High Petrine view in the early Church

[mardukm]

Papal primacy is not going away.

It won’t. It was established by Christ.

Those seperated from Peter wish this would go away and people would forget.

Some do, but I believe most don’t have this perspective.

The pope will not be relegated to mere spokesman. THAT’S not in line with what Jesus established.

That’s NOT what Jesus said, and that NOT what the Church teaches. The Pope IS a spokesman MOST of the time. The Petrine office is only ever exercised in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances.

btw, ex cathedra statements won’t go away either.

On principle, there is a possibility that it will be needed in the future, perhaps during the time of which the Bible speaks when the Church will endure a tribulation unlike any it has known. During this time, it is possible that an Ecumenical Council will be impeded from meeting. But that does not mean that the Pope will ever be exercising his office separated or apart from the Church or his brother biships.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

*consent is with him and not lacking to him, but *that consent of the Church is NOT a condition required for efficacy of his dicision either prior to, or after the decision. That’s why the following quote says

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

That’s why when someone says* , *that the pope can’t make a decision irreformable without the consent of the Church, that is a mixture of conciliarism and gallicanism. And it was condemned at Vat I.

because space limits didn’t allow this the first time

For ease of conversation here’s some definitions

Conciliarism

"The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council’s superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).

In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission."

GALLICANISM

“A cluster of doctrines, favored by the French Church, that tended to limit the authority of the Pope in relation to the bishops, and to subordinate the rights of the Church to the power of the State. The first exponents of Gallicanism were the Franciscans William of Ockham, John of Jandun, and Marsilius of Padua in the fourteenth century, who denied the divine origin of the papal primacy and would subject its exercise to the will of civil authority. Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.”

These heresies unfortunately haven’t completely gone away. There are still people who believe in these ideas.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Brother Philip did not mention Aquinas in his post to which your responded. You are just rambling.

Just a point of clarification. Although you are correct that I didn’t mention Aquinas in the quote to which JMJ was responding, I did mention Aquinas shortly before that quote cited. JMJ was simply responding to another comment I’d made.

But I will also point out that I simply mentioned Aquinas as an example. The example was: if Denziger does not mention everything that Aquinas ever wrote, does that just make the passages of Aquinas he cited important? This was a rhetorical question aimed at JMJ’s rhetoric of absense/ommission. His response was that Aquinas himself, while being the preeminent Catholic theologian (italics are mine), is not a source of Catholic dogma, so the argument is moot. Whether or not I agree with this comment I’m not going to say. I’m leaving this conversation and deferring to your wisdom, brother Marduk. I just wanted to jump in and defend brother JMJ’s comment so that we could all be clear on what was said.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

I have to correct the bolded section. My rhetorical question was actually aimed at JMJ’s claim that only the passages from the Relatio that were quoted in Lumen Gentium bear any sort of authority or importance. Sorry about my little blunder.

 

[steve_b]

I think what is being suggested is that Papal Supremacy will go away, not Papal Primacy.

It’s not that I disagree with your stated position (although I do not believe in it), I don’t think Papal Supremacy within Roman Catholicism will go away, ever. The Roman Catholic church is wedded to Ultramontanism permanently and irrevocably.

One could also say,

ULTRAMONTANE

“Catholics who agreed with the Pope on matters of doctrine and policy. The name means “beyond the Alps,” specifically Rome. Those who lived on the northeren side of the Alps were designated as Cisalpine. (Etym. Latin ultramontanus, beyond the mountain: ultra-, beyond + mons, mountain.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.”

:coffeeread: Gee, imagine that? Catholics agreeing with the pope.

 

[Hesychios]

One could also say,

ULTRAMONTANE

“Catholics who agreed with the Pope on matters of doctrine and policy. The name means “beyond the Alps,” specifically Rome. Those who lived on the northeren side of the Alps were designated as Cisalpine. (Etym. Latin ultramontanus, beyond the mountain: ultra-, beyond + mons, mountain.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.”

:coffeeread: Gee, **imagine that? Catholics agreeing with the pope. **

I realize that it is a rare commodity these days.

However, good Father Hardon’s (memory eternal!) description as related here does not seem complete. If one agrees with the Pope, and the Pope personally has come to think the office has too much authority, is that Ultramontanism? If the Pope believes the Papal Decrees of Vatican I should be recinded or the Council should fade into the background and other Roman Catholics agree is that Ultramontanism?

The Catholic Encyclopedia state “A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism.”. Which is as vague as anything I have ever read. It also implies that anyone who does not agree with the Ultramontane program is not an active nor integral Catholic.

Wiki states "Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope … "

The University College of Cork Ireland website states “Ultramontanism is the tendency in the Roman Catholic Church to centralise power and authority in the hands of the Pope and the Papal Curia …”. Which actually seems the most historically accurate.

