Papal Infallibility
But, let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass. Some perhaps will have gotten the idea that by the introduction of such and such a ceremony, or such and such a rubric being added, that such things constitute or hide alterations or minimisations of defined truths or ideas sanctioned by the Catholic Faith… But there is nothing to this idea, absolutely. First of all, because ritual and rubrics are not in themselves a matter of dogmatic definition.2Thus, His Holiness says that there is nothing essentially new in the “New Mass,” that the changes are only “ritual,” and therefore not subject to a “de fide pronouncement.” On the basis of this statement alone, there seems to be no further need to mention papal infallibility with regard to the “New Mass,” and we may move on to the next phase of the argument.
It is not so simple as that, however, though it really ought to be, for the obvious reason that most priests act as if they think that the issuance of the “Novus Ordo” obligates them in the same way as they are obligated to the most solemn definitions of the Church, if not more so, and they have led most of the faithful to believe the ….
2 Allocution of Pope Paul VI on November 19, 1969 La Docuмentation Catholique; 7 December 1969, No. 1552. ……same thing. I cannot say it was ever preached explicitly that, if one does not accept Pope Paul's “New Mass,” he is a heretic and monstrously disobedient. However, that inference was implanted, generally and firmly, throughout the world. An open debate was never allowed. Regardless, at least for now, of how the idea became so ineffaceably fixed, the clergy generally imagine it highly virtuous to yield on this matter to their superiors (all the way up to the pope), and trust that, eventually, God will make everything all right. (Whether they believe this in their heart of hearts I would not be able to say.)
We are safe in saying that Catholics believe the doctrine of papal infallibility, even though they do not know what it means. Or perhaps it would be better to say, they believe it, but do not know how it applies. For this reason, I feel I must prepare the ground for my main argument by laying to rest this infallibility bugbear.
In order to focus on the subject, the first thing necessary is to recall the familiar distinction between papal authority and papal infallibility. There is nothing abstruse in this, but it must not be forgotten.
As Cardinal Journet points out, both papal authority and papal infallibility are included in the pope's supreme and all-inclusive jurisdictional power.3 Whereas the Supreme Pontiff's authority is co-extensive with his jurisdiction, his infallibility is not. In fact, papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty.
3 The Church of the Word Incarnate. Charles Journet, Sheed and Ward, London, 1955 Vol. 1 pp. 156–157.
The Roman pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter in primacy, has not only the primacy of honor, but also supreme and plenary power of jurisdiction throughout the universal Church, both in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which have to do with the discipline and order of the Church. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary and direct, both over all and each of the churches of Christendom, over all and each of the pastors and faithful, and independent of all human authority whatsoever.4This is to say that all Catholics, from cardinals to newly-baptized converts, are bound to obey the Holy Father in all religious matters, except a command to do something sinful.5 There is no suggestion in the law quoted above that the pope is infallible in the exercise of this plenipotentiary authority. Nor is there anything in Divine Revelation or ecclesiastical law which guarantees that the pope will never make an unwise law, or repeal a wise one; appoint an inept bishop, or a bad one; impose an unjust interdiction, or refuse to impose a necessary one; teach erroneous notions (even rank heresy) and say and do things which lead to mistaken conclusions, or permit his subordinates to do so. Nothing—except Divine Providence, if He so chooses—prevents there being a totally incompetent, or imprudent, or immoral pope. Indeed, forbidding as such a thought may be, it is not inconceivable (i.e., out of the realm……..
4 Codex Iuris Canonici. Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1954. Canon 218, Paragraphs 1 & 2.5 If there is no point of religion involved, we would not be bound to obey a command which was not sinful, as for instance, a command to vote for a certain person. However, for a religious reason, we might be commanded not to vote for someone. ………of possibility, or, the same thing, contradictory to the doctrine here under discussion) that there ascend the Throne of St. Peter a malicious pope, one bent on the total destruction of the Church, he being faithless enough to think such a thing possible! That even such a one, with such unrestricted and unrestrictable power, with all the help of his similarly-minded appointees, would be unable to succeed in such an effort is guaranteed by the doctrine of the Church's Indefectibility. And the reason even such a one would not be able to succeed is, in fact, papal infallibility itself, as we shall see a little later.
