Dicatus Papae

[dcointin]

I recently came across a reference to the “Dicatus Papae” of Pope Gregory VII, a series of statements about the powers of the Papacy registered in 1075. I would like to know if this document holds any authority in the Catholic Church, or if not which of these are dogmatically asserted. They seem to me to be an extreme expression of Papal supremecy, the “absolute” Petrine view which Mardukm speaks of. They are as follows:

1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2.That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3.That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4.That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5.That the pope may depose the absent.
6.That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7.That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8.That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9.That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10.That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11.That this is the only name in the world.
12.That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13.That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14.That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15.That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16.That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17.That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18.That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19.That he himself may be judged by no one.
20.That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21.That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23.That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24.That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25.That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26.That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27.That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Now, now sir - we no longer have to kiss his feet . . .

Happy Easter!

Alex

 

[Corki]

Is there a problem with this?

 

[Ocarm]

I recently came across a reference to the “Dicatus Papae” of Pope Gregory VII, a series of statements about the powers of the Papacy registered in 1075. I would like to know if this document holds any authority in the Catholic Church, or if not which of these are dogmatically asserted.

My understanding of* Dictatus Papae* is that it is a canonical rather than doctrinal statement, and so to consider it as potential dogma would be a category error. It’s notable that the statements are indeed practical and legalistic rather than obviously theological, and I believe that they summarise/reflect/ have a great deal in common with a contemporary collection of decretals or canonical provisions. In other words, this was not an isolated document that granted privileges to the pope without reference to other operative church law.

Canon law is abrogated by properly promulgated revisions that address the same issues. Since both the 1917 and 1983 Codes (and many other less comprehensive documents) cover the issues raised in * Dictatus Papae* in one form or another, then it can be presumed to be abrogated. You would need a real expert to be able to cite chapter and verse as to when this occurred in relation to each specific statement, or whether a general abrogation occurred at some point, and I’m certainly not that kind of an expert.

Hope this conditional rather than comprehensive answer helps.

 

[twf]

As has been noted, most of these points of disciplinary, rather than theological, in nature. Put in its historical context, this document reflects the political struggle between the papacy and the emperor of the time, and thus must be understood as the Church’s attempt to assert its authority, particularly in ecclesiastical matters, over that of the secular arm. Also, for all practical intents and purposes, the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope of Rome was, at this particular point in history, more or less limited to the Latin Church - the schism between West and East was well underway and even though formal communion may still have existed between Rome and some of the Eastern Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, etc), there was no or little actual communication. With that taken into consideration, much of this could be understood to reflect the Pope’s role as patriarch of the Latin Church. Finally, I believe there is much debate as to whether this was ever a valid Church document or a forgery, promulgated by certain Church bureaucrats for political reasons…

 

[hazcompat]

Romans Chapter 10:15 And how will there be preachers if they are not sent? As scripture says: How beautiful are the feet of the messenger of good news.

Happy Feet

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

There are four things to consider here:
(1) The theory that the Dictatus Papae was not in fact written by Pope St. Gregory VII. There are many reasons to doubt that these axioms were written by Pope St. Gregory VII;
(2) The fact that a great many of these axioms were written with regards to the Pope’s relation to the secular power, not in relation to the rest of the Church;
(3) The particular axioms that reflect an Absolutist Petrine position.
(4) Which of these axioms are preserved in the dogmas on the papacy.

Permit me to address (2), (3), and (4) for now. (1) will take more time than I have at the moment.

(2) The fact that a great many of these axioms were written with regards to the Pope’s relation to the secular power, not in relation to the rest of the Church
The great concern of the papacy for several centuries after the turn of the millenium was the encroachment of the secular power upon the prerogatives of the Church. Many of these axioms (3, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27), if taken in the context of the Church itself, would seem to reflect a “power grab” by the Pope from the bishops. In fact, these axioms were simply an assertion of the Pope’s power over the secular authority that tried to encroach upon the Church’s rights. For example, during these times, secular rulers had the prerogative to appoint and select bishops, and use them as pawns against the papacy. So these axioms, taken in that correct context, are not actually a papal diminution of the episcopal power, but a papal assertion of its own authority against the secular power, who used bishops as their pawns.

