I'm trying to understand the doctrine of papal infallibility, and I'd like some help.

Vatican I says that a Papal definition is "irreformible of itself, and not from the consensus of the Church," but Vatican II says "The ascent of the Church can never be wanting" to definitions that result from the exercise of the supreme teaching authority.

Pope Benedict the XVI has said "Criticism of Papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in scripture and creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church. When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor clear evidence from the sources is available, an ultimate binding decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and hence the question would have to be raised concerning it's legitimacy."

This is very confussing to me.

What role (if any) does reception play in determining whether a Papal pronouncement was made "ex cathedra"?

Also, what role does it play in determining the eccumenical status of a council??

It seems it must play some role here, because both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics reject councils on the basis of reception.

The Orthodox reject the reunion council (councils?) on the basis that they weren't received in the East, and the RC rejects what was originally ratified by the Pope as "the eighth ecumenical council," on the basis of it's lack of reception in the West (and it's lack of reception by a latter Pope, who recognized the following, "anti-Photian," council as "the eigth ecumenical council.")

So what role does reception play in the "infallibility" of Pope or Council?

I would also be interested in whether the Orthodox view the Hesychast counsils of the 14th century as "infallible"?

Did they establish any irreformible dogma?

P.S. I'm not looking to argue with anyone here (Orthodox or Catholic), I'm just trying to understand this.

A Latin-rite bishop was visiting the parishes of his diocese and conferring Confirmation. Since this happened years ago, the bishop went through the motions of testing the children on their knowledge of the catechism. He asked one little boy, "What do we mean by the Blessed Trinity?" The child responded, in a very low voice, "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: one God in three divine Persons". The bishop, being a bit hard of hearing, cupped his hand to his ear and replied, "I'm sorry - I didn't quite understand." And the little boy answered, "You're not supposed to. It's a MYSTERY."

I like it!
Very humorous.
Stephanos I

Wouldn't the dogma of Papal infallibility be equally binding on Latin and Eastern rite Catholics in communion with Rome?

Are you saying it's a total mystery, and there's no way to resolve the apparent contradiction between Vatican II, and Vatican I (which pronounced an anathema on anyone who willfuly rejected the dogma of Papal infallibility)?

Is reception a valuable tool in identifying an ex-cathedra pronouncement (and if so, how can they be "irreformable of themselves")?

I find this genuinely confussing (and a real stumbling block.)

Does anyone have a serious (less humerous) answer?

Vatican II says


http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...gentium_en.html

So, what part does "the ascent of the Church" play in distinguishing an authentic "ex-cathedra" pronouncement ("pertaining to the deposit of faith") from a "new public revelation"?

Fr. Francis Sullivan (in "Creative Fidelity") argues that the intent of "Unam Sanctum" was to assert the Pope's universal authority "to institute and judge temporal rulers," and concludes that it was not an ex-cathedra pronouncement precisely because it "was not universally received, even in his own day, and it cetainly has not become a permanent part of the Catholic Faith." (pg. 88.)

Is this a legetimate method of discerning an ex-cathedra pronouncement, from a non ex-cathedra pronouncement?

Read Hermann Pottmeyer, Towards A Papacy in Communion

Is it available online?

Yes.

That doesn't answer the other questions.

Dear brother Michael,


The reception of the Church after the decree has no role in determining whether a papal pronouncement is made ex cathedra. In other words, the reception has no role in determining the infallibility of the decree. That is just the nature of Truth. Truth is not determined by consensus (except according to the Modernist doctrines).

The role of the Church's assent comes before the ex cathedra decree (that is what it means to say that "the assent of the Church is never wanting." This prior assent is necessary for 3 reasons (2 dogmatic, 1 practical):
(1) The Pope has no authority to make an ex cathedra decree unless the Church through her bishops call for it (a requirement contained in the Vatican 1 Decree on papal infallibility).
(2) The Pope cannot make new doctrine, but can only make dogma based on what is already the accepted teaching of the Church (also contained in the Vatican 1 Decree).
(3) The Church through her bishops can initiate the exercise of papal infallibility in two ways - (a) by requesting the dogmatization of a universal belief; (b) by asking the Pope to settle a doctrinal issue between parties. The first requires no comment as to the assent of the Church prior to the dogmatic Decree. The second situation comes about because a group of bishops in the Church has a conflict with another group of bishops. Normally, such a matter would be resolved in an Ecumenical Council, but suppose that there is a rather equal number of bishops on both sides of the issue. The Pope's decree will be based on the teachings of one side or the other. Orthodoxy belongs to the party with whom the Pope sides, and it is obvious that the decree will already have prior collegial consent.

The only time that the prior assent of the Church was not necessary for an ex cathedra decree occurred during the first exercise of papal infallibility as recorded in Acts 10. St. Peter had received a revelation from God that the Gentiles should be received into the Church, and he made an infallible pronouncement to the Church on the matter. As with all infallible decrees, the Truth - i.e., the infallibility - of this decree was by no means dependent on the consensus of the Church after the fact.

I hope that helps.


Yes, reception does play some role in the ecumenicity of a Council. But, as with papal infallibility (which is nothing more than the infallibility of the Church, and is not a separate infallibility), reception plays no role in the infallibility of a Council. In other words, we need to distinguish the character of a Council's infallibility from its charcter of ecumenicity. As mentioned, infallibility refers to the nature of Truth, which is not determined by consensus. On the other hand, ecumenicity, which refers to the nature of authority, is partly determined by reception.


That's an interesting question.

Blessings,
Marduk

it's available at Amazon or most any online bookstore for purchase.
It is well worth the investment, IMO. the book is not expensive, it is not terribly long, and it goes through a very comprehensive study of the history and ecclesiology of the subject.

People worry too much about things which are utterly irrelevant in the daily life of the Church.

A Pope would be an idiot to make a decree without having first ensured its reception. Of course, given the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church since Vatican II, such reception would never be forthcoming, so it is most unlikely we will every see another ex Cathedra declaration of doctrine. If anything, the principle of reception is becoming even more important due to the discussions of the Joint International Theological Commission, which tends to render the entire idea of Papal infallibility moot.

i agree completely.

What interests me is how one defines the "Church", especially in light of StuartK's point.

If the worldwide Church in this sense can be seen as the sum of the Orthodox and Catholic churches (which regretfully and to our shame do not share regular communion) then the ecumenicity of the Vatican councils and, more importantly, the reception of the "Church" is questionable at best.

As a (soon-to-be) Byzantine Catholic, I believe that this is a question that requires further exploration and clarification, which, thankfully, is exactly what is happening as part of the Joint International Theological Commission that StuartK mentioned.

While these things don't affect the daily life of the Church, it is something that one has to reconcile if one is considering joining or even understanding on a theoretical level, so I understand MichaelB's questioning.

I agree with the Ravenna Document issued by the international dialogue commission which holds that there have been no ecumenical councils since the East / West schism (See the Ravenna Document, no. 39).

Well said! The West has tried to dogmatize issues that are not really all that important in the life of the Church and her members.

Dear brother StuartK,


If you understood what papal infallibility is, that is really an irrelevant comment. Papal infallibility cannot be arbitrarily exercised by the Pope. It can only be exercised in response to the needs of the Church through the agency of her bishops. The only way your comment makes any sense is if you think the Dogma of papal infallibility permits the Pope to wake up one morning and say to himself, "I think today is a good day for a dogma." If this is what papal infallibility is, then it would indeed be foolish for the Pope not to ascertain that reception is ensured before making the Decree. But that is not what papal infallibility is.


No. The Ravenna Document did not yet discuss the unique role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church, and it admits that. So this comment is rash. As far as reception, it was referring to Ecumenical Councils, and it clearly stated that "reception" applies to the character of ecumenicity. It's inspiration by the Holy Spirit (i.e, its infallibility), on the other hand, is treated in a different paragraph.

Blessings,
Marduk

That's what I have said, repeatedly (though I deny that he can do even that), yet canonists insist on telling me that the Pope does not require the moral consensus of the Church as a precondition for making an ex Cathedra decree. Technically, they are correct--the Pope can just decide that he's going to do it, and who is going to gainsay him?

"No one may judge the Roman See", according to the Codex Canonorum (a misreading of the ancient aphorism, which was referring to Rome's final appellate status), which means that the Pope is the sole judge of his own case. The Pope, and the Pope alone, has the authority decide whether a statement needs to be made in response to the needs of the Church. He does not need to consult anybody, "The Pope is an absolute monarch, except when he chooses not to be", according to the Ukrainian canonist Fr. Victor Popshishtil, by which he meant the Pope's theoretical "plena potestas" is unlimited.

However, as I have said, many times, in practice the Pope is a constitutional monarch whose power is hedged about by all sorts of informal constraints. After all, the Pope can only enforce his decrees with the cooperation of the bishops, who have all sorts of ways to oppose Papal directives with which they do not agree.

And that is why reception of a doctrine is essential, and why the Pope would be an idiot to propose a doctrine without making certain it could be received in the first place. And, behold! That's precisely what Pope Pius XII did, when he woke up one morning and decided the Church needed to dogmatize the assumption of Mary (just what was the pressing pastoral need of the Church for that one?).

Now, the reason I say that reception is becoming more important is the ecclesiology of communion that recognizes the Church as a communion of Churches, and of true Churches outside of communion with Rome. For a decree to have moral unanimity, it must do more than simply poll the Latin bishops (as was the case in 1854 and 1954)--it must consider the opinions of the Eastern Catholic bishops, and also of the Eastern bishops not in communion with Rome. Since these will never agree to any infallible declaration (rightly so!), even if they agree with its doctrinal content, no Pope will ever attempt to employ that particular tool again.

As I have noted many times, it's a lot like a nuclear weapon--if you have to use it, you have failed. So, my guess (supported by a lot of other people smarter than me--they do exist!) is infallibility will remain on the books, fading into desuetude (like the temporal supremacy of the Pope), until either forgotten or "clarified" into irrelevancy.

