Stephen Keenan's catechism and infallibility prior to 1870

[gurneyhalleck1]

In the 1850’s, a Catholic priest, Father Stephen Kennan, created a catechism in Ireland that circulated widely in the United States as well. This catechism dubbed “Keenan’s Catechism” had an imprimatur from the bishops in Scotland and Ireland. It was highly-respected in many Catholic circles and considered a great catechism. It had a question and answer section. On pg. 112 it says the following:

***Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.***

In the 1870’s when infallibility became a dogma, a required belief of Roman Catholics, this entire Q and A disappeared from Kennan’s Catechism. It was replaced with:

***Q. Do you here suppose the teachers individually infallible?

A. The Pope as the constant head of the Church we hold infallible in decisions ex cathedra: but not exempt from falling into personal sin. The various bishops are neither individually infallible or sinless. But we may argue that if the Pope and the various bishop teach any particular doctrine,—men who have had no motive for such, do actually teach the very same truths, then we maintain, by all laws of human evidence or moral certainty, that their combined testimony to the existence of any doctrine infallibly proves its truth. This, however, is not what we contend for here; we maintain our teaching body to be infallible, because God has made them so; as in the Old***

This change and obvious editing pointed many opponents of the infallibility doctrines of the Vatican I Council in the direction of the idea that infallibility was an innovation, not something consistently taught since day one of the ancient church. If it was understood teaching, understood dogma, and everyone knew the pope to be an infallible Vicar of Christ who cannot err in teachings of faith and morals, why the sudden change in this catechism? Why would an imprimatur and such respect and wide readership be given to this catechism since it obviously taught, before the council, that popes were not infallible. What’s fascinating is that it even seeks to tell people that this idea was formulated by Protestants lying about the truths of Catholicism?

If you read through this catechism, it teaches Catholicism to a tee. It strikes down Protestantism, rebukes Luther, praises the papacy, teaches what we know today about Mary, sacraments, tradition, scriptures, morality, purgatory, and it is very very conservative. This was no liberal or schismatic text but rather an imprimatured, well-written, and in all respects, Roman Catholic EWTN-style catechism. And yet it refutes papal infallibility…

What say you all on this?

 

[Hesychios]

I was looking for this earlier this year.

It clearly demonstrates that the dogma does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I was looking for this earlier this year.

It clearly demonstrates that the dogma does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon.

Thanks, Michael. Any other takers here??

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m really disappointed to not get any replies to this thread I started I was hoping to get Catholics’ (name removed by moderator)ut about this catechism and the argument of infallibility.

 

[Padua_Minded]

The citation you give us is another indication of how much of what passes for Irish Catholicism was actuated by political circumstances. The Peelite Government lately passed was acutely suspicious of the loyalty of the Catholic hierarchy, hated the papacy, and were just waiting to pounce. The immediate preceedings had been rather inciteful and left a precariously delicate air. Bishops throughout the country had been condemning the National Schools established in 1932 and the ‘Godless’ Queen’s Colleges in 1945. The Synod of Thurles took place that year, attracting the acrimony of HMG. The re-establishment of the English hierarchy too, prompting a disgusted Russell to pass the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. Mass Catholic immigration into England from the Famine roused alarm, and ‘no popery’ processions were everywhere. Hatred of the papacy, already ubiquitous, was augmented by an obsession with the Risorgimento. The Oxford Movement, the Irish Church Act 1833, and the Maynooth Grant led to the burning of the Pope in effigy in ‘Papal Aggression’ rallies throughout several towns in England and southern Scotland. The Ultra-Tories and some Whigs were even agitating for a repeal of the Emancipation Act. Many more were calling for greater civil restrictions. Historians are wont to keep in mind the peculiar contemporary Irish circumstances when studying statements on the papacy in that era. Papal infallibility had been the greatest impediment to Catholic Emancipation, provided a looming incentive for re-proscription and declarations on the nature of the papacy were thus extremely sensitive to Protestant controversy. Maynooth was an unrepresentative bastion of Gallicianism at that time, most of its faculty had been emigres from the French Revolution and tended to adore the established authorities, a favour duly returned in a 30,000l grant. Even Dr Troy the lord Archbishop of Dublin and Propaganda in Rome expressed alarm at its tendencies. That their lordships would approbate such an disputatious formulation is by no means worthy of surprise. Had they asserted the veracity of papal infallibility, it would have resulted in certain proscription (read ‘liberal and enlightened’ Gladstone’s reaction, and proposals to circumvent, the First Vatican Council). The bishops already had an established tradition of countenancing formulations they knew to be dubious as matters of prudence, particularly evinced in the Catholic parliamentary and military oath and abjuration. Dr Troy, an adherant to papal infallibility, urged Catholics to accept the prescribed oath in the Catholic Relief Act 1793 forswearing papal infallibility as a lie even though his Grace was an unshakeable adherant to it, later defending the ‘prudence’ of doing so in a letter to Propaganda. Many of the bishops who approved that catechism also professed papal infallibility but followed Troy’s set tradition, undoubtedly more focused on the millions who were starving and emigrating. Then lord Archbishop of Dublin, Daniel Murray who did so, is one example, defending the doctrine powerfully in his “De Gratia” (10 years before Vatican 1) which was even intended as a text-book for students.

