The doctrine of Papal Infallibility is a commonly misunderstood concept in both Catholic theology and Catholic history. Some individuals uphold an ultramontane position which they use to elevate the council to turn the pope into the desired and perfect prince of the Church. This position [ultramontanism] seeks to elevate the pope as a man who is above all things, making him a Supreme Judge and Legislator among men, in other words, a perfect and ideal bishop. Other people hold a neo-conciliarist position, which minimizes or outright denies the infallibility of the pope, in effect removing part of what makes [according to Rome] the Petrine ministry unique. Although an important dogma promulgated by the Western Church, it must be understood in its historical and hermeneutic context.
Papal Supremacy and the Secular World
Not much has changed since the 19th century with today’s day. Just like today, the Church was in crisis in the period leading up to Vatican I. Secular governments of all stripes were undermining Catholic Institutions by imposing new laws and regulations that either reduced the role of the Church in society or replace it with the secular government. This was emphasized when the Italian nationalists took the city of Rome by force dissolving the Papal States in 1870 (which forced the Council to end abruptly). Another example of secular nationalism came from Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf who saw to conform the will of the state by not just controlling Catholic schools and seminaries, but also appointing pro-government clergy to the position of Bishops.
Things were so bad on this matter that when word got out that the Holy Father was convoking a council to proclaim the dogma of Papal Infallibility the secular world became concerned with the result that such proclamation would have. Usually, one would think that the councils of Rome would regard principally just the communion of the Catholic Church, but even after the long fall of the Roman empire, and the weakening of Christendom that was not the case. Some leaders like the Bavarian Prime Minister Hohenlohe called other leaders to aid him in preventing the council from even taking place. Such concerns echoed across the world with many seeing the pope as usurping the temporal powers of the states.
The laity was well trying to underwhelm the spiritual and temporal power of the Catholic Church. This began to be seen when liberal Catholics got ahold of the news regarding the council. Once an article containing the news about the Council proclaiming Papal infallibility was published by the Jesuit auspice-run periodical Civilta Cattolica, the laity in both sides rose in conflict. The conflicts were not always theological, but also engulfed violent conflict. The Jesuit side published the leaked information to gauge the prevalent opinion of ultramontanism. This led to violent conflicts in France in which different bishops took different sides. In Germany, the conflict, and influential views against ultramontanism even gave birth to new ideas on the reformation of the clergy and the structure of the Church. The Italian freethinkers even attempted on persuading the neo-conciliar bishops to convoke a rival synod in the city of Naples. Even giving that the council had enemies in the highest office of governments from Eastern Europe to North America, the council was able to meet thanks to the protection of the French troops who were the protectors of the Papal States.
Vatican I
Regarding the promulgation of what is commonly stated as ‘ex-cathedra’, we must first review the events which led to it. In the introduction of the Decree of the council, we find the first reference to the Church’s resolution against the heresies which come into fruit by the doctrines of rationalism and naturalism which seeks to promote the destruction of the very foundation of human society through the promotion of sins against nature. The promulgation of Papal Infallibility is promulgated in Chapter 1-4 of Session 4. The main part states:
“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, 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 all 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 meaning of such a canon can be variously misunderstood. It is important, then, to examine the concerns which followed the council, points on which the faithful asked their bishops for clarification. While newer documents have appeared, I strongly believe that a historical analysis and critique towards the promulgation of the “new” Papal belief will aid the Church.
It is important to note that the Roman Pontiff can only speak ex-cathedra, namely when he exercises the authority of pastor and teacher of all Christians. He can do so from the virtue of his supreme apostolic authority only when speaking on a matter of faith and morals. Furthermore, rather than looking at the papacy as the head of the Church, it emphasizes the pope as the mouthpiece of the Body of Christ which embodies the infallibility and diversity (as the Body has multiple body parts with different roles) of the Church.
Concerns Regarding Ecumenism
The view of a very small minority of Catholics is then and it is now that this dogma would hinder the dialogue among Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Due to this concern, two key bishops brought up this point early on. The French prelates, Archbishop Darboy of Paris and Bishop Dupanloup of Orleans both raised concern. In fact, these concerns remained in the hearts of many; this makes it all the more necessary to understand Vatican I in the light of the Council Fathers’ intentions.
The Concern of these bishops was not without ground. Pope Pius IX had previously stated that “He was tradition”, thus remarking what many worried, the Pope violating the true sentiment of unity for one of the complete ruling. Such was the reason that Patriarch Gregory II Youssef opposed the council. The Melkite Patriarch gave two discourses two the Council in which he emphasized the need not to develop the Papal position beyond the decisions of Florence. After seeing that his voice was been ignored and diminished by the Western clergy, the good Patriarch left the Council with his bishops without signing the documents. Pope Pius IX dispatched an emissary of the Roman Curia then after the Council to obtain the signature of the Melkite delegation. Patriarch Gregory did subscribe to it, but only after he added the qualifying clause used at Florence; “Except the rights and privileges of Eastern Patriarchs”. This emphasis which was agreed in Florence pointed out that Rome does not have immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern territories in all causes.
