BRIAN TIERNEY: A Life of Infallibility A Historiographic Essay

Matthew Cromwell

for HIST601 with Dr. Lawrence Baron

December 16, 2010

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 2 OF 21

I. Introduction

In the field of the history of the tension between Church and State there are few Christian

historians who do not focus on American history. Brian Tierney is one of the few. Tierney is a

Roman Catholic medievalist who’s influence both within and without the Catholic Church is

significant. He has effectively shown the Middle Ages as being anything but “dark” as well as

proven that the modern concepts of democracy and natural rights have their origins in the Middle

Ages. That alone would make any professional academician satisfied with their career. But

Tierney is also Catholic and has sought to enhance the Church’s understanding of the doctrine of

papal infallibility. It is this goal that has dominated Tierney’s career and works and has brought

him – for good or ill – the most attention of all.

This short historiography of Tierney’s work is an attempt to illustrate his development

and highlight how his perspective on papal infallibility has influenced every other major work he

has published.

II. Outlining Tierney’s Career and Works

Brian Tierney (b. 1922) began his career at The Catholic University of America in 1951

and then accepted a post at Cornell in 1959 where he has stayed until the present. He published

several significant works that have each been reprinted and republished throughout his career. I

will be covering four of these works: Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Tierney 1955), The

Crisis of Church and State (Tierney 1964), a two volume source book for undergraduates called

The Middle Ages (Tierney 1970)(Tierney 1970b), and Origins of Papal Infallibility (Tierney 1972).

Each of these works highlights different aspects of church organization in the medieval

period, while also addressing the issue of papal power, each from a different angle. While he is

most respected for his work in Foundations and Church and State he is most bedeviled by Origins.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 3 OF 21

It is my belief that Origins of all his works, makes explicit what he had previously as well as

afterwards only said indirectly.

The controversy around this work was preceded by Hans Küng’s Infallible? An Inquiry –

one of the primary pieces of evidence used against Küng in stripping him of his license to teach

within the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, Tierney references the coincidence and distances

himself from Küng in his preface by saying that his book was not provoked by Küng’s but “may

prove to have some relevance” for the discussion surrounding that controversy. It would be a

valuable study in itself to compare the main arguments of Küng, Tierney, and even someone so

central to 20th Century theology as Karl Rahner, and to extrapolate why Küng was dealt with so

harshly in comparison, specifically when their conclusions are very similar.

Of all of Tierney’s works, Origins is also the only one to have met so much criticism that in

1974 Tierney engaged in a published “duel” with Father Alfons Stickler, the then prefect of the

Apostolic Vatican Library (now Cardinal Librarian and Archivist of the Roman Church). Seven

years later the controversy remained fresh enough that Tierney enters the fray with D.L. D’Avary

regarding his article “A Letter of Innocent III and the Idea of Infallibility” (D’Avray 1981). That

discussion continued through responses from each of them as well. I will elaborate on these

discussions when covering Origins later; here I want to illustrate the significance of this work in

the scope of Tierney’s career.

By claiming Origins as the full expression of Tierney’s work, one can see a trajectory to his

career which is illustrative of his methodology and approach to medieval history. Through

examining his significant influences and the works themselves I hope to illustrate clearly that

papal infallibility is Tierney’s primary concern as well as show how he has adapted over the

years.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 4 OF 21

III. Tierney’s Influences

a. Walter Ullman’s Influence on Tierney’s Historical Method

Walter Ullman was a dominant and prolific figure in the realm of medieval political

studies. His influence on the field cannot be overstated. As one of Ullman’s many graduate

students, Tierney has clearly been heavily influenced by many of his mentor’s methods and styles.

The British Academy has written an extremely thorough historiography of the work of

Ullman which is very revelatory of his influence in Tierney’s work (The Proceedings of the British

Academy 1988). Unfortunately, there is no such corollary historiography of Tierney himself in

order to give more direct connections. But, in a short introduction to the Festschrift written in

Tierney’s honor, the Catholic University in America scholar Stephen Kuttner makes it clear that

Tierney never shunned “the painful task of tactfully criticizing his own mentor” (Sweeney and

Chodorow 1989) suggesting that though they share similarities, Tierney also marked his own

path.

