Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[AmbroseSJ]

As usual Abu, your quote is beside the point. You lash out at an enemy that doesn’t exist. But why not comment on the extraordinary quote I posted? Then you might have had some relevance.

Another thing Abu, your favorite Newman quote (which has already been identified as a solitary, obscure and out of context in numerous replies --aside from being beside the point-- Since Newman never opposed the passive infallibility to the active infallibility of the faithful, but considered them to be just two sides of the same coin.) is right above the true position of Newman, which you hope no one sees. But I’ve posted it below anyway.

– but I mean still, 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”

(emphasis mine)

 

[Abu]

mardukm #159
The active infallibility of the laity does not have the role of judge, but the role of witness. Witnessing is an active infallibility.

Never have you, can you, or anyone else, quote any Pope, or faithful Catholic scholar to support the error of “an active infallibility” possessed by the laity! It is a figment of your imagination, constructed by you two. The laity certainly possesses passive infallibility when it assents.

Witnessing is an action of assent to, and then offering of, the truth – ‘the universitas fidelium (the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” ’ The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]

“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, **aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God **(cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Vatican II, my emphasis]

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #160
“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”

Exactly what John Henry Cardinal Newman describes as the passive infallibility of having assented to, and then offering, truth: “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lumen Gentium 25:

“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.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Exactly what John Henry Cardinal Newman describes as the passive infallibility of having assented to, and then offering, truth: “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

You just keep saying the same thing over and over.

Passive infallibility of the Faithful is not denied by affirming the Active infallibility of the Faithful.

The infallibility of the Faithful is merely a part of the infallibility of the Church, something I don’t think you are comfortable with. Your comfort zone seems to be Papal infallibility ALONE.

Do you think Cardinal Avery Dulles was mistaken when he said:

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]

AmbroseSJ #163
In the emphasized text above Vatican II is implying an ACTIVE infallibility of the Faithful

ALL of these mere implications are in your minds – what you fancy – of course the laity have infallibility – PASSIVE when they assent to the truths taught as Vatican II teaches and ALL faithful scholars as I have shown factually and endlessly.

“IX. Papal Infallibility by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
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

 

[Jon_S_1]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over.

Passive infallibility of the Faithful is not denied by affirming the Active infallibility of the Faithful.

The infallibility of the Faithful is merely a part of the infallibility of the Church, something I don’t think you are comfortable with. Your comfort zone seems to be Papal infallibility ALONE.

Do you think Cardinal Avery Dulles was mistaken when he said:

Abu,

You have posted again and again, " “The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops"

So how do you respond to CARDINAL Dulles point as quoted above? By AmbroseSJ?

You don’t seem to grasp the concept here.

No one is saying I can make an infallible statement, or that the pope is subject to the consensus of the layity.

What is being said is that the Church is infallible and the church is made of everyone so we all have some role in that. The pope and hierarchy steer us and guide us. It seems you choose to divorce the Papacy from the Bishops and the Bishops from the people which is a great error.

 

[MrSnaith]

Again, I’m still trying to get a hold on what’s being argued here. From my standpoint, you all seem to agree. Maybe this is just that I don’t exactly understand what you’re meaning by active and passive infallibility. I’m beginning to think, though, that both sides of this argument are using the terms differently.

What are the implications of believing in active infallibility of the faithful versus passive infallibility of the faithful only?

If what you mean by active infallibility is that I am infallible when I preach Church Doctrine to others, then I would assert that this can only be true given that I am accurately transmitting true Church Doctrine. But as I understand it, infallibility is the protection from error, which I personally have not. I may be a faithful Catholic, but I may still get Church teaching wrong, especially when it comes to complex details of doctrine. Whatever infallibility I posess, I only posess when I deliberately consent to the authority of the magesterium, even if I don’t understand, and when I precisely teach correct Catholic Doctrine. But I would argue that this is exactly what Abu holds to be passive infallibility. If that’s the case, then this is just a debate of semantics. In which case, I’m out.

But if you mean, however, that the community of the faithful are necessarily involved in the infallible pronouncements of the Pope (and not the above text), then that’s a different matter, and not one that I feel equipped to comment on very well.

However, I wonder if lesser infallibility is present in the members of the community of Faith in a different manner than infallibility is present in the Petrine Office. We know, of course, that the source of Petrine infallibility is not the office itself, but the Holy Spirit, who protects the office. It is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Pope makes his infallible pronouncements. I wonder if, likewise, we receive infallible inspirations from the Holy Spirit in a more common sense when we are in evangelistic conversation with others and we say things that we later realize we were not the source of. Maybe something to ponder on.

 

[Abu]

MrSnaith #167
I wonder if lesser infallibility is present in the members of the community of Faith in a different manner than infallibility is present in the Petrine Office.

You don’t need to wonder – it is – as passive infallibility in those who assent! That could not be made clearer by the multitude of faithful Catholic priests and Cardinal quoted verbatim.

