Mission Infallible: When Is He? When Is He Not? (The Limitations of Papal Infallibility)

Much of the present controversy between traditionalists and “conservatives” centers around the notion of papal infallibility. While traditionalists are casually accused of being on “trajectories toward schism” and the like, it is certainly fair to point out that many “conservatives” today are flirting with papolatry, or pope-worship. I certainly do not suggest that most “conservatives” are aware that their position is borderline heretical; on the contrary, I suggest that they find themselves in this precarious position because the doctrine of papal infallibility is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the Church at the present time. An understanding of papal infallibility is a prerequisite for many of the theological debates that will no doubt ensue, not only into the twilight of the present Papacy, but into the next. Therefore, I believe a look back at the formal definition is in order.

Papal infallibility is perhaps one of the most oft-quoted doctrine on the lips of today’s “conservatives” in their dealings with Traditionalists, yet, in my experience, very few conservatives know where or how the doctrine was formally defined.

Not realizing that the “spirit of papal infallibility” has little to do with the doctrine of papal infallibility, we often hear “conservatives” utter the mantra: “I’d rather be wrong with the Pope than right without him.” Those who can remember a time when we weren’t forced to make that kind of decision can’t help but wonder how that has become the “more Catholic” position. Clearly this is anything but the “more Catholic” position. The Catholic position requires an adherence to the truth, and to the source of all truth – the Triune God. To adhere to truth is Catholic; to ignore truth in favor of the person of the Pope is papolatry.

When someone says, “I would rather be wrong with the pope than right without him,” they are saying in effect, “I would rather turn away from God, and by the way, the office of the papacy, to follow the person of the man who is occupying the chair of Peter.” It elevates the man above the office of the papacy and is an affront to the Holy Ghost. Not only is that not Catholic, it is in direct violation of the First Commandment.

Therefore, at this point in the debate, a brief analysis of the doctrine of papal infallibility is in order.

The formal definition of papal infallibility was issued by the First Vatican Council, with the following solemn declaration:

003b BestofJT Proclamation.jpg - 45419 Bytes Teaching ex cathedra, Pope Pius XII solemnly declares the dogma of the Assumption of Mary Most Holy, November 1, 1950. 30 Giorni, January 2000

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning Faith or Morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning Faith or Morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The notion of papal infallibility among the faithful, though consistently present throughout the life of the Church, was not precisely defined until the First Vatican Council.

The definition declares that infallibility is derived neither through the Church nor from the Church. Some Council Fathers insisted that the Pope’s infallibility was dependent on the collective agreement of the bishops (an early hybrid of collegiality). However, Cardinal Cullen, who is credited with drafting the final form of the definition, crushed his opposition by stating simply: “Christ did not say to Peter, 'Thou art the Rock provided you consult bishops or theologians; I give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, but on the condition you hear others before you use them.'" Cullen reiterated the point that infallibility does not proceed through the Church, but directly from God.

Through this privilegium Petri (privilege of Peter) is awe-inspiring, it does have limitations. The limitations and prerequisites for papal infallibility were hotly debated for many years, not only at the (Vatican I) Council itself, but for hundreds of years prior. The language of this conciliar statement is that of surgical precision, especially in its teaching of the limitations of infallibility teaching.

In order to understand the teaching, it is helpful to read some of the arguments offered by the participants at the First Vatican Council.

The foremost Vatican I historian, Dom Cuthbert Butler, referred to Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser as “the most prominent theologian at the Council.” During a four-hour speech, Gasser addressed the audience with these words:

“It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is absolute. I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, Who is the first and essential truth and Who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference tot he infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions...”

Drawing upon eighteen hundred years of tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop Gasser then informed the audience of the restrictions of infallibility:

“Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason of the subject, that is when the Pope, constituted in the Chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge; it is restricted by reason of the object, i.e., when treating of matters of Faith and Morals, and by reason of the act itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful.”

Gasser, the architect of the doctrine of infallibility itself, which was shortly afterward solemnly defined, thus places definitive limits on infallibility with the notions of subject, object, and act, explaining that all three must be present for infallible teaching.

Further, just as infallibility is not absolute, it is not permanent. Reinforcing the position that there are definitive limitations on infallibility, Cardinal Guidi, the Archbishop of Bologna, explained that the assistance of the Holy Spirit is a transient divine act, not a permanent quality imparted to the person who is occupying the chair at that time. He reasoned that the assistance of the Holy Spirit produced no change in the person of the Pope, as the sacramental character of Confirmation or Baptism would produce. Guidi argued that it is not the person of the Pontiff who makes the Pontiff’s teaching infallible; it is the Third Person of the Trinity Who makes the Pontiff’s teaching infallible. The efficient cause of infallibility is not the person of the Pope; the efficient cause of infallibility is the Holy Ghost. This is an important point, because it is clear that the Holy Ghost does not make all the acts of the Holy Father infallible; the infallibility is transient. In short, the Holy Father does not exist in a state of perpetual infallibility in all things.

