The Ochlophobist on Ravenna...

The last post generated a number of very interesting comments, particularly from the Ochlophobist and from Father Gregory. Many thanks. I thought I would disperse my reactions into two new posts.

First, an apology to Ochlophobist for the snarkiness of my original post. Second, to thank him for the challenge to articulate a reasoned position on the questions he, very properly, raises. I have had to think through some assumptions. I'm more than open to correction, of course, and what follows is entirely my own opinion.

With that disclaimer, it seems to me that the issues generated by this exchange fall under two headings:

1. The status of post-schism councils, especially in the light of Vatican I.

2. What can be meant by "ascesis" as a condition to ecumenical dialogue.

I propose to divide these into two separate posts, dealing with the first in this this one. Apologies in advance. The argument is more than a little dense (as is, I'm afraid, the arguer ).

I owe the Ochlophobist a debt of gratitude for forcing me to new (and reluctant) realization of the untenability of a large part of the argument expressed by a number of ecumenically-minded Catholics, especially Eastern Catholics, with regard to western councils of the second millenium. I am referring to the view most eloquently expressed by Archbishop Elias Zoghby, that all such councils express theologumena of the west, not dogmas binding on the whole Catholic Church.

An important element in this argument is unsustainable in the light of Vatican I.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that Vatican I is wrong, nor even (for the sake of the argument) that it is correct. I am saying that you cannot, to be intellectually coherent, regard it is a mere opinion. Such a view would have been logically possible up until July 17, 1870. But the tempestuous promulgation of the definition of the Council on the following day closed forever the possibility of taking any view of the papal claims to infallibility and universal jurisdiction as anything but either true or false. Someone with better training in formal logic could probably chart this out, but even I can see that it is one thing to claim to be infallible and another thing to claim infallibly to be infallible. One way of putting this is that, until the definition was promulgated, the papal claims were analogous to a scientific hypothesis untested by experiment. The definition was itself a test of that hypothesis. One can now only look at the test as proving or disproving the hypothesis. Vatican I claims on its own terms to be a certain expression of truth; simply to re-cast that claim as a possible expression of truth is to disprove it.

Put it another way. The substance of the declaration of Vatican I is that the charism claimed for the pope is one that preserves him from error under the necessary conditions (faith and morals, ex cathedra teaching). The pope does not, of course, by this charism manufacture truth. He recognizes it. Thus, on the Catholic view, there will never be a real contradiction between one infallible teaching and another, between two statements of the same underlying and transcendent truth. If two statements do contradict each other, then clearly one (or both!) is not part of that deposit of truth. Now the statement "I think the pope is infallible" allows the possibility that the opposite of this thinking is actually the case. It is possible simultaneously to hold that opinion, together with its possible alternative, without violating the law against contradiction. But change that statement to "this is an infallible statement." This is an altogether different kind of assertion. To then say, "well, that's an opinion" is effectively to say, "so it's not infallible." A statement can't both be infallible and open to error.

This fact has implications for other post-schism doctrines of the Catholic Church. Logically these definitions can in themselves fall under one of three headings: true, false or opinions. But if you choose either of the latter that choice renders impossible belief in the definition of Vatican I. I could, for the sake of argument, say the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a theologumenon. This means it may be true or untrue. But, having allowed the possibility of it being untrue, I am immediately required to deny that it has been infallibly defined. But it has. Again, I have to either accept or deny, if not the Immaculate Conception, the authority on behalf of which Pius XII proclaimed it as true and binding on the universal Church. I can refine and clarify the doctrine in order to show how it corresponds to other parts of the deposit of faith. I can clarify, but I cannot contradict. To say something that calls itself infallible is an opinion is, in effect, to contradict that claim.

(It could be that Vatican I stands by virtue of the infallible authority of Pope Pius IX who proclaimed it. Perhaps demoting Vatican I to a mere local council of the West saves the dogma while dismissing the synod. The problem with this, though, is that surely it is an essential part of Pius' declaration that Vatican I is an ecumenical council.)

Anyway, my prediction is that the Roman Church will not accept without qualification the Ravenna document. I suspect the international commission will be asked to revisit the question of the status of post-schism councils and to clarify its statement in paragraph 39. This is how it should be. Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are far too significant claims to be allowed to simply slip away into night. If Rome wants to abandon the claims, this abandonment cannot be done without at least two conditions. First, repentance. Second, proper catechesis to explain to the faithful how a fallible pope does not in any way suggest a fallible faith.

On the other hand if, as I am sure is more likely the case, Rome wants to clarify Vatican I without contradicting it, then there is needed a great deal of theological reflection on the implications of this, and all other, post-schism teachings of the Roman Church for which it claims infallible authority.

What does this to to me as a Catholic today. Not much really. I think there's a time bomb ticking, but I'm confident it will be defused pretty quickly. Part of me would, of course, be delighted to find that the Orthodox have been correct all along and that Vatican I is simply untrue. But this is a sentiment. I cannot really be agnostic on the question. I think, as opposed to feel, that Vatican I is a true, though clumsy, statement of the truth of the faith. It must be qualified, clarified and refined but it cannot be contradicted. Basically this work will require setting Vatican I more firmly within the tradition of the whole Church which knows, as it happens, a number of sources of sure and certain expressions of the faith: sacred Scripture, councils and synods (not all of which need be ecumenical), canonical tradition, liturgical tradition and so on. This is important work, and it is no use following red herrings such as that proposed by Archbishop Zoghby. Vatican II went some of the way, by emphasizing the teaching role of the entire episcopate in communion with the pope. More needs to be done, and the Ravenna document attempts in its better passages to follow that important trajectory. Paragraph 39 may suggest an unfortunate digression, and one best dealt with quickly lest we waste more time.

I can deal with Ochlophobist's other questions fairly quickly. I do not believe it is a contradiction to call Vatican I and other post-schism councils "ecumenical" while, at the same time, holding that Orthodox Churches are themselves in nearly every aspect part of the ecclesial oikumene. An ecumenical council is one that teaches ecumenical and catholic truth. It is not so-called simply by virtue of its composition. The second council was ecumenical though it had no western representation. I can believe, logically, that a future ecumenical council with representation from both East and West can sit in judgment on all theological developments of the second millenium. This is, perhaps, a fine distinction but one that I think holds water. I cannot be agnostic with respect to these teachings in the light of Vatican I. But I can be wrong. Or I can be right. If I am right, that future council will confirm what I have always believed. If I am wrong then I will, together with the entire communion of Churches to which I belong, repent of the error.

Thought it may sound strange, I do not think it contradicts Vatican I's anathema against those who claim the pope can be judged to suggest that he might be judged by a future council of East and West. Remember, Vatican I does not say things are true because the pope says so. In a fundamental sense everything he says is, in fact, "under judgment." So one way I would think Vatican I must be clarified is to say that the anathema refers to those who would impose some other worldly judgment against the pope's recognition of what God declares through revelation to be truth. If this putative and future council contradicts Vatican I, then one (or both) must then be judged wrong. I do not believe this will happen. Once again, and this cannot be said too often, truth is not manufactured by one or more factories of infallibility. Truth is known and knowable by the Church. In the end popes, bishops, faithful will all receive the same Truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That this has not happened up to now does not contradict this statement, but simply shows that the process of reception is elastic.

The alternative view is that I am completely wrong. But I cannot, without going insane believe myself to be both right and wrong at the same time. I can, however, believe my rightness to be ill expressed and unconvincing by virtue of that expression. Bottom line. Vatican I is correct, though incomplete. Its incompleteness renders its truth opaque to a large part of the Church (yes, Orthodox and Catholics are all real Churches). When it has been refined this truth will be recognized.

I maintain that an essential part of this refining lies in the area of helping people (including, especially, Catholics) understand what the charism of "infallibility" actually means. That it is, ultimately, sacramental in nature and not a strategy of power. Vatican I does not help here. Back to the fathers, folks!