High Petrine view in the early Church

[jmj1984]

So, the Pope cannot take away a bishop’s prerogatives, but you say the Pope can act without respect for those prerogatives, as if the bishop did not have any. Not the same thing.

Where did I say this? Once again you are misrepresenting the views of others in order to further your own increasingly absurd point of view. I said detract and impede were not the same words, they are not. The popes existence does not mean that bishops cannot govern their dioceses effectively or that they need to ask his permission to do everything but he can interfere in their diocese whenever he so wishes.

Well, we already know that your camp likes to take myopic little snippets of statements to twist the actual intent of the Church. All you are doing is wrenching Pope Leo’s XIII statement outside the context of the V1 teaching that the Pope DOES NOT have the authority to detract from/impede the authority of a bishop in his own local diocese.

You love to state this Marduk, but you have yet to prove it to be true. ‘Vatican I said this, Vatican I said that’ and then when someone points out it did not in fact say these things you go ‘Ah but the official relatio says this…’ and when someone points out said relatio doesn’t agree with you stoop down to ‘well you’re simply wrong’
:tsktsk: You’re not fooling anyone Marduk, your position has no support and far from me being myopic, it is you who is both myopic and blind to anything that doesnt agree with your point of view.

Hasn’t stopped you from responding to other things. So this is your excuse? Just man up and admit that you can’t respond. Did you respond when I called you on your MISinterpretations of Pope St, Leo’s statement on how power is SHARED by the bishops with the Pope? NOPE. Did you response when I called you on trying to add the word “ABOVE” to a quote from Pope Leo XIII that merely stated that the authority of the Pope and the College is THE SAME. NOPE. Did you respond when I called you on your ignorance of the distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction? NOPE. Did you respond when I called you on your hypcrisy of trying to accuse brother Phillip and me of trying to set the Official Relatio against Mansi or other textbooks, when you were the only one doing so? NOPE. Have you responded to ANY of the FACTS that I related of what occurred behind the scenes of V1? Please don’t let your ignorance and pride do the talking.

I did respond to all of these Marduk. Why are you being dishonest and repeating yet more calumnies? Your arguments and your responses are that of a child not of a reasonable man or woman. Perhaps you’d like to explain why Pope Leo XIII made no distinction rather than repeating ad absurdam when he did, when in fact he explicitly did not?

I already addressed your MISinterpretations. The texts are fine. What else have you got?

No you havent you’ve just said they’re wrong, I don’t know how thats addressing them

I didn’t say that the encylical mentioned the word “canon.” I said YOU (and you alone) are trying to make a novel canon by cutting and pasting little snippets to support your errors.

Reading things in context is now wrong, honestly Marduk come back to the real world and stop calumniating others.

Oh! I thought you had heard of Machiavelli. I did not realize your were ignorant of his rather popular opus called “The Prince.” My fault.

More ad hominem, how tiresome

It does not condemn the idea itself for then it would read 'The Doctrine of those who compare the Roman pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal church’ and the ‘is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages’ would be superfluous and utterly pointless. Besides which those additional words change the meaning of the text, Pope Pius IX is condemning the idea that this doctrine only prevailed in the middle ages or was invented then not the idea itself. That is clear to any reasonable person.
Ummm. The statement reads, “THE DOCTRINE of those…” That means it is condemning the IDEA.:banghead:

Marduk, I assume you can read english. If you can’t understand a simple sentence there is simply no point debating with you You are not just being absurd the sentence reads’ The doctrine… is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages’ NOT ‘The Doctrine…’ please read things before commenting and if you can’t stop commenting and engaging in calumnies and ad hominem attacks.

:banghead: You JUST quoted the actual text that used the words “east and west” and THEN you claim “No mention there of east and west”?!!! Give it up, brother.

Its a typo Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

CONTINUED

I really don’t think you know what the term ad hominem means. Permit me to explain. When able rhetoricians use the term, they are referring to statements ABOUT the opponent THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. It is NOT an ad homimem to claim that someone has erred and thereafter provide reasons for it. Please stop trying to get people to feel sorry for you by claiming I am using ad homimem. It’s getting tiring. You can only cry “wolf!” so often.:tsktsk:

I know full well what it means Marduk. Seeing as you spend the entire thread insulting and calumniating others who dont agree with you, I know you do ad hominem. As for making people feel sorry I am unconcern, only pointing out your inability to argue with anyone charitably.

No it didn’t. It would have said “The doctrine that the Pope was a free prince ONLY in the Middle Ages.” But the world ONLY is missing. Just like the word ONLY (as in “ONLY the Pope”) is missing from all the other texts that you cited, trying to pawn off the error that the Pope can act separated or apart from his brother bishops. Again, stop imposing your errors on the texts that you are citing. Take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses, and you will see what the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is.

