www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Vatican I

Maybe I'm dense, but I can't for the life of me understand that if the Pope is Infallible when speaking on Faith and Morals ex Cathedra why did an Ecumenical Council have to be called to proclaim the dogma of Papal Infallibility?

If the Pope already had the powers of Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction why didn't he just use those powers to proclaim the dogmas like he did with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

Here is a link to the Decrees of Vatican I:

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

Probably because collegiality was preferred for such an important definition; the Papacy is endowed with a charism of infallbility, but the Pope still needs to study doctrinal questions and confer with other Bishops for their input. In one of St. John Chrysostom's homilies, he talks about how St. Peter could have chosen a successor for Judas by himself; such was his primacy and authority. However, he chose to act with his brother Apostles, "because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed."

Even Ecumenical Councils point to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, because his approval is necessary for the validity of the Council; see, for example, Canon 28 from the Council of Chalcedon, which was rejected by Pope St. Leo the Great.

With the Assumption, I believe Pope Pius XII was receiving overwhelming support from the Bishops to declare the dogma, so that also was very much a collegial definition.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but since we are asking the question of how it is that the claim to Papal Infallibility validates itself, I found this excerpt from a book by the Melkite Archbishop Elias Zoghby to be interesting. I found it as this fellow's website, two formats:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/VATICAN1.DOC

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:zlY_DvQHZVkJ:www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/VATICAN1.DOC+vatican+I+zoghby&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

I defer to Venerable Cardinal Newman on the opportuneness of Vatican I

The Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches talks about the Papal charism of infallibility:

I'm going through Fr. Tilliard's thesis again in "The Bishop of Rome". He makes some interesting assertions about Vatican I and its subsequent ultramontanist interpretation. He indicates that the definition can be viewed in a non-ultramontane (I'm not sure how else to characterize it) fashion.

It may be worth purchasing...

Gordon

http://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Rome-J.../102-6511295-3137731?ie=UTF8&s=books

(You can probably get it at Loome's Theological in Stillwater, MN for much cheaper.

This is a great question. It probably has something to do with the fact that it would not be fitting for a pope to declare himself "infallible" in his declarations by virtue of an infallible declaration.

Arguments against the calling of Vatican II were made for similar reasons - why invest the time, resources and energy in a council when the pope can just 'make it so"? Of course, Tillard notes that such thinking betrays an ultramontanist view making the "pope more than a pope". Plus, to be sure, the very fact that the pope was declared infallible and possessing universal and immediate jurisdiction by the college of bishops in council implies (however subtly) that his proper role exists only in the midst of and for the support of his brother bishops in the episcopate as its head and spokesperson on particular occasions. The fact that ultramontanism in its most extreme forms amplified certain aspects of the papacy and the actual papal definition into virtual heresy and idolatry does not mean, as Vatican II demonstrated, that it is the only lens through which to interpret the wording of the definition.

I think it might help if the local Bishops started to take on a teaching role similar to what the Pope does now. The Holy Father is always delivering speeches, Wednesday audiences, and so on. Perhaps this is necessary, to keep the rest of the Bishops grounded in a genuine source of theology. But we scan every word the Pope says; he's practically a walking Encyclical. Maybe if we started to view our local Bishops as our main source of teaching and spiritual discipline, the Papacy could evolve naturally toward the understated communion of the first millenium. Of course, this requires the local Bishops to be holy men capable of serving as a Holy Father to their spiritual children. Otherwise, we will always look to Rome for what we are lacking. As it is now, the local Bishop is a virtual stranger who comes around once in a while for donations and confirmation; at least this seems to be the case in the west. I know the Bishops have a lot of people to take care of; maybe they can strengthen the roles of their auxilary Bishops to make it easier.

It's tough because the Papacy is so firmly rooted by now in a centralized model for western Catholics, and Catholicism is for all intents and purposes identified with western custom. There's no real model for an integration of the developed understanding of Papal primacy with an Eastern ecclesiology; the west has done its own thing for 1,000 years, and it's hard to break old habits. Unless the Eastern Catholic Churches can mass evangelize and adopt a significant portion of Catholics throughout the world, ecclesiological reform will have to come from the west itself. Maybe God was preparing for this with the Second Vatican Council.

