Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[sasg]

The teaching on infallibility is definitional

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

1. • 
     Nothing in the above contradicts anything I said; in fact it is exactly what I said! The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra for his teaching to be infallible. The Pope teaches many things on faith and morals, but not all of them are infallible teachings, only the ones that meet the criteria defined in Vatican I.
     
     None of that changes the fact that a Pope can adopt a heresy, and can even teach heresy. But the Holy Spirit would not allow a heretic Pope to attempt to teach a heresy infallibly ex cathedra.
     

     So why speculate?

     look closely at the definition above. It is written very specifically. No pope has violated that. There have been 266 since Peter so far.
     
     BTW, when you see words like the following "we teach and define" then what follows is an infallible statement.
     
     Example
     
     Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching (teach and define)

     With all due respect to Mr Akin, that article is his personal theological speculation and is not official teaching of the Church. I have never come across any official document enumerating the infallible teachings of the Church, nor specifying that Papal proclamation of a saint is infallible. That belief is held by many theologians, but so is a contrary belief; and only Rome can clarify definitively. As far as I am aware, it has not done so.
     
     The fact remains that, in theory, it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic and to teach heresy. Just not ex cathedra. Whether or not it has happened in the past is an empirical question, and in any case has no bearing on Catholic ecclesiology or the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, I don’t think you hide that you are already questioning why you’re Catholic for reasons that have nothing to do with the SSPX.

The SSPX is just one of a number of things I am looking at.

The point is if the Pope is willing to say frame Vatican II in a different light, maybe the traditionalists were right all along. Whatever the intention of Vat II, some modernists had different intentions, and maybe the Pope is saying the intentions that some brought into it is not how VAT II was to be interpreted.

It would really depend how the whole thing turns out. If the special concessions are given to the SSPX exclusively, then it is not the right thing to do. If Vatican II is redefined for all, then that is a different thing. It would really depend on how this is handled.

I don’t want this thread to be derailed, but why does this trouble you so?

Concessions should not be made for the truth. While unity is important, the truth is more important. We shouldn’t compromise the truth for the sake of unity. Then the union will be a lie.

Jesus did say, He would build His Church, and we know where the see of Peter is.

Antioch?

“I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” is an article of faith…true? After saying that, then next is obedience to what we say we believe in.

And we are to be obedient to the Pope alone?

When writing to the Church of Rome, Paul says

Rom 1: 1-8
1 Paul, a servant * of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and designated * Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship* to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; 7* To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8* First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

is obedience of faith an option? No

Of course not. But we have to discern if we are being obedient to the right thing. We aren’t to be obedient to sin, only to Christ.

Rm 16:17-20, 26
17* I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, * and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19* For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20* then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith–

It’s not just faith but obedience of faith that Paul is to bring about. Obedience of faith is a command from God. Paul opens up the book of Romans teaching it, and he closes the book of Romans teaching it. And notice, for those who are obedient to the faith, Paul rejoices over them. And since Paul is writing under the power of the HS, we know then, God rejoices over those who are obedient to faith, because they are being obedient to Jesus Christ and for the sake of His name

I’m not contesting this.

Truth is not schizophrenic…true?

Of course! There is only one truth.

Did you happen to see the quotes/links I gave from Melkite Bp John ?

“When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be “more papist that the Pope;” but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”
There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.” This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.”
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-...yclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

“To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

And this is what I have been saying all along. If we are to be Catholic, we should accept this, no ifs, no buts. If we cannot accept it and put some rhetoric into what the Pope should be, then we should ask ourselves why we are not Catholic. I have never said anything on the contrary.

 

[Carefree_T]

I don’t want to deceive you: I admit that there’s a lot of papal oversight that goes on in the Catholic Church today. What I said about the patriarchal Catholic churches is true; that said, of the twenty-two eastern Catholic churches in existence, only six are patriarchal and thus operate with that true level of autonomy. The “major archepiscopal” churches I mentioned above are, if I recall correctly, four in number. And the other twelve eastern Catholic churches are either run by synods whose metropolitan is appointed directly by the pope, exist solely as individual eparchies, or even operate under the local Latin bishop.

So the situation is far from ideal, and the current structure of the eastern Catholic churches is not designed to be permanent. Rather, it’s designed so that they can easily be folded back into their Orthodox mother churches in the event of reunion.

Not that I know of, but I think we can assume it’ll be worked out anew. It’s literally inconceivable that the current structure of patriarchal vs. major archepiscopal vs. metropolitan vs. individual eparchies vs. no hierarchy structure of the eastern Catholic churches is something the Catholic hierarchy would want to sustain. It’s only that way now because our churches are still in schism from each other.