 

[jmj1984]

The only authority that Denizinger has is purely academic, as a reference manual. It has absolutely no doctrinal authority to determine what belongs in Sacred Tradition. You don’t seem to have a good grasp of the difference. No one with any theological acumen would go around claiming “Denzinger’s says…” as if it had any sort of authority to determine the doctrines of the Church. What a true theologian would do is appeal to ACTUAL Magisterial sources, such as the Bible, a Council, a Pope, or another bishop - “the Bible says…,” “the Council says…,” “the Pope says…,” “Bishop A says…,” NEVER “Denzinger says…”.

Actually I very much do understand the difference, you seem insistent that Denzinger is an absolutely essential source of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger doesn’t agree with you. If the editors of Denzinger did the official relatio would be in Denzinger, because if they thought this and didn’t put it in it would mean they were leaving out an essential source of Catholic Dogma which is directly contrary to Denzingers stated purpose and function. No amount of ‘your not a theologian’, ‘You don’t understand…’ etc… is going to change this fact. Either Denzinger is failing in its stated purpose and function and has for between 10 and 15 editions or the Relatio simply isn’t as important as you make it out to be.

Where does it make this claim? Was Denzinger a bishop? If not, how can he make any such claim? I ask once again, something you never answered — what doctrinal authority does a textbook have to determine what is or is not the belief of the Church?

Who said anything about belief? I referred to whether the Relatio has the authority you claim it does, Denzinger clearly doesnt believe this or it would have been listed as a source of catholic dogma.

You said that the Official Relatio is not contained in any standard text used by the Vatican. You were (and are) wrong - plain and simple.

I said in the not in any, so I am not wrong.

Absolutist Petrine advocates are confused about a lot of things regarding the papacy, so it is little wonder that you claim there is contradiction in the Official Relatio where there is none. Your personal confusion has no rhetorical value.

And your statements that the relatio is essential to understanding Vatican 1 and further that your understanding of it is the correct one, is until backed up with evidence, an unsubstantiated and therefore weightless claim.

It was produced by the Committee responsible for formulating the papal dogmas, a Committee convened with papal approval. The bishops who voted for the papal dogmas all voted for it with that understanding in mind.

Thats not a statement you can prove unless you can either read minds or have read the diaries of all the bishops present. It may have been one of many things present in their minds or it may have not been present in their mind at all, they may have agreed with it or disagreed with it. We cannot know any of this as we do not have their diaries nor can we read minds.

No one is setting Mansi against Denzinger. They are both merely reference works. You’re the only one here granting to a mere reference work an authority it does not possess. If mere inclusion or lack of it in a reference work indicates any sort of doctrinal relevance, it is only you who are setting Mansi against Denzinger. But you are no diligent student of theology, if you think that Denizinger holds some kind of doctrinal authority.

Again I don’t see anyone claiming Denzinger has doctrinal authority What I do see is someone claiming that a supposedly official relatio not present in the de facto official textbook of sources of catholic dogma has doctrinal authority.

V2 enshrined collegiality as the ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Church. Collegiality was the teaching enshrined by the Official Relatio. Neither the Fathers of V1 nor V2 intended the head to be separated from the body in any way. V2 is very much EXPLICITLY in favor of “my position.”

A discussion we could probably have till Kingdom come and ultimately a futile one, you will say it supports your position, I will say it does not. Then when push comes to shove I’ll point it out it belongs to the ordinary magisterium and is universally recognised as only infallible when it repeated infallible dogmas, you’ll say that it is and so on and so forth.

What is relevant is whose opinions find support from the Magisterial documents. The Absolutist Petrine view has no support from any Magisterial documents - the only way your camp is able to pretend that it does is to take little snippets of the documents, while neglecting the full context, as has repeatedly been demonstrated in these threads.

I don’t see Vatican 2 trying to separate the head from the body in any way. That’s perfectly in the spirit of the Official Relatio. Vatican 2 does not support any of your Absolutist Petrine errors.

And the point of this paragraph was what exactly? Aside from an entire paragraph of ‘your camp is wrong and full of silly people’ what does it actually say? Go and read Denzinger and all the sources it contains and then come back and accuse people of being in ‘error’ and ‘misquoting’. At least then you’ll have some perspective.

 

[jmj1984]

Really, it is your speculation that Denzinger’s has doctrinal authority that is pointless.

Funny, I thought it would be the Catechism. I guess Denzinger has more doctrinal authority (at least in your eyes) than the universal Catechism. The idea that Denzinger would have authority even above the Catechism convinces me that you know not of what you speak. Even an amateur theologian would look first to the Catechism, and only to Denzinger’s if he/she wants an easy reference for the text. I can’t believe any person (other than you) would look first to Denzinger’s to find out what it is the Church believes,

Brother Philip did not mention Aquinas in his post to which your responded. You are just rambling.

Who’s asserting that Denzinger has doctrinal authority? Also perhaps you should learn how to have an argument without insulting the other person, you only make yourself look bad and lower the tone of the whole discussion by doing so.

