Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

I think you’ve overwhelmed us!

It probably took you several days to compose that monograph, so you cannot expect an immediate response.

Touche, dearest Father.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[ForeverAdam]

Dear brother mardukm,

I love it when you point out how similar Oriental Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. In all honesty, I don’t know much about Oriental Orthodoxy, that is why it makes me feel great when I learn how close both of our Churches really are.

THANK YOU

Just remember that no Oriental Orthodox bishop, priest or layperson has ever affirmed these brave new opinions of Marduk. Our friend only sees these similarities because he’s looking at the Oriental Orthodox through the heavily tinted lenses of his Catholic convert glasses.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

I guess I was not clear enough in my previous answer to brother Adam. The fact is, before the Vatican Council cleared up the issue, there was a general impression that “infallibility” inherently included many things that were not actually part of the God-inspired understanding of the term as held by the Church from the beginning. These impressions (or rather MISinterpretations) imposed infallibility on the following (among others):

1. The power of deposing secular rulers;
2. Judgment over the natural sciences and history (i.e., matters not strictly theological or moral).
3. declaring who was saved or not saved.
4. EVERY action of the pope
5. EVERY decree (Bulls, encyclicals, etc.) of the Pope
6. Decrees of the papal curia

All of these are heresies according to the Latin Church. Why didn’t anyone call them that or at least reprimand the holders of these ideas? If the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I was merely the codification of an already-held belief, these deviations would have been condemned like the heretical opinions of the Protestant were. However, if papal infallibility was just a new opinion that was trying to discover its true nature, while simultaneously trying to gain official approval in the Latin Church, these lack of condemnations make perfect sense.

In England in particular, there was even an extreme wing of ultramontanism which proposed that infallibility was tantamount to new inspiration (as represented most prolifically by W.G. Ward who was the publisher of the Dublin Review).

Another heresy according to the Latin Church. Why weren’t these heresies condemned if the dogma of papal infallibility was an already-believed teaching? If it was just a new and false opinion, people would have to just support their own theories until the Latin Church gave one of these theories official approval. This is what happened with the current teaching on papal infallibility before Vatican I.

These were the usual impressions of infallibility that were running rampant before the Vatican Council. All of this was rejected by the Vatican Council Fathers.

However, if the dogma that Vatican I passed was just a codification of an already-believed teaching those who opposed what this teaching was would have been condemned as heretics or at least alerted to the fact that they lacked the clarity of faith. This never happened. So much for papal infallibility as an always-believed teaching, eh?

What Catholic even today would accept such definitions of infallibility? So in truth, those who rejected “infallibility” as it was popularly understood before Vatican I were being nothing more than faithful Catholics (I fully expect you to misquote me one day and state that I said “those who rejected ‘infallibility’ before Vatican I were being nothing more than faithful Catholics” )

Those who rejected infallibility rejected it in any form, even that of the moderate ultramontanists whose opinion would become official doctrine at Vatican I. And, btw, even those who rejected what would become the teaching in 1870, were never branded as heretics. This fact leaves papal infallibility looking like a new opinion trying to discover its own nature and get official approval, not part of the unchanging Deposit of Faith. And if it looks so much like this, is it a big stretch to saying that it actually is such?

Thus, there is no merit to your snide regarding the post-Vatican I catechism. In rejecting the misinterpretations of infallibility before Vatican I, those people were indeed implictly accepting the definitions of same-said Council.

What became the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I was just one debated opinion among many debated opinions (as you’ve shown) from before the Council. An already-believed doctrine of the Faith is clearly known and defended even without an Ecumenical Council. A new and false opinion has to mature into discovering its own nature through debate. It cannot define the opposition as heretics. This latter example describes the history of the dogma of papal infallibility perfectly and this makes the Orthodox Church justified in calling it just that - a new and false opinion that has no business in the Deposit of Faith.

God bless,

Adam

 

[mardukm]

All of these are heresies according to the Latin Church. Why didn’t anyone call them that or at least reprimand the holders of these ideas? If the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I was merely the codification of an already-held belief, these deviations would have been condemned like the heretical opinions of the Protestant were.

Gallicanism (which was the error of some of the English bishops) was already condemned at Florence. All the other opinions were relatively new (born after the Reformation). If you can tell me why it took the Church 5 - 7 centuries to settle the monothelite controversy, then you will have answered your own question.

However, if papal infallibility was just a new opinion that was trying to discover its true nature, while simultaneously trying to gain official approval in the Latin Church, these lack of condemnations make perfect sense.