It’s a related matter, and a very complex one. In theory, we must all hold to the same faith and dogmas, but beliefs and theology can differ, and the Catholic Church accepts the Orthodox beliefs and theology to be, well, orthodox.

In practice, working all this out will be difficult, though, because there will be disagreements over what counts as “dogma” and what counts as mere “belief” or “theology.”

I was referring not to the structure of the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches, which is pretty good, but rather to the structure of, for instance, an eastern Catholic church like the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, which is governed by a four-bishop synod - covering the entire United States - whose metropolitan is appointed directly by the pope.

That’s the sort of structure that would be re-worked. In no reunion scenario would the pope be appointing metropolitans for other autonomous churches.

This is all very reassuring to hear; thanks for the detailed response. My optimism, which you noted, is rooted in learning these things about the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure as the Eastern Catholic churches go.

I’m not sure; perhaps Vico can answer you. My guess is that he does not approve synods of a church that has its own metropolitan, patriarch, etc. The pope does, however, approve the decrees and canons of ecumenical councils, just as he did in the first millennium. In the Catholic Church papal approval is considered necessary for a council to be truly ecumenical, as - to paraphrase Apostolic Canon 34 - the head and the body must not act without the other.

Well, of course papal approval is needed for approval of an ecumenical council; hence the Orthodox haven’t had a council we consider ecumenical since the schism, because the Patriarch of Rome wasn’t involved even by acknowledgement. Except the Orthodox believe it generally needs approval of all the patriarchs regardless, with an emphasis, though not necessarily exceptional (i.e. the whole episode of poor Pope Vigilius, who only later acknowledged the decisions of Constantinople II, which was held and closed entirely without him let alone his approval), on the Pope of Rome’s approval as the first in honor (i.e. Chalcedon being ecumenical with Rome’s approval and Alexandria’s dissent). But as mentioned earlier, the ecumenicity of a council hinges on its adherence to the Tradition of the Apostles and not who approved or didn’t approve it, hence my examples of Constantinople II (not approved by Rome) and Chalcedon (not approved by Alexandria).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well, of course papal approval is needed for approval of an ecumenical council; hence the Orthodox haven’t had a council we consider ecumenical since the schism, because the Patriarch of Rome wasn’t involved even by acknowledgement. Except the Orthodox believe it generally needs approval of all the patriarchs regardless, with an emphasis, though not necessarily exceptional (i.e. the whole episode of poor Pope Vigilius, who only later acknowledged the decisions of Constantinople II, which was held and closed entirely without him let alone his approval), on the Pope of Rome’s approval as the first in honor (i.e. Chalcedon being ecumenical with Rome’s approval and Alexandria’s dissent). But as mentioned earlier, the ecumenicity of a council hinges on its adherence to the Tradition of the Apostles and not who approved or didn’t approve it, hence my examples of Constantinople II (not approved by Rome) and Chalcedon (not approved by Alexandria).

That’s not really true. There is nothing magic about the approval of patriarch. Furthermore, once a patriarch leaves the fold, his approval is obviously no longer necessary. We have in fact had several councils during the second millennium which are of general authority, even though we do not give them the title ecumenical.

 

[Carefree_T]

That’s not really true. There is nothing magic about the approval of patriarch. Furthermore, once a patriarch leaves the fold, his approval is obviously no longer necessary. We have in fact had several councils during the second millennium which are of general authority, even though we do not give them the title ecumenical.

Indeed; I attempted to emphasize that the Faith of a council is more important than the signatures of any percentage of patriarchs (Alexandria leaving after Chalcedon and Rome not being involved in Constantinople II). But it did seem to be important to the early Church in most cases that all the patriarchs consent, which is why there were at times uproars when councils started without delegates from certain sees (Ephesus I), and also why we see a lot of goofy political situations like patriarchs being imprisoned or otherwise given over to physical duress until they confessed the canons of the council (Constantinople II).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Pope should be a check-and-balance of the Church, not her benevolent dictator.

IMHO, this is the desired state. In reading the texts and the many arguments for and against Pastor Aeternus and related, I’m never sure whether or not that is the truly intended state.

If the SSPX gets a pass on Vatican II, I’d be greatly disappointed and question myself why I am Catholic.

With due respect to those here who favor and pray for reconciliation, I do agree - it would (and should) be somewhat disappointing, confusing to say the least, if a “pass on VII” is somehow given.

There was a CNS article quoted in a recent thread, quoting Archbishop Di Nioa as saying:

It is possible to have theological disagreements while remaining in communion with the see of Peter. Part of what we’re saying is that when you read the documents [of Vatican II], you can’t read them from the point of view of some liberal bishops who may have been participants (at the council), you have to read them at face value. Given that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, the documents cannot be in discontinuity with tradition.

