Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[mardukm]

Dear jinc1019,

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 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.

This is EXCELLENT. I agree with everything you wrote here (except for one small portion that I point out below). The scenario brother Cathoholic proposed is an impossible situation and will NEVER happen because the whole College is of divine institution, not just the papacy. A College by definition does not consist of only one person, so the idea that 100 out of 101 bishops would fall away from the Faith is ridiculous. In any case, the examples he gave do not support his theory since in both examples, it was not ALL the bishops versus the Pope, but a large number of bishops versus another group of bishops who had the Pope on their side.

Btw, your scriptural rejoinder (“the Gates of Hades will not prevail…”) would be fruitless against Absolutist Petrine advocates. They believe that as long as there is one orthodox person left standing (which, in their paradigm, can only and will only be the Pope of Rome), then the Lord’s assertion is fulfilled. The more irrefutable scripture you should use is Jesus’ teaching that “where two or three are gathered, there I am in their midst.”

Again, keep in mind that this is another example of you arguing against Catholic apologetics, not Catholic teaching. Catholic apologetics will sometimes try to get a point across by using some reduction ad absurdum arguments, when it is actually those arguments themselves that are sometimes absurd. Trust me when I say that the Catholic Church does not teach, and never has taught, the fantastic idea that the WHOLE Church could fall away except for the Pope, or that ALL the bishops except the Pope could fall into heresy.

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.

I excised this portion from your statements above because I do not agree with it. Even if the Pope were arguing for something that was not an issue of faith of morals, but it has something to do with the Church (e.g., matters of discipline, praxis, etc.), his words will certainly hold a lot more weight than yours or mine.

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.

Your question is confusing. Please restate. Perhaps the answer will be more evident to you once you express the question in another way.

Blessings

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me concerning faith and morals that the Pope in union with his fellow Bishops while they may have differing thoughts and opinion as to what is and what is not do not go off blindly but study the question sometimes for years and or centuries till it is made clear the questions related to faith and morals. Noting is decided overnight. When a new doctrine is voiced it is really not a new doctrine since after the last Apostle died there is no new revelation, so all doctrines are explanations of what Tradition and Scripture say about a particular verse that is made more clear which is what doctrine is so that all will understand what something means and what is to be believed. it is rather doubtful that all of the Bishops in union with the Pope would disagree to the point that only the Pope says one thing while all of the Bishops say something different of disagree. That being said, I think that What V II said made clear what V I determined from Scripture and Tradition .

 

[jinc1019]

Dear jinc1019,

This is EXCELLENT. I agree with everything you wrote here (except for one small portion that I point out below). The scenario brother Cathoholic proposed is an impossible situation and will NEVER happen because the whole College is of divine institution, not just the papacy. A College by definition does not consist of only one person, so the idea that 100 out of 101 bishops would fall away from the Faith is ridiculous. In any case, the examples he gave do not support his theory since in both examples, it was not ALL the bishops versus the Pope, but a large number of bishops versus another group of bishops who had the Pope on their side.

Btw, your scriptural rejoinder (“the Gates of Hades will not prevail…”) would be fruitless against Absolutist Petrine advocates. They believe that as long as there is one orthodox person left standing (which, in their paradigm, can only and will only be the Pope of Rome), then the Lord’s assertion is fulfilled. The more irrefutable scripture you should use is Jesus’ teaching that “where two or three are gathered, there I am in their midst.”

Again, keep in mind that this is another example of you arguing against Catholic apologetics, not Catholic teaching. Catholic apologetics will sometimes try to get a point across by using some reduction ad absurdum arguments, when it is actually those arguments themselves that are sometimes absurd. Trust me when I say that the Catholic Church does not teach, and never has taught, the fantastic idea that the WHOLE Church could fall away except for the Pope, or that ALL the bishops except the Pope could fall into heresy.

I excised this portion from your statements above because I do not agree with it. Even if the Pope were arguing for something that was not an issue of faith of morals, but it has something to do with the Church (e.g., matters of discipline, praxis, etc.), his words will certainly hold a lot more weight than yours or mine.

Your question is confusing. Please restate. Perhaps the answer will be more evident to you once you express the question in another way.

Blessings

Marduk,
As always, I am appreciative of your view and do agree with much of it.

