Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[Veritas1994]

I agree that we as Catholic are to accept everything that the Catholic Church teaches

However we should remember that just because a priest says something or even a bishop or cardinal, does not mean that it is necessarily without error or infallible. As I mentioned in the first post even a pope himself can error in his private judgement. However not when he is practicing Ex Cathedra. For that reason I think that it is extremely important that Catholics realize that there are different levels of Infallibility within the Church.

How Infallibility Works

The Authentic (i.e. “authoritative”) Magisterium of the Church – i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority – has different levels of infallibility:

1•)
Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium (“Solemn Magisterium”): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.

2•)
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (“Constant Magisterium” or “Universal Magisterium”): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past

3•)
Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is “authorized” teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience – as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.

In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love – or at least respect the office of – the Holy Father, but they are not “Church teaching” in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature

Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the “Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.” They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These “Catholics” are the “liberal Catholics” or “modernist Catholics” you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth “Catholics” who eat away at the Church’s teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.

Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible – and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be “orthodox” by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience – an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry (“pope worship”), though, of course, they know better and know that “worshipping the Pope” would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called “neo-conservatives,” “conservatives,” or “neo-Catholics” (they often think of and refer to themselves as “traditional Catholics” though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father’s more scandalous actions (e.g., “ecumenical” services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and “Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers”, etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).

Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable – and laudable! – especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.

 

[Veritas1994]

I think my post above summarizes what Mardukm was talking about regarding the purpose of Vatican I. It was meant to counter the ultra-Montatonist heresy which gave ultra authority to the pope even when the pope might be wrong in some regards. Rather Vatican I meant to moderate and correct our understanding of papal infallibility to that which pertains to Ex Cathedra

 

[phil19034]

I realize they were all united with Rome, which means they should have the same Tradition. Because they have the same Tradition they should both conclude that Papal infallibility is truth.

I’m not speaking of the Political and cultural differences that caused the schism, rather the Theological differences that arose from the same “Tradition.” All this does is confuse me when Catholics say, “we proclaimed it in the 19th century but it was always believed.”

There is a good discussion regarding Papal Infallibility in regards to the Old Catholic Church Unions and the Orthodox Churches, regarding how they believe that the Church is infallible, but only via Ecumenical Councils

catholic.com/radio/shows/open-forum-10538

Starting with minute 35:00 thru 45:00. It starts speaking about Papal Infalliblity with the Old Catholic Church, but this pretty much in line with the Orthodox too. They both beleive that Infalliblity was bestowed on the Ecumenical Councils, but neither the Orthodox or the Old Catholics can call an Ecumenical Councils.

God Bless

 

[Abu]

mardukm #15
The Gallican errors were sufficiently addressed by prior Councils, so that was definitely not V1’s focus. In fact, Gallicanism was not even a concern to the V1 Fathers until the final few days of the Council. The majority of the discussion on the papal prerogatives was focused on correcting the errors of the NEO-ultramontanists, whose extreme views about the papacy were causing secular governments to threaten the Council.

This needs to be understood properly because too many Catholics have the false impression that V1 intended to increase the authority of the Pope. Far from it, it actually meant to (relatively) DEcrease it as a response to the excesses of the NEO-ultramontantists.

On the contrary, in the actual testimony in The Gift of Infallibility, (Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, given at Vatican I) translated with Commentary by Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius 2008, in footnote 4 to the citation of Bossuet, the Bishop of Meaux (p 25-26), Fr O’Connor stresses that “the thesis of Gallicanism….was ever in the background – and sometimes in the foreground – on primacy and papal infallibility at Vatican Council I”.

In addition, the relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican I refuted both the views of those who did not want a definition of papal infallibility, and those who wanted an extremist view (p 10), and “he rejects arguments that want conditions or limitations on papal infallibility written into the draft itself.’ [footnote 27, p 50].