Of the limitations of infallibility that were mentioned by Gasser and Guidi, two are most evident. The first is that the Holy Father must be speaking from the Chair of Peter.

003a BestofJT ex cathedra.jpg - 57254 Bytes Pope Pius XI seated on his throne at the Basilica of St. Mary Major, December 20, 1929. Not all the solemn teachings of a Pope are infallible, even if he teaches from his throne. An ex cathedra pronouncement has to fulfill specific conditions. 30 Giorni, October 1995 Henry Ward, Archbishop of Westminster, writing in 1871, just after the close of the Vatican Council, explained this major point. He explained that the Holy Father must be speaking from the seat, or loquens ex cathedra. The Archbishop writes that the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra “when, and only when, he speaks as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians.”

In answer to those who read the Vatican I declaration of infallibility and maintain that infallibility goes much further than what the definition tells us, Ward pre-empts that argument by saying that the Pope speaks ex cathedra “only when” he speaks as pastor and doctor of all Christians. All the Pope’s actions and teachings as a private person, private theologian, political ruler, or private author, are excluded.

But aren’t all the Pope’s teachings, writings, and pronouncements subject to infallibility? After all, if the person of the Pope teaches something, aren’t we required to believe it? On the contrary, as Cardinal Sfondratus wrote in 1867:

“The Pontiff does some things as a man, some things as a prince, some as doctor, some as Pope, that is, as head and foundation of the Church; and it is only to these [last-named] actions that we attribute the gift of infallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. As then as not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of the Pope enjoys papal privilege.”

When speaking as a private theologian, even on matters of Faith and Morals, the Pontiff is capable of making the same theological errors as anyone else. This is clear not only from the conciliar definition of Vatican I, but it is also supported by historical fact, especially in the case of Pope John XXIII, who stated in a series of sermons that the souls of the blessed departed do not enjoy the Beatific Vision before the Resurrection of the body.

Though Pope John’s teaching was in error, and though he seemed rather obstinate in his belief, reiterating it several times before a final renouncement of the position on his deathbed, he did state that he was teaching it as a private theologian. As a practical matter, when a Pope teaches as a private person on matters that involve Faith and Morals, it can be, to say the least, a dicey situation. For the uninitiated layman, it is difficult at times to distinguish between private teachings and papal teachings, considering that both emanate from the same physical man. Pope John XXIII and all those who followed him should have realized this, but Popes have nevertheless continued to teach as private theologians. However, whether or not it is prudent for a Pope to teach as a private theologian, for our purposes here, the important point is that they can do so.

Cardinal Manning underscores the teaching that divine assistance is attached to some acts of the Pontiff, but is by no means whatsoever attached to all his acts. Speaking of the Vatican I definition, Manning states:

“The definition, therefore, carefully excludes all ordinary and common acts of the Pontiff as a private person, and also all acts of the Pontiff as a private theologian, and again all his acts which are not in matters of Faith and Morals; and further, all acts in which he does not define a doctrine, that is, in which he does not act as the supreme Doctor of the Church in defining doctrines to be held by the whole Church.”

Cardinal Manning reiterates the point that the Pope does not always speak from the Chair when speaking of Faith and Morals, but also points out one other important restriction of infallibility. Manning concludes from the conciliar definition that even if the Pope is speaking as the head of the Church, his papal pronouncements that do not involve Faith and Morals are not subject to infallibility. For instance, the Pope could say: “As the supreme head of the whole Church, I declare, profess, and proclaim that Haagen Dazs Pineapple Coconut ice cream is far and away the best-tasting ice cream in all of Christendom.” Since this statement does not involve Faith and Morals, there is no requirement on the part of the faithful to make an assent of faith that this is the best ice cream, although it very well may be.

This statement about ice cream may have merit, but it does not involve infallibility. There is nothing to prevent a pontiff from making a statement such as this. A statement such as this carries no theological weight, and if one were to disagree with the Pope on this and make the bold claim that Breyer’s Mint Chocolate chip ice cream is better, he should not be labeled a heretic, nor should he be written off as one who is on a trajectory toward schism. The only trajectory he would be on is the trajectory toward eating a different ice cream than the Pope serves up at the Vatican.

Again, in answer to those who read the Vatican I declaration of infallibility and maintain that infallibility goes much further than what the definition tells us, Manning pre-empts that argument by saying that the object of infallibility is limited solely to Faith and Morals. The Archbishop explains that this definition excludes “all other matters whatsoever.” When the Pontiff speaks on any other topic, infallibility does not enter the question. Manning tells us that the definition limits those acts of the Pontiff that are subject to infallibility: “in doctrine de fide vel moribus definienda” (to the defining of doctrine of Faith and Morals).

Manning writes: “The definition therefore includes, and includes only, the solemn acts of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, defining doctrines of Faith and Morals, to be held by the whole Church.”

