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

Hmmm ... isn't this really just a matter of semantics? Vatican I certainly did not say "The Pope is infallible" (nor did it say "The Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals"). Does that mean that the fathers of Vatican I would agree with the statement "The Pope is not infallible at all"? Seems like kind of a stretch ...

I'm puzzled by this. Certainly Vatican I is known as the Council that affirmed the infallibility of the Pope.

DTBrown (and everyone else),

I'm reminded of a thread on CAF called "A trick question (papal infallibility)". It started with me saying:


The following day, a poster called "TheWhim" said this:

Certainly there's some difference in understanding as to what Vatican I means among Catholics.

But, I would posit that if one tries to draw from this that Vatican I does not teach the infallibility of the Pope (however it is understood) one is being intellectually dishonest.

I'm being a bit blunt, I know. But, that's the way I see it.

The answer by "TheWhim" confuses me.

In what "former times" is he referring to where people accepted whatever a pope said without a second thought, no matter how puzzling the statement may be?

Since the time of Pope Vincent, the Church has been pushing back against various declarations of the Bishop of Rome when these were considered contrary to the Tradition of the Church or the integrity of other Churches. Some of the most imperial of Popes found themselves on the short end of the stick, including Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII. Even Pio Nono was known to have bishops talk back to him. I gather he didn't enjoy the experience.

I don't think he said that at all.

I find nothing childish at all in Todd's remarks, and can see why he thinks you belittle the opinions of those who disagree with you on the issue of papal infallibility.

That's how I understood this:

"Anyway, why can’t Catholics nowadays do as they did in former times? They simply “thought with the Church”, sentire cum ecclesia, as Ignatius Loyola put it. They weren’t in the rebellious, and, from a religious point of view, very awkward situation to fuzz around with each and every Papal statement and to search with the loop for signs of Papal infallibility and to gladly disobey their religious leader, the Pope, if such signs presumably cannot be found(as some Catholics do regarding pronouncements on contraception). The dogma is, viewed from a religious angle, somewhat superfluous and better is not thinking too much of it."

Dear brother AthanasiusL,

That's fine. I just don't like to waste my time with trying to impose intentions on people when they express their opinions. Brother Todd said my opinions were "spurious." Another brother stated my position was "intellectually dishonest." Am I going to claim their intention is to put me down? No. I believe these are honest opinions from honest people based on their personal knowledge during a debate. My solution is to attempt to disprove their statements, not attempt to divine whether they have bad intentions against me personally.

I guess I have thick skin. I guess some people are more sensitive. That's fine, but, as stated, I think its a waste of time trying to divine people's intentions during a debate.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

Try having this sort of discussion about whether Vatican I affirmed the infallibility of the Pope (under certain circumstances, of course) on a Roman Catholic board. There's no way the RCs there would allow you to state that Vatican I did not affirm that dogma. Absolutely, no way. You might find a few RCs that do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope but they also reject Vatican I.

I mean no disrespect. You can philosophize all you want to nuance the definition of Vatican I. If you come out with something that says Vatican I did not teach the infallibility of the Pope you are misrepresenting that Council.

Alright, I can see what you're saying. Still, reading that paragraph together with the ones preceding it, I don't think he meant that "in former times ... people accepted whatever a pope said without a second thought, no matter how puzzling the statement may be", or anything quite as radical as that. And anyhow, I think his main point was that dogmatically defining "Papal Infallibility" was a very silly thing to do. (BTW, I should have mentioned before that TheWhim is Protestant, according to his CAF profile.)

Dear brother DTBrown,

I believe your pov is based on a misunderstanding of the Vatican 1 Decree on the Primacy. As explained in the other thread, though the Pope has "ordinary" and "immediate" jurisdiction in every diocese, though the Patriarch or Metropolitan has "ordinary" jurisdiction in every diocese within their jurisdiction, none of these head bishops has "proper" jurisdiction in any local diocese outside their own. What occurred in the debacle with Fr. Alexis Toth was not that the Pope imposed something on the Eastern Catholics in the U.S. According to the Vatican 1 Decree on the Primacy, the Pope does not have the authority to impede the divinely-given authority of the local bishop. Every Latin bishop in North America did not want married priests in their territory. What could the Pope do? Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine advocates, sharing the same misunderstanding of the Vatican teaching, yet with different objectives, thinking that the Pope has proper control over every individual diocese in the Church would erroneously place all responsibility for the incident on the Pope's shoulders. In fact, the Pope's authority was not used to impose mandatory celibacy on the Easterns. Rather, it was the authority of the local bishops that was the decisive factor. So what role did the Pope have in this incident? He used his authority to do the following:
(1) He promulgated Ea Semper with language that made the prohibition of married priests dependent on the circumstances of the times, so that there would not be an absolute bar on married Eastern priests in North American in the future. This did not go ever well with the local Latin bishops.
(2) He gave the Easterns their own bishop within the territorial jurisdiction of local Latin bishops. This especially did not go over well with the local Latin bishops.
(3) By indult, bypassing the local laws of the local bishops, he permitted several married Eastern priests to serve in the U.S. Needless to say, this also did not go oever well with the local Latin bishops.
The Pope did as much as he could do for the Easterns given the circumstances. I don't know why the Pope is being vilified for the situation. The responsibility rested squarely with the local Latin bishops.

So the incident with Fr. Toth is a very poor example of the Pope having control over the Eastern Churches. In fact, the effective authority in that incident was the authority of the local Latin bishops, not the Pope's.

Well, I don't blame them completely, but I do believe they are partly to blame for the situation. I guess you are not aware of the many changes that were made to the original draft of the Vatican 1 Decrees as a result of the solicitude of the Minority bishops (as well as many of the Majority bishops). It could have turned out differently if the Orthodox participated. Perhaps the Absolutist Petrine excesses would not even exist today if the Orthodox participated.

Actually, for example, the very title of the Decree was changed from "The Infallibility of the Pope" to "The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope." And the Canon on Pastor Aeternus was modified from its original draft to indicate that the Infallibility exercised by the Pope is actually one and the same the infallibility of the Church. "Papal infallibility" is a colloquial misnomer. It is actually the Magisterium which is infallible, the Magisterium being defined as the teaching authority of God. With this understanding in mind, it is evident that infallibility is not ever exercised by the Pope alone, since the Magisterium does not and never belongs to the Pope alone. Currently at CAF, I have been debating a Latin Catholic of the Absolutist Petrine view who believes that an Ecumenical Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible (i.e., by his confirmation, it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility). That position is a fantasy which is not supported by any teaching of the Catholic Church. It's an interesting debate. You should take a look if you have the time (I'll give you a link if you're interested).

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DTBrown,

Indeed. I have flat out argued at CAF that Vatican 1 did not teach that the Pope is infallible. This was several months ago, and I have not gotten a negative review yet, though the thread is many pages long, and is still active.

Blessings,
Marduk

Please send me the link (via PM).

Thanks.