While Tierney is focused on a different aspect of Medieval life and thought than Ullman

his approach to his topic is surprisingly similar. There are three methodological aspects of

Tierney’s work that I believe he inherited from Ullman. First, Ullman believed the only way to

understand a society is through its political theory and legal analysis. Tierney similarly

approaches medieval church history through its lawyers: the canonists. Tierney receives both

praise and criticism for this. Before his treatment of the canonists they were seen as auxiliary

players. His work proves them as anything but. Secondly, both Ullman and Tierney attempt to

illustrate their points through a long view of history. One of Ullman’s most well-known works

Medieval Papalism (Ullmann and Sutherland 1972) illustrates the variety of approaches to papal

authority over several centuries. Similarly, each of Tierney’s works span several centuries in

order to show specific trends in thought and theological development. Each of them, while

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 5 OF 21

covering long periods of time write in such a way as to earn the kind of praise that Ullman

received from the British Academy regarding Medieval Papalism by calling it a “masterpiece of

lucid compression.” Lastly, Ullman was extremely dynamic in the classroom and was well known

for lifting “his eyes from the chronology of the immediate topic to those distant horizons toward

which he saw his subject leading” (The Proceedings of the British Academy 1988). Ullman saw

history as present-relevant. Some strict understandings of academic history look down on this

approach as being to polemic, primarily because it may lend the historian to have a bias or

prerogative before approaching their research. Tierney obviously disagreed with that assertion

because his works were always very present-relevant as well. He took pleasure in illustrating

how the medieval period has direct effects on our modern political and religious reality. This

short paragraph illustrates his ability to make a historical point present-relevant:

If any independent spiritual power could claim the right to determine what

was sin it would soon challenge the right to declare what was law. It is so true

of course. That is why Americans of various religious persuasions are

constantly challenging laws that they perceive as legalizing sin.(Tierney

1987)

But even further than his methodological approach, Tierney’s focus may have been

inspired by Ullman’s work. Ullman was prolific concerning the orientation of power. His study

Medieval Papalism helped firmly establish the concept that there were competing ideas of power

being promulgated in the Medieval era. Ullman argued that power either ascends or descends.

Ascending power rises up to authorities from the people, whereas descending power comes from

authorities down to the people. Papal infallibility smacks of descending power and Tierney seems

intent on advocating for a reorientation of power in the Catholic Church to one that ascends

instead. This will be further extrapolated when his individual works are covered.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 6 OF 21

b. Historical Influences

i. The Second World War

Naturally, the second World War had a profound impact on every person who witnessed

and survived it. Tierney contributed to one fairly abstract work on the origins of Nazi Germany;

but otherwise he does not directly deal with the war. Regardless, his subject had clear

implications for relevant issues surrounding the war.

If there was ever a test of the tension between church and state it was on the question of

whether the Catholic Church should intervene on behalf of the Jewish population in Germany. It

was specifically Pope Pius XII’s lack of intervention and inconsistent statements regarding the

Holocaust that created controversy during the war (Schoenberg 2010) as well as public backlash

against the Catholic Church after the war. It is in that context that Origins was researched and

published. So while the assertion that papal infallibility as an idea arose out of a specific historic

context is controversial when seen in the vacuum of catholic doctrine, in the context of the war it

rings much more of common sense. In this light a staunch catholic supporter might regard

Tierney’s work as siding with the Catholic detractors or to the general unrest of the public.

ii. The Second Vatican Council

Origins also follows the second Vatican Council. This council had a profound impact on the

life and face of the Catholic Church that resonates strongly still today. Several reviewers of

