Leading theologian: change canon law to correct papal errors

[Dempsey1919]

History shows that many popes have been sinners and some have been wrong about theology. In these days of mass media and instant communication, the Church needs a mechanism to correct the Pope when he accidentally preaches error or even heresy.

Popes can make mistakes. Cardinals and Bishops must be equipped with tools to deal with bad papal teachings. Some might object that nobody can question the Pope, but this isn’t supported by Scripture; St. Paul opposed St. Peter.

I fully support this suggestion and pray that it is developed. I also pray that Amoris Laetitia is formally repealed or corrected. The doctrinal ambiguities mentioned in that article - the “doctrinal waywardness or simple negligence” - is doing grave damage to souls.

 

[twf]

History shows that many popes have been sinners and some have been wrong about theology. In these days of mass media and instant communication, the Church needs a mechanism to correct the Pope when he accidentally preaches error or even heresy.

Popes can make mistakes. Cardinals and Bishops must be equipped with tools to deal with bad papal teachings. Some might object that nobody can question the Pope, but this isn’t supported by Scripture; St. Paul opposed St. Peter.

I fully support this suggestion and pray that it is developed. I also pray that Amoris Laetitia is formally repealed or corrected. The doctrinal ambiguities mentioned in that article - the “doctrinal waywardness or simple negligence” - is doing grave damage to souls.

I don’t think the Fathers of the First Vatican Council ever envisioned a situation in which every utterance of the Pope would be instaneoulsy communicated to every Christian on the planet.

 

[twf]

Where all these “modern Catholics” you speak of who are overly obedient to the Pope? All I see on the Internet are self-appointed “traditionalists” who think they know the Catholic faith better than the Pope.

His special primacy is not within the college of Bishops. He is supreme over the college of bishops and doesn’t need their consent.

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.”

Lumen Gentium 22. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

And Saint Catherine of Siena is certainly no modernist:

“For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.”

drawnbylove.com/Scudder%20letters.htm

We’re talking about two different things. Yes the Pope can act on his own, without “polling” his brother bishops as it were, but historically this simply doesn’t happen. The Pope has authority to act on his own, but I stand by my comment. His primacy is intimately tied to the episcopate as a whole. There is no fourth degree of holy orders. He is a bishop. It is as Bishop of the Church in Rome, which “presides in charity”, that he exercises primacy. You can’t separate his papacy from his episcopate. He leads the episcopate from within the episcopate…not apart from it.

 

[commenter]

History shows that many popes have been sinners and some have been wrong about theology. In these days of mass media and instant communication, the Church needs a mechanism to correct the Pope when he accidentally preaches error or even heresy.

Popes can make mistakes. Cardinals and Bishops must be equipped with tools to deal with bad papal teachings. Some might object that nobody can question the Pope, but this isn’t supported by Scripture; St. Paul opposed St. Peter.

I fully support this suggestion and pray that it is developed. I also pray that Amoris Laetitia is formally repealed or corrected. The doctrinal ambiguities mentioned in that article - the “doctrinal waywardness or simple negligence” - is doing grave damage to souls.

This mechanism does exist. It is called the Holy Spirit. It does not mean the pope will always speak the Truth, as he might remain silent, or hide at Avignon, or whatever. But when he does speak in certain situations, we are assured it is the Truth.

“doctrinal waywardness” and “simple negligence” are 2 different things.

When you read talk about activating a human “mechanism” to correct popes, keep in mind there is a whole army of liberals who would like nothing better to happen. During the reign of Pope Francis, and his successors, they will erect many mechanisms, as will conservatives. Some mechanisms might undo, or redo, some things you happen to think are very good as they are.

If a mechanism is successful (in other words, approved by the media and popular opinion) you might think that only one trusted cardinal, or one responsible group, will be operating that mechanism; and they will be very careful, very respectful. And close down when no longer needed. And nobody else will dare to claim the title of mechanism-operator.



This is the history of Protestantism.