This is the second time you have made this silly claim. You claimed I was setting Mansi against Denzinger. Now you claim that brother Philip is setting Denzinger against the Relatio. Please look to the log in your own eye. You are the only one setting Denzinger against everything else because you are the only one granting it an authority it does not possess! :banghead:

Which people were doing by claiming ‘But in Mansi…’. As for the rest of the pointless ad hominem, thats not how you create a proper argument.

The Relatio itself claims to be the proper understanding of the Vatican Decrees. It says it in the opening paragraphs. Bishop Gasser was asked by the Committee to be their spokesperson to explain the Decree as formulated by the Committee.

We have much more than the Decrees themselves. The Official Relatio explains it. And Mansi contains all the debates, so we know the why’s of the contents of Pastor Aeternus. For example, you are most likely ignorant of the fact that the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus was intended by the Fathers to be a limitation to the exercise of “papal infallibility” (you probably read it and think that it is simply a nice history lesson). That is why several neo-ultramontanists (those who share your Absolutist Petrine view of the papacy) left the Council when it was added to the text of the Decree two days (IIRC) before the final voting. And you probably did not know that the original title of the chapter on the infallibility was “THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.” It was EXPLICITLY changed to “THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE” to ensure that it could not be misunderstood that infallibility was some sort of singular, private charism that only the Pope could possess. Unfortunately, Absolutist Petrine advocates wholly ignorant of these facts misinterpret the Vatican 1 Decrees in the exact manner that the Fathers of Vatican 1 DID NOT INTEND. There are many other things about the V1 Dogmas on the papacy that you cannot know unless you study the background debates and the Official Relatio.

But it must be rather uncomfortable (to say the least) for Absolutist Petrine advocates to realize that they have actually misinterpreted the intentions of the Fathers of V1. So it is almost understandable that you work so hard to defend your opinion by trying to diminish the importance of statements made by the Fathers of V1.

You mean in your parochial (not universal) context of the Latin Church? I would agree. But the Latin Catholic Church is by no means the only standard by which the Church universal lives. Btw, the Catechism of St. Pius X was by no means universally received.

Blessings,
Marduk

To be honest this entire paragraph appears to be full of bad history and therefore makes me even more suspicious of the relatio actually a) being genuine or b) possessing the authority you ascribe to it. I will show what I mean in my next post.

 

[jmj1984]

Pope Leo XIII writes in his encyclical 'Satis Cognitum **'When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and centre, as it were, of this unity. Wherefore St. Cyprian says: “The following is a short and easy proof of the faith. The Lord saith to Peter: ‘I say to thee thou art Peter’; on him alone He buildeth His Church; and although after His Resurrection He gives a similar power to all the Apostles and says: ‘As the Father hath sent me,’ &c., still in order to make the necessary unity clear, by His own authority He laid down the source of that unity as beginning from one” (De Unit. Eccl., n. 4). And Optatus of Milevis says: “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter. In this Peter, the head of all the Apostles (hence his name Cephas), has sat; in which chair alone unity was to be preserved for all, lest any of the other apostles should claim anything as exclusively his own. So much so, that he who would place another chair against that one chair, would be a schismatic and a sinner” (De Schism. Donat., lib. ii). Hence the teaching of Cyprian, that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due obedience is refused to the supreme authority. “Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world” (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.

But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey. What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys. Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him. If the power of binding, loosening, and feeding confers upon each and every one of the Bishops the successors of the Apostles a real authority to rule the people committed to him, certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep has been assigned by God. “Christ constituted [Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; Peter therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form the whole of the Church” (S. Bruonis Episcopi Signiensis Comment. in Joan., part iii., cap. 21, n. 55). Hence those remarkable expressions of the ancients concerning St. Peter, which most clearly set forth the fact that he was placed n the highest degree of dignity and authority. They frequently call him “the Prince of the assembly of the Disciples; the Prince of the holy Apostles; the leader of that choir; the mouthpiece of all the Apostles; the head of that family; the ruler of the whole world; the first among the Apostles; the pillar of the Church.” In this sense St. Bernard writes as follows to Pope Eugenius: “Who art thou? The great priest - the high priest. Thou art the Prince of Bishops and the heir of the Apostles… Thou art he to whom the keys were given. There are, it is true, other gatekeepers of heaven and to pastors of flocks, but thou are so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a different and more glorious name than all the rest. They have flocks consigned to them, one to each; to thee all the flocks are confided as one flock to one shepherd, and not alone the sheep, but the shepherds. You ask how I prove this? From the words of the Lord. To which - I do not say - of the Bishops, but even of the Apostles have all the sheep been so absolutely and unreservedly committed? If thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? Of this or that country, or kingdom? My sheep, He says: to whom therefore is it not evident that he does not designate some, but all? We can make no exception where no distinction is made” (De Consideratione, lib. ii., cap. 8).’ **

 

[jmj1984]

‘** But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the Bishops are not so bound. For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them. Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the Apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive therefrom strength and stability? Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively. And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority. Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life. Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority?..Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).’

