www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Pope Benedict has nuanced his stand on Eastern Orthodoxy

As I said elsewhere, the Pope isn't bound to consult, but he'd be an idiot if he didn't. Here we come to the dichotomy: as Fr. Victor Popshishtil wrote, "the Pope is an absolute monarch, except when he chooses not to be". The Code of Canons makes him Louis XIV, reality makes him Elizabeth II.

Hopefully the Roman Church will someday see fit to move away from papal absolutism and decide to reintegrate primacy and synodality. When that happens the possibility of restoring communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches increases exponentially.

I won't deny that Bishop Gasser said that, and I won't even say that he was necessarily wrong. Rather the point I want to make is that the dogmatic definition didn't say that.

To look at it another way, there are a truckload of people out there who say "I take issue with the dogma of papal infallibility" but who really ought to say "I take issue with the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser".

There was a big discussion at Vatican I over whether Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (1864) was indeed an ex Cathedra declaration. In the end, it was decided not to define it as such, since Propositions 75-76 basically declared that the Papacy could not exist independent of the Pope's civil powers as head of the Papal States. By 1871, the Papal States had been absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy, and the Papacy was still there. QED.

Still it interesting to see what exactly the council fathers thought they were defining, no? The facts on the ground at that time were there were many ex-cathedra statements from the popes throughout the ages, not just the Immaculate Conception of Mary given by Pius IX. If one takes away the belief that popes had exercised the charism repeatedly the teaching becomes superfluous, does it not?

It also shows that the definition given at the council remains a theory, which no on realistically believes or follows, since it is impossible to do so. To suggest that we don't need to know exactly what teachings were considered to have fallen under this definition nurtures that which was defined. If we hold that the charism was indeed given to uphold the two Marian definitions that are, today, considered to be the two ex-cathedra statements then we are left asking why. Why would God give a charism that would lay dormant in the church for 1870 years, and when finally exercised would define two doctrines concerning the Mother of God? As the charism is a point of departure for many Christians simple cost analysis would suggest that if that's all it is, it isn't worth the division caused in the body of Christ.

Well, sure; but are you suggesting that the bishops thought that the definition said something about frequency? Because it seems to me that, just from reading it, it's quite clear that it says nothing about frequency, i.e. the number of ex cathedra statements could be thousands, hundreds, dozens, or none.


I hardly think that any such statement can be called a "fact", whether on the ground or off it. But I do agree with you that it is a very deeply-ingrained notion, in the mind of Catholics, that Pius's I.C. declaration was an ex cathedra statement.


I'm not convinced that it would; but even if it did, would that be a problem?

I think the Fathers of Vatican I were either unable or unwilling to provide a list of prior ex Cathedra declarations (with very good reason!), and therefore just left the whole thing ambiguous.

It is very important to remember that the more you dogmatize, the more you must dogmatize, whereas who who dogmatizes least has the least need to dogmatize.

That is, once you dogmatize a teaching, you place yourself in the position of having to dogmatize all the assumptions that go into that teaching; and in turn, the assumptions underlying those must be dogmatized, until every last jot and tittle of the faith is defined as "dogma", which is both intellectually and pastorally unsustainable, in addition to assuming that human intellect is fully capable of appreciating the nature of God and the divine mysteries of salvation.

Well, what is the alternative? That they thought no previous Popes had exercised infallibility up until the Pope that was currently reigning?


If the pope has only exercised infallibility twice, in declaring the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary - it would be a self refuting proposition. If the pope didn't exercise infallibility until the 19th century, it can hardly be a part of the apostolic deposit of faith. It would be proven to be a novelty.

I think you misread my question. I wasn't asking whether the bishops had opinions about frequency; I'm sure they did have opinions. The question is, did they think the dogmatic definition they were issuing said something about frequency?

BTW, there's something I noticed about your earlier post, and I notice it again in your last post. Namely, you keep framing everything in terms of many ex cathedra statements vs. "only" 2 ex cathedra statements. Is it unthinkable to you that the number of ex cathedra statements made thus far could be zero?

Zero would be my own preference.

Yes, I think that their opinions factored into what they defined at the council.


It is unthinkable that so divisive a definition would be upheld, if the charism that it defines would never have been thought to have been exercised during the entire history of the church. If the charism has never been exercised then it becomes all the more meaningless to uphold the definition given at the council.

I know what you mean, but it's not so unthinkable to me. Only because it seems to me the issue is not so much "Has the Pope ever done this" but rather "Can the Pope do this". Critics would not worry themselves about the first question, but focus on the second one. So I can see Latins spending more time arguing in favor of the second question, and leaving the first ambiguous.

So if Latins think that there have been ex cathedra statements (as evidenced by, among other things, their upholding of the PI dogma), then that proves that there have been ex cathedra statements?

No, it wouldn’t prove it. What it would prove, if it proved anything, would be that they have a reason to uphold the teaching even though it remains a stumbling block to church unity. If, on the other hand, they concede that no teaching has ever reached this level then perhaps they might consider dropping the notion in order to further ecumenical progress.

The problem is, they want it both ways. For the notion of an ex Cathedra decree to make sense, one must claim that Popes have never erred in matters of faith and doctrine. But then there is Pope Honorius, who most definitely did err with regard to monothelitism, was condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and whose anathema remained part of the Synodicon of the Church of Rome for centuries.

Ah! Say the apologists for Papal Infallibility: Honorius wasn't speaking "ex Cathedra" at the time, so you can't use him to discredit the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. But this is special pleading, for in order to meet the canonical requirements for issuing an "ex Cathedra" decree, earlier Popes would have had to use formulations and make assumptions about Church organization which did not exist at the time. That is, Pastor aeternus is such a product of its time and place that its retrospective application to previous Papal decrees is simply impossible.