An examination of Papal infallibility

[Michael Wilson]

I'd like to have an informed discussion of this issue. Is the doctrine of Infallibility the root of the problem and the reason for Catholics passivity in resisting modernist invasion? Can legitimate Catholics faithfully dispute this doctrine?

No, but it is legitimate to look at the climate in which Infallibility arose, and that was one of a desire to completely centralize the Church, to place all its prerogatives in the office of Peter.  It was felt that this would be a great power against the forces ranged against the Church at the time.  However, just like the hypothetical situation in "A Man for All Seasons" where the devil turned on Roper after Roper laid all the laws flat to get the devil and Roper had afterwards nowhere to hide, this has backfired on the Church.

Quarem,
be careful with the "conditioned by the time" argument; its pretty close to the argument used by the modernists to take away any value from the condemnations of Liberalism by Pius IX and modernism by St. Pius X.  The Conciliar declaration does not exhaust all of Peter's privileges; as it did not mention the infallibility of the Pope in matters of discipline or liturgy. There is also the question of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope; which has not been sufficiently developed. For example Pope Leo XIII declared that Anglican Orders were "null and void"; Pope Pius X settled the issue of the age at which children could make their first holy communion, also the dispositions necessary for daily communion. Pius XII the issue of the essential matter and form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the use of non-fertile periods in Holy Matrimony to regulate births. All  these decisions were considered final and all by the ordinary magisterium of the Popes.

[Maximilian]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Quarem,
be careful with the "conditioned by the time" argument; its pretty close to the argument used by the modernists to take away any value from the condemnations of Liberalism by Pius IX and modernism by St. Pius X. 

No, it's not anywhere close to the same argument.  It's like pointing out that the condemnations of liberalism and modernism arose in a climate where many, even those who claimed to be Catholic, believed in those things.

The Conciliar declaration does not exhaust all of Peter's privileges; as it did not mention the infallibility of the Pope in matters of discipline or liturgy. There is also the question of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope; which has not been sufficiently developed. For example Pope Leo XIII declared that Anglican Orders were "null and void"; Pope Pius X settled the issue of the age at which children could make their first holy communion, also the dispositions necessary for daily communion. Pius XII the issue of the essential matter and form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the use of non-fertile periods in Holy Matrimony to regulate births. All  these decisions were considered final and all by the ordinary magisterium of the Popes.

It's just not that simple.  What Pius XII wrote about Holy Orders (matter = laying on of hands) actually contradicted what was laid down before at the Council of Florence (matter = handing over of the instruments), and that the practice of infants making their first Holy Communion in the Eastern Rites continued unabated through the pontificate of St. Pius X.

[Quaremerepulisti]

So, the goings-on at Vatican I are of no consequence whatever to the incontrovertible truth of this dogma.

Well I agree, though all your cites are regarding Papal Primacy, not Papal Infallibility as such.  But that doesn't mean the drive to more and more centralize the Church was a good thing.

[Michael Wilson]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

[Michael Wilson]

Quarem,
I'm sorry, I didn't really understand your response to my objection on the "conditioned" argument. Would you mind elaborating a little bit more on this?

Re. On the Infallibility of the Pope's ordinary magisterium; I agree that it isn't so simple. I read through Dom Paul Nau's book and I'm not sure all of the issues are that clear.
Re. On Florence; Its true that Pius XII did apparently contradict Florence on the tradition of the instruments; but Florence's decree on the Armenians (I believe that is where they mention the various matters and forms of the sacraments); was not meant to settle the issue but to explain what the usage of the Latin Church was in those sacraments in order to ascertain that they were on "the same page" us the Latin Church as to the doctrine they held regarding those sacraments.

[1seeker]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

Couldn't we likewise say the argument was settled at Vatican II and with the Novus Ordo?

[Beale]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

Couldn't we likewise say the argument was settled at Vatican II and with the Novus Ordo?

Precisely.

[Gardener]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

Couldn't we likewise say the argument was settled at Vatican II and with the Novus Ordo?

No.

[HelpThisCatholic]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

Couldn't we likewise say the argument was settled at Vatican II and with the Novus Ordo?

No.

Can you explain why not? I would like your perspective.

[Hiero of Syracuse]

Because issues concerning religious liberty and ecumenism were settled long before the Council, yet its architectures decided to ignore that anyway.

[Maximilian]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

It's hypocritical for you to say that when you know that things don't go that smoothly for you when I'm allowed to post.
It's like teasing a dog behind a fence.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Quarem,
I'm sorry, I didn't really understand your response to my objection on the "conditioned" argument. Would you mind elaborating a little bit more on this?

Sure.  There is a huge difference between saying a doctrine is historically conditioned in itself (which means it is only applicable to the particular time of its definition) and saying that historical circumstances led people in the Church to want to define it (though once defined, it is applicable for all time).  The former denies the very notion of dogma, while the latter is obviously true for anyone with the barest knowledge of Church history.

Re. On the Infallibility of the Pope's ordinary magisterium; I agree that it isn't so simple. I read through Dom Paul Nau's book and I'm not sure all of the issues are that clear.
Re. On Florence; Its true that Pius XII did apparently contradict Florence on the tradition of the instruments; but Florence's decree on the Armenians (I believe that is where they mention the various matters and forms of the sacraments); was not meant to settle the issue but to explain what the usage of the Latin Church was in those sacraments in order to ascertain that they were on "the same page" us the Latin Church as to the doctrine they held regarding those sacraments.

Right, but if the matter and form can be determined by the Church, there is no real contradiction to speak of.  But the point it hasn't been determined "finally" since a future Pope could determine the matter and form to be something else.

[Michael Wilson]

Thank you for the reply on the "historical condition" question. 
re. On the Matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders...I will look into this. But thank you again.

[Michael Wilson]

It's easy to argue one side of an argument when your opponents are forbidden from presenting the other side.

Max
the argument was settled at Vatican I for Catholics.

It's hypocritical for you to say that when you know that things don't go that smoothly for you when I'm allowed to post.
It's like teasing a dog behind a fence.

And its "unsporting" of you to continually seek to have a battle of wits with an un-armed man!