Nor does it beget any confusion in the administration that Christians are bound to obey a twofold authority. We are prohibited in the first place by Divine Wisdom from entertaining any such thought, since this form of government was constituted by the counsel of God Himself. In the second place we must note that the due order of things and their mutual relations are disturbed if there be a twofold magistracy of the same rank set over a people, neither of which is amenable to the other. But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal and definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to themselves…
** elsewhere in the same encyclical he states ‘**From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together. A primacy of honour and the shadowy right of giving advice and admonition,which is called direction, could never secure to any society of men unity or strength. The words - and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. **’ and ‘**It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. 1). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2). **’

All this can be read at DS 1954.

The encyclical clearly cannot be reconciled with several of the assertions you have made regarding the Popes powers especially that the petrine power is only to be asserted ‘extraordinarily’ and

The issue is whether this Petrine authority is always exercised collegially (the High Petrine view), or if it can be exercised by the head separated from the body (the Absolutist Petrine view).

. Indeed the latter would be a word for word contradiction of Pope Leo XIII’s words, now one must either accept that your opinion regarding the relatio is wrong or be led to the absurdity that you know better than Pope Leo XIII regarding the teaching of the church regarding Papal authority or the equally absurd idea that he did not know about the relatio or was ignoring it.

 

[steve_b]

‘** But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the Bishops are not so bound. For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them. Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the Apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive therefrom strength and stability? Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively. And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority. Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life.** Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority?..Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).’

Nor does it beget any confusion in the administration that Christians are bound to obey a twofold authority. We are prohibited in the first place by Divine Wisdom from entertaining any such thought, since this form of government was constituted by the counsel of God Himself. In the second place we must note that the due order of things and their mutual relations are disturbed if there be a twofold magistracy of the same rank set over a people, neither of which is amenable to the other. But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal and definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to themselves…
elsewhere in the same encyclical he states ‘**From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. It must be the necessary condition of stability and strength. Remove it and the whole building falls. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together. A primacy of honour and the shadowy right of giving advice and admonition,which is called direction, could never secure to any society of men unity or strength. The words - and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. **’ and ‘**It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. 1). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2). **’

All this can be read at DS 1954.

The encyclical clearly cannot be reconciled with several of the assertions you have made regarding the Popes powers especially that the petrine power is only to be asserted ‘extraordinarily’ and . Indeed the latter would be a word for word contradiction of Pope Leo XIII’s words, now one must either accept that your opinion regarding the relatio is wrong or be led to the absurdity that you know better than Pope Leo XIII regarding the teaching of the church regarding Papal authority or the equally absurd idea that he did not know about the relatio or was ignoring it.

great posts.

 

[steve_b]

I realize that it is a rare commodity these days.

Not with me however
H:

However, good Father Hardon’s (memory eternal!) description as related here does not seem complete. If one agrees with the Pope, and the Pope personally has come to think the office has too much authority, is that Ultramontanism? If the Pope believes the Papal Decrees of Vatican I should be recinded or the Council should fade into the background and other Roman Catholics agree is that Ultramontanism?

The Catholic Encyclopedia state “A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism.”. Which is as vague as anything I have ever read. It also implies that anyone who does not agree with the Ultramontane program is not an active nor integral Catholic.

Wiki states "Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope … "

The University College of Cork Ireland website states “Ultramontanism is the tendency in the Roman Catholic Church to centralise power and authority in the hands of the Pope and the Papal Curia …”. Which actually seems the most historically accurate.

Anybody can write or edit an article in Wiki.

As for ultramontanism, in the Catholic encyclopedia, Why stop where you did?

"It is sufficient here to indicate what our adversaries mean by Ultramontanism. For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it. One of the recent adversaries of Ultramontanism among Catholics was a priest, Professor Franz Xaver Kraus, who says (“Spektatorbrief”, II, quoted in the article Ultramontanismus in “Realencycl. für prot. Theol. u. Kirche”, ed. 1908): “1. An Ultramontane is one who sets the idea of the Church above that of religion; 2. …who substitutes the pope for the Church; 3. …who believes that the kingdom of God is of this world and that, as medieval curialism asserted, the power of the keys, given to Peter, included temporal jurisdiction also; 4. …who believes that religious conviction can be imposed or broken with material force; 5. …who is ever ready to sacrifice to an extraneous authority the plain teaching of his own conscience.” According to the definition given in Leichtenberger, “Encycl. des sciences religieuses” (ed. 1882): “The character of Ultramontanism is manifested chiefly in the ardour with which it combats every movement of independence in the national Churches, the condemnation which it visits upon works written to defend that independence, its denial of the rights of the State in matters of government, of ecclesiastical administration and ecclesiastical control, the tenacity with which it has prosecuted the declaration of the dogma of the pope’s infallibility and with which it incessantly advocates the restoration of his temporal power as a necessary guarantee of his spiritual sovereignty.”

