Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[MrSnaith]

I share Jinc’s concern that a “development” of the papacy implies that the Pope now has more power than he did in the early Church. This, to me, seems highly problematic - how could the Pope possibly possess more authority (intrinsic to his office) than he did in the beginning? I think that there can be a “development” in that the Pope exercises regularly authority he may not have needed to exercise prior (although had), as the terms in which we think about the Pope’s power have shifted (we probably speak in far more juridical terms than the earliest days of the Church), he puts more emphasis on his authority for various reasons, canonical procedures become more regularly formalized, etc. But the Pope can’t develop more authority than Peter had. What are your thoughts?

I, for one, agree with this. However, I would point out that this is properly in keeping with the redwood analogy. The redwood may have gotten larger, but its essential nature, what it is, actually has not changed. It has only matured. Everything that the Church is today existed with the Church in its infancy, and this is true of the Petrine office as well, and this is true of a Redwood. Like a redwood, more is encompassed underneath its branches, but the branches themselves are essentially the same, if more numerous.

 

[jinc1019]

A good place to start is the official Relatio of Vatican 1 by Bishop Gasser (just google it). Bishop Gasser was the OFFICIAL spokesman of the Commission De Fide, which was charged by the Pope to formulate the Decrees of Vatican 1. His Relatio is the proper, Magisterial interpretation of the Decree of Vatican 1 on “papal” infallibility, which basically demolishes the Absolutist Petine position of the SSPX and certain Catholics. The Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists (such as Archbishop Manning of England) voted placet for the Decree on the Infallibility, but, as noted by Dom Cuthbert Butler in his seminal work The Vatican Council:1969-1870 (written in the early 1930’s), Manning had issued a Pastoral to his flock directly contradicting the interpretation of the official Relatio on several points. Other NEO-ultramontanist bishops did the same thing. This is why these Absolutist Petrine exaggerations/aberrations still exist in the Catholic Church today, and why many imagine that the Absolutist Petrine aberrations are the teaching of the Catholic Church. Abu’s pov, as you will no doubt agree, is evidence of the existence of these aberrations today.

There is also another important source - Bishop Zinelli, who was the relator of the Commision De Fide’s intentions regarding the Decree on the Primacy. That, as well, demolishes the typical Absolutist Petrine exaggerations about the primatial authority of the Pope.

If you will google these sources, I’m certain you will have an eye-opening experience.

As mentioned to another poster, we have the Acts of the 7 Ecum Councils which we diligently study to find out about the actual intentions of Fathers when they promulgated their decrees. So it is strange that there are those who refuse to acknowledge the importance of the Acts of Vatican 1, and focus myopically on the Decrees as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

All excellent information. I will investigate this thoroughly. I read through your (Marduk’s) thread on the different views of Petrine authority and I was quite impressed. If your arguments are in fact true, I would have no problem with this teaching at all.

 

[jinc1019]

A good place to start is the official Relatio of Vatican 1 by Bishop Gasser (just google it). Bishop Gasser was the OFFICIAL spokesman of the Commission De Fide, which was charged by the Pope to formulate the Decrees of Vatican 1. His Relatio is the proper, Magisterial interpretation of the Decree of Vatican 1 on “papal” infallibility, which basically demolishes the Absolutist Petine position of the SSPX and certain Catholics. The Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists (such as Archbishop Manning of England) voted placet for the Decree on the Infallibility, but, as noted by Dom Cuthbert Butler in his seminal work The Vatican Council:1969-1870 (written in the early 1930’s), Manning had issued a Pastoral to his flock directly contradicting the interpretation of the official Relatio on several points. Other NEO-ultramontanist bishops did the same thing. This is why these Absolutist Petrine exaggerations/aberrations still exist in the Catholic Church today, and why many imagine that the Absolutist Petrine aberrations are the teaching of the Catholic Church. Abu’s pov, as you will no doubt agree, is evidence of the existence of these aberrations today.

There is also another important source - Bishop Zinelli, who was the relator of the Commision De Fide’s intentions regarding the Decree on the Primacy. That, as well, demolishes the typical Absolutist Petrine exaggerations about the primatial authority of the Pope.