 

[commenter]

We’re talking about two different things. Yes the Pope can act on his own, without “polling” his brother bishops as it were, but historically this simply doesn’t happen. The Pope has authority to act on his own, but I stand by my comment. His primacy is intimately tied to the episcopate as a whole. There is no fourth degree of holy orders. He is a bishop. It is as Bishop of the Church in Rome, which “presides in charity”, that he exercises primacy. You can’t separate his papacy from his episcopate. He leads the episcopate from within the episcopate…not apart from it.

Not only is the pope’s primacy tied to the episcopal college…the episcopal college depends on the papacy. Otherwise you have lone ranger bishops denying the Holocaust, or groups of bishops supporting legal abortion, or other things.

The genuine college of bishops is united to the papacy. “Apostolic Succession” is necessary but not sufficient.

 

[Dempsey1919]

If a mechanism is successful (in other words, approved by the media and popular opinion) you might think that only one trusted cardinal, or one responsible group, will be operating that mechanism; and they will be very careful, very respectful. And close down when no longer needed. And nobody else will dare to claim the title of mechanism-operator.

Let’s change the language from ‘mechanism’ to a legal process. Perhaps that’ll make it clear that the Cardinals want a legal basis to judicially review statements made by an errant Pope. This would apply to ‘off the cuff’ comments and ambiguous documents that are not infallible. The Pope would only be corrected when he acts ultra vires, in the sense that he has contradicted the Deposit of Faith.

Pope Francis, despite all of his good points, has unleashed doctrinal chaos. Statements have been made about the St. Galen Mafia and the rigging of the conclave. Books have been written about the rigging of Vatican synods. Websites such as Denzinger-Bergoglio catalogue his problematic statements. Reputable news organisations such as EWTN have discussed the confusion and problems; they’ve discussed the unfair treatment of the FFI and their subsequent civil trial vindication. Then we have the unprecedented meddling into the internal affairs of the Sovereign Military Order of Malt. Much ink has been spilled on these issues. The Church needs this canon law provision.

 

[otjm]

Let’s change the language from ‘mechanism’ to a legal process. Perhaps that’ll make it clear that the Cardinals want a legal basis to judicially review statements made by an errant Pope. This would apply to ‘off the cuff’ comments and ambiguous documents that are not infallible. The Pope would only be corrected when he acts ultra vires, in the sense that he has contradicted the Deposit of Faith.

Pope Francis, despite all of his good points, has unleashed doctrinal chaos. Statements have been made about the St. Galen Mafia and the rigging of the conclave. Books have been written about the rigging of Vatican synods. Websites such as Denzinger-Bergoglio catalogue his problematic statements. Reputable news organisations such as EWTN have discussed the confusion and problems; they’ve discussed the unfair treatment of the FFI and their subsequent civil trial vindication. Then we have the unprecedented meddling into the internal affairs of the Sovereign Military Order of Malt. Much ink has been spilled on these issues. The Church needs this canon law provision.

And who is it who makes new Canon law or repeals old?

The Pope.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Pope.

Perhaps Fr Aidan has a future Pope in mind. It’s extremely likely that one of his successors will have to address the problems raised by his aeroplane statements and Amoris Laetitia.

 

[commenter]

Let’s change the language from ‘mechanism’ to a legal process. Perhaps that’ll make it clear that the Cardinals want a legal basis to judicially review statements made by an errant Pope. This would apply to ‘off the cuff’ comments and ambiguous documents that are not infallible. The Pope would only be corrected when he acts ultra vires, in the sense that he has contradicted the Deposit of Faith.

There is no such thing as an autopilot legal process, which can first, declare that the current pope may be “errant”, triggering a “review”, let alone then “judicially review” his statements. A human hand is always needed. Even if that human hand were limited to cardinals, **which **cardinals? During the reigns of the 2 prior popes there were a lot more than 4 cardinals who might have expressed “dubias”.

Even under Pope Francis do you think all the cardinals agree with those who have dubias? But why limit those who can trigger the “judicial review” only to cardinals? Bishops, priests, laity might also issue dubias, will their dubias trigger judicial reviews?

Do think CNN, etc will respectfully refrain from trying to influence the “Judicial Process” which will be going on, 52 weeks of the year? Every pope probably says things that might be challenged by some of the billion Catholics, about once a week, as going against defined dogma.

