seigneur wrote:

I guess the proper word for this description is authoritative. Authoritative as in expert opinion, even though this does not apply exclusively to the pope (and why should it).

If one takes authoritativeness to consist in expertness, then, no, I don't think this will work, for the pope's infallibility is distinct even from what authoritativeness theological experts have.

seigneur wrote:

Greg wrote:

Well, at worst, the pope's statements would make the Church irrelevant, if they were authoritative.

So the pope is not even authoritative? Well, this serves to more clearly highlight the fact that infallible is an atrocious misnomer. For infallibility to have any meaning, it should be something better than authoritativeness, and for a person to embody infallibility, he should be at least authoritative the rest of the time.

I said the pope's statements (in this case--not as a general class) were not authoritative, not the pope. The Church understands infallibility and authoritativeness to attach to acts, like words utters with a certain form or documents promulgated in a certain way--not to persons. There are lots of matters about which the pope is not an authority, and beyond your assertion, I don't see why that should impugn his being infallible in specific circumstances.

seigneur wrote:

If the statements of a given person consistently fail to live up to a necessary standard, then isn't it too overwhelming to pick and choose among the statements what to designate as infallible and what to designate as fallible?

You write as though Catholics defined the doctrine of papal infallibility and then, finding that popes occasionally say things that are incorrect, decided post hoc to pick which statements are infallible and which aren't. But of course that's not at all how it went; the doctrine as defined by Vatican I has always attributed infallibility to a specific and limited class of papal actions. If the pope makes mistakes in other cases outside that specified class, even if he does so "consistently," he hasn't failed to live up to the standard.

seigneur wrote:

What are we talking about anyway? About (a) the doctrine of papal infallibility, about (b) the doctrine of infallibility of papal statements, or about (c) the doctrine of infallibility of some select papal statements? It's labelled as (a), but after "clarification" looks like (c), which makes the label (a) unjustified.

We are talking about what is called "the doctrine of papal infallibility". If you are tempted to take that phrase as a description on which you put your own interpretation, then think of it instead as an atomic name for one of the Catholic Church's doctrines, the-doctrine-of-papal-infallibility. There's no need to play word games. The doctrine under discussion is well known:

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 for 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.

If it helps avoid confusion, you can think of it as the doctrine of the infallibility of well-defined papal pronouncements ex cathedra on faith and morals. You can understand why it is referred to as "papal infallibility."

seigneur wrote:

If the church/pope meant that the phrase "papal infallibility" has a meaning, then it cannot be as narrow as has been "clarified". As narrow as it is, the doctrine can be, with much better precision, be called "papal fallibility". And lo and behold, Edward Feser does just that. This is not a matter of opinion, but of measurable precision of semantics in terminology.

The doctrine has the meaning the Council said it does. To insist on reading "papal infallibility" in the first sense that comes to your mind is like saying that "pro-life" has no meaning, because pro-lifers don't care about human life and puppy life in the same way, or that "pro-choice" has no meaning, because pro-choicers don't care about choices for abortion and choices for the murder of adults in the same way. "The doctrine of papal infallibility" is a label that refers people to exactly one doctrine articulated by the Church, as "pro-choice" is a label that refers to people who support abortion. It's not precise to pretend that the label is a misnomer because it literally seems to say something else; it's dense.

seigneur wrote:

Vatican I is from 1869-1870. That's modern times, not "always". Encyclopedia Britannica says, "The term infallibility was rarely mentioned in the early and medieval church" http://www.britannica.com/topic/papal-infallibility Aquinas and Bonaventure apparently had no awareness of the concept of papal infallibility.

Clearly when I said "always" I meant "so long as the doctrine has been promulgated," that is, since Vatican I, which I mentioned in the same sentence.

seigneur wrote:

Given these facts, papal infallibility is evidently a late attempt to give meaning to something unscriptural and politically controversial. The attempt turned out, after "clarification", so narrow as to be meaningless. It has no practical purpose, except to foment political ill will. That's all there is to it.