Paraphrased: one may disagree, yet must ignore the viewpoint of liberal bishops who participated in VII and read the documents as written. And, by the way, the Church could not have strayed via VII.

It is unclear to me how one can be in fundamental disagreement while still being fully obedient to the Church and, as a bishop, properly aligned with one’s fellow bishops comprising the Magisterium.

 

[jam070406]

IMHO, this is the desired state. In reading the texts and the many arguments for and against Pastor Aeternus and related, I’m never sure whether or not that is the truly intended state.

With due respect to those here who favor and pray for reconciliation, I do agree - it would (and should) be somewhat disappointing, confusing to say the least, if a “pass on VII” is somehow given.

There was a CNS article quoted in a recent thread, quoting Archbishop Di Nioa as saying:

Paraphrased: one may disagree, yet must ignore the viewpoint of liberal bishops who participated in VII and read the documents as written. And, by the way, the Church could not have strayed via VII.

It is unclear to me how one can be in fundamental disagreement while still being fully obedient to the Church and, as a bishop, properly aligned with one’s fellow bishops comprising the Magisterium.

Because there are Bishops and Priests that have misinterpreted some of the text and rendered a meaning that contradicts past Tradition.
The SSPX are not getting a free pass. They are being told don’t throw the baby out with the bath water because dissenting voices have wrenched texts to mean what they do not mean. In other words, as Pope Benedict has said, the texts can and should be read in light of Tradition and he’s trying to convey that to the SSPX.

 

[ConstantineTG]

IMHO, this is the desired state. In reading the texts and the many arguments for and against Pastor Aeternus and related, I’m never sure whether or not that is the truly intended state.

Well, saying the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction pretty much says it all.

With due respect to those here who favor and pray for reconciliation, I do agree - it would (and should) be somewhat disappointing, confusing to say the least, if a “pass on VII” is somehow given.

Definitely. The results of a council or synod should always be universally applied until there is something else that would replace it, in the case of course of “disciplinary” measures. The sad fact is that I see a lot around the forums that act like Protestants. “Sola de fide” would be a nice term for them, “If it is not de fide, I don’t have to believe it, I don’t have to follow it.” So they make-up terms like “V2 is a pastoral council, nothing infallible declared,” as excuses to ignore it and pretend it never happened. That is not the way of the Church and definitely such attitude is heterodox.

I
There was a CNS article quoted in a recent thread, quoting Archbishop Di Nioa as saying:

Paraphrased: one may disagree, yet must ignore the viewpoint of liberal bishops who participated in VII and read the documents as written. And, by the way, the Church could not have strayed via VII.

It is unclear to me how one can be in fundamental disagreement while still being fully obedient to the Church and, as a bishop, properly aligned with one’s fellow bishops comprising the Magisterium.

Obedience and disagreement are two different things. We are called to obedience, not agreement. Which means we can disagree all we want, but we must still be obedient to the Church. So like it or not, we have to be obedient to the Church and all her decrees.

 

[steve_b]

With all due respect to Mr Akin, that article is his personal theological speculation and is not official teaching of the Church. I have never come across any official document enumerating the infallible teachings of the Church, nor specifying that Papal proclamation of a saint is infallible. That belief is held by many theologians, but so is a contrary belief; and only Rome can clarify definitively. As far as I am aware, it has not done so.

The fact remains that, in theory, it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic and to teach heresy. Just not ex cathedra. Whether or not it has happened in the past is an empirical question, and in any case has no bearing on Catholic ecclesiology or the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Akin focuses on the language of the dogma. Particularly the words “teach” and “define” which begin the definition of infallibility. Those words trigger an infallible statement when the pope defines a doctrine on faith and morals, intended for the entire Church. Therefore Akin is quoting the Church and is not speculating, and he gives multiple examples where that language and circumstance was used. The meaning of ex cathedra is in those 3 conditions mentioned.

(all emphasis mine)

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• that is, when,
  1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
  2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
  3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

• 
  

  • he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

We can’t take one statement to be the be-all, end-all definitive interpretation of the Papacy. There are too many official texts out there that say otherwise.

Agreed, and I think this advice is best leveled at those who selectively quote the infamous passage from Pastor Aeternus…

The Pope does impede the authority of local bishops. In the Latin Church if the bishop doesn’t want to give you a Latin Mass, there’s a Vatican commission you write to.

