Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[Abu]

Mardukm #136
As brother AmbroseSJ had correctly stated, the sensus fidei is indeed active.
You, on the other hand, and in direct contradiction (typical of the sola papa mentality) sought to separate the Pope from the sensus fidei. You said the sensus fidei is only passive, separating it from the Pope who “alone” has the active voice in the Faith.

The error of the protestors is continued against the acknowledged fidelity and scholarship of the revered **Fr John A Hardon, S.J., **who confirms that “The whole Church as a community of believers in divine revelation is in possession of infallible truth. We may call this the infallibility of possession, or, as we used to say, passive infallibility,” and that of the celebrated **John Henry Newman **that “the active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_040.htm

Facing reality, against “an active infallibility of the Faithful”, this is what Newman taught:
On the requirement that the authoritative words of popes and Councils be interpreted through the ‘passive infallibility’ of the ‘whole body of the Catholic people’ (including the ‘investigations and disputes’ of the school of theologians):
“Some power then is needed to determine the general sense of authoritative words – to determine their direction, drift, limits, and comprehension, to hinder gross perversions. This power is virtually the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Catholic people. The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
Letter to Isy Froude from July 28, 1875; quoted from The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman (Dessain et al., eds.), xxvii, 336-338].
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

“Finally, we do not separate the pope actively teaching from the Church passively consenting to his doctrine, provided we do make this consent a condition for papal infallibility, either before or after a definition is made. So that juridically, the pope’s decision does not require approval from the bishops or the body of the faithful in order to take effect. Actually, however, this consent of the Church can never be withheld. As we believe that the pope is objectively infallible by divine assistance, we thereby believe also that the subjective assent of the Church can never be wanting to these definitions. For it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head or that the universal Church can fail.”
therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_031.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Veritas1994,

Thank you for posting this Ludwig Ott’s statements.

My study of the Catholic Church before I was Catholic consisted only of reading Magisterial source documents. Thankfully, that study eventually led me to the Catholic Church. Luckily, I did not depend on the opinions of singular theologians like this Ludwig Ott fellow. If I had, I would never have joined the Catholic Church.

In light of the background debates of V1, and the teaching of V2, there are several errors in his “Fundamentals” about the papacy that need to be exposed,

But, I will do this next time, since I need to take care of some real-world obligations. I just wanted to drop a note to warn any unwary lurkers, members, and especially non-Catholics, to take what this source says with a grain of salt. He is not a bishop, nor even a priest, just a popular lay theologian. Further, his work was published before V2. So please don’t immediately take the statements of this source as an accurate representation of the Catholic Church’s actual teaching on the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Continuation of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

 

[MilesVitae]

Brother Miles, I do realize that your concern is that even if the Pope is BOUND by his office to exercise diligence. “what happens if he does not exercise this due diligence that is necessitated by his office?”

We both agree that if the Pope, because of this lack of diligence, were to attempt to promulgate a heterodox teaching, the Holy Spirit’s protection for his Church would somehow prevent it.

But, you ask, what IF he does, despite this lack of diligence, happen to promulgate a decree. Should we assume it is infallible?

Your scenario is actually identical to the philosophical quandary “Can God make a rock he cannot lift?” The fact is, "due diligence" is intimately, inherently and irrevocably part of the definition of ex cathedra. If the Pope has made a dogmatic definition, it can ONLY have been made with “due diligence.” I believe that if a dogmatic definition is necessitated, the Holy Spirit will prompt the Pope to act with due diligence. That is part of the charism of infallibility. If he willfully refuses this prompting, the Holy Spirit, per Christ’s promise of the CHURCH’s infallibility, will somehow prevent it from happening.

Blessings,
Marduk

Okay Earlier it sounded like you were suggesting that the Pope could come to proclaim an erroneous definition if he did not act with due diligence. Glad to hear this is not the case (unless I’m still misunderstanding you ).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

Facing reality, against “an active infallibility of the Faithful”, this is what Newman taught:
On the requirement that the authoritative words of popes and Councils be interpreted through the ‘passive infallibility’ of the ‘whole body of the Catholic people’ (including the ‘investigations and disputes’ of the school of theologians):
“Some power then is needed to determine the general sense of authoritative words – to determine their direction, drift, limits, and comprehension, to hinder gross perversions. This power is virtually the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Catholic people. The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
[Letter to Isy Froude from July 28, 1875; quoted from The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman (Dessain et al., eds.), xxvii, 336-338].
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

Please note: Newman is being MISREPRESENTED by the above MISLEADING quote.

