"Not from the Consent of the Church"

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Thank you very much for expressing your pov here on CAF. I have decided to start another thread on this matter so as not to further hijack brother ByzCathCantor’s thread ))

The argument in fact rather reminds me of enlightenment theories of the governed giving implicit consent to the government. The Pope, so the argument goes, already has the consent of the Church by virtue of his office as the temporal head of the Church.

This is what I used to believe as well. I hope the following responses will help clarify the issue. But first, general principles. The implied consent theory is actually different from what is proposed here by the official Relatio for one important reason. The implied consent theory proposes that because the monarch has been received by the people, then all his decisions will likewise automatically be received without question as being for the good of the people. There is no necessity nor condition in such a paradigm for the monarch to even consult anyone; his will is the sole and last word. Such was the feature of the absolute monarchy. In direct contrast…well, I’ll let the official Relatio speak for itself, and I will give relevant quotes progressively during this discussion.

I would like to repeat my appreciation for your (name removed by moderator)ut. The argument I am used to hearing from non-Catholics is that agreement will come because the rest of the Church are simply required or forced to accept such or such statement from the Pope as true after the decree. In analysis, that polemic does not even consider the dynamic between the Pope and the rest of the Church before the decree. At least you recognize that there is something going on before the decree, and we can work from there.

We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.

I don’t see how that last paragraph you bolded is anything but a fancy way of nuancing the fact that ex cathedra statements do not require the consent of the Church to look as if they do require the consent of the Church.

This statement from the Relatio does not admit any contradiction with the excerpt from the dogma at issue. As explained in an earlier post, the meaning of “consent” used in the dogma is different from the meaning of “consensus” (though the two words are actually often used interchangeably). “Consent” in the dogma has a meaning more akin to “permission” whereas “consensus” has a meaning more akin to “agreement.” They are two very different understandings of terms that are otherwise commonly interchangeable. To appreciate this difference, one has to understand the history of the phrase at issue.

The immediate reason for adding the particular phrase “not from the consent of the Church” (it was actually not in the original draft, but was added rather late) was to meet the concern of certain Fathers intent on killing the last vestiges of Gallicanism. This particular facet of theological Gallicanism (it’s fourth article) was opposed consistently by the Church, because “consent” as used by the Gallicans was understood to mean more than just “agreement” but actually “permission.” This is the distinction that the Relatio makes when it states that the consent should not be “laid down as a condition.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Permit me to explain the difference between “consent/consensus” as “permission” and “consent/consensus” as “agreement.” “Permission” indicates that the one being permitted has no inherent right or prerogative to make that decision without the other party. “Agreement,” on the other hand, denotes a certain equality in the decision-making process. The Relatio asserts explicitly “Whoever therefore contends that the Pope, either for information, or for an infallible judgment on faith or morals, depends WHOLLY on the manifested consent of the bishops, or on their help, must lay down that false principle that all the dogmatic judgments of the Pope are in themselves and of themselves reformable.” Do you understand the significance of my highlighting the word “WHOLLY?” That demonstrates that the Fathers who wrote the decree did not conceive of the Pope as acting unilaterally in his dogmatic decrees. That demonstrates that the Fathers who wrote the Decree did not conceive that the rest of the Church would be, should be, nor could be devoid of influence in a dogmatic decree by the Pope. And that demonstrates the difference between “permission” and “agreement” mentioned earlier. This has ever been the main difference between the the Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine views that I have proposed – Absolutist Petrine advocates claim only the Pope is necessary, with the rest of the bishops subservient to him; Low Petrine advocates claim only the collective body of bishops is necessary, and the head subservient to it; the High Petrine view, faithful to the ancient apostolic Canon, and which is the official position of the Catholic Church, regards the head and the body as equally important.

The Relatio states that the “consent/consensus” of the Church is necessary, even for definitions by the Pope, precisely on this understanding of “agreement,” not “permission.” It is “agreement,” and not “permission,” because “the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition.”

THAT is why the Relatio states that “this consent is never able to be lacking to him.” It is not because “the Pope says so.” It is because the Fathers of V1 had the conviction, on the premises that (1) the Pope has the same sources as the rest of the Church, (2) the Pope is not permitted to go beyond these sources in his dogmatic decision, and (3) the Church is infallible, that the Church will adhere to those same sources faithfully that will be reflected in the Pope’s dogmatic decree. Therein lies the refutation of applying the implied consent theory to the situation of “papal infallibility.” It is not merely or even primarily what the Pope decrees per se (as if such decrees could be devoid of the imperative of Sacred Tradition, or as if the Pope even had the authority to go beyond Sacred Tradition in the first place) to which the rest of the Church is bound; rather it is the Sacred Tradition to which both the Pope and the rest of the Church are bound

As an aside, a very similar conflict in understanding occurs with expressions such as, “papal assent,” “papal approval,” “papal confirmation,” etc., etc. Are these papal actions obtained for the sake of permission, or for the sake of agreement? This nuance must be seriously considered in the ecumenical discussion. For example, when the Pope confirms the decrees of a Council, is he giving permission to the Fathers of the Council as if they had no authority in and of themselves in the decision-making process? That is obviously not the case according to Catholic teaching (though Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors like to pretend that it is).

