How Absolute is Pope's Power?

[Amandil]

It appears that jinc’s premise is based on a false notion of “freedom” and how that applies to the Pope’s authority.

We say that the Pope’s authority is absolute.

It in no way follows from that statement to say that means that “the pope can teach whatever he wants.”

Because if he were to teach error then that would necessarily mean that he was violating his freedom by acting and teaching contrary to the truth.

Secondly, this is impossible do to Christ’s promise and the protection of the Holy Spirit. Papal Infallibility is a charism of the Spirit, not some arbitrary moral attribute applied to the office.

 

[Asiyreh]

How do you know it is his OPINION and not the truth?

The question you have to ask Davis is what is the Truth? Or stated more clearly what is the Objective Truth? Say you had to make a crisis decision for a whole country. Either way people would die, but you needed to make this choice. How would you know you had chosen correctly? Which one was the correct choice in the end? Did you save the most people and make the right choice?

Or perhaps your option was the one you ought to have made…

What type of perspective would you need to provide an answer to that question?
And when you figure that out you’ll have arrived at the faith of the Catholic church.

But consider how a Pope might make a decision. He would pray earnestly, He would consult his own learned knowledge and wisdom. A lifetime of people interaction, philosophy, language study, textual criticism, science, politics, psychology, apologetics, prayerful meditation, astronomy. The list goes on and on for some of these Holy Fathers.

And surrounded by some of the sharpest minds on the planet and people of faith. Which makes a good combination for wisdom.

These people all offer their own wisdom and analysis.

Finally the Father will place his faith in Our Holy Lord, who promised the gates of hell would not prevail.

And our response just as it was many many centuries ago is Peter Has Spoken.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #12
Abu, answer this questions: Can the Pope teach anything he wants? Or does it have to be within the Deposit of Faith?

Can you cite any Pope teaching on faith and morals to the whole Church anything contradictory to previous doctrine? You now know his mandate from Christ the Son of God.

#13
Were the other apostles promised “binding and loosing” authority in Matthew 18? Or was this a fabrication? You would have me overlook all of the promises made to the other apostles and imagine that they are only valid if a communion with Peter exists, yet no such claim can be drawn from scripture. None.

What “all of the promises made to the other apostles”? There were none made to equal the supremacy granted to St Peter with which you are now familiar. Can you name any? Which other Apostle was given any of the other prerogatives given to St Peter alone?

#15
With all due respect to Cardinal Ratzinger, his OPINION is really just an opinion and has absolutely NO theological bearing on the Church, as I am sure you know.

In fact the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy has great authority and does not merely give an “opinion” on theology which can be dismissed by a poster on a whim. The quotation was from A Letter To The Presidents Of The Conferences Of Bishops, Rome, June 30, 2000, and records the fact that “it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.”

Unless and until you are prepared to recognise the reality of the primacy, everything will be distorted.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Here’s an interesting quotation. Peter Chrysologus writes to the heretical priest Eutyches of Constantinople,

In all matters, we urge you, honorable brother, attend obediently to the things which are written by the most blessed pope of Rome: for blessed Peter, who in his own seat both lives and presides, provides to those seeking the truth of the faith. Indeed, for the pursuit of peace and faith, we cannot decide cases of faith apart from the agreement of the bishop of Rome.
(Letters of St. Leo the Great, 25.2)
documentacatholicaomnia.e…tolae,_MLT.pdf

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

I am not sure you ever really addressed my concerns.

I answered your questions and I gave you Church documents to prove the points being made as you requested.
j:

You did bring up a good example though…You spoke of Women’s Ordination. Now, you say, quite clearly, that women cannot be ordained because the Pope said so. That is essentially your argument and has been for quite some time about papal authority.

The topic is “how” absolute is the popes power? On the surface 2 points are being assumed here

1. 
   *]The pope has absolute power
   *]how absolute is absaolute
   
   Let’s get something cleard up here. The purpose of showing you an actual case by an actual pope, is to show this notion of absolute power by the pope is a myth. When some people see Supreme papal power, or papal supremacy, which is the language the Church uses for papal authority, their mind translates that language to absolute power, as if there are no breaks to what a pope can do… And they fabricate in their own mind, using terms and definitions of their own making, to create entire scenerios that don’t even exist.
   
