Customer Reviews

Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Studies in the H) (Studies in the History of Christian Thought)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The other on-line reviewer seems unaware of scholarly rebuttals to Tierney's book. Tierney's book is indeed a scholarly work and has many merits. However, his central thesis about Pope John XXII has been refuted in James Heft's "John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority" (1986). I strongly recommend that all readers of Tierney's book also read the critical reviews of it by A.M. Stickler (and the exchange between Stickler and Tierney) in the Catholic Historical Review (Oct.,1974 and April, 1975) along with J.A. Watt's insightful comments in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Jan., 1974). Both Stickler and Watt are renowned scholars. As you will see Tierney is hardly the last word on this issue.

Wiki:
Theological history

Pope Leo XIII, as Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, represented as guiding the ship of God's Church (painting by Friedrich Stummel in Kevelaer Shrine 1903).[31] Klaus Schatz asserts that "it is impossible to fix a single author or era as the starting point" for the doctrine of papal infallibility. Others such as Brian Tierney have argued that the doctrine of papal infallibility was first proposed by Peter Olivi in the Middle Ages. Schatz and others see the roots of the doctrine as going much further back to the early days of Christianity.

Brian Tierney argued that the Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the Pope.[32] His idea was accepted by August Bernhard Hasler, and by Gregory Lee Jackson,[33] It was rejected by James Heft,[34] and by John V. Kruse.[35] Klaus Schatz says Olivi by no means played the key role assigned to him by Tierney, who failed to acknowledge the work of earlier canonists and theologians, and that the crucial advance in the teaching came only in the 15th century, two centuries after Olivi; and he declares that "it is impossible to fix a single author or era as the starting point".[36] Ulrich Horst criticized the Tierney view for the same reasons.[37] In his Protestant evaluation of the ecumenical issue of papal infallibility, Mark E. Powell rejects Tierney's theory about 13th-century Olivi, saying that the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the 14th century--he refers in particular to Bishop Guido Terreni--and was itself part of a long development of papal claims.[38]

Schatz points to "the special esteem given to the Roman church community (that) was always associated with fidelity in the faith and preservation of the paradosis (the faith as handed down)." Schatz differentiates between the later doctrine of "infallibility of the papal magisterium" and the Hormisdas formula in 519 which asserted that "the Roman church has never erred (and will never err)." He emphasizes that Hormisdas formula was not meant to apply so much to "individual dogmatic definitions but to the whole of the faith as handed down and the tradition of Peter preserved intact by the Roman Church." Specifically, Schatz argues that the Hormisdas formula does not exclude the possibility of individual popes become heretics because the formula refers "primarily to the Roman tradition as such and not exclusively to the person of the pope."[39]

Brian Tierney has produced an outstanding piece of historical scholarship in "Origins of Papal Infallibility." The work is an exhaustive and meticulous examination of the origins of the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

Tierney leaves no stone unturned in his research. He demonstrates conclusively that this doctrine originated in the 12th-14th century controversies between the Popes and the Franciscans. Ironically, it was opponents of the Pope who first suggested the idea and it was immediately condemned by the Pope. Later when it was realized that the doctrine could serve the purposes of the pope the papal opinion of the doctrine changed.

This book is not an easy read, but it is a fascinating study for those willing to invest the time and effort.

(...)The second edition of his book (the one available here) includes an appendix discussing the handful of published critiques and demonstrating why they all fail. As the Jesuit scholar Luis Bermejo said in his 1992 book, INFALLIBILITY ON TRIAL, no Roman Catholic scholar (...) has really adequately responded to Tierney yet.

The other on-line reviewer seems unaware of scholarly rebuttals to Tierney's book. Tierney's book is indeed a scholarly work and has many merits. However, his central thesis about Pope John XXII
has been refuted in James Heft's "John XXII and Papal Teaching
Authority" (1986). I strongly recommend that all readers of Tierney's book also read the critical reviews of it by A.M. Stickler (and the exchange between Stickler and Tierney) in the Catholic Historical Review (Oct.,1974 and April, 1975) along with J.A. Watt's insightful comments in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Jan., 1974). Both Stickler and Watt are
renowned scholars. As you will see Tierney is hardly the last
work on this issue.

Tierney is quite the scholar. I have to say, however, that the reviewer who sees a few flaws in the book is correct, although I wouldn't say that the thesis is totally undermined at all.

For those of us who are seeking to overcome the east-west division in Christianity (note that I did not say "Church") and who find the role of the papacy as a crucial element to that union, I recommend: Brian Tierney's "Origins of Papal Infallibility" and "Foundations of the Conciliar Theory"; Heft's "John xxii and Papal Teaching Authority"; "THeir Lord and OUrs" ed by Santer; "The Unity of the Churches of God" ed by Sherwood; "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy" by Francis Dvornik; "WHat Will Doctor Newman Do?" by John Page; "Towards Christian REunion" by Bermejo; "Ecumenism" ed by Cunningham; "Catholicity and the Church" by John Meyendorff (everything he writes is insightful and scholarly); COngar's "Diversity and Communion" (read everything he writes!); "Peter and Paul in teh CHurch of Rome" by Farmer and Kereszty; and "Rome and the Eastern Churches" by that great scholar Aidan Nichols. There are, of course, so many others, so if you know of any that I need to read, email me via the "about me" page! Thanks!