I will clarify the one comment you pointed out since I don’t want to give the impression that the pope has no authority outside of “faith and morals.” What I meant was…He would be no more or less infallible than I would be outside of “faith and morals.” Meaning, if the Pope argues, as Pope Pius did in 1864, that the separation of church and state is a belief worthy of an anathema (see Syllabus of Errors), then he certainly has the authority to speak on behalf of the Church on that or any other issue. The same could be said for the bishops, etc. But that doesn’t make the statement infallible. Why? It’s not an issue of faith or morals. It’s an issue of civil authority.

So I would argue that the Pope and the bishops have the authority to say and teach virtually anything they want…but that doesn’t mean everything they teach, even in complete agreement, is true. Why? Because it must be an issue of “faith and morals” for the charism to apply. Even they would admit that. So, even though Pius’ statement was an official teaching of the Church, I don’t believe it was right and it certainly wasn’t infallible. That doesn’t mean the Pope didn’t have the authority to throw people out of the Church who disagrees, but it does mean that he would have been wrong for doing that since he really shouldn’t be exercising his authority in that realm anyway.

The question that you misunderstood could be restated as such:

What happens if a group of bishops (but not all bishops) truly believe the Pope and another smaller group of bishops is wrong about a particular theological issue? What happens then? In other words, the majority of the bishops in the Church say, “This is wrong,” but the Pope says, “This is infallibly true.” What happens in that situation? To me, that is the most difficult situation to deal with. If both parties are saying that whatever they teach has been handed down through the ages from the Apostles, I am not sure how you reconcile this. When a majority of bishops side with the Pope, it seems much more clear (at least to me).

 

[jinc1019]

It seems to me concerning faith and morals that the Pope in union with his fellow Bishops while they may have differing thoughts and opinion as to what is and what is not do not go off blindly but study the question sometimes for years and or centuries till it is made clear the questions related to faith and morals. Noting is decided overnight. When a new doctrine is voiced it is really not a new doctrine since after the last Apostle died there is no new revelation, so all doctrines are explanations of what Tradition and Scripture say about a particular verse that is made more clear which is what doctrine is so that all will understand what something means and what is to be believed. it is rather doubtful that all of the Bishops in union with the Pope would disagree to the point that only the Pope says one thing while all of the Bishops say something different of disagree. That being said, I think that What V II said made clear what V I determined from Scripture and Tradition .

The question I more concerned with is this…If the Pope and ALL the bishops agree on a position and the Pope argues that it is under the heading of “faith and morals” when it truly isn’t, is the teaching infallible? I would argue it isn’t. Why? Because the Pope and the Bishops are limited to those issues of “faith and morals” alone. So, if they make a ruling about an issue, even if they believe it is about “faith and morals,” it is not infallible if it isn’t truly an issue of “faith and morals.”

The example I like to give on this is the separation of church and state. For many centuries, the majority of bishops in the Church and the Pope often argued against the idea of the separation of church and state, even throwing people out of the church who disagreed (see Syllabus of Errors from the 1860s). However, this teaching, even if completely unanimous, cannot be protected by the protection of infallibility. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the promises Jesus made to his Apostles. Jesus didn’t promise the Church would be right about EVERYTHING and this doesn’t fall into the category of things the Church was given the authority to infallibly teach. Thus, even if they claim they can make an infallible ruling on it, they can’t. Why? They don’t have the authority to do that, and they can only do what they have been given the authority to do.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #275
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.

Of course it is not possible.

I honestly don’t know the answer to the question.

The answer is from Jesus of Nazareth – God the Son – who decreed:
**All three promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

**First and foremost **-- preceding all the other Apostles:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

That is why it is impossible.

#276
That’s all well and good…but the passage you cite itself defines the Magisterium as “the Pope AND bishops.”

The Pope is the Magisterium, as is the Pope and the bishops under the Pope.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
MAGISTERIUM. The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

#277
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.”

There are none, and never can be, as shown above.

 

[steve_b]

For the millionth time, I don’t disagree that Peter was the head of the church.

Secondly, you still have yet to explain how the other apostles could be given “binding and loosing” authority that is apparently not as powerful as Peter’s binding and loosing authority.

what does it mean that "Peter was the head of the church? You’re not giving that position to any other apostle. Which means you agree Peter is over the other apostles as well.