   The 2nd part of the question is, how absolute is absolute, assuming the pope already has absolute power to do anything he wants to do which he doesn’t. My point was that if the pope has absolute power, then there is nothing constraining him. He can do whatever he wants. Is that the case in reality? No. Did I ever say he did? No. And the document I presented from JPII validated that. That’s why I use an actual example from a pope deciding on an actual issue, rather than deal with nonsense hypotheticals. If the pope had absolute power, a pope could ordain a woman as a priest. JPII said that’s not possible either by him or by the Church.
   
   Ergo, the pope does NOT have absolute power.
   j:
   

   I think what others would say, however, is that the Pope’s authority only extends as far as the deposit of faith. In other words, he has the authority to say women cannot be priests because that is what the church’s magisterium, or teaching authority, has always taught.

   And I’m sure you’ve read the document I presented. Not everyone has it right about what the deposit of faith is… Many think ordaining women priests is okay. Do they have the authority to teach that? Who has the authority to shut that argument down for all time?
   
   I would suggest JPII did with what I would also suggest, with an infallible decree.
   j:
   

   His power is arbitrary or absolute; if it were, he could, like a king, rule that virtually ANYTHING is one way or the other. He can’t, however, do this.

   Who is suggesting he can rule like a king on virtually anything? I’m not. It’s a strawman argument. But I would suggest non Catholics have all kinds of rediculous notions about this subject. It’s because they’ve been taught or imagine on their own, all kinds of false notions.
   j:
   

   Further, I don’t believe the Pope’s primacy is merely one of honor. He occupies a very real office that Peter held.

   You mentioned the pope is considered 1st among equals. Therefore, I responded with no pope has ever accepted such an equalization of sees, or that the pope has ever accepted the notion of primacy of honor and, as you requested, I gave you a Church document supporting the statement.
   j:
   

   The issue is how much power that office has. You say it’s absolute, and I don’t think the Church as a whole has ever held that and I don’t believe that is an apostolic teaching.

   Did I say it’s absolute? No. Those are your words. I said if he had absolute power he could change even an infallible statement which he can’t do. I further said if he could undo an infallible statement, it would make an infallible statement nonsense. Go back and look at what I said.
   j:
   

   Further, you would have the world separate the papal office from the rest of the bishops, insisting that the Pope’s power is absolute separate from the other bishops, but this is erroneous.

   The papal office (Peter’s office) is a unique office. Jesus made it that way. That doesn’t mean he’s seperated from the other bishops. Those are your words not mine.
   j:
   

   It would be like saying Barack Obama’s power would still exist if the rest of the country left him and decided he wasn’t a valid president. You can’t be president of a country that doesn’t exist and you can’t be Pope of a church that doesn’t exist.

   while a president is in office, look up “executive orders” for the president.
   
   I would just repeat, too many outside the Church have some really odd ideas about the papacy.

 

[pablope]

Abu, answer this questions: Can the Pope teach anything he wants? Or does it have to be within the Deposit of Faith?

Yes…but your question should be: “Will he do it?”

No. Because we trust Jesus promise to the Church.

And as Ireneus says:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The 2nd part of the question is, how absolute is absolute, assuming the pope already has absolute power to do anything he wants to do which he doesn’t. My point was that if the pope has absolute power, then there is nothing constraining him. He can do whatever he wants. Is that the case in reality? No. Did I ever say he did? No. And the document I presented from JPII validated that. That’s why I use an actual example from a pope deciding on an actual issue, rather than deal with nonsense hypotheticals. If the pope had absolute power, a pope could ordain a woman as a priest. JPII said that’s not possible either by him or by the Church.

Ergo, the pope does NOT have absolute power.

The fact that the Pope cannot do certain things does not of itself make him lack absolute power. God himself cannot do certain things. For example, he cannot lie and he cannot reverse the ten commandments. Yet God has absolute power.