Ummm Marduk your just getting desperate now. How you think the word only or not would be relevant to the sentence I dont know The point is that the doctrine did not prevail in the middle ages.

The Absolutist Petrine errors are to be classed with the “sola” errors of Protestants. High Petrine Catholics reject sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola papa.

And you should be classed with the gallicinians and concilarists.

The DOCTRINE (or IDEA) it is condemning is “the COMPARISON of the Pope to a free prince in the Middle Ages.” It is not condemning the idea that “the Pope was a free prince ONLY in the Middle Ages.” Please take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses to see more clearly. You admitted your ignorance of Machiavelli, which is why you are unfamiliar with what the term “free prince” actually means. Sir, the term “free prince” refers to a DICTATOR. It is very sad that you believe the Pope is a dictator and that you actually defend that idea.:tsktsk:

Free prince and dictator are not entirely the same Marduk, stop pretending they are. It is not my problem if you cannot understand the plain and ordinary meaning of words.

Ummm. You forgot to quote the part that says, “whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power.” This means IN CONTEXT that a bishop CANNOT act separated from the College, which is a higher authority than any individual bishop. Your error is that you think this “higher hierarchic power” refers to the Pope ALONE. Take that myopic log out of your eye, brother. Please prove to us that the term “higher hierarchic power” refers to the Pope ALONE, that it cannot refer to (1) ANY head bishop (i.e. Metropolitan, Patriarch, Primate, Pope, etc.), (2) the local Synod to which the bishop belongs, or (3) the Ecumenical Council. We’ll be waiting. Your typical silence or avoidance will be answer enough.

Marduk that isnt at all what it means. It is condemning the idea that bishops are independent of their superiors, which in those days was either a cardinal AND the pope or on occassion the pope himself. Seeing as the pope was himself condemning a synod it is unlikely it meant the synod and there were no patriarchs in france.

Frankly I find the discussion with you tiresome and pointless, you are complely blinded by your fanatical adherence to your own view of the church which you seem to believe gives you the right to insult and lie about everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[jmj1984]

Our canons make a distinction between “Ordinary jurisdiction” and “proper jurisdiction,” a distinction that was contained even in the old Canon Law of 1917. Your ignorance of Canon Law is only a reflection on you, not on the High Petrine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Your talking about canons why? I was stating that leo XIII made no distinction between the two in the encyclical I provided.

You did. You explicitly stated that the the positions and powers of the Patriarchs have been CLEARLY DEFINED. You were in error because the positions and powers of Patriarchs in relation to the UNIVERSAL Church have never been clearly defined. If you want to admit that you were unclear in your statement, say so. As it stands, your statement was wrong.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quaein.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13compe.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12OMNES.HTM
papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

You may like the way it was defined, but it was nevertheless defined

I couldn’t care less what a Latin apologist has to say. But I must ask forgiveness for presuming that we mean the same thing when we communicate. HIgh Petrine Catholics always think with a collegial mindset, whereas Absolutist Petrine advocates constantly try to separate the head from the body (while Low Petrine advocates separate the body from the head). When I say “ordinary Magisterium,” this means TO ME (as an adherent of the High Petrine view) the UNIVERSAL ordinary Magisterium, which is represented by the Pope in union with his brother bishops. In the same way, when I use the term “COLLEGE,” I already understand this to mean the Pope in union with his brother bishops. To me, saying “the College of bishops in union with the Pope” is redundant. Similarly, when High Petrine advocates, especially in the Orthodox Church, use the term “Council” or “Synod,” it is already ingrained in us that this means “the head bishop in union with his brother bishops.” It is redundant for High Petrine Orthodox (whether in communion with Rome or not) to say “the Council and the head bishop” or “the Synod and the head bishop,” for the head bishop is an INHERENT part of the definition of a “Synod” or “Council” (or, for High Petrine Catholics, the term “College”). So, I agree that my terminology was wrong, since I am talking to an Absolutist Petrine advocate. I will be more careful next time to explicitly state “Ordinary and UNIVERSAL Magisterium” (since that is what I meant) ESPECIALLY if I speak to a LATIN Catholic.

Your blind hatred of the western church is quite sad to be honest Marduk.

You have yet to cite an EXPLICIT text, devoid of your imposed misinterpretations. All you’ve cited are documents that say that (1) the Pope has PERSONAL prerogatives, and (2) the Pope has UNIQUE prerogatives that other bishops don’t have. NOTHING you’ve quoted states that these prerogatives can be exercised apart or separated from his brother bishops.

