Official Relatio: "Consent of the Church"

[mardukm]

Dear all,

I wanted to start this new thread on this specific topic in response to a query (via PM) from a new Chaldean Catholic member of the forum. The basic gist of the query was:

You quote the Relatio of Bishop Gasser to prove such a case [the High Petrine view]. I took your word for it since you quoted the relatio yourself and it seemed to have agreed with you. However, when I read the relatio myself, I encountered paragraphs on there that seemed to strictly and directly contradict your interpretation of the papacy…How do you reconcile those paragraphs with your stance, being the HP view, which you say you took from the Relatio. When I read the Relatio, I get the complete opposite understanding of it. Please help me understand. I will be forever grateful to you

Hence, the member provided several excerpts from the Relatio. The following is my response:

Thank you for your question. I believe Bishop Gasser explained the Catholic Church’s position rather clearly in the excerpts you provided. First, I will provide a general explanation, and then I will address the quotes you gave concisely in light of the explanation. The Relatio uses the term “consent” in two senses:
(1) Agreement. This is the meaning accepted by the Catholic Church. This is the meaning of the term “consent” in the statement from BIshop Gasser, “It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifcal defintions.” The Pope MUST be in agreement with the present preaching of all the orthodox bishops. It is his divine responsibility to ascertain this BEFORE he makes an ex cathedra decree. The Relatio asserts, “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 divine assistance.” Not just the official Relatio, but Pastor Aeternus itself makes it plainly evident: “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 that was handed down throug the apostles.” Of course, the cooperation or aid of the Church is not the issue before us, but rather the necessary agreement of the Church. The cooperation/aid of the Church is simply a means by which the necessary agreement is determined.

(2) Manifest consent. This is the specific term used by Bishop Gasser to refer to the idea that there must be an explicit and formal expression of consent from the individual bishops of the Church as a condition for an exercise of “papal” infallibility. Aside from the particular statement indicated in (1) above, this is the meaning of “consent” in the entire Relatio., as he indicated in your quote regarding the “third axiom” --“the matter has come to the extreme point”; the translation of the Relatio I possess makes it more obvious that this was the true issue: “We here come to the crucial point.” In fact, it is in this very sense that the Relatio interprets the Gallican axiom “from the consent of the Church.” – “Whoever therefore contends that the Pope, either for informationm 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, unless the consent of the Church is given to them [the Fourth Gallican principle].” Bishop Gasser asserted, as the official representative of the official body of bishops that formulated the Decrees, that while the agreement of the orthodox bishops is necessary, their manifest consent is not, because the agreement of the bishops can be determined by means other than direct contact with the bishops. He argued that if the agreement of the bishops can be arrived at by means other than direct contact with the bishops, then direct contact with the bishops in order to obtain their explicit agreement cannot be made a dogmatic rule.

Of the two connotations of “consent,” the official Relatio affirmed the necessity of the first, but not of the second. This was the official position of Vatican 1, and it is to that official position that I adhere as a Catholic High Petrine advocate. Confusing these distinct meanings of the term “consent” will lead to inevitable confusion about the true meaning of V1’s decree on “papal” infallibility.

The question, brother, is: Do you understand the important difference between “agreement” and “manifest consent.”

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Of course, the difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views is exactly this: Absolutist Petrine advocates believe that not only does the Pope NOT need the manifest consent of the bishops, but neither does he need their agreement. You might not be aware of the debates that I have had with Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF (both SSPX and Latin Catholics) in the past (especially in the Apologetics and Traditional Catholic forums). They have made such claims as:
(1) The Pope necessarily does not need the agreement of the bishops because there might come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth;
(2) The Pope can wake up one morning and by a certain movement of the Holy Spirit feel the need to define a dogma, and that’s that – new dogma is made, with no (name removed by moderator)ut from any other bishop.
(3) Not even the agreement of the bishops is necessary because that puts a restriction on the papal exercise of infallibility.
(4) It doesn’t matter if an Ecumenical Council through the official Relatio affirmed that the agreement of the bishops is necessary, because an Ecumenical Council has no authority to limit the authority of the Pope.