Regarding the Ravenna Document, take what you want from it. My degree was in the history of diplomacy, so I am quite adept at reading obfuscation and circumlocution. If you take all of the agreed statements together, the trend is quite clear: primacy will be brought into balance with conciliarity, which necessarily means a relativization of pontifical powers. Reception has received greater prominence in each successive statement.

As for your distinction between "ecumenicity" and "infallibility", it is one without a difference: if a statement is recognized ecumenically, by definition it contains an infallible truth. Conversely, no infallible statement can be accepted as such until it is received ecumenically.

And when the hypothetical reunion council considered this, the question woulds be, "which bishops?" and "did the consultations satisfy the requirements of the infallibility doctrine?" If the requirements weren't satisfied, no infallible statement was made, leaving much more room for the notion to be denied.

Dear brother dochawk,


Those would be valid questions. And if the requirements were not satisfied, then there is certainly the greatest possibility that the infallibility of the Church was not being exercised by the Pope in that instance. But I don't think that necessarily negates the principle that the protos of the Church can exercise the infallibility of the Church in a unique way when circumstances necessitate the exercise, does it?

There are two circumstances I can think of that would necessitate that the infallibility of the Church be exercised by its protos. What if an issue of doctrine arises and:
(1) a good majority of bishops in the world were prevented from gathering in an Ecumenical Council? Can we really assume that God would leave the Church without an infallible voice since no truly Ecumenical Council can practically be called?
(2) the Church is literally split on a the doctrinal matter, and a majority cannot decide.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I basically agree with you. I think what you often intend to say is "papal infallibility is not really practicable in a reunited Church," but you sometimes come off as saying, "papal infallibility is non-existent and unnecessary."

I would agree with the first, but I can't agree with the second.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,


I think your position is highly problematic. If ecumenicity (partly determined by reception) is a true gauge of infallibility, then no Ecumenical Council can be considered infallible since there always was a group (often large groups) of Christians opposed to them. If ecumenicity was a true gauge of infallibility, then the Arians would have won the day. If ecumenicity was the true gauge of infallibility, then the official Christological Agreements between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches could not have occurred (such Agreements were based on the notion that the Truth existed in each Church without the evidence of ecumenicity).

Blessings,
Marduk

In both cases I believe that the law of liberty should prevail, as all the necessary Christian dogmas have already been given to us, the only things remaining are of secondary or tertiary importance.

"In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity."

Another distinction without a difference.

We have very different definitions of ecumenicity, apparently.

I find it very interesting that we are constantly told that when the Church officially defines a dogma, it is because this dogma has reached its full flowering and is ready to be codified. The definition of the dogma is supposed to clear up any questions, and everything is to be made clear.

However, with the definition of papal infallibility, that does not seem to be the case. If anything, it seems more confusing now than before Vatican I. No one seems to agree on when the Pope is exercising it. It seems to have made the role of Councils basically obsolete. (After all, if the infallibility of the Church can be expressed by papal edict, than what is the purpose of a Council anymore?) Plus, it has reduced the role of bishops in the Church, so that no one really considers them to be the authentic teachers that they are. Especially in our age of modern communication, it seems that most Catholics bypass their local bishops to go directly to what the Holy Father has to say. There is just too much confusion on the part of ordinary Catholics.

There seems to be a constant blurring of the lines regarding this that would not be there if it weren't for this defined dogma. Two examples come to mind. When Pope John Paul II was asked if his statement on the prohibition on women's ordination was an infallible statement, he responded in the affirmative. This caused much confusion because he was not speaking ex cathedra. For me and many other people, this seemed like the Pope was making an infallible statement that wasn't ex cathedra. Now, I realize that one can make the argument that he was just stating that this is part of the ordinary magisterium and because it has always been taught by the Church, it is, therefore, an infallible statement; however, it seems to me that such mental gymnastics should be unnecessary, and this constant harping about the ordinary versus extraordinary magisterium only adds to the confusion and is very reductionist. All of the sudden you have a bunch of Christians, who seem more concerned over figuring out how much we actually have to believe rather than seeking to embrace the fullness of the faith and all that it entails.

The second example is the current book with the interview of the Holy Father and all the hubbub about his statements on the use of condoms. If there weren't the whole idea of papal infallibility, this would never have been an issue. Now, I'm not saying that the statements would not have caused some raised eyebrows, but there wouldn't have been the buzz about a change in Church teaching if it weren't for papal infallibility. If it weren't possible in one way or another for one man to single-handedly define dogmas, then this would not even come up.

Now, I recognize that the Holy Father is still within the Church and that his prerogative of papal infallibility should be exercised together with the bishops of the world; however, in the mind of most Catholics, this isn't really seen this way. I think one solution would be to reframe the discussion. Let's go back to speaking about how the gift of infallibility is given to the Church, and this gift is expressed and communicated to the world in different ways. I think that might help to clear up some of the confusion and puts the focus of infallibility where it should be, i.e. on the Church as a whole and not on one man.

I hope that makes sense. If I have offended or written something wrong, please forgive me and offer a correction, and please pray for me, a sinner.

In Christ,
Scott

I think the problem comes in a false comparison that it is either the councils or the pope. If the pope, then no more need of the councils.

What you are asserting has never been proposed, nor used, nor even understood in that way by Rome.

The infallibility of the Pope is not distinct from the infallibility of the Church. I think that you are separating the two, when Mardukm has tried to explain that they cannot be separated, for the Pope's infallibility is only founded within the context of the infallibility of the Pope to confirm his bretheren.

i think that the suspicions are due to a lot of mistrust. Unfortunately, that mis-trust was earned over many many years of estrangement and acting against each other.

What contributes, I think, to the understanding the Pope's "infallibility," being distinct from that of the church is the definiton given at the First Vatican Council. Especially number 9 of Pastor Aeternus:

Thanks for the post. My point was not really to comment on how this dogma has been proposed by Rome, but rather to comment on how this dogma is perceived by many. I think perception has something to do with how a dogma is received, so I think it's a valid point to consider.



I agree that there is often a false comparison between the two and an understanding of papal infallibility that seems to set one against the other. However, here again it has to do with perception and the way this dogma is explained. This is why I think it is important to begin with infallibility as a gift to the Church in all our discussions before we speak about Councils and the papal office. Infallibility must first be understood as a gift to the Church as a whole. If we understood that better, I don't know if we would set the two against each other.

This reminds me how many Christians want to set Scripture against Tradition, not realizing they encompass the whole of Revelation and that each is part of the other.



I'm not disagreeing with you, but my point had to do with how this is understood by the majority of Catholics, not to mention those outside the Catholic Church. When I was on my journey into the Catholic Church, I never discovered a catechism or any other discussion that framed the dogma in these terms. There was a clear explanation of when a Pope was speaking infallibly, but the discussion was never framed in terms of the Pope confirming the brethren. Confirming the brethren was discussed regarding encyclical letters and other papal statements. I would assert that most Catholics see papal infallibility in relationship to the Pope defining dogmas, not as the Pope keeping the Church from error.

If this dogma does not separate Councils and the papal office (and I'm not asserting it does), then it raises some questions that have yet to be answered:

1. Why do we need Councils if the Pope can just consult with the bishops and then, after doing so, speak infallibly? I mean the Pope can still work within the Church, gathering the bishops, asking for their input, discussing doctrine with them, asking them if something should be defined. Then, once he has their consent, he defines the dogma, and that pronouncement is infallible. How is that different than a Council? I don't mean to be problematic, but I have yet to read a really good explanation that answers these questions.

2. If the dogma is clearly understood, why have there been so many subsequent documents clarifying the dogma?

3. If there was no understanding that this dogma separated the Pope from the rest of the Church, why did the Melkite Synod of Bishops only accept Vatican I with a disclaimer that protected the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs?



I agree with you. This will only be corrected with lots and lots of prayer.

-Scott

If a pope speaks accurately in relaying the doctrine of the Church to others as it has been handed down in Tradition it follows that he speaks without error, but this is true of anyone who clearly proclaims the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Another work by Father Pottmeyer looks at Pastor Aeternus, using the proceedings of the formation of the document as primary sources. This was presented to the official Orthodox-Catholic dialogue a few years ago and is one of the chapters in this book .

The paper is most illuminating, and either answers or provides useful perspectives on a number of issues discussed in this thread. In fact, if one views "infallibility" without taking a similar perspective into account, IMO, one has no credibility on the issue.

[it's not available online, and I'm sorry, I don't think I should summarize it because it wouldn't be fair to the publisher. Moreover, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that a "dogma requiring full assent" requires some context available only from Catholic academic circles in order to be properly understood, something that has scanadalized many people on various boards. Either way, everyone here's literate so that shouldn't be a problem. ]

Dear brother MarkosC,

That was very well put. We really do need to look at the background debates/documents that went into the official decrees. You are absolutely correct that those who have not, or can't even bother, to investigate those sources on such an important topic really places their own credibility into question on the topic of papal infallibility/primacy as dogmatized by V1.

Many equate "ultramontanism" with the Absolutist Petrine view, when in fact, the High Petrine view won out at Vatican 1. The Absolutist Petrine perspective was promoted not by the "ultramontanists", but by the "neo-ultramontanists" (according to the jargon of the times).

Part of the problem is that many think that Hans Kung is the last word on the topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well said Stuart. The papacy is not a dogmatic concern.

Dear brother Byzbob,


That's an interesting perspective. Do you think that is a general Eastern perspective? I've personally never come across such a perspective from my Oriental background. Orientals believe that the Truths of God can never be fully plumbed. There is so much Mystery, and we are always looking through a glass darkly that we can never close ourselves off to the possibility that God will grant the Church through the Holy Spirit the opportunity to learn more about the divine revelation He has already given us.

