Papal Infallibility

[PJD1987]

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility in light of the reigns of Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius I? In case you don’t know, Liberius signed an Arian Creed during his exile, and Honorius I was a Monothelitist, a compromise on the heresy Monophysitism.

 

[Abu]

PJD1987
I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility in light of the reigns of Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius I? In case you don’t know, Liberius signed an Arian Creed during his exile, and Honorius I was a Monothelitist, a compromise on the heresy Monophysitism.

Infallibility was not involved:
Answer by Matthew Bunson (EWTN) on Oct-01-2002:
Following the deaths of Constantius II and the pro-Arian Emperor Valens, a new era began under Emperor Theodosius who, in 381, gave his blessing to the First Council of Constantinople (the second Ecumenical Council in Church history). The 150 bishops in attendance, with representation from Rome, confirmed the Nicene Creed and condemned several forms of Arianism as heretical. As for Pope Liberius, he was exiled by Emperor Constantius in 355 and replaced by an antipope, Felix (II). In exile, Liberius was still recognized by the orthodox bishops and faithful, although he was powerless to oppose the heresy owing to his relative isolation. His return in 357 was achieved apparently after he gave assent to some kind of heretical formula under pain of death. While in exile, Liberius was Both Athanasius and St. Jerome supported the claim, however, that he had done so under duress, and Liberius himself annulled all Arian decrees passed by various heretical councils. Greater leadership was provided by his successor, Damasus I (r. 366-84), the pontiff who did so much to encourage Emperor Theodosius to help stamp out Arianism in the empire.

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D (EWTN) on Dec-27-1999:
Later Pope St. Leo II, on confirming the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 858, specifically declared that Pope Honorius was not guilty of heresy, but only of lack of action against heresy, “permitting the immaculate faith to be subverted.”

 

[Katholish]

Liberius did agree to excommunicate Athanasius under pressure of torture, but he never signed an Arian creed, though he probably agreed at various times, to statements with ambiguous wording (which is no problem for infallibility). Excommunications are not doctrinal, hence, Liberius presents no problem for infallibility.

Honorius is likewise only guilty of ambigous statements and never promoted Monothelitism, though as was mentioned in the above post, he failed to clearly denounce it. The lack of action doesn’t pose a problem for infallibility either.

 

[CThomas]

Let me step back and ask a more basic question. How is one to determine definitively whether a Papal pronouncement is an infallible, ex cathedra statement? In other words, if one persons says that a particular Papal utterance enjoys infallibility and another disagrees, what is the objective test to determine who is right? I think having a clear identifier for infallible statements would be very helpful in evaluating the claim to infallibility.

Thanks and best regards.

CThomas

 

[Abu]

CThomas
How is one to determine definitively whether a Papal pronouncement is an infallible, ex cathedra statement?

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

Through Google, you can easily access Vatican documents especially *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I, and *Lumen Gentium *of Vatican II.

We assent to dogma and doctrine which the Church teaches through Her Ecumenical Councils and the Popes, and to the Bishops when they teach what the Church teaches.

 

[Katholish]

Pastor Aeternus also defines that the Successors of Peter have the gift of unfailing faith. I think there is a legitimate question as to whether this gift protects the pope from formal heresy even in his personal teachings, which seems to be the object of the questions in the OP.

 

[steve_b]

Let me step back and ask a more basic question. How is one to determine definitively whether a Papal pronouncement is an infallible, ex cathedra statement? In other words, if one persons says that a particular Papal utterance enjoys infallibility and another disagrees, what is the objective test to determine who is right? I think having a clear identifier for infallible statements would be very helpful in evaluating the claim to infallibility.

Thanks and best regards.

CThomas

Here is the entire definition from the council

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• that is, when,
  1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
  4. he possesses,
  5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
  Re: Liberius and Honorius, they didn’t teach OR define a doctrine on faith and morals to be held by the whole Church.