High Petrine view in the early Church

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

I wanted to add some a clarification and correction to this part of your post to which I already responded earlier.

You were asking about the statement by Pius XII, as such “they are not entirely independent, but are placed under the due authority of the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy the ordinary power of jurisdiction obtained directly from the same Highest Pontiff”.

To be perfectly clear, Pope Pius XII made this statement at a time when the authority of Patriarchs in the Catholic Church was not yet clearly defined. It was not clearly defined until V2. The old Code of Canon Law does not even have anything to say on the power of Patriarchs. But the new Eastern Code contains this definition. I’m sure brother Vico will provide the exact Canon number, if he feels so inclined, but the gist of the Canon is this:
It is the Patriarch who DIRECTLY grants a bishop within his ordinary jurisdiction the bishop’s power of jurisdiction. In ecclesiastical jargon, this is known as competence. The Patriarch does this when he confirms the bishop. In distinction, the Pope grants said bishop what is known in canonical terminology as an ASSENT, a different canonical animal from CONFIRMATION.

There are three main differences between a CONFIRMATION and ASSENT.
(1) It is the CONFIRMATION that grants the power of jurisdiction (the power of ORDERS, btw - which, as noted earlier, is GREATER than the power of jurisdiction - is given during the consecration). It is the CONFIRMATION that grants a bishop his VALIDITY. The ASSENT, in distinction, permits the bishop to LICITLY exercise jurisdiction in the Church.

(2) Though a CONFIRMATION cannot be challenged by the Synod (why should it?), a papal assent can be challenged by the Synod.

(3) CONFIRMATION by a head bishop is a patristic practice. Papal ASSENT is a new canonical requirement. As I’ve explained in several past posts, I believe it was established - and necessarily so - because of the state of schism with the Orthodox Churches. As long as there is an institution that can direct people away from the unity of the Catholic Church, this canonical requirement is necessary. In the recent Middle East Synod, our bishops did not ask that this canonical requirement be removed - simply that the process be speeded up. Simultaneously, I REALLY and TRULY believe that in a reunited Church, this canonical requirement will no longer be necessary, and MUST be removed.

Clearly the Orthodox eastern Catholics would have been surprised to read such a thing, which is why I bring all this up. The modern Pope is claiming that bishops around the world are deputized to function by the Supreme Pontiff. This is some new thinking in the western church which was not present in 1054AD.

As explained, Pope Pius XII made that statement at a time when the explicit canonical rights of Patriarchs had not yet been clearly “defined” (I use quotes to indicate that this word “define” is normatively utilized in the Catholic Church to refer to dogmatization of doctrine; I am using it in its secular sense) by the Catholic Church. His comment is archaic and no longer valid in the Catholic Church today. Of course, Absolutist Petrine advocates, wholly ignorant of the actual ecclesiological teaching of the Catholic Church, still like to quote Pope Pius XII’s statement as if it was some sort of irreformible dogma.

I hope that helps. I would humbly request that you not take the misrepresentations of Absolutist Petrine advocates as if it represented the actual belief, teaching, and canonical standard of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

Well, once you actually produce a text that states that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that the Pope has the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in his local diocese, then we can start having a real discussion. But I have no interest in responding to your erroneous opinions that you are imposing on the texts you cite.

If you had no interest in the discussion you simply wouldn’t reply, seeing as you’r replying you clearly have an interest in this discussion. I have several times produced texts that state that the Pope can impede the authority of a bishop in his diocese. If you do not wish to read or cannot understand these texts that is no longer my problem.

What you mean is “let’s discuss my opinions on what the text means.”

Actually thats not what I meant if it was I would have stated that.

Sorry, as repeatedly stated, unless you produce the text (ANY text) that ACTUALLY says that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that he can impede the authority of an orthodox bishop in that bishop’s local diocese, what is there to respond to?

Except of course that you can’t provide an authority that states the Pope always acts together with his brother bishops, seeing as your position is new and not the understanding of people in the church pre v-2 you are under a burden to provide this evidence not me. Regardless several people have all shown texts and occassions where a Pope acts apart from his brother bishops. What there is to respond to, are the facts. Facts you clearly cannot refute so igore hoping perhaps that no one will notice that you are ignoring them.

The Pope feeds the lambs, the Pope has authority over the WHOLE Church, and this universal authority CAN be exercised uniquely in a PERSONAL way by the Pope, a universal authority that can ALSO be exercise by the College in union with him. That’s all it says.