Tierney’s work comment how his Conciliary Theory and Church and State (works published

shortly before or during the council) directly shaped discussions of canon law and church

hierarchy in the sessions at the General Council. Considering that is was the first Vatican Council

that forever placed papal infallibility squarely within catholic doctrine it is remarkable that the

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 7 OF 21

second council specifically refrained from claiming its pronouncements infallible, but was

conducted instead as “merely” a pastoral council (Pope Paul VI 1966). As mere conjecture, one

might imply that the general academic focus on papal infallibility (Tierney, Küng, and Rahner to a

lesser degree) and the general distrust coming from the secular world persuaded the council

from claiming infallibility1. Regardless, the connection between Tierney’s specific focus in his

works had clear relevance and impact in his society at the time of his writing.

In the upcoming reviews of his significant works I will be highlighting the way in which

they are a reflection of his career-long interest in the topic of papal infallibility. Each work,

though mightily crafted and illuminating to its own topic, serves as another stone in Tierney’s

case against papal infallibility.

IV. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory

Brian Tierney wrote Foundations of the Conciliar Theory (Tierney 1955) very early in his

career. The book has a three-part structure which helps the reader see a clear progression of

thought from the late 1100’s until the time of Pope Boniface VIII in the late 1200’s. Tierney

continually reminds the reader that all of these events lead eventually to the Papal Schism in

1378 that lasted until 1417. The subject is concerned with the conciliar movement, which was a

reform movement within the Catholic Church in the 14th and early 15th centuries. Conciliarists

believed that the general councils of the church should be the final authority over church doctrine

rather than the sitting pope. Tierney found both prevailing and opposing theories for this

movement to be insufficient. The first was that of Victor Martin, claiming that conciliarism was

the remnant of influence from declared heretics Marsiglio and Ockham. The other was that of

1 That would be another valuable study. How much influence did Catholic academia and/or the

public distrust of the Roman Catholic Church shape the discussions and decisions of Vatican II?

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 8 OF 21

John Neville Figgins who claimed that the conciliarists were primarily influenced by secular

experiments in representative government (Mcneill 1957). Both arguments paint the conciliarist

theory as alien and non-traditional to Roman theology.

Tierney, on the other hand seeks to illustrate how the conciliarist movement sprang up

from within the ranks of loyal Catholics. Early canon law was written by decretists – canon

lawyers. But there were many different arguments regarding the authority of the pope that were

incongruous with each other. So in the thirteenth century, a second wave of “decretalists” rose.

They were concerned with clarifying and codifying the earlier decretists work. Whereas the

originating decretists were concerned primarily with ecclesiology, the decretalists had a keen

interest in the greater body of catholics and thus a more corporate perspective. Tierney claims

that it is through a syncretism that conciliarism arose: “The Conciliar Theory, one might say,

sprang from the impregnation of Decretist ecclesiology by Decretalist corporation concepts” (pg.

245).

It was above referenced the influence Ullman had on Tierney’s work, and this piece is no

exception. By following the transition from the decretists to decretalists to the Great Schism

Tierney shows that the conciliarist theory was not a “flash in the pan” controversy, but a well-

grounded evolution of thought over time. Without this long view it is easy to dismiss the

conciliarists as revolutionaries or extremists (as Martin and Figgins did). All of this is also done

with Tierney’s characteristic succinct writing style. This vast subject is compressed into only 247

pages.

Lastly, the present-relevant approach to history gives this work a specific bent towards

criticism of papal power, which, since Conciliar Theory precedes Vatican II in publication, was

extremely relevant. For Tierney, it is clear that each of his works have present-relevance by way

of shedding new light on the modern dilemma of papal infallibility. Conciliar Theory addresses

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 9 OF 21

this specifically by validating the conciliar movement and highlighting other lesser known

canonists who also sought to restrict rather than embolden the power of the pope.