Further to the reality of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., pointing out that Gallicanism was countered at Vatican I, Philip Trower in Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius, 2003, p 85-6, that Vatican I “was the culmination of a long struggle between conflicting views of how Christ intended His Church to be governed at the highest level…that the pope is not subject to the body of bishops…It was this that the First Vatican Council at last put beyond doubt.”

“Given the long tradition of Conciliarism and Gallicanism in Europe, time was needed for the teaching on papal primacy and infallibility to sink in.”

 

[Abu]

Jon S #19
Well, I think it should be noted that the Orthodox in general believe the Pope holds primacy

Hardly.
The continued inability to assent to the reality of primacy that Christ gave to His Supreme Vicar continues to dog various Orthodox patriarchs.

CWN - November 09, 2012
“A commission of Russian Orthodox theologians has completed a draft statement on primacy in the universal Church, which will now be submitted to the Russian Orthodox synod for approval.

“A Biblical-theological commission, under the aegis of the Moscow patriarchate’s Department External Church Relations, approved the draft statement November 8.

“The question of primacy in the universal Church has been a contentious topic for Orthodox leaders, provoking tensions between the Moscow patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 2010, a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission reached tentative agreement on a statement regarding the authority of the papacy in the Church. But the Russian Orthodox Church, the world’s largest Orthodox body, declined to endorse the statement, saying that it conceded too much authority to Rome and to Constantinople.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16203&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=1058219

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

That’s all politics. That is not theology. The fact is, the MP and the EP have been in competition for the primacy for many years now. There are EO who think the MP should have the primacy simply because the ROC has the biggest membership. They don’t care about Tradition. It’s just ecclesiastical politics. You can’t use that as a gauge of holy Orthodoxy in general.

But those who are more loyal to the EP have a purer interest in the matter, imo, and have a serious concern for dialogue.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hardly.
The continued inability to assent to the reality of primacy that Christ gave to His Supreme Vicar continues to dog various Orthodox patriarchs.

CWN - November 09, 2012
“A commission of Russian Orthodox theologians has completed a draft statement on primacy in the universal Church, which will now be submitted to the Russian Orthodox synod for approval.

“A Biblical-theological commission, under the aegis of the Moscow patriarchate’s Department External Church Relations, approved the draft statement November 8.

“The question of primacy in the universal Church has been a contentious topic for Orthodox leaders, provoking tensions between the Moscow patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 2010, a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission reached tentative agreement on a statement regarding the authority of the papacy in the Church. But the Russian Orthodox Church, the world’s largest Orthodox body, declined to endorse the statement, saying that it conceded too much authority to Rome and to Constantinople.”
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16203&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=1058219

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

Please try to understand what you are quoting:

in footnote 4 to the citation of Bossuet, the Bishop of Meaux (p 25-26), Fr O’Connor stresses that “the thesis of Gallicanism….was ever in the background – and sometimes in the foreground – on primacy and papal infallibility at Vatican Council I”.

You don’t even need to read between the lines. That is plainly stating that Gallicanism was not the main concern of V1 as far as “papal” infallibility was concerned.

In addition, the relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican I refuted both the views of those who did not want a definition of papal infallibility, and those who wanted an extremist view (p 10), and “he rejects arguments that want conditions or limitations on papal infallibility written into the draft itself.’ [footnote 27, p 50].

That would be an incorrect assessment. What the commission did not want to do was not to reject conditions or limitations on “papal” infallibility, but to reject UNnecessary conditions and limitations on it. You should read about what actually went on BEHIND the scenes. Though the official Relatio is a concise statement on the actual meaning of the Decree on infallibility, it is not the whole story. The Decree on infallibility is in fact in itself a limitation. The Absolutist Petrine advocates (the NEO-ultramontanists) believed that the infallibility of the Pope was “absolute.” The Relatio corrects this erroneous impression, and this is enshrined in the Decree (and explained in the Relatio), which restricts “papal” infallibility to very specific circumstances.

