter? As I understand it- the Patriarch of Constantinople- Sergius- petitioned Pope Honorius to settle the matter due to the situation in Alexandria? Does this sort of appeal not fall under the Pope’s umbrella of infallibility since it required his judgment? It may not have been an official Papal Bull- but how was he not operating as supreme pastor of the faithful?

I hope you don’t mind my stepping in, but there is a simple razor to apply to the case of Honorius and its implications for infallibility. The participants of VI were certainly learned, aware of the details of the the Honorius case, and aware of what they themselves meant by the declaration of infallibility. In the end, they did not see an irreconcilable conflict. Cardinal Newman wrote specifically on the matter. There was no prevailing sense that the the case of Honorius contradicted the proclamation.

Sometimes, when people write with that sense there are some gaps in their knowledge of the Honorius affair and/or the definitions in Pastor Aeternus. There is no shortage of Catholic writing on these matters - most of which are linked in the numerous threads on Honorius here. Search and ye shall find.

 

[NinjaSnark]

I hope you don’t mind my stepping in, but there is a simple razor to apply to the case of Honorius and its implications for infallibility. The participants of VI were certainly learned, aware of the details of the the Honorius case, and aware of what they themselves meant by the declaration of infallibility. In the end, they did not see an irreconcilable conflict. Cardinal Newman wrote specifically on the matter. There was no prevailing sense that the the case of Honorius contradicted the proclamation.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, and understand how that logic is sufficient for some (and I don’t mean to imply that there isn’t significance to your point) but that cannot, on face value, be enough for me. That the Catholics at V1 didn’t find an issue with it is nice for them, but until I fully understand the situation and can also affirm that I don’t have an issue with it, then to become Catholic would be dishonest on my part- and this will just be a time bomb hidden in the back of my head waiting to go off.

To give you an imperfect analogy- there’s Protestants out there, certainly much smarter than I (and I don’t think I’m a dummy ) who see no conflict between their current practice of the faith and the early Church. How, I have no idea because I do see a huge conflict- which is why I am no longer Protestant. But, it would not have been sufficient for me then or now for one of them to say “Well insert apologist/theologian here has no problem with it.” Good for him- I do.

Sometimes, when people write with that sense there are some gaps in their knowledge of the Honorius affair and/or the definitions in Pastor Aeternus. There is no shortage of Catholic writing on these matters - most of which are linked in the numerous threads on Honorius here. Search and ye shall find.

Precisely why I’m asking- I won’t at all be surprised to find gaps in my knowledge. It wouldn’t be the first time, and I’m confident it won’t be the last.

However, I didn’t think of doing a search to see previous threads on the topic (I am a newb, after all- hehe), and I thank you for informing me of Cardinal Newman’s writing on the issue.

I hope that didn’t come across as rudely dismissive, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from.

God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, and understand how that logic is sufficient for some (and I don’t mean to imply that there isn’t significance to your point) but that cannot, on face value, be enough for me. That the Catholics at V1 didn’t find an issue with it is nice for them, but until I fully understand the situation and can also affirm that I don’t have an issue with it, then to become Catholic would be dishonest on my part- and this will just be a time bomb hidden in the back of my head waiting to go off.

Perfectly reasonable. What I offered was a razor, not the explanation that you are seeking. As you sift through the many perspectives, its good to keep this razor in mind. It will help you to be on the look out for their shortcomings. djs

 

[Alexander_Roman]

A Redemptorist seminarian I knew years ago had prepared his thesis on this and his conclusion was that papal infallibility could/should be developed to affirm that the Pope exercises infallibility when he confirms the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

There are plenty of precedents indicating that a pope will approve the decisions of an episcopal conference if they are voted on unanimously.

As for the point of Rome/Vatican bureaucracy not getting involved with the daily business of the Local Church - that would depend which Church one is talking about.

The UGCC would love it if Rome would both leave it to its synodal business (without Rome going over the heads of the Primate and his bishops on a number of levels) and allow the UGCC the rights it seeks, similar to those of much smaller EC Churches.

The Orthodox, when judging papal jurisdiction etc., look not to how the Pope deals with Latin bishops, but with Eastern Catholic Churches.

And High Petrine, Low Petrine whatever - Rome is very annoyed with the UGCC whenever it goes ahead and jumps beyond the lines in the sand drawn for it by Rome.