Just as in our present day there are those who shudder at the idea of limiting papal infallibility in any way whatsoever, there were those of like mind at the First Vatican Council, most notably the Bishop of Urgell, Spain. According to Butler, the bishop “wished the scope of infallibility extended beyond the sphere of Faith and Morals.”

The bishop was essentially following the theological opinion of Albert Pighius. Pighius was a Dutch theologian in the 16th century who held the position that the Pope could fall into heresy only out of ignorance and not out of obstinacy. Pighius would hold, for instance, that in the case of Pope John XXII, who held that the souls of the blessed departed did not enjoy the Beatific Vision until General Judgment Day (a heresy), the Pope held the heretical position only because he was ignorant of the teaching of the Church, and not out of pride. Pighius dic admit that the Pope could fall into personal heresy by accident, or by lack of theological training, just not willingly.

Though Bishop Gasser neither confirmed nor denied Pighius’ position, suffice it to say that Gasser considered this the most pro-papal infallibility rightist position. The argument that the Pope could fall into personal heresy only out of ignorance and not out of stubbornness was considered the furthest position on the side of papal infallibility that was even presented at the Council. Pighius’ position was the furthest anyone was willing to take the notion of papal infallibility. Many of the theologians at the First Vatican Council believed that the Pope could certainly fall into personal heresy out of pride or for any other reason.

Again, to reiterate, Pighius’ psoition was that the Pope could not fall into personal heresy willingly, but only out of ignorance, and this was considered the rightmost possible position in favor of infallibility at the Council. Most contended that the Pope could fall into personal heresy for a host of reasons.

This is a critical point for the discussion in modern times. It is ironic that what was once considered the rightest position is now considered by some to be borderline heretical, to the left. It is assumed by many, if not most “conservatives,” that Pighius’ position, once considered extreme to the right, is now so far to the left that to hold it puts one on a trajectory toward schism. If I were to suggest the Pope John Paul II could fall into personal heresy solely out of ignorance, I would certainly be condemned by my “conservative” friends, who would cease referring to me as either Catholic or friend. However, as we know from the debate at the First Vatican Council, that position is not only defensible, but so is the position that the Holy Father could fall into personal heresy out of obstinacy. In short, it is not in the nature of infallibility to protect the Pontiff from any personal theological or moral error of any kind. As “conservatives” and Traditionalists go forward in their discussions of this question, they would be well to remember that fact.

003d BestofJT Paul VI at council.jpg - 34478 Bytes Paul VI giving his Opening Speech of the second session of Vatican II, a document that was not infallibile - even though it was delivered in a very solemn way. 30 Giorni, October 1995

Following this theme, another point that was made the First Vatican Council was that although grace may be given to the Pontiff in a divine act separate from the charism of infallibility, the protection of infallibility does not protect the Pontiff from falling into serious personal sin. Manning clarifies this notion:

“I need hardly point out that between charisma, or gratia gratis data of infallibility, and the idea of impeccability there is no connection. I should not so much as notice it, if some had not strangely obscured the subject by introducing this confusion. I should have thought that the gift of prophecy in Balaam and Caiaphas, to say nothing of the powers of the priesthood, which are the same in good and bad alike, would have been enough to make such confusion impossible."

As Manning explains, the notion of infallibility affects nothing in the Pontiff in terms of his personal sinful nature. The Holy Father himself is not made infallible in all things, nor is he made impeccable. It is worth remembering that St. Peter himself denied Christ three times after his appointment to the Papacy. The first Pope performed an action, denying Christ, which is objectively mortally sinful in nature, yet Christ still recognized Peter as the Pope.

Infallibility does not protect any Pope from falling into serious sin; nor does it protect him from eternal damnation. Though we pray otherwise, and though some have argued otherwise, there is nothing to theologically support the notion that no Pope has ever been damned. To deny that possibility is to deny his free will and is to teeter on the precipice of the crime of Papolatry – worshiping the Pope ... indeed, making him a sort of sinless god. Infallibility was not granted to the succession of pontiffs for the sake of these individual men; it was granted for the sake of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Also, just as infallibility does not prevent a Pope from committing personal sin, it also does not prevent him from committing critical and colossal prudential errors, which may be incredibly detrimental to the Church herself. The decision to move the Papacy to Avignon in some ways irreparably harmed the Church, but the decision itself to move the Papal court to Avignon was by no means an infallible decision. Infallibility does not protect the Pope from being imprudent. It does not protect him from losing at cards, and it does not protect the pope-mobile from going into a ditch.

As the saying goes, “Some men are born great; others have greatness thrust upon them.” In the case of those few privileged men who have held the office of the Papacy, it is exclusively the latter. That is not to say that some of the men who have held the office of the Papacy were not great men. Clearly, many of them were, but how can one rise to the level of the highest office this side of paradise? Some were more worthy of the office than others, but quite simply, it is impossible for an individual ... for a man ... to rise to the level of the office. The greatness of the office of the Papacy whether it is held by Pope John Paul II, Pope St. Gregory the Great, or even St. Peter himself, does not lie in the man who holds the office. The greatness of the office of the Papacy lies in the office itself, and ultimately, in the Holy Ghost, the Efficient Cause of infallibility.

