quote:Obviously, most of these function in an advisory rather than decision-making capacity. And it is this that frustrates many, making the post-Vatican II church appear like a new, fully-equipped, high-performance automobile that has no access to gasoline and no idea how to get some.
What justifies the belief that this immobility will not continue indefinitely?
I get that there are lots of Catholics who participate in church planning, mainly -- as this notes -- in an advisory capacity. And I also understand that many of them wish their input was of a more binding nature.
But what recourse would a Catholic have if the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, simply decided that women could no longer attend services? Or stated, loudly and distinctly -- as some have already done, IIRC -- that birth control is immoral and should not be used?
Confronted with a clear and unequivocal ex cathedra statement, how can Catholics in good conscience ignore or disobey it, and look forward to a day when church "reforms" grant them more power over the structure?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The vatican has recently tried to create what Garry Wills calls "pseudo infallibility" on the subject of birth control, women priests etc. by saying basically that it is beyond discussion. There is no precendent for this and nothing that would give it the authority to create this kind of thing. Clearly, Catholics - laity, priests, bishops - do still discuss it, so it hasn't been a successful attempt.
The first Vatican Council came up with the doctrine of infallibility in 1870ish. It is used sparingly and is supposed to reflect what the whole Church already accepts as true. In the 2000 year history of the church, that is pretty recent. And remember, there hasn't always even been a Pope. In the early Church the Bishop of Rome had no more authority than the Bishops of the other Apostolic Churches. We say that the papacy is passed down through Peter. Peter didn't always get it right. The early Church argued with Peter all the time. And Peter lost some of those arguments and changed his mind.
I think the whole idea that the Vatican can't get it wrong is, at best, historically unsupportable. Just look at the tenth century!
(I use Vatican rather than Pope because he isn't working in a vacuum - the current Pope, for example, had an awful lot of influence on what came out of the Vatican before he was elected.)
My guess is that if the Vatican declared, infallibly, that women couldn't attend services a Council would be convened to oust him. My guess on these other hot topics, birth control for example, is that if he forced the issue by declaring infallibility, either there would be a Council to overturn that or there would be a split of the American (likely North America - possibly some of Western Europe as well) and Rome.
Which, I imagine, is why he is unlikely to do it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm curious as to what authority an ecumenical council would have in the event that a pope declared, say, that God had told him that ecumenical councils should be rendered powerless and/or disbanded. I'm assuming this would be schizm territory, in that people who believe in the pope's ability to speak ex cathedra would have to condemn a council's refusal to obey the pope? Can councils declare infallibility themselves -- and if so, on which scriptural and traditional grounds?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also the chance that, if the Pope were to make such a statement, he would actually be speaking God's actual desire, which may be another reason he has not done so yet.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I'm curious as to what authority an ecumenical council would have in the event that a pope declared, say, that God had told him that ecumenical councils should be rendered powerless and/or disbanded. I'm assuming this would be schizm territory, in that people who believe in the pope's ability to speak ex cathedra would have to condemn a council's refusal to obey the pope? Can councils declare infallibility themselves -- and if so, on which scriptural and traditional grounds?
It's unlikely that this situation would occur. If it did, the most likely resolution would be a decision that the Pope could not be speaking ex cathedra. This isn't a simple process of just saying something like "I'm speaking ex cathedra now." It's a whole process, parts of which could pretty easily be argued would be invalidated by such a statement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Second Vatican Council teaching states that four conditions must be met for an infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These are:
1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.
2. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.
3. That they agree in one judgment.
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful.
I got excited for a moment, thinking that I was actually observing the first ever Tom Davidson spelling mistake.
Then I googled. Stupid google.
Unless Tom was referencing the game, you were correct the first time.
(Well, Urban Dictionary tells me there are a couple other possibilities I would've been happier not knowing about, but I'm fairly certain he didn't mean those either.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or am I misreading that? I think I might be because no other dictionary lists the word that I can see.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
So, there you have it. First ever Tom Davidson spelling mistake. Proof that he's not infallible and it might, indeed, be possible to defeat him one day.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think kmbboots' last substantive post called out what I find to be the most important aspect that generally gets left by the side and causes problems:
"That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals."
Ex Cathedra statements can only be made on matters of faith and morals. this isn't to say that there can't be some pretty controversial things said (in principle) but it does narrow the field quite a bit.
furthermore, to the best of my knowledge there have only been two papal pronouncements which have been clearly stated as falling under the Ex Cathedra doctrine: Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
There are a few things which are still in a grey area, but the church is exceedingly careful in making these pronouncements.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* It's making sense. I just can't figure out what rationale is used to define when the Pope can claim to speak for God. I mean, I know the restrictions imposed, but can't figure out the theological justification for those restrictions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't had time to read the whole argument. I'll get to it after I get out of school today and try to help you out! Sounds interesting so far.
posted
Tom, it's a good point, and in general terms it's basically only used to completely solidify teachings that have been held for many many years.
In my mind it's basically just the cement of the whole Catholic reliance on both Scripture AND Tradition... Scripture is pretty easy since the current version of the bible was put together back in the early hundreds, but tradition is harder to pin down as to what aspects are right. So, after hundreds/thousands of years of vetting and investigation of a tradition, then the Pope has the authority to validate it and say "yep, this one isn't going away, this here is no practice of buying indulgences or anything..."
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Tom, it's a good point, and in general terms it's basically only used to completely solidify teachings that have been held for many many years.
In my mind it's basically just the cement of the whole Catholic reliance on both Scripture AND Tradition... Scripture is pretty easy since the current version of the bible was put together back in the early hundreds, but tradition is harder to pin down as to what aspects are right. So, after hundreds/thousands of years of vetting and investigation of a tradition, then the Pope has the authority to validate it and say "yep, this one isn't going away, this here is no practice of buying indulgences or anything..."
Pretty much, yeah.
This is why claiming actual infallibility on an issue such as birth control would be, to put it mildly, overreaching. Even if a Pope feels absolutely sure he can't play that card when (by one poll anyway) more than 90% of American Catholics disagree. Clearly the Church does not hold this definatively. Because we are all the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very common in the Catholic realm to refer to all Roman Catholics as The Church. I was taught at a young age that, in our religion, "church" does not mean the building where we worship or the institution that governs, but the entire group of people who make it up. Therefore, if a pope were to declare infallibility on a topic that most of the Church does not agree on, I think in today's society there would be a good deal of trouble.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
