St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) on Conditional Papal Infallibility?

The famous Medieval abbot St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was one of the chief accusers to Peter Abelard who had espoused certain errors during his time. Abelard appealed to the bishop of Sens who held a local synod at which St. Bernard attended. Bernard then appealed to Pope Innocent II with the following request to examine Abelard and give an official condemnation to his errors.

โ€œall the dangers and scandals that occur in the kingdom of God must be referred to the Holy See, but none more urgently than those which concern the faith. It is indeed just that any menace to the faith should be dealt with by the one ๐’˜๐’‰๐’๐’”๐’† ๐’‡๐’‚๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’„๐’‚๐’๐’๐’๐’• ๐’‡๐’‚๐’๐’•๐’†๐’“. To whom else has it been said : ๐˜ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ, ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜บ ๐˜ง๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ fail ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต? The words that follow must apply to Peterโ€™s successorโ€ฆ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ. The time has come for you to acknowledge your primacy, to prove your zeal and to honour your ministry.๐‘ฐ๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’” ๐’š๐’๐’– ๐’˜๐’Š๐’๐’ ๐’ƒ๐’† ๐’‡๐’–๐’๐’‡๐’Š๐’๐’๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐‘ท๐’†๐’•๐’†๐’“โ€™๐’” ๐’•๐’‚๐’”๐’Œ, ๐’˜๐’‰๐’Š๐’๐’† ๐’š๐’๐’– ๐’”๐’Š๐’• ๐’๐’ ๐’‰๐’Š๐’” ๐’•๐’‰๐’“๐’๐’๐’†, ๐’Š๐’‡ ๐’š๐’๐’– ๐’„๐’๐’๐’‡๐’Š๐’“๐’Ž ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’‡๐’‚๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’•๐’‰๐’‚๐’• ๐’—๐’‚๐’„๐’Š๐’๐’๐’‚๐’•๐’†๐’” ๐’Š๐’ ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’‰๐’†๐’‚๐’“๐’•๐’” ๐’๐’‡ ๐‘ช๐’‰๐’“๐’Š๐’”๐’•๐’Š๐’‚๐’๐’”, ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’‘๐’–๐’๐’Š๐’”๐’‰ ๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’”๐’† ๐’˜๐’‰๐’ ๐’„๐’๐’“๐’“๐’–๐’‘๐’• ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’‡๐’‚๐’Š๐’•๐’‰, ๐’ƒ๐’š ๐’Ž๐’†๐’‚๐’๐’” ๐’๐’‡ ๐’š๐’๐’–๐’“ ๐’‚๐’–๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’“๐’Š๐’•๐’š.โ€

[๐˜š๐˜ต. ๐˜‰๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ. ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฅ. ๐˜๐˜ฏ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ค. ๐˜—. ๐˜Œ๐˜ฑ. ๐˜Š๐˜น๐˜ค๐˜ช.; ๐˜Œ๐˜ฏ๐˜จ. ๐˜›๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด. ๐˜š๐˜ต. ๐˜‰๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜Š๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ท๐˜ข๐˜ถ๐˜น, ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด. ๐˜Ž๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง๐˜ง๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜บ ๐˜ž๐˜ฆ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฃ & ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ž๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ (๐˜ž๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ, ๐˜”๐˜‹: ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜•๐˜ฆ๐˜ธ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด, 1960), 102.]

As I was reading this letter (#191 in Bernardโ€™s epistolary), I came to a couple observations.

The first was that what St. Bernard says here appears to be a full endorsement of what would later be called โ€œPapal Infallibilityโ€. That is confirmed simply by reading many other things that St. Bernard had written. However, once could find this kind of thing (even stronger) in the Church Fathers before the end of the 7th century, but Orthodox readers typically give it more of a โ€œflowery hyperboleโ€ kind of explanation so that the words being said are to be read as if going along with the elasticity of a musical note. In other words, ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ญ. I really donโ€™t think that could be used in reading St. Bernard who gives, more or less, the same kind of claim to Papal authority as Pope St. Agatho did in 680.

Secondly, I noticed here is that though Bernard gives a blanket claim to general immunity from error by โ€œwho faith cannot falterโ€, which matches what some of the ancient fathers comment on the prerogatives of the Apostolic See (cf. Leo, Gelasius, Hormisdas, et. al), he nevertheless implies that the Pope has to rise up and act in a certain way in order for the Petrine charism to take its effect. With that said, it doesn’t answer whether he would have believed that if Peter’s successor did rise up to the occasion of giving a teaching, it could be heretical content that gets put out. It seems he did not think so.