Oh I have Marduk several times, it is just a shame that your mind simply can’t accept this.

I’m glad you admit that the extraordinary Magisterium is not the only thing invested with infallibility.

You never can apologise for your calumnies can you?

I already did. You typically failed to address it. It is a FACT that V1 was the first Council where a special Committee was invested with the AUTHORITY to formulate its Decrees FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. It is a FACT that this Committee chose an OFFICIAL spokesperson to EXPLAIN WHAT THE DECREE WAS INTENDED TO TEACH. Oppose its teachings at your own risk. I was willing to grant that you may be invincibly ignorant. But I’m beginning to suspect that brother Ciero is correct that you are just close-minded. Prove me wrong, brother, and divest yourself of your errors.

I have no need to prove anything to you. I did address the matter, as usual you can’t recognise this and simply spout more ad hominem nonsense.

Collegiality was a DOCTRINAL principle proposed by the UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM exercised by the Fathers of V2 - iow, INFALLIBLE.

Something that you’ve yet to prove.

I would suggest that you don’t come on here to the ECF and attempt to pawn off your Traditionalist sources as having any sort of doctrinal authority.

Yawn Take a break Marduk. I have no interest in discussing things with you because you clearly have lost all use of reason or rational thoughts, just you keep on insulting and calumniating everyone that disagrees with you, I’m sure it’ll help your cause,

 

[jmj1984]

Ummm. What “necessity cannot have a place in the definition?” It says quite clearly:
“we are dealing with a strict and absolute necessity of episcopal advice and help in every dogmatic judgment of the Roman Pontiff.”:banghead:
And it does not say merely “necessity”; it says “strict and absolute necessity.” So the PRACTICAL necessity of approaching the bishops still stands. Whatever else, the Relatio does not challenge the necessity of the consensus of Faith. Try to read the entire context, instead of focusing on your little snippets.

Ummm. You missed the part that states “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.” The bishops ARE WITNESSES and GOD CONSTITUTED THEM AS SUCH, AND YOUR ABSOLUTIST PETRINE ERRORS CAN IN NO WAY REFUTE THIS FACT. Your error is that you presume that when the Pope takes on his adjudicatory and pedagogic role in the SPECIFIC (not “regular,” according to another one of your many errors) instance defined by V1, the GOD-CONSTITUTED role of bishops as witnesses suddenly disappears. WHERE DOES THE OFFICIAL RELATIO SAY THAT THIS GOD-CONSTITUTED ROLE OF THE BISHOPS DISAPPEARS? We’ll be waiting for your answer. We will consider your typical silence or avoidance as an appropriate response.

Yes. The Pope performs the ROLE OF JUDGE (i.e., exercises the EXTRAordinary Magisterium) PERSONALLY in the unique (NOT “regular,” according to another of your errors) circumstances defined by V1, and no other bishop shares in this role during this unique circumstance. What his brother bishops do is perform their GOD-CONSTITUTED role as WITNESSES to the Faith. Now, it may be that the witness of one group of bishops contradicts the witness of another group of bishops. It is the Pope’s role to exercise the EXTRAordinary Magisterium and act as JUDGE to determine which witness is the orthodox witness. But - MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT - there WILL be a group of orthodox bishops in the Church, and the Pope has NO AUTHORITY to contradict the orthodox WITNESS of these orthodox bishops. Try to refute that claim, if you can. Your silence or avoidance will be accepted as the proper response.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk I have no desire to continue responding to your continous ad hominem and calumnies, your inability to deal with facts or deal with anyone charitably places you outwith this discussion and so I will place you on the ignore list. And dont go around trumpeting that you’ve defeated another so called papal absolutist apologist, No, I just will not waste my time with someone whose refusal to accept the churchs teaching on this matter is clearly unreasonable but who will nevertheless continue to refuse to do so and insult everyone who says otherwise.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

HELLO, brother Fonebone!!! I’m glad to see your handle on this thread.

Thank you!

Thank you for your compliment.

You’re welcome.

I just wanted to ask. What do you think of brother JMJ’s interpretation of the “free prince” issue?

Blessings,
Marduk

I looked up the context on Google Books and found the list of condemned propositions in an appendix to another book:

The condemned proposition asserts, "The doctrine of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereignty acting in the Universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages only."

It actually does seem to me that in that particular proposition, what is condemned is the notion that this “free sovereignty” nonsense was held only in the Middle Ages. So I don’t think this particular condemnation implies anything either way - for *or *against - the proposition that the pope is like the Catholic Church’s “free sovereign.”

