High Petrine view in the early Church

[mardukm]

An ex cathedra statement on faith and morals is absolute. But that doesn’t make the pope absolutist, or anyone else who defends the pope’s ability to make an absolute decision.

The issue is not whether the Pope can make an absolute decision on faith and morals.

The issue is whether or not the Pope has the ability to UNILATERALLY, SEPARATED FROM WITNESS OF THE CHURCH, SEPARATED FROM THE SENSUS FIDEI, SEPARATED FROM THE PRESENT ORTHODOX WITNESS OF ORTHODOX BISHOPS, make an ex cathedra decision.

If you say “no,” then we are in agreement. If you say “yes,” we are at odds, and you would be adhering to an Absolutist Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That is simply a childish and unecessary comment, no one is denying this. But Christ as regards jurisdiction and governance acts through the Pope in a special way due to his being the successor of St Peter, and this is why he is the supreme authority in the church.

His comment was neither childish nor unnecessary.

Christ, as regards jurisdiction and governance, acts through EVERY orthodox bishop in a local diocese. Christ acts through EVERY orthodox head bishop on a greater territorial level. And Christ acts through every orthodox Pope on the universal level.

There is no Church document that states that the Pope is THE Supreme authority in the Church. Every Church document simply states that, as far as Supreme
authority is concerned, that of the Pope is EQUAL to that of the College.

Brother Rolfe’s comment was both timely and relevant. When one understands that Christ is the supreme authority, one understands that unity is based on orthodoxy, not on mere communion with a certain bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

I don’t think anyone is saying that the pope has to overtly consult other bishops and then act in agreement with them when defining something. There are other ways to consult the consensus of the Church.

In the case of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI very much acted in accord with what Chesterton calls “the democracy of the dead” - with the living witness of the Catholic Church throughout her history. So yes, he went against the opinions of the bishops advising him, and we all agree that that was his prerogative. It doesn’t mean he acted independently of the Church, of Tradition, or even of the episcopate.

This is very well stated.

I’m not sure where brother jmj gets his idea that the Pope acted against the “majority view” on the matter. I wish he would explain. The only thing that happened was that the Pope acted against the recommendation of a handful of theologians and bishops which made up the commission he formed. The fact is, when the issue of ABC came to the floor of Vatican2, nearly 2,000 bishops voted to adhere to the Traditional teaching - a very clear majority.

I am waiting, along with brother Kotim who asked for it earler, for even a single example in Church history of the Pope EVER acting in the manner that Absolutist Petrine advocates claim the Pope can act - i.e., apart from his brother bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The issue is not whether the Pope can make an absolute decision on faith and morals.

The issue is whether or not the Pope has the ability to UNILATERALLY, SEPARATED FROM WITNESS OF THE CHURCH, SEPARATED FROM THE SENSUS FIDEI, SEPARATED FROM THE PRESENT ORTHODOX WITNESS OF ORTHODOX BISHOPS, make an ex cathedra decision.

If you say “no,” then we are in agreement.

Well put. Again, the example that always springs to my mind is the 1950 infallible definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the impetus for which was a request of many, many Catholic bishops around the world. So Pope Pius XII looked into it because of that, agreed, and then infallibly defined it as dogma.

A personal papal exercise of the Church’s infallibility simply never occurs in a vacuum, outside the context which you described so eloquently above.

Dear brother Fone Bone,

This is very well stated.

Thank you, Marduk, my brother.

I’m not sure where brother jmj gets his idea that the Pope acted against the “majority view” on the matter. I wish he would explain. The only thing that happened was that the Pope acted against the recommendation of a handful of theologians and bishops which made up the commission he formed.

Of course. In fact, I think my comment that you complimented even conceded a little too much. The poster to whom I was responding acted as though the world’s Catholic bishops were clamoring for a change in the teaching on contraception, when you’re right, Marduk - it was just the commission that was investigating the matter that he disagreed with.

