Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[jmj1984]

.

But enough of that, I have a question… what is the purpose of Papal Infallibility? It has been used only twice, once retroactively, and, in a way, neither was needed. Both sides seem to be squabbling over something that has no real purpose. Of course Mary was sinless and born such – (Immaculate Conception) – Original Sin in the West is based partly off a mistranslation of Romans v, 12, from the Greek into the Latin and then partly based off the theologies of St. Augustine and Anselm. Thus, Mary could easily be seen, if such mistranslation never occurred, as Immaculate (without sin) throughout her life as we do not inherit the sin of our parents (and so cannot have inherited the sin of Adam, the effects, yes we do inherit, but the sin itself?) and Mary had/has free will and such could easily have chosen, since she was chosen by God to bear the Son and thus favored by God, not to commit any personal sin. As for the Assumption, that is accepted without Papal pronouncement in the East since ancient times. Thus, a Papal statement claiming infallibility was unnecessary to determine or uphold its truth.

Thank you.

If you don’t mind I’ll leave your questions about Papal Primacy for another post and deal with papal infallbility in this one?

One can find the answer in the text of the First Vatican Council itself which states:

**’ This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell’ **

Simply put infallibility is required to protect the flock of Christ and cast down heresies.

Also it is important to note that the idea that there were only 2 ex cathedra statements is fundamentally flawed for several reasons:

1)The consensus amongst theologians is that there are at least more than 2 ex cathedra statements
2)The First Vatican Council itself used the plural when referring to ex cathedra statements, this of course leads to the conclusion that this power must have been used more than once and as only of the 2 statements that people say are ex cathedra was made by this point there must needs be have been more ex cathedra statements
3)More than 2 papal documents meet the requirements laid down by the First Vatican Council

A clear example where infallibility was exercised to protect the church from heresy was when Pope Benedict XII repudiated the errors of Pope John XXII on the beatific vision, this meets the requirements of the First Vatican Council and has, as I have quoted, been confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as an infallible statement by a pope.

With this in mind therefore, it is quite that papal infallibility is absolutely necessary.

Aside from this it must also be pointed out that whether we believe it to be necessary or not it has been defined infallibly as such, it is a De Fide belief and we must therefore believe it.

 

[Mickey]

1)The consensus amongst theologians is that there are at least more than 2 ex cathedra statements

Interesting. It has been stated here that there is only one papal ex-cathedra infallible statement (Assumption) and one that is retroactive (IC). Can you point to all the others?

 

[jmj1984]

Thank you. Obviously the Catholic Church would not support the view of a communal sharing of St. Peter’s chair (that would contradict its position, right?).

Please note the word used: primacy. The councils supported Papal primacy due to a number of factors, such as the honor of being the resting place of St. Peter, being very orthodox against many heresies, and being the patriarch of the whole of Western Europe. It CAN BE read, especially if one is tinted towards such a reading, that these councils and that all the Churches agreed on Papal Supremacy. However, as I have stated before, the history is muddy; I believe Cavaradossi, for example, challenged the assumption of interpretation of the St. Leo documents based upon tone: such an analysis frequently reveals quite a bit about the intentions of the writer (I am not saying he is right or wrong, but that he made the argument).

My point is this: the Orthodox tend to read Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy as separate; texts supporting Papal Primacy tend to be read in the Catholic West as supporting Papal Supremacy. The Pope today claims both Primacy and Supremacy, if one follows the Orthodox definitions. Without Supremacy, Infallibility seems a stretch.

Think on this: the Pope of Alexandria has attached to his name many grandiose titles, just as the Pope of Rome. However, everyone reads the Alexandrian Pope’s titles as exaggerations but are expected to read the Roman Pope’s titles at face-value.

Frankly speaking I do not see any benefit to be gained by comparing the Pope of Alexandria and the Roman Pontiff, no one is expected to read the Roman Popes titles at face value what they are expected to do is consent to the overwhelming evidence in favour of the latters universal and supreme primacy.

I have already quoted St Clement I, so I shall have leave him to one side for the moment.