Was JPII speaking infallibly when he said that it was not possible that either himself nor the Church could ever ordain women? We already know that God has promised to keep his Church free from error. Speaking infallibly, then this truth cannot be reversed, either by the Church or by God, since God has promised to keep the Church from error and he cannot go back on his word. If it were reversed it would be equivalent to God lying.

Also, it makes me wonder if God could have made any other decision, since it strikes me as unusual, to say the least, that God would deny this honor to his very Mother, whom he loved more than any other creature. I’m thinking that if something is infallibly true then it has to do with the necessity of God doing it in only one way, in the sense that God always makes the “right” decision, and for a reason, if only known by him. JPII must have taken this into consideration when he declared exclusively male ordination to be an infallible truth.

 

[Brendan]

I would also encourage a reading of Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

 

[chimo]

I have been investigating the Catholic claims of papal authority, and while I am willing to admit that the office of “Head of the Church” was held by Peter and has been held by his successors, I am still very unsure of precisely how much power and authority this office holds. I have read many of the Early Church Fathers, Catholic apologists (like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Brant Pitre), and numerous Eastern Orthodox apologists on the issue as well. The conclusion I have come to is that Peter’s successors definitely have a place of primacy, but what exactly that means and how much authority the Catholic Church claims about the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are entirely different matters.

Can those of you who are more educated than I PLEASE address the issue of HOW MUCH authority the Pope has as the “first among equals” and PRECISELY WHAT the OFFICIAL Catholic documents say on the matter?

How absolute is the Pope’s authority? Can he, completely on his own, choose to define and discipline on matters of “faith and morals”?

Ideally, I would like to be pointed to specific official documents, councils, etc.

I would suspect anyone’s authority has no bearing unless the people carry out what the person in authority is trying to pass on. I suspect that most people when they are in Church do not exactly consider what the Popes have said unless it comes through their Bishop and the priest which is serving them. I suspect that Papal authority is geared more towards the clergy than it is to serve the Laity directly. This is why I believe Papal authority was more defined in councils so that the clergy would be more attentive to what the Pope wants to address. Most of the Laity in my opinion do not search for Papal announcements so that it must be more entrusted towards their Bishops and priests to follow it through.

 

[steve_b]

The fact that the Pope cannot do certain things does not of itself make him lack absolute power. God himself cannot do certain things. For example, he cannot lie and he cannot reverse the ten commandments. Yet God has absolute power.

good points
J:

Was JPII speaking infallibly when he said that it was not possible that either himself nor the Church could ever ordain women?

I would suggest he did speak infallibly

In a previous post I gave the following reasons for suggesting that.

the Pope stated unequivocally, “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

JPII used that language in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

For purposes of discussion Re: infallibility, I draw attention to the highlighted language used, which triggers infallibility

• I declare
• this judgement is to be difinitively held by all the Church faithful.

For another reference to language used, here’s the definition of infallibility from Vat I

o we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra,
• that is, when,

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

1. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

• he possesses,
• by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
I would just add this as support of an infallible statement

Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching (teach and define)

In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” ([example (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM)). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” ([source (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM)). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

JPII used that language in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
J:

We already know that God has promised to keep his Church free from error. Speaking infallibly, then this truth cannot be reversed, either by the Church or by God, since God has promised to keep the Church from error and he cannot go back on his word. If it were reversed it would be equivalent to God lying.

As Lumen Gentium states re: infallibility vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

" 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. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith."

That text is from Vat I.
In this case, it’s the HS assisting the pope, that makes the pronouncement of the pope infallible when the conditions for an infallible statement are met. And after such a definition, being irreformable then makes that absolute. So I would agree with you in that sense of term absolute.

 

[JamesCaruso]

So I would agree with you in that sense of term absolute.

Perhaps, then, if I understood your meaning of absolute regarding Papal authority I would agree with you, as well.

 

[Abu]

JamesCaruso #18
The Pope’s power is absolute,

No.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
ABSOLUTE POWER. “The power of God to act or to make, considering only his sovereign authority and unlimited ability as Creator, or abstracting from his other perfections and from the present order of divine providence.”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25): “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) –** he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals**.”

This means expressing finality with no implication of possible change. It does not mean that the Pope has the unlimited power of God.

