The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol...
Reply to Edward Feser on Infallibility and Papal Error
Dear Ron,
Emmett O’Regan replied to one of the articles of Feser in Catholic World Report. and I think his comments are worthy of consideration:
Emmett O’Regan (in reply to Dr. Feser)
DECEMBER 22, 2022 AT 9:33 AM
Thank you for taking the time to respond to one of my articles on Vatican Insider, Dr Feser. I’ve read your work on Aquinas, which I found to be quite excellent. The above subject is the topic of my doctoral thesis, and I would like to point out that my position is being misrepresented here. I don’t hold to an infallible ordinary papal Magisterium. As Prof. Fastiggi notes above, the non-definitive teachings of the authentic Magisterium can contain limited errors, such as in the area of particular facts, among other areas, or even concerning its prudential judgments in matters of discipline. My position is a lot closer to Michael Lofton’s, which he presents in the podcast he has linked to above. Basically, my thesis is that any errors in the non-definitive teachings of the authentic Magisterium can never amount to the level of heresy or sententia haeresi proxima corresponding to the first two levels of assent in the Professio fidei. The meat and bones of my real argument is based on Bishop Gasser’s statement in the relatio of Vatican I, that St Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” concerning the impossibility of a Roman Pontiff falling into formal heresy or teaching heresy to the universal Church in his public capacity as pope would be raised to dogmatic status upon the ratification of Pastor aeternus. I’ve briefly outlined this thesis in a follow-up article on Vatican Insider, which you haven’t engaged with above:
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2017/12/11/news/the-heretical-pope-fallacy-1.34082024/
I think I can successfully demonstrate exactly how St Robert Bellarmine’s position was raised to dogmatic status in Pastor aeternus, as stipulated by the relatio. This is the only point where I would differ with Michael Lofton, in his argument that the idea of a pope teaching heresy in the non-definitive exercise of the authentic Magisterium is merely a theological error. If St Robert Bellarmine’s view on a heretical pope was raised to dogmatic status, then it is actually heresy to claim that a pope is capable of teaching heresy to the universal Church in his public capacity as Roman Pontiff.
Thanks for clarifying the positions of Emmett O’Regan and Stephen Walford. I believe it is an open question as to the degree and types of errors that are possible in the non-infallible papal magisterium. However, it is already certain that Popes cannot teach or commit heresy, and that some errors are possible when the decision is non-infallible. O’Regan’s position, clarified above, excludes from non-infallible expressions errors that are heresy or proximate to heresy. My position has a greater degree of exclusion, ruling out all grave error. But at this point, the distinctions are arguable. Walford, I think, has a greater degree of exclusion of error than myself or O’Regan.
In any case, Feser’s position that Popes can teach or commit heresy is contradicted by many Church sources.