You agreed in a previous post that 1st among equals or 1st in honor, doesn’t fit the pope. So you agree one man’s see is greater than any other see in the Church.
j:

You continuously point to the passage about the “keys,” but I honestly don’t care about that at all. Why? Because what really matters is what the Early Church believed about the keys, and from the academic studies I have seen on the matter (see Michael Whelton’s Popes and Patriarchs), [snip]

Tertullian

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], [snip] but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (*Letters *43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Ambrose of Milan
“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (*Penance *1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Gregory I
"Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. [snip]… ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. letter*s *40 [A.D. 597]).

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #274
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.

Such irrelevance emphasises the irrationality and the inability to refute the truth, as well as the persistence in the error below.

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]

The reality is stark:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4.
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

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]

jinc1019

Regarding my post 273, you said:

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.

The problem with that is, I was not trying to draw parallels with the Anglican schism and my example.

I am merely musing out loud about what a difficult authority situation that was for the laity. And it WAS a difficult authority situation for the laity!

So now that we got that squared away, perhaps you can deal with the example I asked about in post 265.

 

[spina1953]

The question I more concerned with is this…If the Pope and ALL the bishops agree on a position and the Pope argues that it is under the heading of “faith and morals” when it truly isn’t, is the teaching infallible? I would argue it isn’t. Why? Because the Pope and the Bishops are limited to those issues of “faith and morals” alone. So, if they make a ruling about an issue, even if they believe it is about “faith and morals,” it is not infallible if it isn’t truly an issue of “faith and morals.”

The example I like to give on this is the separation of church and state. For many centuries, the majority of bishops in the Church and the Pope often argued against the idea of the separation of church and state, even throwing people out of the church who disagreed (see Syllabus of Errors from the 1860s). However, this teaching, even if completely unanimous, cannot be protected by the protection of infallibility. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the promises Jesus made to his Apostles. Jesus didn’t promise the Church would be right about EVERYTHING and this doesn’t fall into the category of things the Church was given the authority to infallibly teach. Thus, even if they claim they can make an infallible ruling on it, they can’t. Why? They don’t have the authority to do that, and they can only do what they have been given the authority to do.

I rather doubt that if all of the Bishops and the Pope would even go that route to agree on something on faith and morals when it is not really faith and morals. Doctrine is generally if I understand it properly is that when something needs to be clarified because of misinterpretation or misunderstanding doctrine explains it. Besides, I think that the Bishops and the Pope are much smarter than you are giving credit for.
as for separation of Church and state that is political as the Vatican state is also a country as well as a Church but the two are not the same.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

The Pope is the Magisterium, as is the Pope and the bishops under the Pope.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
MAGISTERIUM. The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Quote:

Is English your first language Abu? You don’t seem to understand it. In your quote above Fr. Hardon says the Magisterium is the CHURCH’S TEACHING AUTHORITY.

That teaching authority is VESTED in the Pope and the College of Bishops.

The Magisterium is a “what” not a “who.”

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. You said in post 277:

I think the bottom line though is this…the Pope cannot teach something that is in violation of what the faithful has always held . . .

That’s exactly correct. I prefaced that in my example.

But then this . . .

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, . . . .

And when I saw this second part above (bolded), you are already assuming the pope does not fall under the promise of Jesus’ protection. And this is wrong.

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.

What I admit is that the Pope not only DOESN’T teach something in violation of what the faithful has always held in his official capacity, etc. . . . . BUT . . . . the Pope CAN’T teach something in violation of what the faithful has always held (in his official capacity, etc).

• The Pope also CAN’T teach something in violation of what the multitude of Bishops has always held (in his official capacity, etc.) either.
• The Pope also CAN’T teach something in violation of prior Popes either (concerning faith and morals handed down from Christ and the Apostles).

These examples above doctrinally speaking are of course the same, just emphasized differently. They are all different ways of saying the Pope cannot teach in conflict with Jesus Christ’s teachings. And that is true - the Pope cannot do that.

This is WHY WHATEVER he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven. Not because he is such a great theologian (even if he is).

Not because God submits to error (God does NOT submit to error).

But because God PROTECTS St. Peter from error.

If a Pope got up on a given morning and said to himself: “today I am going to officially teach against the Resurrection of Jesus” . . . .

. . . . he couldn’t DO IT. Even if he wanted to.

What would happen? Would he die before he could get out the teaching? Would he have a change of heart? Would something else occur?