Having said that, I am of the opinion that as time progressed, this original intention of these axioms was somehow forgotten, and they were interpereted (wrongly) by later generations as a reference to the direct relationship between bishops and the Pope, thereby utterly subordinating the episcopate to the papacy. The development of thought on this matter found its greatest expression in the neo-ultramontanism of the 19th century, a position that was summarily rejected by the Fathers of Vatican 1.

(3) The particular axioms that reflect an Absolutist Petrine position
I can see only one that has an Absolutist Petrine ring to it - #25. That the Pope may depose and reinstate bishops without a synod. It should be clarified that this axiom did not give the Pope a unilateral prerogative to depose and reinstate. The circumstances of the times demonstrated that it was often difficult for the Pope to convene a synod, even a local one, because of interference by the secular powers. Though this axiom permitted the Pope to depose and reinstate without a synod, this collegial function was basically replaced by the cardinals. The Council of Basel-Ferrar-Florence affirmed this requirement - i.e., that the counsel (not council) of cardinals was necessary before a bishop could be deposed by a Pope. One can read about this “condition of the counsel of Cardinals” in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. This condition of counsel from cardinals applied to many actions of the Pope.

NOTE: The current Code of Canon laws has dispensed this condition, and instead made it an option for the Pope to consult with his cardinals before any major action. This has been replaced in the current Code by other conditions on the use of papal prereogatives by virtue of the law itself, which amounts to the same “balance of powers.”

If you have concerns with other axioms in this list that have an Absolutist Petrine flavor, please point them out and we can discuss them.

(4) Which of these axioms are preserved in the dogmas on the papacy
2, 18, 20, 22, 26.

All others are either merely disciplinary, or at best pious local beliefs of Latins, but not of the universal Church.

I recently came across a reference to the “Dicatus Papae” of Pope Gregory VII, a series of statements about the powers of the Papacy registered in 1075. I would like to know if this document holds any authority in the Catholic Church, or if not which of these are dogmatically asserted. They seem to me to be an extreme expression of Papal supremecy, the “absolute” Petrine view which Mardukm speaks of. They are as follows:

 

[MontChevalier]

As has been noted, most of these points of disciplinary, rather than theological, in nature. Put in its historical context, this document reflects the political struggle between the papacy and the emperor of the time, and thus must be understood as the Church’s attempt to assert its authority, particularly in ecclesiastical matters, over that of the secular arm. Also, for all practical intents and purposes, the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope of Rome was, at this particular point in history, more or less limited to the Latin Church - the schism between West and East was well underway and even though formal communion may still have existed between Rome and some of the Eastern Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, etc), there was no or little actual communication. With that taken into consideration, much of this could be understood to reflect the Pope’s role as patriarch of the Latin Church. Finally, I believe there is much debate as to whether this was ever a valid Church document or a forgery, promulgated by certain Church bureaucrats for political reasons…

The Eastern Churches had lost communication with the West for over 400 years since the invasion of Islam. The Maronites is one example of people who the Catholic Church wasn’t aware even existed.

More information on here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite_Church

I took an interest in the Maronites and I want to talk to my family to pay them a visit in Lebanon someday.

22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

Whoa! Um, I don’t know about this one. I’m not saying that they have, when it comes to scripture, but rather that there is quite a sense of pride coming out of this one. Am I the only getting that feeling from this one?

 

[Hesychios]

The Eastern Churches had lost communication with the West for over 400 years since the invasion of Islam. The Maronites is one example of people who the Catholic Church wasn’t aware even existed.

That is not true at all.

The Maronites were well known to the Catholic church through the period, before and after the Muslim conquest.