Thus, I can't agree at all that Christian dogma has been exhausted. No new doctrine, indeed, but new dogma (which is an authoritative clarification of doctrine) is certainly a possibility. In fact, I think that is part of the Faith of the Church.

And on that principle, the organs of infallibility that God has given us will always be necessary and useful.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,


See my two previous posts to brother Byzbob.

Blessings

I suspect, our understanding of infallibility is also different.

Blessings

Dear brother Scott,


Whoever said that has never studied the history of the Councils. The Second Ecumenical Council clarified the dogma of the First, the Third clarified the first two, the Fourth clarified further, and so on and so on. Please read my previous post to brother Byzbob. I hope you meditate upon the biblical Truth that we are always looking through a glass darkly, and that we can never fully plumb the Truths of God.


As with the rest of Christian dogmas of the past, it's not at all surprising. We are always growing in knowledge, and whoever claims we need no more growth is guilty of pride methinks.


Vatican 2 clarified all this (actually, the clarifications were evident from papal encyclicals before V2, and would also be evident if one takes the effort to study the background context of Vatican 1). It's not so much confusing as that some people have an agenda to make it confusing (I'm certainly not speaking of you, brother).


Why is an obvious explanation considered "mental gymnastics?" Is it or is it not true that the only ones who are making it a matter of "mental gymnastics" are the very liberals who wish for women priests? Why would an orthodox Catholic side with the liberals?


Again, it seems to me the only ones who are causing the confusion are the liberals who wish the Pope's statements here is an infallible permission for condom use. Seriously think about your examples, and I hope you can see that the real source of the confusion comes not from orthodox Catholicism, but those who have an agenda to cause confusion. I beg you not to give in to that agenda.


Interesting that you should express this view. I completely agree. But what I find interesting about your view is that you don't seem to realize that this was explicitly taught by V1. You don't even need to plumb the depths of the background debates at V1. What you express here is flat out part of the Decree. The Dogma explicitly states that the charism that the Pope exercises is simply "the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to have."


Nothing you've written is offensive.

Blessings,
Marduk

Bull.

It's in the canons of your own Church. If one willfully dissents from the canons of their own Church, it becomes a very serious matter.



Canon 597

1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held. 2. The college of bishops
also possesses infallible teaching authority if the bishops,
gathered in an ecumenical council, exercise their teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals for the
universal Church, declare that a doctrine of faith or morals must
be definitively held; they also exercise it scattered throughout
the world but united in a bond of communion among themselves and
with the successor of Peter when together with that same Roman
Pontiff in their capacity as authentic teachers of faith and
morals they agree on an opinion to be held as definitive. 3.
No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is
clearly established as such.

Dear brother Byzbob,

This is where brother Markos' exhortation to study the background context of Vatican 1 becomes invaluable. There is so much to learn from such a study which would clarify so much. Just to take your example, if you made a study of the background of V1 to understand what they meant, you would discover that when V1 decreed "not by the consent of the Church," the Fathers of the Council were not saying that the exercise of the Church's infallibility by the Pope is solitary or that the Church is not at all involved. Rather, what they meant was that:
1) Truth needs no consensus.
2) Since the Pope has already determined before promulgating an ex cathedra decree the mind of the Church on the matter, and making his decision in agreement with it, then no one is permitted to question it after the Decree. Since the Decree already reflects the mind of the Church, then those who disagree with it is opposing the Church.

Dear brother Scott,


That's so true. Personally, I oppose the Absolutist Petrine interpretations of V1 (as well as the Low Petrine view of non-Catholics).


As stated in my previous post, what you propose here is already the explicit teaching of V1. The problem is that the real teaching of V1 has been smothered under all the polemics from the Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates. Both groups are misrepresenting V1 in the same way, but simply with different agendas (the former to promote the papacy, the latter to oppose it).


A wise and concise comparison!


I agree. To put it another way, many Catholics (especially Latin Catholics) see papal infallibility as the Pope imposing doctrine as a monarch, instead of the Pope meeting the needs of the Church as her servant.


That's a very valid question. Let me pose a question to you, and if you can answer my question, then it will perhaps answer to your own question (if not, then we can discuss further):

The Catholic Church also recognizes that infallibility can be exercised by the bishops of the world in union with their head bishop (the Pope) even while they are geographically spread throughout the world when they teach definitively on a matter. I gather you will agree with that. My question to you is - if infallibility can be exercised in this way, why is there a need for an Ecumenical Council?


I think I already answered this in a previously, but let me repeat dialectically. If dogma is clearly understood, why did the dogma of the First Ecumenical Council need to be clarified by the Second? Why did the Fourth need to be clarified by the Fifth and Sixth?


The issue here was the Primacy, not the Infallibility.

Regarding infallibility, Melkite Patriarch Jussef in a speech on February 9 in the Congregation de postulatis (this was a group of 26 bishops nominated by the Pope, responsible for sifting through the many proposals made by the bishops for the matters to be laid before the Council - Patriarch Jussef was a member of that Congregation) expressed his personal belief in papal infallibility, while noting that the definition would be an obstacle to reunion with the EOC. His speech for the formal debate on the infallibility was given on May 19, 1870. He expresed in stronger terms his opposition to the definition as it would "destroy all hope of reunion." He proposed that only the Decrees of Florence be reenacted, and the rights of the Patriarchs respected.

It should be noted that Patriarch Jussef at all times expressed his desire that the rights of the Patriarchs be respected, even beyond the May 19 speech, so one should not take his mention of it in a speech during the Infallibility debates as indicating that the "rights of the Patriarchs" had anything to do with the question of Infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

Perhaps you can provide some of the background to which you refer? As it stands, I am not following your thought process. The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible. So if the Pope alone decrees the mind of the Church on the matter, then defines, by himself what is to be held under pain of anathema, how is that with the consent of the Church? Forgive my ignorance, but I recall Pope Pius IX's famous, or infamous, words when challenged on a certain point, "I am the tradition" he said. I must wonder then if he held your more moderate view?

Dear brother Todd,


I suspect you really don't understand what infallibility is. Infallibility is first and foremost a character of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of God. The only ones who can exercise Magisterium (i.e. the teaching office) are bishops. So it is not just "anyone."

And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that when the bishops teach in a definitive manner on a topic in union with the head bishop of the Church (i.e. the Pope) even when geographically separated throughout the world, they are exercising the infallible Magisterium of God.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Bob,

Thanks for your interest. However, I'm afraid I have exhausted my time on the I-net. I'll return later in the day, and hopefully my response can satisfy your request.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is the context of the quote I referenced above. It appears to me, that the quote is in direct contradiction to the idea that the Pope needs to consult with the episcopacy (i.e. the Church).

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2118

Dear ByzBob,

I was about to leave and noticed this last bit of info from you. I'll respond to it since it will require no research from me.

Yes, indeed, that quote from the Pope is in direct contradiction to the idea that the Pope needs to consult with the episcopacy. I haven't read the article, and I am not inclined to read anything from that liberal publication which has expressed opposition to the Church's teaching on homosexuality and women priests. But I will bet (in line with its heterodox agenda) that it never mentioned that Archbishop Guidi's position actually won the day. The very title of the Decree on the infallibility was changed from "The Infallibility of the Pope" to the "The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope." This just goes to show you what a bunch of malarchy is spewed forth from anti-papal advocates who try to enforce the lie that the Pope had dictatorial control of Vatican 1.

Btw, the many members of the Minority Party actually crowded around Archbishop Guidi as he stepped down from the ambo after his speech to congratulate him on it.

Blessings,
Marduk

So what about Unam Sanctum?

To be Catholic, must I believe that this Papal Bull was infallible?

Must I believe that Luther, Elizabeth I, Photius, and Gregory Palamas (all of whom died outside the Roman Communion, and without being subject to the Roman Pontif) are in hell?

I wasn't so much interested in the publication as I was in giving the context of the quote that I mentioned. As an aside I believe this the very question of infallibility, along with Rome's understanding of the developement of doctrine, are the reason these sorts of groups don't take no for an answer.



In fact Cardinal Guidi did not win the day. The rebuke from Pope Pius IX came after his the very speech you are referencing. At the next session Bishop D'Avanzo upbraided Guidi in the name of the commision on faith, saying he was worse than Gallican. The infallibilists demanded that he recant his speech publicly in the newspaper. On July 13, 1870, he gave his assent to the constitution, though with reservations; five days later he finally went along with it completely.

MichaelB

I answered in your PM rather than de-railing the thread here on Unam Sanctum.

Why would anyone want to believe that St. Photios and St. Gregory Palamas are in hell.

You seem to suspect many things about me. Would it not be easier to simply accept the fact that I reject your theories about the importance of the papacy, rather than to constantly accuse me of being an intellectual moron.

Are they recognized as Saints by Rome?

If they are, how can the statement that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature that they be subject to the Pontiff of Rome" (Unam Sanctum) be infallible?

(Particularly in the case of Photius, who rejected the universal jurisdiction claimed by the Pope.)

BTW: I believe homosexuality is a sin, I'm against abortion, and I don't believe women should be ordained to the Priesthood.

I read that, and it made sense to me.

Thank you.

They're in my Typicon.

Dear brother Bob,


I wouldn't be overly concerned about an off-hand remark by Pio Nono. I'm more concerned about what is contained in Magisterial documents, and I've found no echo of that sentiment from Magisterial sources. I agree with you that such isolated bits of info do seem to obtain much purchase in the minds of detractors of the papacy (and I consider Absolutist Petrine advocates as much detractors of the papacy as Low Petrine advocates).


OK. Let's compromise and say that Cardinal Guidi only won 98% of the day.