I’m afraid Marduk thats really not what it says, the word college isn’t in the text for one, so its clear you are reading your own interpretations into the text nor is the word ‘in union with him’ , universal in reference to the other bishops or even ‘the whole church’. Those are all words you are reading into the text in order to make it compatible with your view.

What the statement says without reading in the words ‘college’ ‘in union with’ or ‘the bishops in union with him can also exercise universal authority’ is quite simply that the Pope is supreme, he exercises authority above all the bishops and has the exact same authority as the bishops in their dioceses as well as this supreme and universal power. Simply put your attempt to say that the Pope cannot interfere in the affair of an Orthodox bishop in his diocese are flatly contradicted by this text which clearly states that the Pope possess the same authority as bishops over their subjects and possess supreme power over all the bishops both individually and collectively.

Now, where does it say that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops, or that he can impede the authority of an orthdox bishop in his local diocese. Produce the text - your PERSONAL erroneous misinterpretations ain’t cuttin’ it.

We’ve already discussed this.

Sure. But he cannot exercise it to impede the authority of the local bishop. Haven’t you ever read the Decree of Vatican 1? It states that the Pope’s authority is NOT to be used to impede the authority of the local bishops, but is INSTEAD to be used to defend, strengthen, and support it. So much for your Absolutist Petrine errors.

Actually the word impede is non-existent in the texts of the first Vatican council, it is yet another word you’ve read into a source in order to make it compatible with your erroneous view. The Council states ‘**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 honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.” [51] **’ So no it doesn’t detract from the power of a bishop over his diocese, that would prevent him from doing his job but it in nowise states that the Pope cannot interfere in the affairs of an orthodox bishop in his diocese, this is just something you have read into the text.

Sure. Like I said, the Pope has ORDINARY jurisdiction in each and every diocese (EVERY head bishop - metropolitan, patriarch, etc.- has this kind of ordinary jurisdiction in each and every diocese). But there is only ONE bishop that has PROPER jurisdiction in that local diocese - THE LOCAL BISHOP, NOT the Metropolitan, NOT the Patriarch, NOT the Primate, NOT the Catholicos, NOT the Pope. You should check out our Canons when you have the time. You might learn something on the distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction.

And yet Pope Leo XIII makes it quite clear that the pope has the exact same powers a bishop has in his diocese over each and every member of the faithful and the clergy as well his unique power as successor of St Peter. So your argument flatly contradicts Pope Leo XIII

 

[jmj1984]

CONTINUED

Yes. As I’ve mentioned to you, as V1, V2, the Official Relatio, and our Canons assert, on the assumption that when the Pope is exercising this unique jurisdiction, he is doing so ONLY in RESPONSE to the needs of the Church. The Pope’s unique Petrine authority can ONLY be used IN RESPONSE to the NEEDS of the Church. He has no authority to do otherwise. I’ve said this before, but you did not respond - because you know you cannot refute this ecclesiological Truth. You are very good at avoidance, I must say.

I didn’t respond to the claim because its a completely absurd and unsubstantiated claim. You have not produced any evidence whatsoever of any document that states this. Until you do this statement remains your personal opinion. As for avoidance you’ve failed to address half of the sources that flatly contradict your position and completely misread or misquoted the rest.

And where does it say that the Pope can exercise this authority in the Church SEPARATED OR APART FROM HIS BROTHER BISHOPS? High Petrine advocates like to take things IN CONTEXT. We take into account the FACT that Christ instituted NOT JUST PETER, but the REST OF THE APOSTLES AS WELL, to be the foundation of the Church. And this COLLEGIAL authority has been handed down to the Pope and his brother bishops DOWN TO THIS DAY in the Apostolic Succession. Do you deny this?

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the quote, it clearly would have helped especially with context.

Take off your Absolutist Petrine lenses, and you will see the log of absurdity in your own eye. Bishops have no absolute imperative to follow the Pope if the Pope’s decision (1) contradicts Sacred Tradition; (2) Is not for the good of their flock. Again, do yourself a favor. Divest yourself of your ignorance and errors, and read the Canons of the Church. I don’t mean the tired, old myopic snippets that Absolutist Petrine advocates ALWAYS focus on in pretended support of their position. I’m talking about a CONTEXTUAL reading of the Canons. As stated in a past post, CONTEXT is the bane of your Absolutist Petrine camp. You can’t take the Truth!