 

[JamesCaruso]

No.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
ABSOLUTE POWER. “The power of God to act or to make, considering only his sovereign authority and unlimited ability as Creator, or abstracting from his other perfections and from the present order of divine providence.”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25): “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) –** he proclaims in an absolute decision** a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

This means expressing finality with no implication of possible change. It does not mean that the Pope has the unlimited power of God.

Of course I never intended to say that the Pope has the unlimited power of God. I was not using absolute in that sense. For example, when I say as CEO I have absolute power to decide my corporation’s marketing strategy, I do not mean to say that I have the absolute power of God even in that limited area. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Abu]

JamesCaruso #33
Of course I never intended to say that the Pope has the unlimited power of God. I was not using absolute in that sense. For example, when I say as CEO I have absolute power to decide my corporation’s marketing strategy, I do not mean to say that I have the absolute power of God even in that limited area. Do you understand what I mean?

The Church teaches as She does precisely, so that there is no misunderstanding. We need to do the same.

So an “absolute decision” means precisely a final decision. The Pope cannot be described accurately as having absolute power.

 

[CarmelJerome]

One who asks questions about the scope of papal power needs to ask himself what the scope of his power is as someone who received baptism, which, as Pope Francis points out, is the primary dignity of each redeemed human soul. What is the scope of my own power to decide matters of faith and morals? When I come into conflict with my local bishop, or with a majority of bishops, what happens?

I found a great difficulty in converting in the 1980s because the majority of U.S. bishops at the time appeared to be using their office to promote things antithetical to the faith, while proclaiming that they and the laity had the power to do so, especially those relating to marriage, reproduction, and matters concerning the mass. Those who were most dissident were ultimately shown to be untrustworthy.

Unfortunately, I fell under the influence of those who mistrusted the present-day successors of Peter, because John XXIII failed to foresee and Paul VI failed to effectively curb the problems that were emanating from the episcopal conferences and seminaries. But as their successors have shown, the de jure power of the pope is one thing, the de facto power quite another. And in fact, popes have to grasp how to deploy their actual jurisdiction, which has always been the case. Paul VI, for whom I have a great deal of veneration, had learned how to maneuver during the tangled terrible world politics & had had to use constant diplomacy in conjunction with prayer. It became plain in the years after his pontificate that other methods had to be used with clergy and bishops infected with the spirit of the times.

 

[chimo]

One who asks questions about the scope of papal power needs to ask himself what the scope of his power is as someone who received baptism, which, as Pope Francis points out, is the primary dignity of each redeemed human soul. What is the scope of my own power to decide matters of faith and morals? When I come into conflict with my local bishop, or with a majority of bishops, what happens?

I found a great difficulty in converting in the 1980s because the majority of U.S. bishops at the time appeared to be using their office to promote things antithetical to the faith, while proclaiming that they and the laity had the power to do so, especially those relating to marriage, reproduction, and matters concerning the mass. Those who were most dissident were ultimately shown to be untrustworthy.

Unfortunately, I fell under the influence of those who mistrusted the present-day successors of Peter, because John XXIII failed to foresee and Paul VI failed to effectively curb the problems that were emanating from the episcopal conferences and seminaries. But as their successors have shown, the de jure power of the pope is one thing, the de facto power quite another. And in fact, popes have to grasp how to deploy their actual jurisdiction, which has always been the case. Paul VI, for whom I have a great deal of veneration, had learned how to maneuver during the tangled terrible world politics & had had to use constant diplomacy in conjunction with prayer. It became plain in the years after his pontificate that other methods had to be used with clergy and bishops infected with the spirit of the times.

I found it strange even interesting that the Church that often has chosen this way (Papal authority) as Rome has chosen tends to have more dissident bishops to deal with than what the Eastern Churches have to deal with. Perhaps Papal authority is necessary to correct the Church of Rome’s bishops who do not have the same focus in teaching. I am somewhat wondering why Eastern Bishops do not have this same problem as do Catholic bishops who decide to implement changes as for instance as the American bishops tried to do while at the same time the Orthodox Churches have not this type of authority (the same as Rome) contained within their structure. I wonder why Eastern Bishops have a tendency to remain more faithful? What makes the Eastern Bishops to have this certain connection in maintaining an authoritive discipline in their lives without an authority which the Popes enjoy? Perhaps we need to discover this as well.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The Church teaches as She does precisely, so that there is no misunderstanding. We need to do the same.

