Collegiality -- Question for Mardukm

[Byz_Guy]

Are you sure about this? I have read some articles on Catholic Answers and they don’t seem to support the Absolute Petrine view. Can you give some examples?

I said Catholic Answers “tends” towards that view.

First, the problem is the terminology which is not standard. The terms “High Petrine View” or “Absolutist Petrine” are Marduk’s terms. They are not standard terms used by specialists.

Now, I have read hundreds of pages at the Catholic Answers website and several years of This Rock magazine and I’ve never seen anything there that comes close to these statements by Marduk.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=643374&page=2

There is the FORMAL authority of the Pope with his brother bishops. There is also a FORMAL authority of the Pope that is his personally, that is not shared by his brother bishops. But the Pope uses and CAN ONLY use this personal authority in response to the needs of the Church through his brother bishops. To repeat, you have quoted ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that says that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops.

The Pope can never separate himself from this College. He is either exercising formal authority WITH his brother bishops, or he is exercising formal authority personally IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS of the Church through his brother bishops. AT NO TIME IS OR CAN THE POPE BE OR CAN EXERCISE AUTHORITY SEPARATED FROM THE COLLEGE.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599730&page=10

The College of bishops ALWAYS exists, as Vatican 2 teaches. It is not always acting with the FORMAL authority of a College, but it always exists. The Pope can never separate himself from this College. He is either exercising formal authority WITH his brother bishops, or he is exercising formal authority personally IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS of the Church through his brother bishops. AT NO TIME IS OR CAN THE POPE BE OR CAN EXERCISE AUTHORITY SEPARATED FROM THE COLLEGE.

Perhaps I’ve missed where Catholic Answers has essentially stated the same thing. If someone has references, I’d appreciate them being shared.

Notice, however, these couple of references from the Catholic Answers website that discuss the relationship between papal infallibility and papal authority (just took a couple of minutes to find these):

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

The whole group (the College of Bishops) can teach infallibly, either gathered together in councils that its leader, the pope, recognizes as “ecumenical” (that is, sufficiently representative of the whole Church), or even, under certain conditions, while remaining dispersed around the world. Finally, the pope, even when speaking alone, is guaranteed the charism of infallibility in his most formal (ex cathedra) pronouncements.

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-vatican-ii-do-away-with-papal-infallibility

There is no Vatican II document which “did away with” papal infallibility. Vatican II actually reaffirmed, in no uncertain terms, the teaching of Vatican I on papal authority…
Vatican II restated Vatican I’s teaching on the papacy, but also sketched out the role of bishops in the Church. Bishops as teachers and pastors acting in union with the pope are said to be acting according to the principle of collegiality.

There is a renewed stress on the pope as head of a college of bishops, but there is nothing which subordinates the pope to this college. In no sense can Vatican II be taken as “doing away with” papal authority as previously defined.

From my years of reading the Catholic Answers site and publications, there has never been any indication they have any concern to stress that “the Pope can [not] act apart or separated from his brother bishops.”

 

[Byz_Guy]

Continued…

Besides inventing the terminology, some terms are defined in the way that puts them in a negative way. For example,

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=643374&page=2

Absolutist Petrine: This means the Pope can interfere in local Church affairs as he sees fit with no regard for the local bishop.

Absolutist Petrine: This means the Pope can make the rules according to his mere discretion w/ no regard for anyone else in the Church.

Generally speaking, the authority that Catholic teaching generally gives to the Pope is not exercised in a capricious way. Marduk correctly cites this recent Vatican document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.

It earlier had explained:

The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church’s obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church’s divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.33 The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.

Later it also states:

1. In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church’s concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

Who has the last word on how it the papal office is to be exercised? According to this document, it is the Pope or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council.

Many, probably most, things are done in a collegial manner. But, not all. One recent example is the promugation of Ad Tuendem Fidem:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

JOHN PAUL II

Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio
AD TUENDAM FIDEM,
by which certain norms are inserted
into the Code of Canon Law
and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches…

These new canons and changes to canons were not a collegial act done with the Bishops of the world. Rather, the Pope acted alone in directing this be done. That is the basic meaning of the words “motu proprio” used at the beginning of the document.