The hang-up of AmbroseSJ, and mardukm, is simply a false view arising from their basic hang-up that this truth, so eloquently and repeatedly expressed by so many faithful, is really a part of *Absolutist Petrine advocates (who) are confused and are the ones sowing the confusion *(mardulm post #80), and the same error before and later.

So they are concocting a straw man as multitudes of faithful Catholic priests have been quoted that the faithful laity have only passive infallibility, NOT the active infallibility of the assenting hierarchy.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You don’t need to wonder – it is – as passive infallibility in those who assent! That could not be made clearer by the multitude of faithful Catholic priests and Cardinal quoted verbatim.

The hang-up of AmbroseSJ, and mardukm, is simply a false view arising from their basic hang-up that this truth, so eloquently and repeatedly expressed by so many faithful, is really a part of *Absolutist Petrine advocates (who) are confused and are the ones sowing the confusion *(mardulm post #80), and the same error before and later.

So they are concocting a straw man as multitudes of faithful Catholic priests have been quoted that the faithful laity have only passive infallibility, NOT the active infallibility of the assenting hierarchy.

Abu,

I think it would be helpful to all for you to define terms. It seems terms may be an issue in this discussion (others feel free to define as well)

INFALLIBILITY

ABSOLUTIST PETRINE

PASSIVE INFALLIBILITY

ACTIVE INFALLIBILITY

MAGESTERIUM

LAY FAITHFUL.

Let’s make sure we are talking about the same things !

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You don’t need to wonder – it is – as passive infallibility in those who assent! That could not be made clearer by the multitude of faithful Catholic priests and Cardinal quoted verbatim.

The hang-up of AmbroseSJ, and mardukm, is simply a false view arising from their basic hang-up that this truth, so eloquently and repeatedly expressed by so many faithful, is really a part of *Absolutist Petrine advocates (who) are confused and are the ones sowing the confusion *(mardulm post #80), and the same error before and later.

So they are concocting a straw man as multitudes of faithful Catholic priests have been quoted that the faithful laity have only passive infallibility, NOT the active infallibility of the assenting hierarchy.

I’m sorry Abu, but you are putting words in our mouths.

I have REPEATEDLY stated in post after post that passive infallibility of the faithful is NOT denied by the affirmation of the active infallibility of the faithful.

It is actually you that have created the straw man by IMPLYING that we are in denial of the passive infallibility of the Faithful.

Maybe you should respond to Jon S and DEFINE YOUR TERMS.

 

[MrSnaith]

I wonder if, likewise, we receive infallible inspirations from the Holy Spirit in a more common sense when we are in evangelistic conversation with others and we say things that we later realize we were not the source of. Maybe something to ponder on.

And by this, I mean those rare occasions wherein you say exactly the right thing at exactly the right time for exactly the right person.

 

[mardukm]

I think it would be helpful to all for you to define terms. It seems terms may be an issue in this discussion (others feel free to define as well)

I’ll take a crack at it:

INFALLIBILITY: The charism to be immediately free from error in teaching (distinct from “indefectibility,” which is freedom from error over the course of time). This charism is directly given by God and God alone. It is not the Church’s, a Council’s, or a Pope’s to give. Thus,
the Church cannot grant infallibility to a teaching of a Council or a Pope;
a Council cannot grant infallibility to a teaching of the Church or a Pope.
a Pope cannot grant infallibility to a teaching of the Church or a Council.

ABSOLUTIST PETRINE: Any paradigm that seeks to unduly magnify the Pope above, or separate him from, the Church and/or the College of bishops. Some Catholic dictionaries use the term “papalism” for this position. Historically, it is known as NEO-ultramontanism, and is maintained primarily by the SSPX (who separated from the Church partly because of this), and many in the Latin Catholic Church. One can also refer to it as the “sola papa” error - right along with the other “sola” errors.

PASSIVE INFALLIBILITY: The infallibility of the Church exercised internally.

ACTIVE INFALLIBILITY: The infallibility of the Church exercised externally - i.e., any explicit activity that promotes the infallible teaching of the Church.

MAGISTERIUM: The teaching authority of God. Many use the term “Magisterium” as a shortcut way to refer to the hierarchy. Technically, the term “Magisterium” refers per se to the authority to teach, not the holder of that authority.

LAY FAITHFUL: Those who have not been blessed with the Sacrament of Orders.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

When I was going over Ott’s Fundamentals on the papacy, I realized it was fraught with more mistakes than I originally thought. I’ll be preparing a separate thread on it that I’ll post within the next 2 weeks.

Blessings

 

[Jon_S_1]

When I was going over Ott’s Fundamentals on the papacy, I realized it was fraught with more mistakes than I originally thought. I’ll be preparing a separate thread on it that I’ll post within the next 2 weeks.

Blessings

Let me know when you do !

 

[spina1953]

I’ll take a crack at it:

INFALLIBILITY: The charism to be immediately free from error in teaching (distinct from “indefectibility,” which is freedom from error over the course of time). This charism is directly given by God and God alone. It is not the Church’s, a Council’s, or a Pope’s to give. Thus,
the Church cannot grant infallibility to a teaching of a Council or a Pope;
a Council cannot grant infallibility to a teaching of the Church or a Pope.
a Pope cannot grant infallibility to a teaching of the Church or a Council.