The fact is, when the issue of ABC came to the floor of Vatican2, nearly 2,000 bishops voted to adhere to the Traditional teaching - a very clear majority.

Wow, I didn’t know that. Still, it doesn’t surprise me.

I am waiting, along with brother Kotim who asked for it earler, for even a single example in Church history of the Pope EVER acting in the manner that Absolutist Petrine advocates claim the Pope can act - i.e., apart from his brother bishops.

Well, of course they can’t provide such an example, because that’s not how the Catholic Church functions… as I mentioned above, even with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption it didn’t work that way…

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Marduk! So glad to see you’re back!

 

[louis91766]

The only thing that happened was that the Pope acted against the recommendation of a handful of theologians and bishops which made up the commission he formed. The fact is, when the issue of ABC came to the floor of Vatican2, nearly 2,000 bishops voted to adhere to the Traditional teaching - a very clear majority.

This indicates a big difference with the Holy Orthodox Church which allows ABC in some restricted circumstances. If you are Catholic, the penalty could be eternal damnation in hell if you practice ABC. On the other hand, if you are Orthodox, under some circumstances for married couples with several children, there would not be the penalty of eternal damnation in hell for practicing ABC.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, of course they can’t provide such an example, because that’s not how the Catholic Church functions… as I mentioned above, even with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption it didn’t work that way…

Which of course is why Denzinger is full of such examples, as are the encyclicals of the 19th and early 20th century popes as well as those of the medieval popes, all of which constitute authoritative teaching and very few of which involved any consultation.

 

[Vico]

From the Holy Father, 2010:

A suspicion which is often expressed in a conviction that it is necessary to eliminate every kind of authority does not come exclusively from man, and is not regulated and controlled by him. But it is precisely in reviewing those regimes which in the last century disseminated terror and death, that we are forcibly reminded that authority, in every circumstance, when it is exercised without reference to the Transcendent, if it neglects the Supreme Authority, which is God, inevitably finishes by turning against man. It is important, therefore, to recognize that human authority is never an end in itself but always and only a means and that, necessarily and in every age, the end is the person, created by God with his own inviolable dignity and called to relate to his Creator, both along the path of his earthly journey and in eternal life; it is an authority exercised in responsibility before God, before the Creator. An authority whose sole purpose is understood to be to serve the true good of the person and to be a glass through which we can see the one and supreme Good, which is God. Not only is it not foreign to man, but on the contrary, it is a precious help on our journey towards a total fulfilment in Christ, towards salvation.

The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ, who received from his Father all authority both in Heaven and on Earth (cf. Mt 28: 18) Christ tends his flock through the Pastor of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100526_en.html

 

[kotim]

jmj1984

The Pope and Bishops etc are always in effect making infalliable decisions because they are in effect always repeatedly restating the accepted norms/dogma of the faith. What I have asked of you is an instance or three where the Pope has decided without any consultation with council or other Church members etc, any form of new or substantially developed doctrine/moral teaching that is not allready part of the accepted faith.

That is all I ask of you If you can present such examples then I am happy to look at them. Naturally enough, my knowledge is not exhaustive, so therefor I can be wrong and If I am wrong I wish to know it.

In Christ

Tim

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Which of course is why Denzinger is full of such examples, as are the encyclicals of the 19th and early 20th century popes as well as those of the medieval popes, all of which constitute authoritative teaching and very few of which involved any consultation.

Er… will you please share one or two?

I don’t think you’ll be able to give a satisfactory example, but I also don’t think we disagree as much as you think. We’re not disputing that in a papal exercise of the Church’s infallibility, it is in fact the pope himself who judges the matter and makes the call. In that sense, it’s his decision. Furthermore, we’re not claiming that should he consult other bishops, that he’s bound by their opinion.

What we are saying is precisely what Marduk said above: a pope who exercises infallibility will not do so - cannot do so - apart from and against the witness of the Church, the sensus fidei, and the contemporary witness of orthodox bishops.