Not only did Newman advocate an ACTIVE infallibility of the Faithful, but Vatican II has confirmed his opinion. Newman wrote much about the active infallibility of the Faithful, especially in his document “[On consulting the Faithful](on consulting the faithful in matters of doctrine).” This is something Newman PUBLISHED, not a private letter where context is everything. Newman’s advocacy of an ACTIVE infallibility is also WELL KNOWN TO ALMOST EVERYONE that is even casually interested in Newman, because NEWMAN was the FIRST to advance such a notion. It is not a matter of debate in the real world. IOW, No knowledgeable Theologian familiar with Newman’s works would claim that Newman advocated AGAINST an active infallibility of the Faithful.

The quote cherry picked above by Abu, from an obscure private letter to a friend is speaking of the Passive Infallibility of the Faithful which the Faithful ALSO and normatively possess. Newman IS NOT in the letter (or anywhere else) ever making this an EITHER/OR situation as Abu has tried to imply.

Furthermore, Vatican II has apparently vindicated Newman’s opinion in Lumen Gentium parts 12 and 25 which I have quoted elsewhere, but will do again here:

“The universal body of the faithful…cannot be mistaken in belief…when “from the bishops to the last of the faithful laity” it expresses the consent [consensus] of all in matters of faith and morals. Through this sense of Faith [sensu Fidei] which is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, under the guidance of the sacred magisterium to which it is faithfully obedient, receives no longer the words of human beings but truly the word of God; it adheres indefectibly to “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints;” *** it penetrates more deeply into that same faith through right judgement and applies it more fully to life***.”

In the emphasized text above Vatican II is implying an ACTIVE infallibility of the Faithful, with active verbs such as “adheres indefectibly to the faith…penetrates more deeply…through right judgement” This is Newman’s theology of an active infallibility of the Faithful, shining through Vatican II.

Abu will undoubtedly post a blizzard of quotes saying that the Pope doesn’t need anyone’s consent, and that’s true, but it does NOT argue AGAINST the active infallibility of the Faithful. Abu simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

I’m not sure if you’ve mentioned this before, but an obvious example to refute Abu’s claims is to point out that one of the things that is believed to be an act of “papal” infallibility actually explicitly involves the active participation of the Faithful – namely, the canonization of Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

mardukm #143
Vatican II has **apparently **vindicated Newman’s opinion in Lumen Gentium parts 12
Vatican II is implying an ACTIVE infallibility of the Faithful, with active verbs such as “adheres indefectibly to the faith…penetrates more deeply…through right judgement”

False once more, and based on nothing more than merely “apparently” and “implying”.

Newman’s “opinion” is in fact that “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”

Further:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
True meaning of infallibility
It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

THE LIVING GOD, 1993 by William G.Most
I - Revelation
'Part of this analogy of faith is also found in what LG 12 speaks of: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of faith.” This is sometimes called passive infallibility. It means that if the whole Church, people and authorities both, have ever, even for one period of history, believed (accepted as revealed) some truth, that cannot be in error. It is infallible.'ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/REV601.TXT

Catholic Apologetics
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
**‘Infallibility is “active” in the “Church teaching” and “passive” in the “Church believing.” **The “Church teaching” consists of the successors to the Apostles, namely, the Pope of Rome and all the Bishops of the world united under him; the “Church believing” is the entire body of all the faithful professing the Catholic Faith.’
theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book1A.htm

Thus more of the overwhelming consensus against the false assumptions of mardukm.

 

[Abu]

CORRECTION:
The quote in my post #145 is from AmbroseSJ, NOT mardukm – my apologies to both.

Unfortunately they both labour under similar misapprehensions.

 

[Jon_S_1]

False once more, and based on nothing more than merely “apparently” and “implying”.

Newman’s “opinion” is in fact that “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”

Further:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
True meaning of infallibility
It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

THE LIVING GOD, 1993 by William G.Most
I - Revelation
'Part of this analogy of faith is also found in what LG 12 speaks of: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of faith.” This is sometimes called passive infallibility. It means that if the whole Church, people and authorities both, have ever, even for one period of history, believed (accepted as revealed) some truth, that cannot be in error. It is infallible.'ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/REV601.TXT

Catholic Apologetics
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
‘Infallibility is “active” in the “Church teaching” and “passive” in the "Church believing." The “Church teaching” consists of the successors to the Apostles, namely, the Pope of Rome and all the Bishops of the world united under him; the “Church believing” is the entire body of all the faithful professing the Catholic Faith.’
theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book1A.htm

Thus more of the overwhelming consensus against the false assumptions of mardukm.