Here are some other facts:
(1) Behind the scenes, on the same day that Cardinal Guidi was rebuked by the Pope, several leaders of the Minority and Majority parties met and discussed the possibility that the schema could be revised based on Guidi's speech. They approached one of the Council Presidents Cardinal de Luca on the matter, and everyone agreed. However, it was decided that any change would have to come after the course of the debates had run.
(2) Bishop D'Avanzo's speech specifically opposed the changing of the Title on the Chapter on Infallibility (i.e., "the Infallibility of the Pope"). Obviously, Cardinal Guidi won that battle hands down.
(3) One of the changes enacted to the schema as a result of Guidi's speech was the addition of the historic proem to the Decree on Infallibility. Its addition addressed in essence the very concerns that Guidi expressed against the idea that the Pope can exercise infallibility apart from the Church.
(4) The addition of the proem to the Decree was vociferously opposed by the neo-ultramontanists at the Council (neo-ultramontanists were those who adhered to an Absolutist Petrine view), so much that a few of them walked out of the Council in disgust, thinking that the Decree was how nothing more than Gallicanism in disguise!!!

So the only thing that Guidi "lost" was his proposal that the Pope can never exercise infallibility apart from the Church and his brother bishops be included in the definition itself. It was indeed not incorporated as part of the definition, but was nevertheless included in essence in another part of the Decree. As noted in earlier post, the conditions from Sacred Tradition include:
(1) The Pope has no authority to make an ex cathedra decree unless the Church through her bishops call for it;
(2) The Pope cannot make new doctrine, but can only make dogma based on what is already the accepted teaching of the Church.

I have to go, but I'll return in abit with statements from some of the Council Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

I must say I disagree with most everything you wrote, but rather than get bogged down in what really happened at the council, I would like to focus on the above quote. I would ask were you are getting this notion from? I have already read the attempt to make Vatican 1 the author of this notion, but I found it rather unconvincing. Newadvent.org does not list this as a condition of an ex-cathedra statement, nor does Ludwigg Ott. Both agree that the three conditions are 1. teaching concerning faith and morals. 2. That he speaks as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority and finally #3 that he has the inention that the definition be held by all.

Dear brother Bob,


Your reaction is completely understandable to me, because I used to have the same attitude. I didn't want to hear or read anything that could possibly make me change my mind about the papacy. In my earlier years, I rested on the laurels of Hans Kung, other liberal Catholics, and non-Catholic sources to inform me of what went on at the Vatican Council. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, but please at least point out which portions you disagree with. I will supply some information in response, and you don't have to engage me on them.


It's only natural that the standard manuals will focus only on the conditions that are contained in the definition itself, for that is what is normally what is at issue. But the Decree as a whole is another thing, and that contains other conditions as well, conditions based on the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Our apparent issue here is similar to the issue on what made the ruling against female priests an infallible teaching of the Church - was it by virtue of a dogmatic ruling (an extraordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium of God), or by virtue of teaching what is already contained conclusively in Sacred Tradition (an ordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium of God).

Thus, I would direct your attention to the historic proem of the Decree on Infallibility (paragraph 5 of the Decree), which contains these words: "Therefore, the bishops of the world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matter of faith."

According to the ancient rule, the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallible Magisterium was, is, and is to be utilized as a response to the solicitude of the bishops of the Church, in exercise of their own apostolic ministry.

I gather you did not know (perhaps because none of your sources have informed you) that the historic proem was not part of the original draft of the Decree, but was added only after the debates which included Guidi's speech. It was added specifically to meet the concerns of bishops in both the Minority and Majority party (which were expressed during the debates) that the Decree made it seem as if the Pope could act apart from or without the concourse of the Church.

Dom Cuthbert Butler (The Vatican Council:1869 - 1870, Longmans, Green & Co., 1930) summarizes the attitude of the neo-ultramontanists, based on the minutes as recorded in Mansi:
"They called for the suppression of the piece [i.e., the proem], that the Popes in exercising their infallibility had convoked Councils or had ascertained the mind of the Church, as imposing conditions on the Pope...that the new form of the definition was virtual Gallicanism...that the it made the infallibility of the Pope to be derived from the infallibility of the Church...many objected to the limitation of the infallibility to definitions of faith and morals, wishing it extended to far wider circles."

In his pastoral to his local flock after the Council, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, England, wrote concerning the Proem, "the past is the guarantee for the future, and prescribes the principles and rules by which the Popes are guided."

The Swiss Synod of Bishops wrote a Pastoral to their flock, explaining: "It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition...he is tied up and limited by the divine law and the constitution of the Church."

Interestingly, Pio Nono responded to the Swiss bishops: "nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than their pastoral." Apparently, the Pope himself submitted to the will of the Council and let go of his own private opinions about being "the only Tradition of the Church" or whatever he stated to Guidi.

Across the Atlantic, Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore in his own Pastoral to his flock, wrote similarly on his explanation of the Proem: "Hence, it is manifest that the Pontiffs cannot define any new doctrine not contained either expressly or impliedly in the original Deposit of Faith, much less can they define merely according to their own will and caprice, as their enemies are not ashamed sometimes to assert...for nowhere is precedent more rigidly adhered to, or regarded as more sacred, than in the Roman Church, as every one knows."

As previously stated, Archbishop's Guidi's proposals won the day (at least 98% of it ).

I'll leave you with the words of Bishop Gasser, the official spokesman for the Deputation De Fide. His words represent the official understanding of the text that was proposed to the Council Fathers for vote:

"[W]e do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church, at any rate in the sense that we do not exclude such co-operation and such concourse of the Church. The end is the preservation of Truth in the Church, generally when controversy arises, and some question is referred to the Holy See for settlement. Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope's infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence, the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils, or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc..."

Basically, the participation of the Church through her bishops in the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallibility is regarded as a practical and moral necessity, but not a dogmatic one.

Blessings,
Marduk

A third distinction without a difference.

By the law of averages, you say it often enough, I guess it had to happen some time.

Agreed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Mardukm,

As you so clearly defined I am not up to your level yet, so please bear with me. What I am reacting to is your statement that the definition from Pastor Aeternus makes Papal Infallibility contigent upon a call from the bishops. I still do not see it in the definition, nor in the quotes you provided. Indeed Chapter 4 appears to militate against that notion. In no 5 we read:


Is the council not saying that the Popes had used councils, or synods to achieve their end (infallible declarations), and other means? The first two may give the appearance of supporting your contention (though a synod is hardly a call from all the bishops), but the 'other circumstances,' would indicate, to me, that it wasn't always a collegial decision. Furthermore, this paragraph would lead the reader to believe that there were multiple ex cathedra statements given by Pope prior to 1870 - if that is the case wouldn't we need a list of them?

Dear brother Bob,

I'm confused. I thought you wanted to talk about my statement that "Papal Infallibility is contingent upon a call from the bishops." I gave you proof from the Proem. My point was that the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is appellate in nature - that's the way it's always been as clearly set forth in the Proem (the ancient rule). The Pope just can't wake up one morning and say to himself, "Yaaaawn. I think today is a good day for a new dogma." This is one of the ways that the Church is necessarily involved in the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallibility.

But now you bring up a section of the Proem that has nothing to do with that.???

I need to go. Just to let you know, I'm not sure when I'll be back. Hopefully later today or tomorrow. If not, it'll have to be after the weekend (Christmas obligations for the Latin side of my family, you know ).

Blessings,
Marduk

Since - as an Eastern Catholic - I do not accept the ecumenicity of the fourteen Latin Church particular synods the debate about Pastor Aeternus is a moot point. The discussion ultimately involves a lot of technical babble about a non-dogmatic issue.

Bob,

When I was a student at Franciscan University it was made very clear to me by my professors that the pope did not have to await a request from any other bishop or group of bishops, nor was he required to consult the universal episcopate, before issuing a decree; and that this - according to my professors - is clear from both the decree itself and the Official Relatio delivered by Bishop Gasser on 11 July 1870. In fact, in the Relatio Bishop Gasser went out of his way to affirm that the pope may consult the other bishops if he wishes, but he made it absolutely clear that the pope is not required to consult them, and that no form of necessity in consulting the universal episcopate could ever be placed upon the pope. Bishop Gasser stated that the pope can act with the other bishops or independently of them (see the Official Relatio of the Deputation de Fide, nos. 37-40), and that he must possess this ability if he is to be able to "confirm his brethren" in the faith.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I should make it clear that within a year after becoming Eastern Catholic I no longer accepted the Western theory of papal infallibility.

P.P.S - Below is a link to a paper I wrote on the Western theory of the papal magisterium while working on my master's degree at Franciscan University:

The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25

Todd,
Thanks for confirming that. I have never run across the theory that the Pope needed to consult with his brother bishops prior to making an ex cathedra statement until this thread. In fact, everything I have heard and read on the topic conforms with what you were told at Steubenville. It wouldn't be as divisive a teaching if consultation was required. If Papal Infallibility were contingent upon the consent of the entire episcopate that would be a step in the right direction (not that I think we are ever going to see another ‘ex cathedra,’ statement again).

Yours,
Bob

I guess you're not going to resond to my previous post? That's OK.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here's a link that I think offers a good perspective on the subject and which might provide some enlightenment.

http://www.washtheocon.org/Pastor%20Aete...fallibility.pdf

Prayers to all for a blessed and joyous Nativity!

I think we simply disagree. Pius IX may not have gotten everything he wanted. Indeed, he did not want any limitations at all, so even the radical power vested to him in the form of an ex cathedra statement was, for him, a disappointment (the syllabus was out, but the Immaculate Conception still was a possible 'infallible utterance'). Be that as it may, there was and is no requirement that in order to make an ex cathedra statement he had to consult with his bishops, or anyone else for that matter.