Your statements here were condemned by Pope Pius VI, perhaps if you had bothered to read the sources I provided you would have noticed this. You simply cannot deal with the reality of the Church’s teachings and so instead of leaving the church twist its teachings and confuse others with your erroneous views. Your entire statement is made up of ad hominem uncharitable sentences as well as several out and out lies and calumnies. I have consitently provided whole quotes in order to provide the context you claim to be so fond and never snippets, anyone reading this thread can testify that. If I have ever not provided an entire encyclical it is because it is not practical or helpful to do so on an internet forum.

Pope Pius VI in ’ Auctoerm Fidei ’ condemned the following assertions 'Likewise in this, that it encourages a bishop to ‘pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline’ and this ‘against all contrary customers, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful’; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgement and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power… Likewise in that it says it is convinced that ‘the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the church cannot be altered nor hindered, and when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of the church demands it’ in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church…’ DS 1507

This of course is not the first time that your view has been flatly contradicted by a Papal encyclical, as has been made abundantly clear throughout this discussion.

P.S. Still waiting for the texts I requested. Oh never mind. I think we’re done. You know you can’t produce it. Your position has absolutely no support from any Magisterial document of the Church. I’ll respond to the rest of your misinterpreted quotes when I have more time,

Your complete lack of humulity is frankly quite disturbing, as are the calumnies and presumptions you insist on making and repeating. I will leave this discussion when I feel it is right to do so but I doubt I will leave until people can clearly see the complete lack of support and indeed condemnation your view has received from the Magisterium of The Church.

 

[jmj1984]

Dear brother Hesychios,

I wanted to add some a clarification and correction to this part of your post to which I already responded earlier.

To be perfectly clear, Pope Pius XII made this statement at a time when the authority of Patriarchs in the Catholic Church was not yet clearly defined. It was not clearly defined until V2. The old Code of Canon Law does not even have anything to say on the power of Patriarchs. But the new Eastern Code contains this definition. I’m sure brother Vico will provide the exact Canon number, if he feels so inclined, but the gist of the Canon is this:
It is the Patriarch who DIRECTLY grants a bishop within his ordinary jurisdiction the bishop’s power of jurisdiction. In ecclesiastical jargon, this is known as competence. The Patriarch does this when he confirms the bishop. In distinction, the Pope grants said bishop what is known in canonical terminology as an ASSENT, a different canonical animal from CONFIRMATION.

There are three main differences between a CONFIRMATION and ASSENT.
(1) It is the CONFIRMATION that grants the power of jurisdiction (the power of ORDERS, btw - which, as noted earlier, is GREATER than the power of jurisdiction - is given during the consecration). It is the CONFIRMATION that grants a bishop his VALIDITY. The ASSENT, in distinction, permits the bishop to LICITLY exercise jurisdiction in the Church.

(2) Though a CONFIRMATION cannot be challenged by the Synod (why should it?), a papal assent can be challenged by the Synod.

(3) CONFIRMATION by a head bishop is a patristic practice. Papal ASSENT is a new canonical requirement. As I’ve explained in several past posts, I believe it was established - and necessarily so - because of the state of schism with the Orthodox Churches. As long as there is an institution that can direct people away from the unity of the Catholic Church, this canonical requirement is necessary. In the recent Middle East Synod, our bishops did not ask that this canonical requirement be removed - simply that the process be speeded up. Simultaneously, I REALLY and TRULY believe that in a reunited Church, this canonical requirement will no longer be necessary, and MUST be removed.

As explained, Pope Pius XII made that statement at a time when the explicit canonical rights of Patriarchs had not yet been clearly “defined” (I use quotes to indicate that this word “define” is normatively utilized in the Catholic Church to refer to dogmatization of doctrine; I am using it in its secular sense) by the Catholic Church. His comment is archaic and no longer valid in the Catholic Church today. Of course, Absolutist Petrine advocates, wholly ignorant of the actual ecclesiological teaching of the Catholic Church, still like to quote Pope Pius XII’s statement as if it was some sort of irreformible dogma.

I hope that helps. I would humbly request that you not take the misrepresentations of Absolutist Petrine advocates as if it represented the actual belief, teaching, and canonical standard of the Catholic Church.