 

[Siddhartha]

In the 1850’s, a Catholic priest, Father Stephen Kennan, created a catechism in Ireland that circulated widely in the United States as well. This catechism dubbed “Keenan’s Catechism” had an imprimatur from the bishops in Scotland and Ireland. It was highly-respected in many Catholic circles and considered a great catechism. It had a question and answer section. On pg. 112 it says the following:

***Q: Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.***

I don’t see a whole lot of difference. The question addresses the issue of the Pope being “infallible”. The question doesn’t define what infallibility actually means. Many Protestants believed infallibility meant impeccability, so by saying infallibility was a “Protestant invention”, the catechism may in part be addressing Protestant misunderstandings of Catholic ideas.

Plus, the answer to the question says that no decision of the Pope can oblige a Catholic unless that decision be received and enforced by the bishops of the Church. Papal infallible statements, it would seem, are in fact received and enforced by the bishops of the Church (even if such bishops might not be too happy about doing so).

 

[Harpazo]

I don’t see a whole lot of difference. The question addresses the issue of the Pope being “infallible”. The question doesn’t define what infallibility actually means. Many Protestants believed infallibility meant impeccability, so by saying infallibility was a “Protestant invention”, the catechism may in part be addressing Protestant misunderstandings of Catholic ideas.

Plus, the answer to the question says that no decision of the Pope can oblige a Catholic unless that decision be received and enforced by the bishops of the Church. Papal infallible statements, it would seem, are in fact received and enforced by the bishops of the Church (even if such bishops might not be too happy about doing so).

I don’t know, the Q&A does not seem to suggest that it is a Protestant misunderstanding of the Catholic notion of Papal Infallibility (impeccability vs. infallibility).

One thing I have not understood about this dogma is that the bishops defined it in a council. Why did the Pope not define it himself? He should not need a council to do so, because he could not err if he said it. How could the bishops do that? “Conciliarism” is a heresy in the Roman Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Siddhartha]

I don’t know, the Q&A does not seem to suggest that it is a Protestant misunderstanding of the Catholic notion of Papal Infallibility (impeccability vs. infallibility).

Impeccability is not explicitly mentioned, but don’t you think that too many people have the misunderstanding that equates infallibility with impeccability? The average Joe on the street, if he hears “infallibility”, he might think “Ah, without sin!”

But I agree that confusion over impeccability is not the key concern. The key concern is the range of infallibility. How much ground does “infallible” cover? The Pope himself is not “infallible”: to say that “the Pope is infallible” is false, because the statement implies that whatever the Pope says is without error. And we all know that is false. However, to say that “the Pope’s statement is infallible under certain, well-defined (or “not so well-defined”) conditions” is true.