[snip for space]

The war against Ultramontanism is accounted for not merely by its adversaries’ denial of the genuine Catholic doctrine of the Church’s power and that of her supreme ruler, but also, and even more, by the consequences of that doctrine. It is altogether false to attribute to the Church either political aims of temporal dominion among the nations or the pretence that the pope can at his own pleasure depose sovereigns that the Catholic must, even in purely civil matters, subordinate his obedience towards his own sovereign to that which he owes to the pope, that the true fatherland of the Catholic is Rome, and so forth. These are either pure inventions or malicious travesties. . …

 

[jmj1984]

Pope Pius XII states in his encyclical 'Mystici Corporis 'Therefore, the bishops of the sacred rites are to be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church not only because they are bound with the Divine Head of the whole body by a very special bond, and so are rightly called ‘principal parts of the members of the Lord’, but, as far as each ones own diocese is concerned, because as true sheperds they individually feed and rule in the name of Christ the flocks entrusted to them; yet while they do this, 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 DS 2287

As Leo XIII clearly states that Vatican I was not teaching anything new but merely re-stating the venerable teaching of the church throughout the ages it is also legitmate to look at what Popes have said prior to the First Vatican Council.

Pope Pius VI states in the brief 'Super Soliditate’ Could therefore … that voice of Christ have been fanatical which promised Peter the keys of the Kingdom of heaven with the power of binding and loosing; which keys Optatus Milevitanus, following Tertullian, did not hesitate to confess that Peter alone received to be communicated to the others? Or are so many solemn decrees of the Popes and the Councils repeated so many times to be called fanatic, by which those who have been condemned who denied that in blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, his successor, the Roman Pontiff was established by God as the visible head of the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ, that to him has been transmitted full power of ruling the Church, and that true obedience is due to him from all who are considered Christians, and that such is the power of the primacy, which he holds by divine right, that he is superior to other bishops not only by his rank of honor but by the plenitude of his supreme power? All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees… that the power of the Primacy is contained in this one prerogative, of making up for the negligence of others, of looking after the preservation of unity by encouragement and example; that the popes have no power in another diocese except in an extraordinary case; that the pope is the head because he holds his power and strength from the Church; that the Pontiffs have made it lawful for themselves to violate the rights of bishops, to reserve to themselves absolutions, dispensations, decisions, appeals, bestowal of benefices, in a word all other duties which he enumerates one by one and derides as unnjust reservations and injurious to bishops’ DS 1500

Pope Pius IX in his syllabus of errors condemns the following ideas ‘34 - The doctrine of those who compared the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages and 38- The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the church into East and West’ DS 1734, DS 1738

Pope Pius VI likewise 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

 

[jmj1984]

Pope Clement VI stating the true Catholic Doctine asks the armenians whether they follow it in Super Quibusdam states In the sixth place if you have believed and still believe that the plenitude of power of the Roman Pontiff, extends so far that it is possible to transfer patriarchs, the Catholicon, the archbishops, bishops, Abbots, and whatsoever prelates from the offices in which they have been established to other offices of greater or lesser jurisdiction, or, as their sins demand, to demote, to depose, excommunicate, or to surrender them to Satan’ DS 570h

The second council of Lyons states 'Also this same holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognises herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just as to defend the truth of faith she is held before all other things, so if any any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgement. And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the eclessiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgement, and all churches are subject to her… In her moreover, such a plenitude of power rests that she receives the other churches to share of her solicitude…its own prerogative always being observed and preserved both in general councils and in other places’ DS 466

Alexander VIII condemned the following propositions in a decree of The Holy Office 'Futile and many times refuted is the assertion about the authority of the Roman pontiff being superior to that of an ecumenical council and about his infallibility in deciding questions of faith’ DS1319

The Fifth Lateran Council condemned the following Proposition ‘The Roman Pontiff , the succesor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ himself’ DS 765

The Council of Florence states ‘**We likewise define that the Holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule and govern the universal Church, just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the Sacred Canons **’

That is of course a small selection of the considerable number of references one who does not agree with you position can cite to provide authority for theirs, I doubt I will change your mind but I hope at least you can see that your claim that so called ‘Papal absolutists’ rely on quotes out of context or are ignorant is false.

 

[Hesychios]

To be honest this entire paragraph appears to be full of bad history and therefore makes me even more suspicious of the relatio actually a) being genuine

It actually exists. It was a clarification, if I remember correctly, after bishops at Vatican I or planning to attend Vatican I expessed concerns. It is a letter from Bishop Gasser, apparently with the Supreme Pontiff’s approval, written before the voting. It was intended as a gloss, explaining the proposed dogma.

or b) possessing the authority you ascribe to it.

I don’t know how much genuine authority can be attributed to it. It is not actually a Papal Decretal, nor in itself an infallible document and can not be counted as a Conciliar decree.