St. Jerome – “For there is no such thing as a Church without bishops”

I have come across what appears to be a remarkable observation in the writings of St. Jerome which serves to appropriately offset his reputation as being a testimony against the ecclesiology of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican communities. As scholars recognize, St. Jerome curiously speaks of the equation between presbyters and bishops when the first Christian ordinations began (commenting on Titus, for ex), only to say that later on, due to non-dominical causes, the severance between presbyters and bishops came about. From that point, bishops obtained the sole & unique function of ordaining the clergy (including ordaining other bishops, according to the 3-to-1 rule). At times, an over emphasis on this can lead to the neglect of other things that Jerome says about the Churchโ€™s essential government. I will not belabor the statements he makes on the dominical status of the Cathedra Petri (chair of Peter) in the Roman episcopate. This latter data, in my opinion, overhauls the Protestant ammunition from Jerome. Rather, I draw attention to another place in Jerome. In his Dialogue with the Luciferians, Jerome addresses the schismatic status of this sect begun with a man named Lucifer, once bishop of Cagliari (in the island Sardinian southwest of the Italian peninsula). This Lucifer broke away from the Church, and had an associate deacon named Hilary. In the midst of his dialogue, Jerome makes a statement about the status of the community that sought to continue the legacy of Lucifer/Hilary and how this community had no ontological means to establish a real Church. The reasons for why the Luciferian/Hilarian sect could not establish itself as a real church is the focus of my post here. Let me cite what Jerome says:

“๐˜š๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜ข ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ, ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ ๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ, ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜จ๐˜ฉ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ, ๐˜ข ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ, ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Œ๐˜ถ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ต, ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ด ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ด, ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฎ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Œ๐˜ถ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ต. ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ, ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ด๐˜ฎ๐˜ถ๐˜ค๐˜ฉ ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ข ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฅ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ, ๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ. ๐‘ญ๐’๐’“ ๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’† ๐’Š๐’” ๐’๐’ ๐’”๐’–๐’„๐’‰ ๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐’‚๐’” ๐’‚ ๐‘ช๐’‰๐’–๐’“๐’„๐’‰ ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰๐’๐’–๐’• ๐’ƒ๐’Š๐’”๐’‰๐’๐’‘๐’”. ” (๐˜‹๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜จ๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜“๐˜ถ๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ด, 21)

Jerome notes on the status of Hilary as a deacon and how this office prevents him from celebrating the Eucharist, since only bishops and priests can serve at the altar. Moreover, as a deacon, Jerome says (what is quite obvious) that Hilary also could not ordain anyone since ordaining power is not given to man through the sacrament to the order of the diaconate. Finally, he makes the statement that there is โ€œno such thing as a Church without bishopsโ€, which is merely standard orthodoxy of his day, being a mere echo of the early St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD). What made this find interesting to me is that Jerome here seems to be speaking of an ontological incapacity of the Luciferians to have a real Church, rather than a moral or disciplinarian insufficiency. In other words, it does not appear as if Jerome is speaking of an incapacity within the Luciferians that is merely a lack of what is customarily required, but not absolutely required. On the contrary, he speaks as if the presence of bishops, who alone have the power to ordain (and therefore replenish more bishops and priests), is an ontological sine qua non for the existence of a church. Lastly, celebration of the Eucharist is impossible without bishops or priests, who are offices that a deacon cannot produce. All this spells out an ontological necessity of the episcopate for a real church.

If my observation is correct, then this (once again) serves to offset the notion that Jerome is, after all, some sort of a voice on behalf of a Church polity which sees the ordained offices of the church and the sacrament of the eucharist as more on the disciplinary side. If Jerome were a baptist, for example, then surely Hilary the deacon could replenish a true Church simply with the truth of the gospel. However, this was simply against the consensus of Christian thought. Jerome was a firm upholder of Apostolic succession as an ontological necessity for ordained offices and the ability to confect the Eucharist on the Christian altar.

2 postnotes

[I realize scholarly Protestants don’t make this mistake]


[for lack of time, I will have to shelve the incoming questions that are bound to come in concerning Jeromeโ€™s comments about the episcopate of Alexandria which scholars have pointed to for leverage in the opposite direction than where I went with reading Jerome above]

[NEW BOOK] The Church Fathers on Rebaptism

Here we are. ๐‘ป๐’‰๐’† ๐‘ช๐’‰๐’–๐’“๐’„๐’‰ ๐‘ญ๐’‚๐’•๐’‰๐’†๐’“๐’” ๐’๐’ ๐‘น๐’†๐’ƒ๐’‚๐’‘๐’•๐’Š๐’”๐’Ž is now available in both paperback and kindle. This is a short little 100-page tour into the controversy over rebaptism in the early Church with an introduction to the problem in the 3rd-century debacle between St. Cyprian of Carthage versus Pope St. Stephen. This is followed by an extensive florilegium and commentary from plenty of other Church fathers, saints, doctors, and councils up until the 7th century. Throughout this tour, I get into the specifics of the contemporary debate on the issue of baptism outside the boundaries of the Church that currently goes on within Eastern Orthodoxy (Fr. Peter Heers) and how that relates to the Catholic Tradition on Church unity and the nature of baptismal sacramentology. Share with family or friends who might be interested. Enjoy!