www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Infallibility

How many times has the papacy proclaimed dogmas infallibly from the chair (ex cathedra)?

I know of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but what else?

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall,

Papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction were proclaimed by the First Vatican Council - and this Council was approved by the Pope so, in a sense, the pope did proclaim those doctrines about his own powers.

No new doctrines, apart from the two Marian ones you mention, have been proclaimed as part of an exercise of papal infallibility.

However, Roman canon law does affirm that papal infallibility is invoked each and every time a Pope canonizes a new saint.

That infallibility is NOT invoked when he beatifies someone, however.

Alex

There has also been some belief that John Paul II spoke ex cathedra when limiting the priesthood to men in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. There was a curial statement of some sort that this was not an ex cathedra statement, but many have held that it is, despite curial statements to the contrary.

This seems to me to satisfy the Vatican II definition that the Pope enjoys, "...infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful ("in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren") � he proclaims in an absolute decision ("this judgment is to be definitively held by all") a doctrine pertaining to faith (the sacrament of Holy Orders) or morals."

-- Ed

Dear Ed,

Unless the Pope says he is making an infallible statement in defining a truth contained in Tradition, or else canonizing a saint - he is not.

Pope Pius XII made a similar statement on the Tridentine Rite, saying that it was wrong for Catholic liturgists to want to reform the liturgy and return to more primitive times.

And yet, this was overturned completely with the Novus Ordo.

As for men in the priesthood, there is no need for a Pope to declare anything in that regard since Tradition is already quite clear about it.

In fact, the whole concept of "infallibility" in the Roman Pope, outside of an Ecumenical Council, is really unnecessary since what the Pope has proclaimed as infallible with respect to the two Marian doctrines are what, in fact, the Church has always believed about the Mother of God anyway.

Alex

Alex,

I would be quite worried if a pope made an "infallible" pronouncement that was heretofore unrecognized in Tradition. Therefore, the fact that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis merely repeated Tradition does not argue against its possible infallibility. In fact, as you point out, the declarations on the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were already part of Tradition before the pope weighed in with an infallible pronouncement.

I struggle with the difference between "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. <Lk> 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" and "We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful".

Is there a distinction between saying that "the Church has no authority whatever" in a matter and saying that something is "a doctrine revealed by God"? Why would the Church have "no authority" on a topic, if it were not on a topic for which the proper answer was already "revealed by God"?

I can be dense at times, but am willing to be educated as to the difference between these two statements.

-- Ed

Dear Ed,

There are close similarities to both statements, to be sure.

And there is more than one type of "teaching authority" by which the Roman Pontiff can exercise his prerogatives.

In the former statement, he is asserting that the discussion as to whether there can be women priests is closed and that Catholics are obliged to believe there cannot be.

The fact that the Pope felt obliged to make such a statement does, from the point of view of the Eastern Churches, indicate a weakness of the current Roman Church's way of doing theology.

In Eastern ears, this whole matter should NEVER have come to the fore in the first place.

It is as if Catholics who support women priests are acting as if they've never heard of Tradition before, much less accept its authority.

Such Catholics seem to think they can change almost anything in the Church as long as they work hard to try and convince the Pope that such change is warranted so that he can use his "infallible wand" to effect that change.

It is wrong for those Catholics to think that way.

But it is also wrong for Rome to have underscored papal authority to the extent that Catholics get the impression that the Pope has this arbitrary power over and above Tradition.

Instead, Rome should be pointing to the sources of Tradition and historic ecclesial praxis that have always taught the doctrines that it wishes to underscore with modernizing Catholics.

Ultimately, if I were a modernist in the Church, I would simply look at what the pope said and say, "O.K., he's an old fogie with not much time left in the Chair, we'll have to work on his successor!"

And it's not a question of getting a pope "who'll do as we say."

It's a question of the authority of Tradition of Scripture, the Seven Ecumenical Councils et al.

And if Rome, I might add, were really serious about this, then it would also obey the voice of Tradition, return to the Creed without the Filioque and a number of other things that it is still intransigent over - giving the Orthodox East the enduring impression that Rome considers the Papacy to be above Tradition in the final analysis.

Alex

Sometimes I must wonder about you Alex.

But you said....

When I read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I see it as doing just that, pointing out sources of Tradition and teachings within the Catholic Church.

