Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[twf]

Can you please re-post the link to this “general audience statement”.

Yes.

Here is the text of an interesting general audience given by the late Holy Father, Blessed John Paul II, on Feb. 24, 1993:
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…9930224en.html

I’ve included a few highlights below which I believe support Marduk’s position (which I as a Latin share - long before getting involved in any of these CAF discussions, I was always struck by the fact that the CCC carefully emphasizes that all the bishops are true vicars of Christ and not mere deputies of the Pope of Rome):

*The Second Vatican Council teaches that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church (cf. LG 22). This power, as well as that of all bishops, has a ministerial character (ministerium means service), as the Fathers of the Church had already observed.
…

It is a mission of service to the universal Church, which necessarily entails a corresponding authority precisely because of this service: the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing, without prejudice to the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs, according to the order of their dignity.
…
In this regard it would be well to clarify immediately that this “fullness” of power attributed to the Pope in no way detracts from the “fullness” also belonging to the body of bishops. On the contrary, one must assert that both the Pope and the episcopal body have “all the fullness” of power. The Pope possesses this fullness personally, while the body of bishops, united under the Pope’s authority, possesses it collegially. The Pope’s power does not result from simply adding numbers, but is the episcopal body’s principle of unity and wholeness.
…
Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibi*lity to intervene daily in the local churches.
…
Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).
…
Because of this new clarification the erroneous interpretations often made of Vatican I’s definition are rejected and the full significance of the Petrine ministry is shown in its harmony with the doctrine of episcopal collegiality
…
He will never subordinate what he has received for Christ and his Church to his own personal aims.
…
Regarding his relationship with his brothers in the episcopate, he must remember and apply the words of St. Gregory the Great: “My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored, then, when each of them is not denied the honor due him”(emphasises added)

Blessed Pope John Paul II clearly affirms that the “absolutist” position misinterprets the intentions of the holy fathers of Florence, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother Peter.

I’ll attempt to explain it as concisely as I can.

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church collegially? YES

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church personally? YES

Can any other bishop exercise the infallibility of the Church collegially? YES

Can any other bishop exercise the infallibility of the Church personally? NO

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church apart from the Church? NO and NEVER.

EXPLANATION:
There is only ONE KIND OF infallibility in the Church - the infallibility of GOD, which He permits the Church to possess for the sake of perserving His Truth.

This infallibility is exercised in two ways -
(1) in an ORDINARY manner (equivalently, “the infallibility of the ORDINARY Magisterium”);
(2) in an EXTRAORDINARY manner (equivalently, “the infallibility of the EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium”).

The Church exercises infallibility in an ORDINARY manner to preserve God’s Truth in only one way - collegially. This occurs for the day-to-day transmission of God’s Truth that is for the most part undisputed. In such cases, the episcopal Magisterium acts as WITNESSES.

The Church execises infallibility in an EXTRAORDINARY manner to preserve God’s Truth in two ways - (1) collegially and (2) personally by the Pope. This occurs when there is a dispute in the Church about God’s Truth. In such cases, the episcopal Magisterium acts as JUDGES.

The Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium is exercised COLLEGIALLY by an Ecumenical Council. In that event, ALL the bishops act as JUDGES…

The Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium is exercised PERSONALLY by the Pope when the bishops themselves cannot agree. In that event, only the Pope acts as the JUDGE, while the bishops act as WITNESSES. In other words, while the Pope is exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, the bishops (or at least a portion of them) are exercising the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

I hope that helps. All questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

Beautifully done, Marduk. Replies like the one I just quoted make me wonder how it’s even possible that Mickey has convinced himself that you utilize and manipulate a convoluted “matrix of theological terminology.”

Thanks also for the brief primer on Pope Honorius and Patriarch Sergius. I’m always learning more and more. I found it particularly helpful when you pointed out that Honorius’ failure - and therefore tacit acquiescence to heresy - lay precisely in the fact that he did not exercise his personal papal prerogatives in order to stand up to monothelitism.