And so using these two assumptions, that the Church cannot fall into error, and that the body cannot be separated from the head, it therefore can be concluded that the head can never fall into error in while defining something in his capacity as head.

Thank you so much for this recognition. It is only in this context of his role as a member of the Church, and the Church’s own infallibility, that we can understand the Church’s teaching on “papal infallibility.”
Do not listen to these Absolutist Petrine exaggerators who claim the Pope can do things unilaterally, especially as regards the Faith of the Church universal.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

But this does nothing to temper the statement that a pronouncement of such nature by the Roman Pontiff is irreformable not by the consent of the Church. In fact, it complements its meaning, showing that the existence of the body is merely a necessary condition for the head to have its power, but that the consent of the body is not necessary in any sort of instrumental fashion.

I propose you are misreading the dogma. The dogma does not say that it is the definition that does not require the consent of the Church, but rather that its irreformability – its status as Truth – does not require the consent of the Church. The dogma itself makes it evident with the term “therefore” that opens the statement at issue. The contrast being made in the dogma (made evident by the term “therefore” along with the sentence that immediately precedes it) is not between what the Pope does, on the one hand, and what (the rest of) the Church does, on the other, during the process of an ex cathedra decree. Rather, it is about what gives the Decree its status as Truth (i.e., its irreformability). Is it the promise of Christ through the assistance of the Holy Spirit (the sentence that immediately precedes the “therefore”) or is it consensus? It is supremely important for you to remember that the underlying concern pervading the impetus of the whole Council was the battle against modernism. And, in fact, one of the main tenets of modernism is that truth comes by consensus.

Basically this is what the dogma is saying: “The dogmatic sentences of the Church through her infallible organs (whether an Ecumenical Council or the Pope) are true (i.e. irreformible) simply and only because of Christ’s divine promise to the Church through the Holy Spirit, not because of human consensus. The statement at issue is not concerned with establishing the process of determining the definition (i.e., whether the Church is involved or not in that determination). It is only concerned about making a statement on Truth (reflective of the general purpose of the Council to combat modernism and liberalism). It is probably difficult to do so, but please try to divest yourself of the idea that the dogma is making some statement trying to polarize the Pope from the rest of the Church, because I guarantee you that is not what it is saying (it is also important to keep in mind the difference between “agreement” and “permission” that was explained earlier).

Also remember what I stated earlier about the history behind the clause at issue. It was not in the original draft of the Decree. The original draft of the Decree only contained a statement that a decree ex cathedra is irreformible simply because of the promise of Christ (the form of the Decree as we have it today is actually the third draft). At this point, permit me to further expound on the history of the clause at issue (one can find all this in Dom Cuthbert Butler’s seminal book The Vatican Council 1869-1870). There was a great concern from the Minority Party and many in the Majority Party that the Decree as it was made it seem as though “papal infallibility” was some sort of UNILATERAL prerogative, since, as it was, it made no mention of the involvement of the rest of the Church in the process of an ex cathedra decree.

In order to meet these concerns, the committee De Fide responsible for formulating the Decree (the one whose official understanding is reflected in Bishop Gasser’s Relatio) made some changes to the Decree, the most important of these, as concerns our specific topic, being:
(1) The title of this chapter of the Decree was changed from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to the “Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.” This met the concern that people would misunderstand the Decree to mean that infallibility was in the person of the Pope, instead of the Magisterium (i.e., the teaching office), which is also shared by the rest of the bishops of the Church.
(2) The historic Proem was added to the Decree. This is paragraph 5 of the Decree on Infallibility. The historic Proem is a summary of the Tradition of the Church, indicating that: (a) the exercise of “papal infallibility” is initiated by his brother bishops when they appeal to him (not, according to some Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors, that he can just wake up one morning and by some God-given inspiration decide by himself that a new dogma needs to be made); **(b)**in responding to his brother bishops, the Pope needs the help of the Church (“However, the Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the conditions of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding the mind of the Church throughout the whole world…other helps which divine providence supplied…”); and (c) the Pope has no authority to contradict or go beyond Sacred Tradition (“The reason for this is that the 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…”). Note especially the clause “The reason for this is…” The Decree intimately connects the help of the Church with the prevention of the Pope from going outside the boundaries of Sacred Tradition.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

