Thanks much.

David Meyer

Thanks for your clarification. Yes, under certain specified conditions (see Lumen Gentium, 25), the ordinary magisterium is infallible. And the extraordinary magisterium is exercised in both the ways you mentioned: ex cathedra papal decrees, and ecumenical councils. None of the examples you listed above (save Unam Sanctum) meets all the conditions for infallibility in either the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. The Church has never taught geocentrism as a “position definitively to be held” by all the faithful, in part because the Church makes no dogma about any physical science as such. The mere appearance of conflict with Scripture is not sufficient to make geocentrism per se a “matter of faith”. And likewise no Church statement or belief about the “Donation” was taught as a “position definitively to be held” by all the faithful, nor was the authenticity/inauthenticity of the Donation a matter of faith or morals. So it likewise does not meet the conditions for falling under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

So what about Unam Sanctum? It has to be understood correctly, and it has nothing to do with “fancy exegesis”, but simply understanding the well-known context in which such a statement is made. The Church has always recognized that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know about Christ, can nonetheless be saved through Christ. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has always been understood in a way that made space for “invincible ignorance” and the possibility for God to work outside the ordinary means of grace. Would Cornelius have gone to hell had he died before Peter arrived? If he had so died, he could have possessed baptism of [implicit] desire. The statement by Pope Boniface VIII must be understood against that theological background. No one can be saved apart from Christ. And so no one can be saved without being joined to Christ. Thus no one can be saved apart from baptism, at least by desire (either explicit desire, or implicit), for that is the means by which the grace of Christ (and thus union with Christ) is given. And baptism places one in some communion with the Church, which is His Mystical Body. And the episcopal successor of St. Peter is, by Christ’s own appointment, the visible head of the Church. But necessity is of two sorts: a necessity of means, and a necessity of precept. The former implies that there is no other way for the result to be attained. Necessity of precept, by contrast, does not imply that there is no other possible means to that result, but that something has been appointed or ordained as necessary for attaining that result. The necessity spoken of here in Unam Sanctum is necessity of precept, not necessity of means. Those who, though they explicitly and consciously love Christ and have been baptized, yet by invincible ignorance do not know that Christ has appointed the episcopal successor of St. Peter to be the visible head of the Church and do reject the Pope’s authority, may nevertheless be saved, for they may retain sanctifying grace in that state. But schism is objectively a mortal sin, which entails the loss of sanctifying grace and hence the loss of salvation. And what is the definition of ‘schism’? It is: “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CCC 2089) But one of the conditions of a mortal since is full knowledge (cf. CCC 1857, 1859). So those who cause a schism or remain in schism in a condition of invincible ignorance have not committed a mortal sin, and may nonetheless be saved. But those who, with full knowledge of the Pope’s rightful authority in the Church, and with deliberate consent, do refuse to submit to him, do commit mortal sin, and, if they remain in that state without repenting, forfeit eternal salvation.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Would you explain in a bit more detail your last two questions? I don’t understand what you are asking. Thanks.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

We need to start with the definition of papal infallibility. Without a proper understanding of the way the church defines the doctrine it would certainly look as if we are doing some fancy interpretation of our own tradition.

Vatican I defines the doctrine this way, “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 with 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 (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent.”

I know that some material on papal infallibility is in the works for Called to Communion. We will try to interact with your specific questions at that time. In brief, the Pope must use his full authority and speak ‘ex cathedra’ and must be speaking on ‘a doctrine of faith or morals.’ So, while heliocentrism is bad science, it is not a doctrine of faith and morals and therefore the Pope was not speaking infallibly.

My concern here is not the sinfulness of popes, of course, but infallibility and the fact that Rome seems to exercise such latitude in interpreting past decrees and documents. They seem to exegete Tradition like Protestants exegete scripture. Unam Sanctam declares a spiritual and temporal sword are both wielded by the church and that all temporal power is subject to “the sufferance of the priest”. Also it states that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In order to allow for Muslim, Protestant, and Jewish salvation (as in CCC) there needs to be some fancy exegesis of what seems to be the clear intentions of Unam Sanctam.
Anyway, you get the gist of what I am saying. If just one occurance of an infallible pronouncement is seen to be denied, reversed, changed…..the papal claims come crashing down. I ask this with sincerity and humility as I investigate the ancient churches.
Darrin