So an “absolute decision” means precisely a final decision. The Pope cannot be described accurately as having absolute power.

In the interest of precision, then, are you saying that the Pope does not have the power to make a final decision? Now I am confused, because I thought he could.

Or, without saying so, are you trying to say the Pope only has final decisionmaking power, not what you are calling absolute power in general. I can certainly agree to that if that’s what you mean. I don’t pretend to be a scholar or expert with all the requisite technical terms. I am a simple man and trying to understand this in simple, everyday language.

 

[Abu]

JamesCaruso #37
are you trying to say the Pope only has final decisionmaking power, not what you are calling absolute power in general.

Very clearly the Pope does not have absolute power, as though this means he can act like God.

It means expressing finality in his definitions of dogma and doctrine to be believed by the whole Church on faith or morals, with no possibility of contradiction by any future Pope, or anyone else, and such definitions are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

What more is required than the definition by Fr John A Hardon, S.J., (post #32) whose case for beatification is being prepared for the Holy See? It is not “my definition” which I have concocted.

 

[steve_b]

In the interest of precision, then, are you saying that the Pope does not have the power to make a final decision? Now I am confused, because I thought he could.

Or, without saying so, are you trying to say the Pope only has final decisionmaking power, not what you are calling absolute power in general. I can certainly agree to that if that’s what you mean. I don’t pretend to be a scholar or expert with all the requisite technical terms. I am a simple man and trying to understand this in simple, everyday language.

“in general” vs “specific” might be a good way to make this distinction. But I think the actual answer is in the definition from Lumen Gentium.

(emphasis mine)

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

" 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. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith."

Words like “since” and “when” and assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and “expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith”, qualify a definitiobn when his definition(s), of themselves are infallible

and since they

• don’t come from consent of the Church
• are irreformable since
• he has the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus to Peter
• not pronouncing judgement as a private person but as supreme teacher of the Church
• therefore they need no approval of others
• subject to no appeal.or another judgement.

Bottomline, what made it infallible? It’s the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus to Peter assisting the pope because Jesus protects His Church. And the one who occupies the office of Peter gets that promise too. One could say then, that when these qualifiers are in place, then the promise from Jesus to Peter, and in extension to the one holding Peter’s office is in place thereby making an infallible statement by the pope. And because it is irreformable not subject to another authority, one could also conclude then such a definition is absolute. That doesn’t translate however into, the pope has absolute power.

I gave the specific example of JPII saying neither he nor the Church has the power to ordain women. If the pope had absolute power he could ordain women. But he can’t

For further clarification,

When Benedice XVI resigned his office, as pope, and no longer successor to Peter, he lost that individual charism of infallibility of the Church described in the above definition from Lumen Gentium. That definition applies to the office holder while remaining in the office.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Very clearly the Pope does not have absolute power, as though this means he can act like God.

It means expressing finality in his definitions of dogma and doctrine to be believed by the whole Church on faith or morals, with no possibility of contradiction by any future Pope, or anyone else, and such definitions are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

What more is required than the definition by Fr John A Hardon, S.J., (post #32) whose case for beatification is being prepared for the Holy See? It is not “my definition” which I have concocted.

You act as if I disagree. I believe exactly as Fr. Hardon stated. The way I saw it and meant it was that in deciding matters of faith and morals the Pope has absolute power in that his word is final and can never be changed, but I did not mean in any sense that he had the power of God. If absolute power can only refer to God, then it is an often misused phrase-- The absolute power of a king over his subjects, the absolute power of a General over his troops, the absolute power of the government to enforce laws. For what it’s worth, I defer to your better understanding of the words as they are used in the Church, I was never in disagreement as to the underlying meaning, just used the wrong words to make you understand my meaning. Sorry for that. .Peace.