There is, at the same time, nothing in the definition of the Papacy which guarantees that the Supreme Pontiff could not give sinful commands and permit, or even encourage, the gravest abuses, or raise wicked and conspiratorial men to the episcopacy and the cardinalate, to give them free reign to teach every kind of error and command or permit every kind of misdeed. In a word, there is no divine promise that the pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructive ways.
Such a pope would not, despite any and all manner of unholy action, lose his own legitimacy, nor his all-comprehensive jurisdiction, nor the divine prerogative of infallibility; so that, should an avowed conspirator become the Roman pontiff, were he converted, he might immediately set about repairing the damage he himself had helped to inflict on the Church, without needing to be re-elected and re-instated or re-confirmed in his office; only his private confession and absolution from any censure he might have incurred would be required.6
6 The widespread notion that anyone who incurs “ipso facto excommunication” is thereby out of the Church (i.e., no longer a member) and therefore loses all ecclesiastical office, dignities, etc., is based on a fundamental misconception. “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” is a valid principle. “Anathema sit”does not mean that the Church thereby excludes a person altogether; but the subject may not participate in the life of the Church, that is, receive any of the sacraments of the living, or participate in liturgical ceremonies, take part in Church functions, etc. As regards any offices, they are lost through a canonical condemnation only. Loss of an ecclesiastical office occurs immediately upon a declaration of “excommunicatus vitandus” (“excommunicated and to be avoided”) by the pope himself. Obviously the supreme pontiff cannot incur this censure. (Cf. Codes “Iuris Canonici”. Nos. 2256–67.)Cardinal Journet explains that the Church cannot depose a pope, no matter how wicked he may be because there is no authority above the Papacy. God Himself must do it.7 If he is a heretic, the Church can declare him “worthy of deposition.”
The Church's action is simply declaratory; it makes the fact plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritive action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer.8
These words do not mean that the Church, i.e., the bishops in council, have the power to deprive even an heretical pope of his office and jurisdiction. They mean that the Church may use every moral means to force his abdication or prevent his acts from causing too great confusion and scandal. The defenders of the Faith in such a case would have to urge the people to pray, either for the pontiff's conversion or for his direct removal by God, while they warned the people that his teachings were pernicious. From all this it can be seen that an individual Catholic or group of Catholics cannot decide that the pope is “worthy of deposition,” let alone already deposed.
Obviously then, there is no imagining what a terrible source of scandal either a morally bad or a doctrinally careless pope can be to how many millions of souls. Nor is there any way of ……
7 Journet. Op. cit., Vol 1 pp. 425–268 Ibid. p. 484 ……….describing the satanic glee in the camp of the Church's inveterate enemies should they ever be able to infiltrate one of their own into his position, or subvert or subdue the Supreme Roman Pontiff to their service.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible. And since this papal fallibility is as certain a fact as the holy doctrine which we are here discussing, Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.
Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith. The obligation to do that which is good and avoid that which is evil and to believe the truths of Catholicism does not arise from the hierarchy of the Church, nor from the
Papacy, but from the intrinsic nature of things and the commands of Christ, Who is Lord of all.9
When religious superiors officially and explicitly propound and explain our moral obligations and the truths of the Gospel, we are thereby both personally and collectively assisted. It is the right and grave duty of said superiors to do this, and also to see that we fulfill them besides; that is what their jurisdiction is for. But whether they do so or not in no way alters our relationship to God, from whom ultimately our duty derives.
And, lest the point be missed, just as we must perform our duties, whether or not we are commanded and compelled to do so by those whom God has charged with the task, likewise, we must perform our duties should we be commanded not to do them, or to do something wrong instead. In the Church, no individual is the standard of perfect virtue or purity of doctrine—only Christ Our Lord.
And, lest anyone think these things are spoken lightly, let him reflect: it is a true saying that if anyone denies so much as one doctrine of the Faith, he is, morally speaking, denying it completely. And if he denies his Faith, he will lose his soul. Even if he denies his Faith implicitly, though knowingly, he is still denying it, none the less. If we may not disavow the revealed teachings of Christ at the command of a pagan government, neither may we do so if our religious superiors command it. “But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father Who is in Heaven” (Matthew 10:33).
No more does the great holiness and shining orthodoxy or the faultless rule of one pontiff assure any Catholic of his salvation than does the wickedness of another pope cause …….
