W
Worthy5
Guest
I don’t dispute that under it’s own revised definition of infallibility the Galileo affair cannot be said to contravene the doctrine of infallibility. However, my contention is that the CC did constructively contravene the doctrine by any reasonably objective standard. Indeed many Catholics were concerned that by dogmatically defining the doctrine in Vatican I it logically undermined the concept of infallibility (since it at least gives the aura of a post hoc attempt to harmonize its claim of infallibility with some of its more controversial actions throughout history).
Indeed prior to Vatican I papal infallibility (and infallibility of “the church”) was thought to be much more broad when compared to the Vatican I framework. Here’s some quotes from ancient writers on the subject:
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches (449).
According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immovably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition. (St. Cyril of Alexandria, as quoted by St. Thomas in the Catena Aurea).
In 1870 the requirement that the pope must be speaking ex cathedra in order to invoke infallibility was promulgated. While ancient theologians did mention the term, there was no dogmatic framework to invoke infallibility prior to Vatican I (and indeed you will find no formal ritual for invoking infallibility prior to 1870). In other words the claims of the CC in this regard cannot be substantiated.
I would say even measuring what might be fairly viewed as “constructive” invocations of infallibility against Vatican I is an inaccurate measure (since it allows the church the convenience of defining doctrine post hoc and subjectively); and what should really matter is whether or not Christendom viewed certain church actions as carrying the “force of infallibility” when those events actually occurred (since the doctrine was not dogmatically defined prior to 1870). In other words, taking the Galileo affair as an example, is it reasonable to think church authorities or the sitting pope (or even the average Catholic who was aware of the controversy) thought for a moment the church lacked infallible authority when they prosecuted Galileo?
As we see from the quotes above there is evidence to support the fact that infallibility was viewed as much more broad than it is today. Certainly the authority of the church to punish what it viewed as heretics rested on its assumed infallible authority. Of course the churches error with regard to Galileo didn’t end at his death. A generation after Galileo’s death (in 1664) the church went farther to extirpate his error:
The Index for that year was prefixed by a Bull. Entitled Speculatores Domus Israel, it was signed by Pope Alexander VII, who declared, 'We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.’
“The importance of this document cannot be minimized, for it included and re-affirmed not only previous formal condemnations, but 'all the relevant decrees up to the present time*, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement’” (link here).
*Against Galileo (See Id.)
If that’s not a smoking gun then I don’t know what is?
Anyway, here’s a wonderful essay on papal infallibility (and related topics) from a protestant perspective:
ccel.org/s/schaff/history/6_6_per.htm
. How can you say I’m kicking you when you’re down when you haven’t admitted your down? In other words I’m arguing that infallibility is logically difficult to maintain … if you agreed with me and I jested and mocked you that would be kicking you while your down. Since you disagreed with me; and indeed you along with numerous other posters demanded I prove my point … I proved my point (I just did what you guys asked me to do).