The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican I

Features

• Cover Type: Hard Cover with 218 pages
• Published by: Catholic University of America Press September 15, 2005
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 0813214130
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-0813214139
• Book Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.7 x 0.9 inches
• Weighs: 1 pounds

Product Description
In defining papal infallibility in 1870 the First Vatican Council asserted a strongly monarchical view: a papal definition of the faith is irreformable (infallible) by itself, and not from the consensus of the Church. These words explicitly reject Article 4 of the Gallican Declaration of 1682, which states that the pope cannot define the faith single-handedly, apart from the consensus of the Church (i. e., the bishops of the world). This book offers the first thorough analysis of the ecclesiological ideas of the Gallican theologians as expressed in their own writings. Previous studies of the debates at Vatican I fail to examine carefully the Gallican doctrine rejected by the council. Even leading historians, at that time and since, simply refer to the "Gallican view" without citing sources or clearly defining or understanding the Gallican thinkers. In contrast, this study facilitates a balanced and much-needed comparison of the differing Gallican and papalist ecclesiologies during the period 1682-1870. After a concise introduction that defines the two schools of theology, Richard Costigan looks at the thought of nine major theologians on the subject: Bossuet, Tournely, Orsi, Ballerini, Bailly, Bergier, La Luzerne, Muzzarelli, and Perrone. In his analysis of the research, Costigan finds that the "consensus of the Church" in the Gallican view is not a simple claim and does not generally demand ratification of a papal definition by the bishops after the pope issues it. Rather authority is to be exercised in conjunction with the rest of the episcopate in a collegial and consensual manner. This concept of consensus draws on the history of the early and medieval church and is seen as coherent with the doctrine later expressed in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium. Without addressing present-day Catholic controversy, this study offers the necessary historical background for any ongoing discussion of the nature and exercise of papal authority.

About The Author
Richard F. Costigan, S.J., is associate professor of theology at Loyola University and the author of Rohrbacher and the Ecclesiology of Ultramontanism.

Reader Reviews
The book published and written by a Catholic University scholar proports to survey the thoughts of Gallican Scholars, and the Romanist Scholars on Papal Infallibility. Overall the work is scholarly. The work does what it proports to do. It surveys the leading Gallican theologicans and leading Ultra-Montane (Romanist) theologians, and their arguments. The dissapointment was I felt the work gave more attention to the Gallican Theories and arguments then it did the arguments of the Romanists. I also felt the work gave more detailed attention to the Gallican Theories then Romanist theories. From what I remember there were at least one, perhaps two more Gallican Theologians surveyed then Romanist Theologians. It appeared to me that the Romanist theologians were glossed over. (That is not exactely what I mean, but I can't think of a better word) An example: The work covered the Romanist position (though I would have liked more detail) in terms of their arguments from Scripture (which are essencially the same) but little of their arguments against the Gallican's in terms their historical interpretation. I would have liked to see what the Romanist theologians had to say in response to the Gallican arguments that papal infallibility has little basis in history. One George Salmon (which the work cites) wrote a massive volume on Infallibility in the Church. As a protestant theologian it is no surprise he takes the negative position, for to affirm Infalliblity of the Church undermines the whole basis of protestantism. In any case some of his arguments are simply regurgitations and reformulations of the Gallican theories. Hence, to refute the Gallican's is to refute George Salmon. While there are two works written by Catholic theologians in response to Salmon, I felt this work could have also served more useful for that purpose if the author gave more equal attention to the Romanist Theologian arguments.