Instead I will look again at the Council of Serdica 343-344 AD, the fifth canon of which states
'Osius the bishop said: However it has been agreed, that if a bishop has been accussed and the assembled bishops of the same province have judged and deprived him of his office, and he appears to have appealed and taken refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roma church and has desired to be heard, and he has thought it just that an examination be made anew, let him deign to write to the bishops who are in the adjoining and neighbouring province so that they themselves may diligently make all inquiries and decide according to their pledge of truth. But if anyone asks that his case be heard again and by his plea moves the Roman bishop to send a presbyter from his own side, what he (the presbyter) wishes or what he determines will be in the power of the bishop;and if he decrees those ought to be sent who in person may judge with the bishops and who have the authority (of him) by whom they have been appointed, it (this decree) will be within his decision. But if he believes that the bishops suffice to put an end to the affair, he will do that which he decides in accordance with his own very wise deliberation’

The epistle with which the Canons of the council were sent to Rome states 'For this will seem to be best and fitting indeed, if the priests from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the chair of Peter the apostle’

Both statements seem to indicate at the very least a superior, and thereby supreme, primacy which is also universal.

Pope St Siricius says in an epistle to the Bishop of Terracina (Feb 10, 385AD)
'To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religon is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened, nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs’

Pope St Innocent I likewise in his epistle to the African Bishops (Jan 27, 417)
'In seeking the things of God…preserving the examples of ancient tradition…you have strengthened the vigor of your religon…with true reason, for you have confirmed that reference must be made to our judgement, realising what is due the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle, from whom the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name have emerged. Following him we know how to condemn evils just as (well as home) to approve praiseworthy things. Take this as an example, guarding with your sacerdotal office the practices of the fathers you resolve that (they) must not be trampled upon, because they made their decisions not by human but by divine judgement, so that they thought that nothing whatever, although it concerned seperated and remote provinces, should be concluded unless it first came to the attention of this See, so that what was a just proclamation might be confirmed by the total authority of this see, and from this source (just as all waters proceed from their natal fountain and through diverse regions of the whole world remain pure liquids of an uncorrupted source), the other churches might assume what [they ought] to teach, whom they ought to wash, those whome the water worthy of cleansing would shun as though defiled with faith incapable of being cleansed’

 

[jmj1984]

Pope St Zosimus in his epistle to the African bishops (March 21, 418AD) states 'Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgement, and it has always preserved this by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of Peter, from whom it has itself descended…; since therefore Peter the head is of such great authority and has confirmed the subsequent endeavours of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified…by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold powers of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters…not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing…'

St Boniface I in his epistle to Rufus, bishop of Thessaly, March 11, 422AD stated '…To the synod [of Corinth]…we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know…that there must be no withdrawal from our judgement. For it has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has once been decided by the Apostolic See’

The speech of the Roman Legate at the Council of Ephesus,431AD states 'No one doubts, but rather it has been known to all generations, that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to him, who up to this moment and always lives in his successors’

Further statements from later pontiffs in the fifth century and later are not lacking but as I’ve had to type these all out from Denzinger I think I’ll leave it now

 

[jmj1984]

Interesting. It has been stated here that there is only one papal ex-cathedra infallible statement (Assumption) and one that is retroactive (IC). Can you point to all the others?

I cannot name all of them, but I do refer to my earlier posts and the quotes from the CDF. At the very least Pope Bendict XII’s constitution 'Benedictus Deus’ was also infallible but I am certain there are other ex cathedra statements.

I am also confused about the use of the word retroactive? All Vatican I did was settle a contentious matter, not establish a new power or doctrine, in other words popes have made ex cathedra statements long before Vatican I and they were generally recognised as such.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Interesting. It has been stated here that there is only one papal ex-cathedra infallible statement (Assumption) and one that is retroactive (IC). Can you point to all the others?

Why is it important to have a list Mickey?

 

[Mickey]

Why is it important to have a list Mickey?

I didn’t say it was important…perhaps it is for some? But there are various opinions…so I am curious to hear.

 

[Ghosty]

It’s interesting how his tone changes between dealing with the bishops of Vienne, who rightfully were under his jurisdiction, and with the empress on the issue of Anatolius, who despite Leo’s declaration that his assent was not valid, continued to serve as the bishop of Constantinople for six more years until his death in 458.

He’s not speaking about Anatolius’ being the Bishop of Constantinople, which as you note Leo speaks of his assent to, but rather the elevation of Constantinople to the Second Place among the Patriarchates.