Some Council Fathers insisted that the Pope’s infallibility was dependent on the collective agreement of the bishops. However, Cardinal Cullen, who is credited with drafting the final form of the definition, crushed his opposition by stating simply: “Christ did not say to Peter, 'Thou art the Rock provided you consult bishops or theologians; I give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, but on the condition you hear others before you use them.'" Cullen reiterated the point that infallibility does not proceed through the Church, but directly from God

I agree with you. I know that Councils have expanded on dogmas that were previously defined because the previous definition had only dealt with one aspect of it. All the Christological Councils are good examples of this, as you say. However, I hear this all the time from Latin Catholic clergy in speaking about development of doctrine and how the Church only defines something when it has reached its full flowering. It is described as if there is a spiral that continues to become smaller and smaller as more and more generations add thoughts about different doctrines of the Church. Then, once all the theological debate has occurred, the doctrine is defined infallibly by the Church and is codified forevermore, never to be changed or doubted. It has a rigid, legalistic ring to it, so it's not surprising that this is foreign to Easterners.

I don't think the Latin Church always understood things this way, and I do believe this is a modern concept, actually probably more a contemporary concept, but it is there nonetheless.



Oh, for sure. I agree completely.



Let's say that there are those who wish to make it confusing. I don't doubt that might be the case. However, it seems to me the confusion comes about when we try to explain away what is in the definition itself. I understand that it might be good to look at what was written "behind the scenes", but as it has been demonstrated by various posters here, it is possible to find any number of writings from different Fathers of Vatican I, which can be used to prove whatever position one happens to hold. All these quotes that are being thrown around do not really prove anything other than the fact that even the Council Fathers couldn't agree on what Pastor Aeternus really meant.

Also, as others have written, this dogma is never presented to Latin Catholics saying that the Pope needs to consult other bishops. I know it is presented in a way that says the Pope cannot change dogmas that have already been defined and that he is not outside the Church. However, I always understood it to mean that, while the Pope may consult bishops, he does not have to do so in order to exercise this prerogative.

I will add that all of this has made me more interested to read the sources for myself and to read more about what went on at Vatican I.



The mental gymnastics do not come about because the Holy Father was giving an obvious explanation but rather because of how this is understood by most Catholics. Most Catholics understand that the Pope of Rome is infallible. Most Catholics learned what that meant in their CCD classes. They would have learned there the three criteria for the Pope to speak infallibly. They know that he just can't speak infallibly whenever he wants to. However, when he announced that this teaching on women's ordination was infallible and irreformable, he was not speaking ex cathedra. It appeared that he was defining an infallible dogma of the Church but was not speaking ex cathedra. He was merely responding to a question from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. All of the sudden, as perceived by most Catholics, the Pope of Rome is making an infallible statement that isn't ex cathedra. I mean there was no formal ceremony in St. Peter's in which the Holy Father used the language that his predecessors had used when defining dogmas. As I said above, this causes a great amount of confusion and only fuels debates about when is the Pope really speaking infallibly and how much consent must we give to his writings. Yes, Marduk, I think your position makes sense in an ideal world, but how it is presented to and understood by average Catholics in the pews, it is "mental gymnastics".



Marduk, I agree with you that this is being used by the liberal Catholic and secular media to discredit and sow doubt amongst the Faithful about the teachings of the Church. However, that wasn't really my point. My point was basically that these sorts of discussions would not have been an issue had the definition of papal infallibility never occurred. I'm not saying we still wouldn't see the role of the Pope of Rome as very important and that his voice would not stand out from his brethren. However, had Pastor Aeternus not happened, people would not glom onto every word of the Pope as if he held the fate of Christian doctrine in his hands. They would have recognized that this is just one opinion and understanding and that it will be decided at the next Council.

This discussion is helping me to clarify my understanding of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome and how we relate to the Bishop of Rome. I do believe that the Holy Spirit was at work in Vatican I and that this was defined for some reason. It becomes harder and harder to understand why this happened, but it did. Now, we must deal with it.

I appreciate your responses and your thoughts, Marduk.

Again, I am open to correction on anything I have written. I hope and pray I have not offended anyone. If so, please forgive me and pray for me.

A Blessed Nativity celebration to all!

Yours in Christ,
Scott

It certainly wouldn't negate the principal. It would, however, solve some practical problems between the Churches regarding particular statements already made.



Err, didn't St. Photius die in communion with Rome?

Marduk,

This is something I would like to discuss. It does puzzle me. I don't know if this is accurate, but it seems to me that this is a latter understanding of how infallibility works in the Church. I'm not sure how this was exercised in the days of the Church prior to our modern means of communication or if this is just a distinction without a difference, as Stuart is fond of saying.

Yours,
Scott

Dear brother Bob,


On facts???


So he was not the absolute ruler of the Council, as detractors of V1 suppose?


Before engaging on this topic, I request a clarification. There are three points at issue here:
1) The activation of the Pope's exercise of the Church's infallibility
2) The manner by which the Pope formulates a Decree
3) The authority to promulgate the Decree.
We need not discuss #3 at this point. I am confused as to whether you are referring to #1 or #2. I have been referring to #1. It seems you are referring to #2, but I am not at all sure now. Are you saying that the Pope can indeed wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide that the Church needs a new dogma, and then impose it on the Church without any say from the rest of the bishops of the Church? And this, after all the quotes I gave you indicating that the Pope cannot exercise the Church's infallibility at his whim and fancy?


Yes, and these Low Petrine advocates did not get their way. And some Council Fathers insisted that all infallibility flowed only from the Pope. These Absolutist Petrine advocates did not get their way either.


Cardinal Bilio, one of the Council presidents, takes the actual credit. Cullen had been advised by him, according to the diary of one of the Council Fathers Bishop Senestrey of Ratisbon.


Really? If his argument was so strong, I wonder how the Council could have failed to utilize the giving of the keys as Scriptural support for papal infallibility(???). Your source makes a sensationalist claim to make Cullen's contribution more important than it actually was.


And Bishop Gasser, the official spokesman for the commission that proposed the text of the Decree, asserted that neither does infalliblity flow through the Pope, but directly from God. Did your source mention that? Would it be correct to say that your source is only interested in giving a an Absolutist Petrine caricature of Vatican 1?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Scott,


I have met my fair share (too many, imo) of Latin apologists who parade St. Augustine's "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" around as if it were dogma (every time I hear or read that, I am always sure to point out that the historic context of that quote actually dictates a collegial understanding of papal decisions ). So I know what you're talking about. I admit I have some advantage since I never grew up Catholic and was never immersed/constantly exposed to these kinds of excesses (though I don't know what your own background is). So I hope you'll forgive me if I seem to always lock heads with Easterns who take a more cynical (from my subjective pov, not that this is actually the case on their part) view towards the papacy.

Btw, did you know that this quote from Augustine was actually proposed as part of the Decree on Infallibility, but the Council Fathers struck it down?


I can partly agree with that assessment. First of all, instead of "confusion," would it be valid to take it rather as a sign of hope that the Absolutist Petrine perspective was indeed not the position that was intended by V1, and that there might actually be a chance of rapprochement with our Orthodox brethren?

Secondly, it seems a lot of the confusion lies in the fact that people are so focused - and so used to focusing - on the definition itself, that they forget about or neglect (purposefully or out of habit) the rest of the Decree, which is an authoritative explanation of the definition. I'd like your comment on that. As one example, let me take the Primacy debate. I have actually crossed swords with Latins in the Absolutist Petrine camp who were completely unaware that, despite the definition on the Primacy, the Decree itself actually states that the Pope's authority cannot impede the local authority of the local bishop (paragraph 3 of the Decree on the Primacy). Reactions to my pointing this out have ranged from surprise and agreement to silence and avoidance. My current discussion with brother Byzbob is another case in point (we'll have to see how that progresses).


I partly agree with you. I seriously doubt any Latin Catholic questions the matter unless they are faced by an Eastern or Oriental (whether Catholic or Orthodox). I doubt they will get a sympathetic presentation of the matter from Orthodox. Whatever Orthodox say will sound to Latins like nothing more than the Protestant position - it's either/or. Either you have the Pope or you don't. If there's any hope of combatting the Absolutist Petrine view, it will have to come from us, their fellow Catholics.

Now, I stated I partly agree with you because I am actually not averse to the precept that the Pope need not consult the bishops. What I oppose is the precept that the Pope need not ever consult the bishops. I suspect this is the caricature that many Latins accept, and which we have to combat. This is, I think, what non-Latins (Catholic and Orthodox alike) actually oppose, as well, instead of the very sensible first precept. Do you see the difference between the two? Let's discuss further if you are interested (though some of such a forthcoming discussion may potentially be covered in my exchange with brother Byzbob). For now, let me just say that I truly believe that any fair reading of the entire Decree on Infallibility (not a myopic focus on the definition itself) easily reveals that consultation with his brother bishops in the formulation of a decree is the norm according to Sacred Tradition and the ancient practice of the Church. With that understanding, the idea that the Pope need not ever consult his brother bishops is merely an impossibly fantastic and false scenario.


I think some have suggested a really good book earlier. I've not read it yet. I also strongly suggest The Vatican Council: 1869 - 1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler.


I see what you mean. But let me put it this way. Instead of an instance of confusion, can't we rather view this as an opportunity for clarification and learning? Seriously, just apply it to yourself. When you are confused about something, do you just throw up your arms and give up, or do you seek to learn? In that sense, I think this situation has highlighted two very important aspects of the Catholic teaching that Catholics would not normally learn about in CCD classes (unless someone were smart enough to bring up a scenario covering it) - namely, (1) that infallibility is not the Pope's alone, and (2) that not even the Pope is above Sacred Tradition.


I'm not sure about that. I think that even without the concept of infallibility, his comments would obtain just as much coverage and speculation, simply because he is the leader of the Catholic Church (as if the media would cease to take any opportunity to malign the Catholic Church with or without the teaching on infallibility!). To me, it is just another opportunity for clarification. I guess I expect such adversity and would rather meet it with peace and prayer rather than fear or anger (please don't take that wrongly).


What a humble spirit you have, brother. You put me to shame!

Blessings,
Marduk

In all of this, you have never actually explained why it is necessary that the Pope be infallible.

Yes, we disagree on the facts, the definition, and practically everything else associated with it.