Some consider the promulgation of Ad Tuendem Fidem a response to the Zoghby Proposal which the Melkite Church had backed as a way to have dual communion between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Rome’s rejection of the Zoghby Proposal was just a few months earlier. In this scenario, then, Ad Tuendem Fidem could be viewed as a corrective to the Zoghby Proposal, issued by the Pope.

To read one Melkite Catholic’s understanding of how this all played out and the significance of Ad Tuendem Fidem for the Zoghby Initiative:

orthocath.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/are-the-ratzinger-and-zoghby-proposals-dead-20080404-1.pdf

 

[mardukm]

There is no Vatican II document which “did away with” papal infallibility. Vatican II actually reaffirmed, in no uncertain terms, the teaching of Vatican I on papal authority…Vatican II restated Vatican I’s teaching on the papacy, but also sketched out the role of bishops in the Church. Bishops as teachers and pastors acting in union with the pope are said to be acting according to the principle of collegiality.

This is the whole crux of the matter. You think that collegiality subordinates the head to the body, or that supremacy subordinates the body to the head.

That’s a mentality that I don’t share as an Oriental. With a lot of Latins and Easterns, it is all about a POWER COMPETITION between the head bishop and his brother bishops. To Orientals, it is about how the head bishop WORKS WITH his brother bishops.

Until you see that “WORKING WITH” is not about SUBORDINATION, we will never agree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps I’ve missed where Catholic Answers has essentially stated the same thing. If someone has references, I’d appreciate them being shared.

Yes, you have missed a lot of what I wrote that quotes Magisterial documents to support what I stated. I don’t read Catholic Answers articles or apologetics in general because I prefer to read Magisterial and other source documents.

Notice, however, these couple of references from the Catholic Answers website that discuss the relationship between papal infallibility and papal authority (just took a couple of minutes to find these):

The whole group (the College of Bishops) can teach infallibly, either gathered together in councils that its leader, the pope, recognizes as “ecumenical” (that is, sufficiently representative of the whole Church), or even, under certain conditions, while remaining dispersed around the world. Finally, the pope, even when speaking alone, is guaranteed the charism of infallibility in his most formal (ex cathedra) pronouncements.

I don’t know what the author is trying to say exactly. If he is saying that the Pope can exercise his primatial prerogatives PERSONALLY, that is fine, and his wording is imprecise. But if he is saying “even when speaking alone” to mean that the Pope can act apart or separated from the rest of the Magisterium, then, bluntly put, THE AUTHOR IS WRONG AND IS CONTRADICTING THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

The Canons say that when he exercising his primatial office, the Pope is ALWAYS united to the Church and his brother bishops. I prefer to listen to the Magisterium rather than some apologist. And I humbly suggest you do the same.

From my years of reading the Catholic Answers site and publications, there has never been any indication they have any concern to stress that “the Pope can [not] act apart or separated from his brother bishops.”

Why would that concern me? Many already know my pov here in CAF. If I was expressing Catholic teaching falsely, I am sure I would have been banned by now, or they would have at least warned me that I am misrepresenting the Catholic Faith. Perhaps those who have read my statements believe I am expressing an understanding of V1 that is well within Catholic orthodoxy. I have certainly been diligent to quote Magisterial sources.

Generally speaking, the authority that Catholic teaching generally gives to the Pope is not exercised in a capricious way.

Yes, but you have obviously not been reading the debates I have had with Absolutist Petrine advocates here on CAF very diligently.
The following views have been expressed by them:
(1) An Ecumenical Council is infallible because of the Pope alone.
(2) An Ecumenical Council is authoritative because of the Pope alone.
(3) The Pope does not have to listen to the teaching of the orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church when making an ex cathedra statement.
(4) Vatican 1 had no authority to limit the authority of the Pope.
(5) There will come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth.
(6) There will come a time when the Pope will be the only orthodox member of the Church left on earth.
(7) The authority of the Pope is not constrained by the needs of the Church, but only by his mere discretion.
(8) The Pope can do away with the Eastern and Oriental Traditions on his sole discretion.