It is no coincidence that Tierney thought it relevant for this work to highlight both John of

Paris, and Franciscus Zabarella. John of Paris has traditionally been known as an excellent

theologian with no reference to his conciliarist tendencies. Tierney’s detailed survey of John’s

work reveals that John was indeed more familiar with canon law and decretalist writings than

with the heavily influential St. Augustine. John of Paris is then an example of a mainstream, well

respected theological authority of the time who was firmly grounded in conciliarist thought.

Zabarella’s stance is similar, but he wrote in the middle of the Great Schism. His conciliarist views

in the midst of a divided Church brought to light the unifying power of thinking of the pope as a

unifying head of a corporation rather than the end-all theological and moral authority of all.

Zabarella would that catholics adhered to the pope out of loyalty and love rather than fear of

punitive action. By highlighting and validating both John of Paris and Franciscus Zabarella,

Tierney illustrates how the desire for a restricted view of the pope’s authority has a long and

orthodox tradition in the history of the Catholic Church; it is not an alien intrusion or secular

threat.

V. Crisis of Church and State

The Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300 (Tierney 1964) is a compilation of readings with

Tierney providing context and minimal application preceding each period. John Witte Jr.

described Church and State as “a stroke of marketing genius” on Tierney’s part to provide “this

authoritative but accessible little textbook” that gives students “just enough evidence to conclude

that the Middle Ages were anything but dark” (Witte Jr. 2009).

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 10 OF 21

An overview of each section is helpful in order to properly illustrate how this compilation

fits within the scope of Tierney’s lifelong focus on the issue of papal infallibility. The work is split

into 4 sections:

PART I. “THE FIRST THOUSAND YEARS” highlights some of the most popular early

works related to papal/state authority. Augustine’s famous “The Two Cities”, “The Donation of

Constantine”, and translated excerpts from the Reform Councils of Leo IX each illustrate the

centrality of this issue before the Medieval period. Tierney introduces the section by citing other

cultures and religions in which the political head coincides with the spiritual head. In contrast,

the uniqueness of the Christian-European model necessitates a natural tension. Tierney also

highlights scriptural passages that were commonly referenced as sources of the power of the

church in the world. In doing so, one can see biblical precedence for religious involvement in the

political realm, but the extent of power given to churchly leaders is anything but obvious. The

ambiguity is what propels controversy between church and state continually. These specific

references are used as a constant source for claims to papal power and eventually to infallibility.

PART II THE INVESTITURE CONTEST explores what many deem the most significant

crisis between church and state. The monarchs of Western Europe began to use the bishoprics of

their regions to their own personal/political advantages by allowing these positions to be bought.

Simony, the practice of gaining priestly office by money, is of course considered sinful within

Catholic theology. The problem came to a point when it became more and more clear that at least

half of the bishops under monarchical rule had won their office by simony. Tierney provides

documentation from the two opposing cardinals (Peter Damian and Humbert) to illustrate how

their varying approaches led to a great schism within the Church.

In his introduction to this section, Tierney clearly favors the approach and style of Peter

Damian against that of Humbert. Damian sought to penalize the bishops who wrongfully obtained

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 11 OF 21

office while keeping their ordained priests free from guilt; while Humbert wanted them all

stripped of their ordination completely. Tierney says that Humbert’s claim that just as the soul

rules the body, the church rules the state “became a favorite with later theorist of papal power,

and eventually the most extreme conclusions were derived from it” (pg. 35). The illusion to papal

infallibility is hard to miss. Tierney argues that Humberts position both played a great role in

pushing the Church toward schism, and served as a an early claim to papal infallibility.

PART III THE AGE OF THE LAWYERS describes how the rise of Roman law in secular

affairs coincides with the development of canon law within the Roman Church by way of the

canonist and theologian Gratian.