How is that a controversial claim? It doesn’t negate the fact that in an ex cathedra exercise of infallibility, the pope is still the one actually judging the matter and making the decision…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother FoneBone,

Fone_Bone_2001:
The fact is, when the issue of ABC came to the floor of Vatican2, nearly 2,000 bishops voted to adhere to the Traditional teaching - a very clear majority.Wow, I didn’t know that. Still, it doesn’t surprise me.

I wish I had my book resources here in the Philippines. Alas! I just have to work off of memory.

The voting on the issue coincided with the debate on the text of the Decree on the Church in the Modern World (I believe it is called Ad gentes). Interestingly, the issue of ABC was not on the original agenda of Vatican 2. The debate on the matter was not even spearheaded by the Pope, but by a bishop from South America. The clamor caused by the bishop caught the attention of other bishops, and so on and so on. So the Pope, upon the recommendation of a few bishops, brought it before the Council, and the Council voted for it. Like with the dogmatization of the IC and Assumption, the matter is resolved from the ground up, and the whole Magisterium is involved - it is NEVER the Pope alone.

It’s very important to know the background and context of any issue. As always stated, context, context, context. It is the bane of those who would, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent the the Truths of the Catholic Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother FoneBone,

Especially since the continued example of Church history testifies that the Catholic Church never functioned that way. I remember when you pointed out, Marduk, the central importance of the Synod of Bishops even at the height of the papacy’s power in the High Middle Ages.

Just a clarification:

The Pope NORMATIVELY (i.e., as a RULE) acted in Synod (the general praxis of the Church). But after the turn of the first millenium, when secular rulers attempted to control the local Church, it became increasingly difficult for the Pope to call together the formal Synod, since secular rulers would prevent their national or regional bishops from attending. In that stalemated ecclesio-political environment, the College of Cardinals gradually and officially replaced the role of the Synod as the normative synodical/collegial body with whom the Pope acted in the High Middle Ages.

The Synod was re-established as the formal and official body with whom the Pope acts only at Vatican 2.

Readers should not confuse the formal Synod with the Ecumenical Council. There are several differences, not least of which are 1) the fact that while an Ecumenical Council is invested with the charism of infallibility, the formal Synod is not; 2) the formal Synod is primarily patriarchal, while the Ecumenical Council is universal. #2 should not be taken as an indication that the formal Synod cannot decide on matters outside the boundaries of the Latin Patriarchate. The formal Synod is the forum in which and through which the bishop of Rome, as head bishop of the Church universal, hears appeals from the Eastern or Oriental Churches. I don’t see how anyone can gainsay this role of the Synod, as it was the norm in the early Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Marduk! So glad to see you’re back!

Thank you, brother. I’m at the whim of Internet reliability here in the Philippines. To be honest, the past 3 weeks has been tremendously hectic because there was a death in my wife’s family (a patriarchal figure), and relatives were coming in from all over the world.

We’ll see how long I can stay this time.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Louis,

This indicates a big difference with the Holy Orthodox Church which allows ABC in some restricted circumstances. If you are Catholic, the penalty could be eternal damnation in hell if you practice ABC. On the other hand, if you are Orthodox, under some circumstances for married couples with several children, there would not be the penalty of eternal damnation in hell for practicing ABC.

I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on ABC, but I wanted to make an important comment.

The “big difference” of which you speak does not really exist. There are certainly many elements within the Orthodox Church which view the matter in the way you expressed it, but there are also many who understand the matter in the way the Catholic Church does. There is no one voice in Orthodoxy that speaks on the matter - some may see that as a minus, others a plus.

