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.

“all 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 𝒘𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓. To whom else has it been said : 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 fail 𝘯𝘰𝘵? The words that follow must apply to Peter’s successor… 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯. The time has come for you to acknowledge your primacy, to prove your zeal and to honour your ministry.𝑰𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒖𝒍𝒇𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑷𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓’𝒔 𝒕𝒂𝒔𝒌, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒊𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒆, 𝒊𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒖𝒑𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉, 𝒃𝒚 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒂𝒖𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚.”

[𝘚𝘵. 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘥. 𝘈𝘥. 𝘐𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘤. 𝘗. 𝘌𝘱. 𝘊𝘹𝘤𝘪.; 𝘌𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴. 𝘚𝘵. 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘶𝘹, 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴. 𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘺 𝘞𝘦𝘣𝘣 & 𝘈𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘳 (𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘔𝘋: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴, 1960), 102.]

As I was reading this letter (#191 in Bernard’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 “Papal Infallibility”. 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 “flowery hyperbole” 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, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. I really don’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 “who faith cannot falter”, 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.

Discuss.

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 Church’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:

“𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦, 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘣𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒃𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒑𝒔. ” (𝘋𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 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 “no such thing as a Church without bishops”, 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]

and

[for lack of time, I will have to shelve the incoming questions that are bound to come in concerning Jerome’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. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝑭𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒆𝒃𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎 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!

[My Script] The Filioque Dialogue

For those who are interested in a script for my segments in the Filioque Dialogue with Fr. Patrick, I have provided it here for all to read:

the-filioque-dialogue-fr-patrick-and-erick-ybarra-pdfDownload