I don’t follow how these quotes defend your position. Perhaps I misunderstand?

Are you advocating that the Pope can act outside the bounds placed on him by God and Church.

For example you believe the pope can infallibly declare that baptism is a mere symbol and it would be so?

Or is your position that he is in fact subject to the dogma of the church.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a majority rules approach to decision making and papal infallibility. That is what I read you defending in the quotes.

The pope is infallible in deciding the correct dogma not the popular one. This of course would never even come to his desk without the bishops and lay people being involved. Right?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

Newman’s “opinion” is in fact that “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”

Interesting that the website where you extracted this quote, has RIGHT UNDERNEATH IT, a quote by Newman defending the Active infallibility of the Faithful. In fact, that website, is a goldmine for quotemeisters like yourself, that fire off isolated out of context quotes to prove your mistaken point. The quote I mean:

On how the Arian controversy shows that it is sometimes the laity, and not the episcopate, that best preserves and protects the truth of the Catholic faith:
“that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ than by the ‘Ecclesia docens;’ that the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and other great sees, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them. I see, then, in the Arian history a palmary example of a state of the Church, during which, in order to know the tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the faithful…”
From “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine”

As Jon S has noted, your quotes do not prove your point. They are in fact, beside the point.

 

[Abu]

As we have seen, nowhere does John Henry Newman make the mistake of granting active infallibility to the body of the faithful as AmbroseSJ tries so futilely to make out. In fact Newman categorically states that** “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.” **So as all faithful Catholics agree, the faithful have passive infallibility.

The Catechism explains in # 889:
“To maintain the Church in the purity of the faith transmitted by the Apostles, Christ willed to confer on His Church a participation in His own infallibility, that of Him who is the Truth. By the ‘supernatural sense of the faith’ the People of God, adheres indefectibly to the faith’ under the guidance of the living Magisterium of the Church.”

‘This repeats what Vatican II said in LG #12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. In other words, if the whole Church, people as well as Pastors, has ever accepted something as revealed, that cannot be in error.” This is often called passive infallibility.’
socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html

’THE LIVING GOD, 1993 by Fr William G.Most
I - Revelation
Part of this analogy of faith is also found in what LG 12 speaks of: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of faith.” This is sometimes called passive infallibility. It means that if the whole Church, people and authorities both, have ever, even for one period of history, believed (accepted as revealed) some truth, that cannot be in error. It is infallible.’
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/REV601.TXT

Catholic Apologetics
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
**‘Infallibility is “active” in the “Church teaching” and “passive” in the “Church believing.” **The “Church teaching” consists of the successors to the Apostles, namely, the Pope of Rome and all the Bishops of the world united under him; the “Church believing” is the entire body of all the faithful professing the Catholic Faith.’
theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book1A.htm

Faithful Catholics all know and describe that the “faithful” have passive infallibility.

 

[Jon_S_1]

As we have seen, nowhere does John Henry Newman make the mistake of granting active infallibility to the body of the faithful as AmbroseSJ tries so futilely to make out. In fact Newman categorically states that** “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.” **So as all faithful Catholics agree, the faithful have passive infallibility.

The Catechism explains in # 889:
“To maintain the Church in the purity of the faith transmitted by the Apostles, Christ willed to confer on His Church a participation in His own infallibility, that of Him who is the Truth. By the ‘supernatural sense of the faith’ the People of God, adheres indefectibly to the faith’ under the guidance of the living Magisterium of the Church.”

‘This repeats what Vatican II said in LG #12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. In other words, if the whole Church, people as well as Pastors, has ever accepted something as revealed, that cannot be in error.” This is often called passive infallibility.’
socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html

’THE LIVING GOD, 1993 by Fr William G.Most
I - Revelation
Part of this analogy of faith is also found in what LG 12 speaks of: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of faith.” This is sometimes called passive infallibility. It means that if the whole Church, people and authorities both, have ever, even for one period of history, believed (accepted as revealed) some truth, that cannot be in error. It is infallible.’
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/REV601.TXT

Catholic Apologetics
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
‘Infallibility is “active” in the “Church teaching” and “passive” in the "Church believing." The “Church teaching” consists of the successors to the Apostles, namely, the Pope of Rome and all the Bishops of the world united under him; the “Church believing” is the entire body of all the faithful professing the Catholic Faith.’
theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book1A.htm

Faithful Catholics all know and describe that the “faithful” have passive infallibility.

