Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[spina1953]

I have reservations about Abu’s statements as well. Though It is satisfying to see him admit that “the Pope is in no way completely separate,” they beg the following questions:

(1) Can the Pope be “separate” at all from the College or the Church except in the one sense of “distinct” or “unique,” as clarified by the official Relatio? Abu has inserted the word “alone” in so many of his past statements that we need further clarification on that point.

(2) Do his statements mean that the Pope is the SOURCE of the Church’s teaching authority? In other words, do his statements mean that the Pope ALONE has infallibility and that the Church or the College also possesses it merely because the Pope is a member of the Church or College?

(3) Do his statements mean that the other bishops have no authority in and of themselves?

(4) Do his statements mean that the Pope cannot be corrected by his brother bishops?

(5) Do his statements mean that the Pope can change the laws and disciplines of the Church on his mere and sole discretion without the intervention of his orthodox brother bishops? More concisely, does it mean the Pope can unilaterally decide matters for local Churches in opposition to the authority of their orthodox bishops?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. I hope Abu answers these questions directly, instead of giving some vague quote.

Blessings

Hi mardukm: You are making some great points and arguments for the Catholic understanding of Papal Authority. Your question #5 intrigues me and please correct me if I am incorrect in my thinking but it seems to me that Pope would only change a law or discipline after conferring with his fellow Bishops concerning it needs to be changed… IOW’s I rather doubt that the Pope would out of thin air or on a whim just change something in the law or discipline without at the very least talking it over with his fellow Bishops to see it a change is needed in the first place.

 

[mardukm]

That’s exactly it, brother. I recall a few months back, someone (either here or at Byzcath) made some hoopla about the Pope making a recent change in canon law, yelling “fire” with the idea of “unilateral absolute power.” I’d never heard of it, but just a quick google search revealed that the change was not only requested by several bishops, but the Pope also sought the advice of many others before making the change. I believe the Pope knows the extent (both prerogatives and limits) of his authority a LOT better than these absolutist Petrine exaggerators and other detractors of the papacy… Geez Louise - every action by the Pope seems to be seen by these folks as an exercise of some absolute, unilateral power. It’s a shotgun reaction that more often than not really has no basis in reality.

Blessings

Hi mardukm: You are making some great points and arguments for the Catholic understanding of Papal Authority. Your question #5 intrigues me and please correct me if I am incorrect in my thinking but it seems to me that Pope would only change a law or discipline after conferring with his fellow Bishops concerning it needs to be changed… IOW’s I rather doubt that the Pope would out of thin air or on a whim just change something in the law or discipline without at the very least talking it over with his fellow Bishops to see it a change is needed in the first place.

 

[spina1953]

That’s exactly it, brother. I recall a few months back, someone (either here or at Byzcath) made some hoopla about the Pope making a recent change in canon law, yelling “fire” with the idea of “unilateral absolute power.” I’d never heard of it, but just a quick google search revealed that the change was not only requested by several bishops, but the Pope also sought the advice of many others before making the change. I believe the Pope knows the extent (both prerogatives and limits) of his authority a LOT better than these absolutist Petrine exaggerators and other detractors of the papacy… Geez Louise - every action by the Pope seems to be seen by these folks as an exercise of some absolute, unilateral power. It’s a shotgun reaction that more often than not really has no basis in reality.

Blessings

It seems to me in my earlier post that if the Apostles were in union with Peter and the Bishops are in union with the Pope why would the Pop decide something without consulting with his fellow bishops to see if there really is a need for a change. This idea that the Pope can do as he likes with some absolute power and not needing any (name removed by moderator)ut from his fellow Bishops would seem to me to a foolish idea that should never be accepted and debunked quickly, by all who do not take that view of an extreme absolutist Petrine exaggerator.

 

[Abu]

mardukm #252
“Papal” infallibility exists, and can only exist, in the specific context of the College as a whole, never apart or separated from it.