And twf, thanks for re-posting that general audience statement. Once again it justifies the question: who is more likely to understand faithfully and present accurately Catholic teaching: the (former) Roman Pontiff, or Internet polemicists? (both Orthodox and absolutist Latins…)

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Can the Pope exercise the infallibility of the Church apart from the Church? NO and NEVER.

Brother Marduk,

Thank you for the succinct reply!

Are you saying the Pope requires the consent of the Church to exercise this infallibility?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Vatican I is clear:

from:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/__PH.HTM

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

Peter

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Earlier in this thread part of an audience by Blessed John Paul in 1993 was quoted:

Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches.

This is from:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

However, what was not cited is the next words:

Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy.

As the Eastern Catholic Canon Law states:

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; therefore, one who is already a bishop obtains this same power from the moment he accepts his election to the pontificate, but if the one elected lacks the episcopal character, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately. §2. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office (munus), it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.

Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded. §2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function. §3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

From:

americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/1990_Code_of_Canons_of_the_Eastern_Churches.pdf

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy.

I’m not certain why the rest of that text holds any relevance. The primacy, as far as exercising it in local Churches, is only utilized in an extraordinary manner - i.e, when it is needed (i.e., in cases where the authority of the local bishop is impeded). The only thing the added text is saying is that when it is needed, the exercise of the primacy itself cannot be impeded.

The consistent teaching of the Catholic Church has always been that the primacy can only be execised to support and strengthen the authority of the local bishop (insofar as the concept of jurisdiction is concerned). I’ll give you a concrete example. Let’s take the uncanonical demotion of the former Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Let’s pretend that the EOC was in communion with the CC. That former Eastern Patriarch has the right to appeal his case to the Pope. Here is an example that requires the exercise of the primacy. The added text you gave is simply saying that this role of the Pope cannot be impeded.

The Pope himself does not have the authority to exercise the primacy in order to impede the rights of the local bishops. Rather, he has the authority to exercise the primacy to defend the rights of the local bishops. It is this exercise of the primacy - that purposes to defend the rights of the local bishops - that cannot itself be impeded.

I hope that helps.

Our new inquirer, Gregdaly, has stated he will start a new thread on the matter of the Primacy. May I humbly suggest we hold off on this issue until that time? I started this thread to answer the concerns of another inquirer about the issue of the Infallibility, so I’d rather not get it mired in a debate about the distinct issue of the Primacy.

Let’s both watch out for that thread so we can continue our discussion there.

Btw, your citation of canons 43 - 45 has been answered many times in the past. I will gladly offer you the High Petrine explanations of those canons. However, as the OP of this thread, I again humbly ask that we continue this discussion on the Primacy in the future thread that brother Greg will initiate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

Are you saying the Pope requires the consent of the Church to exercise this infallibility?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Vatican I is clear:
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

I had to give that grin because it’s apparent you have not read through the thread. The question you ask here has been the focus of about 1/2 of this whole thread, and has already been fully answered.

If you are willing to read through the thread, let me know in your next post.

If you feel you don’t have the time or inclination to read through the thread, also let me know, and I will attempt as concise a summary as possible for your benefit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Brother Marduk,

You stated:

The Pope himself does not have the authority to exercise the primacy in order to impede the rights of the local bishops. Rather, he has the authority to exercise the primacy to defend the rights of the local bishops. It is this exercise of the primacy - that purposes to defend the rights of the local bishops - that cannot itself be impeded.

That is not what the text says. It says

in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Can you briefly cite a source that says the Pope only has such authority to defend the rights of the local bishops?

As to not reading half the thread…I plead guilty.

I believe Vatican I means what it says: papal infallibility does not require the consent of the Church.

I imagine that one could try to make a case otherwise. But, if words have any meaning, then what Vatican I said here is clear.

Otherwise, then, there is no point to the schism between our Churches. Greater minds than ours have wrestled with these issues and the schism still remains. I don’t think the solution is as simple as you are indicating.