Alex

 

[Aramis]

Twf, thanks for bringing this up.

On the infallibility, Mardukm has me pretty convinced. Everything he, and others here such as yourself, have explained makes sense to me about the Pope’s infallibility. I must confess that I am not really aware of the Eastern Orthodox arguments against it. As I have time, I will ask at an Eastern Orthodox site what their objections are to see if they make sense, comparing them to what I have learned here from you wonderful and knowledgeable Catholics.

I guess my next topic of discovery will be the issue of the Primacy. On another thread (last week), Mardukm offered to explain how your points #1 and #2 above are related and cohere with each other. I will be starting a new thread on that issue soon. On the face, they seem to contradict, but, as I said in that other thread, I am willing to hear the Catholic side first before making a judgment.

In Christ,
Greg

It’s quite simple. If the Pope used his jurisdiction to routinely intervene in a bishop’s see, he’s denying the charism of that bishops ordination and enthronement.

It would literally be denial of the order of Bishop to routinely intervene.

In the same way, however, he is obligated to intervene when they:

1. become public manifest heretics
2. excommunicate themselves personally without heresy

The numerous illicit acts tolerated by some bishops leave many wishing for the absolute petrine authority, so that some fo the more outré bishops might find themselves reduced to auxiliaries… as was done with a certain Ruthenian Bishop… who, it is said, died having served happily as an auxiliary bishop of a Roman diocese…

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Andrea,

But was this a private letter?

In the sense that it was addressed only to Sergius.

As I understand it- the Patriarch of Constantinople- Sergius- petitioned Pope Honorius to settle the matter due to the situation in Alexandria?

Before answering, I would ask: Do you understand and accept the relevance of the petition of Patriarch Sergius (the highest religious authority in the East) to Pope Honorius – namely, that the early Church recognized the role of the bishop of Rome as the final appellate authority on issues of Faith?

As to your question, the answer is actually “no.” A background of the circumstances is in order.

A certain Bishop Cyrus had doubts about the use of the term “one operation” by a certain Monophysite group and brought the question to Patriarch Sergius. Sergius replied that he did not want to decide on the matter, but affirmed that the expression could be found in a letter by his predecessor Mennas to Pope Vigilius (NOTE: this letter was later discovered to be a forgery). When Cyrus became Patriarch of Alexandria, he managed to effect the reunion of a great many Monophysites to the Catholic Church through a vague formula that utilized the term “one operation,” based on Patriarch Sergius’ prior advice. At that point, Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem entered the fray, vehemently opposing the term “one operation,” and insisting on the term “two operations.” Patriarch Sergius, concerned with the maintenance of the achieved union with the Monophysites, made a compromise with Sophronius. Sergius would do what he could to stop the use of the term “one operation” if Sophronius agreed not to do anything to endanger the union with the Monophysites. Effectively, Sergius wanted to maintain the status quo. A dogmatization for or against either formula was the last thing on his mind. His main goal was to maintain the union with the Monophysites through the vague formula of Patriarch Cyrus. As surety for his plans, Sergius appealed to Pope Honorius to support his own policy of vagueness. So it is not true that Sergius petitioned the Pope to settle the matter; if anything, he petitioned the Pope to specifically NOT settle the matter. And this is exactly what Pope Honorius did. He agreed with Sergius’ policy of vagueness, not supporting either side, not dogmatizing either side. The problem, of course, was that while it was perfectly orthodox not to support the use of the term “one operation,” it was perfectly heretical not to support the use of the term “two operations.”

Before going on, it might be useful to give a word or two about the range of positions on the matter of whether Pope Honorius was a heretic:
(1) Pope Honorius was not a heretic, but was misunderstood by the 6th Ecum. Though judgments on doctrines are infallible, judgments on persons are not, as evidenced by the case of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, who were exonerated by the 4th Ecum, but subsequently condemned by the 5th Ecum. So it is altogether possible that the 6th Ecum erred in its judgment against Honorius. St. Maximos the Confessor and Pope Honorius’ own secretary (who drafted the letter to Sergius) are the most imminent witnesses to the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, who interpret (easily) Honorius’ questionable statements in an orthodox “miathelite” sense, instead of a strict monothelite sense.
(2) Pope Honorius was a heretic for agreeing to suppress the use of the term “two operations.”
(3) Pope Honorius was a heretic for failing to exercise the responsibility of his primatial office.
(4) Pope Honorius was a heretic for positively accepting the heresy of monothelitism.
(5) Pope Honorius was a heretic for actually teaching the heresy.

