« Dr. Williams' Day | Main | A Casa Nostra »
November 22, 2006
That Crazy Pope
The Pope has shocked theologians and opened a chink in the theory of papal infallibility by saying that people should feel free to disagree with what he has written in his latest book, a meditation on Jesus Christ.
I wish there was a shortcut to put something in all caps, because that screams for it.
Now, the article does quote a couple of sources for this contention:
No Pope has ever opened up his work and opinions to criticism before. Nor has any Pope tried to separate his personal and public personas, according to Professor Giuseppe Alberigo, a professor of the history of the Catholic Church at Bologna University.
"I really believe this is the first time this has ever happened," he said. "It is an extraordinarily important gesture. What it means is that the Pope is not totally infallible. As well as being the Pope, he is a common man, hugely studious in this case, but like all men he is subject to debates, arguments and discussions." He added that Pope John Paul II "could never have made a distinction between 'official' Pope and 'ordinary' Pope".
Well, here's what I say, picking a fight with the esteemed professor. First of all, no Pope has had a lengthy career as a theologian preceding his election, as Benedict as. No Pope has previously published so many books of theology as Benedict has - as a theologian, Joseph Ratzinger.
Secondly, on the JP matter. John Paul may not have explicitly told people "feel free to criticize me" as Ratzinger rather winningly has in the preface to his book, but honestly. Do you think John Paul really believed or wanted us to believe that his reflections in Crossing the Threshold or Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way were infallible? Pshaw, as the Brits say, so perhaps they can understand me.
No, Pope Benedict, I presume, understands that something like this could be very easily misunderstood, especially in a day and age when, it's obvious, people have a very difficult time understanding these things. He's an academic, an intellectual, with a real and deep appreciation of the nuances of papal teaching authority as a conserving, protective function, and the contrasting characteristic of academic debate and dialogue. This is not rocket science, it seems to me.
I presume he understands that in this fevered media culture issues like this really need to be clarified because the media tends to overblow things and get them wrong.
And I guess he was right about that.
So...does that mean he's infallible again?
The Roman theological schools have been thrown into crisis by Pope Benedict XVI's recent disavowal of infallibility. High-level meetings between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (The Holy Office), the Rectors of the Pontifical Universities and the standing committee of the International Theological Commission have struggled to come up with a plna of action following the Papal decree abolishing infallibility...
Heh. The really helpful thing Zadok does, besides making us laugh, is explaining who Professor Alberigo is...basically a central figure in interpreting the Second Vatican Council within the "Hermeneutic of Discontinuity" (from a "liberal" angle) and "Spirit of Vatican II" paradigm.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
What it means is that the Pope is not totally infallible.
I don't understand how a professor of the history of the Catholic Church can say that. Maybe something was lost in context. Since when were popes "totally infallible"? Since never, that's when.
I picked up one Benedict book soon after he was installed, and was very disappointed--it was one of those pastiche jobs. Since then I've been enchanted with excerpts posted here and elsewhere, and have re-read the Regensburg address several times. I must be one of those types who understands or maybe intellectually connects more easily with Benedict than with John Paul. So long story short, I can't wait for this new book.
Hittin' the road, Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Nov 23, 2006 9:09:02 AM
You're raging at the wind Amy. These people are completely clueless. They wouldn't know ex cathedra from Exlax.
Malcolm Moore is one of the Telegraph's economics reporters. I doubt he has any clue about the religious beat at all. Why he is writing about this subject is a complete mystery.
Posted by: TerryC at Nov 23, 2006 9:24:02 AM
Alleluia! This gives new meaning to Thanksgiving. What a healthy common sense assertion. I have more confidence in everything he says and may he reign for years to come, humbly and fallibly.
Posted by: Tom Kelty at Nov 23, 2006 10:32:10 AM
"They wouldn't know ex cathedra from Exlax. "
Love the line!
Thank for the link to Zadok, that's one of those great sites I forget about.