After all this, HOWEVER, the Commission could not simply neglect the concern from the more ardent infallibilists and neo-ultramontantists that this direction towards the more moderate ultramontane position (the High Petrine view) could appear to many to be a concession to the Gallican heresy. Thus it was that the clause “not from the consent of the Church” was added to the definition itself. This was a direct attack on the Fourth Gallican principle (it was already explained above that “consent” in this context implied permission, instead of agreement, and was thus not a statement attempting to deprive the rest of the Church of its involvement in the process of an ex cathedra decree).

I hope that helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

I would like to fend off a likely rejoinder to what I have already written. There IS a section in the Relatio that can be easily misinterpreted by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors to mean that the Pope can actually pronounce dogma unilaterally. I will present it here and refute the possible rejoinder by thereafter giving the entire context of the statement from the Relatio.

The following is the excerpt from the Relatio likely to be misinterpreted by Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates:
“[It is claimed that a]s the bishops can do nothing in making dogmas of faith without the Pope, similarly the Pope can do nothing without them. The first part is true, because decrees of faith even made by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope…But conversely, can the Pope do nothing without the bishops? Not so, for Christ said to Peter alone “Thou art Peter…””

There are two concepts here that require explanation to forestall possible misinterpretations:

1) “the bishops can do nothing without the Pope…because decrees of faith even by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope.”
Bishop Gasser, expressing the mind of the committee De Fide, and thus the mind of the Vatican Council itself that approved the Decree formulated by the Committee, rejects the Absolutist Petrine (neo-ultramontanist) misinterpretation. Immediately after the phrase at issue, Bishop Gasser continues:
“The reason of this is not the one which I have sometimes heard, I say it with sorrow, alleged in this ambo, namely, as if all 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.”

The old Catholic Encyclopedia (in its article on “Infallibility”) affirms this Traditional Catholic interpretation of the matter expressed by Bishop Gasser:
“Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibility do not logically stand or fall together, since in the Catholic view the co-operation and confirmation of the pope in his purely primatial capacity are necessary, according to the Divine constitution of the Church, for the ecumenicity and infallibility of a council. This has, de facto, been the formal test of ecumenicity; and it would be necessary even in the hypothesis that the pope himself were fallible. An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible.”

(For someone who may not understand what the oCE is saying, it is simply saying that the necessity of the Pope’s confirmation for the infallibility and validity of an Ecumenical Council is not due to “papal infallibility,” but because of his primacy. The infallibility of the Council is a truly collegial infallibility, the head and body infallible only when taken together. And this, btw, is according to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, which states that in a matter involving the entire Church, the body of bishops must not act without its head bishop, and neither should the head bishop act without the body)

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Now comes the crucial issue:
2) “…can the Pope do nothing without the bishops? Not so, for Christ said to Peter alone ‘Thou art Peter…’”
There is actually an underlying premise that one cannot perceive nor understand, if one were to take this excerpt myopically deprived of its context. Namely, in decrees of faith, what exactly is it from the bishops that the Pope can do without? The answer to this question will reveal that this statement from Bishop Gasser simply cannot be (mis)interpreted to mean that the Pope can act unilaterally, or that the Church has no involvement, in the determination of an ex cathedra decree.

Bishop Gasser explains exactly what it is that the Pope can do without. Immediately following the statement at issue, he continues:
“[It is said that t]he 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. We here come to the crucial point. It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. 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. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be deduced from the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, the Holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors, or in other private ways, which suffice for full information. That strict necessity, such as would be necessary for inclusion in a dogmatic decree cannot be established.”

Given this full context, can we accept the Absolutist Petrine (mis)interpretation of Bishop Gasser’s statement that the Pope can make decrees “without the bishops” to mean that he can make these decrees unilaterally? It’s impossible. Bishop Gasser admits explicitly that the agreement (not permission – recall my OP) of the bishops is necessary (see underlined portion of the full context above). The underlying issue was simply the manner by which this agreement is to be determined. Is the Pope absolutely required to consult all the bishops directly, or can he obtain the same magisterial consensus by turning to other avenues in the Church?