Further to the reality of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., pointing out that Gallicanism was countered at Vatican I, Philip Trower in Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius, 2003, p 85-6, that Vatican I “was the culmination of a long struggle between conflicting views of how Christ intended His Church to be governed at the highest level…that the pope is not subject to the body of bishops…It was this that the First Vatican Council at last put beyond doubt.”

Gallicanism was, specifically, discussed at the Council explicitly only in the last two days before the final voting. The very great majority of the (about) 4 month period of the discussions/debates on the matter was with respect to the excesses of the NEO-ultramontanists.

“Given the long tradition of Conciliarism and Gallicanism in Europe, time was needed for the teaching on papal primacy and infallibility to sink in.”

The greater danger of the time was NEO-ultramontanism, not Gallicanism, a NEO-ultramontanism alive and well today (sadly) among the SSPX and many Traditional Catholics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

The Absolutist Petrine advocates (the NEO-ultramontanists) believed that the infallibility of the Pope was “absolute.” The Relatio corrects this erroneous impression, and this is enshrined in the Decree (and explained in the Relatio), which restricts “papal” infallibility to very specific circumstances.

If I am not mistaken, the NEO-ultramontanists were promoting Papal infallibility as “Separate, Absolute, and Personal”

It was those three errors that needed to be set right. VI makes Papal Infallibility absolutely INSEPARABLE from the Church, and the Bishops. It puts limits on the “absolute” (without any limits to the scope) and puts infallibility OUTSIDE of the person of the Pope, but rather connects it to his office.

There is no doubt in my mind that it was the NEO-ultramontane party that was doing the most damage both then and even now.

It’s interesting that John Henry Newman’s interpretation of Papal infallibility is so much aligned with Bishop Gasser’s Relatio. Especially when we consider that the Relatio was never published until about 1922, long after Newman died. But it is also important to remember that because the Relatio was not published for so many years, there were many NEO-ultramontanists that continued to interpret VI in their own terms, and whose writings were the basis for even later authors (in the years leading up to V II.)

Newman and Gasser’s Relatio only differed on a couple of points. Gasser supposed that papal infallibility had been exercised “thousands and thousands of times” over the centuries, whereas Newman supposed that it was “only rarely” exercised. Another difference was that Gasser was of the opinion that the infallibility of the Faithful was passive, whereas Newman thought it to be active. However in the language of V II’s Lumen Gentium, it appears that Newman was right, and the infallibility of the Faithful IS active! There is one more difference. Regarding the scope of Papal infallibility, Gasser set a limit on those things that were tangential to the doctrine, whereas Newman considered those tangential things to be merely “concretizations” of the dogma, and therefore included them. However V I did not get too involved with the scope of Papal infallibility, as it was left for V II.

 

[Abu]

The assessment of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., (post #3) is supported further by Russell Shaw.

In Papal Primacy in the Third Millennium, OSV, 2000, p 67-8, Russell Shaw quotes Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I: “We condemn and disapprove the opinions of those who say that this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks can lawfully be checked, or who make this so submissive to secular power that they contend that whatever is established by the Apostolic see or its authority for the government of the Church has no force or value unless confirmed by an order of the secular power.”

Russell Shaw then identifies the same perpetrators – “So much for the claims of Gallicanist churchmen and Catholic princes that it was for them to decide whether Rome’s voice would be heard in their territories.”

Additionally Avery Cardinal Dulles agrees with all of these informed assessments.
First Things August/September 2003
True and False Reform
Avery Cardinal Dulles
“The First Vatican Council ran counter to certain reform movements of the nineteenth century. It successfully eliminated the remnants of the Conciliar Movement and crushed ecclesiastical nationalism in the form of Gallicanism and its counterparts in several nations. As a result, the papacy maintained uncontested control of the Catholic Church through the middle of the twentieth century.”
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/true-and-false-reform-31

With regard to the comment by AmbroseSJ that “it appears that Newman was right, and the infallibility of the Faithful IS active!”, that “infallibility” has been carefully delineated by Vatican II as:
“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]

 

[AmbroseSJ]

With regard to the comment by AmbroseSJ that “it appears that Newman was right, and the infallibility of the Faithful IS active!”, that “infallibility” has been carefully delineated by Vatican II as:
“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]

Very good Abu you have posted the relevant text BUT, you left out the last and MOST PERTINENT LINE! Your quote should have ended with:

It penetrates more deeply into that same Faith through right judgment and applies it more fully to life.