(1) is the polemic Catholic position, and held mostly by Absolutist Petrine advocates who fantasize that the Pope can never err on a matter of faith/morals at any time at all (though, as noted, (1) has some patristic support). (2) and (3) are the most common Catholic positions, and held mostly by High Petrine advocates who are not threatened by the idea that the Pope can be a heretic. (4) is an acceptable Catholic position, and is probably the usual non-Catholic position. (5) is the polemic non-Catholic position and has absolutely no support from the records of the 6th Ecum (sister Andrea, are you interested in the reasons for this last statement?). NOTE: The article for HONORIUS in the old Catholic Encyclopedia argues for (2) and (3), and rejects (1), (4), and (5).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Does this sort of appeal not fall under the Pope’s umbrella of infallibility since it required his judgment?

Yes, it is SUPPOSED TO fall under the umbrella of infallibility. The question remains, however, “Did the Pope actually exercise that prerogative in order to dogmatically settle a disputed doctrine?”

It may not have been an official Papal Bull- but how was he not operating as supreme pastor of the faithful?

And that’s the whole problem. He SHOULD have been – but he didn’t. When the issue came to him, he SHOULD have dogmatized against the term “one operation,” but he didn’t. Instead, he agreed with Sergius that BOTH terms should be suppressed to prevent conflict. As already stated, while it was perfectly orthodox for him to support the suppression of the term “one operation,” it was simultaneously perfectly heretical for him to support the suppression of the term “two operations.”

The Official Relatio explains exactly in what way the action of Pope Honorius failed to satisfy the conditions for an exercise of “papal infallibility”:
The term ex cathedra is received in the schools, and its meaning is defined as follows: “When the Pope speaks not as a private doctor, or as bishop of a diocese, but as exercising the office of supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.” Moreover, not every way suffices of propounding a doctrine, even as supreme pastor and teacher; but there must be the intention manifested of defining a doctrine, or of putting an end to controversy on some doctrine, by giving a definitive sentence, and propounding that doctrine as to be held by the universal Church.

An indispensable corollary of this official explanation is the fact that the exercise of “papal infallibility” requires a public proclamation. It was Jesus Christ Himself who asserted several times during His ministry that Christianity is as a light or a lamp set on a hill that should not be hid. On this point, Pope Honorius again failed the test of ever having actually exercised “papal infallibility.”

I don’t have any problem believing in the truth of the Assumption- I am questioning whether it should have been dogmatically defined on principle.

Yes! That.

OK. Truth to tell, I am not aware of any Magisterial document claiming that the Marian dogmas are necessary for salvation, at least not in the same way as the Trinitarian dogmas are. I have heard and read of this view expressed only from lay polemical Catholic and non-Catholic sources. Sister Andrea, would you mind if I responded to this issue later in another thread? I feel it is important and distinct enough that it deserves its own thread. If I have not responded on the matter within 2 days, maybe you can start your own thread on the issue as a reminder for me.

Absolutely- that, I can do.

On that note, I hope you don’t mind if I ask for some clarifications.
(1) Do you agree that infallibility is meant to protect the public faith of the Church, not the private belief of individuals?
(2) Are you satisfied with the explanation of the conflicts that necessitated the dogmatization of the Marian dogmas?
(3) What is the status in your mind of your previous statement that the issue of Honorius was a circular argument? It appears you are now focusing on issues of consistency, rather than circularity. Does this mean we can put the issue of circularity behind us?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

A Redemptorist seminarian I knew years ago had prepared his thesis on this and his conclusion was that papal infallibility could/should be developed to affirm that the Pope exercises infallibility when he confirms the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

I don’t understand. That is already the teaching of the Church. Of course, that infallibility is exercised within that collegial body, not apart from it. Was he proposing that during an Ecumenical Council, the Pope should have a unique infallibility APART FROM the Ecumenical Council? If that is the case, I would strongly disagree.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council is a COLLEGIAL infallibility, of the body in union with its head. As the Official Relatio explained:
“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.”