9 The principle is given no notice at all by those who reject the teaching of Pope Paul VI on contraception and/or that of Pope Pius XII on rhythm, on the ground that the specific papal statements on these moral questions were not ex cathedra definitions. ………anyone's perdition. The papacy is not a sacrament! Nor is the personal faith of any one pope the touchstone of Orthodoxy; rather, it is the solemnly defined doctrines of the Church and all those teachings and norms which flow logically from them. It is the traditional Faith of Catholicism we must adhere to—the Faith of the Saints—no matter what happens during any given period of the Church's history.
B. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
The infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff is one of the major doctrinal developments of Catholic Theology over the course of the centuries. This development is understood to have reached its highest formal expression at the First Vatican Council with the promulgation of the dogmatic constitution, Pastor Aeternus, by Pope Pius IX on July 18, 1870.
Catholics should exult in the holiness and greatness of this doctrine. It was made during an age when their forefathers were not ashamed of the Church, and with that boldness with which Divine Truth should always be proclaimed. It is now one of the glories of the Faith, and should be the source of great consolation and encouragement both in view of the history of the Church and of the present trouble-ridden era. For truly, those will be saved who strictly adhere to the definite and certain teachings of the popes, without letting themselves be diverted by the assorted and fanciful inanities which Catholics are forced to listen to these days, even from their pulpits, and, not infrequently, from some of the prelates of the Church. Let these Catholics be reminded that, no matter from what source it comes, every idea must be perfectly and clearly reconcilable with the Faith of their forefathers, or their assent to it should be withheld, if not forthrightly refused. Catholics can be at peace in the certainty that nothing has happened, or will ever happen, which will render anachronistic, or out-dated, the sacred truths of their childhood catechism, since, as they know very well, it is the antiquity of Catholicism which is a sign of its veracity and one of its proudest boasts. Another name for this is “Apostolicity.”
An ex cathedra definition is always the canonization of an Apostolic tradition. When the pope defines a doctrine, thus exercising his infallibility, he is doing nothing more than making explicitly definite, and clear, a divine truth, holy in its essence, a truth which has been held—you might say, “taken for granted”—by the faithful, from the beginning. He is only making explicit for the future what was implicit in the past, implicit in the teaching of the Apostles themselves.
Above all, no Catholic need fear the pope will ever violate his infallibility; it is de fide (“of the Faith”) that God will never permit it. God may permit any other kind of abuse of papal authority except this. The Church itself will sooner cease to be: “And behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the world” (Matthew 28:20). The very existence of the Church depends on this never happening.
That the pope be infallible is absolutely necessary for the survival of the Church, since it is from the papacy itself that the Church's own infallibility flows. This is the true meaning of Our Divine Savior's words to St. Peter:
Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Luke 22:31–32
The Church, as the source and cause of salvation, stands on the papacy as a building stands on its foundation. Its imperishability derives from the papacy, from the infallibility of the papacy. This can be easily seen: the Church must never err in those very matters which men are commanded by Christ to believe and do, if they are to possess life everlasting. I know, a common notion has it that God in His mercy will save every man who has “good will.” But that is not Catholic theology. The truth is, God will save those who acknowledge the sovereign authority of the Roman pontiffs, believe what the pontiffs say, and do as they command. As He is the God of truth, men must know that the Church (and therefore the pope), speaks His truth, always, so that they may put their utter faith in it. It stands to reason that, should the pope, as the chief spokesman of the Church, ever teach as true what men with or without the gift of Faith can clearly see is false, it would be “all over!” In such a case, by that very act, the Church would have been wounded fatally, for ever after, and the world would be without the only magisterium of Revealed Truth there is. Even all its former true statements would at the same time come into question, and it could defend none of them. And there would follow that dissension and fragmentation which has been the history of Protestantism from its inception—only more so. Would the Builder of the Universe, the Carpenter of Nazareth, put His house on sand? “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof” (Matthew 7:27). He Who said these words knew something about building.
At the First Vatican Council, the fathers labored tediously to formulate exactly the statement of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Their effort was so to circuмscribe the idea that only such immunity from error would be claimed for the papacy as men must believe in for salvation, and as their own faith would recognize as true. It is imperative for a Catholic that his knowledge of this doctrine be identical with the truth of it. Therefore, our notion of infallibility should include only what we are required to believe and nothing else.