Give the Vatican I or II quote for this mardukmism!

As Fr O’Connor analyses Bishop Gasser’s relatio at Vatican I:
**“Setting as a condition the antecedent or consequent consent of the bishops is something that has no historical precedent and one that would involve endless disputes concerning what number of the bishops would have to consent and what form their consent would have to take. Such as approach Gasser calls ‘arbitrary or subversive’ and attempts to show its difficulties by a reduction ad absurdum argument ”**The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 57]

From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And therefore 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.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Give the Vatican I or II quote for this mardukmism!

As Fr O’Connor analyses Bishop Gasser’s relatio at Vatican I:
**“Setting as a condition the antecedent or consequent consent of the bishops is something that has no historical precedent and one that would involve endless disputes concerning what number of the bishops would have to consent and what form their consent would have to take. Such as approach Gasser calls ‘arbitrary or subversive’ and attempts to show its difficulties by a reduction ad absurdum argument ”**The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 57]

From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And therefore 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.”

Abu, I think your problem with mardukm (and myself too) is that you have not figured out how to make the transition from the language of Vatican I, to the language of Vatican II. It is not that they are teaching anything different, it is that the terminology used has somewhat changed as well as the perspective. You like to quote books by authors explaining Vatican I and use it against posters who are using the language of Vatican II, or the language of Gasser’s Relatio.

I am not convinced, based on your quotes, and vague statements, that you are in irreconcilable disagreement with us. But your refusal to define your terms, or stay relevant to the poster with whom you are disagreeing, has seriously undermined your case.

For example in post# 251 I asked, and I ask again what you meant by your strange statement:

Abu:

The Pope is in no way “completely separate” but intrinsically the pinnacle of the process of assimilation and distribution with infallibility of the authentic teaching of Christ so clearly instituted by Him personally.

 

[Abu]

mardukm #252
“Papal” infallibility exists, and can only exist, in the specific context of the College as a whole, never apart or separated from it.

This is the gross error proclaimed by both mardukm and AmbroseSJ, into which they have fallen, which they have proved unable to justify by Vatican I or Vatican II or any Magisterial teaching, and into which they have chosen to continue, thus losing credibility.

This is what they cannot refute because it is the truth:–

As Fr O’Connor analyses Bishop Gasser’s relatio at Vatican I:
**“Setting as a condition the antecedent or consequent consent of the bishops is something that has no historical precedent and one that would involve endless disputes concerning what number of the bishops would have to consent and what form their consent would have to take. Such an approach Gasser calls ‘arbitrary or subversive’ **and attempts to show its difficulties by a *reduction ad absurdum *argument ”
The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 57]

From Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“And therefore 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.”

 

[Cathoholic]

There seems to be no dispute on this thread that the Magisterium (which receives Divine protection) is the Pope and the Bishops in UNION with the Pope. That’s good.

Magisterium (receives Divine protection) = Pope + Bishops in union with him

All cases below the Bishops have all taken into account oral Tradition, the Fathers, the sensus fidei, Sacred Scripture, etc. Yet there will be some differing conclusions.

---

Take a case of a doctrinal dispute, let’s call it doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc. All supporting doctrine X as Apostolic (give their reasons, Scripture, philosophy, etc.).

No problem. Magisterium (receives Divine protection) = Pope AND the other hundred Bishops.

---

Now let’s look at a different hypothetical.

Again take the case of doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc.

Pope affirms doctrine X as Apostolic (all reasons etc.), 70 Bishops affirm Pope is correct.
30 Bishops dissent and are willing to “go their separate ways” over the issue.

Pope + 70 Bishops = Magisterium (receives Divine protection).

30 Dissenting Bishops = Not the Magisterium.

---

Now let’s look at a different hypothetical.

Again take the case of doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc.

Pope affirms doctrine X as Apostolic (all reasons etc.), 10 Bishops affirm Pope is correct.
90 Bishops dissent and are willing to “go their separate ways” over the issue.