It seems (to me, I am not as sure about the history as I would like) that the problem this was trying to address is that some of the most ardent supporters of the declaration of Papal Infallibility were claiming that most (or perhaps just many) Papal decretals were actually infallible, and using these precedents to support the proposed dogma. However, over the course of history there do exist contradictions, which many bishops, church historians and theologions were aware of and and who were troubled by this. Thus, the dogma had to appear to be more narrowly defined to acheive a consensus among the bishops.

However, the language used in the official Vatican Council decree was not very narrowly defined in it’s final voted form. The rRelatio acts as something of a marginal note to explain the dogma, but was not in itself voted on by the Council (as far as I can tell) and thus is not recorded in the decrees of the Council. The Relatio functions as a reference material, but seemingly not the last word, in how to interpret the dogma. The last word (as all good Roman Catholics know) belongs to the reigning Supreme Pontiff, whomever that may be at any given time, who interprets both the decrees of a Council, and the Relatio, and also composes the canons which regulate the functions and decisions of all churchmen.

It could possibly be interpreted as the opinion of Pio Nono at the time, but I don’t think he signed it (otherwise we would probably be referring to it as the Official Relatio of Pope Pius IX), bishop Gasser did. So perhaps it could be thought of as bishop Gasser’s esteemed opinion.

The Relatio of bishop Gasser.

 

[jmj1984]

It actually exists. It was a clarification, if I remember correctly, after bishops at Vatican I or planning to attend Vatican I expessed concerns. It is a letter from Bishop Gasser, apparently with the Supreme Pontiff’s approval, written before the voting. It was intended as a gloss, explaining the proposed dogma.
I don’t know how much genuine authority can be attributed to it. It is not actually a Papal Decretal, nor in itself an infallible document and can not be counted as a Conciliar decree.

It seems (to me, I am not as sure about the history as I would like) that the problem this was trying to address is that some of the most ardent supporters of the declaration of Papal Infallibility were claiming that most (or perhaps just many) Papal decretals were actually infallible, and using these precedents to support the proposed dogma. However, over the course of history there do exist contradictions, which many bishops, church historians and theologions were aware of and and who were troubled by this. Thus, the dogma had to appear to be more narrowly defined to acheive a consensus among the bishops.

However, the language used in the official Vatican Council decree was not very narrowly defined in it’s final voted form. The rRelatio acts as something of a marginal note to explain the dogma, but was not in itself voted on by the Council (as far as I can tell) and thus is not recorded in the decrees of the Council. The Relatio functions as a reference material, but seemingly not the last word, in how to interpret the dogma. The last word (as all good Roman Catholics know) belongs to the reigning Supreme Pontiff, whomever that may be at any given time, who interprets both the decrees of a Council, and the Relatio, and also composes the canons which regulate the functions and decisions of all churchmen.

It could possibly be interpreted as the opinion of Pio Nono at the time, but I don’t think he signed it (otherwise we would probably be referring to it as the Official Relatio of Pope Pius IX), bishop Gasser did. So perhaps it could be thought of as bishop Gasser’s esteemed opinion.

The Relatio of bishop Gasser.

That seems quite logical, thanks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

It actually exists. It was a clarification, if I remember correctly, after bishops at Vatican I or planning to attend Vatican I expessed concerns. It is a letter from Bishop Gasser, apparently with the Supreme Pontiff’s approval, written before the voting. It was intended as a gloss, explaining the proposed dogma.

Well, said.

I don’t know how much genuine authority can be attributed to it. It is not actually a Papal Decretal, nor in itself an infallible document and can not be counted as a Conciliar decree.

It seems (to me, I am not as sure about the history as I would like) that the problem this was trying to address is that some of the most ardent supporters of the declaration of Papal Infallibility were claiming that most (or perhaps just many) Papal decretals were actually infallible, and using these precedents to support the proposed dogma. However, over the course of history there do exist contradictions, which many bishops, church historians and theologions were aware of and and who were troubled by this. Thus, the dogma had to appear to be more narrowly defined to acheive a consensus among the bishops.

However, the language used in the official Vatican Council decree was not very narrowly defined in it’s final voted form. The rRelatio acts as something of a marginal note to explain the dogma, but was not in itself voted on by the Council (as far as I can tell) and thus is not recorded in the decrees of the Council. The Relatio functions as a reference material, but seemingly not the last word, in how to interpret the dogma.

Permit me to explain this in terms an Orthodox would understand. Let’s compare this to the definition of the Faith of the First Ecumenical Council. The definition of the Faith promulgated by the First Ecumenical Council is known as the Nicene Creed. If we relied on the definition alone down to this day, the Church would be in a mess. However, we in fact don’t rely on the definition alone to explain the Faith, but on other things that the Fathers of the Council, both during and outside Council, stated regarding the Faith (this was the explicit standard of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, btw, at the Third Ecumenical Council). On the surface of it, depending on the definition of the Nicene Creed ALONE, some detractor of the Church could interpret it to mean that Catholics are polytheists. But we know as Christians that this is NOT what the Creed means, and we know this because of the explanation of the Fathers of the Council, not merely because of the text of the definition known as the Nicene Creed. The same is true of EVERY Ecumenical Council. We know it is not just the definition itself that has authority, but the explanation of the Fathers who produced the definition.