Have you presented your case to Fr. Vincent Serpa here at CAF? I’d be interested if he’d agree that the exercise of papal infallibility requires the consent of the Church or that the Pope’s jurisdiction is limited to only defending the rights of the local bishop.

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

First of all, I just noticed you are on “Trial membership” status. In that case, I’d like to offer you a warm WELCOME to CAF!

Secondly, I will respond to your questions related to the OP (i.e. regarding the Infallibility), and will await the new thread on the Primacy that our brother Greg will start to discuss the other matters (hopefully you will participate in that thread and repeat your questions there).

First, let me address your prior post:

Are you saying the Pope requires the consent of the Church to exercise this infallibility?

If by “consent” you mean the JUDGMENT of the Church through her other bishops, the answer is “NO.”

If by “consent” you mean the WITNESS of the Church or the sensus fidelium, the answer is “YES.”

I have provided all the necessary documentation from Magisterial sources, as well as the rational arguments, to demonstrate the truth of those statements throughout this thread. I do hope that when you have the time, you will read through the thread.

As to not reading half the thread…I plead guilty.

I believe Vatican I means what it says: papal infallibility does not require the consent of the Church.

Ok, I’ll try to explain this as concisely as possible.

V1 does not actually say “papal infallibility does not require the consent of the Church.” What it says, exactly, is “the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable by their nature, not from the consent of the Church.” A literal reading of the text reveals 2 things:
(1) The statement is referring to the definition itself – i.e., “papal infallibility” has ALREADY been exercised.
(2) “Papal infallibility” having already been exercised, the clause “not from the consent of the Church” could not possibly be referring to the exercise of “papal infallibility” itself.

The exercise itself (i.e., of “papal infallibility”) is governed by other statements, contained both in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus and the Official Relatio. These other statements, which I have quoted throughout this thread (another reason why I pray you will take the time to read through this thread), demonstrate that:
(1) The Pope’s exercise of the Church’s infallibility is occasioned (and constrained) by the solicitude and appeal of the bishops. The Pope just can’t wake up one morning and decide to make an ex cathedra decree on a whim, and then expect the Church to kowtow to that decree.
(2) It is necessary for the Pope to determine the consensus of the Church before the Pope can exercise the Church’s infallibility.

I imagine that one could try to make a case otherwise. But, if words have any meaning, then what Vatican I said here is clear.

Well, none of dogmas of the first 4 Ecumenical Councils were so perfectly clear that they did not require subsequent clarification. I think the apparent lack of clarity of the Vatican dogmas (whether real or imagined) on the papacy is par for the course. I think it is natural that people will see the same thing in different ways.

A perfect example is your statement “papal infallibility does not require the consent of the Church.” That is not what the definition actually states (as demonstrated above), but that is what you perceive the statement to say. The teaching is actually quite clear; the problem is that you have read something into the text that is not actually there. I pray I have sufficiently explained to you what the true teaching of the Vatican Councils is regarding the “papal infallibility” (well – granting that you have not actually read through the thread yet).

Otherwise, then, there is no point to the schism between our Churches.

Actually, that’s exactly what I believe. It is part of the reason I joined the Catholic Church, where I could remain faithful to my Traditions, while being in communion with Rome, as were our common Fathers in the first millenium.

Have you presented your case to Fr. Vincent Serpa here at CAF? I’d be interested if he’d agree that the exercise of papal infallibility requires the consent of the Church.

He doesn’t seem the type to engage in long discussions. I’m sure he is busy. Anyone is free to report me to the Moderators if I am misrepresenting the Catholic Faith. It’s possible several already have (Absolutist Petrine advocates maybe). But I’ve never received so much as a warning.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

To be honest with you- I’m not sure. I’m hoping that this gets cleared up in the thread to come (as how they are dogmatized- necessary for salvation or not- will play a large part in how I feel about the dogmas in general). I need to process this a bit more- because I’m not quite sure how to articulate my thoughts right now… the mental dust needs to settle, so to speak.