Pope + 10 Bishops = Magisterium (receives Divine protection).

90 Dissenting Bishops = Not the Magisterium.

---

Now let’s look at yet a different hypothetical.

Again take the case of doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc.

Pope affirms doctrine X as Apostolic (all reasons etc.), ZERO Bishops affirm Pope is correct (except of course, the Bishop of Rome—the Pope himself). 100 Bishops dissent and are willing to “go their separate ways” over the issue.

---

So in this hypothetical we are left with

• Pope
• 100 Dissenting Bishops

WHO is the “Magisterium” in this last hypothetical?
WHO receives the Divine protection in such a hypothetical intractable difference?
WHO preserves the authentic Apostolic teaching of Jesus here?
As one of the faithful here, WHO would you follow?

Recall the Magisterium is the Pope . . . . . and the Bishops in union with the Pope.

 

[jinc1019]

Dear jinc1019,

Thank you for you comments. We do agree on a lot of things, and I agree with almost all of your criticisms of Abu’s position.

Would it be correct to say that the statement above is the main issue for you? If this is the case, here are some points to consider:

(1) The above would indicate that it is not the High Petrine teaching of the CC that is the issue, but the particular points of dogma. If the particular points of dogma were settled, then would you be satisfied on the matter?

(2) There are a lot of Orthodox who actually believe that it is not the particular points of dogma that is the issue (since there are sufficient ways to understand the objective complementarity of the distinct theologies of East and West). Rather, these Orthodox believe that it is the papacy that is the main issue. And on that point, the main issue with the papacy is because there is a misunderstanding that the CC teaches the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanist position, not the actual High Petrine doctrine of Vatican 1 (notwithstanding that there are a lot of Catholics who believe in the Absolutist Petrine position, contrary to the Catholic teaching on collegiality).

1. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The NEO-ultramontanist bishops who did not get their way at Vatican 1 decided to circumvent the teachings of the Council in another way - they purposefully sent pastorals to their flocks giving an Absolutist Petrine (mis)interpretation of the conciliar decrees. Vatican 1 was prematurely ended because of the Franco-Prussian War, and it did not complete promulgating its decrees on the Church. Specific points on the office of bishops and their relationship to the papacy were still up in the air. That is why NEO-ultramontanist aberrations persisted even after Vatican 1. It was not until Vatican 2 that the matter was cleared up. Those who persisted in their NEO-ultramontanist errors left the Church - the SSPX is the result of this schism. The very existence of the SSPX which rejects V2’s teaching on collegiality proves the marked difference between the Absolutist and High Petrine views However, many NEO-ultramontanists remained within the fold of the Catholic Church, even while maintaining their sola papa errors. These are the Absolutist Petrine advocates that both you and I (and other Catholics faithful to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church) would contend against.

(4) The idea that the Orthodox Churches are in schism from the Catholic Church is not in and of itself a very logical basis for rejecting the papacy. If schism of itself is determinative of the matter, then we should conclude that the schism of the judaizers from the Apostles themselves proves that the Apostles did not have the highest authority in the Church.

(5) There are three ways to explain the schism(s) that does not involve the destruction of an objective standard of authority in and for the Church:
(a) MISUNDERSTANDING - Language, cultural, and even political differences resulted in different modes of thinking. Clearing up the misunderstanding would result in unity, and really has nothing to do with the basic ecclesiastical structure.
(b) PRIDE - nothing more needs to be said.
(c) Some body really has departed from the Faith.

The very great majority of our Catholic and Orthodox hierarchs are suspending judgment based on (c). That is the purpose of all the colloquies at the highest levels. Laity are not always so wise.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

To answer your questions…YES, the primary concern for me at this point, assuming the High Petrine view is true, is that it seems difficult to me to reconcile the differences between the East and West within the construct you have restated from Vatican I without saying that all of those Eastern bishops are basically heretics and do not hold to the true faith.