They were out of communion with the Catholic church in the region for reasons that are disputed, but they were not lost to the knowledge of the Catholic church, Catholics were their neighbors.

 

[malphono]

That is not true at all.

The Maronites were well known to the Catholic church through the period, before and after the Muslim conquest.

Perhaps “known” would suffice. I’m not so sure “well known” is particularly accurate.

They were out of communion with the Catholic church in the region for reasons that are disputed, but they were not lost to the knowledge of the Catholic church, Catholics were their neighbors.

Whether the Maronites were “out of communion” is itself disputed, but as they say “been there, done that” so I’m not going to address the point again.

What “neighbors” would those be? Just curious.

 

[Hesychios]

What “neighbors” would those be? Just curious.

That would be the Melkites, who were in communion with Rome until some time after 1054AD, although I cannot say for how long they successfully maintained that position.

They were the representative Catholic church in the region, in communion with Rome and out of communion with the Maronites and the Jacobites.

Interestingly, the general reconciliation between the Maronites of Lebanon (beset by Muslim neighbors) and the western Catholic church took place in 1182AD, when the crusaders were present and numerous and a formidible ally. But the Maronite community on Cyprus, not ‘isolated’ at all, did not follow suit and end it’s own schism for another 163 years, in 1445AD. That is probably another 7 or 8 generations beyond the Lebanese community and a full 254 years under Latin Catholic political and military control (before which they were under the Roman empirial government). Isolation cannot explain this.

 

[MontChevalier]

That is not true at all.

The Maronites were well known to the Catholic church through the period, before and after the Muslim conquest.

They were out of communion with the Catholic church in the region for reasons that are disputed, but they were not lost to the knowledge of the Catholic church, Catholics were their neighbors.

Well wikipedia seems to state quite differently. The fact that the Muslims invaded and the Maronites had to elect their own patriarch, which was defined as betrayal by the Orthodox Greeks, only shows how secluded they were from Western society. If the West knew about them, why was it that it was only after the First Crusade they agreed to join together in Communion? And even then, that’s still debatable as a sign that it was only re-addressing its communion with the see of Rome, or rather actually agreeing to joining in communion with them.

 

[Hesychios]

Well wikipedia seems to state quite differently. The fact that the Muslims invaded and the Maronites had to elect their own patriarch, which was defined as betrayal by the Orthodox Greeks, only shows how secluded they were from Western society. If the West knew about them, why was it that it was only after the First Crusade they agreed to join together in Communion? And even then, that’s still debatable as a sign that it was only re-addressing its communion with the see of Rome, or rather actually agreeing to joining in communion with them.

Well, anyone can edit Wikipedia and you can believe what pleases you. There is a lot of wishful thinking surrounding this group but the story still has to agree with the historical facts. You don’t need me to tell you this, you can figure it out for yourself.

First of all, we need to address the fact that the Catholic church is not just “west”. It never was. Before the great east-west schism there was a Catholic church in the region (it was also Orthodox of course, but that was the church of the day). This Catholic church was in communion with Rome (some would even phrase it “under the Pope”) but it was not in communion with the Maronite neighbors.

I have already stated that the Maronites on Cyprus were out of communion with anyone as well, and for a significantly longer period, even though they seem to have had a special relationshp with the patriarch which they maintained. There is evidence that they were in contact with the Maronite patriarch. The Maronite community of Cyprus has it’s own website which shows that there were four major migrations of Lebanese/Syrian Maronites to the island from the 8th century to the 13th. Two of these migrations were to Cyprus after the supposed reconciliation with Rome in 1182, yet these Maronites (as well as the Maronites that preceded them to the island) were not in communion with Rome nor with the Orthodox, suggesting that they considered themselves out of communion continually. This community, which was not isolated even before the crusades (since it was a Roman province until the 3rd crusade, not controlled by the Muslim Caliphs), did not actually come into communion with Rome until the Council of Florence a couple of centuries after contact with the crusaders led by Richard the Lionheart.