This is where Vatican II implies an ACTIVE infallibility to the faithful, as Newman taught as opposed to the passive infallibility suggested by Gasser’s Relatio.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #30
Vatican II implies an ACTIVE infallibility to the faithful, as Newman taught as opposed to the passive infallibility suggested by Gasser’s Relatio.

“So important is the relatio of Bishop Gasser” that in “*Lumen Gentium *(no. 25)….half of the citations are to Gasser’s relatio.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius 2008, p 8].

Further, the “active’’ infallibility is misinterpreted because “the faithful” don’t have a prerogative on truth unless and until they assent to and obey the teaching of the Church.

Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **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]
Those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.

Or as Newman expressed it, **“granting at the same time fully, that the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides in the Ecclesia docens.” **The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, p 107].

 

[AmbroseSJ]

“So important is the relatio of Bishop Gasser” that in “*Lumen Gentium *(no. 25)….half of the citations are to Gasser’s relatio.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius 2008, p 8].

Further, the “active’’ infallibility is misinterpreted because “the faithful” don’t have a prerogative on truth unless and until they assent to and obey the teaching of the Church.

Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **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]
Those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.

Or as Newman expressed it, “granting at the same time fully, that the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides in the Ecclesia docens.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, p 107].

Nothing you have quoted above argues against an active infallibility of the Faithful. Your quote from Newman is describing Magisterial infallibility to balance his earlier comment on the active infallibility of the Faithful. All of your quotes are perfectly true (if incomplete), and I am not arguing against them.

If anyone thinks that a consensus of the Faithful is needed to make a doctrine true (as Fr. Hardon points out) then he does not understand the infallibility of the Faithful. I am not advocating such an idea, nor is Newman nor Vatican I or II.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #32
Nothing you have quoted above argues against an active infallibility of the Faithful.

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

This is precisely what Fr John A Hardon, S.J., has taught (post #31).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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

This is precisely what Fr John A Hardon, S.J., has taught (post #31).

Abu, I know you mean well. But you fire off little quotes out of context and miss the whole point of the authors of those quotes.

Please take a moment to read Newman “On consulting the faithful” which he published as a Catholic. This is where we truly get Newman’s teaching on the Active infallibility of the Faithful. A single out of context quote from a private letter hardly argues against one of Newman’s most distinguishing contributions to the doctrine of Church infallibility.

I beg you to please try and refrain from attacking me with more out of context partial quotes from your various authors. You don’t seem to understand what is meant by the active infallibility of the Faithful. If you did, I don’t think you would see it as any kind of threat to orthodoxy requiring an arsenal of partial quotes out of context to annihilate.

Some examples of active infallibility of the faithful that Newman uses in that article are 1. the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

1. At length, in 1854, the definition took place, and the Pope’s Bull containing it made its appearance. In it the Holy Father speaks as he had spoken in his Encyclical, viz. that although he already knew the sentiments of the Bishops, still he had wished to know the sentiments of the people also: “Quamvis nobis ex receptis postulationibus de definiendâ tandem aliquando Immaculatâ Virginis conceptione perspectus esset plurimorum sociorum Antistitum sensus, tamen Encyclicas literas, &c. ad omnes Ven. FF. totius Catholici orbis sacrorum Antistites misimus, ut, adhibitis ad Deum precibus, nobis scripto etiam significarent, quæ esset suorum fidelium erga Immaculatam Deiparæ Conceptionem pietas et devotio,” &c. And when, before the formal definition, he enumerates the various witnesses to the apostolicity of the doctrine, he sets down “divina eloquia, veneranda traditio, perpetuus Ecclesiæ sensus, singularis catholicorum Antistitum ac fidelium conspiratio.” Conspiratio, the two,*** the Church teaching and the Church taught, are put together, as one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to be divided.***

Another example, closer to home, is the Canonization of Saints. Again the sentiments of the Faithful are particularly consulted.