The pre-Vatican One catechism correctly refutes “the Pope is infallible” statement by clarifying under what conditions (e.g., support by the bishops) a papal statement is infallible. The post-Vatican Two catechism makes the same argument, but now adds the “ex cathedra” teaching. I don’t see a huge difference between the catechisms, since any “ex cathedra” teaching will likely be supported by the bishops of the Church.

One thing I have not understood about this dogma is that the bishops defined it in a council. Why did the Pope not define it himself? He should not need a council to do so, because he could not err if he said it. How could the bishops do that? “Conciliarism” is a heresy in the Roman Church.

The Pope couldn’t define it himself because such a dogma needed the explicit support of the bishops. It’s sort of like martial law, in which citizens give their support for a temporary rule by the military. (Don’t forget: in 1870, the Vatican felt besieged by a new, secular Europe, and papal infallibility may be seen as a result of the Vatican attempting to maintain its spiritual authority over secular governments.)

 

[Harpazo]

The Pope couldn’t define it himself because such a dogma needed the explicit support of the bishops. It’s sort of like martial law, in which citizens give their support for a temporary rule by the military. (Don’t forget: in 1870, the Vatican felt besieged by a new, secular Europe, and papal infallibility may be seen as a result of the Vatican attempting to maintain its spiritual authority over secular governments.)

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t understand why the Pope couldn’t define it without a council. If he were truly recognized as infallible by the bishops, then him defining it apart from a council would not be in error.

I remember the political situation very vaguely. It’s been a while since I’ve taken western European history.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Hesychios]

…Papal infallible statements, it would seem, are in fact received and enforced by the bishops of the Church (even if such bishops might not be too happy about doing so).

That is exactly why the first issue addressed by the council in 1870AD was not Papal infallibility, but universal ordinary jurisdiction for the bishop of Roma.

The infallibility follows the jurisdiction, not the other way around.

Once it was established that the Pope hires and fires the bishops, it was safe to proceed.

 

[GKC]

The citation you give us is another indication of how much of what passes for Irish Catholicism was actuated by political circumstances. The Peelite Government lately passed was acutely suspicious of the loyalty of the Catholic hierarchy, hated the papacy, and were just waiting to pounce. The immediate preceedings had been rather inciteful and left a precariously delicate air. Bishops throughout the country had been condemning the National Schools established in 1932 and the ‘Godless’ Queen’s Colleges in 1945. The Synod of Thurles took place that year, attracting the acrimony of HMG. The re-establishment of the English hierarchy too, prompting a disgusted Russell to pass the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. Mass Catholic immigration into England from the Famine roused alarm, and ‘no popery’ processions were everywhere. Hatred of the papacy, already ubiquitous, was augmented by an obsession with the Risorgimento. The Oxford Movement, the Irish Church Act 1833, and the Maynooth Grant led to the burning of the Pope in effigy in ‘Papal Aggression’ rallies throughout several towns in England and southern Scotland. The Ultra-Tories and some Whigs were even agitating for a repeal of the Emancipation Act. Many more were calling for greater civil restrictions. Historians are wont to keep in mind the peculiar contemporary Irish circumstances when studying statements on the papacy in that era. Papal infallibility had been the greatest impediment to Catholic Emancipation, provided a looming incentive for re-proscription and declarations on the nature of the papacy were thus extremely sensitive to Protestant controversy. Maynooth was an unrepresentative bastion of Gallicianism at that time, most of its faculty had been emigres from the French Revolution and tended to adore the established authorities, a favour duly returned in a 30,000l grant. Even Dr Troy the lord Archbishop of Dublin and Propaganda in Rome expressed alarm at its tendencies. That their lordships would approbate such an disputatious formulation is by no means worthy of surprise. Had they asserted the veracity of papal infallibility, it would have resulted in certain proscription (read ‘liberal and enlightened’ Gladstone’s reaction, and proposals to circumvent, the First Vatican Council). The bishops already had an established tradition of countenancing formulations they knew to be dubious as matters of prudence, particularly evinced in the Catholic parliamentary and military oath and abjuration. Dr Troy, an adherant to papal infallibility, urged Catholics to accept the prescribed oath in the Catholic Relief Act 1793 forswearing papal infallibility as a lie even though his Grace was an unshakeable adherant to it, later defending the ‘prudence’ of doing so in a letter to Propaganda. Many of the bishops who approved that catechism also professed papal infallibility but followed Troy’s set tradition, undoubtedly more focused on the millions who were starving and emigrating. Then lord Archbishop of Dublin, Daniel Murray who did so, is one example, defending the doctrine powerfully in his “De Gratia” (10 years before Vatican 1) which was even intended as a text-book for students.