That matter doesn’t belong to the purview of a local bishop’s proper authority in the first place, though, since it concerns the Liturgy of the entire Latin Church. I think I wasn’t specific enough about what I’ve learned, so I’ll recap:

• the pope has ordinary authority everywhere, at all levels, all the time, directly
• the pope has proper authority only in (a) his diocese (the Diocese of Rome) and in (b) matters that pertain to the whole Catholic Church or the whole Latin Church, rather than just one diocese.

To summarize it negatively: The Pope of Rome lacks proper authority only in matters that pertain to another bishop’s diocesan jurisdiction.

The Liturgies of the Latin Church do not pertain to any specific diocese but to the whole Latin Church; therefore, according at least to my (admittedly quite fallible) understanding, the Pope as Supreme Pontiff does have proper authority in matters that pertain to them.

As before, I don’t think we actually disagree, Constantine. What I’m claiming does reflect the great amount and extent of papal authority in the Catholic Church today. I just think it’s important that people understand that, in all these theoretical and even practical ways, his authority is meant to support the (also divinely established) authority of his brother bishops. Peter must confirm his brethren, not micromanage them…

And before you say, “but that’s the Latin Church, he wouldn’t do that in the Eastern Church,” I point back again to Pope John Paul II’s clarification on Vatican I stating that just because the Roman Pontiff has not exercised an authority in the past, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it. If he does it in the Latin Church, I’m sure it will be done in an Eastern Church when the necessity for it arises.

As you have (I presume) just read, “that’s the Latin Church, he wouldn’t do that in the Eastern Churches” was not my explanation/defense.

Well, some did come from Rome at some point in the past. The problem today is that it has been ingrained too much for us to get rid of it.

Of course, I acknowledge that sometimes it was Rome imposing them. I do think it’s surprising how often, though, it actually wasn’t.

Although for me if this was clearly stated as the norm, its acceptable. This to me is more High Petrine than absolutist. The Pope should be a check-and-balance of the Church, not her benevolent dictator.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I’d think any Pope does, to some extent. That is what the Church teaches about the Papacy, why would they believe something else?

Of course popes are classical Ultramontanists. I was claiming that only Pius IX, to my knowledge, was neo-Ultramontanist (and even then only until Vatican I).

What some call the “High Petrine” view is classical Ultramontanism. It’s what I personally believe in.

What some call the “Absolutist Petrine” view is neo-Ultramontanism.

Of course not, they’re not Catholic

I meant “little-o” orthodox, as in adhering to the true faith. I wasn’t intending to refer to bishops of the Orthodox churches.

If it was this way, then I’d agree. But I see so many indications that points to the contrary.

Fair enough.

But then again, I’m just saying we should gladly accept that truth rather than wrangle around creating fascinations of what the Papacy is not in reality. Lets be honest and say, we’re Catholic and we are all under the Pope.

To be honest, I don’t have a problem with saying that Catholics are under the pope, but nor do I have a problem with eastern Catholics’ saying, “We’re in communion with the pope, not under him.” The word “under” in this context is a spatial metaphor. Literally, the floor is what’s under the pope, yet both of the above statements, I think, emphasize the truth in different ways.

I guess I personally like to emphasize that technically all Catholics are under the supreme authority of the Church, which can be exercised by the bishops collectively or by the pope, who - it is true - can always exercise it at his discretion.

I’ve been saying the same thing. I don’t know why run after the SSPX. And right now to the extent of endangering the integrity of the Papacy. But then again, all we have right now is hearsay. I hope the reports are wrong. If the SSPX gets a pass on Vatican II, I’d be greatly disappointed and question myself why I am Catholic.

It would bother me, too. I personally do believe that, thorny infallibility questions aside, the Second Vatican Council is an ecumenical council. I would find it inconceivable that a fully recognized Catholic group would be allowed to publicly call into question the validity of the teachings of an ecumenical council. And contrary to popular belief, Vatican II does concern itself with doctrine, particularly concerning Holy Orders (that episcopal consecration is not just a loosing of powers granted at priestly ordination but a distinct tier of the Sacrament of Holy Orders), the Church (collegiality, the nature of the episcopate, etc.), the relationship of the Church to non-Catholic groups and non-Christian religions, etc. Those teachings go far beyond mere pastoral considerations, and they’re important. I see great wisdom in the balance struck by the Council between postmodernity and Tradition.

This is commonly heard on CAF, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other places where one could hear just the opposite. (Not that really want to get into a debate about it – I’m not a big fan of the SSPX.)

What do you mean? I feel that people here on these forums generally make excuses for the SSPX…

Indeed; I attempted to emphasize that the Faith of a council is more important than the signatures of any percentage of patriarchs (Alexandria leaving after Chalcedon and Rome not being involved in Constantinople II). But it did seem to be important to the early Church in most cases that all the patriarchs consent, which is why there were at times uproars when councils started without delegates from certain sees (Ephesus I), and also why we see a lot of goofy political situations like patriarchs being imprisoned or otherwise given over to physical duress until they confessed the canons of the council (Constantinople II).