I hope you can see just how far off the Absolutist Petrine view is from Catholic orthodoxy.

Now, permit me to address the excerpts you provided from the Relatio:

"But some will persist and say, there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff–indeed most rare in its kind–of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define, the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend Fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend Fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?"

The issue in this excerpt is whether or not the “form” by which an infallible decree comes about should be made a dogma. It really has nothing to do with the concept of “the consent of the Church.” What is being referred to here is the method by which a dogmatic decree comes about. The question was whether or not the aid of the Church should be explicitly included as a factor in an infallible papal decree. But the Council was not concerned with the method, but merely the fact of “papal” infallibility. The aid of the Church is a practical necessity. Bishop Gasser concisely explained that this has never been in doubt (“we are not dealing with something new here”), and therefore did not require a definition. Why define something that does not even need to be clarified by a definition? You follow up the above quote with another one that begins “Perhaps someone will say: if we don’t have a law, let us make one.” All I can say is that the V1 Fathers were not adhering to the typical caricature of Latin Catholics who love to define things even if there is no need to do so. (if anyone wants to discuss/debate the reasons for dogmatizing “papal” infallibility, I will be happy to do so ; it was actually already explained in the “Petrine views” thread, but I don’t mind repeating it here for anyone who requires a repetition of the explanation).

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

…Therefore, let Peter gird himself according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, since Peter does not grow old while the world grows old but rather renews his powers like the eagle. But someone may still persist and say: But what about the human means, the aid of the Church, the assent of the Church, say, that is, that the witness and advice of the bishops is not only not able to be excluded from the definition of infallibility but should be put in the definition as being among the conditions which are a matter of faith. Therefore this condition is said to be a matter of faith, and just how is that assertion proved? Is it contained in the promise of Christ? It seems to me that not only is it not contained in that promise, but rather that in that promise the contrary is contained. Indeed it cannot be denied that, in the relation of Peter to the Church, to which Christ willed that the infallibility of Peter be joined, there is contained a special relation of Peter to the Apostles and therefore also to the bishops, since Christ said to Peter: ‘I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once turned, confirm your brothers’ (Lk 22:32). This, therefore, is the relation of the Pontiff to the bishops that is contained in the promise of Christ. If these words of Christ are to have their necessary force, then it seems to me that one should conclude that the brothers, that is, the bishops, in order that they be firm in the faith, need the aid and advice of Peter and his successors, and not vice versa. Thus it happens that those who favor this opinion do not call upon Sacred Scripture but upon certain axioms that to them seem completely conclusive. What are these axioms? First axiom: the members should be joined t the head and the head to the members. From this axiom they deduce that it is necessary for the Pope, in defining dogmas of faith, to do nothing without the advice and consent of the brothers. Before I reply to this objection, it will be helpful to remember that, in this opinion of the adversaries, we are dealing with a strict and absolute necessity of episcopal advice and help in every dogmatic judgment of the Roman Pontiff, so much so that it must have its place in the very definition of our Dogmatic constitution. It is in this strict and absolute necessity that the whole difference between us consists.
The difference does not consist in the opportuneness or some relative necessity that must be completely left to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff as he determines according to the circumstances. As such, this type of necessity cannot have a place in the definition of a Dogmatic constitution."

Again, this excerpt is not about the “consent of the Church,” but about the aid of the Church. This excerpt is not stating that the aid of the Church is not necessary, only that it cannot be laid down as a dogmatic rule. This should be taken in context with the statement three paragraphs prior to this one you quoted: “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.”