He was working behind the scenes. He may not have gotten everything he wanted, but what he got was more than enough. The Church has never fully recovered. Witness the liturgical wreck that has occurred in the west, the multiple schisms [old Catholics, SSPX, sedevacantists, etc].

Yes, he could do that. There is nothing stopping him in the definition. Nor could anyone judge him for doing so, or appeal to a council. That is what the definition says.


Are you suggesting that the basis of Papal Infallibility isn’t the tortured reading of Mat 16?


Quite the opposite. The “source” would defend Vatican 1, while opposing those who think the Pope has absolute authority. It would appear then that there are differing accounts of what happened, who said what, etc., even from those who agree on certain aspects of the council? Not surprising. Yours is truly the most novel that I have read.

this is a rather odd question, to my estimation.
It is like asking why it was necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin.
It simply is what it is.

No, it's not. The Church believed Christ was born of a Virgin from the beginning. It is a divine revelation, given to us in Scripture and the Church's rule of faith, believed, as St. Vincent of Lerins puts it, "By all people, at all times, in all places".

On the other hand, the Pope was most definitely NOT infallible until the year 1871, and the process by which he was defined as infallible was and remains highly controversial (else we would not be having this discussion).

The Church functioned for centuries, indeed, for more than 1800 years, without any need for infallibility. Since that time, it has been used twice--once in an ex officio manner, once in accordance with the definition of Pastor aeternus--and in both cases, to dogmatize matters that are entirely tangential to the core of the Christian faith. This leads one to believe maybe those who believe the Pope is infallible have not done a good job of explaining why he needs this authority.

Dear brother Stuart,


Very smart question. I suspect you already know how I will respond, given everything that has been discussed here and in the past.

In fact, I couldn't begin to answer your question. After all, I've never claimed the Pope is infallible, nor did Vatican 1 claim the Pope is infallible.

Vatican 1 taught that the Magisterium is infallible, the Magisterium being the teaching authority of God. It does not belong personally/ontologically to any body on earth, not the Church, not an Ecumenical COuncil, not the Pope. It is God's and God's alone. However, for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, God allows the Church to share in His infallibility when the Church is called by God to teach His Truth. God's Truth is intrinsically universal, and therefore, His Truth must necessarily be taught by a body with the authority to speak to and for the Church universal. This prerogative to speak to and for the Church universal is recognized by the Catholic Church to reside in three bodies of authority - (1) an Ecumenical Council speaking authoritatively on an issue of Faith or morals; (2) the bishops of the world in union with its head bishop even while geographically separated when teaching in a definitive manner on an issue of Faith or morals; (3) the head bishop of the Church (the Pope) when defining an issue of Faith or morals.

So infallibility comes naturally with the universal authority to teach. It's just a given. The question is not whether the Pope can exercise infallibility, but whether or not the Pope as protos has the prerogative to speak to and for the Church universal.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,


Not a problem for me, because I don't believe the Pope is infallible. Your quandary was not a problem for V1 either because V1 never taught such a thing. We have here an example of a straw man argument.


Actually, the Church East and West had been appealing to Rome on doctrinal questions several times when the Church was united. If it was so unnecessary, why do we have such a solid record of such appeals on doctrinal questions?

That the papal exercise of the Church's infallibility is appellate in nature cannot be doubted (the Pope can't exercise infallibility on his whim and fancy). That it never existed or was unnecessary is a stretch of the imagination.

Blessings

Dear brother Bob,


It's your right to stick to liberal sources.


Thanks for the admission.


Let's get our facts straight:
(1) The Old Catholic Schism was established many years before Vatican 1.
(2) Not a single bishop initiated a schism as a result of Vatican 1.


What goes on in the Latin Church is no business of yours nor mine. They were opposing him on his authority as their Patriarch, and their complaints have nothing to do with the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches.


I see you validate my observation that opposition to the papacy is based completely on a myopic focus on the definitions, instead of the Decrees as a whole.

I recall that Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was criticized by the Eastern Council Fathers of Ephesus for not sticking to prior conciliar definitions in his exhortations against Nestorius. St. Cyril correctly shot back that our Faith is not restricted to the definitions, but to the whole witness of the Church.

It's so ironic that those who oppose the papacy often claim that they oppose legalism, yet these same people exhibit the very same thing that they (supposedly) oppose when they insist on myopically focusing on the definitions, instead of the whole context of the Decrees.


Well, that's not part of the Decree on Infallibility. In any case, you are referring to the appellate authority of the Pope. Please read the Council of Sardica and tell us if there is another level after appeal to the bishop of Rome that is recognized by the early Church.


Nope. The statement to which you refer provides a very important mitigating clause - namely, "as to an authority above the Pope." There is nothing that could prevent appeal to a Council under the presidency of the Pope where the Pope could very well change his mind through the counsel of his fellow bishops. In any case, we're not talking about infallibility anymore.


Nope. That's not even part of the Decree on the Infallibility! You're referring to the Decree on the Primacy. You're just grasping at straws now, brother.


Which verse? IIRC, there is no mention of the keys in the Decree on Infallibility.


How novel could it be, given the quotes from the Council Fathers that I gave you?

Blessings

Dear brother Scott,

Please read my response to brother Stuart at 11:31 P.M. Let's consider the issue in that context. Does it offer any answers to your question?

Blessings,
Marduk

Does anyone know what's contained in the profession of faith Pope Clement IV impossed on Emperor Michael Palealogus?

Does it meet the criteria of an infallible, ex-cathedra pronouncement?

Are Papal professions of faith considered ex-cathedra pronouncements?

Does anyone know what's contained in the profession of faith Pope Clement IV impossed on Emperor Michael Palealogus?

(Does it say that babies who die in original sin go to hell?)

Does this document meet the criteria of an infallible, ex-cathedra pronouncement (and are Papal professions of faith normally considered ex-cathedra pronouncements)?

Anyone, please.

That, of course, is not how Pastor aeternus is worded, and, moreover, does nothing to explain how an appellate authority can be used unilaterally to promote innovations and impose them over the entire Church of God.

Interesting, I have read discussions about this but I would not be able to answer this question. I hope someone will respons to this.

http://www.cantius.org/go/sacraments/baptism/unbaptized_infants/

" The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. in S. Bapt.) expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): “The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.” Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin. "

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

What does this thread have to do with the Eastern Churches, their spirituality, their theology, or their approach to the Mystery we celebrate today on the Gregorian calendar?

Bob
Moderator

I agree. In the future let's just allow one thread and move all new posts on the same topic to that thread. Let's remember that the focus of The Byzantine Forum is Eastern Christianity.

I will note that Litwin's post does starkly point out the difference between the East's approach to issues like those cited in Litwin's post and the (for lack of a better term) hyper-legalistic approach of the West. Coming from an Eastern background, my brain starts to spin when I start reading and trying to understand such arguments as set out on the specific post and the thread as a whole. I think that is something that most of us who are either Eastern Catholic or Orthodox can agree upon.

Except Litvin quotes theological opinion and not the teaching of the Catholic Church. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI

Fr. Deacon is correct, the Latin Church in modern times has thankfully moved away from the position advocated by the Western Council of Florence on the fate of unbaptized babies, and that is something that pleases me - speaking as an Eastern Catholic.

That is a very good point, and succinctly stated.

Dear brother Stuart,


Yet again, more proof that those who oppose the papal dogmas are legalistically and myopically focusing on the definition, instead of the entire Decree Pastor Aeternus.

Pastor Aeternus contains these words:
The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles.

I hope brother Scott is carefully keeping track of these exchanges to see that opposition to the papal dogmas is really just a matter of invalid eisegesis of the Decree as a whole.

The issue you bring up, brother Stuart, has nothing to do with the doctrine of papal infallibility. We need to investigate the specific teachings to which you refer in order to test the truth of your statement (which I hope the mods agree would be beyond the scope of this thread).

Blessings,
Marduk

Not!

Blessings,
Marduk

It's up to the whole Church to decide that, not one particular Church, let alone one man who is head of that particular Church. The Latin Church likes to say it does not innovate, but merely "clarifies" or "refines" that which the Church has always believed. It takes a particular kind of naivete to believe that.

Dear brother Stuart,


I agree, but your original statement was misleading. You claimed that there was nothing in the Decree that prevented the Pope from imposing innovative teachings (at least in the sense that they are heretical), and I showed you that such a statement is false.


The Pope is the head bishop of one particular Church. But he is also the head bishop of the universal Church.


What the Latin Church does is of no concern to me. It's not like the Easterns have not introduced innovations. Then again, innovations are not necessarily heretical nor heterodox (that goes for the Latins, as well as the Easterns -- and the Orientals).

Blessings,
Marduk

But we do not insist they are normative for all Christians.

That he thought infallibility should be extended to making the lame walk, it isn’t that big of admission to note he didn’t get everything he wanted!




I disagree that what the Latin Church does is no business of ours. St. Paul would likewise disagree that what happens to one member of the body of Christ doesn’t affect the other members. They [the SSPX, Sedvencantists and other groups] oppose him (the Pope) primarily due to their attempt to uphold Vatican 1. While there have always been groups that broke off after a council they typically did so because they simply disagreed with the council. What makes Vatican 1 different is the fact that groups that broke off (aside from the Old Catholics) did so because they are trying to uphold it.



Of course, the definition on infallibility hinges upon a misunderstanding of primacy, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.



See chapter 1:2. Again, it is in the chapter on primacy, but that the council separated primacy from infallibility is simply not worth attempting to defend. They show them as being intertwined. Which is part of the problem for the ecumenical movement today. The East agrees with the idea of primacy, rightly understood.



If you refer to the few quotes you gave that were part of the original sales job they prove nothing. Let’s deal with text rather than what individual council fathers may have said in order to get their flocks to go along with the definition.