Understood.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Obedience and disagreement are two different things. We are called to obedience, not agreement. Which means we can disagree all we want, but we must still be obedient to the Church. So like it or not, we have to be obedient to the Church and all her decrees.

Understood, but I did say “fundamental disagreement” quite intentionally.

Again, perhaps I just do not understand this whole SSPX movement. Likewise I may have been exposed only to some of the most extreme elements within, but when one hears sermons of so-called SSPX priests calling the Pope a liar and heretic, it seems that disagreement has clearly crossed the line and has become disobedience at a very basic level.

 

[Peter_J]

That matter doesn’t belong to the purview of a local bishop’s proper authority in the first place, though, since it concerns the Liturgy of the entire Latin Church.

I agree, except insofar as the last part of that statement seems to imply that the Roman Rite is the only Rite of the Latin Church. It isn’t the only one (for example, the Mozarabic Rite is one as well).

What do you mean? I feel that people here on these forums generally make excuses for the SSPX…

That hasn’t been my experience; but I was away for a while so it’s possible things have changed.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I agree, except insofar as the last part of that statement seems to imply that the Roman Rite is the only Rite of the Latin Church. It isn’t the only one (for example, the Mozarabic Rite is one as well).

Ah, yes, great point. I actually tried to phrase it in a way that wouldn’t imply the Latin Church’s only rite is the Roman one, but I see now that I failed.

That hasn’t been my experience; but I was away for a while so it’s possible things have changed.

Nah, you’re probably right. I don’t read threads about the SSPX too closely. Maybe people who defend them just stand out to me a lot or something.

 

[steve_b]

To summarize it negatively: The Pope of Rome lacks proper authority only in matters that pertain to another bishop’s diocesan jurisdiction.

Pope sacks bishop

Individual bishops are responsible for their individual diocese. They have no authority in anyone elses diocese. If the pope replaces a bishop for a grave matter, he needs no other authority to do that. Only the pope can replace a bad bishop in a diocese. It’s rarely done but he has that authority.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Pope sacks bishop

Individual bishops are responsible for their individual diocese. They have no authority in anyone elses diocese. If the pope replaces a bishop for a grave matter, he needs no other authority to do that. Only the pope can replace a bad bishop in a diocese. It’s rarely done but he has that authority.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/

The actions of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in this case are perfectly consistent with the principle that the pope lacks proper authority in matters that pertain specifically to another bishop’s diocese, for the following reason:

This lack of proper authority does not mean that the pope can never intervene in what belongs to the purview of another bishop’s proper jurisdiction. The pope does have appellate jurisdiction in such matters, and with just reason he can indeed intervene.

Heterodoxy is one such just reason. The Australian bishop was promoting clearly heretical positions: the ordination of women and the validity of Masses offered by Protestant ministers. The pope’s ordinary universal authority and appellate jurisdiction definitely kicks in for such a case.

In fact, this action is a great example of a truly beneficial use of supreme papal authority: the pope will support and confirm his brother bishops if he can, but if there’s a serious problem like heresy, he certainly has the power to step in and do what is necessary to correct the problem.

 

[sasg]

Akin focuses on the language of the dogma. Particularly the words “teach” and “define” which begin the definition of infallibility. Those words trigger an infallible statement when the pope defines a doctrine on faith and morals, intended for the entire Church. Therefore Akin is quoting the Church and is not speculating, and he gives multiple examples where that language and circumstance was used. The meaning of ex cathedra is in those 3 conditions mentioned.

If what you say is true, please point out from which document Mr Akin is “quoting the Church”. Which Church document says papal canonizations are infallible? Where does it say every time the Pope says “We define” that the statement is infallible? I have never seen such a document, and I highly doubt it exists, or Mr Akin would have quoted it in his argument. Mr Akin does not speak on behalf of the Church, but only in his capacity as a theologian. What he is asserting might be true, and you are free to believe it–but it is neither required belief within the Catholic Church, nor is it universally held, nor is it part of any official Church teaching that I have ever read.

Regardless of whether, in the case of specific canonizations, a Pope desired to make an infallible statement, your claim that anytime “teach” or “define” are invoked the definition must be infallible is also incorrect. A Pope must be willfully defining a doctrine as infallible, and it must be in accordance with the conditions laid out at Vatican I. Words do not constrain the Pope. If he wishes to say “We define X to be true” and he does not will that it is an infallible statement, or that it applies to the entire universal Church, etc., then it is not infallible. To claim that a Pope could make an infallible statement against his will is an absurdity. Do Popes intend to make infallible statements when they canonize saints? It is very difficult to know without further information from the Pope. We can speculate, theologians can speculate, Mr Akin can speculate–but ultimately, without more information from the Pope, that is all we can do.