Again what you describe is the history of Protestantism.

 

[Dempsey1919]

commenter:

During the reigns of the 2 prior popes there were a lot more than 4 cardinals who might have expressed “dubias”.

There is one key difference: the two prior popes did not release documents which, in Fr Aidan’s words, caused the spread of ‘moral heresy.’ John Paul II was a champion of orthodoxy and was known for the clarity of his teachings. Those who might have presented ‘dubias’ to John Paul wanted him to relax doctrine. Cardinal Burke wants Pope Francis to confirm doctrine. Big difference.

 

[commenter]

Perhaps Fr Aidan has a future Pope in mind. It’s extremely likely that one of his successors will have to address the problems raised by his aeroplane statements and Amoris Laetitia.

I have not read what Fr. Aidan has written. However, the most important pope for any of us is always the current pope (and for that matter, our current bishop).

Be careful about those, not including Fr. Aiden, who pledge obedience to the future pope in a way that reflects on the current pope. Keep in mind that when St. JP II was teaching things that I and probably you regard as very important, timeless truths, a whole army of liberals were discounting them, that those teachings might be “corrected” by a future pope…and to *that *pope they were now in obedience.

Thus, they could and did continue to agitate for ordination of women, and prepare for it in different ways. So beware when people say that this or that teaching by Pope Francis will be corrected by a future pope *so it is not really binding now. * It also works retroactively. Thus, in recent decades liberals claimed that this or that teaching by then dead popes such as Pope Pius XII or earlier, were likely to be corrected by a future pope. So they can be taken with a grain of salt, adhered to only half way.

When Archbishop Lefebvre challenged some of Pope Paul’s positions - by that time he was calling him “Montini”, rather than Pope Paul VI - he likely never anticipated that others would go on to challenge other things that Lefebvre thought permanent and secure. (I bet if I pull this one thread out of this garment, it won’t affect other threads, the unraveling will come to a clean stop when I finish).

 

[commenter]

There is one key difference: the two prior popes did not release documents which, in Fr Aidan’s words, caused the spread of ‘moral heresy.’ John Paul II was a champion of orthodoxy and was known for the clarity of his teachings.

Liberals regarded, and still regard, JP II’s teaching as heresy, though they don’t use that word, since it is not politically correct. They regard the liberal positions as orthodoxy. They don’t consider “clarity” one of JP II’s virtues. They claim he over defined certain things, under defined other things.

Keep in mind St JP II is my hero, the greatest pope of the last 500 years in my book.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I have not read what Fr. Aidan has written. However, the most important pope for any of us is always the current pope (and for that matter, our current bishop).

I see where you’re coming from, but I have a different perspective. The most important man is Jesus Christ. He revealed the Truth and commissioned Peter and his Successors to preach and safeguard that Truth. John Paul II and Benedict XVI did this for decades. Many people feel that Pope Francis is undermining the Truth. This is why Cardinal Burke et al. sent the dubia, why priests have sent petitions, and why one of the best English-speaking theologians is calling for a change in canon law!

I never imagined it possible that a Pope would cause such confusion - especially after John Paul II issued such definitive and fantastic teaching documents. I hoped and prayed that St. John Paul’s magisterial documents would silence the heretics who call for women’s ordinations and the repeal of humane vitae etc. I also hoped that Benedict XVI would usher in a new liturgical movement that would enrich the OF. You can imagine how distressing the pontificate of Pope Francis has been for me - and many others. Nevertheless, Francis is still my Pope and I pray for him daily.

 

[Dempsey1919]

commenter:

Keep in mind St JP II is my hero, the greatest pope of the last 500 years in my book.

I completely agree. And my appreciation for him grows daily. I pray he’s declared a Doctor of the Church so that his teachings cannot be ignored or silenced.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Many people feel that Pope Francis is undermining the Truth.

Why don’t you own this and just say that YOU feel Pope Francis is undermining the truth?

I never imagined it possible that a Pope would cause such confusion

Lets face it, he is imitating Christ who did exactly the same in his day.
Therefore it is not intrinsically evil but may even be a very good thing.

Why the obsession with intellectual clarity?
It isn’t the end of the world.