Some people were speculating a few months ago when Pope Benedict dropped the title "Patriarch of the West" that he might be preparing for new Patriarchates in the west, like Africa and South America. Really, there is no diversity in the west. Whereas in the East many different rites and traditions developed on their own, the west is faced with inculturating new lands into the Roman way, rather than those lands developing their own organic tradition as happened in the early Church. So instead of a "Guatamalan Catholic Church" in the same way that there's a "Greek Catholic Church" and a "Ukranian Catholic Church", we have the "Roman Catholic Church in Guatamala" or in Africa or elsewhere. This reinforces the centralized Papacy, because western Catholicism continues to grow, and the Pope is the direct spiritual leader for western Catholics. I don't think this affects Eastern Churches that go to new lands because their influence is minimal, and even though they bring Eastern traditions, they have a foundation for fruitful diversity in the communion of Churches; the East isn't a hierarchical conglomerate in the same way the west is right now.

I would like other perspectives on this so I'm going to bump this back up.

Well, I will just say very briefly that I tried, for many years, to live as a Melkite Greek Catholic with the kind of understanding that was promoted by his grace Archbishop Elias Zoghby. Principally, I held to his confession that 1) I believe all that holy eastern Orthodoxy teaches and 2) I am in communion with Rome as understood within the limits of the first 1000 years. Eventually, this position simply became incoherent to me. I don't think that there is any explanation of papal supremacy and infallibility that will not ultimately rest on some form of circular reasoning. As I researched Vatican I more closely, and as I moved beyond apologetic works to real, scholarly historical works on the early Church, I came to realize that the position of Rome was incoherent and could not be reconciled with Church history. That is just my opinion. The more I came to understand the differences between the western and eastern approaches to Christianity, the more I realized that, in many cases, they were not complimentary, but were contradictory. I was continually being told things by Melkites and Roman Catholics that were fundamentally in contradiction. Eventually, I had to make sense of all of this and that meant leaving the Melkites for Orthodoxy. I am not saying that this is the right choice for everyone. But, I see so much contradiction and intellectual mind-twisting in order to overcome it that it became impossible for me to remain in communion with Rome. peace in Christ,

Joe

Joe,

Thank you for sharing your intellectual struggle with the claims of the papacy.

In your extensive reading, did you by any chance run across J.M.R. Tillard, O.P.'s The Bishop of Rome or his Church of Churches? I think he lays out a very balanced historical view of the ministry of the papacy and the distortion it underwent especially after Vatican I - that is until it received a more proper contextual emphasis in Vatican II.

As to the circular reasoning regarding the papacy, I have witnessed similar issues with the Orthodox view on what defines an Ecumenical Council. After recently reading Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church, I left the text surprisingly far more convinced of the Catholic position, in part because he virtually admits that there are no established or universally accepted criteria to determine what constitutes a council as ecumenical. He also asserts that, according to Orthodox ecclesiological principles, the laity are in fact able to invalidate the decisions of an ecumenical council. Considering that according to Orthodox belief a council is the chief ecumenical organ of magisterial teaching after the Divine Liturgy, I find these positions to be extremely problematic.

As to the incoherence of the history of the papacy, no doubt this is a very difficult issue that involves unpacking what is essential to the nature of the primacy from what is extraneous to it and historically contingent...EVEN perhaps contrary to its very nature and charism. Not an easy task to be sure, but I believe it to be a worthy one. I am grateful that we appear to have a pope of Rome who has the theological, intellectual and volitional chutzpah to move forward with this - all, of course, along the same trajectory as his predecessors since the Second Vatican Council. Couple that with the likes of Metropolitan John Zizoulas and a very open Ecumenical Patriarch, and perhaps we may move closer to some sort of agreement on the issues that divide us. Come Holy Spirit!

God bless,

Gordo

Another worthy read is Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P.'s "Rome and the Eastern Churches".

http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Eastern-.../102-6511295-3137731?ie=UTF8&s=books

Gordo

I think the same thing can be said about the inerrancy of Scripture by those who have a problem with the Bible.

1. Archbishop Zogby is the one for all ECs to read. his daring spirit is an inspiration to all.
2.Vatican l was a set up, it was monopolized by Italian hierarchs, meeting in the dead of summer, and I still hold to Kung's thesis (even if he is questionable in other areas.
3. the Pope is infallible when he says anything that I agree with.
Much Love,
Jonn

Gordo, I have read Fr. Nichols work, it is very good. I have not read the books by Tillard, but I will keep those references in my bibliography and look them up sometime when I get a chance.

I will say, in all fairness, that all faith claims of any sort ultimately rest on something that is not grounded in anything else, but is simply accepted unconditionally. In this regard, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, etc. are all on the same ground (or lack of ground). So, Orthodox claims and Protestant claims are ultimately, in some sense, circular as well. Peace in Christ,

Joe