This is the patristic standard, or do you deny it?

We have the exact same situation with the decrees of the First Vatican Council. We, who adhere to the standard of the Fathers, understand we must take not just the definition as authoritative, but also the explanation of the Fathers of the Council who produced the definition. I do not understand how anyone who can claim to adhere to Sacred Tradition could fail to take heed of the explanation of the definition produced by the Fathers of the Council who formulated the definition.

Why should our - as apostolic Christians - manner of understanding the definition of the First Vatican Council be any different than how we understand the definitions of earlier Councils of the Church?

As you have perhaps figured out by now, the standard of Absolutist Petrine advocates is rather different from those who adhere to Sacred Tradition.

The last word (as all good Roman Catholics know) belongs to the reigning Supreme Pontiff, whomever that may be at any given time, who interprets both the decrees of a Council, and the Relatio, and also composes the canons which regulate the functions and decisions of all churchmen.

Any good Catholic knows that in the context of an Ecumenical Council, it is NEVER the Pope ALONE who has the final word. The infallibility of an Ecumenical Council is a COLLEGIAL infallibility - it is the head and body TOGETHER that is the authority, not the body apart from the head, nor the head apart from the body. It is what the Official Relatio says; it is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says, it is what Vatican 2 says. The papal dogmas were promulgated in the context of an Ecumenical Council, and it is a matter of doctrine. Contrary to your opinion, the Pope has no authority to contradict the doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

You seem to agree with brother jmj’s position (though, as noted, you don’t believe in it), but it is an agreement that is based on a misinterpretation of Catholic doctrine.

It could possibly be interpreted as the opinion of Pio Nono at the time, but I don’t think he signed it (otherwise we would probably be referring to it as the Official Relatio of Pope Pius IX), bishop Gasser did.

The Pope only has to sign off on one thing - the final Decree. So I don’t know what relevance his signing or not signing the speech of bishop Gasser proves.

So perhaps it could be thought of as bishop Gasser’s esteemed opinion.

He was explicitly acting as the official spokesman for the papally-approved, collegially selected Committee that formulated the papal Decrees of the Council. On what basis do you call it merely Bishop Gasser’s opinion? Please explain.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The encyclical clearly cannot be reconciled with several of the assertions you have made regarding the Popes powers especially that the petrine power is only to be asserted ‘extraordinarily’ and . Indeed the latter would be a word for word contradiction of Pope Leo XIII’s words, now one must either accept that your opinion regarding the relatio is wrong or be led to the absurdity that you know better than Pope Leo XIII regarding the teaching of the church regarding Papal authority or the equally absurd idea that he did not know about the relatio or was ignoring it.

I’m sorry, but I don’t possess your Absolutist Petrine glasses. Where exactly in the Encyclical does it say that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops? Where does it say that the Pope can impede the authority of local bishops on his say so? I totally missed it. Perhaps you can quote the exact text for me.

I read the encyclical without any preconceived notions of papal absolutism, so all I see is an assertion that the Pope has a unique authority that no other bishop has. No problem.

It becomes a problem when Absolutist Petrine advocates try to impose into the encyclical a meaning it does not possess.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

I’m sorry, but I don’t possess your Absolutist Petrine glasses. Where exactly in the Encyclical does it say that the Pope can act apart or separated from his brother bishops? Where does it say that the Pope can impede the authority of local bishops on his say so? I totally missed it. Perhaps you can quote the exact text for me.

The entire encyclical states it but if you want a particular section ‘Nor does it beget any confusion in the administration that Christians are bound to obey a twofold authority. We are prohibited in the first place by Divine Wisdom from entertaining any such thought, since this form of government was constituted by the counsel of God Himself. In the second place we must note that the due order of things and their mutual relations are disturbed if there be a twofold magistracy of the same rank set over a people, neither of which is amenable to the other. But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal and definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to themselves…’

Pope Leo XIII clearly distinguishes between the power of the bishops and the power of the Pope not simply when it comes to plenitude of power but also type of power, he explicitly states that the Popes authority is supreme and universal whilst that of the bishops is limited and peculiar to themselves. He refers to a twofold power, that of the bishops (in union with the Pope) and that of the Pope to the exclusion of the bishops. To say anything else is to render his entire enyclical nonsensical, if he meant to include the bishops when referring to Papal powers there would be no need to speak of a ‘twofold power’ and distinguish between the two. There would just be ‘the college of bishops’, for if the college of bishops cannot exercise power without the Pope and the Pope always when exercising his powers includes the college of bishops even if not explicitly then the college of bishops (including the Pope) is the only authority in the church.

