With papal infallibility, why does the Church still has council for issues on Faith and morals?

[MarcoPG]

Not sure how much help I can be here but consider…
It is much easier for an individual to get something wrong than it is for a group.
An individual, no matter how well intentioned, has only their own abilities to rely on.
A group has the sum of many abilities.
Ideas, thoughts and insights are openly discussed (what I call the “yea but what if…” method). Such discussions are beneficial to all because that which is good becomes more apparent and that which is bad is exposed and discarded.
For all his blessings and charism…the Holy Father remains a simple human being. He, and the Church as a whole benefits from such discussion.
It allows for the building of consensus…and demonstrates the humility of all (including the Holy Father) in being willing to listen and to submit to each other in the name of Truth.
Far from undermining Primacy, collegiality supports it in a wonderful way.

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

Thank you.

Emphasized just what you cannot say about the Pope, because of Infallibility on faith and morals.

The building of consensus, that’s why I say the collegiality during a council (I am not talking about collegiality as sharing of the powers) is there to show agreement among the Church members.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you.

Emphasized just what you cannot say about the Pope, because of Infallibility on faith and morals.

Yes - but remember two things…

1. Rarely does the Pope exercise his authority “infallibly” (ex-cathedra) and when this IS done it is only after much consultation and prayer.
2. Even if the Pope were to receive a “Flash” revelation, he would most likely not proclaim it ex-cathedra but would instead first consult with his fellow bishops and learned members of the curia.
   Both of these things would be done so that the Holy Father can be assured that the proposed teaching is indeed from the Holy Spirit. Jesus wishes the Church to act together…no one should act in isolation.

The building of consensus, that’s why I say the collegiality during a council (I am not talking about collegiality as sharing of the powers) is there to show agreement among the Church members.

Councils are more than simply “showing agreement”…A look at the history of councils shows that they can be highly contentious affairs. Rather a council is a way to “test the spirits” and to “test by fire” so that impurities can be burned away and pure truth arrived at.

Peace
James

 

[claymcdermott]

I certainly agree with the last commenter.
Infallibility, as expressed in papal statements, is a purely negative charism.
The pope needs to learn things and discuss things and research things with fellow bishops, who as a body are authoritative as well, before he can know whether to make a pronouncement and how to do so most accurately.
The assurance that he won’t be wrong is not a promise that he will be right.

 

[MarcoPG]

Yes - but remember two things…

1. Rarely does the Pope exercise his authority “infallibly” (ex-cathedra) and when this IS done it is only after much consultation and prayer.
2. Even if the Pope were to receive a “Flash” revelation, he would most likely not proclaim it ex-cathedra but would instead first consult with his fellow bishops and learned members of the curia.
   Both of these things would be done so that the Holy Father can be assured that the proposed teaching is indeed from the Holy Spirit. Jesus wishes the Church to act together…no one should act in isolation.

Councils are more than simply "showing agreement"…A look at the history of councils shows that they can be highly contentious affairs. Rather a council is a way to “test the spirits” and to “test by fire” so that impurities can be burned away and pure truth arrived at.

Peace
James

Sure, what I meant is it is **also **showing agreement and the Truth, when arrived at the final documents.

 

[JRKH]

I certainly agree with the last commenter.
Infallibility, as expressed in papal statements, is a purely negative charism.
The pope needs to learn things and discuss things and research things with fellow bishops, who as a body are authoritative as well, before he can know whether to make a pronouncement and how to do so most accurately.
The assurance that he won’t be wrong is not a promise that he will be right.

Interesting way to put it. hhmmmmm

I wouldn’t have phrased it that way but I think I get your meaning.

There have been many teachings promulgated that require careful study and additional explanation or exposition.
One might look ar a teaching and say - - whoa - wait a minute - - and start asking questions about what it means or how it should be applied in a given situation etc.
Or a very old teaching might need to be rewritten so that it is better understood in the current time.
It doesn’t mean the original teaching of the Church was wrong - just that there needs to be more clarity.

Peace
James

 

[Genesis315]

First, Councils don’t just define dogma–for decisions that affect the whole Church it is often more prudent for the Pope to consult his brother bishops. Second, with regard to dogmatic definitions, the Pope is not omniscient. It may be more prudent to decide collegially how a truth should be defined.

Most importantly, the Holy Spirit ensures the Pope’s dogmatic judgment is correct by leading him to the truth, not necessarily by infusing it. This means He may lead the Pope to take the necessary steps to get to the right answer. This often includes convoking a Council. St. Francis de Sales explains:
St. Francis de Sale:

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said he shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the Urim and Thummim of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail.