I don't know what you mean by "meaningless"; the doctrine is not a senseless word salad. And the doctrine does have a purpose; there have been dogmas that popes have defined ex cathedra, and that has had practical consequences on Catholic belief. It has not been used in a lot of other cases, even where controversial doctrines have been put forth, but I'm not sure what relevance that is. The doctrine can and has been used, so it's not meaningless or hopelessly narrow.

seigneur wrote:

"Well known" as in well known and defined before Vatican I?

No. When I said that the doctrine, which I'd previously noted was defined "by Vatican I" (where you quoted and responded to me), was well-known, I was referred to the doctrine which was defined at Vatican I, not before Vatican I. This discussion is not going to be possible if you insist on reading my posts in the least coherent way possible.

seigneur wrote:

Is there a formulation of the doctrine by Aquinas and Bonaventure? Or, what really matters, by the scripture?

The Vatican I definition speaks about "the tradition received from the beginning". In which sources can non-Catholics verify this tradition? Or to what sources do Catholics refer themselves for this purpose?

I think that the tradition that went on the define papal infallibility is the same that authoritatively selected as divinely inspired those books which now constitute what we think of as scripture. Why should we have any confidence that a collection of books assembled in the fourth century are God's word? What authority had the Church to create that assemblage? I think the source of that authority, like the source of the Apostolic Succession generally, is necessity; if Christians are going to have a Book, then someone is going to have to put the Book together authoritatively. More generally, if there are going to be constraints placed on Christian belief, then some mechanism is required for making those constraints clear. This is why I think that Catholics have a tradition: because for God to do what he wanted to do through his Church, it was needful. The pope's infallibility, such as he has it (this qualification is not really necessary but is apparently necessary in this context), is part of that authority of the tradition. (This coheres with the fact that Catholics have seen the authority of the pope as of a piece with the authority of councils and of bishops in union with him generally.)

Last edited by Greg (6/24/2016 3:04 pm)

seigneur wrote:

Greg wrote:

The doctrine has the meaning the Council said it does. To insist on reading "papal infallibility" in the first sense that comes to your mind is like saying that "pro-life" has no meaning, because pro-lifers don't care about human life and puppy life in the same way, or that "pro-choice" has no meaning, because pro-choicers don't care about choices for abortion and choices for the murder of adults in the same way.

Well, yes, this is indeed my objection.

And it has as little probity as have the objections corresponding to the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice": that is to say, none.

seigneur wrote:

The Council has given "papal infallibility" a meaning that the label "papal infallibility" does not capture in any way.

"In any way"? Please. The term "papal infallibility" bears no relation to the doctrine that a certain class of the pope's speech acts are infallible?

What matters is the doctrine taught by the Council. If the name often used to refer to it, "papal infallibility," is a stumbling block, call it q instead. What you call it makes no difference.

seigneur wrote:

For how long has the Catholic Church been in existence? Close to 2000 years, says the Catholic Church. For how long has the doctrine of papal infallibility been promulgated? Close to 150 years. Were the popes fallible before that? If yes, then why set up the doctrine all of a sudden? Or is it meant to have retroactive force?

Popes have always been fallible, as the recent popes have also been fallible. St. Peter, for instance, was not right about everything and was rightly rebuked by Paul.

The doctrine defines what it takes for a pope to speak infallibly, so popes could have spoken infallibly before that, as the Gospel of John was the word of God before any council infallibly pronounced that it was.

The Church tends to proclaim teachings when they need to be proclaimed. (See, for example, Trent.) The promulgation does not retroactively make papal statements infallible; they were infallible before.

seigneur wrote:

Let's put the doctrine into practical perspective too. How many times within the last 150 years has the pope spoken ex cathedra? What did he say ex cathedra? What have prior popes (pre-Vatican I) spoken ex cathedra?

In the last 150 years the pope has declared ex cathedra the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Before Vatican I, no doctrines were proclaimed as part of a pope's Extraordinary Magisterium, though Catholics think that popes had spoken infallibly as part of their Ordinary Magisterium. This document collects some examples.

seigneur wrote:

The point is that, for the reasons I have listed and re-listed in various ways above, the doctrine of papal infallibility is both indefensible and unnecessary.