I don’t see any use for “developments” that will only serve to support the Absolutist Petrine errors.:nope:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NinjaSnark]

Before answering, I would ask: Do you understand and accept the relevance of the petition of Patriarch Sergius (the highest religious authority in the East) to Pope Honorius – namely, that the early Church recognized the role of the bishop of Rome as the final appellate authority on issues of Faith?

Yes and yes- from my study of Church history thus far, I would say that this concept is certainly verifiable.

And that’s the whole problem. He SHOULD have been – but he didn’t. When the issue came to him, he SHOULD have dogmatized against the term “one operation,” but he didn’t. Instead, he agreed with Sergius that BOTH terms should be suppressed to prevent conflict. As already stated, while it was perfectly orthodox for him to support the suppression of the term “one operation,” it was simultaneously perfectly heretical for him to support the suppression of the term “two operations.”

This makes a lot of sense to me. Actually, I find your entire explanation of the Honorius situation to be both realistic and logical. I would say- from your proposed list- that I could easily fall into camp #2, probably #3 as well- although I tend to think that his failure to exercise his primatial office was grossly negligent (which led to his heresy as expressed in position #2), not outright heresy in itself.

OK. Truth to tell, I am not aware of any Magisterial document claiming that the Marian dogmas are necessary for salvation, at least not in the same way as the Trinitarian dogmas are. I have heard and read of this view expressed only from lay polemical Catholic and non-Catholic sources. Sister Andrea, would you mind if I responded to this issue later in another thread? I feel it is important and distinct enough that it deserves its own thread. If I have not responded on the matter within 2 days, maybe you can start your own thread on the issue as a reminder for me.

That’s fine- I look forward to it. Thanks.

On that note, I hope you don’t mind if I ask for some clarifications.
(1) Do you agree that infallibility is meant to protect the public faith of the Church, not the private belief of individuals?

Yes, I can agree that it is meant to do that.

(2) Are you satisfied with the explanation of the conflicts that necessitated the dogmatization of the Marian dogmas?

To be honest with you- I’m not sure. I’m hoping that this gets cleared up in the thread to come (as how they are dogmatized- necessary for salvation or not- will play a large part in how I feel about the dogmas in general). I need to process this a bit more- because I’m not quite sure how to articulate my thoughts right now… the mental dust needs to settle, so to speak.

(3) What is the status in your mind of your previous statement that the issue of Honorius was a circular argument? It appears you are now focusing on issues of consistency, rather than circularity. Does this mean we can put the issue of circularity behind us?

Yes, your explanation was quite satisfactory, and (IMO) devoid of the ridiculous contortions I feared. I’m quite comfortable with it.

Thanks Marduk!! Glad I checked this thread before I went to bed, haha.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Greg,

Can you please be more specific? Can you give an example of an Absolutist/neo-ultramontanist belief held by Pius IX that the Council did not agree with?

I’ll give you two:

(1) One of the main articles of the Absolutist/neo-ultramontanist position at Vatican 1 was the idea that the Pope’s infallibility extended to matters beyond Faith and morals. Of particular concern was the matter of the Pope’s ability to intervene in the secular affairs of the State (not least of which was the deposing power of the Pope). Recall the discussion at the beginning of this thread of the fears of the world governments prompting them to threaten to interfere in the Council. I gave links to statements from several contemporary sources expressing this fear. Here is another one from Prince Hohenlohe of Bavaria:
“The only dogmatic thesis Rome would wish to be proclaimed at the Council is the papal infallibility. It is evident that this pretension raised to a dogma would pass beyond the purely spiritual domain, and would become a question eminently political, raising the power of the Pope, even on the temporal side, above all princes and peoples of Christendom.”

It is a well-known fact that Pope Pius IX held tenaciously to the medieval concept of the primacy of the spiritual over the secular/political (e.g., the Pope’s deposing power were infallible acts, etc.). Before Vatican 1, his negotiations with secular powers regarding the sanctity and integrity of the Papal States exposes the attitude of the Pope. For example, Count Camillo Cavour (a key figure in the unification of the Kingdom of Italy), pleaded with the Pope to give up papal claims to political hegemony: “Holy Father, renounce, and we shall give you that freedom which you have sought in vain for three centuries from the great Catholic powers …What you have never been able to achieve, we can offer to you fully. We are ready to proclaim in Italy the grand principle of a free Church in a free State.”