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

"But again, there are some who insist and say: what you have said about a solemn definition of the Pope is true post factum, for then not only the laity but even priests and bishops are held to submit to the infallible authority of the Pope. But this is not true before the definition is made; in order to issue such a definition there should be the concurrence of the bishops. For (and this is the second axiom), just as the bishops are not able to do anything in determining dogmas without the Pope, so the Pope is not able to do anything without the bishops. Now let us look at this axiom from each side. The bishops are not able to do anything without the Pope in establishing dogmas of the faith. This is true since even decrees about faith put forth by a general council are not infallible and firm unless they have been confirmed by the Pope. The reason for this is not that which–I am sorry to say–has been several times indicated from this platform, namely, the reason which says that all infallibility of the Church is situated in the Pope alone and from the Pope is derived and communicated to the Church. Indeed, according to a very celebrated theological system, this is able to be said about jurisdiction since the nature of jurisdiction is such that it is able to be, even should be, communicated to others. However how is infallibility to be communicated? This I do not understand. The true reason why the bishops, even gathered in a general council, are not infallible in matters of faith and morals without the Pope is to be found in the fact that Christ promised this infallibility to the whole Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Apostles together with Peter. He did this when he said: “I am with you until the consummation of the world” (Mt 28:20). Therefore, the Bishops are not able to do anything in this regard without the Pope. But is the other case true, viz., that the Pope is not able to do anything in this regard without the bishops? This other part has no value, since Christ said to Peter alone: "You are Peter (Mt 16:18) and “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32)."

This excerpt is actually about the matter you want to address, the “consent of the bishops.” First, Bishop Gasser lays down the scriptural principles for the dogma, but it does not end there. He affirms immediately afterwards (your next excerpt below) that “It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifcal defintions.” This is not Scripture, but apostolic Tradition (which has equal authority in the Church). Separation of the two excerpts gives the wrong impression that the previous scriptural rationale above can be taken in isolation from what comes afterwards. The three “axioms” bishop Gasser discusses are not separate, but merely a structured analysis of a single position.

But I think the main crux of your concern is the statement “the Bishops are not able to do anything in this regard without the Pope. But is the other case true, viz., that the Pope is not able to do anything in this regard without the bishops? This other part has no value, since Christ said to Peter alone…” I believe not too many people realize that there are two categories of infallibility, according to its use. There is only one infallibility, but it is used in two ways: (1) to preserve and hand on the Truth; (2) to combat heresy by a formal definition of Truth. The first use is generally referrred to as the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium the second is generally referred to as the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. While it may be said that few are aware of this nuance, I think even fewer are aware that the dogma of “papal” infallibility is specificially, concisely, and only about the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. Given this context, it must be understood that the excerpt you gave above is indeed specifically referring to the EXTRAordinary Magisterium - i.e., it is referring to the use of infallibility for the formal definition of truth. Failure to recognize this distinction will lead one to the erroneous conclusion that the above excerpt intends to say that there is ever a time when the Pope ALONE is infallible. This is an utterly false caricature of the Catholic teaching. The dogma of “papal” infallibility (which is concerned only with the EXTRAordinary exercise of infallibility) does not touch upon the dogma of the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

In light of the foregoing explanation, the excerpt above is only saying this: all the bishops together with their head bishop can exercise the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium; however, there are occasions when it devolves on the head bishop to himself be the only one to exercise the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. When orthodox bishops aid the Pope in the process of formulating an ex cathedra decree, they are not exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, but rather the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium. To repeat, the excerpt above is not saying that the Pope is the ONLY one who exercises infallibility during an ex cathedra decree, but merely that the Pope is the only one exercising it in an EXTRAordinary manner. In distinction, during an ecumenical Council, the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary magisterium is exercised by ALL the bishops.

"…the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches. I reply. The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port. It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same sources (fontes) that the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition. It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifcal defintions. But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent.
Finally, it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is, of that Church to which faithlessness has no access and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree. Therefore that strict necessity , such as is required for a Dogmatic constitution, can in no way be demonstrated…Such a case is not to be established as a rule."
This is the whole crux of the matter, as noted in my preliminary explanation above, so I think nothing more needs to be said on this excerpt.

If you need further clarifications, please do not hesitate to ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[glendab]

Hello Marduk.