I've seen no good reasons put forth. You've variously attempted to say that the doctrine is "meaningless," and you've attempted to treat statements by popes that did not fit the form put forth by Vatican I as counterexamples, or at least evidence, against the doctrine. There has also been some discussion of the rarity of the doctrine's application and some guessing as to the motives of Vatican I, but I have been unable to discern the relation of those points to the doctrine's supposed indefensibility.

There are lots of "obstacles" in Christianity: "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." That many Christians find the doctrine unpalatable seems to me, quite simply, no objection to its legitimacy for Christians. Further, to claim that it is unnecessary requires the claim that the dogmas proclaimed infallibly since its promulgation, but that is not plausible unless the demands of unity among Christians is supposed to reduce Christianity to the lowest common denominator, which does not seem coherent with Jesus's approach in the Gospel.

seigneur wrote:

Are you saying that there is no probity in objecting to the label "pro-life" on the grounds that the substance of their ideology is pro-ripping-foetuses? Okay, thanks. I see now where you are coming from. This makes things much clearer and simpler.

It is not a substantive objection to the pro-choice position that they don't support all choices, like choices to kill your professor if he gives you a bad grade. It is not a substantive objection to the pro-life position that they don't support all lives, like puppy lives, in the same way they support fetal lives. To take "pro-choice" to mean "pro-choice-in-general" or "pro-life" to mean "pro-life-in-general" is just to mistake a name for a description. As I've said before, I think those objections are superficial.

The claim is not that the pro-life and pro-choice positions are both unobjectionable. Yes, I think the pro-choice position is wrong. I also think it would be objectionable if someone were to defend it by saying "pro-choicers just care about choice/autonomy/freedom of women, how could you object to that?"--for that is to suggest (falsely) that they do hold the untenable position that they support all choices.

Likewise, I don't think it is any objection to the Roman Catholic position on papal infallibility that they don't think that everything a pope says is infallible. "The doctrine of papal infallibility" is a name of a doctrine, not an isolated and exhaustive description of the Catholic position on the matter.

seigneur wrote:

Based on what was it understood? Any hints of it in church fathers? In the scriptures?

Since the teaching was understood even prior to the literal promulgation of the doctrine, what exactly necessitated the promulgation?

I think there are better Church historians and dogmatists than me who have devoted themselves to these questions: Newman, for instance.

The short answer is that such a historical study would draw from all of the Church's traditional sources, looking at scripture, the manifestations of conciliar authority, etc. That the doctrine were understood by some in an inchoate way does not render otiose a precise promulgation.

seigneur wrote:

Anyway, looks like the pope operates ex cathedra only when he's conducting a council simultaneously, so in practice the doctrine doesn't amount to anything more than stipulating that the pope has the final word at the councils, a common business arrangement without any pretensions to infallibility.

Munificentissimus Deus was not promulgated simultaneously with a council but is one of the uncontroverted cases of a pope speaking ex cathedra.

seigneur wrote:

Meaningless in the sense that the label does not convey what it's really about. It's not nice to be deceptive on such a high official religious level. Meaningless and indefensible in the sense that it's impracticable. Indefensibe because it has no scriptural basis. Indefensible because it has produced the indefensible Marian dogmas. Indefensible also in the sense that the only apparent motive is to turn off the Protestants and the Orthodox. If you have a better motive on offer, let's hear.

Whew! Perhaps the Vatican I fathers thought the doctrine was true and would clarify the extent to which Catholics should assent to certain teachings. That is a less uncharitable ascription of motive, so by the principle of charity we should aspire to understand the teaching in light of it.

seigneur wrote:

Greg wrote:

Further, to claim that it is unnecessary requires the claim that the[re have been no] dogmas proclaimed infallibly since its promulgation,...

Sorry if I amended you wrongly, but this is the way I can parse this statement.

In response, the doctrine is unnecessary if it has produced nothing useful. It may have produced stuff, but it's useless if its fruits are futile.

Sorry about that. I actually meant to say that the claim required is that the dogmas proclaimed infallibly since its promulgation are unimportant, i.e. irrelevant to Christian belief. But Catholics clearly don't hold that. You might, of course, think the Marian dogmas unimportant, but your views aren't at issue.