Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Josh:
Papal infalibility is two overlapping things:

1. the Pope is protected from leading the church into error and teaching error
2. the Pope in unity with the bishops can declare dogma infallibly.

The hangup for most Orthodox is not understanding that (2) isn’t a personal power, but as protos of the synod - even tho the consultations are normally done outside of councils/Synodal meertings, as for the Catholic Church (read as Catholic Communion), even for the Roman Church Sui Iuris, that’s an improbably large assembly. The last few dogmatic definitions have been done by consultation via letter. “Does this need to be defined dogmatically?” That was the recent marian one’s mode of consult.

Lots of other things are binding upon Catholics but are not dogmatic; they fall under item (1). Items such as Humanae Vitae, Anglicanorum Coetibus, and Ecclesia Dei.

Even if, in the long term, they turn out to be suboptimal, in the short term, they are what the church needs, and there is no doctrinal error in them. They might include some really BAD disciplinary choices, and yet be free of doctrinal error.

Papal infallibility doesn’t protect the popes from long-term bad decisions. Just from Heresy and doctrinal error.

This statement isn’t official and doesn’t have any binding authority, so we can’t trust it. Such an exposition would only be categorical and defining if it fit into certain amorphous predetermined criteria.

I never liked dodgeball anyway.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,

Thank you for your responses.

Well, like I said, they are only similarities, but there is an important difference:
The Pope is not speaking to or representing a local Church. He is addressing and representing the Church universal. We do not expect that local bishops, even local head bishops require the charism of infallibility in the exercise of their office. As Sacred Tradition tells us, there is an authority higher even than local bishops and local head bishops that actually is the court of final appeal on matters of Faith or morals. As stated, this is normatively the Ecumenical Council. And we agree that an Ecumenical Council indeed exercises the infallibility of the Church in a unique way for this purpose. But what if the body of bishops themselves cannot agree? Obviously the one to whom they appeal to settle the issue on this UNIVERSAL matter must necessarily be endowed with the infallibility of the Church in a unique way in order to settle the matter.

And yes, contrary to what you’ve probably heard from non-Catholic polemicists, and Absolutist Petrine exaggerators within the Catholic Church, the exercise of papal infallibility can only be utilized upon the appeal of the bishops. The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and say to himself, “I think today is a nice day for a dogma.” That’s not how it works. Pastor Aeternus specifically outlined the manner in which the charism of “papal infallibility” is initiated:
“Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, following the long-established custom of the Churches and the manner of the ancient rule [of faith] reported back to this Apostolic See those special dangers which arose in matters of faith, so that harm to the faith might be especially repaired in that place where the faith can suffer no defect.”

There is nothing in the V1 Decree that could even be construed to mean that the Pope at his whim and fancy can create a new dogma.

Logic dictates that if the authority of the Church narrowed down to an Ecumenical Council is infallible for the sake of settling an issue of faith or morals, then the further narrowing of the authority of the Church to the head bishop if the body of bishops cannot solve the matter must also require infallibility. Remember, we are talking about the Faith of the Church universal.

Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility.

I am not sure you actually believe what you are saying. I used to be in your camp, and I know for a fact that Orthodox do not believe that infallibility can be a PERSONAL charism of any bishop. You believe that bishops exercise infallibility in an Ecumenical Council. If you affirm that, then why don’t you affirm that the bishops are PERSONALLY infallible? But you know you won’t and you can’t. Well, believe it or not, Catholics believe the same thing. We do not believe that it is the PERSON of the Pope who is infallible, but rather his office. That does not create a two-headed monster, any more than your own belief makes two headed monsters out of all the bishops who exercise infallibility in an Ecumenical Council. I used to think the same way as you, brother Josh. But then I realized that many of my arguments against the papacy were really inconsistent. It’s hard to recognize and eventually pull out a log in the eye.

Well, my response is not what you assume it will be. It is rather more simple than that - namely, changing the form of the Liturgy is not a matter that involves the exercise of infallibility. Changing the form of the liturgy (if all the essential elements remain) is no more a doctrinal matter than a local bishop deciding to put pews in his Church. That’s really a terrible example.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think you have misunderstood what I have said from the start. Infallibility is not vested in any office of any Bishop, wheter in Eccumenical Council or not, in Orthodoxy, NEVER exercises Infallibility. Infalliblilty in the Church is a “Charism” that is shared by the common witness of ALL THE FAITHFUL, whether they are layity, prebyterate or Episcopacy. And, yes, I do believe that to consider the office of a bishop as something other than the person it is invested in as creating a two headed monster. The bishop is a person, if his office is vacant then there is no bishop.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

---

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Pastor Aeternus

Sorry. I must have missed it. But can you point out EXACTLY where it states that the Pope can on his own discretion, unilaterally, propose an ex cathedra doctrine?

That’s an error called begging the question. It’s where you already presume the truth of your claim, and impose it on your “proof,” then presume your “proof” validates your claim. The fact is, your “proof” contains no indication that the Pope can on his whim and fancy propose a new dogma.