Actually Marduk the positions and powers of Patriarchs have been clearly defined in the church for some considerable period of time. Your obsession in misquoting VII, which is in itself only a part of the ordinary magisterium and therefore not infallible, another document that may or may not be part of the ordinary magisterium but is probably not to the exclusion of the abundance of Papal Encyclicals and ecumenical councils that contradict your view demonstrates the weakness of your position, it is in fact tantamount to an acknowledgement that your position lacks any support from the church whatsoever.

Amusingly you quote the Code of Canons of the eastern churches which flatly contradicts your position anyway and then state you believe its wrong.

So far you’ve failed to deal adequately with any source I’ve cited, calumniated and insulted me and forced your interpretation onto every text provided to you.

I also believe Heyschios is more than capable of reading the documents for himself and making his own mind up based on facts and not opinions whether they be mine or yours.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I just want to make a quick observation. This post is not directed at anybody in particular. I’m hoping it will simply shed some new light on a rapidly deteriorating thread.

In the section on the structure of the Church, the Catechism states that whenever the Pope acts he does so in charity in order to confirm his brother bishops in the Faith. I wish I could remember the paragraph references off the top of my head, but my CCC is upstairs (on the 7th floor), and thus not very handy. But it’s in the Profession of Faith section towards the end.

My own interpretation of this would be that, in confirming the Faith of his brother bishops, the Pope only interferes when the Faith itself is threatened, or when issues arise within the local diocese/metropolitanate/patriarchate that cannot be settled internally.

This opinion would seem to be confirmed by the Relatio of Bishop Gasser. There he states that the Pope only defines an infallible dogma in response to a heresy that has arisen within the Church and when his brother bishops have turned to him to intervene and settle the matter.

Likewise, Gasser points out that the Pope is morally bound to consult his brother bishops as much as is feasible, as well as Scripture, the Church Fathers, Church Doctors, and theologians. He is also require to pray over the matter. This, he argued, had no place in the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility because it belongs to the realm of moral obligation and not dogma. He goes on to say that a Pope can define something without first consulting the Church (i.e. the sources just given), but he would be sinning in doing so. In such a case, however, the Holy Spirit would intervene to either protect the Pope from defining something heretical, or to prevent him from making any sort of definition. However, Gasser does point out that the Pope is only infallible when he is responding to heresy in an offcial capacity in order to confirm his brother bishops, and through them the entire Church, in the Faith.

This interpretation of the CCC’s statements, I recognize, is based off of Vatican I’s definition seen through the lens of Gasser. I believe that Gasser’s authority is established by history and the principles for historical study. It’s also been established by Mansi as well as Vatican II. However, if that authority is not accepted, then my own interpretation is obviously subject to debate.

Marduk,
I would be very interested in seeing the Canons and other sources to which you refer. Do you have them posted in another thread so I can look them up? Or would you be willing to post them here?

Regardless of how one interprets the role of the Papacy (Absolutist, High, Low), the Church herself interprets his role/function as one of charity. Any action, therefore, outside the realm of charity is an action outside the function of the Papacy. It would, therefore, be nothing more than a sinful man acting on his own will and not the will of God. It seems to me that this lens of charity is the lens through which the Church today is interpreting the Pope’s role. I think our questions, therefore, should be directed at asking what the Pope’s supreme and universal jurisdiction mean in the light of charity.

 

[jmj1984]

I just want to make a quick observation. This post is not directed at anybody in particular. I’m hoping it will simply shed some new light on a rapidly deteriorating thread.

In the section on the structure of the Church, the Catechism states that whenever the Pope acts he does so in charity in order to confirm his brother bishops in the Faith. I wish I could remember the paragraph references off the top of my head, but my CCC is upstairs (on the 7th floor), and thus not very handy. But it’s in the Profession of Faith section towards the end.

My own interpretation of this would be that, in confirming the Faith of his brother bishops, the Pope only interferes when the Faith itself is threatened, or when issues arise within the local diocese/metropolitanate/patriarchate that cannot be settled internally.

This opinion would seem to be confirmed by the Relatio of Bishop Gasser. There he states that the Pope only defines an infallible dogma in response to a heresy that has arisen within the Church and when his brother bishops have turned to him to intervene and settle the matter.