I actually perceived your question to have two parts:

(1) What conflicts justified the dogmatization?

(2) Why did the Catholic Church make the Marian doctrines necessary for salvation?

When I asked you most recently if you were satisfied with the explanation of the conflicts that necessitated the dogmatization, I was referring to (1). I’m not sure if you understood my intent. If you did, forgive me for pressing the issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Brother Marduk,

Thank you for the welcome to CAF!

Otherwise, then, there is no point to the schism between our Churches.

Actually, that’s exactly what I believe. It is part of the reason I joined the Catholic Church, where I could remain faithful to my Traditions, while being in communion with Rome, as were our common Fathers in the first millenium.

That implies that the great minds in the ecumenical dialogue between our Churches are wasting their time because they all just misunderstand the Catholic teaching – which doesn’t teach anything that Orthodox should object to. That’s difficult for me to accept. For example, the point I brought up was mentioned by Metropolitan Kallistos in his recent Orientale Lumen lecture. How could he have misunderstood this all these years? You’d think some Catholic scholars would have set him straight a long time ago.

The teaching is actually quite clear; the problem is that you have read something into the text that is not actually there. I pray I have sufficiently explained to you what the true teaching of the Vatican Councils is regarding the “papal infallibility” (well – granting that you have not actually read through the thread yet).

Can you cite recognized Catholic scholars who interpret Vatican I (papal infallibility and papal universal jurisdiction) the way you do? I’ve read a fair bit on this subject over the years and your interpretation seems novel. What scholars also present the “true teaching” of the Vatican Councils the way you do? I’m not meaning to offend but I think you’re making quite a claim here.

V1 does not actually say “papal infallibility does not require the consent of the Church.” What it says, exactly, is “the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable by their nature, not from the consent of the Church.” A literal reading of the text reveals 2 things:
(1) The statement is referring to the definition itself – i.e., “papal infallibility” has ALREADY been exercised.
(2) “Papal infallibility” having already been exercised, the clause “not from the consent of the Church” could not possibly be referring to the exercise of “papal infallibility” itself.

Ok, let’s go back to the statement:

“the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable by their nature, not from the consent of the Church.”

The common reading of this text is not a misreading at all. One could, without violence to the text simplify it this way:

“the definitions [in the exercise of papal infallibility] of the Roman Pontiff are…not from the consent of the Church.”

This is the common interpretation. One can cite other statements and Magisterial documents all one wants but those don’t cancel out this statement. The statements can be harmonized but both points have to be acknowledged.

(1) The Pope’s exercise of the Church’s infallibility is occasioned (and constrained) by the solicitude and appeal of the bishops. The Pope just can’t wake up one morning and decide to make an ex cathedra decree on a whim, and then expect the Church to kowtow to that decree.
(2) It is necessary for the Pope to determine the consensus of the Church before the Pope can exercise the Church’s infallibility.

Yes, as I understand Catholic teaching, the Pope is to consider the consensus of the Church. But, there is no constraint requiring approval by others. If so, that would have been put directly into the definition itself.

In the history of the Church, both from the Catholic and Orthodox perspective, there were times when what was not clearly a majority view (due to the presence of heresy) became recognized later as dogma. Why would papal infallibility (if such exists) be required to act differently than the infallibility accorded to the college of Bishops but not always recognized until later? Your interpretation would demand more of the papal exercise than the exercise by the episcopate.

Anyone is free to report me to the Moderators if I am misrepresenting the Catholic Faith. It’s possible several already have (Absolutist Petrine advocates maybe). But I’ve never received so much as a warning.

That’s not what I had in mind. What I’m asking is if there has been some peer review of your interpretation?

Peter

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Peter,

First of all, I want to thank you for this wonderful, scholarly discussion. You are one of 4 Orthodox persons (not in communion with Rome ) I have met on the internet over the past 4 years with whom I can tell I will enjoy having hours of wonderful discussion (not at one time, of course ). You have a great mind for getting at the real issues.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the length of my response (2 posts ). Please take all the time you need to read it.