Being a compilation is it easier to claim objectivity and a lack of bias, as Tierney does in

his Introduction. Further, by citing both squarely orthodox Catholic theologians like St. Augustine

as well as more controversial figures like John of Paris, Tierney points the reader to the

conclusion that this issue involved every sphere of influence in the church. But the general

pattern that arises from the excerpts illustrates how the very definition of the power of the state

and papacy were in constant evolution throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. As their

respective legal codes became more solidified a natural tension arose concerning the source of

power. Traditionally the pope had bestowed the kingdom to the Emperor as a fiefdom, giving the

pope originating power but is given to the monarch to rule over temporal matters. This was

particularly tricky when it came to the king of the Roman Empire, within whose territory the

pope resided. The controversy between Pope Hadrian and King Frederick Barbarossa highlights

both how far reaching the papacy believed its power reached as well as how politically motivated

its actions were. Under such circumstances it is difficult to support claims of infallibility whether

ex cathedra or not.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 12 OF 21

PART IV ARISTOTLE AND THE NATIONAL STATE provides references to Aristotle’s

works which were discovered and translated in the late 12th Century. This discovery gave the

monarchical powers a purely secular political theory that was not dependent on religion. As

feudal states became more and more organized in terms of divvying out justice and taxes, borders

became clearer. Tierney marks this as the rise of the modern nation-state2. States also recognized

their right to tax the church in order to fund their mercenary armies. If the church had

successfully been able to argue with integrity that it’s massive land and wealth were truly

intended for “the poor” (pg. 160) and not wealthy Catholics, then the State would have had a

harder time leveraging its position of church taxation. This, according to Tierney, was the first

major church/state defeat for the Church.

This entire work should be prerequisite reading for Origins. It provides such detailed first-

hand accounts of the tension between monarch and pope that one cannot help but continually

ponder the power and fallibility of the pope.

VI. The Middle Ages

Similar to Church and State, The Middle Ages is a compilation but made of two volumes:

sources (primary) and readings (modern commentaries). Being a compilation and source book

for undergraduates there is a void of academic reviews on this work. In contrast, I find works of

this nature most revelatory of an author’s perspective and priorities. For example, if one were

given the opportunity to educate the next generation on the current U.S. war in Afghanistan, the

inclusion or exclusion of the Wikileaks documents in that compilation would reveal a lot about

2 As opposed to Benedict Anderson who claims that nation-states are a purely modern

development. Since Tierney’s argument coincides with his work in citing the origin of natural rights as

well, I tend to agree with Tierney that nation-states have their roots in the medieval period.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 13 OF 21

the author’s perspective3. In Tierney’s case, the specific documents included and the context

which he provides shows clearly that his passion over papal power is something he wants future

generations to share. I further find this a particular important work for Tierney compared to

others because it is the only work he created which has undergone 4 editions.

In order for a sourcebook to be instructional there must be a methodology in choosing the

pieces. Tierney seeks to maintain a “problem-oriented” approach. This necessitates representing

multiple perspectives and potentially unorthodox pieces. Tierney admits in the preface that

though “every anthology must reflect to some degree the taste and judgment of its compiler” he

avoids his own “idiosyncrasies” by keeping his commentary to a minimum (pg. vii). Regardless,

there are two specific sections of the two volumes in which the choice of readings clearly reflects

the compiler.

Volume I is well balanced between documentation of secular and religious powers.

Chapter XI of that volume covers the Investiture Contest and could be virtually lifted from Church

and State. In Chapter V: The Rise of the Papacy, Tierney introduces a letter by Pope Leo I saying

that connecting the role of the pope to the apostle Peter started in full force in the 5th Century.

This again points to his fascination with the origination of ideas. But claiming, as he does

continually throughout his works, that papal authority evolved over time conflicts directly with

the orthodox understanding of papal power as originating with St. Peter and continues ad

infintum. Between the emergence of secular powers and controversies with the Holy See the

3 Per http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010/ “25th July 2010 5:00 PM

EST WikiLeaks has released a document set called the Afghan War Diary, an extraordinary compendium of

over 91,000 reports covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010.” These documents were released

illegally by a U.S. soldier. Whether or not publishing them online as Wikileaks has done has been an

unresolved international question.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 14 OF 21

student is left with the clear impression that these two powers, though clearly separate, are never

quite clearly defined.