Tierney is quite the scholar. I have to say, however, that the reviewer who sees a few flaws in the book is correct, although I wouldnt say that the thesis is undermined.

For those of us who are seeking to overcome the east-west division in Christianity (note that I did not say "Church") and who find the role of the papacy as a crucial element to that union, I recommend: Brian Tierney's "Origins of Papal Infallibility" and "Foundations of the Conciliar Theory"; Heft's "John xxii and Papal Teaching Authority"; "THeir Lord and OUrs" ed by Santer; "The Unity of the Churches of God" ed by Sherwood; "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy" by Francis Dvornik; "WHat Will Doctor Newman Do?" by John Page; "Towards Christian REunion" by Bermejo; "Ecumenism" ed by Cunningham; "Catholicity and the Church" by John Meyendorff (everything he writes is insightful and scholarly); COngar's "Diversity and Communion" (read everything he writes!); "Peter and Paul in teh CHurch of Rome" by Farmer and Kereszty; and "Rome and the Eastern Churches" by that great scholar Aidan Nichols. There are, of course, so many others, so if you know of any that I need to read, email me via the "about me" page! Thanks!

Brian Tierney is smart. Anyone who can write a book about the papacy in the middle ages and make it a page-turner is a pretty bright guy. His book "Origins of Papal Infallibility" came out originally in 1972, shortly after Hans Kung published his "Infallible? An Inquiry", which eventually cost him his position as Professor of Catholic Theology when John Paul II came into power. Anyway, Tierney gives a compelling history of the origins of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Vatican I claimed that the doctrine had "always been believed," whereas the minority bishops at the same council claimed that the doctrine grew out of medieval forgeries. Neither view, Tierney says, is correct.

Tierney begins his narrative around the year 1150. At the time, canon law was being compiled by canonists, led by John Gratian. The canonists believed that the pope was supremely sovereign, but not that his judgements were infallible or irreformable. Further, they understood "indefectibility" as applying to the whole church, that some remnant would always preach the faith, not that no statement of a pope could ever be wrong. "It is clear that the canonists' doctrine of papal sovereignty did not lead them to set up the pope as a second fount of divine revelation, the exponent of a Tradition of revealed truth as authoritative as or more authoritative than Scripture." (p. 29) So where did the doctrine of Papal Infallibility come from? Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure came close to formulating, but stopped just short of defining any kind of infallibility like that of Vatican I. Rather, the catalyst was a Franciscan, Pietro Olivi. Olivi was a member of the spiritual Franciscans, who among many bizarre doctrines, believed that Christ and his disciples owned nothing individually or in common, and so neither should religious orders. In 1279, Nicholas III approved the doctrine of "Apostolic Poverty" in the bull Exiit, and Olivi said that this was infallible. Of course the Franciscans owed their existence to the Pope, since the local bishops usually resented their presence, so they felt obliged to exult his authority. Then in 1322, John XXII revoked Exiit. The Spirituals protested, saying that since Exiit had been defined with the "key of knowledge," it was infallible. The Pope called this a "pestiferous doctrine," since it limited his sovereignty. At the time infallibility and sovereignty were considered mutually exclusive, since infallibility would imply that popes were absolutely bound by their predecessors' decrees. Eventually, the idea of papal infallibility found acceptance to counter conciliarism and the Reformation.

I especially enjoyed how Tierney points out the real problems in the doctrine. "If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word- if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable- then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the response of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of formal ages...To defend religious liberty would be `insane' and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right `not only the universal church but the whole world.' Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the Earth." (p. 2) Another one of his insights is that theologians tend to confuse the prejudices of their culture with unchanging truths, and sardonically notes that "every infallible statement is certainly true, but no statement is certainly infallible." He compares 2 statements, one from the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 on how secular authorities are obliged to exterminate heretics, and the Vatican II declaration on religious liberty "that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs." One can dismiss both statements as "not infallible." However, Tierney notes, "To present the second statement as a `development' of a single unchanging Catholic truth that was implicit in the first one is surely to strain human credulity too far. A man who believes that will believe anything. If the morality of the Fourth Lateran Council is true the morality of the Second Vatican Council is false; and vice-versa." (P. 277)

So in sum, Tierney gives an excellent, readable history. He succeeds in showing how a doctrine, far from being a didactic, divine ultimatum, developed in very specific historical circumstances (as dogmas do). "The main points can be summarized very briefly. There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological canonical tradition before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to use it. The doctrine of papal infallibility no longer serves anyone's convenience- least of all the pope's. The papacy adopted the doctrine out of weakness. Perhaps one day the church will feel strong enough to renounce it." (p. 281)