Another example, historical, that Newman used is the Arian heresy that threatened the Church in the 4th C. Newman says it was the faithful that stood true to Orthodoxy, even when bishops everywhere were Arian or semi-Arian.

In EVERY instance, the active infallibility of the faithful is based on the faithful’s full consent and obedience to the infallible Magisterium. It is never dissenting.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

The assessment of the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., (post #3) is supported further by Russell Shaw.

In Papal Primacy in the Third Millennium, OSV, 2000, p 67-8, Russell Shaw quotes Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I…:Russell Shaw then identifies the same perpetrators – “So much for the claims of Gallicanist churchmen and Catholic princes that it was for them to decide whether Rome’s voice would be heard in their territories.”

Russel Shaw’s statement does not support the idea that Gallicanism was the main focus of V1. It’s true that the statement from Pastor Aeternus is against Gallicanism, but please understand that this was a matter of course. The part quoted by Russel Shaw was merely a REPETITION of already established teaching, contained in the original draft, with no debate.

On the other hand, the DEBATES were primarily about the excesses of the NEO-ultramontanists, and ensuring that Pastor Aeternus was a solid correction of them. Hence, from the original draft of the Decree, there were major revisions intended to do just that (i.e., correct the NEO-ultramontanist excesses). Namely:
(1) The change of the title of the Decree from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to “the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” to combat the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanist notion that “papal” infallibility was attached to the person of the Pope, thus making all his actions and decrees infallible;
(2) The addition of the historic Proem to the Decree on infallibility, to combat the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanist notion that the Pope could make a definition on his own whim and discretion, without the preliminary solicitude of the bishops for the Church.
(3) The addition of the historic Proem to combat the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanist notion that “papal” infallibility was something akin to revelation or inspiration that would allow the Pope to pronounce ex cathedra by some singular mystical prerogative without due effort with the aid of the Church.
(4) The addition of the word “episcopal” to the Decree on the primacy, to combat the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanist notion that the primacy somehow made the Pope some ontologically distinct bishop above and beyond his brother bishops.

There was also a move by Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists to include in the Canon on the Primacy a condemnation of anyone who stated that the Pope’s exercise of his prerogatives is EXTRAordinary. The Commission De Fide rejected that suggestion.

There are several other points in the discussions and debates on Pastor Aeternus that clearly evince that the PRIMARY concern of the Council Fathers was to combat the excesses of the NEO-ultramontanists. I’m just going off of memory right now, so forgive me for not being able to add more details at the moment.

Additionally Avery Cardinal Dulles agrees with all of these informed assessments.
First Things August/September 2003
True and False Reform
Avery Cardinal Dulles
“The First Vatican Council ran counter to certain reform movements of the nineteenth century. It successfully eliminated the remnants of the Conciliar Movement and crushed ecclesiastical nationalism in the form of Gallicanism and its counterparts in several nations. As a result, the papacy maintained uncontested control of the Catholic Church through the middle of the twentieth century.”
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/true-and-false-reform-31

This appears to coincide with brother AmbroseSJ’s relation that the official Relatio was not published until about 1922. Obviously, when the High Petrine intentions of V1 as evinced by the Relatio was exposed to the public, there grew a general awareness that this “uncontested control” was not what V1 had in mind when it promulgated Pastor Aeternus.

