WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH
Vatican 1 declared that the infallible definitions of the pope are correct and
therefore irreformable and that the consent of the Church does not make them
infallible. The pope is infallible without the consent of the Church.
If the pope can make a dogma without the consent of the Church can he make one
against the consent of the Church? Kung says Church tradition says that would
make the pope a heretic and a schismatic and his decision wouldn’t bind the
Church (page 88, Infallible?). But surely if tradition says that birth control
is immoral, the pope can infallibly declare birth control wrong even if most of
the Church is against him. The Church council infallibly declared that Jesus was
God without the consent of the huge majority professed members of the Church. At
the time nearly the whole Church took the Arian view that Jesus was not God. The
tradition is wrong. The pope can make a dogma in the face of opposition from the
Church. The pope is the rock so the pope can expel as many people from the
Church as he feels like.
Many are worried how there is a dispute among Catholic theologians about what
doctrines are supposed to be infallible. The lists of papal infallibly
proclaimed doctrines differ from theologian to theologian. For a pope such as
Paul VI and John Paul II to have banned contraception and declared this ban
binding on the basis of the obedience due to papal authority was criminal when
such disputes were and are happening. It is as if they didn't care if they were
wrong but cared more about being thought to be right. So many deaths have
happened due to the papal teaching. Many women have been infected by HIV from
their husbands because of the belief that it is wrong to protect yourself with
condoms. The popes are claiming an unjust right to kill through their teachings.
The only way out is to say that they were using their infallibility - their
extreme attitude seems to show they intended to be fully infallible.
The Church through keeping the clergy away from the laity as a separate caste
and clothing them in strange robes and involving them in secrecy and arcane
rituals and using them as the usual teachers of the people is able to put an
aura of divine authority around them. They seem like speakers of the oracles of
God. The Church likes to use a little ditty, "Jesus never said hear the Bible
but hear the Church". This gives Catholics a fear of contradicting the Church or
a reluctance to think for themselves. That is what it is intended to do for the
Catholics are the sheep and the priests are the shepherds. To often then when a
Catholic opposes contraception or abortion or whatever, it has less to do with
having good reasons and more to do with the priests saying those things are
wrong. The Gestapo were made to feel the same way. It's dangerous and lazy and
immature. If you are confident in your arguments against or for something you
are showing your insecurity by appealing to authority. Those Catholics who
principally believe that birth control or euthanasia are wrong for the pope says
so are showing that they aren't as sure as they pretend and are trying to hurt
you.
The Church teaches that even if her teaching is wrong, God still uses the Church
to represent him and to guide the world and won't discredit it. So if she
wrongly forbids contraception, God will ensure that that this ban will not do
harm, will be good and certainly no worse than it would be if the Church allowed
contraception. Obedience is a duty for the Catholic even if the Church is wrong.
Disobeying is a mark of disobedience to God. Needless to say, the Church holds
that it is impossible for her to be wrong about the immorality of birth control.
If infallibility is inferred from the idea that the true Church cannot err in
its official teaching and because Christ promised that the gates of Hell would
never prevail over his Church, then to say a papal definition can be ignored
despite claiming to be infallible is just saying that Catholics can pick and
choose what they want out of their faith. If you want to call yourself a
Catholic then you must believe whatever the Church stands for. If you don't,
start your own Church or look for a Church that suits you. You cannot be a
Democrat while believing in communism.
The genuine Catholic will believe that the pope is still right when he makes an
infallible definition even if it is a rule that he must have the consent of the
Church and he breaks that rule. Infallibility, in Catholic teaching, does not
mean that the pope's research or motives or procedure will be right.
The pope can make a dogma without the consent of the Church for a number of
reasons.
One, who is to say that the opponents are genuine Catholics? The Church is
burdened by fakes and insincere believers. A Catholic who teaches knowingly
something that differs from authentic Catholic doctrine is automatically
excommunicated and is not a true Catholic. You will find few so-called Catholics
who are not under suspicion for that sin. The popes infallibility is supposed to
be a gift to the genuine Catholics not to those who merely say they are
Catholics.
Two, the pope making the dogma would mean that some will side for him and others
against. So which side then is right? If the pope can be ignored then what is
the point of having a pope if you can break away? Catholics are urged to believe
that Jesus made the popes infallible so that they might use it to keep the
Church clear on what the faith and God said and keep the Church one in that
truth and to drive out anybody that disputed the truth. The pope is the focus of
unity. He cannot appear to use his infallibility wrongly without ceasing to be
the rock the Church is built on. It would mean the Church ceases to be the true
Church for it has added in alien elements to the gospel as if they were the
gospel. What use would papal infallibility be or the papacy be if the pope can
be ignored when declaring a doctrine to be revealed by God and unchangeable and
official Catholicism in the fullest sense?
Three, the Church has loads of doctrines that are considered infallible without
any concern for seeking the consent of most of the Church. Were most Catholics
and clerics consulted when confession was introduced?
Four, infallibility is used when the Church starts to adopt false doctrine. It
was used to correct the Catholics believing in the Arian heresy who comprised
the majority at the time. Infallibility is no use if the consent of the Church
is asked for. Also all Catholics in the past believed that birth control was a
sin. Today nearly all believe that it is not. Consent of the Church cannot be
reduced to the idea that it is about what the majority of Catholics believe.
What about the minority of disagreers? Are they not the Church as well? Consent
of the Church means the consent of the true Catholics who know what they are
consenting to.
Five, tradition was speaking of popes who were not using their infallibility. A
pope could give infallible doctrine before 1870 according to Roman Catholic
doctrine. If so, then it could not be recognised as such until 1870 when papal
infallibility and its boundaries were proclaimed. So it is infallible teaching
in itself but nobody can see that so the pope cannot bind the Church then
without its consent.
Six, the Church says that defining a doctrine as revealed by God means that
doctrine is in the tradition that is revealed by God. Defining is used to
determine which traditions are from God. So if tradition disagrees with the "not
from the consent of the Church" dogma that is part of the papal infallibility
doctrine then tradition reflects incorrect teaching and the definition is right
and identifies the correct understanding.
Seven, the Church was proclaiming dogmas without considering what the people
believed. Father Richard McBrien refers to the fact that the need for reception
of the doctrine as revealed by God by the people, the criterion of reception,
has only recently been recovered a part of Catholic tradition (page 65,
Catholicism). But when the Church was making so many dogmas while ignoring it
that proves that it is not essential after all. If it is and it wasn't
considered then the Church has declared teachings infallible that are not
infallible at all. Infallibility is only nonsense.
Eight, Mc Brien writes in Catholicism that when the definition of papal
infallibility declared that the definitions of the pope are infallible and
therefore cannot be changed or abrogated it said that the definitions are
infallible by themselves and not by reason of the agreement of the Church. He
interpreted this to be saying that this was to silence believers who were saying
the pope's definitions were not infallible in themselves but only infallible
when he was speaking for the Church so that the consent of the Church was what
was making them infallible. In this view, the pope has no personal infallibility
but the Church is infallible and he proclaims infallible doctrine only with its
approval.
So we choose one these interpretations,
1, "The pope is only infallible when he defines what the Church has indicated to
him what it believes and when he proclaims that faith. The pope has no
infallibility of his own but is merely the voice of the infallibility of the
Church".
2, "The pope has infallibility of his own but can only use it if the Church
approves of his definition. But it is not the Church approval that is making him
infallible for he has infallibility of his own".
So one is saying the pope does have his own infallibility and the other says he
does not.
Nobody disputed that the pope proclaiming infallible dogma was a problem. The
only dispute was if this infallibility was from the Church or from him
personally. The fact that the definition of papal infallibility was considered
necessary shows that it wanted to define that the pope has personal
infallibility. But if he can give infallible definitions of dogma in the way we
have seen without having infallibility in himself then clearly personal papal
infallibility is unnecessary. To say God gives the pope the charism of
infallibility is to declare that God wastes miracles and charisms.
Also Rome admits that the consent of the Church is a problem for there are
bishops and priests and many laypeople who use the Catholic name but who are not
real Catholics. From this it would conclude that if the consent of the Church is
unclear, making an infallible doctrine means that the consent of the real
Catholics must be assumed. It cannot be proven. Infallibility then cannot be
obtained by looking for the consent of the Church first. Rather when
infallibility is used, you also know automatically that the real Catholics have
already believed your dogma. Consent is not used to make dogmas, rather dogmas
show that it is there. This is the correct understanding of the teaching of the
Church.
Vatican 1 meant that the pope can proclaim a dogma by himself without being in
error and that the consent of the real Church not just the Church made up of
real and false and undecided Catholics doesn't need to be asked for. But since
the beliefs of the real Church and papal infallibility go together, it follows
that when the pope makes a definition in opposition to the vast majority of
professed Catholics, it follows that God wouldn't let this happen unless he saw
that the real Catholics believed in the definition. Infallible definitions are
intended after all to please only the real Catholics.
Conclusion: The pope according to Vatican 1 can proclaim a dogma and it is
binding on us even if the whole Church is against him. After all, infallibility
was given so that the Church might correct false doctrine among its members so
what can one expect?