With that said, I have carefully considered your points…and I have found them to be quite convincing in many ways. I found your analogy to the “Judaizers” particularly convincing. However, I am not 100% convinced of your argument. I will certainly pray on it more though and get back to you.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not saying that, and neither is the Catholic Church. Bishops do have authority to bind and loose; in fact, bishops in the Church have quite a lot of authority within their dioceses. What they don’t have is the authority to “bind and loose” articles contrary to the faith. And how is the Church protected from this - by her steward. What signals Peter out isn’t the “binding and loosing” but the keys. Only Peter (and, we would argue, his successors) is given this role as steward of the Church.

Even if I concede the point, I don’t really see what it has to do with the argument about papal primacy and authority?

You are right to say that bishops do not have the authority to “bind and loose” articles contrary to the faith, but since the Pope is a bishop, I am sure you would agree he does not have that authority either. This is where things get tricky…If the Pope does teach something that is contrary to the faith, then the bishops should have the authority to correct the pope. You would argue of course that this scenario is impossible since the Pope is infallible on issues of faith and morals, but of course, this infallibility is only taught by the pope and the bishops in his corner…You are starting with the assumption that the Pope is infallible and working backwards. I am starting without an assumption either way and have found the historical evidence to support the conclusion that the view commonly taught by Roman Catholics today is false.

 

[jinc1019]

EXCELLENT follow-up comments, brother AmbroseSJ.

SInce it is only the Magisterium UNIVERSALLY considered that is infallible, it is never correct to state that the Pope ALONE is infallible separated from the rest of the orthodox bishops (against the Absolutist Petrine view), nor the body of the bishops separated from their head (against the Low Petrine view). “Papal” infallibility exists, and can only exist, in the specific context of the College as a whole, never apart or separated from it.

To repeat what has already often been explained in other threads, “papal” infallibiity as defined by V1 is “merely” an exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. The teaching in no way cancels or neglects the constant infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. In fact, every ex cathedra decree is constrained by its necessary agreement with the present preaching of the infallible universal ordinary Magisterium, as plainly asserted by the official Relatio of V1.,

Blessings

If this is true, my reservations would no longer exist (other than the point I made previously)

 

[jonathan_hili]

You are right to say that bishops do not have the authority to “bind and loose” articles contrary to the faith, but since the Pope is a bishop, I am sure you would agree he does not have that authority either. This is where things get tricky…If the Pope does teach something that is contrary to the faith, then the bishops should have the authority to correct the pope. You would argue of course that this scenario is impossible since the Pope is infallible on issues of faith and morals, but of course, this infallibility is only taught by the pope and the bishops in his corner…You are starting with the assumption that the Pope is infallible and working backwards. I am starting without an assumption either way and have found the historical evidence to support the conclusion that the view commonly taught by Roman Catholics today is false.

Of course! Now you’re getting it: the Pope cannot teach something that is contrary to the faith, or more correctly, cannot declare as an article of the faith something that is contrary to it. This is what we mean by papal infallibility and it is based on God’s special charismatic protection. As for the Pope and bishops in his corner: this comprises most of the living bishops at present, and throughout history.

The Pope could privately hold beliefs contrary to the faith - and indeed, some have - and in that case, bishops do have the authority to correct him.

I’m not starting with the assumption and working backwards at all; rather, I am going from the general principle found in scripture that bishops have authority to bind and loose and that, again from scripture, Peter and his successors hold the keys to the kingdom, which is a special authority above and beyond that of ordinary bishops.

I’ll ask you a question, Jinc. I think I’m correct in assuming that you hold that bishops in council, that is, an ecumenical council, can pronounce infallible matters of doctrine, right? But, where does this come from? I mean, if one bishop is fallible and none are, in principle, infallible, why believe that all of them together are infallible? How does adding a bunch of fallible bishops together make them infallible?