That said, I’m not sure how you two ended up arguing about that. No matter when this “free prince” notion - whose contextual origin you identified so precisely - “prevailed,” it’s still obviously untrue that the Supreme Pontiff is in any way a “free prince.” Surely even the most strident Absolutist Petrine advocate can see that… if the pope were a “free prince,” his power would be absolute - he could rightly say, “let’s use fudge instead of wheat bread for the Mass! Let’s ordain women priests and bishops! Let’s write and add more books of the Bible!” etc.

Obviously plenty of things - both divinely structured and canonically established - limit the exercise of the pope’s supreme authority. But it does seem that particular condemned proposition leaves untouched the truth or falsehood of the “free prince” assertion and concerns itself merely with when it has been held.

Unless I’m missing something?

 

[steve_b]

I looked up the context on Google Books and found the list of condemned propositions in an appendix to another book:

The condemned proposition asserts, "The doctrine of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a free sovereignty acting in the Universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages only."

It actually does seem to me that in that particular proposition, what is condemned is the notion that this “free sovereignty” nonsense was held only in the Middle Ages. So I don’t think this particular condemnation implies anything either way - for *or *against - the proposition that the pope is like the Catholic Church’s “free sovereign.”

That said,* I’m not sure how you two ended up arguing about that.*

jmj quoted the pope’s syllabus of errors that should have ended all discussion. Marduk kept it going.
F:

No matter when this “free prince” notion - whose contextual origin you identified so precisely - “prevailed,” it’s still obviously untrue that the Supreme Pontiff is in any way a “free prince.” Surely even the most strident Absolutist Petrine advocate can see that… if the pope were a “free prince,” his power would be absolute - he could rightly say, “let’s use fudge instead of wheat bread for the Mass! Let’s ordain women priests and bishops! Let’s write and add more books of the Bible!” etc.

You take the “absolute” example too far. When something is made irreversable by the pope, it’s also absolute.
F:

Obviously plenty of things - both divinely structured and canonically established - limit the exercise of the pope’s supreme authority. But it does seem that particular condemned proposition leaves untouched the truth or falsehood of the “free prince” assertion and concerns itself merely with when it has been held.

Unless I’m missing something?

The limit is to faith and morals, which the doctrine clearly defined

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You take the “absolute” example too far.

I don’t think so. “Absolute” is a very strong term. Remember when Marduk had to point out on another thread many months ago that Vatican I says the pope has “the absolute fullness of supreme power,” and how that’s not the same thing as “absolute power”?

I think we all, despite our disagreements, actually do agree on this “free prince” notion. The condemned proposition in the Syllabus of Errors seems to concern itself with the time period only, but no one - not even Absolutist Petrine advocates - seriously believes the pope’s spiritual authority is comparable to the political authority of a “free sovereign.”

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t think so. “Absolute” is a very strong term. Remember when Marduk had to point out on another thread many months ago that Vatican I says the pope has “the absolute fullness of supreme power,” and how that’s not the same thing as “absolute power”?

I think we all, despite our disagreements, actually do agree on this “free prince” notion. The condemned proposition in the Syllabus of Errors seems to concern itself with the time period only, but no one - not even Absolutist Petrine advocates - seriously believes the pope’s spiritual authority is comparable to the political authority of a “free sovereign.”

Really? Have you asked them? oh wait I forgot there is no such as Papal absolutists, only Papal Supremacists. The term Papal Absolutist is just a straw man invented or at least championed by Marduk.

The pope is clearly not absolute, he answers to God, he cannot transgress natural or divine law or the deposit of faith, his power is however supreme, something that the so called ‘high petrine view’ does not recognise.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t think so. “Absolute” is a very strong term.

So is the term “irreversable”, and the phrase “not allowed an appeal to any other judgment” …agreed?
F:

Remember when Marduk had to point out on another thread many months ago that Vatican I says the pope has “the absolute fullness of supreme power,” and how that’s not the same thing as “absolute power”?

• the absolute fullness of supreme power
• not the same thing as “absolute power”?

Seems like he is trying to make a disinction without a difference.
F:

I think we all, despite our disagreements, actually do agree on this “free prince” notion. The condemned proposition in the Syllabus of Errors seems to concern itself with the time period only, but no one - not even Absolutist Petrine advocates - seriously believes the pope’s spiritual authority is comparable to the political authority of a “free sovereign.”

Keep in mind, In spiritual matters, there is no comparison to a pope’s authority compared to a prince…agreed?

btw, did you ever wonder why Peter was called prince of the apostles?

St. Anthony of Egypt (330 A.D.):
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles (Anthony, Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p. 687).