Interesting too is that in dealing with the bishops of Vienne, Leo makes much mention of his authority over them via Peter, but that in dealing with the Empress Pulcheria on the issue of Anatolius, he supports his argument against canon 28 of Chalcedon not with any special Petrine claim to authority, but with canon six of Nicaea, which he claims established an inviolable structure of Church governance.

Again this isn’t entirely correct. He talks about the Council of Nicea because it was the Canons of Nicea that set Alexandria and Antioch above Constantinople. The elevation of Constantinople was not a challenge to the authority of Rome, but to Alexandria and Antioch, so there would be no reason for Leo to appeal to the authority of Peter against the elevation of Constantinople. Had Constantinople challenged the status of Rome it might have been different, but it did not.

More significantly, however, is that Leo did directly invoke the authority of Peter in overturning the decision of the Bishops gathered at Chalcedon. He said:

But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicæa in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.

So he explicitly invokes the authority of Peter in annulling the act of hundreds of Bishops of the East.

I’m not so sure if it’s quite as simple as saying Leo claimed (or exercised) the prerogatives of papal supremacy as we conceive it in the modern era.

The point is that he clearly believed, and acted on the belief, that the authority of Peter was invested in him as Bishop of Rome, and by that authority he could annul the acts of other Bishops, even those well outside Western Europe. Whether this model is acceptable today is another matter, but it is clear that at least this Sainted Pope believed in 1) the special authority of Rome on the grounds of a unique Petrine Ministry, and 2) the exercise of that authority over Bishops all over the world, not just Western Europe as you claimed.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

Interesting. It has been stated here that there is only one papal ex-cathedra infallible statement (Assumption) and one that is retroactive (IC). Can you point to all the others?

Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching (teach and define)

:
In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)
jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

 

[Mickey]

Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching

So you believe that the canonization process is included as an example of ex-cathedra papal infallibility?

 

[Ghosty]

But enough of that, I have a question… what is the purpose of Papal Infallibility? It has been used only twice, once retroactively, and, in a way, neither was needed. Both sides seem to be squabbling over something that has no real purpose. Of course Mary was sinless and born such – (Immaculate Conception) – Original Sin in the West is based partly off a mistranslation of Romans v, 12, from the Greek into the Latin and then partly based off the theologies of St. Augustine and Anselm. Thus, Mary could easily be seen, if such mistranslation never occurred, as Immaculate (without sin) throughout her life as we do not inherit the sin of our parents (and so cannot have inherited the sin of Adam, the effects, yes we do inherit, but the sin itself?) and Mary had/has free will and such could easily have chosen, since she was chosen by God to bear the Son and thus favored by God, not to commit any personal sin. As for the Assumption, that is accepted without Papal pronouncement in the East since ancient times. Thus, a Papal statement claiming infallibility was unnecessary to determine or uphold its truth.

There’s a lot to unpack here. First of all, this is a misrepresentation of the Immaculate Conception, but that is being dealt with in another thread. Quickly though, the Dogma asserts that Mary was conceived free from the stain of Original Sin, which is not the “sin itself” but the lack of Grace consequent upon the sin. Stated positively it means that Mary was conceived in Divine Grace, with the Life of the Trinity already in her soul, something that no other human aside from Christ can claim. The Dogma can’t be reduced to simply not bearing the sin of Adam, which Latin theology does not teach anyone bears in the sense you’re using it.

Secondly, Papal Infallibility is not merely about ex cathedra statements, although the explicit wording of the teaching is about that. It is more about the infallibility of the Church, and how it rests uniquely with one office, the Bishop of Rome. It is the capstone of the arch of the magisterium, the assurance that division among the Bishops will not lead to a confusion of doctrine. If the magisterium consists of the Faithful in union with the Bishops, then there must be something that the Bishops understood in reference to, and it can’t be eachother, nor “the Faith”, nor consensus because all of these things have faltered or been questionable in history and can’t be relied upon as a certain indisputable norm. So the Catholic Church answers that the Bishops are united by Rome, as the capstone of the arch, so that in a dispute between groups of Bishops Rome can be understood to be the final arbiter of the matter. Since this is the case, since Rome is the final “extraordinary of the extraordinary” point of appeal, the last stop for settling disputes of the Faith, Rome must have the infallibility of the Church when acting in this role. If it didn’t have this infallibility then it could not be a sure capstone, and then the Bishops could not be certain to settle disputes that divide them, nor could it even be determined who was an orthodox Bishop, and the Faithful would follow both heretical and orthodox Bishops and be led astray.