And the cut and paste continues.

You need to learn to formulate some actual arguments in your own words.

Quotes are only useful as a supplement.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

As usual Abu, your quotes are at cross purposes and beside the point.

No one including Newman, denies the passive infallibility of the Faithful, which is normative. But that does NOT rule out the active infallibility of the Faithful. It is just the two sides of the same coin: the infallibility of the Faithful.

You quoted yourself that the “universitas of the faithful” is infallible. According Vatican II “The universal body of the faithful…cannot be mistaken in belief…when from the bishops to the last of the faithful laity” IOW, The Church.

Abu, you are tilting at windmills, arguing against something you hardly understand.

The more you quote, the more it is made evident that you do not understand.

Your obsession with trying to stamp out the Active infallibility of the Faithful has also derailed this thread. The only reason I feel compelled to answer you is because I can’t bear to have Newman misrepresented to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Although, most of the posters in this thread are able to see the incongruity and irrelevancy of your posts.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #151
I can’t bear to have Newman misrepresented to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Then don’t misrepresent him.

Newman’s “opinion” is in fact that **“The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.” **Quoted from The *Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman *(Dessain et al., eds.), xxvii, 336-338].
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

And no faithful Catholic scholar cited here supports your erroneous opinion.

 

[Abu]

Jon S #147
Perhaps I misunderstand?

Perhaps you do. As you’ve offered nothing factual, what is so difficult in understanding the plain teaching quoted?

is your position that he is in fact subject to the dogma of the church

I don’t offer “a position”, but if you check Lumen Gentium 25 you will see:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

Do you know of any case where any Pope has not been subject to dogma or doctrine in his teaching to the whole Church?

The pope is infallible in deciding the correct dogma not the popular one

You managed to get that right.

#150
And the cut and paste continues.
You need to learn to formulate some actual arguments in your own words

There are those who discuss based solely on their own opinions; there are those who discuss based on arguments which cannot be backed up by facts; there are those who discuss based on arguments which are backed up by facts as cited from knowledgeable, faithful witnesses.

It is idle to “formulate arguments in your own words” which have no basis in reality and the facts of history which can be quoted. So much for your “cut and paste” derision which is the refuge of those without the ability to cite facts to sustain arguments.

The choice is yours.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Perhaps you do. As you’ve offered nothing factual, what is so difficult in understanding the plain teaching quoted?
I don’t offer “a position”, but if you check Lumen Gentium 25 you will see:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

Do you know of any case where any Pope has not been subject to dogma or doctrine in his teaching to the whole Church?
You managed to get that right.
There are those who discuss based solely on their own opinions; there are those who discuss based on arguments which cannot be backed up by facts; there are those who discuss based on arguments which are backed up by facts as cited from knowledgeable, faithful witnesses.

It is idle to “formulate arguments in your own words” which have no basis in reality and the facts of history which can be quoted. So much for your “cut and paste” derision which is the refuge of those without the ability to cite facts to sustain arguments.

The choice is yours.

:dts::slapfight::nunchuk:

 

[MrSnaith]

I’ve been trying to follow this discussion, but what is perfectly unclear to me, because I admit that I had not heard these terms before, are the definitions of active and passive infallibility.

As I understand it, infallibility is proper to the office of the Pope as a matter of authoritative definition of doctrine, wherein he is protected by a special grace to be free from error. It seems to me, that whatever infallibility the lay faithful have comes only in agreement with and obedience to Magesterial teaching.

Unless what you mean to say is that the Church Body, authoritatively speaking, is protected from error, and that as a whole, this infallibility finds its seat in the Petrine Office? In other words, when the Pope speaks infallibly, he does not do so merely representing himself, but as the voice for the whole Church.

If this is the case, then it seems proper to me that the whole Body would be included in the infallible expression, if not formally so.

By analogy, you might say that that no single cell in my body can say, “I am me,” but there is certainly a particular faculty in my person that is the voice which proclaims, “I am me,” but it is true at the same time that even though no single cell in my body can properly proclaim this, it is also true that my whole body is that person who proclaims, “I am me.”

So, I suppose, because we are part of the Body of Christ, and just as we share in the priesthood, the kingship, and the prophethood of Jesus by virtue of this membership, so too do we share in the infallibility of His truth. And just as there are powers of the priesthood that are not conferred to all the Faithful, but reside only in the varying offices of the ordained priesthood (priests, bishops, archbishops, etc), so too does the full power of infallibility find its expression in the office of Peter, though it is shared in a lesser sense by the whole Body.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t offer “a position”, but if you check Lumen Gentium 25 you will see:

You are imposing your Absolutist Petrine position on the teaching of the Church. Permit me to point it out to you.