 

[jinc1019]

There seems to be no dispute on this thread that the Magisterium (which receives Divine protection) is the Pope and the Bishops in UNION with the Pope. That’s good.

Magisterium (receives Divine protection) = Pope + Bishops in union with him

All cases below the Bishops have all taken into account oral Tradition, the Fathers, the sensus fidei, Sacred Scripture, etc. Yet there will be some differing conclusions.

---

Take a case of a doctrinal dispute, let’s call it doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc. All supporting doctrine X as Apostolic (give their reasons, Scripture, philosophy, etc.).

No problem. Magisterium (receives Divine protection) = Pope AND the other hundred Bishops.

---

Now let’s look at a different hypothetical.

Again take the case of doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc.

Pope affirms doctrine X as Apostolic (all reasons etc.), 70 Bishops affirm Pope is correct.
30 Bishops dissent and are willing to “go their separate ways” over the issue.

Pope + 70 Bishops = Magisterium (receives Divine protection).

30 Dissenting Bishops = Not the Magisterium.

---

Now let’s look at a different hypothetical.

Again take the case of doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc.

Pope affirms doctrine X as Apostolic (all reasons etc.), 10 Bishops affirm Pope is correct.
90 Bishops dissent and are willing to “go their separate ways” over the issue.

Pope + 10 Bishops = Magisterium (receives Divine protection).

90 Dissenting Bishops = Not the Magisterium.

---

Now let’s look at yet a different hypothetical.

Again take the case of doctrine X.

Hypothetical case of 101 bishops in the world (Bishop of Rome + 100 others).

Doctrine X disputation. Pope and other Bishops confer, etc.

Pope affirms doctrine X as Apostolic (all reasons etc.), ZERO Bishops affirm Pope is correct (except of course, the Bishop of Rome—the Pope himself). 100 Bishops dissent and are willing to “go their separate ways” over the issue.

---

So in this hypothetical we are left with

• Pope
• 100 Dissenting Bishops

WHO is the “Magisterium” in this last hypothetical?
WHO receives the Divine protection in such a hypothetical intractable difference?
WHO preserves the authentic Apostolic teaching of Jesus here?
As one of the faithful here, WHO would you follow?

Recall the Magisterium is the Pope . . . . . and the Bishops in union with the Pope.

I certainly don’t want to speak for the other posters here, but for me, the question you pose is one of my last great hang-ups with the Church.

I would argue based on my limited research of Vatican I and Vatican II that the answer is: The last situation is impossible. Why? Because the Church would essentially cease to exist. This is essentially the promise Jesus makes to Peter when He says “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” If the Pope, which is to say the “Head of the Church” has every single other bishop against him…then the Church ceases to exist. The Bishops are without their Head and the Head is without his Bishops.

On another note…If this scenario were somehow to happen anyway…then the Pope would, in actuality, cease being the actual head of the church and a new head of the church would effectively be chosen in his place (at least that is what makes sense to me). Again, a Head can’t be a Head without a body. A CEO can’t be a CEO without a business. A baseball manager cannot be a baseball manager without a baseball team. And, most importantly, a Pope cannot be a Pope, which is to say the “Head of the Church,” without a Church. If the Church abandons a Pope, the man ceases to be the Pope. But again, I believe Jesus promised this would never happen.

 

[Abu]

As a fact, Fr James T O’Connor specifically refers to the question of when “vast numbers of the lay members of the Church have erred in faith (admittedly, often led into such error by members of the hierarchy). One need only think of the Albigensian heresy of the thirteenth century, or the large numbers of Catholics who abandoned the teaching of the Catholic Church during the major periods of schism and heresy.”

He adds: “Never, however, has the body of the faithful as a whole, the *universitas fidelium *spoken of by Vatican Council II, combined to reject what it formerly knew to be true or to agree upon a novelty that was in fact erroneous.”