It’s the other way around. The belief in papal infallibility was ever present. Only its nature was at issue. Further, though Gallicanism was condemned at Florence, it was revived in the 18th and 19th centuries - hence the need for Vatican I to address it (as well as all the other wierd opinions on infallibility that were popping up that were causing quite a stir in the secular/political arena)…

Another heresy according to the Latin Church. Why weren’t these heresies condemned if the dogma of papal infallibility was an already-believed teaching? If it was just a new and false opinion, people would have to just support their own theories until the Latin Church gave one of these theories official approval. This is what happened with the current teaching on papal infallibility before Vatican I.

As with the other opinions, the idea that papal infallibility is new inspiration was relatively new, having its source post-Reformation.

However, if the dogma that Vatican I passed was just a codification of an already-believed teaching those who opposed what this teaching was would have been condemned as heretics or at least alerted to the fact that they lacked the clarity of faith. This never happened. So much for papal infallibility as an always-believed teaching, eh?

As noted (once again) Gallicanism was already condemned at Florence. All the other wayward opinions on the nature of infallibility were relatively new, and Vatican I was the first Council to address them. It is often stated that to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant - apparently, it can also be applied to the Orthodox.

What became the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I was just one debated opinion among many debated opinions (as you’ve shown) from before the Council. An already-believed doctrine of the Faith is clearly known and defended even without an Ecumenical Council. A new and false opinion has to mature into discovering its own nature through debate. It cannot define the opposition as heretics. This latter example describes the history of the dogma of papal infallibility perfectly and this makes the Orthodox Church justified in calling it just that - a new and false opinion that has no business in the Deposit of Faith.

I think you’ve misunderstood. What I stated was that the NATURE of infallibility was at issue. The FACT of infallibility was never debated, much less at the Council.

Those who rejected infallibility rejected it in any form. even that of the moderate ultramontanists whose opinion would become official doctrine at Vatican I.

This is just plain false. Prove it. Prove to us that even the Gallicans denied ANY form of papal infallibility (in fact, with regards to infallibility, their particular opinion was that papal infallibility was derived from the infallibility of the Council).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Just remember that no Oriental Orthodox bishop, priest or layperson has ever affirmed these brave new opinions of Marduk.

Others, including Catholics, have pointed this out also.

 

[mardukm]

Others, including Catholics, have pointed this out also.

Enough, please. There are two other threads started by brother Isa to discuss this. You can get your refutations there. (though I admit I probably will not get to those threads until next weekend).

 

[ForeverAdam]

Gallicanism (which was the error of some of the English bishops) was already condemned at Florence. All the other opinions were relatively new (born after the Reformation). If you can tell me why it took the Church 5 - 7 centuries to settle the monothelite controversy, then you will have answered your own question.

It’s one thing to settle a heresy, it’s another thing to not condemn it at all. And, btw, I didn’t mention Gallicanism. I was just referring to those who denied the teaching of papal infallibility, in general.

It’s the other way around. The belief in papal infallibility was ever present. Only its nature was at issue.

That’s like saying the belief in a type of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was ever present, but only its nature was at issue. That’s ridiculous. If the beliefs don’t approximate perfectly, it is heresy no matter how close it gets.

All the other wayward opinions on the nature of infallibility were relatively new, and Vatican I was the first Council to address them.

These opinions had been voiced for a long time without as much as a peep from Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop. This doesn’t look like the way any rejection of a true teaching would be treated. But it looks a lot like new and false opinions trying to gain official approval.

It is often stated that to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant - apparently, it can also be applied to the Orthodox.

Judging from recent threads, to be deep in consistency and a correct notion of doctrine is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.

I think you’ve misunderstood. What I stated was that the NATURE of infallibility was at issue. The FACT of infallibility was never debated, much less at the Council.

That’s immaterial, sir. Doctrine doesn’t consist of an idea but of the precise idea. This precise idea (which makes true doctrine) was debated before and during Vatican I. Since true doctrine exists in the precise idea and this precise idea was debated without any condemnation, I can only conclude that Vatican I approved the strongest opinion in the debate and didn’t codify what was the perpetually-believed faith of the Church.

This is just plain false. Prove it. Prove to us that even the Gallicans denied ANY form of papal infallibility (in fact, with regards to infallibility, their particular opinion was that papal infallibility was derived from the infallibility of the Council).

We’re not looking for “any form” of papal infallibility because doctrine consists of the precise form, not vague, comes close, half-baked (I’d like to use another word, but I don’t think I’m allowed too on the forum ) ideas.