Cyril of Alexandria (424 a.d.)
If Peter himself, that prince of the holy disciples, was, upon an occassion, scandalized, so as suddenly to exclaim, ‘Lord, be it far from Thee,’ what wonder that the tender mind of woman should be carried away? (Cyril, comm on John’s gospel)

That the Spirit is God we shall also learn hence. That the prince of the Apostles, to whom ‘flesh and blood,’ as the Savior says, ‘did not reveal’ the Divine mystery, says to Ananias, 'Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, (Cyril, T. v. Par. 1. Thesaur. p. 340)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430)
That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St Gregory I
To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the *care of the whole Church *was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven…{Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice}

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)
In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Where did they get the idea to give Peter the discription of prince? Possibly in the following?

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (ἡγέομαι hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to here? Peter

Definition of ἡγέομαι Hegeomai

**1)**to lead to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

But as jmj posted, the pope in “syllabus of errors” rejects such a notion for the pope as a prince.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Really? Have you asked them? oh wait I forgot there is no such as Papal absolutists, only Papal Supremacists. The term Papal Absolutist is just a straw man invented or at least championed by Marduk.

It’s a very real and important position, one that treats the bishops of the Catholic Church as merely the pope’s deputies. Neo-ultramontanism and classical ultramontanism are indeed distinct.

It never ceases to amaze me how much Low Petrine Christians (usually eastern Orthodox) and Absolutist Petrine advocates (usually misguided Latin Catholics) tend to agree, and this is a perfect example: they act as though there are only two possibilities: conciliarism or neo-Ultramontanism.

It’s a rationally demonstrable fact that those are not the only two options in ecclesiology. Only on an Internet forum could one get away with the intellectual sloppiness required to seriously posit such a false dichotomy.

The pope is clearly not absolute, he answers to God, he cannot transgress natural or divine law or the deposit of faith, his power is however supreme, something that the so called ‘high petrine view’ does not recognise.

I totally agree with you that the pope’s power is not absolute but is indeed supreme - indeed, the pope possesses (as I quoted above) the absolute fullness of supreme power.

You are wrong, though, in stating that the “High Petrine” view does not acknowledge the pope’s supreme authority. It most definitely does.

• the absolute fullness of supreme power
• not the same thing as “absolute power”?

Seems like he is trying to make a disinction without a difference.

Please. I don’t believe for a second that you can’t tell the difference. The difference is nigh impossible to miss for anyone competent in the language in which we are conversing - and you undoubtedly are competent in it, Steve.

In the former instance, it’s the degree to which supreme power is possessed that is “absolute.” In the latter instance, it’s the power itself that is absolute.

Let me repeat: it is ludicrous beyond expression to claim that the pope has absolute power. No mere human being has absolute power, in any sense, in any context, in any matter, period.

He does, however, have supreme power - i.e. he enjoys the highest authority possible in the Catholic Church. He can personally exercise the Church’s infallibility. He is the head of the body of bishops, and the head of any ecumenical council, necessary for its decrees to be binding. From his decisions/decrees there is no recourse.

That is supreme power, not absolute power. It’s a hugely important difference. Supreme power is the highest power. Absolute power is unlimited. The pope is the absolute highest power in the Church, but his authority is by no means unlimited.

 

[jmj1984]

It’s a very real and important position, one that treats the bishops of the Catholic Church as merely the pope’s deputies. Neo-ultramontanism and classical ultramontanism are indeed distinct.

I’m afraid thats its not a real position, its a position Marduk has made up, at least for the purposes of this thread as no one has stated they hold to this view.

It never ceases to amaze me how much Low Petrine Christians (usually eastern Orthodox) and Absolutist Petrine advocates (usually misguided Latin Catholics) tend to agree, and this is a perfect example: they act as though there are only two possibilities: conciliarism or neo-Ultramontanism.

It’s a rationally demonstrable fact that those are not the only two options in ecclesiology. Only on an Internet forum could one get away with the intellectual sloppiness required to seriously posit such a false dichotomy.

You clearly missed the posts where I spoke of Gallicianism. Regardless if a position is conciliarist, its conciliarist not something else. Marduks view is a mixture of Gallicianism and conciliarism.

I totally agree with you that the pope’s power is not absolute but is indeed supreme - indeed, the pope possesses (as I quoted above) the absolute fullness of supreme power.

You are wrong, though, in stating that the “High Petrine” view does not acknowledge the pope’s supreme authority. It most definitely does.

I’m afraid it does not. As it clearly states that Bishops can judge when to obey the popes decision and when not to, it therefore fails to recognise the supremacy of the pope.

 

[steve_b]

Please. I don’t believe for a second that you can’t tell the difference. The difference is nigh impossible to miss for anyone competent in the language in which we are conversing - and you undoubtedly are competent in it, Steve.