I have no idea. But I DO know that he cannot officially teach error.

THAT’S why we can have certainty in Christ’s promise about “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in Heaven” and this is given in Matthew 16, in the context of “the Keys”.

That’s WHY when there is doctrinal acrimony among bishops, we know where to find truth, strengthening the brethren.

That’s WHY when Satan wants to sift ALL the Apostles through his proverbial hands like wheat, Jesus responds to that by praying for Simon Peter ALONE (not that Jesus doesn’t pray for all the Apostles elsewhere—he does. But in the context of “strengthening the brethren”, Jesus prays for Simon Peter specifically and singularly).

That’s WHY when all the Apostles together without St. Peter could not bring the net ashore, St. Peter at the command of the Resurrected Jesus DOES go over and bring the net full of fish. This is a “strengthening” and it is not meant to be a mere weight lifting exhibition. And we are never told St. Peter gets any help from any of the other Apostles! What do we think the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us here? That St. Peter needs to be tested for anabolic steroids? No!

That’s WHY Jesus allows Him and St. Peter alone together to pay the Temple tax (what’s the problem. Does Jesus have an issue with James and John? No!).

That’s WHY Jesus allows only St. Peter to walk on water along with him when commanded by Jesus (yet he needs Jesus to CONTINUE to stay above water).

That’s WHY when there is doctrinal differences among laity and/or theologians, we know “we will go with you” St. Peter (“I am going fishing. We will go with you”) and be able to not be confused doctrinally.

Again, that’s why we can have certainty in Christ’s promise about “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in Heaven” and this is given in Matthew 16, in the context of “the Keys”.

You will argue:

“In Matthew 18, the Bishops (the Apostles) are given the power to bind and loose too.”

I agree.

Someone else will undoubtedly argue:

"Although only St. Peter was explicitly given the Keys in the Bible, ALL the Bishops have “the Keys”.

All these things are true, but taken by themselves are not enough!

And as I said earlier quoting Pope St. Leo from the 400’s A.D. just matter of factly asserting (not arguing but just pointing out seemingly what everyone accepted back then) that although the keys are bestowed upon all (the Apostles), the keys are entrusted only to one (St. Peter).

St. Peter: “I am going fishing” (think fishers of men).

We faithful: “We will go with you”.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #288
the Magisterium is the CHURCH’S TEACHING AUTHORITY.
That teaching authority is VESTED in the Pope and the College of Bishops.

No Catholic here has ever denied those truths, but proclaimed them.

What you have repeatedly denied is the truth that the Popes’ Magisterial definitions “need no approval of others” in following mardukm #252 in:

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

thus denying the truth from Vatican I, and Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, that the Popes’:
**“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.” **

Your continued hang ups over the Vatican’s English language indicate a problem that cries out for correction on your part.

 

[mardukm]

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

thus denying the truth from Vatican I, and Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, that the Popes’:
**“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.” **

Forgive me for being blunt, but your understanding is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. The distinction here is between the content of an ex cathedra decree, on the one hand, and its rreformibility, on the other.

High Petrine advocates, in perfect adherence to Vatican 1, agree that the irreformibility of papal decrees (i.e., its status as God’s Truth) does not come by consensus. However, we believe its content must NECESSARILY be in agreement with the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium. The charism of “papal” infallibility is not given for the purpose of giving new teaching, but in order to guard the EXISTING teaching of the Church. As the Pope ALONE does not possess the teaching of the Church, but this teaching is preserved by every orthodox bishop in the Church, the charism of “papal” infallibility does nothing more nor less than ensure that the Pope’s ex cathedra decree will be in agreement with this teaching that all the other orthodox bishops possess. The Pope has no authority to contradict this orthodox teaching of the other orthodox bishops of the Church. Hence, it is plainly true that the Pope cannot pronounce anything ex cathedra apart or separated from the context of the College of bishops. This is exactly what the official Relatio of Vatican 1 teaches, and what Vatican 2 teaches.

In opposition to the teaching of Vatican 1 and the Church throughout the ages, Absolutist Petrine advocates like Abu pretend that not only is the irreformibility of an ex cathedra decree not from consensus, but likewise, they believe that even the content does not require consensus either. This idea is simply ludicrous. Just imagine the Pope proclaiming something ex cathedra that NO ONE else in the Church priorly agreed with.