With regard to the comment by AmbroseSJ that “it appears that Newman was right, and the infallibility of the Faithful IS active!”, that “infallibility” has been carefully delineated by Vatican II as:
“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]

I’m really not sure how it disagrees with brother AmbroseSJ’s comment. It states that the sensus fidei is integral to the maintenance of the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Sure, they must be in obedience to the Magisterium, but that is not to say that the body of faithful never carries within it the essence of the Faith. The body of the faithful (the laity) cannot exercise the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, but they can readily reflect and actively perpetuate the teaching of the universal Ordinary Magisterium. It must also be noted that the infallible decisions of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium cannot ever contradict the infallible teaching of the universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

mardukm #35
Obviously, when the High Petrine intentions of V1 as evinced by the Relatio was exposed to the public, there grew a general awareness that this “uncontested control” was not what V1 had in mind when it promulgated Pastor Aeternus.

Not only did Vatican I clearly establish “uncontested control” with regard to the Pope teaching definitively on faith and morals, and “not by the consent of the Church” in Pastor Aeternus, this was acknowledged by Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium. This is apparently the warp and woof of the petard on which some people are hung.

The reality is stark:
Pastor Aeternus Chapter 3.
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, 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.”

Lumen Gentium 25:
“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.”

 

[mardukm]

The reality is stark:
Pastor Aeternus Chapter 3.

To be concise, Chapter 3 is on the Primacy. Chapter 4 is on the Infallibility.

Ah yes. The dreaded:

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

I have explained this so many times, and not a single person has ever challenged the explanation. Since I have you here, perhaps you can offer a challenge, or anyone else. Permit me to repeat the explanation here:

As noted earlier, Gallicanism did not enter the debates of the Council until the final two days (the rest of the about 4 months being focused on the excesses of the NEO-ultramontantists). The dreaded clause was not in the original draft of the Decree, nor in the revised draft. It was inserted only after the final debate on the Chapter on the Infallibility (the day before the final voting). After the long debates against the NEO-ultramontanists, and after Bishop Gasser had related to the Council the true mind of the Fathers who had drafted the Decrees, wherein it was specifically asserted that “the consensus of the present preaching of the entire Magisterium united to its head is the rule of Faith even for definitions of the Pope,” and after the VERY GREAT MAJORITY of the Fathers had ALREADY voted placet for this proper understanding during the preliminary voting session on the Decree on “papal” infallibility, during the final discussion before the FINAL voting (the preliminary and final voting occurred 2 or 3 days apart IIRC), there were Fathers who felt that the Decree as it stood was not a sufficient safeguard against the fourth Gallican principle that the consent of the bishops/Church was a necessary condition for the validity of a papal decree. Hence, the fateful clause was inserted.

Though this final round of discussion occurred 2 days after Bishop Gasser presented the official Relatio, the Relatio itself already explained how the V1 Fathers understood the Gallican principle of “consent.” Specifically, it referred not to the necessary agreement of the bishops, but to their MANIFEST consent - i.e., the idea that the Pope needed the explicit, formal agreement through direct consultation of every bishop before the validity of the papal act. Bishop Gasser argued that while the agreement of the orthodox bishops is indeed necessary, this agreement can be obtained by other means aside from direct consultation with the bishops. Therefore, this direct consultation (or MANIFEST consent) cannot be laid down as a rule. THAT is how “not by the consent of the Church” was to be understood. It was not a statement against the necessary agreement of the bishops/Church, but against the idea of their MANIFEST consent (before or after the Decree).

For a fuller explanation, maybe you might be inclined to read this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=849590

As far as the idea of irreformibility, I have likewise explained this numerous times, with not a single person challenging the explanation, Perhaps you can offer one. Permit me also to repeat the explanation here:
Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of the papacy like to pretend that the act of the Church in its consent is being set up against the act of the Pope, But a careful reading of the text demonstrates that this is not the case. The phrase “not from the consent of the Church” is not being contradistinguished with"the decree of the Roman Pontiff"; rather, it is being contradistinguished with “the aid of the Holy Spirit.” The underlying purpose of the whole sentence is that Truth (i.e. irreformibility) is not determined by consensus (which is a Modernist heresy - in case you did not know, the primary purpose of the Council in general was to declare against the errors of modernism/liberalism), but by God Himself.