Volume II contains relevant modern commentaries on medieval subjects. A quick look at

the authors of the articles reveals Ullman himself, David Knowles, and Tierney each contributing;

each could be considered to be in the “Ullman School”. In maintaining a “problem-oriented”

method in the section “The Medieval State” he puts together Neville Figgis (mentioned previously

in Conciliar Theory) and Fritz Kern as positing a lack of state or legislative power in the Medieval

period. As the answer to this problem he includes an article of his own on Medieval Canon Law

and Western Constitutionalism. This is a precursor to his later work The Idea of Natural Rights. In

claiming that the Medieval concept of law was a precursor to modern democracy he is painting

Catholic canon law as having representative government tendencies, as Ullman himself did. The

way this section is constructed clearly favors his conclusion over and against that of Figgis and

Kern.

In “Spiritual and Temporal Power” he allows Ullman to describe the nature of papal

authority and how its definition continually proved problematic for secular rulers. Ullman’s

article is followed by “The Dualism of Mediaeval Society” by R.W. and A.J. Carlyle in which they

describe the standard “two swords” argument that typifies the relation between church and state

authorities. The pairing of these two is difficult to reconcile. While Ullman’s shows the tendency

of the papacy to see itself as of higher origin than secular authorities, the Carlyle’s set the two

firmly alongside each other. Tierney introduces the section by clarifying that though Ullman and

the Carlyle’s perspective seem at odds, both existed in the Middle Ages. “The difference… is

essentially one of emphasis” (pg. 227). That being said, one is then left with the conclusion that

the Church believes its authority is derived from God and is given to the State. If left unchecked

the Church could then claim complete sovereignty. If it weren’t for the efforts of the state to

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 15 OF 21

enforce its own authority alongside the church there would be but one power. This re-

emphasizes Tierney’s career thesis, that a properly restricted authority both papal and secular is

healthy and has a long-standing precedent in history.

VII. Origins of Papal Infallibility

Origins of Papal Infallibility was published in 1972, 8 years after the conclusion of the

second Vatican Council, in the midst of the American involvement in Vietnam, shortly after the

publication of Hans Küng’s Infallible? An Inquiry, but before he was stripped of his catholic

teaching credentials. I have already asserted that it is the culmination of Tierney’s work. I have

also illustrated how each of the previous works point towards this conclusion. Here I will show

how Origins leans on the findings of previous works as well as review some of the controversies

that followed its publication.

A quick review of Origins reveals how dependent the work is on Tierney’s previous works.

Complete sections are dedicated on the conciliarists and canonists respectively. What is new is

how the thrust of his previous work is now so finely focused on how these early theologians and

lawyers contributed to defining the role of papal power without claiming infallibility.

The historical problem with the doctrine of papal infallibility is that it pretends that

history is not relevant. When the First Vatican Council defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, it

was not only for current and future popes, but a statement of recognition of all popes in all times

as being attributed with inherent infallibility. Therefore, the Council claims that infallibility is not

a new or introduced concept, but rather that it always existed, and is merely being recognized as

reality and made official doctrine of the Church. To a historian, the title “Origins of Papal

Infallibility” sounds perfectly legitimate. But to the orthodox Catholic who believes in papal

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 16 OF 21

infallibility, there is no historic “origin” of the thought or practice, merely the pronunciation at

the first Vatican council; so Tierney’s title alone raises the ire of orthodox Catholics.

With these tensions and incongruences in mind, Tierney introduces the book with fearless

assertiveness: “If 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.” He continues with

examples which would make 20th Century Catholics tremble: “To defend religious liberty would

be ‘insane’ and to persecute heretics commendable” (pg. 2).