My point in all this is that Papal Infallibility is much more limited than many people believe it to be. This is important because if someday a Pope adopts some unorthodox belief, it must not compromise the Catholic faith or lead people to doubt previous infallible statements.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Agreed, and I think this advice is best leveled at those who selectively quote the infamous passage from Pastor Aeternus…

But that one is infallible

That matter doesn’t belong to the purview of a local bishop’s proper authority in the first place, though, since it concerns the Liturgy of the entire Latin Church. I think I wasn’t specific enough about what I’ve learned, so I’ll recap:

• the pope has ordinary authority everywhere, at all levels, all the time, directly
• the pope has proper authority only in (a) his diocese (the Diocese of Rome) and in (b) matters that pertain to the whole Catholic Church or the whole Latin Church, rather than just one diocese.

That is okay, but that doesn’t allay the fears of particular Eastern Churches about the Pope having the authority to meddle with their traditions and Liturgy. And if your explanation is on the money, then the Pope does have the authority to alter the Divine Liturgy (some say inserting the parts that commemorate him is already an indication of this) and he can alter traditions because it belongs to the entire Church and not just a specific diocese. Especially in the East where, for example, the Byzantine Rite is shared by 14 Churches. So it doesn’t belong exclusively to one of them.

To summarize it negatively: The Pope of Rome lacks proper authority only in matters that pertain to another bishop’s diocesan jurisdiction.

So he cannot change your Divine Liturgy schedule this Sunday, but he can force you to use the Tridentine Mass instead of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

The Liturgies of the Latin Church do not pertain to any specific diocese but to the whole Latin Church; therefore, according at least to my (admittedly quite fallible) understanding, the Pope as Supreme Pontiff does have proper authority in matters that pertain to them.

As before, I don’t think we actually disagree, Constantine. What I’m claiming does reflect the great amount and extent of papal authority in the Catholic Church today. I just think it’s important that people understand that, in all these theoretical and even practical ways, his authority is meant to support the (also divinely established) authority of his brother bishops. Peter must confirm his brethren, not micromanage them…

I think the concern from the East not only with the Orthodox but a number of Eastern Catholics is that this is not the traditional authority of the Pope. It would be fine if this is how it has always been from Day 1. Of course Rome contends that it is, but those in the East says it isn’t. And so just the fact that the Pope doesn’t micromanage the dioceses doesn’t solve this problem because he still can if he wants to. And that is what those in the East do not want at all.

But for us Catholics, we should accept it as is. Like I said, let us not pretend the Papacy is something that it is not.

As you have (I presume) just read, “that’s the Latin Church, he wouldn’t do that in the Eastern Churches” was not my explanation/defense.

Just covering my bases there

Of course, I acknowledge that sometimes it was Rome imposing them. I do think it’s surprising how often, though, it actually wasn’t.

Well, sometimes it is indirectly. The same way I guess that Rome has “Protestantized” to be able to accommodate those who want those kind of spirituality, to keep them in the Church.

I think in both cases, its the wrong thing to do.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Of course popes are classical Ultramontanists. I was claiming that only Pius IX, to my knowledge, was neo-Ultramontanist (and even then only until Vatican I).

What some call the “High Petrine” view is classical Ultramontanism. It’s what I personally believe in.

What some call the “Absolutist Petrine” view is neo-Ultramontanism.

To me the line is drawn between the Pope having ordinary jurisdiction in a diocese or not. Maybe I’m misinterpreting something here but High Petrine means his current authority without universal ordinary jurisdiction. I don’t know why the Pope needs it anyway. If one bishop errs, he can be excommunicated anyway and reinstated only when he returns to orthodoxy or resigns.

I meant “little-o” orthodox, as in adhering to the true faith. I wasn’t intending to refer to bishops of the Orthodox churches.

I’m starting to see them as one and the same thing

Fair enough.

To be honest, I don’t have a problem with saying that Catholics are under the pope, but nor do I have a problem with eastern Catholics’ saying, “We’re in communion with the pope, not under him.” The word “under” in this context is a spatial metaphor. Literally, the floor is what’s under the pope, yet both of the above statements, I think, emphasize the truth in different ways.

Well, the Melkites are under the Pope, if you know what I mean.

But you’re right, to be in communion with the Pope is to be under his authority. So it is one and the same thing. Polemics aside.