For those who are more aligned with Catholic thought, it is important to understand that ABC is not thought of as “permitted.” A proper understanding of the matter depends much on how one understands the concept of oikonomia. There are Orthodox who understand oikonomia as “changing the rules for the sake of mercy.” But the Traditional understanding of oikonomia is not “changing the rules” but simply a mitigation or removal of the penalty normally associated with breaking the rules due to the unique circumstances of the perpetrator. So the rule has not changed, and ABC still falls short of the mark.

To those Orthodox who are more aligned to Catholic thought on the matter, the use (not “permission”) of ABC is a matter of oikonomia, to be discussed seriously with the priest. It is not a matter of purely personal convenience.

I’ll give you a comparison. As you know, Catholic teaching states that breaking any one of the Ten Commandments is a mortal sin - it could land you in hell. Let’s say someone steals (breaking a Commandment). He is caught, and during his trial, it is discovered that the person stole to feed his starving family. So the judge mitigates the punishment due to his special circumstances and lets the man go.

Did the judge permit the man to steal (thus changing the law)? Or did the judge simply remove the penalty normally associated with breaking the law?

THAT is what oikonomia is. It is not a permission to sin. Those who think it is a permission to sin simply do not understand what it is. Unfortunately, there are many Orthodox who today conceive of oikonomia as “changing the rule,” thus perpetrating, I truly believe, a great disservice to Holy Orthodoxy, for it makes those who are not Orthodox think that the Orthodox Church gives people permission to sin.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Which of course is why Denzinger is full of such examples, as are the encyclicals of the 19th and early 20th century popes as well as those of the medieval popes, all of which constitute authoritative teaching and

Did any of those encyclicals contradict the teaching of the Ordinary, universal Magisterium of the Church? We High Petrine advocates keep saying that the Pope has no authority to act apart from or contradict that orthodox witness. You keep saying he can.

very few of which involved any consultation.

EVERY bishop, when he issues encyclicals, often does not consult with other bishops, but does it in his own name and authority. BUT, that bishop has absolutely no authority to issue an encyclical that contradicts the DOCTRINES of the orthodox witness of the orthodox bishops of the Church - a condition that is EVEN MORE important and necessary for one how holds the position of head bishop of the Church universal.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

Er… will you please share one or two?

I don’t think you’ll be able to give a satisfactory example, but I also don’t think we disagree as much as you think. We’re not disputing that in a papal exercise of the Church’s infallibility, it is in fact the pope himself who judges the matter and makes the call. In that sense, it’s his decision. Furthermore, we’re not claiming that should he consult other bishops, that he’s bound by their opinion.

What we are saying is precisely what Marduk said above: a pope who exercises infallibility will not do so - cannot do so - apart from and against the witness of the Church, the sensus fidei, and the contemporary witness of orthodox bishops.

How is that a controversial claim? It doesn’t negate the fact that in an ex cathedra exercise of infallibility, the pope is still the one actually judging the matter and making the decision…

I’m afraid that your summary of the claims being made isnt entirely correct. Far more is being claimed than that a pope cannot act when speaking infallibly, speak seperately from and against the witness of the church, the sensus fidei and the witness of orthodox bishops. Claims have been made as regards whether the pope can interfere in other bishops dioceses, the limits of the popes powers and so forth.

The problem with the idea comes quite simply from the fact that the church is not and never has been a democracy. This has been stated repeatedly by the Popes and reflected by the sources I have quoted. In light of this references to the ‘sensus fidei’ and the ‘contemporary witness of orthodox bishops’ binding the Pope becomes problematic. Ultimately it is for the Pope to judge what the genuine ‘Sensus Fidei’ on a matter is as well which bishops are and aren’t orthodox and for him to either accept or reject their witness. Without establishing this fact one reduces The Church to a sort of democracy where if the majority people believe X, this becomes the sensus fidei which binds the pope and if the majority of popes believe X and claim they are orthodox and the people believe them to be this binds the pope. This is simply not the case. In light of the fact therefore that it is up to the pope to decide who is and isn’t orthodox and what is and isn’t the sensus fidei, appeals to them as a limit on the popes power become meaningless. This is without even addressing the fact that the pope can reduce or increase peoples powers whensoever he wishes demoting or promoting bishops, changing their see’s and such forth, therefore practically it is not possible to maintain and promote an opinion contrary to that of the Pope and remain a bishop for long, if he deems you unorthodox or a heretic.