I can tell form your thread that you’ve put some time and thought into it. I’d like to do the same. Can you please provide a link to the Relatio document. I haven’t a copy of my own.

I know that in the past there has been more than one disagreement within the Church about the relations between the Pope and His Bishops and that this same issue has at times caused people to leave. It is a sensitive issue for some. It is also an issue, that if distorted, can reinforce the separation of some who keep their distance currently.

I am fortunate that since joining the Church, I haven’t found any reason to even remotely consider leaving. I am very grateful for the gift of faith and the longer I have it and the more I talk to folks who struggle with it, the more appreciative I am of mine.

I would like to answer some of your question, but without the document, I’m afraid I’d be restricted to a one-sided view. A matter that can cause folks to leave is not small and that is the real reason to look at it from as many angles as possible.

Glenda

 

[Vico]

… Can you please provide a link to the Relatio document. …

It is still in print.

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I by Vincent Gasser, James T. O’Connor

• Paperback: 158 pages
• Publisher: Ignatius Press; 2 Updated edition (May 1, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1586171747
• ISBN-13: 978-1586171742

I checked out a copy before using WorldCat which allows access to many libraries.

 

[mardukm]

Dear glendab,

Yes, people leave because of the issue of the papal prerogatives. The SSPX left partly because they did not agree with the collegial nature of Catholic ecclesiology as clarified by V2. Others leave because they actually think that Catholic ecclesiology is what the SSPX prefer it to be (though it is not, and for that reason the SSPX left!). Ironic.

Your comments would be welcome to help clarify the matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello Marduk.

I can tell form your thread that you’ve put some time and thought into it. I’d like to do the same. Can you please provide a link to the Relatio document. I haven’t a copy of my own.

I know that in the past there has been more than one disagreement within the Church about the relations between the Pope and His Bishops and that this same issue has at times caused people to leave. It is a sensitive issue for some. It is also an issue, that if distorted, can reinforce the separation of some who keep their distance currently.

I am fortunate that since joining the Church, I haven’t found any reason to even remotely consider leaving. I am very grateful for the gift of faith and the longer I have it and the more I talk to folks who struggle with it, the more appreciative I am of mine.

I would like to answer some of your question, but without the document, I’m afraid I’d be restricted to a one-sided view. A matter that can cause folks to leave is not small and that is the real reason to look at it from as many angles as possible.

Glenda

 

[malphono]

Oy … back to the merry-go-round …

 

[dzheremi]

Do they allow popcorn on that merry-go-round?

 

[rapperelijah]

Would love to hear you guys weigh in your views on what Mardukm just laid out here instead of eating popcorn.

 

[dzheremi]

Would love to pretend we haven’t been here a million times before, but sometimes all you can do is eat popcorn and enjoy watching the carousel wind round and round.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[rapperelijah]

Would love to pretend we haven’t been here a million times before, but sometimes all you can do is eat popcorn and enjoy watching the carousel wind round and round.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks! I’ve been on the forum since 2007. This is just a new screen name.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Would love to hear you guys weigh in your views on what Mardukm just laid out here instead of eating popcorn.

I tend to agree with him, although I do not believe the terms High Petrine, Absolutist Petrine, or Low Petrine are used in Church docs. Maybe Mardukm did see those in a doc and could share, or is simply trying to clarify positions. At any rate, here is my sentiment on the relatio.

 

[Peter_J]

Would love to hear you guys weigh in your views on what Mardukm just laid out here instead of eating popcorn.

I’m not really for or against those people eating popcorn instead of talking (although it would be nice if they’d share with everyone), but I’ll say something … well, just repeating what I told Mardukm a few days ago, that I know better than to argue with him.

 

[glendab]

I love the cute analogies.

Do they allow popcorn on that merry-go-round?

However, this will be my first spin on this particular Merry-go-Round.