Both ByzBob and Markdum overlook two significant Latin schisms resulting from Vatican I: That of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht, and the Polish National Church. Markdum also overlooks the damage done to the cause of Christian unity by the erection of yet another scandalum by the Latin Church, one that offends both Protestant and Orthodox sensibilities.

If one assumes that the Petrine Ministry exists to serve the Church, and not the Church to serve as a podium for the Petrine Ministry, one would have to ask, one performed an honest cost/benefit analysis of Pastor aeternus, whether it could be justified as either confirming the brethren in faith or serving the cause of unity.

Which is just another way of asking, "Just why did the Pope need to be infallible?"

A slight correction. The Polish National Catholic Church schism was not a consequence of Vatican I. It was entirely the result of internal Church politics and ethnic conflict within the U.S.RC Church. The association with the Old Catholics was purely an accommodation to obtain a bishop and establish apostolic succession.

OK. The PNC was not a direct consequence of Vatican I.

And I could use this very same paragraph you wrote, and instead substitute the words, "Council of Ephesus" or "Council of Chalcedon". The ACoE and Oriental Orthodox could make the very same argument against the Church as well.

The Old Catholic Church of Utrecht was also not caused by Vatican I. It was created in 1723 over Jansensim and rejection of universal Papal jurisdiction. The German, Austrian and Swiss Old Catholics are the ones who broke away after Vatican I. They did, however, obtain their hierarchy from Utrecht.

Stuart:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

If anyone could shed some light on that, I was hoping you could. I'd read somewhere that there were historical and political circumstances surrounding the calling of Vatican I and that its end was dictated by the Franco-Prussian War that caused it to end without being really finished.

Is there something we are not seeing by trying to see this in isolation?

Bob

[quote]
What the Latin Church does is of no concern to me. [/quote]

I've heard similar statements from Eastern Orthodox but not from an Eastern Catholic. Fortunately.

Dear brother Theophan,

I hope you don't mind my input.

The Vatican Council was formally opened in December, 1869.

The papal Dogmas were not on the original agenda, and there was no intention to define papal infallibility. It was a question proposed by only less than a handful of bishops charged with making preparations for the Council. A rumor somehow leaked out, and the press blew it out of proportion.

The papal Dogmas were only added in March, 1870, after several governments, due to all the rumors, had threatened to interfere with the Council because of fear that papal infallibility would be defined to include the Pope's deposing power. This is notwithstanding the world-wide editorial battles between and among Catholic, non-Catholic, and secular periodicals on the topic since even before the Council began, a topic that had not even yet been placed on the agenda.

Thus, as a response to the rumors that were agitating the entire world, the Pope was forced to add it to the agenda. Even then, it was not at the top of the list. But when rumors of war threatened, the Pope was again forced to revise the agenda and placed the proposed papal dogmas at the head of the list.

This is an extremely summarized version of the events. I wrote a rather lengthy essay on it at CAF giving all the details (with dates, the Council agenda list, quotes, etc.). I'll try to find that and place the text here, or a link (which one do you think would be advisable?).

Blessings,
Marduk

Q: Do you then equate the question of who Peter is with the question of who Jesus of Nazareth is? The early councils were concerned with the burning question of what it meant that He become one of us, and the soterological implications of that union. "What is not assumed is not healed." Vatican One's concern in Pastor Aeternus is who Peter, or rather his successor, is. Therefore, I submit we are not on equal ground in comparing the 1870 council with the early Christological based councils.

Bob,

the point was that Stuart made his case that papal infallibility

The fact is that both Chalcedon and Ephesus did damage to the cause of Christian unity due to the schisms that occured becuase of these councils.
I was pointing out the flimsy logic of his argument because they can equally be applied to these cases as well.

Actually, they can't. The schisms resulting from both Ephesus and Chalcedon were the result not of substantive differences, but from a combination of terminological misunderstandings and secular issues (e.g., the desire of Alexandria to dominate Antioch, and then the desire of Constantinople to dominate Alexandria). Not did any divisions result immediately after these Councils--historical investigation shows the process of separation in both cases took decades, even centuries; in the case of the Orientals, it was the Muslim Conquest, and not theological issues, which caused Constantinople to cease working towards a solution acceptable to all. Similarly, that the Church of the East was largely within the boundaries of the Persian Empire made further rapprochement with Constantinople difficult.

Also, the issue under discussion at both Ephesus and Chalcedon (as well as the remaining three Councils) were fundamentally theological. The issue at stake at Vatican I was, at most, ecclesiological, and more likely, a simple matter of Church governance. In other words, Vatican I dealt with issues of a tertiary nature, not at all related to the core of the faith. And, while the matters of Ephesus and Chalcedon involved the whole Church, those of Vatican I merely encompassed the Church of Rome, which did not at all consider the viewpoints or opinions of any other Churches because, well, because Rome did not think any other Churches existed. Yes, the so-called "universal Church" was certainly one of the most provincial and solipsistic in history, and in its arrogance simply assumed that what it decided, unilaterally, was correct, just had to be correct for everyone, everywhere, and at all times.

Yet Vatican I was nothing less than wholesale innovation, unless one chooses to ignore one and a half millennia of Church history--which Latin apologists have been known to do, from time to time.

So, to both the Latin and the Oriental interventions, I say, "non placet".

I find your point of view most puzzling. Why be in communion, or even in union, with such an ecclesiastical body that has so solipsistically distorted scripture and the Tradition of the true Church? Sounds like the Anti-Christ that Rev. Paisley and others like him have been ranting about for years. I think you have a chip on your shoulder, brother Stuart. I always thought ecclesiology was, at least, deeply rooted in Christology and ultimately most theological rather than a simple matter of Church governance and discipline.

Because family is family, even if we don't agree with everything every family member says or believes. Every southern family at least, has one dotty aunt who thinks she's Queen Victoria, or an uncle who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt. Some might shun them, but we just ignore their eccentricities and appreciate them for who they are.

In the case of the Bishop of Rome, he makes certain claims which are not central to the faith, and have no bearing thereon. They do not rise to anything worth the severing of communion, and besides, the primacy rightly belongs to the Church of Rome. Our jobs, as Eastern Catholics, is to help him rediscover precisely what that term means.

Also, and not to press the point, the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves are not without fault. Looking for the perfect Church? Be prepared for perpetual disappointment.

Be that as it may, the Bishops of Rome have made those claims for a long, long time. They have been exaggerated at times, but for the most part refined and developed. What is more the churches in union with Rome have affirmed those prerogatives in councils, whether one considers them ecumenical or not. "Pastor Aeternus", the decree at issue, was refined and put in perspective by "Lumen Gentium" at Vat II with a large number of our Eastern Catholic bishops present and assenting. I'm not looking for the perfect Church, just a more Catholic one that breathes a little more deeply and efficiently with two lungs. I just find your point of view a little pinched, and in need of some oxygen.

Yes, the popes have made those claims for a long time, and for an equally long time those claims have been rejected by the Eastern Churches.

I'm breathing just fine, nothing pinched at all. I desire what the Catholic Church claims it desired--a Church that achieves unity in the Holy Spirit based on the normative ecclesiology of the first millennium. Nothing more, nothing less.

If that means the Papacy must change, so be it. The Papacy is a ministry of service to the Church, not the other way around, so if the Papacy becomes a stumbling block to unity, it must redefine itself in a manner that does not.

As for the Orthodox Churches, their ecclesiology is equally uncanonical, and in need of dire reform (as the more honest among Orthodox theologians will concede). At the end of the day, both sides will find it necessary to abandon some of their most deeply held presumptions and perquisites, so that all might be one, as God and the Father are One.

Not the Eastern Churches in union with Rome! Tell me you want documentation,and I'll refer you to brother Marduk. I think your opinion and that of Stuart are very much your own, and do not reflect the views of the churches to which you belong.

That begs the question. The normative ecclesiology of the first millennium is precisely the issue. What was it? You seem to dismiss Rome's point of view as hubris. I find that disingenuous.

History is what it is. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. An objective look at the facts shows the Papacy as it exists today is largely a creation of the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century, which represented a distinct break with the Tradition that had governed the Church through the first millennium. Just as there arose a pharaoh who knew not Joseph, so there arose Popes who knew not the East and its ways, considered them alien and heretical wherever they diverged from Roman practice, and which had the muscle to get its way. The history of the second millennium is the history of the Roman Church going off in one direction by itself, and the Orthodox Churches going off in another direction by itself. Absent communion with each other, each developed exaggerations and distortions of the authentic Tradition; only the reestablishment of communion on the basis of status quo ante will heal them. The settlement of the Second Photian Council is a good place to start.

I like this approach very much. I think it reflects very well the way the Church has always handled things.



Stuart, could you please give some supporting books, documents, links for this? I have some Orthodox friends of various jurisdictions (especially ROCOR), who refuse to accept any claims that the Orthodox have an ecclesiology that is uncanonical. My instinct tells me that you are correct, but I would like to know more because right now, all I have is their word against yours. I'd like to read more so I can speak intelligently about this. I really would appreciate any help you could offer. Thanks.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Marduk,

Thank you. Yes, I have been tracking all the discussions, and it seems to be one big circle most of the time. However, you still have not answered the quotes that were given earlier from various Fathers of Vatican I that refute your position about that council and how to understand the Decree. There seem to have been Council Fathers, who do not support the position you offer and say the opposite of what you say. I would like to hear your thoughts on those, please.

Peace,
Scott

Marduk,

Thank you for this answer and for referring me to this.

I think there is one correction that needs to be made in what you wrote above:



If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church teaches that an Ecumenical Council has no authority whatsoever by itself. In other words, the bishops of the Church cannot gather in an Ecumenical Council without the approval of the Bishop of Rome.