“Conservatives” are fond of saying that they love the Pope more than Traditionalists do. I wonder if that’s true. If love is measured by how far you extend the scope of infallibility, I guess they win. On the other hand, when you attribute infallibility to a man, and make ridiculous claims like “I’d rather be wrong with the Pope that right without him,” that may be called love, but it is a misguided love; it is a love that ends in a worship of the created, rather than the Creator.

When someone says, “I would rather be wrong with the Pope than right without him,” they may think that they are affirming the Papacy. But the very opposite is true – rather than affirming the Papacy, they are actually rejecting it. Specifically, those who are saying, “I would rather be wrong with Karol Woityla than right with the Triune God” are rejecting the Catholic theology of the Papacy.

The doctrine of infallibility has limitations. The current attempt to extend infallibility to all things that the Holy Father does, says, or writes is not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on heresy.

Infallibility must not be used to defend actions that cause great harm to the Mystical Body of Christ. To do so is more than dishonest. To do so is to blaspheme!

I've read the Catechism and it says nothing about your exaggerated view of the papacy.

My view of the Papacy is not exaggerated - it is the traditional, orthodox acceptation of the papacy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, English translation, paragraph 882: The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

There's nothing in there about being a moderator or some mere first among equals.

Nor is there anything in there about random anonymous Internet malcontents having some kind of jurisdiction over him or some authority to judge him.

So what makes the fact you seem obsessed with the letter of the law a matter of bigotry?

Another sidestep. "You Latins" is, of course, the marker of your bigotry.

"You Mexicans", "You Jews", "You Negroes", "You Latins" - the bigot's usual way of addressing an entire class of people he has unjustly stereotyped.

In the Byzantine mind prayerfulness and liturgical orthodoxy is first and the law is secondary.

That's your own idealized picture of your own liturgical community. It would be nice if it were true, but Byzantines put their pants on one leg at a time just like we poor benighted Latins do. Sorry.

That's the error of the West.

LOL! Now the entire West is in error! All Latin Rite Catholics are heretics now!

You seem so overcome by your own personal pride to see this in yourself.

The man who proclaims himself equal to Saint Paul and entitled to judge Popes, a man who has the power to declare that the sin of detraction is not actually a sin, says that I am prideful.

I'll take that comment with as much respect as it deserves.

The fruits of the Vatican II era have been rotten to the core, and if you can't see that you're blind.

We've already established that I'm blind because I acknowledge that the Pope is my pastor and that he actually has just authority over me as my pastor.

If anything is lacking in you is a spirit of charity.

Says the man who characterizes Popes as authors of scandal and all obdedient catholics as "blind" and "papolators." Please, o charitable one, teach me the way of your charity!

Threatened aren't you.

If the even the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Barque of Peter, trust me, I'm not too worried about you.

Filled by hate, aren't you.

The man who begins a thread spewing insults feels that others are filled by hate? Fact: you move me to pity. Again, iatre, therapouson seautou.

My prayer is that Pope Benedict XVI will remove the barriers to the licit celebration of the Old Rites

That would be wonderful. I'd love to see the Tridentine Rite have a wider application. I attend it myself every Sunday and Holyday.

and that he will disband the office for interreligious dialogue.

Why would you want to do that? Are you (shudder) filled by hate?

Stop playing your "The King can Do No Wrong" game.

Yet another straw man. The question is not "can the Pope do wrong?"

Of course he can.

The question is whether or not you are entitled to treat your pastor like garbage if he says or does something that rankles your own personal sensibilities.

The answer, to a Christian, is obviously no.

You treat your pastor with respect, you give him the benefit of the doubt and you take a charitable attitude.

You certainly do not denounce him as a heretic because you are not educated enough to read what he actually wrote in the language he promulgated it in.

I don't believe the Holy See defined Ultramontanism per se, but Ratzinger placed it in the same breath with conciliarism and Febronianism as distortions of Catholic truth. Roughly the mid-1990s.

In 1827 the French Ultramontanist philosophers and political activists Lamennais and Lacordaire began a journal entitled L'Avenir which advcated a theocratic democracy in France based on the authority of the Pope. They went to Rome in 1831 hoping the Pope would support their program. The Pope refused to discuss politics with them and after they left wrote a letter to the Polish revolutionaries whom L'Avenir supported, informing them that it was immoral to conspire against the Czar even if they were conspiring to establish a Catholic monarchy in Poland. The Pope condemned the ultramontane policies in this letter as being detrimental to the Church's ability to exercise its pastoral ministry.

L'Avenir was disbanded soon after in response to the rejection of the Ultramontanist program by the Holy See.

Neither of the men were ever condemned as heretics or accused of holding heretical opinions.

