|
VeniteAdoremus
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: 05 August, 2008,; 09:16 » |
|
Okee, dit is wat m'n vriendin zegt:
As for the question, I would say that Kung's book is neither here nor there when it comes to Infallibility. Especially the argument that connects Infallibility with the contraception debate is completely out of context. However, the response to Kung was given in conference by a bunch of German scholars, headed by Karl Rahner and including the then Josef Ratzinger. These documents should be found in academic journals, but so far I have not come across a collection of them. I am not sure they have been translated from the German either. To be honest, I wouldn't bother with Kung to get at the heart of Infallibility - Go straight to the Council, go to Blessed Pius!!!
Infallibility is rooted in international law and has to do with communication and authority. The Vatican Council was divided into two camps - the German-backed so-called "Intellectual majority" and the Infallibilist (true) majority. The difference between them is that the Intellectual camp saw the argument purely on intellectual grounds ("The Pope says he is always right. The Pope is wrong!"). The Infallibilist camp were the monarchist camp - for them the issue was the temporal power of the Pope, seen in territorial terms, tied to question of the Vatican States, the kingdom of the Pope and his universal authority ("The Pope cannot fall - from his throne! If he falls from his throne, the Church is no longer universal, because in international councils, he will not be represented. Instead, international councils will decide what is to be done with him and and individual nations will decide over the bishops in each country. If the Pope loses his kingdom, UNITY is lost!").
One book I would recommend is Richard E. Costigan S.J. The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility, A Study in the Background of Vatican I, ISBN 9780813214139. His conclusion is rather lukewarm and disappointing because the author still seems to be confused himself by such a powerful dogma and so, as though blinded by the light (shall we say), fails to give it full reason. However, that doesn't matter because his book is just summarising the positions of a handful of gallicans vs a handful of infallibilists. (Note: Gallicanism wasn't the only form of the argument against, but it is in general a good standard type of it).
Otherwise, unfortunately in English scholarship is really not great in this area. The story is always the same, people don't really dare to take a position against the standard story of a split council and a dogma forced through by the Pope - which I don't trust so much because yes, Pius was a powerful character, but so was Cardinal Manning - for ONE! - and the so-called intellectual majority - minority also had very powerful characters in it and behind it (Newman, for one did not understand infallibility).
I would suggest looking into histories of the Vatican Council instead of the dogma itself and, even better, the Pontificate of Pius IX - and remembering what it was all about! It is NOT a question of "The Pope saying he is always right". You have to consider the context. Infallibility resolves a dispute that had gone on since Trent and beyond - about the authority of Rome (capital of Italy, or capital of the Church?), the authority of the Pope in the universal Church (as Bishop or as Pope?), and whether his position as Pope is distinct from his position as Bishop of Rome - whether it is the Pope, or the See of Rome (the Curia) who wield the universal power (Strictly speaking, here comes the joke: "Is the Pope Catholic?" - hehe). In this sense, Vatican I is not so much about the Pope vs the Bishops. NONE of the Bishops at Vat I would have contested the infallibility of the Pope in the context of his supreme authority. Really, what it is is a question of a battle between the Episcopate (Conciliarists) vs the Curia (Monarchist-Papalists) for supreme influence and policy-making in Rome.
|