God bless,

Adam

 

[mardukm]

It’s one thing to settle a heresy, it’s another thing to not condemn it at all. And, btw, I didn’t mention Gallicanism. I was just referring to those who denied the teaching of papal infallibility.

The basis of your question was Fr. Ambrose’s claim that the Irish Church rejected papal infallibility. The position of the Irish Church WAS Gallicanism, and now you are saying it was never mentioned? I think perhaps you are not understanding the historical issues fully here.

That’s like saying the belief in a type of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was ever present, but only its nature was at issue. That’s ridiculous.

I agree it is a ridiculous analogy.

If the beliefs don’t approximate perfectly, it is heresy no matter how close it gets.

Who said it wasn’t? While you’re pondering the question, perhaps you can also ponder (and ANSWER) the question of why it took the Church 5 - 7 centuries to address and settle the issue of monothelitism.

These opinions had been voiced for a long time without as much as a peep from Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop. This doesn’t look like the way any rejection of a true teaching would be treated. But it looks a lot like new and false opinions trying to gain official approval.

Really? Can you show us when papal infallibility was considered to be tantamount to inspiration prior to the post-Reformation period? Can you show us when papal infallibility was deemed to be applied to all his actions and decrees prior to the post-Reformation period? Etc? Etc? Etc?

Judging from recent threads, to be deep in consistency and a correct notion of doctrine is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.

Nah. Not catchy at all. My statement was a centuries-old truism, and thus rather witty. Your statement is just a mere hiccup of an afterthought.

That’s immaterial, sir. Doctrine doesn’t consist of an idea but of the precise idea. This precise idea (which makes true doctrine) was debated before and during Vatican I. Since true doctrine exists in the precise idea and this precise idea was debated without any condemnation, I can only conclude that Vatican I approved the strongest opinion in the debate and didn’t codify what was the perpetually-believed faith of the Church.

Since you did not even recognize that the position of the Irish bishops was Gallicanism itself, I am not sure how far we can trust your historical knowledge of the issue of infallibility. I guess the answer to this portion of your argument depends on your proof that what I claimed were novel post-Reformation ideas about infallibility were (according to you) actually old opinions that have existed side by side with the “precise idea” of infallibility. Without that proof, the whole situation reflects nothing more than the ancient manner by which the Church exercised solicitude for the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints - that is, a novel idea(s) dangerous to the faith springs up and requires an authoritative declaration of the Church.

We’re not looking for “any form” of papal infallibility because doctrine consists of the precise form, not vague, comes close, half-baked (I’d like to use another word, but I don’t think I’m allowed too on the forum ) ideas.

So you say, but it was you who used those words originally. Actually, doctrine can never be so precise as to fully describe for us the Faith once for all delivered to the saints, as they will often have vague elements that need to be clarified. Actually, I would grant to dogma the precision which you assign to simple doctrine. Even then, we should not presume to know so much that we cannot accept the movement of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into deeper understanding. Indeed, though the monophysite controversy definitively settled one issue in a dogmatic manner, it opened up another set of questions that led to the monothelite controversy.

In any case, the only true form of papal infallibility was the one recognized by the Vatican Council. All others were heterodox. What you claim did not happen actually did happen. So what is your point?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Montalban]

The basis of your question was Fr. Ambrose’s claim that the Irish Church rejected papal infallibility. The position of the Irish Church WAS Gallicanism, and now you are saying it was never mentioned? I think perhaps you are not understanding the historical issues fully here.

That still brings up the problem of the Pope not condemning these bishops for faulty teaching

Assuming, that is, that their position was influenced by Gallicanism

“Ultramontanism in Ireland is associated with the Rome-educated Paul Cullen (1803–78), archbishop of Armagh, later archbishop of Dublin (made a cardinal in June 1866). His object was re-organise the Irish Catholic Church and bring it into total conformity with Rome in organisation, liturgy, cult and devotions. In this large project, he was successful and ever since his time the Irish Roman Catholic Church has been the most tamely ultramontane of the western churches.”
multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ultramontanism3344379311

So even in 1870 they were still under the influence of Gallicanism?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Since you did not even recognize that the position of the Irish bishops was Gallicanism itself

Gallicanism is a good example of the absolute mess which the notions of papacy and papal power brought into the Church of Rome when they collided with the older forms of church governance as remembered from pre-schism days. Up until Vatican I Gallicanism was an allowable opinion in the Roman Catholic Church but after Vatican I it was heretical.

 

[Montalban]

Gallicanism is a good example of the absolute mess which the notions of papacy and papal power brought into the Church of Rome when they collided with the older forms of church governance as remembered from pre-schism days. Up until Vatican I Gallicanism was an allowable opinion in the Roman Catholic Church but after Vatican I it was heretical.

Very good points. Where are the lists of heretics who denied Papal Infalibility prior to 1870?

 

[mardukm]

Gallicanism is a good example of the absolute mess which the notions of papacy and papal power brought into the Church of Rome when they collided with the older forms of church governance as remembered from pre-schism days.

Gallicanism is simply a reflection of Eastern Orthodoxy. The forms of governance in both Gallicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy are good examples of the absolute mess and perils that can be wrought upon the Church when she is invaded by beliefs of a body without a necessary head, and subordination of the Church to the secular power.

Up until Vatican I Gallicanism was an allowable opinion in the Roman Catholic Church but after Vatican I it was heretical.

The idea that the body is above its head was specifically repudiated and condemned at the Council of Florence. It had few adherents for about 200 years, but because of Enlightenment ideals and the secular oppression of the Church, the heresy gained strength again in the latter 17th century. The innovated peculiarities that make up Gallicanism per se (the idea that the Church is subject to the secular power, that the secular power can choose bishops, etc.) did not formally begin until the 1680’s, IIRC. It took the Catholic Church about 200 years to convene a Council to address the issue (the political/religious situation in Europe prevented an earlier convocation). I hope you are not stating that Gallicanism was an allowable opinion in the Catholic Church in such wise as it was ever in popular contention with the true apostolic and Catholic belief concerning the infallibility of the Pope.

Gallicanism was battled vigorously in the British Isles by the Vicars Apostolic, so much so that all but a mere four of the Irish bishops at the Vatican Council were ultramontanists; there were thirteen English bishops, and of these, one (Bishop Goss of Liverpool) was invalidated for formally holding Gallican beliefs. Whatever number of British bishops responded in a heterodox manner during the 1825 inquisition mentioned by Fr Ambrose in post#194, it certainly was not given by all the bishops, and many such admissions were obviously given under duress. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

At that date [1819] the effects of the Penal Laws were still visible in the conduct of the Catholics. Even the bishops, as if despairing of equality and satisfied with subjection, often allowed Protestant bigotry to assail with impunity their country and creed.

You can read about the Penal Laws against the Catholics here:
newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm

Among the statutes of the Penal Laws was an Oath to be taken by all Catholics to deny the authority of the Pope.

The Orthodox polemic is ultimately dishonest, attempting to take oaths under duress as reflective of legitimate Catholic beliefs.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Among the statutes of the Penal Laws was an Oath to be taken by all Catholics to deny the authority of the Pope.

The Orthodox polemic is ultimately dishonest, attempting to take oaths under duress as reflective of legitimate Catholic beliefs.

Have you momentarily dropped out of reality? Not one Orthodox here has so much as mentioned any Oaths under the Penal Law to deny the authority of the Pope.

However, now that you have raised the Oath, it makes perfect sense. When the Pope claims the right to absolve a man from his loyalty to his country and government and to enable him to commit treason, it is a cause for worry for any Government.

Would the United States allow such a demand from the Pope? Could American Catholics believe that the Pope has the secular power to dismiss the President and to authorise Americans to act treasonably against their lawful Government?

 

[Montalban]

At that date [1819] the effects of the Penal Laws were still visible in the conduct of the Catholics. Even the bishops, as if despairing of equality and satisfied with subjection, often allowed Protestant bigotry to assail with impunity their country and creed.

You can read about the Penal Laws against the Catholics here:
newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm

Among the statutes of the Penal Laws was an Oath to be taken by all Catholics to deny the authority of the Pope.

The Orthodox polemic is ultimately dishonest, attempting to take oaths under duress as reflective of legitimate Catholic beliefs.

Humbly,
Marduk

Historical objections to the teachings on infallibility often appeal to the important work of Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 (Leiden, 1972). Tierney comes to the conclusion, “There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it”.[4] See also Ockham and Infallibility. The Rome-based Jesuit Wittgenstein scholar Garth Hallett argued that the dogma of infallibility was neither true nor false but meaningless; see his Darkness and Light: The Analysis of Doctrinal Statements (Paulist Press, 1975). In practice, he claims, the dogma seems to have no practical use and to have succumbed to the sense that it is irrelevant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Infallibility#Disagreement_with_this_doctrine

By 1800 the Penal laws against the practice of religion, ownership of property and voting had been removed. However, Catholics were still debarred from becoming M.P.s or holding commissions in the army, while other restrictions precluded more than one bell and also steeples on Catholic chapels. These last vestiges of the Penal laws were not removed until after the historic victory of Daniel O’Connell in the Clare election of 1828.
clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/history/penal_laws_clare.htm

The Penal Laws were already in the process of being phased out. How would bishops believe they’d help the cause by perjuring themselves?

 

[mardukm]

Have you momentarily dropped out of reality? Not one Orthodox here has so much as mentioned any Oaths under the Penal Law to deny the authority of the Pope.

I’ve got my feet on the ground. Several here, including yourself, have taken the oaths of the British bishops against papal infallibility as truly reflective of legitimate Catholic belief. Does that ring a bell?

However, now that you have raised the Oath, it makes perfect sense. When the Pope claims the right to absolve a man from his loyalty to his country and government and to enable him to commit treason, it is a cause for worry for any Government.

Would the United States allow such a demand from the Pope? Could American Catholics believe that the Pope has the secular power to dismiss the President and to authorise Americans to act treasonably against their lawful Government?

It does make perfect sense, doesn’t it? One begins to see why the some British bishops would be conscientiously forced - not, as a fellow Catholic has suggested, out of cowardly motive, but because of concern for their flock - to deny papal infallibility. I can imagine some, given the rampant misconceptions of papal infallibility, really had no problem denying the type of infallibility that the government feared.

Actually, as mentioned above in my list of misinterpretations of papal infallibility, your scenario is exactly one of the crazy views that Vatican I rejected Its polar opposite was the idea that governments can control the Church (one of the tenets of Gallicanism). That was rejected too. All extremes that were not part of the deposit of faith were rejected.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Montalban]

I must be on mardukm’s ignore list, 'cause he doesn’t respond to my posts

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I’ve got my feet on the ground. Several here, including yourself, have taken the oaths of the British bishops against papal infallibility as truly reflective of legitimate Catholic belief. Does that ring a bell?

Let go of that bell… your feet are off the ground.

The bishops were testifying under oath to the parliamentary committee of enquiry. Believe it or not but that is still required today, whether you are Catholic or Mormon or Scientologist.

Frankly, I would expect anybody under oath to tell the truth. And I am perfectly sure that the Catholic bishops were not ashamed of the truth and so they answered the questions truthfully: The Pope is not infallible.

So yes, what they said was perfectly reflective of Catholic belief. So also was the denial of papal infallibility in the Catholic Catechism.

 

[Montalban]

Let go of that bell… your feet are off the ground.

The bishops were testifying under oath to the parliamentary committee of enquiry. Believe it or not but that is still required today, whether you are Catholic or Mormon or Scientologist.

Frankly, I would expect anybody under oath to tell the truth. And I am perfectly sure that the Catholic bishops were not ashamed of the truth and so they answered the questions truthfully: The Pope is not infallible.

So yes, what they said was perfectly reflective of Catholic belief. So also was the denial of papal infallibility in the Catholic Catechism.

Indeed. What happened to the Catholic idea of standing up for truth - after-all that’s what the early Christians did. And they were martyred.

Here you had a system in Ireland where the Catholic Bishops would not have been martyred - maybe put in gaol, but they decided to perjure themselves - or, they didn’t understand proper church teaching

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Actually, as mentioned above in my list of misinterpretations of papal infallibility, your scenario is exactly one of the crazy views that Vatican I rejected

Excuse me, Mardukm, but this “crazy” view was the official teaching of the Popes for many centuries. They claimed the right to depose rulers and to dispense people from their loyalty to the monarch and government. If they did not get their way they placed the whole country under Interdict. It was sheer blackmail on the part of the Pontiffs.

It was this power over secular authorities which the Popes used to force the Inquisition on states which were reluctant to introduce its horrors. To the great credit of England it stood up to the Pope and steadfastly refused to allow the Inquisition to work in England.

Do you know if the Popes have now renounced these powers?

I recall that about a century ago Catholic seminarians in the States were still being taught that religious liberty had to be accepted while the Roman Catholics were a minority but it would be curtailed or abolished when Catholics reached a majority.

 

[Montalban]

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith…Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church;
CANON 3
Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion … in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.
   DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
   Proclaimed By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.
   christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v10.html

The church teaches against personal beliefs. Then it teaches in favour of them.

Boniface VIII and Eugene IV both declared that there’s no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Which is it? Is the Medieval Church right, or the modern one?