I guess I personally like to emphasize that technically all Catholics are under the supreme authority of the Church, which can be exercised by the bishops collectively or by the pope, who - it is true - can always exercise it at his discretion.

Yup

It would bother me, too. I personally do believe that, thorny infallibility questions aside, the Second Vatican Council is an ecumenical council. I would find it inconceivable that a fully recognized Catholic group would be allowed to publicly call into question the validity of the teachings of an ecumenical council. And contrary to popular belief, Vatican II does concern itself with doctrine, particularly concerning Holy Orders (that episcopal consecration is not just a loosing of powers granted at priestly ordination but a distinct tier of the Sacrament of Holy Orders), the Church (collegiality, the nature of the episcopate, etc.), the relationship of the Church to non-Catholic groups and non-Christian religions, etc. Those teachings go far beyond mere pastoral considerations, and they’re important. I see great wisdom in the balance struck by the Council between postmodernity and Tradition.

To me its fine to question something and even work towards correcting perceived errors. It has happened in the past and worked well. The problem right now is how the SSPX have willfully displayed disobedience to get what they want, and they are getting a pass. I may be wrong about the pass part and I pray that I am. The council can be revisited and revised, it has happened in the past. But it should be a “for one, for all” thing rather than giving a group a free pass.

What do you mean? I feel that people here on these forums generally make excuses for the SSPX…

Understood.

Yes, many do. I mean, I kind of understand why. But I think we’re not being truthful about the entire situation.

 

[Peter_J]

Maybe I’m misinterpreting something here but High Petrine means his current authority without universal ordinary jurisdiction.

That depends on who defines what “High Petrine” means.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

But that one is infallible

Yes, but for all the reasons we’ve discussed, quoting it selectively can still give a false impression. People also ought to read, in conjunction with it, this passage from the document:
*
“This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.’”*

Thus Vatican I is also clear that the pope is to exercise the Church’s supreme authority in ways that support and confirm his brethren rather than in ways that displace or belittle them and their also divinely established authority.

Notice also that it says bishops hold the authority of the Apostles “by appointment of the Holy Spirit.” If the document reflected an absolutist view, it probably would never admit that but would claim that they hold their authority “by appointment of the Supreme Pontiff.”

That is okay, but that doesn’t allay the fears of particular Eastern Churches about the Pope having the authority to meddle with their traditions and Liturgy. And if your explanation is on the money, then the Pope does have the authority to alter the Divine Liturgy (some say inserting the parts that commemorate him is already an indication of this) and he can alter traditions because it belongs to the entire Church and not just a specific diocese. Especially in the East where, for example, the Byzantine Rite is shared by 14 Churches. So it doesn’t belong exclusively to one of them.

So he cannot change your Divine Liturgy schedule this Sunday, but he can force you to use the Tridentine Mass instead of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Honestly, we all know what would happen if some pope tried to do something like that. I think the context of the recent conciliar teachings that discussed and clarified papal and episcopal authority - Vatican I and Vatican II - make it perfectly clear that, as reflected in the Pastor Aeternus quotation above, the pope must exercise the Church’s supreme authority in a way that supports and confirms his brothers, that he can exercise his supremacy personally but never unilaterally.

The extreme hypothetical of the pope attempting to abolish the Byzantine Rite thus has only one possible outcome if the pope persists: the eastern Catholic churches break communion with him due to his self-evidently unjust interference. A clearer instance of the head imposing its arbitrary will on a completely unsuspecting body couldn’t be found.

I think the concern from the East not only with the Orthodox but a number of Eastern Catholics is that this is not the traditional authority of the Pope. It would be fine if this is how it has always been from Day 1. Of course Rome contends that it is, but those in the East says it isn’t. And so just the fact that the Pope doesn’t micromanage the dioceses doesn’t solve this problem because he still can if he wants to. And that is what those in the East do not want at all.

Two thoughts:

(a) Even though your “pope attempts to abolish the Divine Liturgy” example is obviously extreme and unrealistic, I still think it’s a useful example, because it reminds me of Pope St. Victor I’s attempt to excommunicate the churches of Asia Minor for refusing to celebrate Easter on a Sunday. Other bishops corrected Pope St. Victor, who backed off because he realized that this was not a valid use of his authority, since it didn’t respect the collegial nature of the divinely established episcopate.

I think the same goes for our hypothetical attempt to abolish the Byzantine Rite today. Obviously that would be an abrupt and unilateral instance of the head attempting to impose its will on an unwilling body. I do not fear that such would be self-evidently invalid.

(b) I still say the pope can’t “micromanage the dioceses.” A particularly diocesan matter belongs to the proper authority of the local bishop alone. If he is impeded - goes into a coma, commits heresy like that Australian bishop in Steve’s article above, etc. - then the pope can act.