If you don’t want to go to Communion in your remarriage no one is forcing you to.
But lets not be spiritually jealous of any that may be allowed to do so by the authority of the Church…not that anyone would ever know anyways .

Your are obsessing over nothing that directly personally involves you at all.

 

[lynnvinc]

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/leading-theologian-change-canon-law-to-correct-papal-errors/

I will not participate in a discussion on this topic.
Moderators - please delete if you are concerned.

God bless,
Ut

Haven’t read AL since I don’t have any problems (aside from the usual) with my 1st and only marriage of 48 years, but I read in the OP article something about the Pope saying "the monastic life was not a higher state than marriage – a view condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent.

It occurred to me that such a view might be thought heretical by those who have not been married for many years and don’t really know the penances and austerities of married life.

However, the Pope might know since he’s probably heard quite a few confessions from married people.

Reminds me of something I told my niece (in India), who is dithering about getting married (parents arrange marriage there and they are even willing for her to find her own, but she’s putting up blocks). So I suggested to her that she had 2 choices: either enter religious life to do penance, or married life to do penance.

 

[PluniaZ]

The Pope is supreme and answers to Jesus Christ alone. There are no limits to his authority. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that all the kings of the earth are subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff.

It seems that many Catholics today think their 1st Amendment political rights in the US Constitution apply in the Church as well. They are wrong. The Church is not a democracy. It is a kingdom. Jesus Christ is our King, and the Pope is His Vicar. People need to hold their tongue and obey the King’s Vicar.

 

[twf]

The Pope is supreme and answers to Jesus Christ alone. There are no limits to his authority. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that all the kings of the earth are subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff.

It seems that many Catholics today think their 1st Amendment political rights in the US Constitution apply in the Church as well. They are wrong. The Church is not a democracy. It is a kingdom. Jesus Christ is our King, and the Pope is His Vicar. People need to hold their tongue and obey the King’s Vicar.

“There are no limits to his authority.” You won’t find that in any magisterial source, because it simply isn’t true. He is subject to divine law and has absolutely no authority to change divine law.

 

[Dempsey1919]

“There are no limits to his authority.” You won’t find that in any magisterial source, because it simply isn’t true. He is subject to divine law and has absolutely no authority to change divine law.

I’m glad to read this from someone else than myself. This forum has many good people who seem to hold an ultramontane view of the Pope. This is incorrect. Interestingly, this issue tends to separate conservative Catholics from traditionalist Catholics. While I don’t like the adjectives, there is definitely a divide between those who correctly believe that the Pope can’t change doctrine and those who falsely think the Pope can do absolutely anything he wants.

 

[commenter]

“There are no limits to his authority.” You won’t find that in any magisterial source, because it simply isn’t true. He is subject to divine law and has absolutely no authority to change divine law.

Three kinds of law:
Divine law
Natural Law
Positive Law (i. e. man-made)

To my unprofessional mind, the problem seems to be this: suppose a pope changes something, or initiates something controversial (and just about everything popes have done for the past 50 years has been labelled controversial by some people).

Who determines whether the Topic was under Divine Law, Natural Law, or Positive Law?
Theologians often disagree themselves. You might argue, **we **can judge from Scripture or Tradition…but the **CURRENT **pope is always the ultimate interpreter of both of those. This means **he **determines what is Divine Law (unchangeable), what is Natural Law (unchangeable) and what is Positive Law (changeable).

In other words, you can’t use Pope Pius XII to refute Pope Francis. But a future pope, who is then the current pope, can identify some limits in the pastoral application of this or that past papal decree. But no future pope can change the Divine Law, or Natural Law.

The confusion is that some things relate to all 3 of the kinds of law. The topic of homosexuality might relate in some aspects to divine law, in other aspects to Natural Law, (both unchangeable) and in other aspects to Positive Law - pastoral practice, which may be changeable.

The alternative would be a nightmare. You could have one group of cardinals backed by CNN slamming the papacy one way, with another group of cardinals backed by Fox News pushing the other way; every month, every year. You migt say, this is a special time only during this special crisis…but the media would make every issue a crisis. This would greatly limit all future popes.