In the former instance, it’s the degree to which supreme power is possessed that is “absolute.” In the latter instance, it’s the power itself that is absolute.

Let me repeat: it is ludicrous beyond expression to claim that the pope has absolute power. No mere human being has absolute power, in any sense, in any context, in any matter, period.

In matters of faith and morals only, as it has been said many many times already, when the pope makes definitions ex cathedra, they are of themselves irreformable and there is no appeal to another authority. IOW they are there for all time. What power would YOU call that?
F:

He does, however, have supreme power - i.e. he enjoys the highest authority possible in the Catholic Church. He can personally exercise the Church’s infallibility. He is the head of the body of bishops, and the head of any ecumenical council, necessary for its decrees to be binding. From his decisions/decrees there is no recourse.

That is supreme power, not absolute power. It’s a hugely important difference. Supreme power is the highest power. Absolute power is unlimited. The pope is the absolute highest power in the Church, but his authority is by no means unlimited.

You’re thinking of absolute and unlimited in a secular/worldly sense, in time and space.

For example, are decisions of the supreme court final? Can their judgement be overturned to another court? Are their judgments on matters unlimited?

We know In matters of judgement,

• The supreme court is limited to issues of law,
• just as the pope is limited to matters of faith and morals.

How far does each of their powers extend in their specific arena?

Some cases that have been tried in front of the supreme court could/will get overturned by a different selection of judges in the future. And we know this happens. And one could say that’s supreme power, the highest court in the U.S…

But once a pope defines something infallibly, no future pope or another authority can overturn it. It’s there forever. Because the pope and the HS made the decree. IOW there is no limit to the ex cathedra decree, it’s an unlimited decision by definition.

Think about it.

 

[louis91766]

But once a pope defines something infallibly, no future pope or another authority can overturn it.

But what has been defined infallibly? For example, is the restriction on artificial birth control an infallible decision or not? Some say yes. The E. Orthodox allow ABC in some circumstances, and even more, they do not accept papal infallibility, so how come the RCC allows them to receive Holy Communion in an RC Church?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Marduks view is a mixture of Gallicianism and conciliarism.

Marduk already explained why his view is not Gallicianism. And it’s obviously not conciliarism, since Marduk explicitly denies the theory that an ecumenical council is superior to papal authority.

Nor does Marduk believe that the pope’s supreme authority must be exercised in a conciliar context, which is what most High Petrine eastern Orthodox believe. I’ve seen Marduk respond very positively to an article written by a High Petrine eastern Orthodox believer, but with one caveat: the Orthodox writer said that the pope’s supreme authority must be exercised in a conciliar manner, whereas Marduk said it’s okay if it’s not in a conciliar context as long as it respects the episcopacy’s collegial structure.

There is nothing conciliarist about what we call the High Petrine view.

I’m afraid it does not. As it clearly states that Bishops can judge when to obey the popes decision and when not to, it therefore fails to recognise the supremacy of the pope.

It doesn’t say bishops get to pick and choose which papal decisions to conform to. It lays out the rights of bishops and declares them inviolable (except for insanity, heresy, or similar obstructions of legitimate episcopal authority). And it also identifies papal authority as the highest in the church, and then it emphasizes that both of these propositions are true: (a) the body (bishops) cannot act without their head (the pope), and (b) the head (the pope) cannot act apart from the body (the bishops).

For example, are decisions of the supreme court final? Can their judgement be overturned to another court? Are their judgments on matters unlimited?

That’s a perfect example, Steve. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are legally final and no other court can be appealed to against its decisions. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court has supreme authority indeed - but not absolute authority.

The same is true of papal authority.

We know In matters of judgement, the supreme court is limited to issues of law, just as the pope is limited to matters of faith and morals.

Well, technically, the pope can exercise his supreme authority over any relevant matter in the Catholic Church, not just universally binding faith and morals. But I know you agree with that wholeheartedly and didn’t mean to imply otherwise; I just wanted to point it out.

Some cases that have been tried in front of the supreme court could/will get overturned by a different selection of judges in the future. And we know this happens. And one could say that’s supreme power, the highest court in the U.S.

The Supreme Court’s authority is not absolute - but not because its decrees may be overturned. Even if they could never be overturned by a future court, the Supreme Court’s authority would still not be absolute, because it’s limited in many *other *ways: the U.S. Constitution, the fact that they can’t directly legislate, or exercise the governmental power of commanding the military, etc.