That implies that the great minds in the ecumenical dialogue between our Churches are wasting their time because they all just misunderstand the Catholic teaching – which doesn’t teach anything that Orthodox should object to. That’s difficult for me to accept. For example, the point I brought up was mentioned by Metropolitan Kallistos in his recent Orientale Lumen lecture. How could he have misunderstood this all these years? You’d think some Catholic scholars would have set him straight a long time ago.

I have not had time to listen to all the podcasts, I must confess. I’ll hold off commenting on what Met. Kallistos stated until then. As for your other point in this excerpt, I don’t see anything particularly - I can’t quite think of the word - about the fact that this issue has not yet been settled. The conflict over the Natures of Christ between the OOC and CC have lasted for over 1,500 years, and has only recently been finally put to rest (to be sure, the CC had actually already determined the orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox around the turn of the 19th/20th century, but for whatever reason, the common Christological Agreements did not occur until about 80 years later.). It’s all in God’s time, but I have all hope that it can be resolved within the next generation.

Can you cite recognized Catholic scholars who interpret Vatican I (papal infallibility and papal universal jurisdiction) the way you do?

I’ve cited Magisterial documents since Vatican 1 directly for the High Petrine position. Others have cited statements from our recent Popes. I don’t see any better authorities to whom anyone could appeal.

I’ve read a fair bit on this subject over the years and your interpretation seems novel. What scholars also present the “true teaching” of the Vatican Councils the way you do?

Probably not novel (given the quotations from Magisterial sources since Vatican 1 that I and others have given, not just in this thread, but others in the past) - simply little known. Have you heard of Dr. Adam DeVille? I think he was one of the speakers at the recent Orientale Lumen conference. He recently came out with a book on the papal issue, and one of the reviews called his own approach to the matter “novel” - in a positive sense. I have not read his book, but look forward to reading it within the next month or two. In truth, I have read perhaps two apologetics works in my journey to the Catholic Church up to this day. What I read are normally primary sources (i.e, the Fathers, CCC, compendiums of source documents, encyclicals, etc.). So I am not really well read on “scholars” and really don’t have any interest to read them in the first place in my faith formation (I kid you not - when I read Dr. DeVille’s book, that will be the first modern scholar I have read on theological issues).

I’m not meaning to offend but I think you’re making quite a claim here.

No offense taken. Someone has got to take the initiative. I believe the High Petrine understanding of the Church offers a very real solution to the ecclesiological issues between the Orthodox who are in communion with Rome, and the Orthodox who are not in communion with Rome.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The common reading of this text is not a misreading at all. One could, without violence to the text simplify it this way:

the definitions [in the exercise of papal infallibility] of the Roman Pontiff are…not from the consent of the Church.

This is the common interpretation. One can cite other statements and Magisterial documents all one wants but those don’t cancel out this statement. The statements can be harmonized but both points have to be acknowledged.

As stated, I am not really all that well-read on Catholic apologetics works, so I don’t know what the “common CATHOLIC interpretation” is. What you have presented above, however, is what I was told by my non-Catholic sources growing up in the Coptic Orthodox Church. All I know is that the version of Catholicism I was given in the COC did not align with the info I was getting from the Catholic primary source documents I was reading. When I read the phrase “the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable by their nature, not from the consent of the Church” in light of those Catholic primary source documents, and not through the lens of my non-Catholic sources, I no longer saw what you currently see now in that statement.

Having read about the background debates at Vatican 1, I finally understood that it is not the “definitions” that is the subject of the clause “not from the consent of the Church,” but rather the term “irreformable.” It is the quality of irreformability of the definition (that’s what I meant - sorry for not being clearer - when I stated in my earlier post that the clause is referring to the definition) that is not derived from the consent of the Church. The definition’s quality of irreformability - i.e., its infallibility, it’s quality as God’s Truth - is not from the consent of the Church. Generally speaking, Truth as such is never determined by consensus - this latter idea is a modernist heresy.