I agree there are limits on Papal power but unless he is transgressing those limits, which are limits not of degree but of kind, that is they do not reduce papal power but merely prevent it from being exercised where the result is either heretical or endangers the salvation of souls, he is essentially free to do whatsoever he pleases.

I have already cited several clear examples where a pope has legislated against the will of Orthodox bishops and has not obviously consulted anyone, you may go back through the thread and find those examples if you wish. I should add that practically it is unlikely that the Pope would make decisions without consulting someone elses, but he has not duty to do so, his not doing so would not effect the validity of his acts or decisions, and there are examples where he has not done so.

As for how its a controversial decision, I believe thats self-evident. It is an attempt to introduce concilarism in disguise, making the popes exercise of powers dependant on the agreement of others.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother FoneBone,

Just a clarification:

The Pope NORMATIVELY (i.e., as a RULE) acted in Synod (the general praxis of the Church). But after the turn of the first millenium, when secular rulers attempted to control the local Church, it became increasingly difficult for the Pope to call together the formal Synod, since secular rulers would prevent their national or regional bishops from attending. In that stalemated ecclesio-political environment, the College of Cardinals gradually and officially replaced the role of the Synod as the normative synodical/collegial body with whom the Pope acted in the High Middle Ages.

The Synod was re-established as the formal and official body with whom the Pope acts only at Vatican 2.

Ah, that makes sense.

I’m afraid that your summary of the claims being made isnt entirely correct. Far more is being claimed than that a pope cannot act when speaking infallibly, speak seperately from and against the witness of the church, the sensus fidei and the witness of orthodox bishops.

That is precisely the claim. I all but plagiarized Marduk when I summarized that above.

Claims have been made as regards whether the pope can interfere in other bishops dioceses, the limits of the popes powers and so forth.

But that’s not the topic under discussion. Concerning papal infallibility, the claims you and I both summarized above are indeed what the High Petrine side maintains.

The problem with the idea comes quite simply from the fact that the church is not and never has been a democracy

We’re not making it a democracy - we’d be guilty of trying to make it a democracy if we acted as though laypeople’s opinions in any given age always reflect the truth. But we’re not. It’s bishops we’re talking about here, the successors to Christ’s Apostles.

In that light, the Church is certainly not a democracy, but nor is it an absolute monarchy. It’s more like an aristocracy, although all these political metaphors, of course, fall short of real accuracy.

Without establishing this fact one reduces The Church to a sort of democracy where if the majority people believe X, this becomes the sensus fidei which binds the pope and if the majority of popes believe X and claim they are orthodox and the people believe them to be this binds the pope.

Again, the problem with this claim - that our position makes the Church into a democracy - is that we’re not talking about the mass of lay Catholics here, but about the bishops.

I should add that practically it is unlikely that the Pope would make decisions without consulting someone elses, but he has not duty to do so, his not doing so would not effect the validity of his acts or decisions, and there are examples where he has not done so.

Again, this leads me to believe that you’re making this disagreement bigger than it really is: we are not claiming that, when making a universally binding decision or confirming a teaching as universally binding, a pope must consult bishops beforehand. Yes, you’re right: there are theoretically other ways he could go about it. We’re talking about rhetoric that separates the pope’s charism of infallibility from the Church and acts as though the pope is not bound by the truths of the orthodox faith as witnessed to by the Catholic Church.

As for how its a controversial decision, I believe thats self-evident. It is an attempt to introduce concilarism in disguise, making the popes exercise of powers dependant on the agreement of others.