Likewise, Gasser points out that the Pope is morally bound to consult his brother bishops as much as is feasible, as well as Scripture, the Church Fathers, Church Doctors, and theologians. He is also require to pray over the matter. This, he argued, had no place in the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibility because it belongs to the realm of moral obligation and not dogma. He goes on to say that a Pope can define something without first consulting the Church (i.e. the sources just given), but he would be sinning in doing so. In such a case, however, the Holy Spirit would intervene to either protect the Pope from defining something heretical, or to prevent him from making any sort of definition. However, Gasser does point out that the Pope is only infallible when he is responding to heresy in an offcial capacity in order to confirm his brother bishops, and through them the entire Church, in the Faith.

This interpretation of the CCC’s statements, I recognize, is based off of Vatican I’s definition seen through the lens of Gasser. I believe that Gasser’s authority is established by history and the principles for historical study. It’s also been established by Mansi as well as Vatican II. However, if that authority is not accepted, then my own interpretation is obviously subject to debate.

Marduk,
I would be very interested in seeing the Canons and other sources to which you refer. Do you have them posted in another thread so I can look them up? Or would you be willing to post them here?

Regardless of how one interprets the role of the Papacy (Absolutist, High, Low), the Church herself interprets his role/function as one of charity. Any action, therefore, outside the realm of charity is an action outside the function of the Papacy. It would, therefore, be nothing more than a sinful man acting on his own will and not the will of God. It seems to me that this lens of charity is the lens through which the Church today is interpreting the Pope’s role. I think our questions, therefore, should be directed at asking what the Pope’s supreme and universal jurisdiction mean in the light of charity.

Thats an interesting opinion but the Church does not say we only have to obey the pope when he’s being charitable or when we believed he’s being charitable it just says we HAVE to obey the Pope. The exceptions to this noted by theologians and saints are when the Pope contradicts natural or divine law, works to destroy the church or endangers the salvation of souls. Charity it ommited from this very narrow list of exceptions.

Nor does God impose an obligation on the Pope to consult his brother bishops, nor does the church teach that God would stop him from speaking infallibly if he had not done so, nor does the church teach the Pope only acts infallibly when speaking out against heresy, none of the marian definitions meet that requirement and yet they are infallible. In short if these statements did indeed come from Gasser it makes me very suspicious of the document as several of the ideas appear to be direcly contradictory to several infallible doctrines, ecumenical councils and numerous papal encyclicals and theologians.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Well, I’m not going to get into the debate over Bishop Gasser and his authority again. Suffice it to say that he did indeed make those comments, and he was fully authorized to do so. If you’d like to read them for yourself and perhaps provide your own interpretation of them within their context and that of holy Tradition, then please purchase the book “The Gift of Infallibility” and read through it. That is the only place you will find a complete translation of Gasser’s Relatio into English (a complete online version simply doesn’t exist). He too claims to be speaking from Tradition and provides his sources. He also uses the Immaculate Conception as one such example, claiming that the Pope was approached by his fellow bishops and asked to settle the question once and for all (as you well know, the issue of the Immaculate Conception had been debated in the Latin Church for several centuries. It was never really an issue in the East). The translator of the Relatio (a doctor and professor of theology) states that the same thing took place with the dogma of the Assumption. The Pope was approached by the bishops, who could not settle the issue.

This is about as far as I want to go into this.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As a side note, I find it rather insulting to my intelligence and that of Marduk that you, JMJ1984, keep making such comments as if such statements came from Gasser. Marduk and I are both referring to Gasser’s official Relatio, which did indeed bear a great amount of authority at Vatican I. I, at least, have told you where to look if you want to read the document for yourself. It is rather hurtful that you would call my own integrity into question by implying that I, or Marduk for that matter, would either make up things that were never actually said, or deliberately distort them. If you want to know what Bishop Gasser said, and the authority he was given to make such statements, then I refer you to the source that I have so many times referred you to. Until you read that source, please stop calling my integrity into question. Once you read the source then you are free to call into question my interpretation of it, and I will be happy to be corrected if I am indeed wrong in my understanding. But until/unless you read the source, then basic charity would ask you to presume that I, and Marduk, are being both honest and accurate in our presentation of it.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, I’m not going to get into the debate over Bishop Gasser and his authority again. Suffice it to say that he did indeed make those comments, and he was fully authorized to do so. If you’d like to read them for yourself and perhaps provide your own interpretation of them within their context and that of holy Tradition, then please purchase the book “The Gift of Infallibility” and read through it. That is the only place you will find a complete translation of Gasser’s Relatio into English (a complete online version simply doesn’t exist). He too claims to be speaking from Tradition and provides his sources. He also uses the Immaculate Conception as one such example, claiming that the Pope was approached by his fellow bishops and asked to settle the question once and for all (as you well know, the issue of the Immaculate Conception had been debated in the Latin Church for several centuries. It was never really an issue in the East). The translator of the Relatio (a doctor and professor of theology) states that the same thing took place with the dogma of the Assumption. The Pope was approached by the bishops, who could not settle the issue.