Finally, there are some practical reasons. Below, Pope St. Leo I explains why the Council of Chalcedon was a good idea, even though he had already defined the issue:
Pope St. Leo the Great:

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth :” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted. And while some, instigated by the author of the disagreement, rush forward into a warfare of contradictions, a greater good results through his fall under the guiding hand of the Author of all goodness. For the gifts of God’s grace are sweeter to us when they are gained with mighty efforts: and uninterrupted peace is wont to seem a lesser good than one that is restored by labours. Moreover, the Truth itself shines more brightly, and is more bravely maintained when what the Faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further, the good name of the priestly office gains much in lustre where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence.
newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm

 

[Abu]

powerofk #4
It’s not surprising that the “ex cathedra” power of the Pope has been used extremely rarely (other than for beatifications and canonizations) - the last time it was used outside of beatifications and canonizations was to fully declare the Immaculate Conception as a tenet of the Catholic faith.

Firstly, those are only assumed ideas about ex cathedra definitions. Here is the reality.

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Musings over “Petrine” views are just that – not related to the reality, which is that:
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 doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

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 three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
**3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) **and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council represent the decisions of the bishops involved, and this is important for the Church, but can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope. The Pope needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

 

[DL82]

If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.

To take an analogy, if a doctor knows that he is able to perform a simple surgical procedure flawlessly, that is not a reason for him to go into the operating theater without nurses, assistants and an anaesthetist. On the contrary, his skill as a surgeon tells him that he needs those people supporting him in order to perform the surgery flawlessly.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.

To take an analogy, if a doctor knows that he is able to perform a simple surgical procedure flawlessly, that is not a reason for him to go into the operating theater without nurses, assistants and an anaesthetist. On the contrary, his skill as a surgeon tells him that he needs those people supporting him in order to perform the surgery flawlessly.

I think a better analogy is a team of doctors, with the chief surgeon taking charge.

 

[JRKH]

If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.

To take an analogy, if a doctor knows that he is able to perform a simple surgical procedure flawlessly, that is not a reason for him to go into the operating theater without nurses, assistants and an anaesthetist. On the contrary, his skill as a surgeon tells him that he needs those people supporting him in order to perform the surgery flawlessly.

I think a better analogy is a team of doctors, with the chief surgeon taking charge.

Agreed - and I would further amend the analogy to say that it isn’t the “simple surgical procedure(s)” that the doctor needs the most assistance on. It is the more complex ones.
Likewise with the Church…the more complex the matter, the more important to have the (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishops, theologians, and others.

Peace
James

 

[Leibniz]

I think it should be remembered that there is no official definition of what is infallible and what isn’t. Theologians disagree on this all the time, and even if you could come up with an official list of statements, people would still disagree with how flexible those statements could be, as the words themselves are mere symbols pointing to objective truth, and do not represent that truth in pure form. Even the Catechism is sketchy on subjects like the death penalty when it starts inserting speculative commentaries on prudential judgments into the mix.

I tend to take a conservative, minimalist view on what constitutes infallible dogma (Ludwig Ott’s book from the 1950s is a great resource), as I tend to think it’s much safer to keep infallible statements to as small of a set as possible, in order to not look like a fool later after having claimed something was infallible (limbo? non-moving Earth? charging interest rates?) when it really wasn’t.

Thus, I would disagree with Telstar’s statement that “He always protects them from making any error on faith or morals.” Popes make errors when teaching on faith and morals all the time, including our current one (see his pacifist-leaning statements on just war). It is only when you see those formulaic words “let anathema sit” that you can be absolutely sure that something is heretical with an infallible degree of certainty.

The doctrine of the infallibility of the pope flows naturally and logically from the infallibility of the magisterium. If the pope has authority over bishops to demand obedience, and if what is taught at any one time by the overwhelming majority of bishops to be infallible must be true, then it logically follows that the pope is infallible whenever he commands all bishops to teach something or else be declared anathema.

But no pope in his right mind is going to declare an entire group within the Church to be anathema if he himself has even the slightest hesitation or doubt about whether he is completely correct about something. Thus, popes will always consult with the bishops of the world before declaring something to be infallible truth. Sometimes this comes in the form of an ecumenical council, but other times the pope can correspond with bishops informally over a number of years, and if there seems to be a good deal of consensus over the matter, then the pope can simply declare something from Rome without the need for a council.

 

[MarcoPG]

I think it should be remembered that there is no official definition of what is infallible and what isn’t.

Don’t we just have to read the documents?

 

[Abu]

Leibniz #31
I tend to think it’s much safer to keep infallible statements to as small of a set as possible, in order to not look like a fool later after having claimed something was infallible (limbo? non-moving Earth? charging interest rates?) when it really wasn’t.

Such a false view of infallibility needs to be jettisoned. False views can be changed only by understanding that papal teaching infallibly on faith and morals does not have anything to do with theologians views on topics like Limbo, the earth’s orbit or interest rates.

Further “tending to think” needs to be replaced by the reality that the Church, through the Popes and Ecumenical Council decrees approved by them, teaches infallibly only on faith and morals to the whole Church when defining on faith or morals.

Certainly Christ’s Church was not empowered by Him to decide scientific questions, as St Augustine had said more than a thousand years before, and a tribunal calling Galileo’s theory “false and absurd” was wrong.”