To me the line is drawn between the Pope having ordinary jurisdiction in a diocese or not. Maybe I’m misinterpreting something here but High Petrine means his current authority without universal ordinary jurisdiction.

I could be wrong, but I certainly think the High Petrine view, a.k.a. classical Ultramontanism, acknowledges that the pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction. That still doesn’t give him the right to impede the proper authority of local orthodox bishops, or to act out of accordance with the collegial nature of the College of Bishops.

I’m starting to see them as one and the same thing

Fair enough. I personally do not struggle to believe that Latin Christianity has the orthodox faith.

To me its fine to question something and even work towards correcting perceived errors. It has happened in the past and worked well. The problem right now is how the SSPX have willfully displayed disobedience to get what they want, and they are getting a pass. I may be wrong about the pass part and I pray that I am. The council can be revisited and revised, it has happened in the past. But it should be a “for one, for all” thing rather than giving a group a free pass.

Great points.

 

[steve_b]

If what you say is true, please point out from which document Mr Akin is “quoting the Church”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9458723&postcount=320

Note: Akin names the source, for the definition of infallibility which is a direct quote from the document that defined the dogma… ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
s:

Which Church document says papal canonizations are infallible?

The terms and conditions required for an infallible statement by the pope, were there in the link provided .
s:

Where does it say every time the Pope says “We define” that the statement is infallible?

Nobody says it does.

Re: the definition of infallibility, see the words it starts out with? It doesn’t stop with “teach and define”…right? There is more to the definition…right? I highlighted the words previously so they won’t be missed but I also added the conditions also. Those are the words Akin draws attention to that trigger, which makes the point that the Church makes, in defining an infallible statement. They are not Akin’s words. The CC used and emphasised those words and conditions in defining the dogma.

Now re: canonizations, he focuses on those same words from the Vatican definition, used by the pope in that link, to make an infallible statement regarding a person’s canonization.

The pope said

"we declare and define that Bl. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Edith Stein, is a saint and we enrol her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated in the whole Church as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM

Do you see the language the pope used there?

He declares, defines, decrees, that on this matter of faith, it is to be held by the whole Church that this person is a saint.
s:

I have never seen such a document, and I highly doubt it exists, or Mr Akin would have quoted it in his argument. Mr Akin does not speak on behalf of the Church, but only in his capacity as a theologian. What he is asserting might be true, and you are free to believe it–but it is neither required belief within the Catholic Church, nor is it universally held, nor is it part of any official Church teaching that I have ever read.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM
With the words the pope used there, declaring a matter of faith for the entire Church, do you honestly think this would be reversed?
s:

Regardless of whether, in the case of specific canonizations, a Pope desired to make an infallible statement, your claim that anytime “teach” or “define” are invoked the definition must be infallible is also incorrect.

I didn’t say that.

I wrote re: teach and define *"Those words trigger an infallible statement **when ***the pope defines a doctrine on faith and morals, intended for the entire Church. "

See the difference? I gave the important conditions the Church uses in the definition.

The words teach and define alone without the conditions mentioned, is not the definition.

I finished my point by saying

*Therefore Akin is quoting the Church and is not speculating, and he gives multiple examples where that language and circumstance was used. *
s:

A Pope must be willfully defining a doctrine as infallible, and it must be in accordance with the conditions laid out at Vatican I. Words do not constrain the Pope.

In the example mentioned, do you doubt the pope’s intentions given the words he used
s:

If he wishes to say “We define X to be true” and he does not will that it is an infallible statement, or that it applies to the entire universal Church, etc., then it is not infallible.

The definition is clear. Sticking with the definition as it is written, prevents confusion.
s:

To claim that a Pope could make an infallible statement against his will is an absurdity.

No body said that… Why invent things that aren’t there?
s:

Do Popes intend to make infallible statements when they canonize saints? It is very difficult to know without further information from the Pope. We can speculate, theologians can speculate, Mr Akin can speculate–but ultimately, without more information from the Pope, that is all we can do.

The purpose of definitions is to define terms and conditions that make something clear. Without definitions, people don’t have constraints in thought, and ultimately can’t comunicate an idea effectively. They go off on all kinds of rabbitt trails.
s:

My point in all this is that Papal Infallibility is much more limited than many people believe it to be.

Akins point is, papal infallibility has been used far more than some people believe
s:

This is important because if someday a Pope adopts some unorthodox belief, it must not compromise the Catholic faith or lead people to doubt previous infallible statements.

The point Akin makes is, infallible papal statements are defined by the terms and the language of the dogma. When those are met, then we have an infallible statement. And that has happened more than twice in history, which is Akin’s point