He comments on Dei Verbum, #10, of Vatican II, “that the duty of authentically or authoritatively teaching that same Faith belongs not to all the People of God in general but to the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops. ‘The duty, however, of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed down, has been given only to the living Magsiterium of the Church whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ ”

Fr O’Connor comments on the objection by Karl Rahner to the “only” in the quotation, pointing out that the it avoids among the faithful “a constant quarrelling to determine which is the more essential”, and that “the prophetic mission of the People of God is in fact safeguarded by the recognition among such groupings that there is ultimately *one *Magisterium that authoritatively speaks for Christ.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 108-110].

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. You said:

Again, a Head can’t be a Head without a body.

The problem with that is three-fold (probably other reasons too but these three jumped out at me immediately).

• One - Christ promised protection for HIS Church.
• Two - The “Body” doesn’t just exist today, but goes back over 2000 years.
• Three - Your are ignoring the “body” of the faithful that exists even with a “today ONLY” facade.

 

[Cathoholic]

Abu wrote in post 271 concerning:

when “vast numbers of the lay members of the Church have erred in faith . . .

When I heard that I also thought about the Arian crisis of the Church (where not only much of the laity, but also apparently many of the Bishops had been deceived too).

Admittedly the Pope and the Bishops had already spoken and defined what the (then) 300+ year old Apostolic doctrine was (and wasn’t) to clarify this for the Church, but the issue didn’t go away over night.

St. Jerome of course wrote the famous statement:

“the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”

And think of England at the time of Henry VIII.

Virtually all The Bishops of England publicly affirming Ecclesiastical allegiance to Henry himself over the Pope! I think only one or two Bishops in the whole country at the time affirmed the proper Ecclesiastical authority order.

Before Trent, that must have been terribly confusing for the laity there . . . . But not for the laity there that looked . . . . to Rome.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

This is the gross error proclaimed by both mardukm and AmbroseSJ, into which they have fallen, which they have proved unable to justify by Vatican I or Vatican II or any Magisterial teaching, and into which they have chosen to continue, thus losing credibility.

Wow! I’ve tried very hard to justify your comments as difficulties with the language of Vatican I and Vatican II. But you have instead adopted the language of the Spanish Inquisition.

You continue to ignore my requests for an explanation of this statement of yours:

Abu:

The Pope is in no way “completely separate” but intrinsically the pinnacle of the process of assimilation and distribution with infallibility of the authentic teaching of Christ so clearly instituted by Him personally.

Maybe even you can’t make sense of it?

 

[jinc1019]

Abu wrote in post 271 concerning:

When I heard that I also thought about the Arian crisis of the Church (where not only much of the laity, but also apparently many of the Bishops had been deceived too).

Admittedly the Pope and the Bishops had already spoken and defined what the (then) 300+ year old Apostolic doctrine was (and wasn’t) to clarify this for the Church, but the issue didn’t go away over night.

St. Jerome of course wrote the famous statement:

And think of England at the time of Henry VIII.

Virtually all The Bishops of England publicly affirming Ecclesiastical allegiance to Henry himself over the Pope! I think only one or two Bishops in the whole country at the time affirmed the proper Ecclesiastical authority order.

Before Trent, that must have been terribly confusing for the laity there . . . . But not for the laity there that looked . . . . to Rome.

You have created for yourself a strawman argument that is different than the scenario you established in the example you used. You said: In a world with 101 bishops, and 100 bishops disagree with the Pope’s teaching, who is the magisterium. That is not at all the same as the Anglican break or the Great Schism, where many, many bishops (definitely a majority in the case of the Anglican break) go the same direction as the Pope and only a minority disagree.

In your example, EVERY bishop except the pope goes in one direction and the pope goes in the other. In that situation, the Church would cease to exist because there would be no bishops with a “Head of the Church” and there would be body of a church with the “Head.” The Church would cease to exist. It would be like if Peter went off and started his own church while the other Apostles had their own as well.