There’s a couple of typos in dates in there, and surely it was a reaction to the Oxford Movement and not the Movement itself that would give rise to some animosity. But that’s a densely packed chunk of verbiage there. In that form, has it a general source?

GKC

 

[Padua_Minded]

There’s a couple of typos in dates in there

Can you please identify them?

surely it was a reaction to the Oxford Movement and not the Movement itself that would give rise to some animosity

What precisely do you mean? Can you please re-phrase that sentence?

In that form, has it a general source?

There is no ‘general source’. Identify what you want confirmed, and I’ll do my best to give you a reference.

 

[Hesychios]

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t understand why the Pope couldn’t define it without a council. If he were truly recognized as infallible by the bishops, then him defining it apart from a council would not be in error.

I remember the political situation very vaguely. It’s been a while since I’ve taken western European history.

In Christ,
Andrew

The first infallible dogmatic statement of record by a single bishop alone was in 1854AD. The fact that he could try such a thing and then 16 years later ask a council to confirm his right to do so is what looks so odd. I think perhaps his long time on the bench and the political turmoil around him gave him reasons to think it over.

By the late 1860’s, there were a lot of indications that the state of Italy was going to swallow up the city of Rome, and it looked as though everything might come undone, so the council was called to approve the Pope’s right to make infallible statements (after the fact), and shore up the theoretical basis for the bishop of Roma naming bishops outside of Italy.

Gallicanism was a concern to the papacy, and of course it could have spread to Italy, America and elsewhere. What Gallicanism actually represented was the last dying gasps of national synods, something similar (but not identical) to the Orthodox form of ecclesiology rooted in the deep past of the western church.

 

[GKC]

Can you please identify them?

What precisely do you mean? Can you please re-phrase that sentence?

There is no ‘general source’. Identify what you want confirmed, and I’ll do my best to give you a reference.

The National Schools Act, 1832 and the Queen’s College, 1845… Keystroke errors, I know.

I am asking in what sense the Oxford Movement itself would give rise to anti-Papal sentiments, as seemed to be suggested in the sentence “The Oxford Movement, the Irish Church Act 1833, and the Maynooth Grant led to the burning of the Pope in effigy in ‘Papal Aggression’ rallies throughout several towns in England and southern Scotland”. I’m aware of the role the suppression of the Irish Bishoprics had on the initiation of the Movement, but not why anti-Papal agitation would arise from it.

No, there being no general source, my question is answered. If there had been, I was interested in learning of it. Most of the facts I was at least vaguely aware of, and a general source might make interesting reading.

GKC

 

[Padua_Minded]

The National Schools Act, 1832 and the Queen’s College, 1845… Keystroke errors, I know

Yes, you are correct, I missed that. 1932 and 1945 were typos of course.

I am asking in what sense the Oxford Movement itself would give rise to anti-Papal sentiments

See *God and Greater Britain *by John Wolffe. It’s a great book.

 

[GKC]

Yes, you are correct, I missed that. 1932 and 1945 were typos of course.

See *God and Greater Britain *by John Wolffe. It’s a great book.

I love book recommendations and will try to find it. If I find it, I’ll acquire, if possible. But give me a clue. Does it say that the Oxford Movement itself (Pusey, Froude, Newman, Keble, et al), gave rise to anti-Papal agitation, as a part of and a consequence of the Movement, or that reaction/opposition to the Oxford Movement on the part of others might include anti-Papal agitation?