I understand the infallibility of the Pope and I understand the infallibility of the Bishops when there is council held. Both have their source - the Holy Spirit and the reason is to preserve the Church spotlessly for each of us, from generation to generation.

What I don’t understand is why some feel that the Church’s members must give a kind of permission to those who are guided by the Holy Spirit to act on the inspirations of that same Spirit. If a particular Bishop or group of Bishops were to do so, I’d say they weren’t correct to do so instinctively. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. I could be wrong or need clarification of my rudimentary understanding of how the Church remains guided by the Holy Spirit and how others see this guidance effecting themselves.

I checked into the book mentioned and although I can get it cheaply through Amazon if I wish, I really think the issue shouldn’t require that much study to have it explained reasonably.

Glenda

 

[mardukm]

I just realized that in responding to your question (the original member who PM’d me), I introduced some matter that was left unexplained, namely:

Of course, the difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views is exactly this: Absolutist Petrine advocates believe that not only does the Pope NOT need the manifest consent of the bishops, but neither does he need their agreement. You might not be aware of the debates that I have had with Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF (both SSPX and Latin Catholics) in the past (especially in the Apologetics and Traditional Catholic forums). They have made such claims as:
(1) The Pope necessarily does not need the agreement of the bishops because there might come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth;
(2) The Pope can wake up one morning and by a certain movement of the Holy Spirit feel the need to define a dogma, and that’s that – new dogma is made, with no (name removed by moderator)ut from any other bishop.
(3) Not even the agreement of the bishops is necessary because that puts a restriction on the papal exercise of infallibility.
(4) It doesn’t matter if an Ecumenical Council through the official Relatio affirmed that the agreement of the bishops is necessary, because an Ecumenical Council has no authority to limit the authority of the Pope.

I hope you can see just how far off the Absolutist Petrine view is from Catholic orthodoxy.

I realized that those four points above need elaboration (someone could probably just look up the past threads from over 2 years ago, but I think that is too difficult an endeavor). I just don’t want any stone left unturned on these important matters about the papal prerogatives…

(1) The Pope necessarily does not need the agreement of the bishops because there might come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth.
This is an impossible situation. According to Christ’s own words to the Apostles, He would be in their midst where two or three are gathered. so it is impossible that there will ever be a time when the only orthodox bishop left on earth is the Pope. Further, the V2 Theological Commission that clarified certain points regarding collegiality in Lumen Gentium affirmed that the college was divinely established by Christ Himself. Absolutist Petrine advocates bank so much on the divine institution of the papacy, but neglect that the College is also of divine institution. A College - logically, theologically, epistemologically, and by definition - cannot consist of only one man.

(2) The Pope can wake up one morning and by a certain movement of the Holy Spirit feel the need to define a dogma, and that’s that – new dogma is made, with no (name removed by moderator)ut from any other bishop.
V1 explicitly added the historic Proem to Pastor Aeternus (an addition which caused not a few from the Minority Party to sign on to the Decree, but also caused consternation from the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontantists at V1) to affirm that the exercise of “papal” infallibility is activated (so to speak) by the solicitude of the other bishops for the Church. An exercise of “papal” infallibility is not a unilateral imposition of the Pope’s personal beliefs on the Church, but a personal RESPONSE to the Church’s needs as expressed to him by the other bishops of the Church.

On this point, attention should be given to our Canon: The Roman Pontiff in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.(CCEO 45-2; CIC 333-2)

The Canon is plainly stating that the personal decision of the Pope rests in his determination of whether he will respond collegially or personally to the needs of the Church. But Absolutist Petrine advocates corrupt this obvious meaning and claim that the Canon gives the Pope free license to himself determine what the needs of the Church will be (in effect, create a problem where there is none) with no regard for his brother bishops and thence impose it on the Church - that is, it is not the Pope responding to the needs of the various Churches through their pastors (the bishops), but the Pope unilaterally deciding what is good for the Churches (this latter position was the basis of a rather popular [infamous?]past debate here in the ECF wherein a Latin poster proposed that the Pope has the unilateral authority to get rid of the Traditional liturgies of the Oriental and Eastern Churches ).