Since a “decree” is neither a dogma nor even a doctrine, and as the authority of the Holy Office does not extend to infallible pronouncements, there is no “fact” of heresy pronounced by any Pope concerning Galileo.

Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, “went to Rome and examined the Case, a little more thoroughly than the average humanist, probably intending to use it in his ongoing controversy with the Anglican bishop, Samuel Wilberforce. In a letter written to Mivart in 1885 he concluded, rather disappointedly, I presume – ‘I looked into the matter when I was in Italy and I arrived at the conclusion that the Pope and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of it.’ ”
[Arthur Koestler, *The Sleepwalkers, MacMillan, 1959, p 353; cited in The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate, 1984, p185-6].

Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made.

I tend to take a conservative, minimalist view on what constitutes infallible dogma (Ludwig Ott’s book from the 1950s is a great resource),

Political terms have no place in Catholicism when discussing teaching and while Ott can be helpful, nothing can substitute for the development of doctrine which has occurred, as shown in post #22:
“The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.”

See Ad Tuendam Fidem, as in that Apostolic Letter *Motu Proprio * (on his own authority)1998, St John Paul II identified clearly the three levels of teaching and taught:
“TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.” [My emphasis].
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

Thus, I would disagree with Telstar’s statement that “He always protects them from making any error on faith or morals.” Popes make errors when teaching on faith and morals all the time, including our current one (see his pacifist-leaning statements on just war). It is only when you see those formulaic words “let anathema sit” that you can be absolutely sure that something is heretical with an infallible degree of certainty.

The term is *ex cathedra *(teaching from the Chair of Peter) and that is only for dogmas. Popes do not pretend to be infallible when expressing views on all sorts of subjects including wars so care must be taken not to confuse infallibility with the views of Popes on various subjects.

 

[Leibniz]

Abu, I am not sure what I said that you are disagreeing with exactly.

I gave the examples of limbo, geocentrism, and usury, as things that SOME PEOPLE once considered infallible. Do you disagree with that?

I am not saying that I think that they were once infallible statements. I think they never were. I am saying that some people attempted to define infallibility too far and got burned by it, and I think we should be careful to avoid that.

My main assertion is that there are many Church statements out there, where one large group of people claims that the statements are infallible, and another large group of people disagrees, claiming that the statements are fallible. This happens all the time. Do you disagree?

 

[Abu]

Leibniz #34
My main assertion is that there are many Church statements out there, where one large group of people claims that the statements are infallible, and another large group of people disagrees, claiming that the statements are fallible. This happens all the time.

That is precisely why clarity is needed and why “we” don’t try to limit infallible statements, and why Ludwig Ott’s old definitions are insufficient due to the clarity and doctrinal development through St John Paul II in Ad Tuendam Fidem, as in that Apostolic Letter *Motu Proprio *1998, St John Paul II identified clearly the three levels of teaching.

 

[Seraphim73]

If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.

But the pope didn’t call any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[wmw]

Let’s be very clear there are only two statements of the pope’s ex cathedra, power of infallibility, and both are about Mary:

1. Mary’s Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870)
2. Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950)

Nothing else has ever been declared ex cathedra and any pope that does will be very clear about doing so. It would only likely happen if something as extraordinary as the Reformation occurred again. He should do so only as a way of an emergency service to the faithful and world; not as an act of consolidating power unto himself.

The councils are the usual means to declare new teachings of the faith and must continue in this ever changing world.

 

[Leibniz]

Abu, I am not very familiar with Ad Tuendam Fidem, but clearly identifying 3 levels of teaching is not at all the same thing as clearly identifying what actually falls into those 3 levels. Your argument seems kind of circular to me. Why shouldn’t we try to limit what we consider to be infallible statements? If Pope John Paul II provided clarity, then why is clarity still needed? I haven’t seen anything that can even remotely be thought capable of supplanting Ludwig Ott at this point.

Seraphim, infallibility by universal acclaim does not work either. The Eastern Orthodox have even worse problems than Catholics when it comes to defining the standards for what confers infallibility on the statement of a council.

 

[Leibniz]

wmw, it’s not quite that simple. Some people would agree with you that those are the only infallible statements made by a pope, but some would not.

 

[wmw]

But the pope didn’t call any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

False, for instance Pope St. Leo I (the Great) called the Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon in 451 AD. Pope Leo “sent urgent letters to Constantinople, particularly to Emperor Theodosius II and Empress Pulcheria, urging them to convene a general council in order to restore peace to the Church. To the same end he used his influence with the Western emperor, Valentinian III, and his mother Galla Placidia, especially during their visit to Rome in 450. This general council was held in Chalcedon in 451 under Marcian, the successor of Theodosius. It solemnly accepted Leo’s dogmatical epistle to Flavian as an expression of the Catholic Faith concerning the Person of Christ. The pope confirmed the decrees of the Council after eliminating the canon, which elevated the Patriarchate of Constantinople, while diminishing the rights of the ancient Oriental patriarchs.” (copied from newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm)