Leading theologian: change canon law to correct papal errors

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Certainly many modern Catholics seem to approach the papacy as if it were equivalent to the Mormon First Presidency: prophet, seer and revelator inspired by God.
The Pope is a sinner and a mortal man like the rest of us. In regards to his ministry, he is first and foremost a bishop…there is no fourth degree of Holy Orders. His special primacy must be understood as something that operates within the College of Bishops, not apart from it.
The way many contemporary Catholics approach the papacy is a huge stumbling block for our Eastern brethren.
 
The Pope is supreme. No one has the authority to correct him.

We need to respectfully obey him, pray for him and never publicly criticize him.

“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.”

Saint Catherine of Siena

drawnbylove.com/Scudder%20letters.htm
 
Certainly many modern Catholics seem to approach the papacy as if it were equivalent to the Mormon First Presidency: prophet, seer and revelator inspired by God.
The Pope is a sinner and a mortal man like the rest of us. In regards to his ministry, he is first and foremost a bishop…there is no fourth degree of Holy Orders. His special primacy must be understood as something that operates within the College of Bishops, not apart from it.
The way many contemporary Catholics approach the papacy is a huge stumbling block for our Eastern brethren.
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
 
“Do you not know, you miserable man, that only divine authority binds the Roman Bishop? The Pope is only subject to Holy Scripture, revealed by the hand of God, and he is not bound by decrees of men. ”But we say that the pope is subject to reason, and the power of the Church is given for edification and not for destruction.” But even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the Pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults. Oh, how wrong is the opinion of many men: though they do not allow a king’s subjects to have any say against the king, they would allow it in the case of the pope even if God has given him power over all mortal men. Those stupid men are unconcerned that the Holy Apostolic Church has, from Saint Peter to this day, never been heard to teach anything that is contrary to orthodox faith. This privilege it has received from the Lord that it shall never succumb to wrong teachings for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See.”

Pope Pius II, Multa hic hodie. hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01184531/document
 
The Pope is supreme. No one has the authority to correct him.

We need to respectfully obey him, pray for him and never publicly criticize him.
While “authority” certainly limits the impact of your statement, the pope is not beyond correction when he errs, as he does. The right means to draw that to his attention is another matter.
 
Ugh. It’s one thing to say about Past Pope with historical proofs and evidence. It’s another thing to not just say bad thing about the current Pope out in the open but to pretty much trying to oust him.

(disagreeing in council, behind close door is okay. That’s what council is!)
 
All I see on the Internet are self-appointed “traditionalists” who think they know the Catholic faith better than the Pope.
thecatholicthing.org/2015/02/19/petitioning-pope/
But I along with a whole group have recently done something – something that I, at least, normally don’t. We signed this “Filial Appeal” to the Holy Father, which makes a bold claim, namely, that “a word from Your Holiness is the only way to clarify the growing confusion amongst the faithful.” When it initially came to me from my friend Roberto de Mattei, one of the great living Catholic historians, fewer than 100 people were on board. More than 100,000 are now.
 
Certainly many modern Catholics seem to approach the papacy as if it were equivalent to the Mormon First Presidency: prophet, seer and revelator inspired by God.
The Pope is a sinner and a mortal man like the rest of us. In regards to his ministry, he is first and foremost a bishop…there is no fourth degree of Holy Orders. His special primacy must be understood as something that operates within the College of Bishops, not apart from it.
The way many contemporary Catholics approach the papacy is a huge stumbling block for our Eastern brethren.
The way our Eastern Brethren approach the papacy is a huge stumbling block for Catholics.
At least in the West, there is a climate of anti-religious-authority in recent decades. Catholics are inclined not only to minimize the specific authority of the pope, but also the authority of their bishop-ordinary, the pastor, and parents of children.

If you have spent any time in Catholic or public schools lately, you may have noticed discipline has changed just a little bit in recent years. People are not only willing to disobey, they disobey without awareness of any concept of obedience.

Mainline Protestants are more willing to consider the claims of the papacy now, in light of developments of their own denominations, even if they still regard their denominations as having apostolic succession. I believe C. S. Lewis regarded the papacy as extra baggage, and thought it risky. Safety was to be had in a balance, such as they had in Anglicanism. If he had lived a little longer, he would have changed his view on the papacy.
 
The Pope is supreme. No one has the authority to correct him.

We need to respectfully obey him, pray for him and never publicly criticize him.

“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.”

Saint Catherine of Siena

drawnbylove.com/Scudder%20letters.htm
I suppose you’re missing the irony of the fact that St Catherine very famously CORRECTED the Pope?
 
I suppose you’re missing the irony of the fact that St Catherine very famously CORRECTED the Pope?
More accurate to say St. Catherine opposed those who wanted to fragment Christianity into various independent regions, with no central authority. She “corrected” those who claimed all bishops are the same, with no hierarchy among bishops. She did not “correct” the pope’s teachings, she urged him out of inaction, into papal action, in Rome.
 
More accurate to say St. Catherine opposed those who wanted to fragment Christianity into various independent regions, with no central authority. She “corrected” those who claimed all bishops are the same, with no hierarchy among bishops. She did not “correct” the pope’s teachings, she urged him out of inaction, into papal action, in Rome.
Many are urging Pope Francis out of inaction as well.
 
“Indeed, it may be that the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.”
I have wondered about this also.
 
“Indeed, it may be that the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.” (from earlier post)
I have wondered about this also.
Not everyone regards the magisterium as being in crisis, and those who say it is, would define it very differently.
Even if you exclude sedevacantists, some have been claiming that since the 1960s, that the “present crisis” justified closer scrutiny to the limits of primacy during the reign of the last several popes, including Pope Benedict. This includes not only SSPX, but many others in that neighborhood, which have been empowered by the internet.

Of course people on the opposite side (the late Fr. Andrew Greeley, for instance) had been saying throughout the times of the prior popes, that the pope is just another bishop, should be confined to cutting ribbons. Greeley regarded the “crisis” as the popes having too much authority.

Be aware there is an anti-religious climate going on in Western societies that tends to bias all of us. Some of the same websites who are now saying we need to restore the clear teaching ministry of Pope Benedict were denouncing some of **his **appointees during his pontificate, and some even filed action seeking legal/political help from the atheistic EU to try to force then reigning Pope Benedict to “properly” consecrate Russia.

Those who feed into the anti-religious-authority movement now, will find it to be a little stronger as a result during the reign of the next popes.
 
“Indeed, it may be that the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.” (from earlier post)

Not everyone regards the magisterium as being in crisis, and those who say it is, would define it very differently.
Even if you exclude sedevacantists, some have been claiming that since the 1960s, that the “present crisis” justified closer scrutiny to the limits of primacy during the reign of the last several popes, including Pope Benedict. This includes not only SSPX, but many others in that neighborhood, which have been empowered by the internet.

Of course people on the opposite side (the late Fr. Andrew Greeley, for instance) had been saying throughout the times of the prior popes, that the pope is just another bishop, should be confined to cutting ribbons. Greeley regarded the “crisis” as the popes having too much authority.

Be aware there is an anti-religious climate going on in Western societies that tends to bias all of us. Some of the same websites who are now saying we need to restore the clear teaching ministry of Pope Benedict were denouncing some of **his **appointees during his pontificate, and some even filed action seeking legal/political help from the atheistic EU to try to force then reigning Pope Benedict to “properly” consecrate Russia.

Those who feed into the anti-religious-authority movement now, will find it to be a little stronger as a result during the reign of the next popes.
I see what you are saying, but there is a difference between criticisms of administration and management style and those of doctrinal teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top