The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility teaches that the Pope, when he teaches on matters that concern faith or morals to the whole Church with the intent that the faithful follow the opinion, is teaching infallibly. One of the biggest practical problems with this doctrine is the issue of earlier Popes contradicting later Popes. Whenever this occurs, the Catholic apologist is forced to come up with all sorts of excuses as to how the earlier pope was not speaking Ex Cathedra.
Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
Perhaps, the most glaring example of this is Gregory the Great’s Book of Morals (i.e. his commentary on the Book of Job) which he completed after becoming Pope. In Book 19, Chapter 34 he writes:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed [1 Macc. 6, 46]…
I have heard two Catholic apologetic approaches to this problematic passage.
Father John Echert asserts that Gregory the Great was merely writing his own “private opinion.” This is a strange opinion giving that Gregory the Great said that he was bringing forth a quotation that was not Canon for the sake of edifying the Church at large. This is not mere private opinion. The obvious implication is that he was acting as shepherd to his flock and felt that they should know that non-Canonical books are still useful for teaching.
Catholic Matt asserts that Gregory the Great was not Pope yet when he wrote the passage in question. We can dispatch with this reasoning simply by saying that he still edited and essentially “published” (or the ancient equivalent) the book after becoming Pope. This shows that he intended to teach to the Church as a matter of doctrine concerning faith that certain books while not Canonical were, yet, edifying.
Both Father Echert and Catholic Matt also put forth the argument that Gregory the Great did not view that Deuterocanon quite up to par with the actual Canon, but still viewed them as Scripture. This defense is a little weak. The Council of Trent says, “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts…contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”
Clearly, Gregory the Great did not receive such books as Canonical for he wrote that they were not! However, being that he did not deliberately despise the books, and in fact quoted them as Scripture in several of his books, shows he would not have been anathematized.
However, not being anathematized is not good enough ultimately for the upholding of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Gregory the Great, theoretically, cannot contradict later supposedly infallible councils, while remaining infallible himself. In short, Echert and Matt cannot say that Gregory the Great and the Council of Trent had an identical view of the Deuterocanon, because by their own admission he did not view the Deuterocanon as equal to the rest of the Canon.
One final note: Gregory the Great’s view of the Canon is probably the view that all Christians should adopt. Protestants generally have done away with the Deuterocanon, calling it Apocrypha, while Catholics have put the Deuterocanon up to par with what I’ll call the “First Canon,” i.e. the undisputed Canonical books of the Bible. Neither position is correct.
I honestly believe that the whole answer is solved in what the term “Deuterocanon” even means. It’s a Canon of sorts, but secondary. The books are useful, but they do not carry the weight of the rest of Scripture. The Deuterocanon is referred to by Paul in Romans 9 and accurately prophesies Christ’s passion. To treat it as if it were completely uninspired would be foolish.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
The solution is simple. The canon was declared officially and infallibly in Trent Council. Prior to this there is no fixed canon – it is no surprise if the Pope consider Maccabee as non-canonical. Remember not every Pope statement is considered infallible. Now I would like to ask you this question: how do you know that your Scripture has only 66 books? Show me just ONE verse that says so!. If you cannot find that verse then what makes you so sure that the Bible has only 66 books?
Accordin o the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, every statement a Pope makes on doctrines of faith and morals, taught to the Church at large, IS infallible. So, it is not a matter of him having an acceptable opinion before Trent weighed on the matter. The problem for you is that he taught something to the whole Church that contradicts Trent’s doctrine.
As for your rhetorical questions, read the whole article. You will find your answer.
Let me quote from Catholic Answer:
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
My question is NOT rhetoric – you just want to produce a clever excuse not to answer it.
RElated to infallibility let me ask you another question. Do you believe that the teaching of your Reformed Church as true? If the answer yes the this implies you believe in infallibility of your church, even you don’t want to admit it. If the answer is NO then why you belong to Reformed church? Is this question rhetoric?
My position is laid out in the last 2 paragraphs in the article. Is there something there that confuses you? If so, let me know and I can elaborate.
This is what you wrote in the last two paragraphs:
Gregory the Great’s view of the Canon is probably the view that all Christians should adopt. Protestants generally have done away with the Deuterocanon, calling it Apocrypha, while Catholics have put the Deuterocanon up to par with what I’ll call the “First Canon,” i.e. the undisputed Canonical books of the Bible. Neither position is correct.
I honestly believe that the whole answer is solved in what the term “Deuterocanon” even means. It’s a Canon of sorts, but secondary. The books are useful, but they do not carry the weight of the rest of Scripture. The Deuterocanon is referred to by Paul in Romans 9 and accurately prophesies Christ’s passion. To treat it as if it were completely uninspired would be foolish.
You “approved” that Pope because what he wrote you also approve, not because there is single verse in your Bible (supposed to be your only authority, isn’t it?) that says Maccabess is not canonical and only 66 books in your Bible are canonical. You keep avoiding this simple but fundamental question: how do you know there are only 66 books in the Bible? If I may answer it for you: you know there are only 66 books of the Bible because your church said so in Westminster Confession of Faith and/or Synod of Dort. Of course this means your canon depends on authority outside the Bible. In order to accept that authority you must admit that your church is infallible.
