How Absolute is Pope's Power?

[JamesCaruso]

“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.

Yes, I agree with you, and it’s what I have always thought. As far as the power to ordain women, he cannot because that has already been declared infallibly, otherwise he could.

 

[Abu]

JamesCaruso #40
I believe exactly as Fr. Hardon stated

Great. It’s good to clarify the truth.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, I agree with you, and it’s what I have always thought. As far as the power to ordain women, he cannot because that has already been declared infallibly, otherwise he could.

In a previous post, I was suggesting,

• I think it was JPII that made the statement an infallible.statement, thereby ending all debate and future debate, making the issue therefore, irreformable.
• I also think in this case, it was always considered part of the faith from the beginning. Therefore, JPII made it official to stop even the talk of such a thing happening.

 

[JamesCaruso]

In a previous post, I was suggesting,

• I think it was JPII that made the statement an infallible.statement, thereby ending all debate and future debate, making the issue therefore, irreformable.
• I also think in this case, it was always considered part of the faith from the beginning. Therefore, JPII made it official to stop even the talk of such a thing happening.

That’s how I understood his statement, as well. He attempted to end all the controversy by those who questioned whether it had been infallibly declared by making it formal. Thanks for the follow up.

 

[Abu]

JamesCaruso #41
As far as the power to ordain women, he cannot because that has already been declared infallibly, otherwise he could.

BTW, the “could”, before it was infallibly defined, was dependant on Tradition and that Tradition is impossible to disregard and thus to change:
‘The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the fact and gave the reasons why this practice has a normative character. “In the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of unbroken Tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the West, and alert to suppress abuses immediately.” Having stated the fact, the Holy See went on to clarify this teaching. Since the priesthood is a sacrament, it is a sign that is not only effective but should be intelligible to the faithful: “When Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this ‘natural resemblance’ which must exist between Christ and His minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man” (October 15, 1976). On his visit to the United States, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed “ the Church’s traditional decision to call men to the priesthood, and not to call women” (October 4, 1979).’
**Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. **
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

See: The Male Priesthood: The Argument From Sacred Tradition
MARK LOWERY
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0069.html

 

[JamesCaruso]

BTW, the “could”, before it was infallibly defined, was dependant on Tradition and that Tradition is impossible to disregard and thus to change:
‘The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the fact and gave the reasons why this practice has a normative character. “In the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of unbroken Tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the West, and alert to suppress abuses immediately.” Having stated the fact, the Holy See went on to clarify this teaching. Since the priesthood is a sacrament, it is a sign that is not only effective but should be intelligible to the faithful: “When Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this ‘natural resemblance’ which must exist between Christ and His minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man” (October 15, 1976). On his visit to the United States, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed “ the Church’s traditional decision to call men to the priesthood, and not to call women” (October 4, 1979).’
**Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. **
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

See: The Male Priesthood: The Argument From Sacred Tradition
MARK LOWERY
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0069.html

Those, of course, are the arguments, which I agree with, and as steve b expressed, it was considered already a part of the faith, but just what would anyone do if JPII had instead declared formally that women could henceforth be ordained? Once that is done, I assume the matter is no longer open to discussion. Would they call JPII a defective Pope? Would they say he overreached his authority? Interesting, since it cannot happen in my view that a legally elected Pontiff err on matters of faith and morals since Christ has declared beforehand, in my understanding, that this cannot happen.

 

[Abu]

Correct. Christ protects His flock by the fact that no Pope can teach error to the whole Church when defining on faith or morals.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, I agree with you, and it’s what I have always thought. As far as the power to ordain women, he cannot because that has already been declared infallibly, otherwise he could.

Just for clarification, the pope said neither he nor the Church has the authority to ordain women. It can’t be done. JPII said this to close the topic, and end all future debate.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

.

Of course, in the sense that a Pope cannot make a statement on faith or morals contrary to God, he does not have absolute power- Ho only has absolute power in the sense that what he says on matters of faith and morals binds all Catholics. I never meant to compare the absolute power of God with the power of the Pope to make infallible statements.