Nope, inasfar as they derive their authority from Christ. Such is an innovation that was unknown in the early centuries.

Thanks for the nod to the primitivist fallacy.

However, the bishops of the early centuries, not just those of today, recognized that a consecrated individual has no authority over anyone unless he is in communion with the Universal Church.

The pope is not the sum of the Church my friend

No one ever said he was. That's the straw man talking, not a person.

The patriarchs have their authority by divine right too. No council can be ecumenical without their assent, not just the pope of Rome's.

Wrong.

As far as the Melkite Church is concerned, the reservation to Vatican I stands.

Because the Pope kindly permits it to.

I believe the pope has jurisdiction, but I don't believe it is or should be as exalted as you might think.

It's one or the other. Either the Pope has direct and personal jurisidiction over every single member of the universal Church or he doesn't. You can't hedge on this one.

With regards to the Eastern Churches, let the pope mind his own business unless we happen to screw things up so badly we can't put things back together without him.

The Eastern rites of the Church are the pope's business. He has jurisdiction over them.

The pyramidal Medieval structure of the papacy is an innovation that had no place during the 1st millenium, and it should have no place now.

LOL! Reread paragraph 822 of the Catechism again.

How can you prove that this is mythical? What source do you have except an almost worshipful exaltation of the papacy?

It is up to you to prove that Gregory II was telling the truth. He claimed that Pius IX physically mistreated him, yet no witness - and there were plenty of witnesses - corroborated his story.

Why should we take his word for it, especially if he stood to profit from the story?

Says who, you?

Paragraph 2477 of the Catechism expalins the difference for you. I'll quote:

Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

Besides, who are you to judge me?

I'm not. You may have an impaired conscience that prevents you from seeing that you are objectively engaging in rash judgment and detraction. As I said, you may not be culpable because of defect.

Of course, it's kind of silly for you to ask, since you are judging Popes.

There is a perfectly good reason why rebuking Paul VI and John Paul II is necessary, they have been destroying the Catholic Church for 40 years between the two of them.

Of course, of course. Good thing you aren't self-righteous and judgmental like I am.

If only you could read what you write from a normal person's perspective.

Perhaps you had a course or two in scholasticism, but it doesn't make your judgment infallible or even right.

I didn't claim to be either infallible or right. I pointed out the flaws in your Tuttlean arguments.

Scholasticism should be relegated to the junkyard of Catholic history.

Just because you are incapableof understanding something doesn't mean it should be thrown away.

Byzantine Catholics are not Scholastics.

A false and meaningless statement.

Latinism and Catholicism are not synonymous.

No one said they were. That's your paranoia.

You are blind.

What a brilliant argument. Such subtle reasoning - are you sure you're not really one of those evil, devil-worshipping Scholastics?

Let's call it a truce here and try dialoguing with each other instead of talking at each other.

While it may be Catholic dogma that the pope has universal power and authority as it has developed over the centuries.

How that power is exercised and the relations of the other local churches to the Pope's universal authority is still open for debate and discussion.

The Latin Church and Latin Catholics have always seemed obsessed with the letter of the law an externals rather than internal matters of spirituality. I see that primacy of law in how theology, canon law and liturgics have been approached since the Advent of scholasticism.

I didn't accuse Latin Catholics of heresy. I merely stated that I felt the Scholastic approach to theology inadvertently creates a dualism between theology and spirituality.

I see that in the nice little categories that scholastic theologians love to place everything, not to mention canon law. For example mortal and venial sin, the categories of grace, superogatory works, the approach to justification as opposed to the Eastern approach of theosis.

My theological training has been in the Byzantine approach to theology, not the Latin approach.

The Byzantine Church, by contrast, begins with pneumatology and looks at canonical matters almost as an afterthought. I am happy to see that Pope Benedict XVI is finally working to develop a more balanced approach to theology.

Frs. Meyendorff and Affanasieff have had a profound impact upon his theology and it shows. Deus et Caritas was in some respects more Byzantine than Latin.

I did not declare myself equal to St. Paul, you are putting words in my mouth. Besides, it's not Catholic dogma that it is a sin or improper to criticize the popes when they do things that create confusion in the minds of the faithful.

I pointed to St. Paul as an example of how he as an inferior to St. Peter rebuked him when he was wrong. St. Bruno stood up against Pope Paschal II almost 1,000 years ago when he backed lay investiture, and he was both a simple monk and a saint.

Paul VI had the legal right to promulgate the Novus Ordo, and I do not deny that. However, I believe his decision to suppress the ancient Roman rite, which in its essentials is traceable back to the time of St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century was a grave mistake.

Many others, who aren't in schism, have come to the realization that Paul VI's suppression of the traditional Roman rite was a mistake. I have no memory of the 1960s or 1970s, but it was shear iconoclasm from what I have heard.

Like a good general who accepts responsibilities for errant subordinates Paul VI should have done likewise when he lost control of the liturgical "reforms." He did nothing of the sort.