The term deuterocanon was introduced by Sixtus of Sienna. It was not used in Trent declaration or any other official Catholic Teaching on canon of the Bible. Nothing wrong with the term – those books and Esther entered Canon with some difficulties and so were seven books of New Testament. For sure there are some early Christians who did not accept them. But they were not authority, not even to you. Your authority is supposed to be the Bible alone but again there is no verse saying which books belong to the Bible.
That’s a whole lot of writing, but you are not addressing the issue. The point is not to reject the Deuterocanon, but to treat it like a Second Canon, not a primary Canon. After all, that’s what Deuterocanon means.
Does Scripture says there are first and second canon? You are the one who keep on avoiding the real issue. There is no single verse that says which and how many books in the Bible and neither does any verse saying there is proto and deuterocanon? You keep quiet on the former and simply pretend you don’t see the real issue and brought up the latter to meet your agenda.
1. I don’t share the view the Bible is self-authenticating, so unless you can prove that it is, I am not very concerned about a verse that says this or that is Canon or not pertaining to the Old Testament.
2. I don’t necessarily reject the Deuterocanon, so you are arguing against the wrong guy.
3. If you don’t like the term second Canon, and the clear inference we can draw from that name, take issue with Christian history, not me.
God bless,
Craig
Did I write that the Bible is self authenticating? It is not and will never be. You keep on avoiding the basic and fundamental issue on how do you know YOUR Bible has only 66 books. It is fundamental because unless you can answer it, you cannot talk about your church belief system which you claim to be derived from “Bible alone” [sic]. From (2) it seems to me you changed your mind and started accepting deuterocanon. For (3) I NEVER wrote I don’t like the term deuterocanon – no problem with that term. You are the one who has (or had?) problem with it. You simply tried to turn the table on – but failed.
Let’s try this again. I am seriously not appreciating your tone, and while I value the contributions of anyone who comments here, I think it should be done civilly and with respect.
I never said that you thought the Bible was self-authenticating. I said that I did not have this view, as there is no authority on Earth or anything in the Bible itself that empirically proves it’s revealed source.
This is why your whole non-sequitur about 66 versus 73 books of the Bible is to me confusing. It wouldn’t blow my mind if the Bible had 73 books. I am not wed to the 66 book position. I have written quite a few times that I hold an agnostic position on those books as did more than a few church fathers all the way to Bishops to the time of Trent such as Cardinal Cajetan, not doubting their worthiness but not completely convinced of their authenticity.
Please keep in mind the article you are responding to. It is not on the issue of Canon, it is on the issue of Gregory the Great’s view of the Canon versus the Council of Trent. You can disagree with Gregory, but there is certain baggage that comes with that.
Now, if you want to continue to dialogue in a respectful manner, please do so. If not, then please do no reply. If you do, I will simply delete it. If it helps, pretend I’m a real prick and so simply have compassion for me because I am so lost. Let’s have a respectful dialogue, not gotcha questions and trying to claim victory. I don’t see a lot of substance in your replies, so please add something of substance and address the actual article you are responding to.
God bless,
Craig
Gregory was certainly writing the Moralia as a private theologian, and not as official Magisterium. That’s why nothing from the work appears in the Denzinger, which intends to collect all the definitive statements of the Church’s Magisterium.
An equivalent case would be the “Jesus of Nazareth” series published by Pope Benedict XVI during his pontificate. They are very rich and helpful works of theology, but I do not agree with everything he says in them, and I don’t have to–he published them in his capacity as a private theologian.
Good find though, as far as texts go! He was probably following Jerome on that point, even that position did not prevail. Throughout the Middle Ages, there are still a number of prominent theologians who don’t quite get it exact on the canon. I think you’re right that this is a sign of the flexibility of the canon for a long portion of the Church’s history.
Denzinger is not an inerrant authority. The crucial difference between Gregory and Benedict is that Gregory wrote/edited/published the passage while he was Pope and passed comment on what was edifying to the Church, hence making it applicable to the whole Church.
God bless,
Craig
The books of Benedict that I mentioned were all published while he was Pope. (He was Pope 2005-2013; the books I mentioned were published 2007, 2011, 2012.)
You’re right that Denzinger is not inerrant. And yet, on this point, I think he is right not to sift through the statements of a primarily allegorical commentary written by the Pope in his capacity as a theologian. Nowhere does he state that he is teaching in virtue of his office or that the contents of the book are to be definitively held. I would say that all the works of Gregory or Benedict XVI are fruitful reading for the whole Church, but that does not mean that they fall within the strict measure of the papal Magisterium.
Gregory, in the letter that prefaces the work, says that he is submitting it to the review of the bishop to whom he is writing, thus indicating it may contain errors. So also Benedict was explicit that he is writing as a theologian and is “in no way an exercise of the magisterium.”
