"If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word--if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable--then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages . . . To defend religious liberty would be 'insane' and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interests on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right 'not only the universal church but the whole world.' Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going around the earth. All this is impossible of course. No one understands the fact better than modern theologians of infallibility. If past popes have always been infallible--again, we must add, in any meaningful sense of the word--then present popes are hopelessly circumscribed in their approaches to all the really urgent moral problems of the twentieth century, problems involving war, sex, scientific progess, state power, social obligations, and individual liberties . . . Real infallibility has regrettable implications. In the years since 1870, therefore, theologians have devoted much ingenuity to devising a sort of pseudo-infallibility for the pope, a kind of Pickwickian infallibility" (Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350, pages 2-3).
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
"Other people wonder how infalliblity could exist if some popes disagreed with others.This,too,shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility,which applies only to solemn,official teachings on faith and morals,not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.A pope's private theological opinions are not infallibility,only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching"Catholic.com.I find this an interesting spin on the issue.The crux of the matter then is finding an objective manner for determining what is/is not an official pronouncement,unless this can be achieved,there is going to be much shifting of the goalpost.At the risk of sounding cynical 'shifting the goalposts'might be the idea.
ReplyDeleteThe concern you've raised about the potential for "shifting the goalposts" when determining what constitutes an infallible pronouncement is understandable, especially given the complexity and nuance surrounding the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, this perception of ambiguity stems from a misunderstanding of the doctrine itself and the mechanisms the Church uses to determine when a teaching is indeed infallible.
DeleteThe Catholic Church has established clear criteria for when a pope's teaching is considered infallible. Infallibility applies only when the pope speaks ex cathedra—literally "from the chair" of St. Peter—meaning he is exercising his role as the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians. For a statement to be considered infallible, it must:
1. Be a definitive act, declaring a doctrine concerning faith or morals.
2. Be intended to be held by the entire Church.
These criteria, outlined during the First Vatican Council in 1870, ensure that infallible pronouncements are not casually made and are always related to core matters of faith and morals.
It's crucial to distinguish between different kinds of papal statements. The Church recognizes various levels of teaching authority:
* Infallible teachings: These are rare and typically occur during ecumenical councils or specific "ex cathedra" declarations by the pope.
* Authoritative, but not infallible teachings: These include encyclicals and other papal documents that guide the faithful but do not meet the strict criteria for infallibility.
* Non-authoritative opinions: These include the pope's private theological opinions or comments made in informal settings, which are not binding on the Church.
The Church uses established theological and canonical standards to discern whether a teaching is infallible. These standards are rooted in centuries of tradition and theological reflection. While it might seem that there's room for interpretation, the framework is well-defined, and any declaration of infallibility is made with careful consideration and clarity.
Historically, there have been relatively few instances where papal infallibility has been invoked. The most cited examples are the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950). Both were declared ex cathedra and followed extensive consultation with bishops and theologians worldwide, highlighting that such declarations are not made lightly or without a clear and objective process.
The perceived disagreements between popes often relate to disciplinary practices, pastoral approaches, or non-infallible teachings rather than core doctrinal issues. Infallibility does not imply that every decision or statement made by a pope is free from error, but rather that when he solemnly defines a matter of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
In summary, while the process of determining what is infallible may seem complex, the Catholic Church has established objective criteria and a well-defined process to prevent the very kind of "shifting goalposts" that you mention. The doctrine of infallibility is not a tool for changing or adapting teachings at will, but a safeguard to ensure that core doctrines of faith and morals remain true to the apostolic tradition.
Technically, infallibility only applies to pronouncements that involve doctrines or morals, as your source notes. These are so-called ex cathedra utterances. This has the effect of greatly limiting what counts as being infallible speech from the papal chair. But it's still a high bar to meet. See the Vatican statement of 1870 for more on papal infallibility.
ReplyDeleteTierney has also been called a "professed Catholic historian" by his critics. He is a staunch critic of papal infallibility.