Of course, Pius IX would not “renounce.” (NOTE: In his defense, Pio Nono’s adherence to the medieval principle was not motivated by pretensions of grandeur, but because he sincerely believed that the separation of Church and State was a formula for submitting to liberalism and relativism). It took an Ecumenical Council for the Pope (and other neo-ultramontanists) to “renounce” the concept that political hegemony fell within the scope of “papal infallibility.”

One can see the change in Pope Pius IX’s own position on the matter after Vatican 1. In June, 1871, the Swiss bishops issued a joint Pastoral explaining to their flock the Decree on the Infallibility: “The Pope is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside society there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy these is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

The Pope responded that “nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the Truth to stand out more clearly, then their Pastoral.”

(2) One of 2 (or 3? I forget) times that the Pope personally rebuked a bishop (out of over 700) offers us insight into Pio Nono’s personal belief about the papacy.

Cardinal Guidi Archbishop of Bologna, a member of the Majority Party, had given a speech that was one of the sensations at the Council, for his speech garnered hearty applause from all members of the Minority Party:

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

“…a condition of infallibility is that it should not be exercised rashly, but that the Pope is bound to use ordinary human diligence in arriving at right judgment, as prayer, consultation, study; and that the normal means was consultation with a greater or less number of bishops, according to the circumstances, the bishops being the witnesses to the belief of their churches. Therefore it should be made clear in the decree that not the Pope alone issues a definition; but the Pope with the bishops consenting to, or it may be asking for the definition, in such a way that they merely propose it, but he, by the authority received from Christ, defines. Therefore I would insert in the definition: ‘having made investigation as to the tradition of the other churches, and having taken counsel with more or fewer bishops, according to circumstances, and having himself examined the matter, and invoked the Holy Spirit,’ then he cannot err; and so on much as in the proposed form. And I propose a canon: ‘If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff when he issues dogmatic decrees or constitutions, acts by mere will and by himself, independently of the Church, that is separately, and not by the counsel of the bishops manifesting the tradition of the churches; let him be anathema.’”

At this point, a small storm arose in the Council, with voices approving and disapproving. Afterwards, Guidi continued:

“Do not the Bishops manifest to the supreme Pontiff the Tradition of the Churches? Why then ‘No, no’? I beg you not to interrupt the speaker…In this way the supreme and infallible authority of the Pope in defining matters of Faith is vindicated, and the opinion of those is excluded who hold that ex cathedra decrees are reformable by the bishops or by a General Council.

Though the speech had the support of the Minority Party, it brought the ire of the Pope. According to Bishop Dupanloup’s account (though he was not actually in the chambers when it happened), the Pope upbraided Guidi - a Cardinal no less - for opposing him. Guidi defended himself by explaining that he had stated merely that the bishops are the witnesses of Tradition. Pius replied, “Witnesses of Tradition? I AM TRADITION.”

Though none of the points of Guidi’s speech made it into the Definition itself, they were all (with the one exception of the absolute necessity of the counsel of bishops) nevertheless included in the Official Relatio and the historical Proem of Pastor Aeternus, thus reflecting the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As far as Pio Nono’s personal belief of being Tradition personified, the Council responded, rather, that the Pope must be subservient to Tradition. Literally in “the final hour,” the Council Fathers added the historical Proem to Pastor Aeternus (causing, btw, several members of the neo-ultramontanist camp to leave the Council), which asserted:
“[T]he Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by his revelation, but rather, that with His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed own through the Apostles.”

And to this, even the Pope conceded.

Recall also the Pastoral from the Swiss Bishops mentioned in my post #213, where it is affirmed that the Pope is bound by so many things from the Tradition of the Church, and to which Pio Nono responded, “nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the Truth to stand out more clearly, then their Pastoral.”

NOTE: Cardinal Guidi is credited for the proposal that changed the title of the Decree on Infallibility from “The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff” to “The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.” The change was effected because the original title was too easily misunderstood to make “papal infallibility” too personal and separated from the Church. The change made it more obvious that infallibility was not given to the person of the Pope, but to his teaching authority (i.e., Magisterium), a teaching authority that the Church as a whole also possesses.

Brother Greg, I hope that satisfies your curiosity as to how the First Vatican Council corrected even its head bishop, Pope Pius IX.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Do you really, truly think so?

Indeed. He has invented a matrix of theological terminology that he can manipulate for his polemics.