It is obvious that when the quote Abu has given states “needs no approval from others,” it is ONLY referring to the irreformibility of the decree (since Truth does not come by consensus). It is too fantastic to pretend even for a moment that the statement refers to the content of the decree, for if NO ONE had ever approved, or will ever approve of the content, then it is something totally new, which would violate the purpose for which the infallibility of the Church is given – i.e., NOT to pronounce new, unheard of doctrine, but simply to GUARD the EXISTING doctrine of the Church, of which all orthodox Catholics had already priorly known and approved (shades of the infallible sensus fidei!!!)

Aside from all that, any fair-minded Christian knows in his heart that consensus is indeed absolutely necessary for any and every ex cathedra decree – certainly not for its Truth or irreformibility, but for sake of the unity of the Church. Anyone who has not done so should read the ancient Apostolic Canon 34. AC34 t tells us exactly what consensus is for - it is not to determine Truth, but “so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”

Your continued hang ups over the Vatican’s English language indicate a problem that cries out for correction on your part.

That’s because you don’t understand the plain English.

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukm.

You said:

The charism of “papal” infallibility is not given for the purpose of giving new teaching, but in order to guard the EXISTING teaching of the Church.

But that is not the point.

The charism of Episcopal collegiality is not given for the purpose of giving new teaching either, but in order to guard the EXISTING teaching of the Church too.

But neither of those statements defines what the scope of the Papal Authority paradigm is.

You also said (bold mine):

Aside from all that, any fair-minded Christian knows in his heart that consensus is indeed absolutely necessary for any and every ex cathedra decree – certainly not for its Truth or irreformibility, but for sake of the unity of the Church.

How much of a consensus?

How much of a consensus? 80-20? 70-30? 15-85?

I think the only consensus necessary to preserve a doctrine (and let’s not build a straw man here and say I am trying to say, invent a NEW doctrine), is the consensus of the Magisterium.

And WHO is the Magisterium?

The Magisterium is THE POPE . . . . . . . and the Bishops in UNION with THE POPE.

CCC 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

A 15%-85% result IS a consensus of the Magisterium if the Pope is on the 15% side (in which case it is really 100% of the Magisterium).

That’s the whole point. A 15% consensus of the College of Bishops IS a 100% consensus of the Magisterium assuming those 15% of Bishops are united to the Pope.

You said:

NOT to pronounce new, unheard of doctrine, . . .

This is not the argument Mardukm.

NOBODY here is saying:

“Oh yes! The Pope gets to pronounce new doctrine!”

NOBODY has said that here. NOBODY.

The fact that this keeps getting brought up, suggests weakness to
the Collegiality ALONE motif (or Gallicanism argument).

The Pope will not and CANNOT (officially) invent new doctrine. He is prevented/protected from doing so by Jesus Christ.

The Pope works with the Bishops in a collegial manner to be sure.

Conversely the Bishops work in union with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) also.

But the Pope (the Bishop of Rome), can act on his own accord to define and preserve doctrinal truth too. He is not subject to a democratic process; even a democratic process with the other Bishops.

You might say: “Well he shouldn’t do that.” Fine if you want to think that.

But you cannot say: “He cannot do that!”

The Pope CAN do that.

It would be the heresy of Gallicanism (also known as the heresy of “Conciliarism”) to say the Pope couldn’t act of his own accord to PRESERVE doctrine.

I already talked about the heresy of Gallicanism here.

. . . . This Gallican School held (1) that the Pope’s definitions, were not Infallible in themselves but only after acceptance by the Universal Church . . . .

 

[anex]

Papal Authority … seems to really only be valid to those of us who actually listen to what any Pope has to say on any issue and then follows that Popes’ teaching or advice. And more over the Authority is again valid for those who actually Believe that Christ is the Son of God and did appoint Peter to lead / teach and be the first " Bishop / Pope ".

For those who do not believe, and are not Catholic, then the matter is for those individuals a topic not up for debate, as such papal authority no longer applies to those individuals, because said Papal Authority can not implement and penalties in any shape or form to those who are not of the faith. Even though that Papal Authority is valid. Which if one wants to say yes the Papacy can penalize people for not being Catholic, I suppose they could. I would imagine a Pope, could state that those who are not Catholic with in the Roman Catholic Church are going to be damned to hell. Or what ever analogy. And it would be true wouldn’t it ? Because why ? well for any reason already given as to why Papal Authority is valid I suppose. And if that is not true then I suppose we do not need a tribunal in the Catholic Church to grant annulments.

