FR. KRAMER'S ERROR CONCERNING "THE UNFAILING FAITH OF PETER"
By
Robert J. Siscoe
Fr. Kramer: “Pastor Æternus teaches explicitly that
the Lord's prayer was for
the Roman Pontiff, that his faith may not fail. Pastor
Æternus applies this
teaching as a premise to its definition
of Papal Infallibility. (...) it follows by strict logical implication, that since the Council taught that the
efficacious prayer of Christ to His Father that Peter's faith not fail was also
for Perer's successors, like Peter, THEIR FAITH CANNOT FAIL, and
THEREFORE, they cannot fail in their faith and fall into formal heresy. Since
this point was not defined, it is not de fide, but since it is strictly implied by the Council's
teaching, it
is proxima fidei. The Salza/Siscoe belief that a pope can
become a formal heretic is, therefore, proximate to heresy.”
This is a perfect example
of what one finds constantly in Sedevacantist writings: private interpretation
of doctrine (backed up by nothing), followed by accusations of heresy (or
“proximate to heresy”) against those who contradict what they mistakenly think the
doctrine means.
Two
Privileges
The Church has never
taught that Christ’s promise to St. Peter that his "faith will fail not,"
means a successor of St. Peter is unable to fall into personal heresy and lose
the faith. On the contrary, theologians
have always distinguished between two distinct privileges that St. Peter receive, namely, one that prevented him from falling into personal heresy, and another that prevented him from erring when he taught ex cathedra – and they have consistently taught
that the second privilege is what was passed on to Peter’s successors. For
example, in In De Romano Pontifice (bk 4, ch. 2), Bellarmine wrote:
Bellarmine: “… the promise of the
Lord in Luke XXII, as we find it in the Greek: ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has
asked for you that he might sift you like wheat, yet I have prayed for thee
that thy faith would not fail…’ (...) the
true exposition is that the Lord asked for two privileges for Peter. One, that
he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil
(…) The second privilege is that he, ‘as Pope’ [i.e., teaching ex cathedra],
could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be
found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the
first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib IV, cap. 3, Translated by Ryan Grant)
The first privilege is a habitual
operating grace (gratia gratum faciens)[1]
given for the perfection of the person of St. Peter; the second is a
charism (gratia gratis data) given for the good of the Church. [2] The first privilege prevented St. Peter from
falling into formal heresy and losing his personal faith; the second prevented
him from erring (even materially) when he defined a doctrine, ex cathedra. When St. Peter died, the second privilege remained
attached to the Petrine office (for the good of the Church) to be enjoyed by his successors. The second privilege (inability to err when teaching ex cathedra), is the dogma of papal infallibility that was solemnly defined during the First Vatican Council.
In his book, On the Word
of God, Bellarmine explains that the Popes themselves have always
understood that Christ's promise of unfailing faith applied to St. Peter's successors in such a way that they were unable to error when they taught ex cathedra. He writes:
“'I have prayed
for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have been converted,
strengthen your brethren’ (Luke 22:31).
From this text St. Bernard in letter 90 to Pope Innocent deduced that the
Roman Pontiff, teaching ex cathedra, cannot err; and before him the
same was said by Pope Lucius I in letter 1 to the Bishops of Spain and France,
by Pope Felix I in a letter to Benignus, Pope Mark in a letter to Athanasius,
Leo I in sermon 3 … Leo IX in a letter to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, Agatho
in a letter to the Emperor Constantine IV which was read at the sixth council
(act. 4 and again act 8) and approved by the whole Council, Pope Paschal II at
the Roman Council … Innocent III in the chapter, Majores on Baptism and its
effect. Therefore, if the Roman Pontiff
cannot err when he is teaching ex cathedra, certainly his judgment must
be followed (…). For we read Acts ch.15
that the Council said, ‘It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us;’ such
also now is the Pontiff teaching ex cathedra, whom we showed is always
directed by the Holy Spirit so that he cannot err.” (Bellarmine, On the Word of
God, lib. 3, cap 5.)
Suarez provides a lengthy explanation Christ’s promise of unfailing
faith in his book Against the Anglicans, and makes the same distinction between the two privileges. In Chapter five, he begins by explaining that the
Promise of Christ was given primarily for the office of St. Peter, which was to remain in the Church forever:
“Hence, just as
this office [i.e., that of an infallible teacher] is necessary in the Church for
the preservation of the true faith, so those words [i.e., ‘Feed my sheep’] were
said to Peter by reason of a pastoral office that was going to flow perpetually
into the Church and remain there always; therefore too the (…) promise, that
‘thy faith fail not,’ was made, not merely to the person [of Peter], but to the office
and See of Peter. For that is why Christ specially prayed for him and gained
that privilege for him, because the office of strengthening the brethren
required that help on the part of God; therefore, as the office was going to be perpetual in the See of Peter, so also the
privilege.”
In chapter six, he uses the distinction
between the two privileges to refute the heretics of his day, who were
convinced that certain popes had fallen into personal heresy, and believed this proved that Christ’s promise of unfailing faith was not passed on to St.
Peter’s successors. Here is Suarez reply:
“There is open to
view a received distinction between the Pontiff as believer, as a private person, and as teacher, as he is as Pontiff. For
we say that the promise of Christ pertains to him as taken in the second way;
(…) when considering the person of the Pontiff in the first way, even Catholics
are in disagreement about whether a Pontiff could be a heretic, and the quarrel
is still undecided whether some Pontiff was a heretic, not by presumption
alone, but really such. (…) So for the sake of avoiding controversy we easily grant that it is not necessary
for the promise of Christ to extend to the person of the Pontiff as an individual
believer.
“But if someone
insists that the person of Peter as individual believer could for the same
reason have defected from the faith, notwithstanding the promise of Christ, we
reply first that the reasoning is not the same for Peter, because to him was the promise immediately made,
and therefore it was made to him not only as to his office but also as
to his person; but to the others it only descended by succession, and therefore it was
communicated to them as successors of Peter.”
Once again, we see that only the second privilege was guaranteed to Peter's successors. In another place Suarez says the first privilege might have been passed on to St. Peter's successors, but as the above quotation shows, he did not hold it as a certainty. Bellarmine, as well as other Jesuits, also posited that the first privilege might have also been passed on, but the all qualified the proposition as merely "probably," which is the lowest degree of certainty.
Dominic Banez, on the other hand, is clear that only the second privilege was passed on. He writes:
“a privilege of this sort
contains two things. One that pertained to the personal excellence
of Peter, namely, that his own faith would not fail. The other that
pertained to the office of the supreme pontiff and Vicar of Christ,
namely, that in proposing a doctrine of the faith to the whole church and
in the strengthening of the brethren, the public faith of Peter would not
fail. Therefore, we say that the successors of Peter follow him in the
latter privilege, insofar as it pertains to the office of the supreme
pontiff and the common governance of the Church; but they are not heirs of
the former privilege in those things that pertain to the personal dignity
of Peter.” (Scholastica
Commentaria in Secundam Secundae Angelici Doctoris D.Thomae (Venice, 1587),
Question 1, article 10)
The
famous biblical commentary by Cornelius a Lapide, S. J., offers an identical
explanation of the two privileges, and likewise affirms that only the second
(infallibility in teaching) was passed on to St. Peter’s successors.[3] The renowned canonist, Fr. Paul Laymann,
S.J., explains why the first privilege was not passed on:
“It is more
probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, could fall into
heresy, even a notorious one (…) The proof of the assertion is that neither
Sacred Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a
privilege [i.e., immunity from falling into personal heresy] was granted by
Christ to the Supreme Pontiffs; therefore the privilege is not to be
asserted. The first part of the proof is
shown from the fact that the promises made by Christ to St. Peter cannot be
transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar as they are private persons,
but only as the successors of Peter in the pastoral office of teaching, etc..”
(Moral Theology, bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7)
John of St. Thomas likewise teaches that
the unfailing faith of St. Peter means a Pope cannot err when he defines a
doctrine, ex cathedra, even if he has fallen into personal heresy:
“The authority of the papacy is not
founded upon the personal faith of any individual… The fact that the Pope cannot fail in this
faith means that, even if he were personally a heretic, yet insofar as he
teaches ex cathedra he cannot teach anything contrary to the faith. It is in this faith, therefore—which is the
faith of the papacy, and not of the person, and which was the faith of Peter
and his confession—in this alone the papacy is founded, and not in the personal
faith even of the very person of the Pope." (Cursus Theologici II-II De
Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp. II, Art. III, De Depositione Papae.)
Definition
of Papal Infallibility
As note above, the second privilege (infallibility when
teaching ex cathedra) was defined by the First Vatican Council defined in 1870. The following is the dogmatic definition as
found in Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus:
“This gift of truth and never-failing
faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See
so that they might discharge their exalted office for the
salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by
them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of
heavenly doctrine. Thus, the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church
is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against
the gates of hell.
“But since in this very age when the
salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a
few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely
necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of
God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
“Therefore, faithfully
adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian
faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic
religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of
the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of
his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be
held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to
him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his
Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore,
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent
of the Church, irreformable.”
The Council only defined that
a Pope cannot err when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra. Nowhere does it teach that a Pope is unable to fall into personal heresy, or even that he is unable to publicly teach heresy when he is not defining a doctrine.
As Cardinal Manning explains, the definition of Papal Infallibility only applies to solemn papal definitions, while excluding all else:
“The definition,
therefore, carefully excludes all ordinary and common acts of the Pontiff as a
private person, and also all acts of the Pontiff as a private theologian, and
again all his acts which are not in matters of faith and morals; and further,
all acts in which he does not define a doctrine, that is, in which he does not
act as the supreme Doctor of the Church in defining doctrines to be held by the
whole Church. The definition
includes, and includes only, the solemn acts of the Pontiff as
supreme Doctor of all Christians, defining doctrines of faith and morals, to be
held by the whole Church.” (Petri Privilegium: Three Pastoral Letters to
the Clergy of the Diocese, p. 86-87).
During the famous four-hour relatio that Bishop Vincent Gasser, official spokesman for the Deputation de fide, delivered to the
Council Fathers before their vote on Papal Infallibility, Gasser addressed what he called a “grave objection” that had been raised by one of the Bishop. The objection was based on a misunderstanding of what the Church was intending to define concerning papal infallibility. The following is Gasser's rely to the objection:
“Now before I end
this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection that has
been made from this podium, namely, that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic Faith. Indeed,
this is a very grave objection, and when I heard it from the mouth of an
outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well
before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that
we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma…?”
What was the "extreme opinion" that the
Bishop mistakenly believed the council intended to define? Gasser explains:
As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft
goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused
of wanting to raise an extreme opinion,
namely, that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of
Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls ‘pious and probable,’ was that
the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a
type of ignorance but was never able to
fall into heresy or teach heresy. (…) it
is evident that the
doctrine in the proposed Chapter is not
that of Albert Pighius or the extreme
opinion of any school…” (O’Connor, The
Gift of Infallibility, p. 58.)
The official explanation of Papal Infallibility, delivered to the Council Fathers before their vote on the dogma, explicitly
states that the Council was not defining that a Pope is unable to fall into
personal heresy or teach heresy (when he is not teaching ex cathedra).
Commentary
of Theologians After Vatican I
In response to Fr. Kramer's assertion (again,
back up by nothing) that Vatican I taught that "the efficacious prayer of
Christ to His Father that Peter's faith not fail (first privilege)" was passed on to his successors, so that "like Peter, THEIR FAITH CANNOT FAIL", we provide the
following quotations from theologians after Vatican I, all of whom confirm that Vatican I did not teaching that a Pope is unable to fall into personal heresy.
The first is from Cardinal
Camillo Mazzella, who held the chair of theology at the Gregorian in the decade
following the Council. In De Religione
et Ecclesia (1905), the Cardinal explains what Vatican I defined, and what it
"said nothing" about.
Cardinal Mazzella: “[I]t is one thing that the Roman
Pontiff cannot teach a heresy when speaking ex cathedra (what the Vatican
Council defined); and it is another thing that he cannot fall into heresy, that
is become a heretic as a private person. On this last question the Council said
nothing (De hac questione nihil dixit Concilium); and the theologians and
canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.” (
Msgr. Van Noort likewise confirms that
Vatican I did not rule out the possibility of a pope falling into formal
heresy. After providing a thorough
explanation of the conditions for Papal Infallibility, as contained in the Conciliar
definition, he wrote:
Msgr. G. Van Noort (1957): “… with regard to
the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the
pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: (…) some competent theologians do concede that
the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy.” (Christ’s Church. p. 294).
In Institutiones
Iuris Canonici (1950), Coronata confirms the same:
M. Coronata (1950): “It cannot be proven however that
the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if,
for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such
impeccability was never promised by
God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III
expressly admits such a case is possible. (Coronata, Institutiones Iuris
Canonici (Rome: Marietti, 1950), vol. 1, p. 3I6.)
The Jesuit theologian, Horatius Mazzella, comments
as follows about Papal Infallibility in Praelectiones Scholastico-Dogmaticae
(1915):
Horatius Mazzella, S.J. (1915) “By virtue of the
gift of infallibility, the Pontiff cannot fall into heresy when he speaks ‘ex
cathedra’: this was defined in the
Vatican Council. But the theologians dispute whether he can, as a private
person, become a true heretic, adhering publicly and pertinaciously to
an error against faith.” (Praelectiones Scholastico-Dogmaticae. (Praelectiones Scholastico-Dogmaticae,
Vol I, Torino, 1915, p. 545.)
In his masterful
book, The Church of Christ: An apologetic
and Dogmatic Treatise, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry confirms that Vatican I “left
untouched” the question of whether a Pope can fall into heresy, or whether he
can teach heresy in a public capacity.
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (1955): “The Council
declared the Roman Pontiff personally infallible when speaking officially as
head of the universal Church, but left untouched the question whether the
Pope in his private capacity, or in his official capacity as bishop,
primate or patriarch, can fall into heresy or teach heresy. Some
theologians maintain that he can. Straub cites Hadrian II and Innocent III as
favoring this opinion.” (The
Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, p. 273)
In Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, which was published 25 years after the close of Vatican I, Fr. Smith said it remained “the more probable opinion” that a pope could fall into personal heresy.[4] Eight decades after the close of Vatican
I, A Vermeersch stated that it was “the more common teaching” that a Pope could
fall into heresy, which would not have been the case if Vatican I excluded the
possibility:
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949): “At least
according to the more common teaching,
the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici, Rome: Dessain, 1949,
340)
Finally, in an article
published in 1974 - more than a century after the close of Vatican I – Cardinal
Sticker said no theologian believes a Pope is unable to fall into formal
heresy.
“First of all it
is necessary to say that the prerogative of infallibility of office does not
prevent the pope as a person from sinning and therefore from becoming
personally even a heretic. In fact, no theologian today, even if he
accept unconditionally the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, asserts
thereby that the pope, speaking in the abstract, cannot personally become a heretic….” (The Catholic Historical Review, 1974,
Vol. 60, No. 3)
More quotations could be
provided, but these suffice to show that Vatican I did not teach, directly or
indirectly, that a Pope is unable to fall into personal heresy, nor is it
“strictly implied” by a “logical necessity", as Fr. Kramer claims.
[1] gratia gratum faciens = grace “that makes one pleasing” to God,
i.e., grace, whether habitual or actual, that is directed immediately to the
sanctification of the recipient.
[2] gratia gratis data = grace
“gratuitously given,” i.e., charisms given for the sanctification of others,
independently of the recipient’s merits.
[4]
Fr.
Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 9th edition (1895)