“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”*

Any competent English speaker will see that “not form the consent of the Church” is attached to the term “irreformible” not to the terms “his definitions.” So the plain meaning is NOT that the Church is never involved in the formulation of the definition, but only that its rreformibility (i.e., its status as Truth) does not depend on consensus (in case you did not know, the idea that Truth depends on consensus is a modernist heresy; and, in case you also did not know, the primary objective of V1 was to combat modernist/liberal errors)…

The sola papa mumbo jumbo is your own opinion, not the teaching of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’ve been trying to follow this discussion, but what is perfectly unclear to me, because I admit that I had not heard these terms before, are the definitions of active and passive infallibility.

As I understand it, infallibility is proper to the office of the Pope as a matter of authoritative definition of doctrine, wherein he is protected by a special grace to be free from error. It seems to me, that whatever infallibility the lay faithful have comes only in agreement with and obedience to Magesterial teaching.

Unless what you mean to say is that the Church Body, authoritatively speaking, is protected from error, and that as a whole, this infallibility finds its seat in the Petrine Office? In other words, when the Pope speaks infallibly, he does not do so merely representing himself, but as the voice for the whole Church.

If this is the case, then it seems proper to me that the whole Body would be included in the infallible expression, if not formally so.

By analogy, you might say that that no single cell in my body can say, “I am me,” but there is certainly a particular faculty in my person that is the voice which proclaims, “I am me,” but it is true at the same time that even though no single cell in my body can properly proclaim this, it is also true that my whole body is that person who proclaims, “I am me.”

MrSnaith, your post is both perceptive and refreshing!

The great Vatican II theologian and Newman scholar, Cardinal Avery Dulles has summed up Newman’s theology of infallibility like this:

Newman’s view that the adequate bearer of infallibility is neither the heirarchical magisterium (ecclesia docens) alone, nor the body of the faithful (ecclesia discens) alone, but the Church as a whole, when the official teachers and the faithful concur, is, I believe, consonant with the teaching of Vatican II, which treated infallibility primarily as a charism of the whole people of God, and only secondarily as an endowment of the hierarchy or the Pope.

 

[Abu]

Avery Cardinal Dulles states:
“Newman **might have admitted **that in certain cases the lack of acceptance on the part of the faithful could raise a question as to whether a given pronouncement of the hierarchy was in fact infallible, but he never suggested that the views of the faithful had infallible normative value apart from, or in opposition to, the teaching of the hierarchy.” [My emphases].
[Dulles, Avery. “Newman on Infallibility,” Theological Studies 51:3 (Sep 1990), Theological Studies – A journal of academic theology]

John Henry Cardinal Newman confirms:
“The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

Perceptive readers will notice also that it is the Cardinal Newman Society that reinforces the correct perspective.

 

[mardukm]

The active infallibility of the laity does not have the role of judge, but the role of witness. Witnessing is an active infallibility. Every mother and father, every son and daughter shares in the Church’s infallibility when they faithfully propagate the infallible teaching of the Church, handing it down from generation to generation.

Where did brother AmbroseSJ even suggest in any way that the laity are apart from or in opposition to the hierarchy when they, in their own way - certainly not as formal teachers or judges of the Faith - actively participate in the infallibility of the Church? He didn’t. That assumption is borne from nothing else but your own Absolutist Petrine fantasies. It is not that brother AmbroseSJ has in the least suggested that the laity can be separated from the hierarchy. Rather it is that you are laboring under the false pretense that the Pope is separate from the rest of the Church when it comes to infallible teaching.

We’ll pray that you may eventually have the spiritual fruit of understanding.

Blessings

Avery Cardinal Dulles states:
“Newman might have admitted that in certain cases the lack of acceptance on the part of the faithful could raise a question as to whether a given pronouncement of the hierarchy was in fact infallible, but he never suggested that the views of the faithful had infallible normative value apart from, or in opposition to, the teaching of the hierarchy.” [My emphases].
[Dulles, Avery. “Newman on Infallibility,” Theological Studies 51:3 (Sep 1990), Theological Studies – A journal of academic theology]

John Henry Cardinal Newman confirms:
“The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

Perceptive readers will notice also that it is the Cardinal Newman Society that reinforces the correct perspective.