Perhaps a better question would be, what are the limits to Papal Authority ?

Versus

Secular Authority , say a dictator, president, king, tyrant, political party, etc … good or bad, those Authorities who eventually lead a population to hell with the promises of knowing what is best for them; said people have to be obeyed because the results for not obeying such authority usually leads to fines, imprisonment, or death, which are carried out by law enforcement and judicial systems that are far from being even remotely close to just or fair.

And even if such authority did no longer deserve to be in power, rarely is anything done to remove such people or regimes from power, because of other things to consider: who, what, why, and how are usually the main questions, which are debated endlessly until said power acts in such a way that demands an immediate response. Or the rare occasion one has the option to simply vote out an authority for something a little less terrible. Though in comparison to Papal Authority, again for those of us who believe and acknowledge said authority , there is no recourse to a poor or even flat out wrong or bad papal authority. Actually there probably is, probably buried some where in canon law.

 

[Abu]

mardukm #291
it is plainly true that the Pope cannot pronounce anything ex cathedra apart or separated from the context of the College of bishops. This is exactly what the official Relatio of Vatican 1 teaches, and what Vatican 2 teaches.

Such restrictions placed on the Pope by mardukm and by AmbroseSJ are due to their misunderstanding, as shown.

The additional problem for mardukm now is in assuming that a papal infallible definition has to be ex cathedra, that is to be truths revealed by God in either Scripture or Tradition – which is false.
The Vatican I definition of papal infallibility expressly affirmed that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) which covers both dogmas and the secondary related truths. *Pastor Aeternus *mandates the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be held (tenendum), not only what must be believed (credendam).

Thus the CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1).

A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

any fair-minded Christian knows in his heart that consensus is indeed absolutely necessary for any and every ex cathedra decree – certainly not for its Truth or irreformibility, but for sake of the unity of the Church.

In fact the infallible definition in *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI) against contraception has been ignored by some 80% of Catholics. And “Christians” are not necessarily Catholics – they don’t count for obedience or “consensus” for Catholic doctrine.

The “absolutely necessary consensus” is a figment of the imagination – the mardukm “unity of the Church” can be missing.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cathoholic,

Perhaps it would be best to try and understand the difference between the premises of an argument and the conclusions.

As plainly stated before, the issue here is the sola papa error. I had initially thought you might not have read the whole thread, and so are unaware of the issues being discussed. But then I remembered that you had made a response to my statement “through the Magisterium, not through the Pope ALONE, THAT IS THE ISSUE.” So obviously, you are aware of the issue being discussed, so I do not know what the source is of your fanciful accusations. You are creating tangential issues where there are none.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Oh goodness! Not only does Abu pretend that the Pope can be separated from the College, but now he claims that the unity of the Church is not even necessary. I can’t wait to see what other strange ideas he concocts next in defense of the sola papa error.

Such restrictions placed on the Pope by mardukm and by AmbroseSJ are due to their misunderstanding, as shown.

The additional problem for mardukm now is in assuming that a papal infallible definition has to be ex cathedra, that is to be truths revealed by God in either Scripture or Tradition – which is false.
The Vatican I definition of papal infallibility expressly affirmed that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) which covers both dogmas and the secondary related truths. *Pastor Aeternus *mandates the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be held (tenendum), not only what must be believed (credendam).

Thus the CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1).

A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.
In fact the infallible definition in *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI) against contraception has been ignored by some 80% of Catholics. And “Christians” are not necessarily Catholics – they don’t count for obedience or “consensus” for Catholic doctrine.

The “absolutely necessary consensus” is a figment of the imagination – the mardukm “unity of the Church” can be missing.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

Oh goodness! Not only does Abu pretend that the Pope can be separated from the College, but now he claims that the unity of the Church is not even necessary. I can’t wait to see what other strange ideas he concocts next in defense of the sola papa error.

Does it come any stranger than this:

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.

I think he pictures the Pope as the Borg Queen, assimilating everything in her path, and then distributing it to the hive collective.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

oops! Sorry mardukm, my first quote in the previous post should have been attributed to you.