This invites study.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MontChevalier,

Whoa! Um, I don’t know about this one. I’m not saying that they have, when it comes to scripture, but rather that there is quite a sense of pride coming out of this one. Am I the only getting that feeling from this one?

If one were to understand the infallibility guaranteed by Christ to His Church as a means of control, rather than as a service for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ – I could agree with you. But perhaps 99.99% of us here do not understand infallibility that way. The organs of infallibility that the Church possesses are understood to have been given by God to the Church for the preservation of His own divine Truths. There is nothing self-serving about affirming where we can find the last court of appeal for the Truth if and when the need in the Church arises.

Keep in mind that the statement at issue is referring to matters of divine Faith and morals which are irreformible.

Note also the High Petrine (not Absolutist Petrine) expression used in the axiom. It does not say that the Roman Pontiff has never erred, but rather the Roman CHURCH has never erred. This constitutes even yet another difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views.

The Absolutist Petrine view understands “papal infallibility” as the infallibility of the Pope that is utterly unique and separate from the infallibility of the Church.

In distinction, the High Petrine view understands “papal infallibility” as the infallibility of the Church exercised in a unique way and under unique circumstances by the Pope.

Do you understand the difference?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

That would be the Melkites …

:yawn:

Well, anyone can edit Wikipedia and you can believe what pleases you. There is a lot of wishful thinking surrounding this group but the story still has to agree with the historical facts. You don’t need me to tell you this, you can figure it out for yourself.

Double :yawn:

All of this is similar to the monothelite charge often levied against the Maronites in that the details and records are rather murky and cannot be definitively proven either way. It’s something like trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint Methuselah’s real age. Some folks are hell-bent on insisting that the charges are true, and others similarly adamant in insisting that they are false. And then there are those of us who take the position that IF the charges were true for a period in history, they were clearly not so before that period, and equally clearly not so since that period. IOW, it is of no practical consequence.

 

[Hesychios]

All of this is similar to the monothelite charge …

I didn’t mention Monotheliteism.

Why do you bring it up?

 

[Aramis]

I didn’t mention Monotheliteism.

Why do you bring it up?

It’s the charge levied against them at the time of their isolation by their neighbors, and the primary visible cause for their isolation…

In bringing up their non-communion with their neighbors, you yourself actually made it relevant, and if malpono hadn’t, someone else would have to have, to point out the inaccuracy of your statements.

They were only out of communion technically with the neighboring churches; they were small enough to be essentially unnoticed by the rest of the Christian world until.

 

[MontChevalier]

Dear brother MontChevalier,

If one were to understand the infallibility guaranteed by Christ to His Church as a means of control, rather than as a service for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ – I could agree with you. But perhaps 99.99% of us here do not understand infallibility that way. The organs of infallibility that the Church possesses are understood to have been given by God to the Church for the preservation of His own divine Truths. There is nothing self-serving about affirming where we can find the last court of appeal for the Truth if and when the need in the Church arises.

Keep in mind that the statement at issue is referring to matters of divine Faith and morals which are irreformible.

Note also the High Petrine (not Absolutist Petrine) expression used in the axiom. It does not say that the Roman Pontiff has never erred, but rather the Roman CHURCH has never erred. This constitutes even yet another difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views.

The Absolutist Petrine view understands “papal infallibility” as the infallibility of the Pope that is utterly unique and separate from the infallibility of the Church.

In distinction, the High Petrine view understands “papal infallibility” as the infallibility of the Church exercised in a unique way and under unique circumstances by the Pope.

Do you understand the difference?

Blessings,
Marduk

The way you express it makes much more sense.

Yes, thank you.

-MontChevaler

 

[Hesychios]

… they were small enough to be essentially unnoticed by the rest of the Christian world until.

That is your opinion, and it really means you are going to have to give us some direction.

Like how small was it, really, compared to the neighbors. How small is too small?

What are we to make of the Maronites in Cyprus? Do you suppose they hid in caves for five hundred years?