Having made his bias abundantly clear, Tierney traces the roots of the theology to the

work of the canonist Olivi around the year 1280. This assertion is the crux of the controversy

around this work. Father Alfons Stickler took issue with Tierney’s assertion that Olivi’s

declaration was an innovation. Stickler claims that all of the ingredients for infallibility were

known to the canonists and Olivi and therefore assumed (Stickler 1974). Tierney, in his published

response counters that it is important to his argument that all the elements were there but “[t]he

works of the canonists show how it is possible to accept all the early data of Catholic tradition

without accepting a doctrine of papal infallibility” (Tierney 1975).

Of course, the modern definition of papal infallibility is so constructed as to be both

limitless and limited. It is limitless in that the pope could claim infallibility whenever necessary.

But it is limited in that he must speak ex cathedra. So the controversy between Stickler and

Tierney oscillates between whether the canonists are referring to the pope having infallible

judgment or teaching. Tierney argues forcefully that because the canonists were well aware of the

breadth of power available to the pope and specifically did not deem him infallible that the long

history of infallibility that Vatican I rests on in reality does not exist.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 17 OF 21

Another aspect of the disagreement concerned the historic example of the papal decree

from Pope Eugene IV, in which he extends ordination to the Armenian church by extending the

chalice and paten to the priest at their ordination. Tierney argues that historical research

revealed that decree to be erroneous, ordination was always up until that point extended to

priests by the laying on of hands. Tierney then addresses Sticklers claim that historians should be

writing as theologians in search of the “true history” beneath the surface errors. Tierney contends

the historical method demands truth of the historian and not a modern interpretation of historica

facts through an accepted theological lens. Stickler, in his second reply defends that this is not

“writing apologetics” but his conclusion is to begin historical research with the assumption that

history will not refute certain theological truths. History, Stickler says “cannot reject a truth now

theologically certain because of obscurity in the knowledge of its development, of difficulties of

explanation, or of different opinions of the doctrine in the past or in present-day theology”

(Stickler 1975).

At this point, it becomes clear that Stickler and Tierney will not agree. Stickler has an

overtly superior view of theological research over and against historical research and an

unflinching loyalty to Catholic dogma that prevents him from questioning the origins of faith.

The controversy does not stop there. D.L. d’Avray takes up where Stickler left off by

divulging into yet more theological questions regarding the historical understanding of the

biblical passage Luke 22:32, which is the primary proof text for proponents of the pope being

given authority directly from the Apostle Peter as well as to claims of his infallibility (D’Avray

1980). D'Avray rightly points to an omission on Tierney’s part: a letter by Innocent III which

refers to the Luke passage and could be interpreted as suggesting that the pope is infallible.

Tierney admits the omission but defends that because of the variety of valid interpretations of

Innocent’s words, as well as taking the letter into context with other documents from Innocent III

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 18 OF 21

in which he confesses fallibility, Tierney affirms that his conclusion would have been no different

by including the letter (Notes and Comments 1980).

The clear commonality in the criticisms are differing views on whether the infallibility

that is implied in historic records either pre- or post-medieval era refer to total infallibility or

simply the modern understanding of ex cathedra infallibility. The other commonality is that both

detractors share Tierney’s correct criticism of being overly generous to history based on their

modern theological understandings in order to maintain a more complete and continuous picture

of Catholic papal history.

His detractors also illustrate well how important his previous works were in formulating

the crux of Origins argument. Stickler actually cites Conciliar Theory several times to highlight

evidence of infallibility in the canonist writings. D’Avray cites Church and State to make his readers

aware that Tierney was indeed familiar with Pope Leo III’s letter since it was utilized in that book.

Both of these references point to how influential Tierney was in bringing to light the relevance of

his subject. It also shows how thorough and broad Tierney’s research and knowledge is.

