Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

No. I’m not viewing consensus as a formal authority, and I think that’s the main difference between us. Whether it is a bishop, council, consensus, etc. I do not posit that there is any formal authority by which we can be absolutely certain of the truth except for the Holy Spirit. I think this need for a formal authority is a major distinguishing principle between the Catholic and Orthodox.

It is also a major distinguishing principle between Catholicism and Protestantism.

In terms of epistomology, how is your position different from Protestantism? I know that as an Oriental Orthodox, it is my acceptance of a formal authority as invested in our bishops and our Councils that (partly) distinguishes apostolic Christianity from Protestantism. This has always been a trying notion in my view of Eastern Orthodoxy. Even before I joined the Catholic communion, I always encountered EO who possessed what I considered to be a very Protestant concept of ecclesiology.

The notion that there is no formal authority is simply Protestant. The Apostles were a formal authority to which the Church in their day could appeal. What purpose is Apostolic Succession without the notion of formal authority?

Reading the Ravenna colloquy between the Catholic and EO Churches, the EO bishops involved there definitely had a High Petrine understanding of an Ecumenical Council - as a FORMAL authority - a UNIQUE event (in the words of the commission) - possessed of the special protection of the Holy Spirit. IMO, if the CC and the EOC unite, it will be (partly)based on such a High Petrine understanding of the Church which accepts formal authority, not what you and brother Cavaradossi currently propose.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I just managed to view your question in another light. I think what you are asking is for an example of when the bishops gathered in an Ecumenical Council appealed to the bishop of Rome on an issue of Faith. I can offer you three examples -
The Second Council - its doctrinal decrees were actually based on a response to the question on the divinity of the Holy Spirit that was proposed to Pope St. Damasus by the Meletians in Antioch prior to the Second Council. Also, IIRC, the Acts of the Sixth and Seventh Councils explicitly show that the decision of the bishop of Rome was called upon to help settle the matters at issue.

But remember – unlike Absolutist Petrine advocates, High Petrine advocates view these examples of appeals to the bishop of Rome as appeals of bishops to ANOTHER MEMBER of the Council (its head), not as some authority separated from or above the Council.

Please don’t disregard the points of my previous two posts.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you again for your thoughts on this important subject! I’d like to comment on something you wrote:

"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."

It’s my understanding that in an ecumenical council the bishops of the Church do not vote on doctrine or morals, but rather affirm the tradition which was handed down to them by their predecessor. The body as a whole, after witnessing collectively to this tradition, then affirm unanimously the faith of the Church. I’m not aware of any ecumenical council that voted on such a matter, found itself to be divided, then was forced to appeal to a higher authority. Can you comment on this?

 

[Frank_J]

If the RC church wants to rejoin the Eastern Church the papal infallibility has to go there is no choice here. That is the nail on the head. Sorry if I had to let the air out of your balloons here. It’s just not going to fly. The Orthodox Church will never accept you’re position.

You can talk until you are blue in the face but nobody outside your church believes you.

 

[mardukm]

If the RC church wants to rejoin the Eastern Church the papal infallibility has to go there is no choice here. That is the nail on the head. Sorry if I had to let the air out of your balloons here. It’s just not going to fly. The Orthodox Church will never accept you’re position.

You can talk until you are blue in the face but nobody outside your church believes you.

On the bright side, I’ve never met an Orthodox protest the ACTUAL teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter, but rather merely what they THINK it means.

Blessings and welcome to the CAF,
Marduk

 

[Frank_J]

These are all fairtales you are talking about

 

[mardukm]

These are all fairtales you are talking about

I agree. What Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) THINK the Catholic Church is teaching are fairytales. I’ve still not read any actual opposition to what the Catholic Church actually teaches on “papal infallibility.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

I believe I was told that the ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ by Ludwig Ott listed considerably more, possibly 100+ infallible dogmas, however sadly I don’t have the book in my possession though I’ve got it on order, if it arrives any time soon I’ll have a look through it and see what I can find.

That would likely be all infallible dogmas, not just Papal ones. Remember that the Church’s Infallibility goes far beyond the Pope.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Frank_J]

Explain why you’re out of Communion with the Orthodox Church? If you think the Orthodox Church is not again Papal Infallibility and then why are you not in Communion with us?? You split with the Eastern Church not the other way around. You are the once’s that split on July 14, 1054

 

[Mickey]

I believe I was told that the ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ by Ludwig Ott listed considerably more, possibly 100+ infallible dogmas

Yes. I have heard this before.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi, Hesychios,

Interesting - you have tried to totally undercut the workings of the Holy Spirit to protect the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter. You will note that there is nothing in or about the Papal States that is a matter of Faith and Morals - and that is what Papal Infallibility is based on.

God bless

Actually, I think you missed the point.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

**Note from Moderator: **

Please read the recent debate rules thread I posted before resumIng this conversation in conformity to it.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant

 

[jmj1984]

That would likely be all infallible dogmas, not just Papal ones. Remember that the Church’s Infallibility goes far beyond the Pope.

Peace and God bless!

You may be right, in fact you probably are but I’ll know for sure when I check the book

However that said, the* ‘Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Proffesio Fidei’* by the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith states ’

1. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable…

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy…

It then goes on to list what these dogmas are ’

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts, the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.