ReplyDeleteIs there some standard by which official pronouncements are distinguished from(as the passage put it)'a pope's private theological opinions'?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are clear standards by which the Catholic Church distinguishes between official pronouncements and a pope's private theological opinions. These standards are rooted in the Church's long tradition and are designed to ensure clarity and consistency in teaching. Here's how the distinction is made:
Delete1. "Ex Cathedra" Pronouncements: The most formal and binding type of papal teaching is known as an "ex cathedra" pronouncement. This term literally means "from the chair" of St. Peter, symbolizing the pope's authority as the universal shepherd of the Church. For a statement to be considered ex cathedra and therefore infallible, the pope must:
a) Intend to speak in his official capacity as the supreme teacher of all Christians.
b) Address a matter of faith or morals.
c) Clearly state that the doctrine is to be held by the entire Church as a matter of faith.
2. Other Authoritative Teachings, for example Encyclicals and Apostolic Exhortations: These are official documents issued by the pope that provide guidance on various aspects of faith, morals, or Church practice. While they are authoritative and meant to be taken seriously by the faithful, they do not typically meet the criteria for infallibility.
3. Statements from Ecumenical Councils: When the pope, in union with the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council, defines a doctrine, this can also be considered infallible, depending on the context and the intention behind the statement.
4. Non-Authoritative Opinions:
a) Private Theological Opinions: The pope, like any other individual, may have personal theological views or opinions. These are not considered binding on the Church and do not carry the weight of official teaching. These might be expressed in homilies, interviews, or less formal writings and do not meet the criteria for infallibility.
b) Pastoral Advice: The pope might offer pastoral advice on how to live the faith in specific circumstances. While this advice is valuable and respected, it does not carry the same weight as a formal doctrinal pronouncement.
5. Magisterium's Role: The Church's Magisterium, which includes the pope and the bishops in communion with him, is responsible for teaching and interpreting matters of faith and morals. The Magisterium provides guidance on how to understand the teachings of the Church, including distinguishing between what is infallible and what is not.
In summary, the Catholic Church has a well-defined process for determining when a pope's statement is an official pronouncement on faith or morals versus when it is a personal opinion. This distinction helps maintain the integrity and consistency of the Church's teachings over time.
The only standards I know are that the pope must be speaking ex cathedra ("from the chair") which means that he is making pronouncements in his official capacity as universal shepherd. Official pronouncements also involve statements concerning faith and morals. Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia states matters:
ReplyDeleteThe First Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" --Infallibility at the Catholic Encyclopedia [1913]
In your response, you correctly note that the doctrine of papal infallibility is limited to specific circumstances where the pope is speaking ex cathedra—that is, when he is making an official pronouncement on faith or morals intended to be held by the entire Church. This definition, articulated by the First Vatican Council in 1870, indeed sets a high bar for what qualifies as an infallible statement.
DeleteThe conditions for "ex cathedra" pronouncements are indeed stringent, and this is intentional to preserve the gravity and authority of infallible teachings. The requirement that the pope must be acting in his official capacity as the universal shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and that the teaching must pertain to faith or morals, ensures that infallibility is not applied frivolously or broadly. This framework is designed to limit the scope of infallibility, preventing its misuse and ensuring that it is only invoked in matters of utmost importance to the faith.
Historically, the instances of "ex cathedra" statements are rare. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950) are two clear examples. This rarity underscores that infallibility is reserved for critical doctrinal teachings that are essential for the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith. The infrequency of such declarations reflects the Church's cautious and deliberate approach to exercising this charism.
There is often a misconception that papal infallibility applies to all papal statements or even to all official Church teachings, which is not the case. Infallibility does not apply to disciplinary decisions, liturgical practices, or non-doctrinal teachings, nor does it cover the pope's personal theological opinions or casual remarks. The scope of infallibility is intentionally narrow, limited to specific, solemn definitions of faith and morals.
It is also important to recognize that the pope’s role in defining infallible doctrine is exercised in the context of the Church's broader Magisterium, which includes the bishops in communion with him. The Magisterium's role is to faithfully transmit the deposit of faith, and it often does so through teachings that, while authoritative, do not meet the strict criteria of infallibility. The infallibility of the pope is therefore understood as a service to the Church, ensuring that essential truths of the faith are preserved without error.
The definition provided by the First Vatican Council was a response to the historical context of the time, particularly in addressing the challenges to Church authority and doctrine that arose during the 19th century. The council sought to clarify the conditions under which the pope's teachings are infallible, thereby safeguarding the integrity of Catholic doctrine while also acknowledging the limitations of this infallibility.
In conclusion, the doctrine of papal infallibility is carefully circumscribed by the conditions set out by the First Vatican Council. It applies only to specific, solemn teachings on faith and morals, made in the pope’s official capacity as the supreme pastor of the Church. This narrow scope ensures that infallibility is used only when necessary to uphold the core tenets of the Catholic faith, and it provides a clear standard for determining what constitutes an infallible pronouncement.
If it were true that when it comes to Faith and morals, validly elected Popes were not infallible, we would all be Protestant now, declaring for ourselves, what is Good and what is evil. There is, however, only One Son Of God, One Word Of God Made Flesh, One Lamb Of God Who Can Take Away The Sins Of The World, Our Only Savior, Jesus The Christ, Who Revealed Through His Life, His Passion, And His Death On The Cross, That No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
ReplyDelete“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for “It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church exists.
“No one can Come To My Father, except Through Me.”
Your first sentence is a false dichotomy: those are not our only choices, to either be Catholic or Protestant. Secondly. ecclesiastical history has shown that Cyril Lucaris was correct when he wrote:
ReplyDeleteWe believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteThe critique posed in this argument revolves around the perceived ambiguity in distinguishing between official, infallible pronouncements and a pope’s private theological opinions. The concern expressed is that without a clear, objective standard, there might be a risk of "shifting the goalposts" to suit particular agendas. However, this critique overlooks several key points in the Catholic understanding of infallibility.
The Catholic Church has established clear criteria for when a papal pronouncement is considered infallible. According to the First Vatican Council's definition in 1870, for a teaching to be considered infallible, the pope must be:
1. Speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of St. Peter) in his capacity as the supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.
2. Intending to define a doctrine concerning faith or morals.
3. Declaring that the doctrine must be held by the whole Church.
These criteria are not vague or subjective; they provide a clear framework that distinguishes infallible teachings from non-infallible statements. The argument that there is no objective manner for determining what is or is not an official pronouncement overlooks these well-defined criteria.
The Church’s history provides numerous examples where these criteria have been applied. For instance, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950) were both proclaimed as infallible teachings by the popes under the conditions set out by the First Vatican Council. These cases illustrate the process and provide a historical precedent for identifying infallible pronouncements.
The argument’s suggestion that the Church might "shift the goalposts" ignores the consistent application of these criteria across different contexts. Infallibility is not a matter of arbitrary decision-making but is deeply rooted in the Church's theological and canonical traditions.
The Catholic Church's Magisterium, which includes the pope and the bishops in communion with him, is tasked with the responsibility of interpreting and preserving the deposit of faith. The Magisterium helps clarify and teach the faithful what constitutes official, infallible doctrine and what does not. This provides an additional layer of discernment and oversight, further preventing any "shifting of the goalposts."
The suggestion that distinguishing infallible teachings from a pope’s personal opinions is inherently subjective fails to acknowledge the role of the Magisterium in guiding and informing this process.
The distinction between infallible teachings and a pope’s private theological opinions is not a new concept but is deeply embedded in Catholic theological thought. For example, the Church has long recognized that popes, like any other individual, can hold personal theological opinions that do not carry the weight of infallibility. This understanding is supported by canon law and theological tradition, which provide clear guidelines on the exercise of the papal teaching office.
The argument’s concern about potential ambiguity does not align with the clear theological and canonical principles that have been in place for centuries. These principles ensure that infallibility is exercised in a well-defined and transparent manner, avoiding any arbitrary or opportunistic application.
In conclusion, the critique that there is no objective standard for distinguishing infallible pronouncements from private opinions does not hold up under scrutiny. The Catholic Church has established clear criteria, grounded in its theological and canonical tradition, for identifying infallible teachings. These criteria, along with the consistent role of the Magisterium, ensure that infallibility is not a matter of shifting standards but is exercised with clarity and precision. The argument overlooks the robust framework that the Church has developed to safeguard the integrity of its teachings.