I'm with Christopher in finding it odd that an intellectual with any knowledge of the Church or of history, much less of Church history, could express this in just this way, but it is possible that "what it means is that the Pope is not totally infallible," means "What it means is that the Pope ::wants to REMIND us that not every statement of every Pope is ex cathedra, and it has ALWAYS been this way, but SOME people need REMINDING.::
And those "some people" are both dissenter and ultramontanist. The former (often with intellectual dishonesty, it seems to me,) say things like "Look the Pope said 'looks like it's gonna be a nice day' and it rained, so he might be wrong about birth control, too!", and the latter will refuse to put up an umbrella because of the same remark.
I remember reading a real battle on a newsgroup a while back between one poster who insisted the Pope was "the Voice of God on earth" and another who insisted, no, sometimes he might speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit, but most of the time he was just an old Polish man, smarter than most of us, and holier than most of us, but subject to error.
Posted by: Gadfly at Nov 23, 2006 10:33:26 AM
I don't know the players in this situation, but let me posit that this would be a typical Protestant canard. I have heard on any number of occasions good-natured Protestants express that "the Pope can do no wrong and everything he says has to be followed" as a reason to dislike the Catholic Church. It's usually from someone who either is just repeating common hearsay, or it's from an embittered ex-Catholic. There's a lot of misunderstanding about what the Pope's role and authority are in the protestant communities. Of course. And perhaps as many within Catholicism? ...
Posted by: MarkAA at Nov 23, 2006 11:08:56 AM
One important fact is the refusal to claim infallability is not bar to being infallible. There are verses in the bible where the author describes himself as writing for lesser purposes. His attitude toward his writing is not the issue. The issue is the Holy Spirit's attitude towards it. Is it infallible? Not according to the definition of Vatican I. Still the fact that it does not meet that definition does not mean it isn't. There could be a later development of the doctrine that includes such a work. The only real proof something is NOT infallible is an error. Pope Benedict has not stated his book has errors. He just asked us not to approach it as infallible.
Posted by: Randy at Nov 23, 2006 11:13:17 AM
All you fans of INFALLIBILITY owe it to yourselves to make an honest exploration of Vatican 1. Learn how Pio Nono stacked the voting and did not allow a vote on Infallibility. He forced it through by acclamation moments before they all fled Rome to escape invading armies. Explore the work of Lord Acton and Cardinal Newman when they saw what Pio Nono proposed as a remedy for the loss of the Papacy's temporal power. Better yet, read Hans Kung's book Infallibility.
Posted by: Tom Kelty at Nov 23, 2006 11:58:29 AM
Tom -
1) there was indeed a vote (a majority voting pro infallibility)
2) it was hardly passed "moments before they all fled"!
3) And besides anything else, the truth of papal infallibility doesn't rest solely on Vatican I - it wasn't some novelty invented in the nineteenth century. Vatican I simply stated what had long been believed.
I think in all discussions of papal infallibility, it's always good to remind ourselves of the strict conditions under which popes (very rarely) speak infallibily:
For a teaching to be ex cathedra infallible, it must meet the following criteria:
1. The pope must indicate that he is teaching from the chair (the Chair of St. Peter). That is, he must be exercising his office as pastor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme authority that was granted to St. Peter by Jesus.
2. The teaching must be about faith and morals.
3. The pope must define a doctrine to be held by all Christians.
Posted by: Bernard at Nov 23, 2006 12:36:02 PM
This debate is good because it could help clarify the line between when a pope speaks "ex cathedra"- virtually as the voice of the whole Church's acceptance of a doctrine- his being the place where "the buck stops here"--and when the pope speaks as a preacher and teacher of already established orthodox doctrine or when examining proposed new or deeper presentations of orthodox doctrine. This could be of greatr help in negotiating reunion between the Church of the West and the Churches of the East.
The problem --a very major one--is going to be the media's handling of the debate. Unfortunately, most Catholics today in America--since 75% do not attend Mass regularly--get their information on Church teachings from the Mass media and much of that is written by extreme liberal to radical reporters on Church issues--many of whom are prejudiced against the Church and, indeed, the very concept of religion.