He also created an unnessessary additional issue with the Orthodox on an ecumenical level.

Saying that the pope made a mistake here is no different than what St. Bruno did when Pope Paschal II went off the deep end sanctioning lay investiture.

You began this mockery, and you were the one who judged me with the supposed sin of detraction. Faithful dissent is not a sin, when no matter of heresy is involved.

Instead of having a discussion on the merits of the arguments, you launched into a tirade of ad hominem assaults. If I lost my cool, I apologize.

Scripture and Tradition both say pagans, Jews and heretics are to be converted to the truth, not prayed with.

Schismatic groups such as the Orthodox and the SSPX, etc. need to be dealt with charity, so that we can work together for reunion.

The Vatican has to stop promoting and tolerating phony ecumenism. It's shear Liberalism, not Catholicism.

Extreme ecumenism in the form of the Assisi conferences is nothing but scandal that spits against Christ's command to
convert the nations.

The Office for Interreligious Dialogue is an affront to every missionary martyr the Catholic Church has ever produce. St. Isaac Jogues comes to mind or the Martyrs of Japan.

If dialogue has a missionary aspect, I say fine. If it's I'm you, your me then I have a problem because it betrays Christ.

Social ecumenism, however, is another story when it comes to protecting matters of morality or even feeding the poor.

Would you consider Fr. Fessio and those calling for the Reform of the Reform disloyal or disobedient?

Fr. John Parsons A Reform of the Reform?

"Fallibility of Prudential Judgments

This is the paragraph that sank a thousand missals, and more than a thousand years of unity in the Roman Rite, which had been one of the principal factors in the emergence of a unified western civilization.

There is the famous story of how the Dominican Cardinal Browne urged the Council Fathers to beware of allowing the vernacular, lest Latin vanish from the liturgy within ten years or so. He was laughed at by the assembly, but as so often, the pessimistic reactionary proved to be more in touch with the flow of events than the optimistic progressives.

The Council Fathers' incredulous laughter at Cardinal Browne helps to remind us that a general council, like a Pope, is only infallible in its definitions of faith and morals, and not in its prudential judgements, or in matters of pastoral discipline, or in acts of state, or in supposed liturgical improvements. It is thus false to assert that a Catholic is logically bound to agree with the prudential judgments a council may make on any subject. It is still more illegitimate to extrapolate from the negative immunity from error which a general council enjoys in definitions of faith and morals, to belief in a positive inspiration of councils, as if the bishops were organs of revelation like the Apostles, and their prudential decrees inerrant like the Scriptures. It is only a false ecclesiology and a false pneumatology that can lead to the exorbitant assertion that a council is "the voice of the Holy Spirit for our age". Are we really obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit demanded the launching of a Crusade at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? And must we hold that in 1311 the Holy Spirit dictated the Council of Vienne's rules regulating the use of torture by the Inquisition? And is it de fide that when Alexander IV ordered those suspect of heresy to be tortured to confess their guilt, this was what "the Spirit was saying to the churches" on 15 May 1252? If so, are we to condemn the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 15 August 1997, which comes to us on the same papal and episcopal authority and which condemns the use of torture to extract confessions of guilt, and openly says that "the pastors of the Church" erred on the matter?

As to the liturgy, is it mandatory to believe that in 1963 the Holy Spirit wanted the abandonment of the principle of the weekly recitation of all 150 psalms, on which the Office of the Roman Rite has been based from its very beginnings prior to Saint Benedict? And is it de fide that God wanted the Hour of Prime suppressed from January 1964? No, this doctrine of the Infallibility of the Party Line simply will not do. It is not Catholic teaching that the Church is infallible in pastoral or prudential judgements. We are therefore logically free to hold that any council can be ill-advised when making these kinds of decision, and thus ill-advised in allowing the conversion of the liturgy into the vernacular, even if that had taken the form of a direct translation of the 1962 Missal."
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_nov01.html

Let's call it a truce here and try dialoguing with each other instead of talking at each other.

I hope this means that I am no longer going to be accused of worshipping men.

While it may be Catholic dogma that the pope has universal power and authority as it has developed over the centuries.

There is no "may" and there is no "development." Christ personally designated Peter as the Rock on which He built his Church and gave him full authority of his flock. End of story.

How that power is exercised and the relations of the other local churches to the Pope's universal authority is still open for debate and discussion.

If it pleases the Pope to discuss with those under his authority how he can serve them better as their pastor, certainly. But only the Pope has the authority to initiate debate or discussion on these matters.

The Latin Church and Latin Catholics have always seemed obsessed with the letter of the law an externals rather than internal matters of spirituality.

I'm sorry, but that is a profoundly false statement and a profoundly insulting one.

You speak of St. Catherine of Siena - read her. Read her dialogue. Read Bl. Angela of Foligno. Read St. Theresa of Avila. Read St. John of the Cross. Read St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Read St. Bonaventure. Read St. Francis de Sales. Read Dietrich von Hildebrand. Read Romano Guardini. Read the works of the Carthusians. Learn about St. Francis of Assisi.