This is relevant because the 'doctrine on the… immediate recompense after death’ was declared not through a council but in a papal encyclical by Pope Benedict XII in 1336. This encyclical states ’

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment…

(On hell and the general judgment)

Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies “before the judgment seat of Christ” to give an account of their personal deeds, “so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5.10).

It was required to correct the errors of his predecessor John XXII who had denied the beatific vision.

It should also be noted that the theologian Klaus Schatz lists the following as Ex Cathedra statements

1. “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3. Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

4)Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

5)Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

6)Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;

1. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

This can be found in Francis A Sullivans book, 'Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium

 

[Elijahmaria]

This can be found in Francis A Sullivans book, 'Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium

I wouldn’t trust Father Sullivan as far as I could throw a mule…

Other than that you’ve got an interesting post there.

 

[Ghosty]

I know that immediate recompense is taught by a Council, I believe Trent, but it certainly may have been taught ex cathedra before that; the language of the encyclical you cited certainly seems to fit, but we’d have to see who it was addressed to.

The Tome of Leo to Flavian, however, is a big stretch for Papal Infallibilty. It was clearly addressed to one Bishop in an advisory capacity. I don’t see how that meets the standard of an ex cathedra pronouncement. It’s infallible, certainly, but I argue that this is because of its proclaimation as dogma by the Council of Chalcedon.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jmj1984]

I wouldn’t trust Father Sullivan as far as I could throw a mule…

Other than that you’ve got an interesting post there.

I’m going to be honest, I googled him afterwards and ummm well

I really can’t wait till I get my hands on 'The fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ I hope it answers these questions.

And thanks

 

[Elijahmaria]

You fergot an important bit:

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12

12 Cf. CIC, cann. 750 and 751; 1364 § 1; CCEO, cann. 598; 1436 § 1.

From CCEO:

Canon 598

All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition,
that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and
also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium,
must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested
by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to
avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.

Canon 1436

1. One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine
   and catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally
   repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after
   having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic
   or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover
   can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

++++++++++++++

You’d have to think about that for a while before pronouncing that someone is a heretic.

 

[jmj1984]

I know that immediate recompense is taught by a Council, I believe Trent, but it certainly may have been taught ex cathedra before that; the language of the encyclical you cited certainly seems to fit, but we’d have to see who it was addressed to.

The Tome of Leo to Flavian, however, is a big stretch for Papal Infallibilty. It was clearly addressed to one Bishop in an advisory capacity. I don’t see how that meets the standard of an ex cathedra pronouncement. It’s infallible, certainly, but I argue that this is because of its proclaimation as dogma by the Council of Chalcedon.

Peace and God bless!

Seeing as it was issued as a consitution, to correct the errors of his Pope John XXII, it must have been addressed to the whole church and thus be infallible. Annoyningly I can’t find anywhere where it states who it was addressed to
That said considering the language I think it safe to assume it meets the requirements of infallibility.

It is worth pointing out however that strictly speaking its not necessary for an encyclical to be addressed to the whole world to be ex cathedra, it must merely propose a doctrine which must be held by the whole church.

Vatican I states ’ **we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    that is, when,
        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
he possesses,
    by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable**' (Sorry for putting it in bold, but the quote function doesn't make it particularly readable and Italics doesn't seem amazing either)

Strictly speaking then the tome of Flavian isn’t discounted because its addressed to one bishop, if it proposed a doctrine to be held by the whole church.

 

[jmj1984]

You fergot an important bit:

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12

12 Cf. CIC, cann. 750 and 751; 1364 § 1; CCEO, cann. 598; 1436 § 1.

From CCEO:

Canon 598

All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition,
that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and
also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium,
must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested
by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to
avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.

Canon 1436

1. One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine
   and catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally
   repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after
   having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic
   or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover
   can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

++++++++++++++

You’d have to think about that for a while before pronouncing that someone is a heretic.

Yes I had to snip for the sake of space requirements, I don’t understand what you’re saying however?

 

[Elijahmaria]

I’m going to be honest, I googled him afterwards and ummm well

I really can’t wait till I get my hands on 'The fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ I hope it answers these questions.

And thanks

LOL…remember that Father Ott is only one fellow. A good fellow mind you and one with an exceptionally systematic and encyclopedic mind. If you read him properly, he’ll raise as many questions as he answers.

Never be afraid of a living Church and truth that is Spirit led.

We get into trouble, both Orthodox and Catholic, when we try to nail things down too hard.

Patristic consensus…is a lovely myth……and we all know that myths and mysteries are the heart of revelation!!

 

[Elijahmaria]

Yes I had to snip for the sake of space requirements, I don’t understand what you’re saying however?

I am saying that the Church says that it takes far more than a wrong belief or a persistent doubt, or a persistent avoidance of belief to make a heretic, or place you outside of communion.

So you cannot simply look at Mickey, for example, and suggest that his refusal to believe the teaching of the Immaculate Conception is heretical, or even heterodox.

You can growl at him for suggesting that we teach that she is the Immaculate Exception while Orthodox thinks she’s just like us…IF he would ever think such a silly thing.

But you cannot fault him in a way that your own Church would not.

In fact, it may be that upon resumption of communion the Orthodox would be asked:

1. to avoid teaching against the Immaculate Conception
2. to continue to celebrate the Feast of St. Anne on December 9th.

and ask no more than that.

Catholics are going to have to think outside more than one box once we are closer to an actual resumption of communion. I am as sure of that as I am of my own name.