This doesn’t mean that Papal Infallibility has to be invoked often. It doesn’t mean that it ever has to be invoked, God willing, but it does mean that it has to be a real thing and it has to rest on the authority of Christ and not human developments. That is what Vatican I defined, and that is why it is critical.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ZDHayden]

Hmm. Perhaps I should not be so quick to trust what was taught in RCIA, then?

It also seems that anytime anyone who criticizes Catholic doctrine speaks up, someone says “no, that’s a misrepresentation of doctrine X.” That is not to say that the criticisms are not misrepresentations, but rather that this seems a consistent pattern to the point that perhaps the Catholic Church should invest in either explaining its doctrines more simply or educating its followers better.

Quite a few distinctions made by Catholic theologians are taken as semantics and not substantially useful to many outside the jurisdiction of Rome.

Perhaps if a few factors were to change (and Rome has the power to change them), there would be fewer misunderstandings.

Again, this says nothing of truth, but rather of language and education.

 

[steve_b]

So you believe that the canonization process is included as an example of ex-cathedra papal infallibility?

As he said, When you see that language from the pope, “teach and define” it triggers an infallible statement. As he also said, this is not the only way in which the pope can do this, but it is the standard way

 

[steve_b]

Hmm. *Perhaps I should not be so quick to trust what was taught in RCIA, then? *

It also seems that anytime anyone who criticizes Catholic doctrine speaks up, someone says “no, that’s a misrepresentation of doctrine X.” That is not to say that the criticisms are not misrepresentations, but rather that this seems a consistent pattern to the point that perhaps the Catholic Church should invest in either explaining its doctrines more simply or educating its followers better.

*Quite a few distinctions made by Catholic theologians are taken as semantics and not substantially useful to many outside the jurisdiction of Rome. *

*Perhaps if a few factors were to change (and Rome has the power to change them), there would be fewer misunderstandings. *

Again, this says nothing of truth, but rather of language and education.

All one has to do is ask for references and the source if something said sounds odd.

 

[Ghosty]

Hmm. Perhaps I should not be so quick to trust what was taught in RCIA, then?

I don’t know what you were taught in RCIA, nor what you’re referring to here specifically. If you were taught anything at odds with what is written in the Catechism then you should disregard what you learned in RCIA. RCIA is not even remotely authoritative, but is rather just a class that is taught by someone who has volunteered to teach what they know (right or wrong) about the Catholic Faith. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, but it’s not as if RCIA instructors are always required to go through any kind of special training to do what they do.

It also seems that anytime anyone who criticizes Catholic doctrine speaks up, someone says “no, that’s a misrepresentation of doctrine X.” That is not to say that the criticisms are not misrepresentations, but rather that this seems a consistent pattern to the point that perhaps the Catholic Church should invest in either explaining its doctrines more simply or educating its followers better.

The doctrines are pretty clearly set forth in the Catechism. I’ve never once seen someone who directly quoted the Catechism get corrected about what the Catholic Church teaches; it is only those who speak based on what they’ve learned elsewhere. If you have questions about something mentioned in the Catechism then discuss it with others, or better yet read the original sources as they’re all cited in the Catechism.

The Catholic Church is unique in that it does have a true and authoritative compendium of teachings and explanation of those teachings. You won’t find this in any other Apostolic Communion or Church; believe me, I’ve strongly desired anything like this for studying the Byzantine tradition. If you want to talk about confusion and lack of clarity, try understanding what the Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox and Catholic) tradition teaches, as it has almost nothing in the way of consensus nor authoritative decisions.

Quite a few distinctions made by Catholic theologians are taken as semantics and not substantially useful to many outside the jurisdiction of Rome.

Perhaps if a few factors were to change (and Rome has the power to change them), there would be fewer misunderstandings.

Again, this says nothing of truth, but rather of language and education.

Again, stick with the Catechism when in doubt. It has been thoroughly vetted and written in as clear a language possible. The Church has never, ever said that we should rely on what RCIA instructors teach us, nor that we can just pick up any theological writing and understand it.

In short, if you’re not citing the Catechism or a magisterial document you really can’t even begin to be sure that your understanding is correct.