Marduk’s explanations do indeed achieve a remarkable degree of specificity, clarity, and to a degree even simplicity.

I see quite the opposite. He always tries to justify his odd meanderings with painfully long dissertations in an attempt to further clarify…which further confuses.

But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[twf]

Mickey:
What do you make the general audience given by HH Bl. John Paul II which I provided earlier in this thread? His explanation of the role and nature of papal primacy seems very consistent with what Marduk is presenting. If Bl. John Paul can’t be trusted to properly interpret the Catholic Church’s canons and councils, who can?

 

[Mickey]

Mickey:
What do you make the general audience given by HH Bl. John Paul II which I provided earlier in this thread?

Can you please re-post the link to this “general audience statement”.

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Brother Marduk,

You recently wrote:

I don’t understand. That is already the teaching of the Church. Of course, that infallibility is exercised within that collegial body, not apart from it. Was he proposing that during an Ecumenical Council, the Pope should have a unique infallibility APART FROM the Ecumenical Council? If that is the case, I would strongly disagree.

I don’t have time for extended discussion or to read long replies. Am I understanding it is your position that the teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope only has infallibility if it is exercised along with the collegial body of bishops? Or, did I misunderstand your position?

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter.

I’ll attempt to explain it as concisely as I can.

:

I don’t understand. That is already the teaching of the Church. Of course, that infallibility is exercised within that collegial body, not apart from it. Was he proposing that during an Ecumenical Council, the Pope should have a unique infallibility APART FROM the Ecumenical Council? If that is the case, I would strongly disagree.

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church collegially? YES

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church personally? YES

Can any other bishop exercise the infallibility of the Church collegially? YES

Can any other bishop exercise the infallibility of the Church personally? NO

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church apart from the Church? NO and NEVER.

EXPLANATION:
There is only ONE KIND OF infallibility in the Church - the infallibility of GOD, which He permits the Church to possess for the sake of perserving His Truth.

This infallibility is exercised in two ways -
(1) in an ORDINARY manner (equivalently, “the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium”);
(2) in an EXTRAORDINARY manner (equivalently, “the infallibility of the EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium”).

The Church exercises infallibility in an ORDINARY manner to preserve God’s Truth in only one way - collegially. This occurs for the day-to-day transmission of God’s Truth that is for the most part undisputed. In such cases, the episcopal Magisterium acts as WITNESSES.

The Church execises infallibility in an EXTRAORDINARY manner to preserve God’s Truth in two ways - (1) collegially and (2) personally by the Pope. This occurs when there is a dispute in the Church about God’s Truth. In such cases, the episcopal Magisterium acts as JUDGES.

The Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium is exercised COLLEGIALLY by an Ecumenical Council. In that event, ALL the bishops act as JUDGES…

The Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium is exercised PERSONALLY by the Pope when the bishops themselves cannot agree. In that event, only the Pope acts as the JUDGE, while the bishops act as WITNESSES. In other words, while the Pope is exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, the bishops (or at least a portion of them) are exercising the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

I hope that helps. All questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

I forgot to add:

The laity also participates in the infallibility of the Church that is exercised in an ORDINARY manner. The concept is enshrined in the Church’s dogma on the sensus fidelium. However, the laity do not participate in the Ordinary Magisterium, which, according to the solid testimony of Scripture and Sacred Tradition, belongs only to the successors of the Apostles in the ministry of teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Brother Marduk,

My wife already believes she is infallible, thank you very much. You HAD to say that, didn’t you?

She doesn’t need any more encouragement in the inerrancy department . . . And I’m not trying to be a “Copt out.”

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear Brother Marduk,

My wife already believes she is infallible, thank you very much. You HAD to say that, didn’t you?

She doesn’t need any more encouragement in the inerrancy department . . . And I’m not trying to be a “Copt out.”

Alex

That’s AWESOME, brother Alex. I too have such “debates” with my wife. I always insist that we both share in the same infallibility. She normally responds by claiming to possess the primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I always insist that we both share in the same infallibility. She normally responds by claiming to possess the primacy.

Levity aside, that comment brings us right back to something I said early on in this thread (before I unsubscribed to it), doesn’t it? The issues of papal infallibility and papal primacy are inextricably linked.

And with that :twocents: thrown in, I repair back to the observation deck.