Are you telling me that CAF supports these positions? Show us where, PLEASE! Direct statements would be best, instead of statements from which we need to extrapolate the answers.

As far as the issue of Ad Tuendem Fidem, it seems the Melkite author observes a tension between Vatican 1 and the Church of the first Millenium. However, it must be stated that such a tension is not explicit in Ad Tuendem Fidem itself. One can certainly extrapolate that, but it is not immediately obvious. If one interprets V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine sense, then I can definitely see the obvious tension. But if one understands V1 according to its true, High Petrine intentions (i.e., per the Official Relatio), then the tensions dissolve, and the prescriptions of Ad Tuendem Fidem should not be seen as some unilateral action by the Pope, but an action that reflects the mind of the Church as a whole.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

Dear Brother Marduk,

Thanks for the responses. I have never said that I believed Catholic Answers holds what you term “Absolutist Petrine” views. I said they “tend” towards the position you have created. I see no evidence that Catholic Answers holds the lower notions of petrine authority that you do. Again, you’re capable of good writing. Submit an article on these issues to them. and see if they will publish it:

catholic.com/about/magazine-submissions

It may be that your position is what could be called a tolerated position in the Catholic Church. I’m no expert on such things. I do feel confident that your position would not be published by Catholic Answers on their site or in This Rock.

As far as the issue of Ad Tuendem Fidem, it seems the Melkite author observes a tension between Vatican 1 and the Church of the first Millenium. However, it must be stated that such a tension is not explicit in Ad Tuendem Fidem itself. One can certainly extrapolate that, but it is not immediately obvious. If one interprets V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine sense, then I can definitely see the obvious tension. But if one understands V1 according to its true, High Petrine intentions (i.e., per the Official Relatio), then the tensions dissolve, and the prescriptions of Ad Tuendem Fidem should not be seen as some unilateral action by the Pope, but an action that reflects the mind of the Church as a whole.

The point is that Ad Tuendam Fidem was no collegial act. The Pope did not solicit the opinions of the college of Bishops before changing canon law. I think it’s highly doubtful he ran it past the Melkite Greek Catholic Church’s Patriarch or its Synod of Bishops. You can go and on about the Pope and the College of Bishops never being separated but there are times that the Pope acts unilaterally. In this case, the changes can be perceived as a challenge to the Melkite Church which still professes the Zoghby Proposal.

The author of the article I linked above (“Are the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby Initiative Dead?”) has on his own accepted the papal action that changed canon law. He no longer professes the Zohgby Initiative:

"I am afraid that I am confirmed in my judgment that the Ratzinger Proposal and Zoghby Initiative, as I and others interpreted them (that is, as demarcating a tertium quid between second millennium Roman Catholicisim and second millennium Orthodoxy), are dead, except perhaps in those very specific places (like the Melkite Synod) where those who espouse them are still tolerated by Rome. For those of us subject to the full force (and enforcement) of Roman Canon Law, both Eastern and Western, Ad Tuendam Fidem closes that ecumenical chapter of the Church’s history."

See: eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/are-the-ratzinger-proposal-and-zoghby-initiative-dead/

 

[Byz_Guy]

This is the whole crux of the matter. You think that collegiality subordinates the head to the body, or that supremacy subordinates the body to the head.

That’s a mentality that I don’t share as an Oriental. With a lot of Latins and Easterns, it is all about a POWER COMPETITION between the head bishop and his brother bishops. To Orientals, it is about how the head bishop WORKS WITH his brother bishops.

Until you see that “WORKING WITH” is not about SUBORDINATION, we will never agree.

Blessings,
Marduk

I was not stating my opinion. You are reacting to a direct quote I gave from the Catholic Answers site with which you apparently disagree.

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-vatican-ii-do-away-with-papal-infallibility