 

[thinkandmull]

Don’t forget that Popes use to claim the right to depose temporal rulers thru the power of their “two swords” (temporal and spiritual). I wonder what Pope Francis would say if we asked him to depose Obama

 

[thinkandmull]

Just for clarification, the pope said neither he nor the Church has the authority to ordain women. It can’t be done. JPII said this to close the topic, and end all future debate.

Cardinal Ratzinger said after that encycical was released that it wasn’t infallible. It sure read as if Pope John Paul II meant it to be infallible on its own. Others claim its infallible because of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Although, I am not convinced all bishops a agreed with the pope

 

[Elizium23]

Cardinal Ratzinger said after that encycical was released that it wasn’t infallible. It sure read as if Pope John Paul II meant it to be infallible on its own. Others claim its infallible because of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Although, I am not convinced all bishops a agreed with the pope

That is not what Ratzinger said. In fact he said what you say “others claim”.

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Don’t forget that Popes use to claim the right to depose temporal rulers thru the power of their “two swords” (temporal and spiritual). I wonder what Pope Francis would say if we asked him to depose Obama

Currently, my sword is out for repairs?

 

[Abu]

Thinkandmull #51
Cardinal Ratzinger said after that encycical was released that it wasn’t infallible. It sure read as if Pope John Paul II meant it to be infallible on its own. Others claim its infallible because of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium

However, as Fr James T O’Connor explains: “It is clear that here the Pope meets all the requirements set forth by Vatican I and explained by Gasser for an infallible papal definition. That the teaching was indeed infallible was reconfirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on October 28th, 1995.” [My emphasis].

When asked whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Epistle *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *to be held definitively, is “to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith”, the Congregation answered: “Affirmative.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1985, p 116].

“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.”
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

 

[steve_b]

Cardinal Ratzinger said after that encycical was released that it wasn’t infallible. It sure read as if Pope John Paul II meant it to be infallible on its own. Others claim its infallible because of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Although, I am not convinced all bishops a agreed with the pope

The language used by the pope is there for an infallible statement

key passages (all emphasis mine)

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a
matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s
divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming
the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) 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.”

Let us compare this with Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of
papal infallibility:

“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance
promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility
with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed
in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]

[snip]

please read the entire explanation ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

For your convenience, The document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

The language used by the pope is there for an infallible statement

key passages (all emphasis mine)

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a
matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s
divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming
the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) 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.”

Let us compare this with Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of
papal infallibility:

“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance
promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility
with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed
in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]

[snip]

please read the entire explanation ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

For your convenience, The document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
[vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...i_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html)

I agree. In fact, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is even closer to how Vatican II explained papal infallibility in Lumen Gentium, which explicitly ties papal infallibility to the ministry of “confirming the brethren” in the faith citing the same verse from Luke:

“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*)”

 

[Genesis315]

Cardinal Ratzinger said after that encycical was released that it wasn’t infallible. It sure read as if Pope John Paul II meant it to be infallible on its own. Others claim its infallible because of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Although, I am not convinced all bishops a agreed with the pope

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger say it was not infallible? I’ve seen where he said it wasn’t a definition of a “dogma,” which must be believed with divine faith as a revealed truth. However, just as the terminology of the definition from Vatican I says, the Church does not limit infallibility to de fide dogma, but to the broader category of doctrines to be “definitively held” ( “sententia definitive tenenda” ). This term is broader and includes those doctrines not directly revealed, but which are inextricably tied up with revealed truth and which are necessary to defend or expound upon revealed truth, etc.

Here’s a good read on these distinctions from Ratzinger. He explicitly lists the doctrine concerning the ordination of men only in this category, and explicitly says this category is infallibly taught by the Pope:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Oh and one more thing…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.

Please could I just inform you that Cardinal Ratzinger was the now Pope Benedict XVI I understand what you mean however, personally I disagree with him when he implies the consecration of Russia has been done for example.

 

[Abu]

Paul Edwards #57
personally I disagree with him [Cardinal Ratzinger] when he implies the consecration of Russia has been done for example.