This is about as far as I want to go into this.

I’m afraid my budget can’t stretch into buying it especially after buying Denzinger To be honest I have little interested in a document of arguable authority that appears to contradict almost every theological and dogmatic document I’ve read.

 

[jmj1984]

As a side note, I find it rather insulting to my intelligence and that of Marduk that you, JMJ1984, keep making such comments as if such statements came from Gasser. Marduk and I are both referring to Gasser’s official Relatio, which did indeed bear a great amount of authority at Vatican I. I, at least, have told you where to look if you want to read the document for yourself. It is rather hurtful that you would call my own integrity into question by implying that I, or Marduk for that matter, would either make up things that were never actually said, or deliberately distort them. If you want to know what Bishop Gasser said, and the authority he was given to make such statements, then I refer you to the source that I have so many times referred you to. Until you read that source, please stop calling my integrity into question. Once you read the source then you are free to call into question my interpretation of it, and I will be happy to be corrected if I am indeed wrong in my understanding. But until/unless you read the source, then basic charity would ask you to presume that I, and Marduk, are being both honest and accurate in our presentation of it.

It would be more uncharitable to assign seriously erroneous or borderline heretical words to the bishop and as I have not read the document nor is the document presented in its entirity thats what I choose to do. Besides Judging from Marduks inability to deal or reference sources properly I cannot make any presumptions.

 

[ciero]

This thread is like a car wreck…you know you shouldn’t look…but just can’t keep from looking!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This thread is like a car wreck…you know you shouldn’t look…but just can’t keep from looking!

Hahahaha!!! I have the same problem, only I fall into the “I can’t help from posting” category. I’ve said before that I’m done with this thread, and yet here I am.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I’m afraid my budget can’t stretch into buying it especially after buying Denzinger To be honest I have little interested in a document of arguable authority that appears to contradict almost every theological and dogmatic document I’ve read.

In presenting his Relatio Bishop Gasser himself did not contradict anything in Scripture or Tradition. His Relatio held/holds a great deal of authority in interpreting Vatican I’s definitions contained in Pastor Aeternus because he was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Commission de Fide, the Commission charged with drafting Pastor Aeternus. He was, therefore, explaining the meaning of the document to the Council Fathers in order that they might understand what it was they were voting for or against. All scholars and theologians dedicated to studying the Papacy and the Conciliar documents recognize the importance of the Relatio.

Now, given that the Bishop himself does not contradict Scripture or Tradition (in fact, he presents all his sources, including previous Councils), and given that he was speaking authoritatively in an official capacity, we can draw two conclusions. 1) The “High Petrine” interpretation of Scripture and Tradition in re papal infallibility and jurisdiction is erroneous. 2) The “Absolutist Petrine” interpretation of those same sources is erroneous. This thread has, in fact, established neither. Marduk has pointed out that it is perfectly legitimate to interpret the documents you’ve cited in a “High Petrine” fashion. Obviously it is likewise equally legitimate to interpret them in an “Absolutist Petrine” fashion.

Any definitive conclusion will not be reached on this thread. Personally, given the state of my own current research into the issue, I am inclined to favor the “High Petrine” interpretation. I am willing to be corrected if further research into the matter proves that such an interpretation is indeed wrong. But I, like Marduk, fail to see in any of the sources mentioned thus far anything that definitively refutes the “High Petrine” interpretation. In fact, I’ve only seen confirmation. So this whole thread has become a matter of “my interpretation is better than yours because Pope so-and-so said X…” This is an anacronistic reading of historical documents, and thus fails to provide any real interpretation.

 

[jmj1984]

In presenting his Relatio Bishop Gasser himself did not contradict anything in Scripture or Tradition. His Relatio held/holds a great deal of authority in interpreting Vatican I’s definitions contained in Pastor Aeternus because he was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Commission de Fide, the Commission charged with drafting Pastor Aeternus. He was, therefore, explaining the meaning of the document to the Council Fathers in order that they might understand what it was they were voting for or against. All scholars and theologians dedicated to studying the Papacy and the Conciliar documents recognize the importance of the Relatio.

