High Petrine View

[lyrikal]

Hello,

I have been studying the differences between the High Petrine view and the Absolutists view. I am just trying to get an understanding of the High Petrine view and where it is taught in the Church’s Vatican I and Vatican II Councils. I am not against this view at all. In fact, I would favor it more so than the Absolutist view; however, the High Petrine view advocates claim that the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser contains the High Petrine view understanding. While reading the Official Relatio, I came across the following:

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

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

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

sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/official_relatio

It seems to me that the Official Relatio doesn’t make the consent of the other bishops a necessity but leaves it as an advisory and optional thing. It seems to encourage the Pope to consult his brother bishops but it doesn’t seem to make that an absolute necessity. I may be missing something here. Can anyone shed any light on this particular section of the Relatio? And can anyone show where the Relatio makes it an absolute necessity that the consent of the Bishops is needed for the Pope to declare something ex-cathedra? And can anyone show where Vatican I and Vatican II teach that the Pope needs the consent of the Bishops to declare something ex-cathedra?

I’d ask Mardukm but he hasn’t been logged on since December 30th.

Thank you in advance.**

 

[JM3]

The Pope does not need the consent of the Bishops, or consent of the Church, to declare something ex-cathedra.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter

1. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Lumen Gentium

25…And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

The 43rd edition of Denzinger translates the Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus as “…that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, and not because of the consent of the Church.” (3074)

 

[JM3]

Also from Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4.

Denzinger 3069

“For their part, the Roman Pontiffs, according as the conditions of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes by calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined as having to be held those matters that, with the help of God, they had found consonant with the Holy Scriptures and with the apostolic tradition.”

 

[JerryZ]

The Pope does not need the consent of the Bishops, or consent of the Church, to declare something ex-cathedra.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter

1. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Lumen Gentium

The 43rd edition of Denzinger translates the Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus as “…that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, and not because of the consent of the Church.” (3074)

In Other Words…

The Holy Spirit needs no “committee” to straighten us Brethren.

Saying otherwise would fly on the face of Jesus assertion that: Peter had the Keys.

He did not hand them to a “select committee” HA!

Catholicism is NOT a democracy, there is one (1) King with a Prime Minister.

Yes! first among equals, to stress that we should all strive to think less of ourselves, and more of our bothers. Humility in other words!

But when we need to have a point of doctrine clarified we can ask Peter he will not fail us.

 

[Genesis315]

No consent is needed; however, we shouldn’t create a false dichotomy. As both the relatio of Pastor Aeternus and the text of Lumen Gentium state, while the consent isn’t strictly necessary as an antecedent or consequent condition, such consent won’t ever be lacking to such a definition–you’ll never have a situation where the Pope’s judgment is pitted against the rest of the episcopate. The same Holy Spirit that ensures the infallibility of the Pope’s judgment ensures that the episopate as a body will ultimately adhere to that judgment (individual bishops may fall into heresy and separate themselves from the Church and the episcopal college, of course–and the fact that consent is not a condition eliminates any justifications they may proffer for their dissent)…