David

Bravo! Bravo! (to Alex). Your logic was brilliant.

Have yourself a glass of your favorite refreshment and send the bill to me!

Faithful adherence to Tradition requires a constant and often uncomfortable tension inside of the Church whereby each successive generation assumes and makes its own the faith of their fathers.

Expecting that faith to remain safe, secure, and unadulterated in some sacred and ancient repository (the Vatican) is not the gospel message.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear David,

As you can see, I've scored big time with our Orthodox friend, Reader Andrew, who is beginning to like me, even though I'm Catholic.

So keep it to yourself and don't rock the boat when we're ahead!

Alex

Well Alex,

You know me, I am sorry but I can't let this slide. :p

What I get from what you are saying and from what Andrew is so happy about is this...

You think the Holy Father, instead of educating the faithful and showing how those teachings adhere to Tradition, is to just say, "Those people (for example, those that want priestesses) just aren't catholic so they can believe what they want and to hell with them."

But I think it is the Holy Father's job to teach them, to show what the Church holds from Tradition.

It is not the Holy Father's fault that we have Catholics who do not adhere to Catholic Teachings. It is the Bishops and parish priests who are at fault for not teaching the faith.

It is them we should be critical of, if they did thier job then the Holy Father wouldn't have had to release Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

David

Alex,
The Creed with Filioque is the tradition in the West. And as you well-know, far from the Papacy trumping earlier tradition, Rome was about the last place in the West to accept it. If anyone has, on the basis of the Filioque, an "enduring impression that Rome considers the Papacy to be above tradition", they are either unclear on the history or reading it diametrically wrong.

Dear djs,

It is absolutely true that Rome has had the Filioque for some time .

But that is not the original universal Creed that Rome itself agreed to at the Councils.

The two plaques that are in the basement of St Peter's with the Creed in Latin and Greek have no Filioque.

And I think the RC Church is moving toward the removal of the Filioque - it is experimenting with such in the RC Church in Greece.

I think it a matter of time before Rome returns to the earlier practice of reciting the Creed the way it was intended by the Fathers of the Councils to be recited.

It had no warrant to unilaterally bring in the Filioque in a creed designed to express the universal faith of the Church, East and West.

Christ Himself did not use the Filioque in the Gospel of John.

May no Church take it upon itself to try and "improve" His theology!

Did Rome need to define the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Mother of God?

Wasn't Tradition clear enough from the beginning?

Alex

Dear David,

Agreed.

I'm simply saying that the emphasis on papal definitions seems to have skewed Catholics' viewpoint on a number of issues some think the Church needs updating on.

The Pope does not introduce new doctrines nor does he invent them.

Rome has done a bad job of educating Catholics in this respect and so it would seem that Catholics think that Rome can bring in any doctrine it wants - from "Coredemptrix" on the right to "women priests" on the left.

The struggle between the West's emphasis on the Papacy's authority and the East's emphasis (an emphasis that was once universal) on the authority of the Councils and Tradition has resulted in a situation where Catholics seem to think the Papacy is a "doctrine-making" institution.

And the more Rome emphasizes the papacy, the more situations like the women priest issue come forward.

So why is this or that not allowed in the Church?

Rather than say, "Because I say so" better to say "because the Church via Tradition has always taught this from the very beginning."

Alex

You mean the one that says, "Credimus..."

But it didn't. It actually acquiesced to a practice that had developed in the rest of the West, and has not suggested the adoption of this practice outside the West, nor has it suggested that this form is original, universal creed.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-56.htm#P3760_642888

In the case of the Immaculate Conception, as amply documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Tradition wasn't clear enough, as there arose controversies about this Tradition, with some parties rejecting outright.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"But it didn't. It actually acquiesced to a practice that had developed in the rest of the West, and has not suggested the adoption of this practice outside the West, nor has it suggested that this form is original, universal creed..."

I'm not sure that this is a legitimate defense. It's sort of like saying, "the Pope was forced to alter the traditional moral teachings of the Church and accept that pre-marital sex is licit, because it is a widespread practice in the West."

Popes Leo III and Boniface VIII should have held their ground. The addition does not make theological sense, and in fact smacks of heresy, IN THE CONTEXT OF -- are you reading this, RayK? -- the original text of the N-C Creed.

In Christ,
Theophilos