GKC

Added:

Wolffe looks like a good book to have. But prohibitively expensive, given my priorities for acquiring material. Ah, well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I love book recommendations and will try to find it. If I find it, I’ll acquire, if possible. But give me a clue. Does it say that the Oxford Movement itself (Pusey, Froude, Newman, Keble, et al), gave rise to anti-Papal agitation, as a part of and a consequence of the Movement, or that reaction/opposition to the Oxford Movement on the part of others might include anti-Papal agitation?

GKC

Added:

Wolffe looks like a good book to have. But prohibitively expensive, given my priorities for acquiring material. Ah, well.

I read about this keenan catchism fiasco in the book “The Infallibility of the Church” by George Salmon, an Anglican priest at the turn of the century. It’s a really outstanding book, well-written. It’s available free on Google Books

books.google.com/books?id=4fwQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169&dq=the+infallibility+of+the+church+by+george+salmon#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You probably have read it already, GKC, but what the heck, I thought I’d throw it out there to my Anglophile buddy. I’m enjoying read it. If you haven’t read it, check it out and let me know what you think.

I’m also reading “Confess Your Sins” by John Stott. He’s a heavily evangelical Anglican but I like his passion and thinking sometimes. Have you read much of him?

 

[GKC]

I read about this keenan catchism fiasco in the book “The Infallibility of the Church” by George Salmon, an Anglican priest at the turn of the century. It’s a really outstanding book, well-written. It’s available free on Google Books

books.google.com/books?id=4fwQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169&dq=the+infallibility+of+the+church+by+george+salmon#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You probably have read it already, GKC, but what the heck, I thought I’d throw it out there to my Anglophile buddy. I’m enjoying read it. If you haven’t read it, check it out and let me know what you think.

I’m also reading “Confess Your Sins” by John Stott. He’s a heavily evangelical Anglican but I like his passion and thinking sometimes. Have you read much of him?

I haven’t read it, though I knew of it. Didn’t know it was online, though. Bookmarked it. Thanks.

Have read exactly nothing of Stott. Or Packer, either, for that matter. Perhaps I am too narrow in focus, or too historical.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I haven’t read it, though I knew of it. Didn’t know it was online, though. Bookmarked it. Thanks.

Have read exactly nothing of Stott. Or Packer, either, for that matter. Perhaps I am too narrow in focus, or too historical.

GKC

Understandable. I’m surprised as heck (though I shouldn’t be since he’s low-church) how Stott is completely in denial about the priesthood. He sees “presbyters” in the bible as merely church leaders/ministers and not “priests” at all. He rejects sacramental theology completely and the idea of auricular confession and the ability of a priest to convey absolution. One needs dramamine after reading the Tractarians and then this guy!? He treats all protestant churches as having the same authority and legitimacy as the Church of England. He points out how many Anglican bishops were hostile to confession/penance, etc. It’s a bizarre book so far. I’ve read two Stott books and both are snoozers as well as disappointments. He talks in Basic Christianity about finding “a” church. He says it doesn’t matter which denomination, just find a church you’re comfortable with, etc. sigh…

 

[GKC]

Understandable. I’m surprised as heck (though I shouldn’t be since he’s low-church) how Stott is completely in denial about the priesthood. He sees “presbyters” in the bible as merely church leaders/ministers and not “priests” at all. He rejects sacramental theology completely and the idea of auricular confession and the ability of a priest to convey absolution. One needs dramamine after reading the Tractarians and then this guy!? He treats all protestant churches as having the same authority and legitimacy as the Church of England. He points out how many Anglican bishops were hostile to confession/penance, etc. It’s a bizarre book so far. I’ve read two Stott books and both are snoozers as well as disappointments. He talks in Basic Christianity about finding “a” church. He says it doesn’t matter which denomination, just find a church you’re comfortable with, etc. sigh…

What you say of Stott is roughly what I assumed. Hence, I focus on my areas of interest. So little time, so few bookshelves (as measured by the requirement).

GKC