The first one just says that there is no appeal from a sentence/judgment given by the Roman Pontiff. The very words “sentence” and “judgment” presupposes a decision between parties that are in contention. So it actually lends greater truth to the notion that the Roman Pontiff makes judgments after someone appeals to him to settle an issue.

The second one simply states that he is the highest singular authority in the Church. So how does that “prove” that the Pope can on his whim and fancy propose a new dogma? Please explain, if you are able.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

That’s an error called begging the question. It’s where you already presume the truth of your claim, and impose it on your “proof,” then presume your “proof” validates your claim. The fact is, your “proof” contains no indication that the Pope can on his whim and fancy propose a new dogma.

You are free to disagree…but I think the words speak for themselves.

Let’s look at another:

“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ,** the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.”**
Council of Florence

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother OrthodoxJosh,

I think you have misunderstood what I have said from the start.

If you are trying to impose a definition on the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” that simply does not exist, then - yes - I do not understand.

Infallibility is not vested in any office of any Bishop, wheter in Eccumenical Council or not, in Orthodoxy, NEVER exercises Infallibility. Infalliblilty in the Church is a “Charism” that is shared by the common witness of ALL THE FAITHFUL, whether they are layity, prebyterate or Episcopacy.

You are not listening, but seem intent on judging the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” on what you THINK it is, not on what the Catholic Church teaches it is. The Office of the Papacy is NOT the office of a single person. It is an office OF THE CHURCH, created by Christ FOR THE CHURCH, and has, for its only purpose, THE UPBUILDING OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE CHURCH. I must have written that at least 3 times previously. When the Pope exercises infallibility, he is exercising the infallibility OF THE CHURCH. That is why, all the documents you will read from Catholics (please don’t trust non-Catholic sources to tell you about what the Catholic Church teaches) about “papal infallibility” insist that it is ONLY as a PUBLIC person (i.e., as a member OF THE CHURCH and representing THE CHURCH), when he is addressing THE WHOLE CHURCH, teaching on a matter of concern FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH on Faith or morals, that this charism of infallibility is active as utilized uniquely by the Pope.

And, yes, I do believe that to consider the office of a bishop as something other than the person it is invested in as creating a two headed monster. The bishop is a person, if his office is vacant then there is no bishop.

As stated, the Petrine office is an office OF THE CHURCH, not of a single person, whether he is a bishop or not. You are confusing the Petrine office with the office of bishop. They are not the same. In fact, the Pope is not always exercising the Petrine office. When he is exercising his role as bishop of the Church of Rome, he is not exercising the Petrine office; when he is exercising his role as metropolitan, he is not exercising the Petrine office; when he is exercising his role as Primate of Italy, he is not exercising the Petrine office; when he is exercising his role as Patriarch of the Latins, he is not exercising the Petrine office. The Petrine office is bigger than those. As stated, it is not an office of a bishop, nor of a metropolitan, nor of a patriarch, but an office OF THE CHURCH as a body.

I hope that helps you understand. Please don’t take the capital letters as shouting. It is just my way of stressing things quickly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You are free to disagree…but I think the words speak for themselves.

Let’s look at another:

“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ,** the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.”**
Council of Florence

So where does it say that he can on his whim and fancy promulgate a new dogma without the solicitude of his brother bishops appealing to him first.

We’re still waiting.

Basically, you are just wrenching things out of context. All you are doing is disregarding the quote I gave you earlier from Pastor Aeternus itself on how the exercise of papal infallibility is initiated, and think that these little snippets ripped out of their context proves something.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

We’re still waiting.

Okay. Let us look at another:

*882 “…**For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, *a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
**CCC

**

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Thank you for your response.

Okay. Let us look at another:

*882 “…**For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, *a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

There’s two ways to look at it:

(1) The correct way:
You should take the time to read the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. There you will discover that the term “unhindered” does NOT mean “unrestricted.” Rather, it means “uncoerced.” This statement originally came from Vatican 1, and was made primarily in the context of a response to attempts by secular governments to control the Church or the papacy. So it does not mean what Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend -that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, whereever he wants. “Unhindered” simply means that the papal power is exercised of the Pope’s own volition.

You should also take the time to check Canon Law. One of the rules of Canon Law is that it interprets itself. If you find terminology that is in doubt, then you need to look for other places where that terminology is used to determine its correct understanding.

CCEO 1499/ CIC Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

You will find that every other place that the term translated as “unhindered” in this text is used, it refers to the use of free will, not the freedom to do what one wants whenever, wherever, or whatever.

(2) Assuming that we take the term “unhindered” in the sense of “unrestricted”:
Understanding that the supreme authority of the Pope is an appellate authority or an authority that always works with his brother bishops, then it is THAT power that is unrestricted. After the bishops have appealed to him (on the premise that the bishops themselves cannot decide on the matter), or after the Pope has sounded the mind of his brother bishops (as he did with the Marian dogmas, and with all his other actions in the history of the Church as supreme head - recall Canon 333 quoted earlier, that in his exercise of the supreme pastorship, he is ALWAYS joined in communion to his brother bishops and the Church), then and only then is such power unrestricted.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

You should also take the time to check Canon Law.