Posted by: Deacon John M. Bresnahan at Nov 23, 2006 2:04:14 PM
The notion that the Pope's remarks that you may disagree with his forthcoming book puts infallibility in question is really ridiculous. Infallibility is strictly defined and limited in the Pope's Magisterium. But I believe there is a problem in giving the impression that the Pope can factor out a role as simply a theologian and prescind from his office. I think this is dangerous. People will not make the proper distinctions and is this what is really need from the Holy Father in this critical hour?
Recently the Nuncio in the U.S. told American bishops that they ought not be watchdogs but teachers citing the munus docendi. This is not helpful because with Holy Orders there are three munera: teach, govern, and sanctify. Catholic teaching does not say pick one out of three.
What has been lacking from Rome and bishops is governance which includes protecting God's people from wolves and using what von Hildebrand calls the charitable anathema. Heretics, false teachers, and false doctrines are left in place because of the refusal to use penalties on those who have rejected the Fatih or pick and choose. The Holy Father's vocation is Vicar of Christ. I think this supercedes the role of theologian as if he could be relegated to that for the sake of theological argument.
Posted by: Fr Villa at Nov 23, 2006 3:24:08 PM
Infallibility is a charism of the Spirit given to the Church in her role as Magister-teacher.
While 'inspiration' was a 'charism' that enabled the Apostolic generation in the Church to proclaim and teach the Gospel which is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith" (Romans 1.16 RSV) infallibility is a charism which enables "the Church of the living God" to be "the pillar and bullwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3.15). It is a charism of the Spirit that, like inspiration, enables the Church to teach, but whereas inspiration was given only to the first generation of the Church, the Apostolic generation [thus Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and no new revelation can be added such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon],enabling that generation to write the New Testament as the word of God. Infallibility enables the Church to continue teaching through the bishops in union with the pope in whom and through whom Tradition is passed on and the Church is maintained in the truth.
This means when bishops pass on the truths of the faith (in matters of faith and morals) it is infallible teaching.
There are moments however, as Church history reveals in which teachings (doctrines) of the Church came under radical questioning, and false interpretations appeared. At these moments bishops assembled in Ecumenical Councils of the Church. They did so in, and only in, union with the pope. These Councils taught certain doctrines under question in a more pronounced and definitive way. This was an "Extraordinary" exercise of the charism of infallibility of the Church's teaching Office
In the 1800's because of many historical forces at work, among them a fear that a great dictator (the world had already witnessed Napolean-they had not yet seen Stalin, Hitler Mao etc) could and would prevent a Council from meeting etc The question was raised-could the Pope, as bishop of Rome and successor of Peter (thus ex cathedra) under certain defined and very limited circumstances issue an infallible teaching on the same level as a Council of the Church, an exercise in the Extraordinary use of the charism of infallibility and teach a doctrine as dogma?
Vatican I answered this question in the affirmative. A COuncil of the Church, using its extraordinary charism of infallibility defined 'papal infallibility' as dogma.
The definition actually places great limits on the 'ex cathedra teaching office' of the Holy Father. It in no way declares every utterance of any pope as infallible (not even in the exercise of the ordinary teaching office never mind the extraodinary)
Professor Alberigo knows his history and theology. He is attempting to use the 'hermeneutic of discontinuity' here and throw into question the whole teaching on infallibility.
For the person who questioned papal infallibility-if Hans Kung is your primary source on this issue [Hans Kung has been questioning Papal Infallibility since the early 70's for those unfamiliary with his writings And Professor Kung is no longer allowed to be called in any offical way a Professor of Catholic Theology] I suggest you read Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church which reasserts, as an Ecumenical Council, the Conciliar Teaching of Papal Infallibility.
You see brothers and sisters, the hermeneutic of continuity means this---there is no Vatican II without Vatican I. You cannot have one without the other and you cannot pit one against the other. That's how the Holy Spirit works :)
Posted by: Father Elijah at Nov 23, 2006 3:56:33 PM
Fr Elijah and Bernard,
Kung is only one source. Other sources are Lord Acton and Cardinal Newman both of whom attended Vatican 1 and strenuously objected to Pio Nono's proposal and to his tactics in muscling Infallibility through without a vote. Bernard it was done by acclamation not by a voice vote or show of hands. It was hardly what one would expect as a conclusion to such a solemn declaration. It has been used only twice since 1870, the end of Vatican 1. Both uses were to affirm The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception and both of these truths were solidly in the hearts of the faithful for centuries, leading one to ask why the doctrine of Infallibility had to be created and invoked. It seems redundant and circular.