I especially urge everyone to not believe a single thing about Catholic doctrine that they read in non-Catholic sources, and I would say the same in the other direction. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, can’t be relied on to provide an accurate account of Catholic belief on the Papacy nor on the Latin teaching of Original Sin and shouldn’t be cited; likewise, don’t go to a Latin source on questions about theological questions peculiar to the East. The surest way to be led into error on a matter is to rely on the opponents of a teaching to explain it accurately.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

As he said, When you see that language from the pope, “teach and define” it triggers an infallible statement. As he also said, this is not the only way in which the pope can do this, but it is the standard way

It’s also worth pointing out that this alone doesn’t mean the teaching is ex cathedra; it must be intended as something to be held by all the Faithful. This can be implied by these words, but it isn’t necessarily implied.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know what you were taught in RCIA, nor what you’re referring to here specifically. If you were taught anything at odds with what is written in the Catechism then you should disregard what you learned in RCIA. RCIA is not even remotely authoritative, but is rather just a class that is taught by someone who has volunteered to teach what they know (right or wrong) about the Catholic Faith. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, but it’s not as if RCIA instructors are always required to go through any kind of special training to do what they do.

The doctrines are pretty clearly set forth in the Catechism. I’ve never once seen someone who directly quoted the Catechism get corrected about what the Catholic Church teaches; it is only those who speak based on what they’ve learned elsewhere.

Again, stick with the Catechism when in doubt. It has been thoroughly vetted and written in as clear a language possible. The Church has never, ever said that we should rely on what RCIA instructors teach us, nor that we can just pick up any theological writing and understand it.

In short, if you’re not citing the Catechism or a magisterial document you really can’t even begin to be sure that your understanding is correct.

I especially urge everyone to not believe a single thing about Catholic doctrine that they read in non-Catholic sources, and I would say the same in the other direction. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, can’t be relied on to provide an accurate account of Catholic belief on the Papacy nor on the Latin teaching of Original Sin and shouldn’t be cited; likewise, don’t go to a Latin source on questions about theological questions peculiar to the East. The surest way to be led into error on a matter is to rely on the opponents of a teaching to explain it accurately.

Peace and God bless!

Well said

 

[steve_b]

It’s also worth pointing out that this alone doesn’t mean the teaching is ex cathedra; it must be intended as something to be held by all the Faithful. This can be implied by these words, but it isn’t necessarily implied.

Peace and God bless!

True

 

[Mickey]

As he said, When you see that language from the pope, “teach and define” it triggers an infallible statement.

So there are built in triggers?

Interesting.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ZDHayden,

Tarry a bit - while I am confident that the RCIA program you attended was approved by the local priest and the bishop of your diocese - it also had approved the books or text that was used. If you still have those books, open the front cover and turn the the first couple of pages while looking for words like “Imprimatur” and “Nihil Obstat”. These terms mean that there is nothing contained in that book that is a danger to your Catholic Faith. Here is a link: fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html Not every theologian who writes a book gets these seals of approval.

Besides they have theologians that of all different religions, all different leanings, and if they write a book - confidence is high that they want it to sell! This is not to say that any Catholic theologican would willfully try and package a heresy or explain something simply - but leave out the Catholic doctrine portion - so that it is explained incorrectly.

I think that the presumption is that you have been given basic Catholic teaching and that you have understood this doctrine at the beginning level. You are not a theologian - but, there is no reason for you to stay at the beginning level - and learning more about the Catholic Faith is really an obligation. Take another look at Matthew 13 - the parable of the sower. Some of those seeds did not have enought depth for the roots they needed to lay down - and this is something we can avoid by learning about our Catholic Faith. CAF is a good source for informaiton.

God bless

Hmm. Perhaps I should not be so quick to trust what was taught in RCIA, then?

It also seems that anytime anyone who criticizes Catholic doctrine speaks up, someone says “no, that’s a misrepresentation of doctrine X.” That is not to say that the criticisms are not misrepresentations, but rather that this seems a consistent pattern to the point that perhaps the Catholic Church should invest in either explaining its doctrines more simply or educating its followers better.

Quite a few distinctions made by Catholic theologians are taken as semantics and not substantially useful to many outside the jurisdiction of Rome.

Perhaps if a few factors were to change (and Rome has the power to change them), there would be fewer misunderstandings.

Again, this says nothing of truth, but rather of language and education.