As I stated previously, this would violate Jesus’ teaching that “the gates of hades shall not prevail against it,” meaning the Church.

Now, the other perceived “problems” with the Church do raise some interesting questions. Namely…What does the Church do in a situation when 60% of the Bishops, for instance, go against the teachings of the Pope? Who should the faithful listen to?

That is a fantastic question. I think you would argue, “Always with the Pope.” I would say this: If the Pope is truly teaching on an issue that is TRULY related to “faith and morals,” and if the Pope is declaring something officially that is a statement of the faith already held by the TRUE faithful, then the Pope should be listened to.

If the Pope is arguing for something that is not truly an issue of “faith and morals,” then he has no more authority than I do. If the Pope is arguing for something that is clearly contrary to the faith officially or unofficially, then he should be completely on his own, in which case he would have no Church and thus cease to be a Pope.

So the real question is…Is a situation possible where the Pope could teach, on a topic of “faith and morals,” that a particular thing is true when clearly it is not so long as there are faithful laity and bishops to support him?

I am sure you would argue that is impossible. I honestly don’t know the answer to the question.

 

[jinc1019]

As a fact, Fr James T O’Connor specifically refers to the question of when “vast numbers of the lay members of the Church have erred in faith (admittedly, often led into such error by members of the hierarchy). One need only think of the Albigensian heresy of the thirteenth century, or the large numbers of Catholics who abandoned the teaching of the Catholic Church during the major periods of schism and heresy.”

He adds: “Never, however, has the body of the faithful as a whole, the *universitas fidelium *spoken of by Vatican Council II, combined to reject what it formerly knew to be true or to agree upon a novelty that was in fact erroneous.”

He comments on Dei Verbum, #10, of Vatican II, “that the duty of authentically or authoritatively teaching that same Faith belongs not to all the People of God in general but to the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops. ‘The duty, however, of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed down, has been given only to the living Magsiterium of the Church whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ ”

Fr O’Connor comments on the objection by Karl Rahner to the “only” in the quotation, pointing out that the it avoids among the faithful “a constant quarrelling to determine which is the more essential”, and that “the prophetic mission of the People of God is in fact safeguarded by the recognition among such groupings that there is ultimately *one *Magisterium that authoritatively speaks for Christ.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 108-110].

That’s all well and good…but the passage you cite itself defines the Magisterium as “the Pope AND bishops.”

 

[jinc1019]

Abu wrote in post 271 concerning:

When I heard that I also thought about the Arian crisis of the Church (where not only much of the laity, but also apparently many of the Bishops had been deceived too).

Admittedly the Pope and the Bishops had already spoken and defined what the (then) 300+ year old Apostolic doctrine was (and wasn’t) to clarify this for the Church, but the issue didn’t go away over night.

St. Jerome of course wrote the famous statement:

And think of England at the time of Henry VIII.

Virtually all The Bishops of England publicly affirming Ecclesiastical allegiance to Henry himself over the Pope! I think only one or two Bishops in the whole country at the time affirmed the proper Ecclesiastical authority order.

Before Trent, that must have been terribly confusing for the laity there . . . . But not for the laity there that looked . . . . to Rome.

I think the bottom line though is this…the Pope cannot teach something that is in violation of what the faithful has always held. If he did, it would be invalid. You must be willing to admit this. You, however, would argue that this situation could never happen because no Pope is able to teach something as infallible when it isn’t. I would argue that, at the very least, in nearly every case when a Pope has taught something as infallible which clearly is not, he never had the authority to do it in the first place because it wasn’t an issue of “faith and morals.” I am not aware of any issues which could definitively be proven as false which the Pope has taught as infallibly true THAT WAS ALSO ACTUALLY APART OF “FAITH AND MORALS.”

That last part is central to this conversation.

 

[jinc1019]

While I am on the topic, because I think it is important…How do we even go about defining what “FAITH AND MORALS” means?