To repeat: The consent/consensus of the Church (“consent/consensus” as agreement, not permission) for papal decrees ex cathedra was never denied by Vatican 1, but was rather affirmed. The only issue was the manner by which this consensus was to be determined. Can anyone conscientiously claim that we can lay down a dogmatic principle that the only way to determine consensus is to consult all the bishops of the world? Even if it’s only part of the quorum of bishops, can we lay down a dogmatic principle to determine what that number or percentage would be? And what if it was impossible to consult all the bishops of the world? These latter questions, btw, are not my own, but were the questions posed by the deputation in consideration of the issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jdconvert]

“Permission” indicates that the one being permitted has no inherent right or prerogative to make that decision without the other party. “Agreement,” on the other hand, denotes a certain equality in the decision-making process.

Hi mardukm,

I have read all your posts in this thread and I believe I have a much greater understanding of the collegial nature of ex cathedra statements. What I’m unclear about however, is how your definition of consent as “permission” applies in the definition of the dogma of papal infalliblity. The dogma states: “such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” It doesn’t make sense to me that “consent” in this case would mean permission, as I understand you to be saying. Wouldn’t “the consent of the church” be the agreement of the bishops, not their permission? I hope this makes some sense, and I trust you can shed some light.

Your contributions to the forum are highly appreciated.

 

[mardukm]

Hi mardukm,

I have read all your posts in this thread and I believe I have a much greater understanding of the collegial nature of ex cathedra statements. What I’m unclear about however, is how your definition of consent as “permission” applies in the definition of the dogma of papal infalliblity. The dogma states: “such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” It doesn’t make sense to me that “consent” in this case would mean permission, as I understand you to be saying. Wouldn’t “the consent of the church” be the agreement of the bishops, not their permission? I hope this makes some sense, and I trust you can shed some light.

Your contributions to the forum are highly appreciated.

Thank you for your question and for the complement.

The answer lies in the previously quoted excerpt from the Relatio - namely, "Whoever therefore contends that the Pope, either for information, or for an infallible judgment on faith or morals, depends WHOLLY on the manifested consent of the bishops, or on their help, must lay down that false principle that all the dogmatic judgments of the Pope are in themselves and of themselves reformable.”

Remember that the immediate impetus for the addition of the phrase “not from the consent of the Church” was to kill the last vestiges of Gallicanism. Gallicans used this very phrase “consent from the Church” in their Fourth Article. But they used it in a different sense than how the Church since apostolic times used that phrase. The Church from the earliest times understood the term “consent” between head and body to denote agreement. It did not mean “permission.” This is evident from the ancient Apostolic Canon 34. BOTH the head (as head bishop) AND body (the quorum of the rest of the bishops) are equally necessary in a matter involving the entire Church. The Gallicans, however, interpreted “consent” to mean that the head had no authority in and of himself without the body, but is always subservient to the body (as bishop Gasser put it, the head is “WHOLLY” dependant on the body). This is basically the error of the Low Petrine position. So in the necessary context of the background debates that caused the insertion of that clause into the definition, what the phrase in the dogma actually means is “not from the consent of the Church as the Gallicans interpret the term.” Admittedly, this is not evident, unless one has knowledge of what went on behind the scenes at the Council.

Does that help?

As an aside, the Absolutist Petrine view goes the opposite extreme. They believe that the body is WHOLLY dependant on the head, as if the body had no authority in and of itself. As an example of their exaggerated position, consider the clause in the Decree on the Primacy “Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff, are far from the straight path of truth.” NOWHERE in that statement does it claim that the Roman Pontiff is by himself superior to an Ecumenical Council, but they (mis)interpret that statement to mean exactly just that. I mean, if you say “Jack is not taller than John,” would you automatically assume that John is taller than Jack? Can it not be the case that Jack and John are the same height? Nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church nor our canons states that the Roman Pontiff is superior to an Ecumenical Council. The Absolutist Petrine exaggerations cannot be found in the teaching of the Catholic Church, but depends on myopic little snippets of isolated statements wrenched from their contexts.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I see that you are a relatively new member here in CAF, but there have been a lot of lively debates between High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF in the past. If I have time, I’ll search for them and give links to the most relevant ones.

 

[jdconvert]

Thanks mardukm. That makes sense.

 

[mardukm]

Dear fellow High Petrine advocates,

Be aware of the following: In debates with Absolutist Petrine advocates and non-Catholics who oppose the papacy, take notice that when they claim that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, they are always sure to quote the excerpt from the Decree on the Primacy mentioned above:

“Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff…are far from the straight path of truth”

They will never, ever quote the entire context that includes the clause “as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff,” because that clause demolishes their claim. The statement from the Decree at best is saying that an Ecumenical Council is not above the Pope (in fact, the Pope is an inherent part of an Ecumenical Council!), but it will take a biased mind that already has a preconceived agenda to insist that the statement is saying that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk