Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

an Orthodox christian asked me this:

if the pope can define things infallibily at certain times, what is the point of calling an ecumenical council to define dogma?

[Aloysius]

that's the bishops' chance to define something infallibly.

the pope is not omniscient and his infallibility is not omnipotent.

[phatcatholic]

also, u have to keep in mind that pope's aren't [i]inspired[/i] to define dogma (as in, they don't receive supernatural knowledge by the Holy Spirit). instead, they come to conclusions about doctrine the same way we do: through human intellect, through knowledge, and study, and understanding. thus, he often wishes to consult his fellow bishops, especially when it is necessary to discern what is the ordinary teaching of the Church (since the bishops are the teachers and they know the beliefs of the catholics they teach).

also, there is often much to do besides define dogma that occasions the calling of a council, and all of these tasks require delegation.

[cappie]

Vatican II was careful to point out exactly when and where the voice of the Magisterium speaks infallibly. The varying "voices" of the Magisterium are spelled out in Lumen Gentium 25. Let us begin with an explanatory outline of that important article, looking to those three places (indicated by asterisks) where the Magisterium speaks infallibly. This outline also serves to help understand Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which serves as a further refinement of Lumen Gentium 25

1. [b]The Extraordinary Magisterium[/b] (as distinguished from the ordinary Magisterium ) "Extraordinary" and "ordinary" refer to the manner in which a truth is stated, whether that truth be infallible or not. An ecumenical council by its nature allows an extraordinary manner of teaching, as does an ex cathedra papal statement. Hence, the extraordinary Magisterium consists of a papal and an episcopal dimension:

A. [b]The Extraordinary Papal Magisterium[/b]

Here, the pope acts alone and speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair") in defining a dogma. According to a majority theological opinion, this has occurred two times: when the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854 by Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus); and when the Assumption was defined in 1950 by Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus). No matter regarding morality has been defined in this manner

B. [b]The Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium [/b]
. Bishops gathered in ecumenical councils can define dogmas. At the twenty-one ecumenical councils held throughout Christian history, certain items have been infallibly defined. Consider Chalcedon's (451) definition of the two natures of Christ, or Trent's (1561) definition of the seven sacraments. One Marian dogma was defined in this manner: the Council of Ephesus, against the Nestorian position, defined Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God We owe an "assent of faith" to all matters infallibly defined

Many non-infallible items are also dealt with at councils. Some deal with matters of faith and morals, while others are of a disciplinary or prudential nature. While these might be related to infallible doctrines, they are not in themselves infallible. For instance, the majority of documents from Vatican II are of this nature. Dignitatis Humanae (The Decree on Religious Freedom), for example, rests upon the dogma that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, but goes on to speak of political matters, an area on which the Church's infallible authority does not come to bear. We owe a "religious submission" or a "reverent obedience" (obsequium religiosum) of mind and will to such matters.

[Era Might]

St. John Chrysostom actually answered this question long ago, commenting on Peter's deference to the Apostolic college in the election of St. Matthias to succeed Judas:

[quote]Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here [Peter] was the first who was ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say: 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them; for to him Christ had said: 'And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.'[/quote]