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

StuartK, I think you just gave an example of the "apologists for Papal Infallibility" being right.

The error, and subsequent condemnation, of Pope Honorius doesn't pose a problem for the statement that was dogmatically defined by Vatican I -- although I certainly do think it poses a problem for the general ultra-montane attitude that many Catholics have. (Hopefully I don't need to explain that.)

The problem with papal infallibility exists because the whole notion is a novelty, and that is why I agree with Pope Adrian VI who - while a professor of theology at the University of Louvain - wrote:

"If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment" (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Defensio declarationis Conventüs cleri gallicani, page 29, section 28).

Keep telling yourself that.

If you ask me, Stuart, your approach plays right into the hands of certain Catholics. Specifically the ones who, whenever any wrong doing or wrong statement by any pope is brought up, will respond with "So what? Pope so-and-so wasn't infallible when he said [or did] that."

(Some time I'd like to try a little experiment: when someone brings up something Martin Luther said or did wrong, I'll say "So what? Luther wasn't infallible when he said that." and see how they respond.)

P.S. Variation on that: if a wrong action by any pope is brought up, they'll respond "So what? I never claimed that the pope is impeccable."

I don't say it, I merely point out this is a common apologetic tactic used by some Roman Catholics when confronted with the historical truth of heretical Popes. Their attitude seems to be (a) the Pope has never erred in matters of faith and morals, (b) except when he did, (c) but in those instances, he wasn't speaking ex Cathedra, just expressing a "personal opinion"--even when it goes out on Papal stationary, bearing the Papal seal, in an official missive to the patriarch of another Church--because (d) he did not meet all the conditions required for an ex Cathedra statement as laid out at Vatican I.

The only conclusion I can reach is the whole thing is sophistry on a level that would make a Jesuit's head spin around.

That pretty much sums up the problems surrounding Vatican I.

Well I guess we can at least agree that some Catholics (like, say, Catholics who watch ETWN and read the Catholic Answers website) say the darnedest things.

I've actually had the experience of someone saying "The Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals" (don't start laughing yet, I haven't gotten to the good part) then when I say "Actually the Church only teaches that the Pope is infallible when he makes an ex cathedra statement" they indignantly respond "I know it's only when he make an ex cathedra statement! Why are you telling me something I already know?" I kid you not.

Dear brother Todd,

The problem with comments like this is that it simply misinterprets Pastor Aeternus and the Official Relatio, selectively picking and choosing certain statements, and wrenching them out of context.

First of all, Pastor Aeternus specifically asserts that the exercise of papal infallibility is activated by "the bishops of the world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, report[ing] to the Apostolic See those dangers especially which [come] up in matters of Faith." The Pope can't just wake up one morning and decide to make a new dogma out of the blue.

Secondly, the Official Relatio specifically asserts that "It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church united with its head is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope."

The question is simply how is this agreement determined? The Relatio indicates that sometimes it can be determined simply from "the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, of the holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors," etc. But the Relatio also asserts that "the ordinary means" is to consult the bishops. And we have yet to see an instance where the Pope does not do so.

So it's disingenuous to attempt to paint the matter as if the Pope is not required to ascertain the "present preaching of the whole Magisterium." He actually is, and this requirement is "the rule of faith," as the Relatio affirms.

The goal of the Pope in issuing an ex cathedra decree is always first to ascertain "the present preaching of the whole Magisterium." This is the "rule of faith" and he cannot go beyond that.

Blessings,
Marduk

I've yet to see an explanation of why the Fathers of the Sixth were completely ignorant that Pope Honorius taught monothelitism at the beginning of the Council, if, as anti-infallibilists contend, Pope Honorius was publicly teaching it. Surely, some bishop apart from the heresiarchs would have gotten word that monothelitism had infected the Church of Rome before the Council convened. Surely, if Pope Honorius was publicly preaching the heresy, he should have been on the original list of heresiarchs proposed for condemnation by the Council. Why wasn't he? Any responses?

You mean like the "the agreement of all bishops is necessary for a Council to be Ecumenical" argument, which falls flat on its face when faced with the reality of the Council of Chalcedon?

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm,

The problem with many of your comments on the issue of papal infallibility is that you think that your interpretation is the only objective one, when in fact it is a modernist reinterpretation of Pastor Aeternus and the Official Relatio. I commend you for your attempts to salvage Vatican I, but I reject your novel views on that council as spurious.

Pastor Aeternus, whether you like it or not, asserts that the pope has immediate universal jurisdiction over all the faithful (clergy - of whatever rank, and laity alike), and I reject that notion as false.