Accept that its a relatively unknown document as the website someone linked me to with it admits, it is ommited from Denzinger and only parts of it are mentioned 4 times by Vatican II. Though to be honest the references are to Mansi, has anyone checked that they actually refer to the relatio and not some other section in Mansi? I hardly think this qualifies as ‘all scholars admit the importance…’

Now, given that the Bishop himself does not contradict Scripture or Tradition (in fact, he presents all his sources, including previous Councils), and given that he was speaking authoritatively in an official capacity, we can draw two conclusions. 1) The “High Petrine” interpretation of Scripture and Tradition in re papal infallibility and jurisdiction is erroneous. 2) The “Absolutist Petrine” interpretation of those same sources is erroneous. This thread has, in fact, established neither. Marduk has pointed out that it is perfectly legitimate to interpret the documents you’ve cited in a “High Petrine” fashion. Obviously it is likewise equally legitimate to interpret them in an “Absolutist Petrine” fashion.

Actually the way its been quoted here certainly does contradict the magisterium of the church and Marduks interpretation of documents has been very lacking to say the least.

Any definitive conclusion will not be reached on this thread. Personally, given the state of my own current research into the issue, I am inclined to favor the “High Petrine” interpretation. I am willing to be corrected if further research into the matter proves that such an interpretation is indeed wrong. But I, like Marduk, fail to see in any of the sources mentioned thus far anything that definitively refutes the “High Petrine” interpretation. In fact, I’ve only seen confirmation. So this whole thread has become a matter of “my interpretation is better than yours because Pope so-and-so said X…” This is an anacronistic reading of historical documents, and thus fails to provide any real interpretation.

Actually no its called supporting your argument with authority, that is all I and others have done. I have seen nothing posted on this thread that definitively supports the high petrine position bar supposedly the relatio and numerous sources which do not.

 

[louis91766]

I just want to make a quick observation. This post is not directed at anybody in particular. I’m hoping it will simply shed some new light on a rapidly deteriorating thread…

I just wanted to mention that I don’t see the thread as deteriorating, since it is helping me to see some things in a different light.

 

[jmj1984]

Was this just an opinion of the Pope at that time, or is it infallible doctrine which can never be changed. A lot of things, which people thought could not be changed, have been changed later on. For example:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
this teaching has been changed and it is now taught that Jews can be saved and that schismatic Orthodox can be saved. In fact, according to the RC rules now in effect (see the missalette at Mass) Orthodox Christians who do not even recognise the infalliblity of the Roman Pope, are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church without converting to Roman Catholicism.

It is questionable whether the rules have actually changed or whether people have merely misrepresented the rules.

 

[jmj1984]

Perhaps we should look at what the Relatio says in its entirity?

**033. First axiom: the members should be joined to the head and the head to the members. From this axiom they deduce that it is necessary for the Pope, in defining dogmas of faith, to do nothing without the advice and consent of his brothers. Before I reply to this objection, it will be helpful to remember that, in this opinion of the adversaries, we are dealing with a strict and absolute necessity of episcopal advice and help in every dogmatic judgment of the Roman Pontiff, so much so that it must have its place in the very definition of our dogmatic constitution. It is in this strict and absolute necessity that the whole difference between us consists. The difference does not consist in the opportuneness or some relative necessity which must be completely left to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff as he determines according to the circumstances. As such, this type of necessity cannot have a place in the definition of a dogmatic constitution.

1. That said, I return to the axiom about head and members and make my response.  A figure of speech is not an argument, or, as is commonly said, every analogy limps.  And that this comparison, applied in this way, really limps, can be shown by the following reason.  Are not the laity, among whom there are very many who are outstanding in knowledge and piety, and, even more, are not the priests who exercise the duty of teaching their parishioners, are not they all members of the Church?  Who would doubt it?  Therefore, should these also help the Pope by their advice and aid when he makes dogmatic judgments?  By no means.  And why not?  Is it not because they do not belong to the Church teaching?  All right, but at the same time it is evident that the analogy about the head and members limps.  But now it is asked whether the bishops also - although they are constituted by God as witnesses, teachers and judges of the Christian faith - do not relate to the Pope as disciples to teacher, when he is defining for the whole Church and exercising his duty as universal teacher.  Such is the case.  For this is what the words of Christ and the words "supreme judge," "universal doctor," and "pastor of the whole flock of Christ" signify.  So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls.