‘The Pope had also, in his letter to the bishops of the world, specifically said he was renewing Pope Pius XII’s 1952 consecration of Russia, and which surely proves his intent. The Church has always maintained that the consecration was made.
‘Sr Lucia confirmed that the Pope had fulfilled the Blessed Virgin’s request and that the consecration had been accepted in heaven; “God will keep His promise” she said.’
acatholicland.org/the-consecration-of-russia-has-been-made-article-recently-revised/

From Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia compiled by Father Robert J Fox, Fatima Family Apostolate, 1992:
On page 81-83 is the Holy Father’s Act of Consecration of the world to Our Lady: “we entrust and consecrate to you…those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated…” Reference is made to Pope Pius XII having “entrusted and consecrated to your Immaculate Heart the whole world”, “forty years ago” [The world] and “again ten years later” [Russia].

On page 84-85 is the complete letter of Sr Lucia to Sr Mary of Bethlehem, dated August 29,1989, who is personally known to Fr Fox and whom he has met frequently.

Sr Lucia answers Sr Mary’s question “Is the Consecration of the world, according to the request of Our Lady, made?” Sr Lucia explains that:
To Pius XII’s Consecration on Oct 31, 1942, “I answered ‘NO’, because it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.”

To Paul VI’s Consecration on May 13, 1967, “I responded ‘NO’, for the same reason, it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.”

To John Paul’s Consecration on May 13, 1982, “I responded ‘NO’. It was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.”

To John Paul’s Consecration on March 25, 1984, "I said ‘YES’. Now it is made."

Fr Fox explains that Fr Messias Coelho, theologian and editor of the Portuguese journal Mesagem de Fatima answered objections: “Sister Lucia, out of respect for the Pope, spoke of it the way our Holy Father did, using the word ‘world’, which included Russia. In the letter the Pope sent to the world’s bishops, the Holy Father clarified that it was to renew both the consecration of the world (1942) and Russia (1952). This time he did so in union with the bishops.”

 

[Paul_Edwards]

‘The Pope had also, in his letter to the bishops of the world, specifically said he was renewing Pope Pius XII’s 1952 consecration of Russia, and which surely proves his intent. The Church has always maintained that the consecration was made.
‘Sr Lucia confirmed that the Pope had fulfilled the Blessed Virgin’s request and that the consecration had been accepted in heaven; “God will keep His promise” she said.’
acatholicland.org/the-consecration-of-russia-has-been-made-article-recently-revised/

From Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia compiled by Father Robert J Fox, Fatima Family Apostolate, 1992:
On page 81-83 is the Holy Father’s Act of Consecration of the world to Our Lady: “we entrust and consecrate to you…those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated…” Reference is made to Pope Pius XII having “entrusted and consecrated to your Immaculate Heart the whole world”, “forty years ago” [The world] and “again ten years later” [Russia].

On page 84-85 is the complete letter of Sr Lucia to Sr Mary of Bethlehem, dated August 29,1989, who is personally known to Fr Fox and whom he has met frequently.

Sr Lucia answers Sr Mary’s question “Is the Consecration of the world, according to the request of Our Lady, made?” Sr Lucia explains that:
To Pius XII’s Consecration on Oct 31, 1942, “I answered ‘NO’, because it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.”

To Paul VI’s Consecration on May 13, 1967, “I responded ‘NO’, for the same reason, it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.”

To John Paul’s Consecration on May 13, 1982, “I responded ‘NO’. It was not made in union with all the bishops of the world.”

To John Paul’s Consecration on March 25, 1984, "I said ‘YES’. Now it is made."

Fr Fox explains that Fr Messias Coelho, theologian and editor of the Portuguese journal Mesagem de Fatima answered objections: “Sister Lucia, out of respect for the Pope, spoke of it the way our Holy Father did, using the word ‘world’, which included Russia. In the letter the Pope sent to the world’s bishops, the Holy Father clarified that it was to renew both the consecration of the world (1942) and Russia (1952). This time he did so in union with the bishops.”

Sister Lucia did not say it was done, there are many forgeries. Pope John Paul never mentioned Russia in his Consecration.

I believe Pope John Paul II

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/component/content/article/79-history/225-john-paul-ii-admits-1984-consecration-invalid.html