**The only thing it makes the pope’s exercise of powers dependent on is Scripture, Tradition, the divinely ordained structure of the Church, and the previous infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Again, I don’t see how that’s a controversial claim.**

 

[jmj1984]

Ah, that makes sense.

That is precisely the claim. I all but plagiarized Marduk when I summarized that above.

But that’s not the topic under discussion. Concerning papal infallibility, the claims you and I both summarized above are indeed what the High Petrine side maintains.

We’re not making it a democracy - we’d be guilty of trying to make it a democracy if we acted as though laypeople’s opinions in any given age always reflect the truth. But we’re not. It’s bishops we’re talking about here, the successors to Christ’s Apostles.

In that light, the Church is certainly not a democracy, but nor is it an absolute monarchy. It’s more like an aristocracy, although all these political metaphors, of course, fall short of real accuracy.

Again, the problem with this claim - that our position makes the Church into a democracy - is that we’re not talking about the mass of lay Catholics here, but about the bishops.

Again, this leads me to believe that you’re making this disagreement bigger than it really is: we are not claiming that, when making a universally binding decision or confirming a teaching as universally binding, a pope must consult bishops beforehand. Yes, you’re right: there are theoretically other ways he could go about it. We’re talking about rhetoric that separates the pope’s charism of infallibility from the Church and acts as though the pope is not bound by the truths of the orthodox faith as witnessed to by the Catholic Church.

**The only thing it makes the pope’s exercise of powers dependent on is Scripture, Tradition, the divinely ordained structure of the Church, and the previous infallible teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Again, I don’t see how that’s a controversial claim.**

Whether its a majority of bishops or a majority of lay people doesnt really matter, either way you are attempting to democratise The Church and that simply isn’t going to work. As for issues as regards the church being an absolute monarchy we already know what the syllabus of errors has to say on the subject.
It is very obvious what is controversial about your claim, you are attempting to make the pope reliant on other bishops, that simply isn’t going to work.

 

[louis91766]

Dear brother Louis,

I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on ABC, but I wanted to make an important comment.

The “big difference” of which you speak does not really exist. There are certainly many elements within the Orthodox Church which view the matter in the way you expressed it, but there are also many who understand the matter in the way the Catholic Church does. There is no one voice in Orthodoxy that speaks on the matter - some may see that as a minus, others a plus.

For those who are more aligned with Catholic thought, it is important to understand that ABC is not thought of as “permitted.” A proper understanding of the matter depends much on how one understands the concept of oikonomia. There are Orthodox who understand oikonomia as “changing the rules for the sake of mercy.” But the Traditional understanding of oikonomia is not “changing the rules” but simply a mitigation or removal of the penalty normally associated with breaking the rules due to the unique circumstances of the perpetrator. So the rule has not changed, and ABC still falls short of the mark.

To those Orthodox who are more aligned to Catholic thought on the matter, the use (not “permission”) of ABC is a matter of oikonomia, to be discussed seriously with the priest. It is not a matter of purely personal convenience.

I’ll give you a comparison. As you know, Catholic teaching states that breaking any one of the Ten Commandments is a mortal sin - it could land you in hell. Let’s say someone steals (breaking a Commandment). He is caught, and during his trial, it is discovered that the person stole to feed his starving family. So the judge mitigates the punishment due to his special circumstances and lets the man go.

Did the judge permit the man to steal (thus changing the law)? Or did the judge simply remove the penalty normally associated with breaking the law?

THAT is what oikonomia is. It is not a permission to sin. Those who think it is a permission to sin simply do not understand what it is. Unfortunately, there are many Orthodox who today conceive of oikonomia as “changing the rule,” thus perpetrating, I truly believe, a great disservice to Holy Orthodoxy, for it makes those who are not Orthodox think that the Orthodox Church gives people permission to sin.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t think that all Orthodox regard it as economia.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think that all Orthodox regard it as economia.

Yes they do. If anybody doesn’t, then he’s wrong, to be quite frank.