2. I now push on to the end; we are almost there.  But again there are some who insist and say: what you have said about a solemn definition of the Pope is true "post factum," for then not only the laity but even priests and bishops are held to submit to the infallible authority of the Pope.  But this is not true before the definition is made:  in order to issue such a definition there should be the concurrence of the bishops. For (and this is the second axiom), just as the bishops are not able to do anything in determining dogmas without the Pope, so the Pope is not able to do anything without the bishops.  Now let us look at this axiom from each side.  The bishops are not able to do anything without the Pope in establishing dogmas of the Faith.  This is true since even decrees about faith put forth by a general council are not infallible and firm unless they have been confirmed by the Pope.

3. The reason for this is not that which - I am sorry to say - has been several times indicated from this platform, namely the reason which says that all infallibility of the Church is situated in the Pope alone and from the Pope is derived and communicated to the Church.  Indeed, according to a very celebrated theological system, this is able to be said about jurisdiction since the nature of jurisdiction is such that it is able to be, even should be, communicated to others.  However, how is infallibility to be communicated?  This I don't understand.  The true reason why the bishops, even gathered in a general council, are not infallible in matters of faith and morals without the Pope is to be found in the fact that Christ promised this infallibility to the whole magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Apostles together with Peter.  He did this when He said: "I am with you until the consummation of the world" (Mt. 28:20).  Therefore the bishops are not able to do anything in this regard without the Pope.  But is the other case true, viz., that the Pope is not able to do anything in this regard without the bishops?  This other part has no value, since Christ said to Peter alone: "You are Peter (Mt. 16:18) ...  I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk. 22:32).

4. But the issue is pressed by saying (and this is the third axiom): the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches.  I reply.  The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port.  It is true that the Pope in his definitions "ex cathedra" has the same sources ("fontes") which the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition.  It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifical definitions.  But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops.  I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church's consent.

**’

 

[jmj1984]

**038. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the Tradition of the Church of Rome, that is, of that Church to which faithlessness has no access and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree. Therefore that strict necessity , such as is required for a dogmatic constitution, can in no way be demonstrated. It can happen that there be so difficult a case that the Pope thinks it necessary, for his own information, to ask the bishops, as an ordinary means, what the sense of the Churches is, as he did, for example, in the case of the Immaculate Conception. Such a case, however, is not able to be established as a rule.

1. Furthermore - and this is to be noted well – everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense.  This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine].  But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith?  Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved.

2. Likewise it is to be noted that dogmatic judgments of the Roman pontiff are especially concerned with controversies about the faith in which recourse has been had to the Holy See, and the Pontiff should therefore define them, either from the Scriptures, the holy Fathers, or Doctors of the Church, or from the Tradition of the Church of Rome which faithfully and religiously, has preserved what Peter passed down. Therefore whoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? ' **

 

[jmj1984]

The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth. Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy? For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., “The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church,” and that well-known 4th article which says: “in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it”? In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion

You should perhaps have read the relatio before quoting it as support, especially as it flatly contradicts and condemns some of your points of view.

 

[steve_b]

I just want to make a quick observation. This post is not directed at anybody in particular. I’m hoping it will simply shed some new light on a rapidly deteriorating thread.

In the section on the structure of the Church, the Catechism states that whenever the Pope acts he does so in charity in order to confirm his brother bishops in the Faith. I wish I could remember the paragraph references off the top of my head, but my CCC is upstairs (on the 7th floor), and thus not very handy. But it’s in the Profession of Faith section towards the end.

possibly here?

**837 **“Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”
P:

My own interpretation of this would be that, in confirming the Faith of his brother bishops, the Pope only interferes when the Faith itself is threatened, or when issues arise within the local diocese/metropolitanate/patriarchate that cannot be settled internally.

This opinion would seem to be confirmed by the Relatio of Bishop Gasser. There he states that the Pope only defines an infallible dogma in response to a heresy that has arisen within the Church and when his brother bishops have turned to him to intervene and settle the matter.

Re: comparing authority of the Pontiff and individual bishops, in the Catechism

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

**883 **“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

**886 “**The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches.” As such, they “exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,” assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches. The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing “to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches.” They extend it especially to the poor, to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

**895 **“The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

**937 **The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, ***“supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (**CD *2).

“Supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” in #937 is a quote from Paul VI http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html