Moveover, as an Eastern Catholic I reject the idea that Vatican I is even ecumenical, because the Eastern Orthodox Churches did not participate in it, and so it ultimately presents a distorted view of the nature of primacy based solely on the ideas in vogue in the late second millennium Western Church.

To be blunt, I do not believe that the pope is infallible at all, nor do I believe that he has universal jurisdiction over the various local Churches. Nevertheless, I readily admit that the bishop of Rome is the first among equals among the patriarchs, but that does not give him the power - on his own initiative - to decree dogmas or anything else along those lines. The exaggerated claims of the Western Church in connection with the papacy, which developed from the Hildebrandian Reform, will need to be dumped if the restoration of communion between the West and the whole of the East is ever to become a reality. It is time that the pope realize his real place in the Church, and stop pretending to be a super bishop who can define dogma and govern all the local Churches as if he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church. It is time for the Latin Church to implement the second part of Canon 34 of the Apostles, which clearly forbids the primate to act without the consent of the synod, for as it says: "But let him [i.e., the protos] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit."

P.S. - There is one other thing that I should make clear: I do not believe that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is a divinely revealed truth; instead, his primacy is a human custom that has been given conciliar support.

That is a great quotation, but let us read it in context:

"But the issue is pressed by saying (and this is the third axiom): the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches. I reply. The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port. It is true that the Pope in his definitions 'ex cathedra' has the same sources ("fontes") which the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition. It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church's consent."

It is pretty clear from the sentence that follows the one you quoted that the pope does not need to consult the bishops in order to issue a dogmatic decree, because - according to the Relatio (and Pastor Aeternus) - the pope possess full, immediate, and universal power in defining dogma and in ruling the many local Churches. Who is the one doing the "deducing" mentioned by Gasser? Who is the one that determines whether or not the papal decree comports with Tradition? You guessed it, the pope, for there is no higher judge than the pope.

Now even Dr. Ott was able to comprehend the teaching of Vatican I, and he did not agree with your modern interpretation. Here are a few of the things he said about papal supremacy in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pages 285-286):

• The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.
  
  
• A full power, that is, the Pope possesses of himself alone, the whole fullness of the Church power of jurisdiction and not merely a greater share than the other bishops taken individually or conjointly. Thus the Pope can rule independently on any matter which comes under the sphere of the Church's jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other bishops or of the rest of the Church.
  
  
• A truly episcopal power, that is, the Pope is just as much a "universal bishop" of the whole Church, as he is the bishop of his diocese of Rome.
  
  
• As the supreme lawgiver of the Church, the Pope is not legally bound by ecclesiastical decisions and usages, but by divine law alone.
  
  
• He himself [i.e., the Pope] is judged by nobody, because there is no higher judge on earth than he.

Dr. Ott's presentation of papal power clearly present a different perspective from the one you promote, and - unlike you - he was an approved theologian of the Roman Church, and his book was published with ecclesiastical approbation. So I do not think it is a stretch when Eastern Orthodox Christians (and Eastern Catholics for that matter) reject what the Roman Church has taught about the papacy during the second millennium, and more particularly at Vatican I.

Dear brother Todd,

If I thought it was the only one, I wouldn't be debating about it, would I?

I directly quote the Relatio and the Decree in response to your misinterpretation, and that is spurious? I realize that such "modernist" statements from the Decree and the Relatio themselves undercuts the basis for your objections, so I'll take your comments as a positive.

I have no problem with that, but rightly understood as our Lord and the Fathers of the Vatican Councils understood it - as a ministry of service, not control.

You mean "the Eastern Orthodox Churches refused to participate," right? They were invited, and they refused to come.

That's cool. I don't believe that either, because that's not what Vatican 1 taught.

That's cool. I don't believe he has unlimited control over the local Churches either, because that's not what Vatican 1 taught.

Well, it's not just the Latin Catholics (and other Catholics besides) who think primacy is a theological matter. All the Churches of the Syriac Tradition do as well. That probably doesn't matter to you. But you should know you'll have to deal with more than just Latin Catholics with your opinion.

Blessings,
Marduk

I do not have a problem with your debating anything, but I do reject your position, and I tire of you constantly belittling those who disagree with you by making it sound as if you alone understand Pastor Aeternus and the Relatio of Gasser. I have read both of those documents many times, and probably read them before you were even born.

I directly quoted the document too, and I placed your quotation in its proper context by giving the entire paragraph rather than only a brief excerpted sentence.