CONT"d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

(3) Not even the agreement of the bishops is necessary because that puts a restriction on the papal exercise of infallibility.
First, you can’t put a restriction on a prerogative that doesn’t exist in the first place. The Pope has a PERSONAL authority to exercise infallibilty, but **not/b] a UNILATERAL authority to exercise infallibility. It takes a peculiar mindset to interpret “personal” to mean “unilateral,” but this has never been the mindset of the Church universal from Jesus’ day down to our own.

Second, the necessary agreement of the bishops with their head bishop on any matters affecting the entire Church was set in stone two millenia ago by the Apostolic Canon 34. This was explicitly affirmed by the official Relatio of V1 (“It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifcal defintions”).

(4) It doesn’t matter if an Ecumenical Council through the official Relatio affirmed that the agreement of the bishops is necessary, because an Ecumenical Council has no authority to limit the authority of the Pope.
An Ecumenical Council by definition includes the Pope. This argument exposes the fact that Absolutist Petrine advocates imagine the Pope to be separate, above, or beyond an Ecumenical Council, a notion which must be rejected according to orthodox Catholic ecclesiology.

I hope the elaborations above sufficiently explains why those four points of the Absolutist Petrine view are “far off from Catholic orthodoxy.”

Blessings,
Marduk**

 

[mardukm]

The original inquirer responded by PM, and the following are his statements and my responses.

Your explanation really helped. I do have follow up questions though.

1.) Can you point me to any Catholic scholar, Pope (preferably after Vatican I), saint, etc. who hold to the interpretation that you hold to? It seems like they all sound like they’re closer to the Absolutist view.

First, on matters relating to the dogmas of the Church, I am not inclined to read any documents aside from the source documents. So I really can’t help with providing quotes from theologians or scholars. Second, it is difficult to find specific statements on the infallibility from Popes. I know of several that evince a High Petrine view of the Primacy, but few regarding the infallibility (not that they reject the High Petrine vew in preference for the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanist view, but I’m not aware of instances that they ever speak or write about it). However, I can offer you the following:
Pio Nono:
After V1, the Swiss bishops sent out a pastoral letter to their flock, which flatly rejected the Absolutist Petrine excesses of the Neo-ultramontantists: "“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church; [NOTE: this foregoing clause refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our topic] lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domoain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we ow in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

Pope Pius IX’s response: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”
NOTE: Pope Pius IX was known to be a political and theological NEO-ultramontanist (i.e., an Absolutist Petrine advocate) before, and even during, the Council. This statement from him proves that he himself accepted correction from his brother bishops.

Pope Pius XII:
This Pope promulgated the dogma of the Assumption according to the Traditional method laid out by the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus (i.e., the High Petrine collegial method). Namely: (1) the bishops appeal to the Pope for a determination (not that the Pope unilaterally decides to make a dogma); (2) the Pope responds by searching out the consensus or agreement of the Church on the matter; (3) the Pope then promulgates the decree based on the results of that investigation. This was, btw, also the exact method by which the dogma of the IC was promulgated. The whole process is collegial, though the eventual decision is promulgated via the Pope’s personal authority (same with Humanae Vitae, actually, as will be explained below).

Pope Paul VI:
Lumen Gentium is the primary concilar document that clarified the collegial ecclesiology of the Church. A Preliminary Nota on the decree was issued by a Theological Commission with the direct authority of Pope Paul VI, wherein it was stated that the collegial structure of the Church is of divine institution, in these words:
"College" is not understood in a strictly juridical sense, namely, of a group of equals who entrust their power to their president, but of a stable group whose structure and authority is to be deduced from revelation…A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members. In consecration is given an ontological participation in sacred functions, as is clear beynod doubt from tradition, even liturgical…given according to normas approved by the highest authority. Such an ulterior norm is demanded by the nature of the case, since there is question of functions which must be exercised by several subjects according to Christ’s will in an hierarchical manner. It is clear that this “communion” has been in the life of the Church before it was, so to speak, condified in law. Therefore, it is significantly stated that hierarchical communion is required with the head of the Church and its members. (emphases mine)
(any knowledgeable patristic Christian can see the spirit of Apostolic Canon 34 alive and well during Vatican 2)

CONT"d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

There is also a rather dramatic incident involving the conclave that elected HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. When Pope John Paul I suddenly died after a very short papacy, informal pre-Conclave discussions were set to elect Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as Pope (he was the main competing candidate in the prior election). However, something occurred that changed the course of events. As it happens, Siri gave a private interview to a journalist wherein Siri frankly expressed views that were against episcopal collegiality. The contents of the interview were leaked to the Cardinals. When voting began, Siri surprisingly did not obtain the necessary number of votes (75 or 2/3 of the quorum) On the second day of voting, Karol Wojtyla obtained a staggering 99 votes and became HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. This information is detailed in the book “The Conclave: History and Secrets” by Giancarlo Zizola. As Catholics, we both believe that the election of the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit. I see that incident as a definite testament that collegiality is the official ecclesiology of the Church.

The biggest problem is that both Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of the papacy conceive of Vatican 1 as an isolated, complete council with the sole intention of defining the Pope’s infallibility and primacy. They are utterly ignorant of the actual history of Vatican 1 aside from the descriptions of its popular detractors (Hans Kung, Dollinger, Anglican controversialists, etc.). Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J., Cardinal and specialist in ecclesiology wrote as an introduction to Lumen Gentium (Walter M. Abbott, Documents of Vatican 2):
“A preparatory commission of Vatican 1 drew up a lengthy draft declaration on the Church, but the deliberations of the Council were cut short by the Franco-Prussian War and the invasion of the Papal States by the Piedmonteses armies. Instead of the planned Constitution on the Church of Christ consisting of fifteen chapters, the Councils succeeded in enacting only four chapters on the papacy. The definitions regarding the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, unaccompanied by any treatment of the other bishops and members of the Church, gave a somewhat unbalanced picture. Many critics of the Council charged that it had converted the Catholic Church into an absolute monarchy in which the other bishops would be mere lackeys of the Pope. Other facets of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church were set forth by Leo XIII in his encyclical on the unity of the Church (Satis Cognitum, 1896) and especially by Pius XII in his great encyclical on the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis, 1943), which dwelt on the mysterious vital relationship of hte Church to Christ and to the Holy Spirit. But other questions regarding the nature and organization of the Church still clamored for attention. Thus in 1959, when John XXIII announced his intention of convening an Ecumenical Council, it was generally surmised that the coming Council would deal with the Church as its major theme. Paul VI made this clear in his first encyclical, “The Paths of the Church” (Ecclesiam Suam, 1964), in which he stated (Art. 33) that the Church was “the principal object of attention of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.” The present document (Lumen Gentium) is one of the two Dogmatic Constitutions issued by Vatican 2, the other being that on Revelation.”

As I have always insisted in many prior instances, Vatican 1 had a collegial mindset, and was indeed intending to define matters more than just the papal prerogatives. V1 cannot be taken in isolation from V2, which merely completed the work on V1’s Constitution on the Church of Christ.

2.) Humane Vitae. I may be wrong here but It seems like the Pope came out with that encyclical on his own. Didn’t the Church expect the pope to allow contraception in the Church? Did he act alone here? If not, how did he act with his brother bishops?

Humanae Vitae is normally the favorite propaganda piece of Absolutist Petrine advocates to support their position(and even High Petrine advocates who think that while the Catholic Church is formally High Petrine in teaching, it is Absolutist Petrine in praxis - Humanae Vitae, they claim, being the prime example). How Humanae Vitae came about in fact is the farthest thing from supporting the Absolutist Petrine claims, but is a clear example of the High Petrine, collegial ecclesiology of the Catholic Church in praxis.

CONT’d