On the other hand, if you have ever read the Official Relatio of V1, which is the official interpretation of the Decrees, you will discover that a papal definition itself does indeed depend on the consent of the Church (recall my earlier statement - consent as WITNESS, not consent as judgment), for the very fact that a papal definition is based on and can never contradict the sensus fidelium of the Church. I have already given the necessary quotes from the Official Relatio in this thread to prove this latter statement(another reason I pray you will take the time to read through this thread).

Yes, as I understand Catholic teaching, the Pope is to consider the consensus of the Church. But, there is no constraint requiring approval by others.

That is not true. I suspect you might be thinking of the principle that the Pope might require counsel, but is not required to adhere to that counsel. That’s not the issue here. The consensus of the Church (or the sensus fidelium) is indeed a necessary component of a papal definition. The Pope cannot define without it. If nothing else, please read the OP (the first 3 posts of this thread). The quote from the Official Relatio on this point is contained in the first post.

If so, that would have been put directly into the definition itself.

Not really. The Church only defines what is in dispute. The fact that the Pope is constrained by the sensus fidelium in defining a doctrine was never in dispute among the V1 Fathers. I ask you - why does the Church need to define something that is not in dispute? That has been the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium since before the Great Schism. What need was there for the EXTRAordinary Magisterium to define it? However, it might interest you to know that, even though it was not included in the definition (because it was never in dispute and thus did not need to be defined), the idea that the Pope is constrained by the sensus fidelium in defining doctrine is contained in the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus. I’m sure you have a copy of Pastor Aeternus, so you can read it yourself. Btw, it might also interest you to know that the inclusion of the historic Proem into Pastor Aeternus caused several neo-ultramontanists at V1 to leave in disgust, one even complaining that the Proem made the Decree nothing more than an attenuated form of Gallicanism!

Why would papal infallibility (if such exists) be required to act differently than the infallibility accorded to the college of Bishops but not always recognized until later?

I confess I don’t understand your point here. Please explain.

Your interpretation would demand more of the papal exercise than the exercise by the episcopate.

How so?

That’s not what I had in mind. What I’m asking is if there has been some peer review of your interpretation?

Well, I’ve gotten a LOT of support here in CAF (and many complements by e-mail) for proposing the High Petrine view. So its just the hoi polloi, no professional theologians of which I’m aware.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Yes.

That link does not work for me.

 

[Mickey]

]Sounds rather non-patristic.

 

[Mickey]

Blessed Pope John Paul II clearly affirms that the “absolutist” position misinterprets the intentions of the holy fathers of Florence, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

I doubt that JP2 used inventive terms such as “absolutist.”

 

[Mickey]

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Pastor aeternus

 

[malphono]

That link does not work for me.

FWIW, if it was available in English, seems to have been removed. I couldn’t find it in French, either, but it’s there in Italian and in Spanish.

 

[Mickey]

FWIW, if it was available in English, seems to have been removed. I couldn’t find it in French, either, but it’s there in Italian and in Spanish.

Sadly, I cannot speak or read Italian. And I speak and read very little Spanish.

 

[twf]

Mickey: The link words fine as far as I can tell. One of the quotes I highlighted, however, affirms that the Pope has neither the “power nor responsibility” to intervene in the daily affairs of local churches. He highlights that while the authority of the pope is “supreme” (an adjective that the Oriental Orthodox also use - the Pope of Alexandria is described as the SUPREME Head of the Coptic Church FWIW), the authority of the bishops is likewise directly from Christ and can not be contravened.

 

[Mickey]

One of the quotes I highlighted, however, affirms that the Pope has neither the “power nor responsibility” to intervene in the daily affairs of local churches.

Me thinks that sometimes Rome speaks out of both sides of her mouth. I think that when Rome says “supremacy”…they mean “supremacy.”

Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
****Pastor aeternus