Let us then carefully attend to the wording of the definition of the term “papal infallibility”:
The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra— that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of their own nature and not by reason of the Church's consent.10
In explaining this definition, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
[a] The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Universal Church.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.
10 “Infallibility” The Catholic Encyclopedia; Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1910. Vol 7, p 796, col. 1.
[c] Further, it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words, that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense…
[d] Finally, for an ex cathedra decision, it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church, to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring internal shipwreck (naufragium fidei), according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.10
Let us expand upon the meaning of this quotation.
1. Papal infallibility can be said to be exercised only when the pope teaches the Universal Church a truth of the Faith. By his pronouncement, he necessarily silences, concludes, and bans any further contrary argument on the particular subject, which, until then, had been a debatable question, theologically speaking. It amounts to his saying: Of all the things we do not know, this we do; and you can base further speculations on this without fear of error. Any effort you make to disprove this teaching will prove futile and a waste of your time. It will be sinful besides, for it will be challenging Divine Truth. Only as much has been defined as is certainly known; theologians and mystics may go on from here.
2. Further, not only are you not allowed to argue the point, but you are bound to believe it. God commands you to do so. And to refuse is to assail His veracity. You are not free to remain indifferent or agnostic about the matter, or to refrain from giving your assent to it. Not to believe and profess it is to deny it. By this ex cathedra definition, the traditional belief has been confirmed as a dogma of faith, as certainly and unalterably true as all other dogmas of the True Religion.
3. No matter how verbose or scientific its phrasing, once all the terms are defined, a papal decision can always be expressed in a simple declarative sentence. It can be one of two kinds of statements: a dogmatic truth—Mary was conceived Immaculate; The Blessed Eucharist is the Body of Christ; The pope is infallible—or a moral prohibition—abortion is a mortal sin; contraception is a mortal sin; betrayal of one's country is a mortal sin.
4. An infallible definition is made when the teaching Church arrives at the conclusion that God requires all men to believe the particular truth defined. He has revealed this truth because men need to know it. If it is a doctrine, they should believe it primarily because it is a manifestation of His glory, power and love, a disclosure of Himself and His ways. If the revelation is a moral prohibition, it is a warning that the act is wicked in itself and to commit it is to attack directly the goodness and sovereignty of the Revealer and to bring death to one's soul.
5. An ex cathedra definition is addressed to all the members of the Universal Church, regardless of which of the several Rites (into which it is divided canonically and liturgically) they belong to. Ex cathedra definitions are a matter of spiritual life and death, of salvation or perdition. They are more important than temporal affairs, social problems, or earthly love. They involve every man with God. Man's disinterest in them is the vice of sloth. They are eternal and holy, regardless of who is pope or who is king. Every man must himself discover why they are important to him; they are what his mind is for—truths to be discerned by his intellect for the salvation of his soul.
That is not to say that dogmatic and moral truths are irrelevant to the world and the problems of human life. The world needs nothing more direly than infallible, supernatural truth. The pope could not do the world more good than by letting it hear his voice, authoritative, certain, commanding, and teaching. The world needs no alternatives of palliatives to Catholicism in all its fullness. Because men have dared to discard divinely revealed truth, they have gotten themselves into their present woeful predicament. Now they are at the mercy of the “agitation-propaganda” (or “agit-prop”) of the world-engulfing Revolution, of which, as we shall see later, the so-called “New Mass” is a product and a tool, and, to my knowledge, one of its greatest triumphs.
6. The question may be asked: But suppose a certain pope did make a clearly false ex cathedra definition? The idea of papal infallibility makes such an hypothesis a contradiction in terms. The doctrine means that God Himself, Who knows the most secret thoughts of men, would prevent such a thing from happening, either directly or through His ordinary overmastery of all creatural actions. As a matter of fact, who can say that God has not thus intervened in the past? So susceptible are all human beings to error, sin, and temptation, that we may easily imagine that He has found it necessary to do so, unbeknown though it may have been.
These considerations should help the reader see the distinction between a papal ex cathedra definition and an act by which the pope may legislate concerning the Holy Mass. The former is a statement by which the pope teaches a truth which is a part of the “Deposit of Faith.” The latter is an act by which the pope employs his jurisdiction for pastoral discipline. In the former case, he is protected from error by the Holy Ghost Himself; in the latter, he is completely capable of making poor or imprudent decisions. And, if he be malicious, if he would dare so tempt God, and if he thinks he can get away with it, he may even, conceivably, attempt some deliberate perversion.
Even though the prayers of the Mass contain affirmations of faith, these prayers are not in themselves ex cathedra proclamations. The Church does teach her children the doctrines of the Faith by embodying these doctrines in her liturgical prayers—a better word would be familiarize. However, the main purpose of the prayers is not to teach, any more than the main purpose of any prayer is to teach, but to worship and communicate with God. The liturgy does not define the truths of the Faith; it assents to them, meditates on them, glories in them, and thanks God for revealing them. How utterly disorderly and intolerable, therefore, would it be if the communal prayer of the people contained the least ambiguity, inaccuracy, or unfamiliar teaching, or lacked perfect clarity, doctrinal precision, or beauty of expression! For it to contain anything that savored of positive error or falsity or propaganda or mistranslation would be something too horrendous to imagine or to describe!
The legislation of the Church on liturgical matters, and particularly the Holy Mass, falls under the heading of discipline or legislation, rather than under teaching or doctrine. When Pope St. Pius V finalized the ritual of the Mass of the Latin Rite, he was not defining the truths expressed in its prayers. He was passing a law forbidding anyone to alter these prayers because these prayers suitably expressed the major doctrines which had been defined by the Council of Trent.
This is why the Mass of the Roman Rite was bound to be referred to as the “Tridentine Mass,” even though all the prayers predate that Council by centuries. Indeed it was from these prayers that the Council fathers had learned the teaching which they defined. The Mass, as it is found in the other rites of the Church, could never be called “Tridentine.” The reason is, though the prayers of these liturgies are doctrinally pure and unquestionably Catholic, their emphasis and mentality and mode of expression are not so intimately related to, or so interdependent with, the decrees of the Council of Trent as are the prayers of the Mass of the Latin Rite.
From all the above, it is quite clear that Pope Paul VI's imposition of the “New Mass” is in no sense of the word an act of his infallible teaching authority. It must be assessed as a pastoral act, one which pertains to the discipline and practice of the Roman Rite. Once this point is clearly understood, we are free to draw the following conclusions:
1. In issuing the “Novus Ordo,” Pope Paul was using his legitimate authority. But, we are permitted to discuss whether he was abusing his authority in doing so. Moreover we are compelled to do so in view of what the “New Mass” is!
2. Since there is no question of papal infallibility involved, it is not at all out of order to question either the morality, the liceity, the validity, the orthodoxy, the nature, the purpose (given or real), the wisdom, or any other aspect of the “New Mass.”
All the foregoing has been thought necessary because of the aura of untouchability which surrounds the subject of the “New Mass.” Not a little of this mentality was deliberately created, as I will have occasion to point out again further on. For the present, if we are agreed that the subject is permissible and open to discussion, we will begin.
Necessarily, all the aspects listed above will receive consideration in the following pages; not specifically, however, but by way of inclusion. The main emphasis here will be on the morality of that Act by which Pope Paul introduced and imposed his “Mass,” a subject which, strangely, seems to have been raised by only a few lay people. Almost all discussion, sparse as it has been in view of the seriousness of the subject, has centered around either the legality of this Act or the validity of the
Consecration of the wine, due to the obvious mistranslation of the Consecration Form. I am forced to say, however, that their discussion has taken too much attention from the larger and more obvious question, namely, how the “New Mass” contradicts the will of God. The explanation for this gross oversight, the almost entire failure to examine the “New Mass” and the morality of its imposition, is the legalism to which Catholics of the Latin Rite are so prone, and for which our enemies have often justly found fault with us. Thus, those who have accepted the “New Mass,” whether gladly or reluctantly, have done so under the mistaken notion that its introduction was legal, or at least apparently so, and therefore, its acceptance was both permissible and necessary. Most of those who have made an effort to resist the final and complete imposition of the “New Mass” have directed their fire against the technical flaws in its makeup (real as they are) and at the illegal mode of its imposition, rather than at the morality of the Pope's Act, as we shall do here.
Source: The full rendition of The Great Sacrelige , James Wathen : Chapter two . The link to the full work has been posted a couple of times on CI.
Topic: Incredible Statement from Archbishop Vigano (Read 13306 times)