In fact, the comparison is an excellent one: just as Scripture and Tradition bind a pope in what he authoritatively teaches, so too does the U.S. Constitution bind the Supreme Court; however, there’s some ambiguity and leeway in both cases because it’s the Supreme Court which gets to interpret the Constitution - and thereby set its own authority - just as an official papal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition can be made binding if that pope so chooses, which means that - likewise - the papacy has had and still has the practical ability to define itself the limitations of its own authority (although in the Catholic Church, ecumenical councils are also supreme, of course).

But once a pope defines something infallibly, no future pope or another authority can overturn it. It’s there forever. Because the pope and the HS made the decree. IOW there is no limit to the ex cathedra decree, it’s an unlimited decision by definition.

It’s not at all “unlimited.” Irreformable and unlimited are not the same thing. There are many limitations on papal ex cathedra proclamations: Scripture, Tradition, the universally binding teachings of ecumenical councils and previous papal decrees, the divinely ordained structure of Christ’s Church, etc.

Those are all pretty conspicuous limitations.

But what has been defined infallibly? For example, is the restriction on artificial birth control an infallible decision or not? Some say yes.

I don’t think it’s infallible ex cathedra by virtue of any papal exercise of the Church’s extraordinary Magisterium. It’s infallible, rather, by virtue of the ordinary Magisterium. In other words, I believe that in Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI exercised the Church’s infallibility collegially, not personally.

So it’s not that Humanae Vitae isn’t infallible, it’s just that it’s not infallible by the same extraordinary mechanism (i.e. ex cathedra papal infallibility) that makes Ineffabilis Deus or Munificentissimus Deus infallible.

The E. Orthodox allow ABC in some circumstances, and even more, they do not accept papal infallibility, so how come the RCC allows them to receive Holy Communion in an RC Church?

It’s like a pastoral provision - an imperfect and temporary solution based on the fact that the eastern Orthodox believe in the Eucharist/the Real Presence and are from a church that has a valid Eucharistic Liturgy.

 

[jmj1984]

Marduk already explained why his view is not Gallicianism. And it’s obviously not conciliarism, since Marduk explicitly denies the theory that an ecumenical council is superior to papal authority.

You may have noticed I stated a ‘mixture of’, I have clearly demonstrated this to be true by reference to several papal documents.

Nor does Marduk believe that the pope’s supreme authority must be exercised in a conciliar context, which is what most High Petrine eastern Orthodox believe. I’ve seen Marduk respond very positively to an article written by a High Petrine eastern Orthodox believer, but with one caveat: the Orthodox writer said that the pope’s supreme authority must be exercised in a conciliar manner, whereas Marduk said it’s okay if it’s not in a conciliar context as long as it respects the episcopacy’s collegial structure.

Which is an unjust limitation on the Popes powers, where does it say it must respect the collegial structure of the Church? Does this phrase even appear in Vatican 1 or in previous in teaching? The answer to that question is no. Ultimately the high petrine eastern orthodox view is at least more reasonable, Marduk’s would have the Pope still acting collegially even when he legislates against the will of all the bishops, that is a manifest absurdity.

There is nothing conciliarist about what we call the High Petrine view.

I disagree.

It doesn’t say bishops get to pick and choose which papal decisions to conform to. It lays out the rights of bishops and declares them inviolable (except for insanity, heresy, or similar obstructions of legitimate episcopal authority). And it also identifies papal authority as the highest in the church, and then it emphasizes that both of these propositions are true: (a) the body (bishops) cannot act without their head (the pope), and (b) the head (the pope) cannot act apart from the body (the bishops).

Actually it does, if a Pope issues a decree violating what you say is an inviolable right of the bishop then the bishop can choose not to follow this decree. This is picking and choosing. Further it has been stated numerous times that the Pope is only infallible when something 'is for the good of The Church’. This again involves an element of picking and choosing as a bishop must decide whether something is for the good of the church or not.

 

[steve_b]

That’s a perfect example, Steve. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are legally final and no other court can be appealed to against its decisions. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court has supreme authority indeed - but not absolute authority.

The same is true of papal authority.

distinctions to follow
FB:

The Supreme Court’s authority is not absolute - but not because its decrees may be overturned. Even if they could never be overturned by a future court, the Supreme Court’s authority would still not be absolute, because it’s limited in many *other *ways: the U.S. Constitution, the fact that they can’t directly legislate, or exercise the governmental power of commanding the military, etc.

In fact, the comparison is an excellent one: just as Scripture and Tradition bind a pope in what he authoritatively teaches, so too does the U.S. Constitution bind the Supreme Court; however, there’s some ambiguity and leeway in both cases because it’s the Supreme Court which gets to interpret the Constitution - and thereby set its own authority - just as an official papal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition can be made binding if that pope so chooses, which means that - likewise - the papacy has had and still has the practical ability to define itself the limitations of its own authority (although in the Catholic Church, ecumenical councils are also supreme, of course).

Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
But once a pope defines something infallibly, no future pope or another authority can overturn it. It’s there forever. Because the pope and the HS made the decree. IOW there is no limit to the ex cathedra decree, it’s an unlimited decision by definition.

OTOH, the Supreme court can be overturned by the very next supreme court due to a shift in the court of new members replacing old retired members who might hava a very different agenda.

That is a huge difference between papal ex cathedra decisions and the supreme court example*…agreed?*

btw re: your last point, that’s true as long as their decisions (the council) have been confirmed by the pope
FB:

It’s not at all “unlimited.” Irreformable and unlimited are not the same thing. There are many limitations on papal ex cathedra proclamations: Scripture, Tradition, the universally binding teachings of ecumenical councils and previous papal decrees, the divinely ordained structure of Christ’s Church, etc.

Those are all pretty conspicuous limitations.

*I don’t think I ever said they were the same. However, once a pope makes an ex cathedra statement, on faith or morals, then irreformable, and unlimited while different, are very much in harmony with each other. *

For example

• *the time the ex cathedra decision lasts, is unlimited. It’s there forever. Time can’t limit it. irreformability lasts forever. i.e. nothing can reverse it…ever. *
• No other pope or authority in the future, can overturn it.
• If some ONE or some authority, could change it in the furure, then by definition the decision would be a limited decision*…agreed? *
• *Since no ONE can reverse the decision, and no other authority can reverse it, because the HS assisted the pope in making the statement ex cathedra, therefore, that protection of the HS, could be said to be unlimited as well…agreed? *
• ergo, unlimited time, unlimited protection, irreformable by any other authority, … are very harmoneous…imho

 

[kotim]

The easiest way to solve this issue is by the supplying of decisons that were made by the Roman Pope without any assistance, from other Bisohops etc. as regarding doctrinal clarity/development that would indicate that the Pope of himself ‘tomorow’ decided to to make dogmatic statements.

The high Petrine position is that the pope always does this in some form of ‘consultative’ way which means of itself there must be some sort of ‘restriction’ on his own personal ability to formulate/develop doctrine.

The second way as far as Catholics are concerned is that of sole decision maker, with no need or consultation etc.

The easiest way here would be for those like jmj1984 and Steve b amongst others to supply a list(some) of dogmatic decisions/developments made by the Roman Popes that meet their criteria of their position.

Personally I lean to the High Petrine view but I don’t discount the possibility in some way of the alternative view in this discussion.

Obvioulsy if we have doctrine developed and formulated by Popes as absolute requirments of the faith then itshould be a simple matter of supplying such incidents and that would then lend a tnedancy to one side of the other.

thanks

 

[jmj1984]

The easiest way to solve this issue is by the supplying of decisons that were made by the Roman Pope without any assistance, from other Bisohops etc. as regarding doctrinal clarity/development that would indicate that the Pope of himself ‘tomorow’ decided to to make dogmatic statements.

The high Petrine position is that the pope always does this in some form of ‘consultative’ way which means of itself there must be some sort of ‘restriction’ on his own personal ability to formulate/develop doctrine.

The second way as far as Catholics are concerned is that of sole decision maker, with no need or consultation etc.

The easiest way here would be for those like jmj1984 and Steve b amongst others to supply a list(some) of dogmatic decisions/developments made by the Roman Popes that meet their criteria of their position.

Personally I lean to the High Petrine view but I don’t discount the possibility in some way of the alternative view in this discussion.

Obvioulsy if we have doctrine developed and formulated by Popes as absolute requirments of the faith then itshould be a simple matter of supplying such incidents and that would then lend a tnedancy to one side of the other.

thanks

We’ve done so repeatedly, so I don’t know why you request this when its already been done

 

[louis91766]

We’ve done so repeatedly, so I don’t know why you request this when its already been done

i know why.
It is because one person’s list of infallible decisions does not always agree with the other’s.

 

[kotim]

Righto so give me 2 examples in the last 200 years for eg, whereby the Pope without any help or consideration from others within or without the Church have made infalliable decisions.

I have read a lot of stuff and I struggle to find the exact examples, so this is not me having a go at anyone. Simply put up 2 examples where the Pope has made infalliable decisions without any assistance from anyone other than the Holy Spirit, that has not been reviewed by a Council and agreed with or that has not been done without any consultation collaberation with other Bishops.

Just give me a couple of examples which you believe fit the criteria and I am happy to look at them, and if its reasonably obvious that what you say is correct then I am ultimatley happy to believe that.

Help a brother in faith.