VIII. Post-“Origins” work

The controversy around Origins kept Tierney busy for roughly a decade. In this time he

focuses on minor articles and further editions of The Middle Ages. He does not produce another

major work until 1997: The Idea of Natural Rights4. This reinforces the idea that Origins was his

life’s work. The Idea of Natural Rights shed new light on the long history of our modern concept of

inalienable rights. As has been said, Tierney continually shows how the Middle Ages were the

seedbed for many modern democratic ideals. At first blush the idea that natural rights began in

4 Religion, Law, and the Growth of Constitutional Thought 1150-1650 was published in 1984 as well,

but it is fairly limited and seems to have served primarily as a precursor to Natural Rights.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 19 OF 21

the Middle Ages may seem farfetched, but Tierney makes the case clearly and convincingly.

Natural Rights then serves not as a direct challenge to papal infallibility but a peripheral and

related addition to the general concept. The idea that the pope can speak no wrong has an overtly

dictatorship ambience that goes against the concept of power arising from below.

This general trajectory of Tierney’s work suggests that the fallout from Origins forced

Tierney to focus on less controversial subjects. Whereas up until Origins Tierney researched and

published work like the proverbial “hedgehog” of history, digging deep into his subject, he comes

out of Origins resembling more the “fox” of history, scouring the expansive edges of a wide

subject with shorter abstract articles on. His work in Natural Rights is also groundbreaking, just

as Conciliar Theory was, but it is peripheral to his main concern.

IX. Summary and Conclusion

Whether it is his work on the conciliarists, the general medieval period, or even the

medieval roots of natural rights theories, each of Brian Tierney’s works shed light and gives

critical input to the long standing issue regarding the power and infallibility of the pope. This is

illustrated in the nature of the praise and criticism Tierney has received. His followers revel in his

lucid erudition and ability to show the Middle Age to be not only relevant for today’s modern

political realities but a source of inspiration. His detractors treat him as a theological problem,

when he in actuality is seeking to allow history to be a mirror for modern theology.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 20 OF 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D’Avray, D. L. 1980. A Letter of Innocent III and the Idea of Infallibility. The Catholic Historical Review 66, no. 3: 417-421.

---. 1981. Origins of the Idea of Infallibility : A Rejoinder to Professor Tierney. The Catholic Historical Review 67, no. 1: 60-64.

Mcneill, John T. 1957. untitled. American Society of Church History 26, no. 2: 183-185.

Notes and Comments. 1980. Notes and Comments Published by : Catholic University of America. The Catholic Historical Review 66, no. 4: 693-703.

Pope Paul VI. 1966. Udienza Generale, 12 Gennaio 1966. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html.

Schoenberg, Shira. 2010. Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. The Jewish Viritual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html.

Stickler, Alfons M. 1974. Papal Infallibility : A Thirteenth-Century Invention? Reflections on a Recent Book. The Catholic Historical Review 60, no. 3: 427-441. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25019575.

---. 1975. A Rejoinder to Professor Tierney. The Catholic Historical Review 61, no. 2: 274-279.

Sweeney, James Ross, and Stanley Chodorow, eds.. 1989. Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

The Proceedings of the British Academy. 1988. Walter Ullman. The British Academy. http://www.proc.britac.ac.uk/tfiles/74p483.pdf.

Tierney, Brian. 1955. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

---. 1964. The Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

---. 1970a. The Middle Ages, Volume I: Sources of Medieval History. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

---. 1970b. The Middle Ages, Volume II: Readings in Medieval History. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

BRIAN TIERNEY

by Matt Cromwell

PAGE 21 OF 21

---. 1972. Origins of Papal Infallibility. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill.

---. 1975. Infallibility and the Medieval Canonists : A Discussion with Alfons Stickler. The Catholic Historical Review 61, no. 2: 265-273.

---. 1987. Religion and Rights: A Medieval Perspective. Journal of Law and Religion 5, no. 1: 163. doi:10.2307/1051023.

Ullmann, W, and G Sutherland. 1972. Medieval Papalism (Routledge Library Editions: Political Science Vol 36). Taylor and Francis.

Witte Jr., John. 2009. Modern Classics. Journal of Church and State 51, no. 2 (December): 341-344. doi:10.1093/jcs/csp043. http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/jcs/csp043.