The Mouthpiece of the Church
The Papacy as the Mouthpiece of the Church follows the formula DEFINIMUS, in which is invoked the unity of the church, to say, “we define”. This is seen in the book published by Bishop Fessler in 1875, titled “The True and The False Infallibility of the Popes”. In his book, the good Bishop expands on what is considered the True and Authentic Character of the new dogma. First, the pope must express the intention to declare a particular doctrine on faith and morals as an integral part of the Catholic faith which is necessary for salvation. He must then publish it and give a formal definition in the matter. It is then that the pope's infallibility is as a teacher of truth, necessary for unity and the salvation of the faithful. He is not a supreme priest or bishop, much less a supreme legislator in matters of discipline, nor a supreme judge. The pope then cannot speak on matters which are contrary to the magisterium of the Church, nor extend his ecclesiastical jurisdiction in other respected matters of the Church. In a clear-cut way, Bishop Fessler stated “The pope cannot according to his own will and fancy extend his infallible definition to matters relating to the jus publicum, to which divine revelation does not extend.” Bishop Fessler's work was not a mere opinion piece. Pope Pius IX himself approved the work of Bishop Fessler and ordered translated into Italian.
Bishop Fessler’s was not the only approved work regarding Papal Infallibility. The Swiss bishops published a statement that was lauded by its orthodoxy by Pius IX. The statement reads:
“It is no way depends upon the caprice of the pope or upon his good pleasure to make this or that doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is bound by and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is bound and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church; which affirms that alongside the ecclesiastical hierarchy there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested in their domain with full sovereignty and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”
A few key points to summarize here are: The pope’s power is limited to infallibly define what is already agreed to by the Church and what has been accepted as part of the Divine revelation. The pope cannot contradict the Church, for his infallible character flows from the infallible character of the Church (thus, he is the mouthpiece). This position as the mouthpiece allows the pope to be the guide and leader of the bishops, as well as the final court of appeals. Papal powers which alone the successor of Peter enjoys due to the apostolic character of the see of Rome. The papacy thus affirms the rights of bishops and their jurisdictions as well.
Orthodoxy, Old Catholics, and Catholicism
The Orthodox were not the only ones that reacted against the promulgation of such decrees but were joined by the largest schism since the reformation, the communion of “Old Catholics”. Both saw the doctrine as elevating one man above the other bishops and violating the rights of fellow bishops. The groups of Roman Catholics that denied the promulgation of Vatican I then joined the Old Catholics of Utrecht who were financed by Otto von Bismarck.
However, a theological analysis of the understanding of the dogma following Vatican I allows us to see its patristic inclusion following the Council. Fr. Vincent McNabb O.P. (to whom Gilbert K. Chesterton even referred to as one of the few great men he ever met) wrote a treatise regarding Infallibility on which he argues that the practice of ex-cathedra is the culmination of the ancient referendum. The referendum was used by the Patriarchs to communicate with the bishops’ decisions of the theological matter when a council could not meet. So it is that the promulgation of the dogma of ex-cathedra infallibility is, for Fr McNabb O.P., in reality, a reflection of a universal referendum used in times of need. This conveys was used ultimately by Pius IX before his declaration on the Immaculate Conception.
In his treatise, Fr Vincent McNabb O.P., states:
“It should be noted that infallibility is primarily given for the Church, and in some sense resides primarily in the Church. Neither the pope nor the General Councils are ends in themselves: they look towards the Church… So may it be said in a very true sense that the gift of infallibility resides primarily in the Church rather than in the popes or General Councils… Though popes and General Councils may be looked upon as the proximate principles or organs of the Church’s infallibility, yet it is true to say that in a certain sense infallibility resides primarily not so much in the popes or the General Councils as in the Church. When then, it is recognized that Faith demands objective infallibility and that conciliar and papal infallibility, though not subordinate to the infallibility of the Church, are yet referred on to it, matters are seen in their true light.”
It is then that even when the Pope should proclaim a matter of faith or morals ex-cathedra, he can do so only after having examined the mind of the Church in this matter. The pope can never act by himself without the consent of his fellow bishops for whom he speaks as a representative of the whole Catholic Church. While Pius IX might have wished to elevate the papacy beyond its historical position, the popes following him such as Leo XIII saw to interpret the proclamation within the light of patristics.
The Other Statements
Besides the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, ten statements have been declared infallible via the Papacy rather than a General Council, according to Bishop Fessler. While no actual doctrinal publication exists on this matter, these have been speculated by theologians since Vatican I. Nevertheless, such statements are important to look at examining the essence of the dogma and put to rest any doubts in the minds of people. Some of these statements are Leo I’s letter to the Patriarch Flavian before the Council of Chalcedon, the Letter of Pope Agatho regarding the two wills of Christ, which was received by the Third Council of Constantinople, Benedictus Deus by Pope Benedict XII, Cum Occasioned by Pope Innocent X, Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI, etc. That these methods must indicate a presentation by referendum or to a council for them to be considered ex-cathedra, shows the pope serves as the mouthpiece of the Church. Even Bulls and Encyclicals while are accepted as truth, do not partake of this character of infallibility since they are not expressed in a unity of voice with the bishops.
Conclusion
Papal Infallibility often serves as the ghost of Vatican I. Unfortunately, due to the lack of catechesis in the present-day Catholic Church, some mistake this beautiful teaching of unity and love as a radical doctrine making the pope the supreme King and Judge of the Catholic Church. Yet contrary to the evidence presented and the statements approved even by Pope Pius IX, the teaching serves to uphold the bishops' rights, promote union, and limit the actual powers and rights of the Pope of Rome, the Prince of the Apostles. This idea persisted until Vatican II which, contrary to Vatican I, the Orthodox and Protestant Churches did attend (though both Councils sent invitations for them to attend as non-participants). Vatican II reinforces the declaration of Florence and the rights of bishops in the dogmatic Constitution of Lumen Gentium, by which it declares the Second Council a continuation of Vatican I and acknowledges the pope as the voice of the union of Bishops.
댓글