I agree with how you have chosen to frame the issue; however, it still does not answer the question I have about the practical relationship between the three ways in which infallibility is expressed in the Church. It still seems to me that any gathering of bishops is now seen merely as an advisory board to the Pope because they cannot decide anything without his approbation. Even if a majority of bishops passed something at an ecumenical council, the Holy Father still holds the supreme veto power, so an ecumenical council seems pointless these days from the perspective of the Latin Church. Plus, the decrees of the councils are promulgated by the Pope and not by the Council itself, so basically, the Council appears to be a mere advisory board to the Pope and not a body that has any authority on its own.

Now, I recognize that an Ecumenical Council would not be complete without the participation of its president, but it would also not be complete without any of the other patriarchs of the pentarchy. It would seem ludicrous to call an Ecumenical Council to which the Patriarch of Alexandria was not a part, for example. In that respect, I understand the need for the participation of the Bishop of Rome.

I don't mean to be difficult, but in the midst of this entire discussion, none of this is clear to me. I am beginning to think that no one really has a clear understanding of it, which is why no one can explain it to me. Perhaps, the fault is not mine; however, I will continue to try to grasp this all as best I can. I appreciate your patience as well as that of everyone else. Please pray for me.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Stuart K wrote,"History is what it is. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. An objective look at the facts shows the Papacy as it exists today is largely a creation of the Gregorian reforms of the 11th century, which represented a distinct break with the Tradition that had governed the Church through the first millennium."

I wish I knew how to create those quote boxes that you all use. It would make responding easier for this old man. In any case, Stuart, I agree that history is what it is, but it is also true that the facts of history are open to interpretation. For some reason you seem to treat Rome's interpretation of those facts as something alien and sinister, and outside the apostolic Tradition. One could say that every institution in the world today is the creation of some reform, but that does not negate the continuum of history that I feel gives meaning to it all and keeps me, at least, from a cynicism that I find destructive. It is your interpretation of the facts that leads you to believe that the Gregorian reforms represented a distinct break with the Tradition, rather than the objective look at the facts that you seem to feel you have, even though the 11th century is much, much closer to the first millennium than our 21st. I think one can assume Hildebrand had his facts too.

Marduk:

Christ is Born!! Glorify Him!!

Now this is what I was asking about. If we take a look at the what and the why of this, we may get beyond the polemics. My understanding is that Vatican I was not complete because it ended before the issue of infallibility was fully defined--to include the Church as a whole and the episcopate as a whole. So it seems to be as things are today--the press gets hold of an issue, strives for sensational spins to sell papers, and now we end with something far removed from what was intended. In addition, we have something set in concrete because it is an ecumenical council with all that that implies.

Let me know if you have a place I can access your essay.

Bob

You say this now, in the 21st century after many many centuries have passed and there have been new opportunities to understand each other with ecumenical efforts.
If you had lived 150 years after these councils (which is where we are now compared to Vatican I), you wouldn't have been saying that at all.

The clarity of time allows you to make this observation. perhaps given a millenium, you will come to the same conclusion about infallibility, that it was present all the time, and you are just looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective.

One hundred and fifty years after Chalcedon (about AD 600), nobody thought there would be an irrevocable split between the Cyrilians and the Chalcedonians. The Emperor Heraclius was still working towards a reconciliation. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680) was still eighty years in the future, and represented yet another attempt to find a Christological formula acceptable to all parties. (See Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought for the most comprehensive coverage of the Christological synthesis).

However, with Byzantium entering into its "Dark Ages", and the Near East under Muslim control, all such efforts were doomed. Out of the need for survival, the Empire turned inward, becoming stronger by becoming exclusively "Greek", while the Orientals were encouraged to maintain their separation from Constantinople by their Muslim overlords (something similar happened with regard to the Church of the East, which was first under Persian, then under Muslim domination).

One cannot disentangle the Church from the secular politics of the era, because Church and state were not considered to be separate entities, but integral elements of a single unified civilization. The centralizing impulse of Constantinople, like the centralizing impulse of the second millennium Papacy, had the effect of alienating those on the periphery of its orbit, and gave a theological coloration to disputes whose root causes were political and cultural, not spiritual.

Agreed. However, past a certain point the agreed facts of history will not support certain arguments.



Rome changed. By itself. In isolation. And then tried to tell the rest of the Church that it, too, should change. The Christian East did not change (or, to be more precise, its changes did not represent radical discontinuities with the past), nor did it demand that the West imitate its changes. To say that the Papacy in 1100 was the same institution it was in 600 is simply to deny the facts--in the same way as saying that the Orthodox Church today is the same institution it was ca. AD 600.

What happened after that date was the collapse of the homogeneous Mediterranean culture in which the Church had developed; the rise of the Muslim empire, the loss of Christian Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia; the disruption of East-West communications (including the loss of bilingualism, which made what communications still existed more difficult to comprehend), and the gradual estrangement of the two halves of the Catholic Orthodox Church.

In the East, where the imperial administration remained intact, the structures of the Church likewise remained intact. In the West, the collapse of central secular authority and the breakup of the Empire into small successor states, required the Church to take on a secular role (including direct secular rule of extensive territories), which fundamentally changes its self-image and its structures. These changes caused the Western Church to begin viewing itself as the normative Church, whose practices and beliefs were the fullest, most perfect expression of the Christian faith. The Papacy saw itself as being not merely the first See among many, but over and above all Sees.

Not surprising, when one considers that the Gregorian popes came out of the Cluniac monastic movement, that they saw the Church as a gigantic monastery, and with themselves as the abbot. To say that this did not represent a total discontinuity with the Papacy as it was known from Gregory the Great down to John VIII (the last first millennium Pope before the entire Church of Rome imploded in decadence). For them, the Church was a communion of Churches. For the Popes of the 11th century, the Church of Rome was the Church. A look at the Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII Hildebrand neatly sums up their view of papal prerogatives--and it's something quite different from Gregory I's self-effacing claim to be nothing more than Servum servorum Dei.

Dear brother Stuart,


Are you sure about that? I have very often heard Easterns insist that the Westerns are heterodox in their belief in the simplicity of God. And there are many Easterns who, in misunderstanding the theology behind filioque, insist that the Westerns are heretics. And what about Eastern condemnations of the "Western" doctrines of Atonement and the Justice of God?

Everyone is guilty of trying to impose. We need to get beyond that and try to unite through understanding. This is my goal and my prayer.

Blessings

One hears lots of things, and they are frequently wrong. This is wrong on two counts: first, it's reductionist to say the West believes in the simplicity of God; second, no Orthodox synod, let alone an ecumenical synod, has ever denounced and anathematized Western theology.



There have been times when the Western doctrine of the Filioque has been interpreted in the West in a manner that verges on heresy, just as there were those who interpreted the Chalcedonian formula in a manner that was explicitly di-physite. But the principal Orthodox objection to the Filioque was the unilateral changing of the Symbol of Faith erected by an Ecumenical Council, which only an Ecumenical Council could change-- and in this and the entire matter of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the West pretty much conceded the field to the East more than a decade ago.



Once again, the writings of individual Orthodox theologians have no more binding effect than the writings of individual Catholic theologians. No formal Orthodox synod has ever condemned any of these. Which places your examples on an entirely different plane from the Latin Church holding a general synod, deciding that a whole range of definitions and usages specific to the Latin Church are "dogmas", and then declaring that anyone who denies them is outside of the Church of God and subject to formal theological sanction.

To use an analogy, it's one thing if an individual Congressman or Senator goes out and condemns something or someone, and quite another if the entire Congress passes a law, signed into law by the President, doing the same thing. The former is an opinion, the latter has the binding force of law.

Dear brother Byzbob,


If he wanted to extend it making the lame walk, then what he got was certainly a very long way from what he really wanted.


There's a difference between being concerned with the other members of the body, on the one hand, and using concern as a pretense to criticize that other part of the body, on the other.


Yes, the Traditionalists generally have an Absolutist Petrine view of V1 that forced them to oppose V2. But in actuality, V1 was an incomplete Council, and it was V2 that completed it. The seeds of collegiality were already well-established at V1. As even you have so expertly made manifest , Pio Nono did not get everything he wanted from V1 - that demonstrates collegiality, not absolute monarchy.


No. The definition on papal infallibility was circumscribed completely by the belief in the infallibility of the Church. If you study orthodox Catholic manuals on the Church's teaching on papal infallibility, instead of your liberal sources, perhaps that would be more clear.

You can't even respond to my query - show us from the Canons of Sardica where the Church accepted another authority after appeal to the bishop of Rome - and you think V1 expressed a misunderstanding of the Primacy?


Ahhh! So you admit (in a roundabout way) that the verse on the keys is not contained in the Decree on Infallibility. And now, you wish to mitigate your statement by claiming there is actually no distinction between the Decree on Primacy and the Decree on infallibility. Yet, would you agree that there is a distinction between moral/doctrinal teaching and Church discipline? Would you agree that there is a distinction - nay, a difference - between ecclesiastical law, which can change according to the circumstances of the times, and Divine law, which is irrevocable? If you can accept these distinctions, why is it so hard for you to accept a distinction between the Decree on Primacy and the Decree on Infallibility?


Why or how? One was a pastoral from a whole Synod of bishops, a pastoral approved by the Pope himself! Another was from the official interpretation of Bishop Gasser. And over these, you prefer liberal sources?


I am, but the problem here is that you insist on focusing on the text of the definition only, while I keep directing you to the text of the entire Decree. I am directing you to portions of the text that explain how the definition within the Decree should be understood. But for some reason, it seems you would rather agree with the Absolutist Petrine advocates. The quotes I gave agree with the text of the entire Decree, not your personal interpretation obtained through a rather legalistic focus on the few lines of the definition.

It's strange that within the Decree on Infallibility, you absolutely refuse to consider any text beyond the few sentences of the definition, yet to support your eisegetic interpretation, you depend on texts from outside the Decree itself ((namely, on texts from the Decree on the Primacy). It seems what you have done is simply cut and pasted from different sources, and created your own caricature of the papacy to rail against. That's called a straw man, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk