FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Critique this analysis of papal infallibility
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
So I don't mean to perseverate on this topic, but I wanted to revisit it since the last thread ended up being mostly about the philosopher king meet up site known as CAF. This is the position on papal infallibility put forth by the Society of St. Pius X, a little known priestly fraternity you may have heard of at some time or another. I find this to be a clear, well reasoned essay, but I wonder what the rebuttal to it might be. Certainly most people don't adhere to it, so they must have different attitudes. 

https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-in...agisterium
Quote:This was too lengthy to copy and paste while on my phone so we will all have to just deal with that.
(11-24-2019, 10:35 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]So I don't mean to perseverate on this topic, but I wanted to revisit it since the last thread ended up being mostly about the philosopher king meet up site known as CAF. This is the position on papal infallibility put forth by the Society of St. Pius X, a little known priestly fraternity you may have heard of at some time or another. I find this to be a clear, well reasoned essay, but I wonder what the rebuttal to it might be. Certainly most people don't adhere to it, so they must have different attitudes. 

https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-in...agisterium
Quote:This was too lengthy to copy and paste while on my phone so we will all have to just deal with that.

That's likely the WORST attempt at explaining papal infallibility that I have ever endeavored to read.  The author's terminology hopping demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of the subject, but also an inability to define terms and think logically.  It's like part of his expression is left in some private conversation, so necessary context is missing as he changes and interchanges terms.  Also the fact that the author mills over and over the same information with floods of quotations of opinions and restatements of his position deals a severe blow to his credibility.

I suspect there's a definite reason why he will not simply stick with the terms in Vatican I, but I cannot tell you what that would be.

Just read Vatican I.  Start to finish.  It's ALL there.

Wouldn't you rather believe your eyes than some obscure, possibly incredible, person telling you?
(11-24-2019, 11:38 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]That's likely the WORST attempt at explaining papal infallibility that I have ever endeavored to read.  The author's terminology hopping demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of the subject, but also an inability to define terms and think logically.  It's like part of his expression is left in some private conversation, so necessary context is missing as he changes and interchanges terms.  Also the fact that the author mills over and over the same information with floods of quotations of opinions and restatements of his position deals a severe blow to his credibility.

I suspect there's a definite reason why he will not simply stick with the terms in Vatican I, but I cannot tell you what that would be.

Just read Vatican I.  Start to finish.  It's ALL there.

Wouldn't you rather believe your eyes than some obscure, possibly incredible, person telling you?

I'm reading through VI now.  In the meantime, what do you think about this one: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/...ility.html
OK so I read Vatican I.  The pope has supreme jurisdiction for faith/morals and discipline/governance, and he has infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.  It appears that simple to me.  Is there anything I am missing from the documents that is also relevant?

EDIT: I should also make clear that my preoccupation isn't about papal infallibility only, but the issue of assent or degrees of assent to non-infallible papal statements, etc.
(11-25-2019, 12:59 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]OK so I read Vatican I.  The pope has supreme jurisdiction for faith/morals and discipline/governance, and he has infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.  It appears that simple to me.  Is there anything I am missing from the documents that is also relevant?

EDIT: I should also make clear that my preoccupation isn't about papal infallibility only, but the issue of assent or degrees of assent to non-infallible papal statements, etc.

I'm reading about this topic now and V1 as well. The part just before the definition of how to know when a Pope speaks infallibly, with those 5 signs, in Session 4, Chapter 4: does never failing faith of the Pontiff not include his personal faith? So that he, even when not binding, can not teach heresy, not even believe heresy? I think this is part of the charism of infallibility but I am not sure.
(11-25-2019, 02:29 AM)The27thPsalm Wrote: [ -> ]I'm reading about this topic now and V1 as well. The part just before the definition of how to know when a Pope speaks infallibly, with those 5 signs, in Session 4, Chapter 4: does never failing faith of the Pontiff not include his personal faith? So that he, even when not binding, can not teach heresy, not even believe heresy? I think this is part of the charism of infallibility but I am not sure.

If that is true, then the Gates of Hell prevailed a long time ago. Honorius, Pope from 625-638, was anathematised by Pope Leo II in 680, "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."


There is no doubt that John XXII, Pope from 1316-1334, taught heresy, but he repented on his deathbed.

Both are still considered canonical Popes in the Annuario Pontificio.

And, as has been pointed out in other threads, there are extremely questionable teachings and actions of all the post-Conciliar Popes (John Paul I excepted), not just Francis.
OK let me ask this another way.  I'm getting very frustrated with this topic and am probably about to rage quit this forum if I can't get an actual response here.  

1) When is it permissible to disagree with non-infallible teachings - not your personal opinion but what the Church says, with a reference.
2) What is the consequence for disagreeing with non-infallible teachings?  It is not heresy or schism, so what is it?  Sin?  Venial or mortal?  Nothing?

Everyone on this forum has something that does not please them in some way or another about the Church.  So let's hear the justifications for feeling this way.  As far as I can tell, "religious submission" is what is required, but I cannot find a single document that states what happens if one does not provide this.  This leads me to believe that nothing happens when one does not exercise religious submission in regard to non-infallible teachings.  However, I cannot get a straight answer about this anywhere.  As I said, this is getting extremely frustrating.
(11-25-2019, 04:31 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]OK let me ask this another way.  I'm getting very frustrated with this topic and am probably about to rage quit this forum if I can't get an actual response here.  

1) When is it permissible to disagree with non-infallible teachings - not your personal opinion but what the Church says, with a reference.
2) What is the consequence for disagreeing with non-infallible teachings?  It is not heresy or schism, so what is it?  Sin?  Venial or mortal?  Nothing?

Everyone on this forum has something that does not please them in some way or another about the Church.  So let's hear the justifications for feeling this way.  As far as I can tell, "religious submission" is what is required, but I cannot find a single document that states what happens if one does not provide this.  This leads me to believe that nothing happens when one does not exercise religious submission in regard to non-infallible teachings.  However, I cannot get a straight answer about this anywhere.  As I said, this is getting extremely frustrating.

When it follows the "norms of licit dissent" it seems that there is no sin at all, and what those norms are are presumably presented here I think: https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisteri...aynccb.htm

"49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

50. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.

51. When there is question of theological dissent from noninfallible doctrine, we must recall that there is always a presumption in favor of the magisterium. Even noninfallible authentic doctrine, though it may admit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binding and carries with it a moral certitude, especially when it is addressed to the Universal Church, without ambiguity, in response to urgent questions bound up with faith and crucial to morals. The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.

52. Since our age is characterized by popular interest in theological debate, and given the realities of modern mass media, the ways in which theological dissent may be effectively expressed, in a manner consistent with pastoral solicitude, should become the object of fruitful dialogue between bishops and theologians. These have their diverse ministries in the Church, their distinct responsibilities to the faith, and their respective charisma.

53. Even responsible dissent does not excuse one from faithful presentation of the authentic doctrine of the Church when one is performing a pastoral ministry in her name."

It seems to say that "when" is whenever it's non-infallible and your objection is serious, which I take to be whenever your can honestly argue the Magisterium taught wrong from Tradition/Scripture, and when you do this there is no sin or consequence (for your second question). I think the one thing I "dissent" on is in line with this, the Magisterium usually teaches amillenialism while I am a millenialist. This is the closest thing I've ever seen to an answer on this from the Church, this statement.
(11-25-2019, 07:10 PM)The27thPsalm Wrote: [ -> ]49. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from noninfallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

...

It seems to say that "when" is whenever it's non-infallible and your objection is serious, which I take to be whenever your can honestly argue the Magisterium taught wrong from Tradition/Scripture, and when you do this there is no sin or consequence (for your second question). I think the one thing I "dissent" on is in line with this, the Magisterium usually teaches amillenialism while I am a millenialist. This is the closest thing I've ever seen to an answer on this from the Church, this statement.

Followup question, though I realize we're all to an extent grasping, so this isn't directed at anyone in particular.

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not have an official list of infallible teachings. Therefore, how would one even know whether such-and-such teaching is infallible or not, and therefore whether such a licit dissent could be allowed? Since paragraph 49 specifically mentions noninfallible teachings?

Heck, in such a vacuum of clarity, I can't help but wonder if the "infallible" "status" of some doctrine could itself be subject to such a form of licit dissent. Unless it's absolutely, crystal clear. Can't tell you how many conversations I've seen over whether some teaching counts as a "matter of faith and morals" or not... Let alone how any infallible statement is supposed to be interpreted - it would have to be an infallible interpretation of an infallible statement... :crazy:
(11-25-2019, 09:25 PM)Lonion Wrote: [ -> ]Followup question, though I realize we're all to an extent grasping, so this isn't directed at anyone in particular.

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church does not have an official list of infallible teachings. Therefore, how would one even know whether such-and-such teaching is infallible or not, and therefore whether such a licit dissent could be allowed? Since paragraph 49 specifically mentions noninfallible teachings?

Heck, in such a vacuum of clarity, I can't help but wonder if the "infallible" nature of some doctrine could itself be subject to such a form of licit dissent. Unless it's absolutely, crystal clear. Can't tell you how many conversations I've seen over whether some teaching counts as a "matter of faith and morals" or not...


Liberals are perfectly happy to say JPII's declaration that only men can be priests is not infallible despite it using the appropriate formulas. So clearly that is exactly the case. Of course, if traditionalists think the explicit promotion of religious liberty in contradiction to previous teachings is questionable, that is being disobedient. So whatever.
Pages: 1 2