ß3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.
From Canon 333 of The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

So much specious sophistry! This word means that word means this word means that word.

I’m all for nuance, but this card gets played every time. “It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean!”

 

[Cavaradossi]

So much specious sophistry! This word means that word means this word means that word.

I’m all for nuance, but this card gets played every time. “It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean!”

Perhaps the Vatican’s translators have been on strike for the last millennium.

 

[mro]

The Coptic Orthodox pope is not Pope Benedict XVI

They are not in Communion with Rome

The Coptic pope has been independent always… They are not schismatic because they never were in communion with Rome…

 

[mardukm]

So much specious sophistry! This word means that word means this word means that word.

I’m all for nuance, but this card gets played every time. “It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean!”

Well, instead of what you wrote here, you could respond by trying to refute the explanation. I wonder why it is so difficult for non-Catholics read or hear the true meaning of Catholic teaching?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps the Vatican’s translators have been on strike for the last millennium.

I AGREE WITH YOU!!! There are some definite problems with translations. Maybe its time to resurrect Latin as a language so we can know what the Vatican is actually trying to say. Before I left the U.S for the Philippines, there was local southern Cal Community College that started offering classes in Latin. The classes were full just after three days of registration!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Coptic pope has been independent always… They are not schismatic because they never were in communion with Rome…

They were in the first 4 Ecumenical Councils

 

[Anthony_V]

I would like to announce to the known universe that my head is hurting on this whole Pope Pius V vs. Paul VI issue. I spent over two hours researching, looking at Canon law, only to learn absolutely nothing.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Well, instead of what you wrote here, you could respond by trying to refute the explanation. I wonder why it is so difficult for non-Catholics read or hear the true meaning of Catholic teaching?

I didn’t catch an explanation, only more wordsmithery. I just read an account of the Council of Florence a few weeks ago and what happened at that council still seems indicative of the Latin approach to debates. The key is to wear-down your opponent by endlessly discussing the meaning of words used, and how those words actually mean something else. The next time you’re defending Old Rome around here, try making an argument that doesn’t begin with “think of this particular word in terms of these other words.”

While I don’t think that Orthodoxy is always air-tight on their positions, I’ve never had someone try to explain away difficulties by simply redefining everything. The only thing close to that has been in Marian piety, where excessive language is somehow brushed aside as being affectionately exaggerated, but even that isn’t so convoluted.

 

[Mickey]

I didn’t catch an explanation, only more wordsmithery. I just read an account of the Council of Florence a few weeks ago and what happened at that council still seems indicative of the Latin approach to debates.

Reading about that council is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[mardukm]

I didn’t catch an explanation, only more wordsmithery. I just read an account of the Council of Florence a few weeks ago and what happened at that council still seems indicative of the Latin approach to debates. The key is to wear-down your opponent by endlessly discussing the meaning of words used, and how those words actually mean something else. The next time you’re defending Old Rome around here, try making an argument that doesn’t begin with “think of this particular word in terms of these other words.”

Where did I say “think of this particular word in terms of these other words?” Until you show me where I stated that, it seems you are just avoiding the truth in order to rationalize an anti-papal outlook. Let me repeat again what I proposed:

Canon law states that if there are terms that are in question, you look at THOSE SAME TERMS (not “other words,” as you claim) as they are used elsewhere in Canon law. The fact is, the quote Mickey gave is used in the Canons, and the term translated as “unhindered” is also used ELSEWHERE in the Canons (the word itself, Alveus, not “other words,” as you pretend). And in all those other instances, that word “unhindered” does not have the meaning of “unrestricted” or “unrestrained” but rather “uncoerced” (or having the use of free will). What about that is “wordsmithery?” Please explain.

While I don’t think that Orthodoxy is always air-tight on their positions, I’ve never had someone try to explain away difficulties by simply redefining everything.

No one is redefining anything. What I proposed is to look up other places where that SAME word (not “other words,” as you pretend) is used to see how the Catholic Church understands the term.

Try it out. The truth might shock you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

So much specious sophistry! This word means that word means this word means that word. I’m all for nuance, but this card gets played every time. “It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean!”

I think your remark is unfair.

This card doesn’t get played all the time. It does come up a lot, however, as many people have a seemingly unquenchable desire to proof text Catholic writings, and to nuse their proof-texting to tell Catholics what they really must believe. It’s a peculiar hobby. Catholics know their faith from the lived life of the Church. So instead of talking about what this phrase or that appears to mean, it would be better to show that meaning is precedented in the life of the Church.

I would add that, IMO, EOs in America are in no position to lecture about sophistry in the realm of ecclesiology. Whatever assumptions you apply here about the plain meanings of words, it is clear that they are subject to fantastic massage among EOs in America. ISTM that if EOs can wrap their heads around the shifting sands of primacy, synodality, and congregationalism within their own jurisdictions, then I am sure that they have the same capacity to take a larger view of the “plain” words in Catholic texts.