Pope Leo XIII again throughout the article consistently states that the Pope is above the college of bishops and has powers which he can exercise seperately from the college of bishops and which the college of bishops can only exercise when it is joined to him and with his assent’ St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. 1). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2). and again ‘But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey. What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys.’

But why leave it at the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII? Why not look at the other sources I have cited?

Those that are most obviously incompatible with your view is the quote from Pope Pius IX’s syllabus of errors ‘34 - The doctrine of those who compared the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages and 38- The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the church into East and West’ and the Brief of Pope Pius VI 'All the more must be deplored that blind and rash temerity of the man who was eager to renew in his unfortunate book errors which have been condemned by so many decrees… that the power of the Primacy is contained in this one prerogative, of making up for the negligence of others, of looking after the preservation of unity by encouragement and example; that the popes have no power in another diocese except in an extraordinary case; that the pope is the head because he holds his power and strength from the Church; that the Pontiffs have made it lawful for themselves to violate the rights of bishops, to reserve to themselves absolutions, dispensations, decisions, appeals, bestowal of benefices, in a word all other duties which he enumerates one by one and derides as unnjust reservations and injurious to bishops’.

Frankly however all of the sources I have quoted are incompatible with your attempt to lessen the Popes powers.

Your views are not ‘high petrine’ they appear to closely resemble gallicianism however and there are relevant statements from the Papacy which I can dig out of Denzinger to show how and why that movement was condemned.

 

[jmj1984]

Here then is what the new catholic enyclopedia defines Gallicanism as '**This term is used to designate a certain group of religious opinions for some time peculiar to the Church of France, or Gallican Church, and the theological schools of that country. These opinions, in opposition to the ideas which were called in France “Ultramontane”, tended chiefly to a restraint of the pope’s authority in the Church in favour of that of the bishops and the temporal ruler. It is important, however, to remark at the outset that the warmest and most accredited partisans of Gallican ideas by no means contested the pope’s primacy in the Church, and never claimed for their ideas the force of articles of faith. They aimed only at making it clear that their way of regarding the authority of the pope seemed to them more in conformity with Holy Scripture and tradition. At the same time, their theory did not, as they regarded it, transgress the limits of free opinions, which it is allowable for any theological school to choose for itself provided that the Catholic Creed be duly accepted.
General notions

. Stripped of the arguments which accompany it, the doctrine of the Declaration reduces to the following four articles:

St. Peter and the popes, his successors, and the Church itself have received dominion [puissance] from God only over things spiritual and such as concern salvation and not over things temporal and civil. Hence kings and sovereigns are not by God's command subject to any ecclesiastical dominion in things temporal; they cannot be deposed, whether directly or indirectly, by the authority of the rulers of the Church, their subjects cannot be dispensed from that submission and obedience which they owe, or absolved from the oath of allegiance.

The exercise of this Apostolic authority [puissance] must also be regulated in accordance with the canons made by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the respect of the whole world. The rules, customs and constitutions received within the kingdom and the Gallican Church must have their force and their effect, and the usages of our fathers remain inviolable since the dignity of the Apostolic See itself demands that the laws and customs established by consent of that august see and of the Churches be constantly maintained.
Although the pope have the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches, and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church. **'

I would be interested to know whether you accept the popes temporal power? I would likewise be interested to know what practical difference there is between your claim that the Pope cannot exercise his power without the consent of the bishops and the claims of the Gallicians? This claim can be found here

Where does it say that the Roman Pontiff can act alone when defining a doctrine? All it says, as I have pointed out in this thread, is that the Pope is the one who is DEFINING. In other words, he is the only one exercising the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. But where do you get the idea that the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium is not being exercised by his brother bishops?

There can NEVER be a time when the Pope ALONE possesses the infallibility of the Church, because the Catholic Church plainly teaches that it was NOT to St. Peter alone that infallibility was promised by Christ. Given this, then there must be other bishops in the Church who are exercising the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium, preaching and preserving the Truth which the Pope has absolutely no authority to contradict when defining a matter ex cathedra.

When the Pope defines ex cathedra, he CANNOT act alone because he MUST NECESSARILY FIRST ensure he will be in agreement with the teaching of these orthodox bishops who always exist. True enough, he need not directly consult the bishops for he has other means by which to determine this consensus. BUT - make no mistake about it - he MUST determine this consensus FIRST before he can make an ex cathedra decree.

and here

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

So the consent of the Church as a whole cannot be wanting? Sounds to me like the balance that we are looking for.

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)

Again, this is speaking of the definitions themselves, not the process that led to those definitions. As can be seen in the previous quite, the consent of the Church as a whole cannot be wanting.

the distinctions I draw your attention to

In (43) the Pontiff doesn’t require

consent of the Church Yes he does.
approval of others cf. previous response.
Is anybody left out of that? If there WAS anyone as an exception, it would be good to add them here as an exception.....agreed? But no exceptions are made.

 

[ciero]

Mardukm I sure do admire your patience!!!

God bless you!

I’m loosing patience even reading this guys close mindedness!