While this may not be obvious from the way V1 is worded, V2 actually makes this profoundly obvious, as you have yourself quoted:

Lumen Gentium 25:
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

Perhaps you (and detractors of the papacy) want so much for the Decree to mean “It is irreformible not because the Church said so, but because the Pope said so,” But that is simply not what it means. Rather it is saying “It is irreformible not because the Church said so, but because God the Holy Spirit said so.”

Also consider that the Pope is a member of the Church, and cannot be separated from her. So, in truth, the statement “not from the consent of the Church” includes the Pope. A papal decree is NOT irreformible just because it came from the Pope (or “the Pope said so”), but because we realize that during those instances when an ex cathedra decree is needed, we understand and believe that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church for the Church in a special way.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jon_S_1]

Also consider that the Pope is a member of the Church, and cannot be separated from her. So, in truth, the statement “not from the consent of the Church” includes the Pope. A papal decree is NOT irreformible just because it came from the Pope (or “the Pope said so”), but because we realize that during those instances when an ex cathedra decree is needed, we understand and believe that the Holy Spirit is working in the Church for the Church in a special way.

Of course!

The Pope is obviously subject to the Church. Everyone knows this but sometimes they do not understand the consequence of that.

A very good explanation Marrdukm

 

[mardukm]

Of course!

The Pope is obviously subject to the Church. Everyone knows this but sometimes they do not understand the consequence of that.

A very good explanation Marrdukm

Thank you, brother.

But I do have a comment about your statement “The Pope is obviously subject to the Church.”

I understand that this is true in several ways:
(1) The Pope, his very office, exists only to serve the Church.
(2) The Pope, his very office, exists only to do what is good for the Church. I believe it was St. Bellarmine who stated that if the Pope is found to be tearing down the Church, we are morally bound to resist him, and his brother bishops to correct him;
(3) The Pope is subject to Sacred Tradition;
(4) The Pope cannot contradict the sensus fidei, nor the infallible teaching of the universal Ordinary Magisterium, in papal ex cathedra decrees.
(5) The Pope has no authority to deprive a Christian of his acquired rights in the Church (unless the Pope himself places limiting conditions in his own decree).

But, as the supreme teacher and lawmaker, members of the Church, even bishops, are subject to his correction and disciplinary authority if the latter are found to be in opposition to the Sacred Tradition and universal canons of the Church.

Does your statement “they do not understand the consequence of that” coincide with the explanation above? Or do you mean something different by saying “the Pope is subject to the Church?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thank you, brother.

But I do have a comment about your statement “The Pope is obviously subject to the Church.”

I understand that this is true in several ways:
(1) The Pope, his very office, exists only to serve the Church.
(2) The Pope, his very office, exists only to do what is good for the Church. I believe it was St. Bellarmine who stated that if the Pope is found to be tearing down the Church, we are morally bound to resist him, and his brother bishops to correct him;
(3) The Pope is subject to Sacred Tradition;
(4) The Pope cannot contradict the sensus fidei, nor the infallible teaching of the universal Ordinary Magisterium, in papal ex cathedra decrees.
(5) The Pope has no authority to deprive a Christian of his acquired rights in the Church (unless the Pope himself places limiting conditions in his own decree).

But, as the supreme teacher and lawmaker, members of the Church, even bishops, are subject to his correction and disciplinary authority if the latter are found to be in opposition to the Sacred Tradition and universal canons of the Church.

Does your statement “they do not understand the consequence of that” coincide with the explanation above? Or do you mean something different by saying “the Pope is subject to the Church?”

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes this is exactly what I meant. (I will bookmark this thread to keep your detailed explanations).

What I meant by the consequences of , was that it changes perspectives of not just Protestants but often Catholics who have a misunderstanding that the Pope can some how declare the sky to be orange and it is so.

The consequence is also that it is truly the Sacred Tradition given by Christ and the apostles that is supreme too all, and the Pope is subject to God in this way.

Blessings,

Jon