—-
I took a look at the Migne edition and the footnote there suggests that Gregory is referring to the canon of the Hebrews. Since he is commenting on Job, a book in the Jewish canon, to bring in Maccabees would be to refer to a book outside of that canon. I’m not entirely convinced of that interpretation, but I thought I’d share it nonetheless.
God bless,
Max
How did he indicate it “may” have errors? Benedict explicitly wrote that what he wrote is not binding on the consciences of Catholics. Gregory wrote nothing of the sort, but rather made an observation as to what is expected concerning the Deuterocanon in the Church.
It might as easily be responded that Gregory wrote nothing in this work indicating that he intended to exercise his official Magisterium.
But in the letter prefacing the work (a letter to a friend, not to the universal Church nor to someone requesting the final word on Church teaching), he states:
“This exposition being such as I have described, I have transmitted to your Blessedness for your inspection, not as being due for its worth’s sake, but because I remember that I promised it on your making the request. In which whatsoever your Holiness may discover that is languid or unpolished, let it be most readily excused in proportion as the circumstance is known that it was said in a state of sickness; for when the body is worn down with sickness, the mind being also affected, our exertions to express ourselves likewise become faint.”
Even putting that aside, he only makes a passing reference to the canon and certainly does not intend to declare that point as binding for all Christians. It is a deficient argument that takes an overly wide view of which sorts of statements from a Pope are to be considered infallible. This is the same problem that exists now when people hang on every word that Pope Francis says in an interview–he’s not exercising his extraordinary Magisterium in such contexts.
I must disagree. What you quoted was an apology over typos and problems with grammar. As for the statement, it said “though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church” imports his ideas onto what he expects from the Church. He is the Pope. I don’t believe in Papal infallibility so it doesn’t bother me. As for those that do, they have absolutely no certainty pertaining to which statements are infallible and which aren’t.
We have more than a few statements from Fathers and even Popes that Christ alone was born without sin (something that later was applied to Mary, the original doctrine was that the Holy Spirit removed her original sin, so she had it for a temporary period of time). Again, none of this is problematic unless we have to maintain a doctrine that a Pope can never teach the Church false doctrine.
God bless,
Craig
Looking around, I found this page that gathers Pope St. Gregory’s texts that cite the deuterocanonical letters:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Gregory%20the%20Great,%20Pope,%20%5B590-604,%20A.D.%5D
I’ve made my position clear, that he does not teach in a definitive manner in this book, but you might be interested in his usage.
I quoted the same article in my article, and quote Catholic Matt in fact. I though the last 2 paragraphs recapitulated Gregory’s view on the Scripture quite nicely.
On this feast of the Chair of St. Peter (oh yeah, that’s a thing), I thought it’d be fitting to share with you an article I found that does a good job detailing the sorts of papal statements a Pope might make, and the various degrees of assent they require. In general, you seem to lump too many things under the infallible papal magisterium. It gives many examples of bad popes too:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.it/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html
Happy feast day!
Craig,
I would say this: while the Deuterocanon is considered part of Scripture by the Roman Catholics, but it certainly is of Secondary status when it comes to doctrine, just like us. But, to the Orthodox- it is Scripture, isn’t it? (But, ‘deuterocanon’, just like them)
They call it Deuterocanon, the same way we call it Anagignoskomena. And, it is accepted at Trullo, Nicea 2 and (after the Protestant Reformation) the Synod of Jerusalem.
Here is what the Confession of Dosethius said
“QUESTION III.
What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.”
Hey Craig,
I would say this: while the Deuterocanon is considered part of Scripture by the Roman Catholics, but it certainly is of Secondary status when it comes to doctrine, just like us. But, to the Orthodox- it is Scripture, isn’t it? (But, ‘deuterocanon’, just like them)
They call it Deuterocanon, the same way we call it Anagignoskomena. And, it is accepted at Trullo, Nicea 2 and (after the Protestant Reformation) the Synod of Jerusalem.
Here is what the Confession of Dosethius said
“QUESTION III.
What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.”
“The Deuterocanon is referred to by Paul in Romans 9 and accurately prophesies Christ’s passion. To treat it as if it were completely uninspired would be foolish.”
Could you provide the quotation in Romans 9? as far as I’m aware there is 0 quotations in the NT from the Deuterocanon. Perhaps you might be saying it is an allusion?
For some parallels: https://docs.google.com/document/d/171f16wqZBtIcWnSIwI330dnyAuVhmZILsY24xC9U8Ng/edit?usp=sharing
St Paul also is using technical terminology in Wis 7 when writing Eph 3: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/20/grace-as-a-participation-in-gods-energies/
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/03/07/the-energy-essence-distinction-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-theophilus-of-antioch/
“vivator” comments of infallibility makes more sense.
The more you go away from the Catholic Church the more issues you will face with the authenticity of the current canon. And in the end, everyone becomes a pope for themself.
Many people believe any statement the pope makes on faith and morals are infallible.
Ecumenical councils and infallible declarations are mostly made to counter Heresy. There was no heresy untill the 16th century on canon.
Anyway, thank you for this post.