I see that primacy of law in how theology, canon law and liturgics have been approached since the Advent of scholasticism.

The Byzantines were the Church's legalists from the time of Justinian down to the fall of Constantinople. It was the study of the Greeks that reintroduced Roman law into the West and inaugurated the era of the canonists in the 11th century - before the advent of Scholasticism.

Scholasticism is nothing other than using tried and true Aristotelian common sense principles to describe and analyze theological phenomena.

Scholasticism is not about law - it is about reason.

And as far as legalism is concerned, the Byzantines are very partial to their canons as well.

Such argumentation is bare, unsubstantiated prejudice.

I didn't accuse Latin Catholics of heresy.

You said that the entire West was in error.

I merely stated that I felt the Scholastic approach to theology inadvertently creates a dualism between theology and spirituality.

I'll stipulate that that's what you were thinking.

I disagree that involving the mind with the heart and the soul in one's spirituality creates dualism, even inadvertently.

Christ calls the whole person, including the intellect, not just the heart. I feel that some Byzantines create a dualism by excluding intellectual analysis from the spiritual life and disparaging such analysis.

I see that in the nice little categories that scholastic theologians love to place everything, not to mention canon law.

Christ placed things in categories as well.

For example mortal and venial sin,

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." That's St. John the Apostle, not Thomas Aquinas.

the categories of grace,

"As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." - That's St. Peter, not Thomas Aquinas.

superogatory works,

"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." I trust you know who said that.

the approach to justification as opposed to the Eastern approach of theosis.

Take that one up with St. Paul.

My theological training has been in the Byzantine approach to theology, not the Latin approach.

Mine has been in Catholic theology - not Latin or Byzantine.

The Byzantine Church, by contrast, begins with pneumatology and looks at canonical matters almost as an afterthought.

I assume you mean Rite, not "Church." As a Catholic I start with the Gospel and proceed from there.

I am happy to see that Pope Benedict XVI is finally working to develop a more balanced approach to theology.

That's a patronizing sentiment. I would hope that Eastern Rite Catholics would start studying Western theological distinctives. No serious Western theologian hasn't read Chrysostom, Basil, John of Damascus, Maximos Confessor or Gregory of Nyssa. But it is rare to find an Eastern theologian who has bothered to read Thomas, and many of them have even ignored Augustine.

Frs. Meyendorff and Affanasieff have had a profound impact upon his theology and it shows. Deus et Caritas was in some respects more Byzantine than Latin.

Interesting, since his sources for that Encyclical are Thomas, Aristotle, Augustine, the evil John Paul II and the satanic Second Vatican Council - though he does cite the legalistic side of the Eastern Rites, specifically the canon law of the Eastern Rites (not only Westerners are canon lawyers after all!)

Meyendorff and Afanasieff were not cited - though they are indeed excellent theologians.

I did not declare myself equal to St. Paul, you are putting words in my mouth.

You equated your critical attitude toward your pastors with St. Paul's disagreement with St. Peter. You do not hold the same collegial relationship with the Pope as St. Paul did with St. Peter.

St. Bruno stood up against Pope Paschal II almost 1,000 years ago when he backed lay investiture, and he was both a simple monk and a saint.

St. Bruno died in 1101. Paschal II fought against lay investiture from 1099-1111, until he was imprisoned. St. Bruno was a Carthusian monk, but he was also a papal advisor to Paschal's predecessor Urban II and present at all important curial functions from 1090 at Urban II's invitation. Paschal II was a simple monk too, by the way.

There is no record of St. Bruno rebuking or chastising the Pope, he was close personal friends with both Urban II (who was his pupil) and Paschal II. Unless there is some other St. Bruno the monk who is associated with Paschal II that I'm not aware of.

Paul VI had the legal right to promulgate the Novus Ordo, and I do not deny that. However, I believe his decision to suppress the ancient Roman rite, which in its essentials is traceable back to the time of St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century was a grave mistake.

I don't think it was a prudent decision either. The solution is to ask Pope Benedict to fix it, not to condemn Paul VI.

Many others, who aren't in schism, have come to the realization that Paul VI's suppression of the traditional Roman rite was a mistake. I have no memory of the 1960s or 1970s, but it was shear iconoclasm from what I have heard.

Some very evil people took advantage of the instability in the Church to do some very vile things. They will all have to account for them in the end.

Like a good general who accepts responsibilities for errant subordinates Paul VI should have done likewise when he lost control of the liturgical "reforms." He did nothing of the sort.

Paul VI attempted to right the ship - he is famous for acknowledging the presence of the "smoke of Satan" in the bosom of the Church and he tried to modify the radicalism of the so-called "reformers" with little success. Neither Paul VI nor John Paul II were gifted adminstrators, but I do not believe that Paul VI willingly did damage to the Church and refused to try to remedy it. From reading some of his letters, I'm not sure if he was aware of the extent of what was going on, nor did he know how to stop what he had inadvertently set in motion.

He also created an unnessessary additional issue with the Orthodox on an ecumenical level.

The strategy behind the Novus Ordo was to improve relations with the mainline Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans) - I don't think Paul VI or others realized how disedifying the liturgical upheavals would be to the Orthodox.

Remember, that one of the reasons given for abandoning Latin was that the Orthodox celebrated the liturgy in various local languages.

Saying that the pope made a mistake here is no different than what St. Bruno did when Pope Paschal II went off the deep end sanctioning lay investiture.

Again, I think you have the facts wrong here. During the two years that Paschal II was Pope while St. Bruno was still alive, Paschal II was a lion against lay investiture.

You began this mockery, and you were the one who judged me with the supposed sin of detraction. Faithful dissent is not a sin, when no matter of heresy is involved.

???? You started this thread with its disgusting charges of "papolatry." Let's be serious now.

There is no such thing as "faithful dissent." Unless the pope commands people to sin, he is to be obeyed whether we think he's making the right decision or not. If you have concerns, express them measuredly and respectfully - not with an attitude of condemnation.

Accusing Popes of heresy as if you had the authority to make such a pronouncement is simply not a Catholic thing to do.

Instead of having a discussion on the merits of the arguments, you launched into a tirade of ad hominem assaults. If I lost my cool, I apologize.

You did lose your cool, and I accept your apology.

Scripture and Tradition both say pagans, Jews and heretics are to be converted to the truth, not prayed with.

St. Paul and all the Apostles prayed with Jews. Acts says that Peter and John went to the Temple every day and then celebrated the Eucharist afterwards, and that St. Paul went to the synagogue in every town he visited.

While it is impossible to pray with pagans, since they are either prsying to nothing or to a demon, there are heretics who attend Catholic churches every day and while they are not welcome to communion, they are welcome to pray with us and always have been.

Schismatic groups such as the Orthodox and the SSPX, etc. need to be dealt with charity, so that we can work together for reunion.

They already are dealt with with incredible forbearance and charity, despite the hatred and insanity of the Williamson individual and the pettiness of the Patriarch of Moscow.

And that forbearance and charity should continue.

The Vatican has to stop promoting and tolerating phony ecumenism. It's shear Liberalism, not Catholicism.

Which phony ecumenism is that, exactly? I see certain bishops promoting phony ecumenism, but I don't see the Pope - the author of Dominus Iesus - doing so.

Extreme ecumenism in the form of the Assisi conferences is nothing but scandal that spits against Christ's command to convert the nations.

the format and conduct of the Assissi conferences in the past were clearly poorly done. That has stopped.

The Office for Interreligious Dialogue is an affront to every missionary martyr the Catholic Church has ever produce. St. Isaac Jogues comes to mind or the Martyrs of Japan.

I disagree. The Church should communicate with all people. The issue is not dialogue, the issue is compromise under the guise of dialogue.

If dialogue has a missionary aspect, I say fine. If it's I'm you, your me then I have a problem because it betrays Christ.

Well said.

Social ecumenism, however, is another story when it comes to protecting matters of morality or even feeding the poor.

Well said.

Saints weren't impeccable during their lives. They sinned and did so greatly at times, but their humility with their sins distinguishes them from ordinary people.

Some saints such as St. Meletius of Antioch were schismatics, relative to the Roman papacy.

For goodness sake, JP2 even recognized the Russian Orthodox Church's canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," referring to him as such in the same breath with St. Francis of Assisi.

St. Nicholas of Myra punched Arius at the Council of Nicaea according to legend, for example.

So why do you deny Gregory II's credibility?

Papal power is a given that we both can agree on, but I think we disagree upon how or when that authority should be exercised. From my perspective, it should be exercised no differently than it was exercise prior to the Great Schism between East and West.

What do you think of Jaroslav Pelikan's reliability as a historian?

How do you reconcile JP2's and Vatican II's statements about other religions with the pre-Concilliar statements condemning Judaism, Islam and pagan religions?

Leo XII UBI PRIMUM (On His Assuming the Pontificate)
"The current indifferentism has developed to the point of arguing that everyone is on the right road. This includes not only all those sects which though outside the Catholic Church verbally accept revelation as a foundation, but those groups too which spurn the idea of divine revelation and profess a pure deism or even a pure naturalism. The indifferentism of Rhetorius seemed absurd to St. Augustine, and rightly so, but it did acknowledge certain limits. But a tolerance which extends to Deism and Naturalism, which even the ancient heretics rejected, can never be approved by anyone who uses his reason. Nevertheless—alas for the times; alas for this lying philosophy!—such a tolerance is approved, defended, and praised by these pseudo-philosophers."

Pius XI Mortalium Animos
".. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."[19] How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction."

Pius VIII TRADITI HUMILITATI

"4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]"

Pius IX Syllabus of Errors

"III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849."

etc.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.