ABSOLUTIST PETRINE: Any paradigm that seeks to unduly magnify the Pope above, or separate him from, the Church and/or the College of bishops. Some Catholic dictionaries use the term “papalism” for this position. Historically, it is known as NEO-ultramontanism, and is maintained primarily by the SSPX (who separated from the Church partly because of this), and many in the Latin Catholic Church. One can also refer to it as the “sola papa” error - right along with the other “sola” errors.

PASSIVE INFALLIBILITY: The infallibility of the Church exercised internally.

ACTIVE INFALLIBILITY: The infallibility of the Church exercised externally - i.e., any explicit activity that promotes the infallible teaching of the Church.

MAGISTERIUM: The teaching authority of God. Many use the term “Magisterium” as a shortcut way to refer to the hierarchy. Technically, the term “Magisterium” refers per se to the authority to teach, not the holder of that authority.

LAY FAITHFUL: Those who have not been blessed with the Sacrament of Orders.

Blessings

I think you did a great job in defining the terms so all should now be able to understand what it being talked about on this thread.

 

[MrSnaith]

PASSIVE INFALLIBILITY: The infallibility of the Church exercised internally.

ACTIVE INFALLIBILITY: The infallibility of the Church exercised externally - i.e., any explicit activity that promotes the infallible teaching of the Church.

Thank you very much for these clear definitions. However, I would ask for a further clarification on these particular points.

Do you really mean internally and externally (ie, internally being within the Church, between members of the Church, and externally being outside the Church, between the members of the Church and those who are not members of the Church)? Or, perhaps, do you mean interiorly and exteriorly (ie, interiorly being interior personal adherance and acceptance of Magesterial teaching, and exteriorly being exterior inter-personal dialogue promoting Majesterial teaching, both between members of the Church, and with those outside the Church)?

The way I read internal and external, these pertain to the organization, or community, while interior and exterior pertain to the person.

 

[Gorgias]

“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.”

Huh? This doesn’t make any sense. “Any competent English speaker” will see that ‘definitions’ and ‘are irreformable’ and ‘they are pronounced’ are plural and that ‘consent’ is singular, and therefore, will realize that ‘irreformable’ modifies ‘definitions’ not ‘consent’.

(In fact, “not from the consent of the Church” modifies “of themselves”.)

 

[MrSnaith]

Huh? This doesn’t make any sense. “Any competent English speaker” will see that ‘definitions’ and ‘are irreformable’ and ‘they are pronounced’ are plural and that ‘consent’ is singular, and therefore, will realize that ‘irreformable’ modifies ‘definitions’ not ‘consent’.

(In fact, “not from the consent of the Church” modifies “of themselves”.)

I was going to identify the same thing until I realized that what Marduk was meaning to say was this:

The phrase “not from the consent of the Church” does not mean that the definitions come from the Pope alone, but rather that the irreformability of the definitions does not come from the consent of the Church. That is to say, consent doesn’t make it infallible, the charism of the Holy Spirit does, which was promised to the Papacy.

Therefore, he was trying to demonstrate that the “not from the consent of the Church” phrase is meant to refer to the source of the irreformability of the definitions, not to the source of the definitions themselves.

He was trying to highlight two facts: Irreformability of the definitions comes from the office of the Papacy, but the definitions themselves may arise by consent of the Church. That is, the Pope may consult with the Church in developing the definitions, but it is not the consultation, or the concensus of defition which makes the definitions irreformable. It is the Petrine Office which does so, because it has been promised the charism of infallibility.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Gorgias,

Huh? This doesn’t make any sense. “Any competent English speaker” will see that ‘definitions’ and ‘are irreformable’ and ‘they are pronounced’ are plural and that ‘consent’ is singular, and therefore, will realize that ‘irreformable’ modifies ‘definitions’ not ‘consent’.

The plural and singular cases are not applied consistently throughout a statement, especially if the object, distinct from the subject, is the thing being modified.

For example: “My dogs(plural) are(plural) loyal(plural), since loyalty is(singular) an attribute (singular) of dogs.”

Regardless, the analogy between the plural case and the word “consent” is not proper. The modifier is the entire clause “not from the consent of the Church,” not merely the word “consent.”

Absolutist Petrine advocates and other detractors of the papacy read the statement as “His definitions are not from the consent of the Church,” on the erroneous assumption that “not from the consent of the Church” directly modifies “his definitions.” Thus, they are under the false impression that the Pope in his ex cathedra definitions is somehow separated from the Church, or that the Church is not involved at all in the formulation of the definitions.

(In fact, “not from the consent of the Church” modifies “of themselves”.)

The two clauses do not have the relationship of object and modifier, but rather are synonyms. Both “not from the consent of the Church” and “of themselves” modifiy “irreformible.” Truth does not depend on consensus, but on God.

Blessings