Posted by: Tom Kelty at Nov 23, 2006 7:51:36 PM
Tom,
Ahhhhh Newman! Blessed John Cardinal Newman did indeed attend the First Vatican Council but did he object to the teaching of Papal Infallibility or whether it was an appropriate point in Church history to pronounce it or not--see Tom, they are not the same.
The various Councils of the Church each have fascinating histories-Cardinal Newman knew of this (as well as witnessed Vatican I) He spoke specifically on the matter saying,
"I suppose in all Councils there has been intrigue, violence, management, because the truth is held in earthen vessels [2 Cor.4.7] but God overrules!"
Blessed Newman makes a wonderful statement of faith concerning the successor of Saint Peter, the Pope:
"What I believe about the Pope, I believe as I believe any other doctrine,-because the Church teaches it-but for me, the Church directs me to the Pope not the Pope to the Church"
As for the specific dogma-Papal Infallibility, allow me to quote Blessed Newman so that you yourself or any other person reading this will not be misled by the false understanding of Blessed Cardinal Newman's faith
He wrote,
"Deeply do I feel, ever will I protest, for I can appeal to ample testimony of history to bear me out that, in questions of right and wrong, there is nothing really strong in the world, nothing decisive and operative, but the voice of him, to whom has been committed the keys of the Kingdom and the oversight of Christ's flock. That voice is now, as it ever has been, a real authority, INFALLIBLE when it teaches, prosperous when it commands, ever taking the lead wisely and distinctly in its own province, adding certainty to what is probable, and persuasion to what is certain. Before he speaks the most saintly may mistake, and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey" (From His Discourses on the Scope and Nature of University Education [1852]
He would also write:
"I profess my own absolute submission to its claim. I believe the whole revealed dogma as taught by the Apostles, as committed by the Apostes to the Church, and as declared by the Church to me. I receive it as it is infallibly interpreted by the authority to whom it is thus committed....And I submit to those other decisions of the Holy See, theological or not, through the organs which it itself has appointed, which waiving the question of their infallibility, on the lowest ground come to me with a claim to be accepted and obeyed...."
Tom, Blessed John Cardinal Newman believed in the infallibility of the teaching office of the Church and its particular 'ex cathedra' teaching office of the Pope. He voted for it, not against it, nor did he avoid voting for it, as a few bishops did
But the real issue is this-is it true or not?
If it is not, the Catholic Church in her teaching office has not been gifted with infallibility in any Council of the Church [remember, Papal Infallibility was formally taught by a Vatican I and reaffirmed by another, Vatican II] If this is not true, all doctrines are 'up for grabs'. If this is not true, Christ's promise of the Spirit to continue to teach us and remind us of all He taught-is an empty promise. If this is not true, Christ's promise to be with us until the end of the age, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church are empty.
I will conclude with a few words from a homily I gave some years ago
"I am Christian because I believe WITH PETER that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I am Catholic because I believe Jesus Himself Who said "You are Peter, the Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." [Matthew 16.18-19]
Posted by: Father Elijah at Nov 23, 2006 9:53:34 PM
Infallibility is not only over-rated. It has only been used twice in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Very strange indeed. In some quarters saints are still regarded as infallible. Most Catholics know better today.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 23, 2006 10:40:12 PM
Professor Giuseppe Alberigo is one of the Bologna School professors who has tried for 40 years to water down Church teaching by adhering to the "spirit of Vatican II" hermeneutic. He's never shown any regard for papal pronouncements in the past, unlike Bishop Marchetto, who has recently published a book on Vatican II. NOW Alberigo is "shocked" that Benedict XVI is publishing a book as a theologian, not ex cathedra? The fact that Alberigo doesn't understand papal infallibility doesn't really "shock" me, but it does show the predispositions of the Bologna school itself: tendentious, yet ignorant.
Posted by: Janice at Nov 24, 2006 9:31:36 AM