If you will google these sources, I’m certain you will have an eye-opening experience.

As mentioned to another poster, we have the Acts of the 7 Ecum Councils which we diligently study to find out about the actual intentions of Fathers when they promulgated their decrees. So it is strange that there are those who refuse to acknowledge the importance of the Acts of Vatican 1, and focus myopically on the Decrees as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
Perhaps you can address this (or anyone else)…

If your view of the papacy is true, which is to say that his authority and infallibility exist as a part of the universal church, not separate from it, then one issue in my minds remains: How can the Roman Catholic Church definitively teach anything with the protection of the Holy Spirit if so many bishops now exist outside of the RCC? If the papal office only receives its authority and infallibility as a part of the universal church (and I know this is a great simplification of your argument), then this seems to be a problem.

 

[steve_b]

I, for one, agree with this. However, I would point out that this is properly in keeping with the redwood analogy. The redwood may have gotten larger, but its essential nature, what it is, actually has not changed. It has only matured. Everything that the Church is today existed with the Church in its infancy, and this is true of the Petrine office as well, and this is true of a Redwood. Like a redwood, more is encompassed underneath its branches, but the branches themselves are essentially the same, if more numerous.

You got the analogy perfectly. Both grow true to type. Everything is contained in the seed.

 

[steve_b]

I share Jinc’s concern that a “development” of the papacy implies that the Pope now has more power than he did in the early Church. This, to me, seems highly problematic - how could the Pope possibly possess more authority (intrinsic to his office) than he did in the beginning?

Please give an example.
M:

I think that there can be a “development” in that the Pope exercises regularly authority he may not have needed to exercise prior (although had), as the terms in which we think about the Pope’s power have shifted (we probably speak in far more juridical terms than the earliest days of the Church), he puts more emphasis on his authority for various reasons, canonical procedures become more regularly formalized, etc. But the Pope can’t develop more authority than Peter had. What are your thoughts?

One could ask in the same sense, for quotes from scripture, where Jesus put limits on Peter’s authority…true?

 

[jinc1019]

Please give an example.

One could ask in the same sense, for quotes from scripture, where Jesus put limits on Peter’s authority…true?

It’s not that Jesus puts a limit on Peter’s authority expressly, it’s that Jesus CLEARLY promises a great deal of authority to the other Apostles in Matthew 18, which by its very institution effectively limits Peter’s authority. The promises made to the Apostles in Matthew 18 cannot coexist with your version of the papacy. When Jesus says, “When 2 or 3 of you speak in my name, I am there with you,” does he mean it? If so, how can the Pope, completely on his own, discount the binding and loosing authority of the other apostles? How?

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #187
I don’t think you are correct. An Apostolic See is simply an episcopal throne established by an apostle. Just becomes Rome claims to be the only one (if it did she does), does not make it so.

The attention to fact leaves much to be desired – the definition is from none other than the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., not mine.

But further:
“The Apostolic See
The Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but **Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church.” [My bold].
newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #206
It’s not that Jesus puts a limit on Peter’s authority expressly, it’s that Jesus CLEARLY promises a great deal of authority to the other Apostles in Matthew 18, which by its very institution effectively limits Peter’s authority. The promises made to the Apostles in Matthew 18 cannot coexist with your version of the papacy….how can the Pope, completely on his own, discount the binding and loosing authority of the other apostles? How?

When you pay attention to the reality already given you will better see the truth.

Post #86:‘
“The mandate of Jesus, the Son of God is crystal clear in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
**All four 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)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) Later, also to the Twelve]

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

 

[jinc1019]

The attention to fact leaves much to be desired – the definition is from none other than the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., not mine.

But further:
“The Apostolic See
The Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but **Rome is *the ***Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church.” [My bold].
newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

Abu, definitions from biased sources are quite meaningless…AND he himself admitted that Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem were referred to as apostolic sees.

 

[jinc1019]

When you pay attention to the reality already given you will better see the truth.

Post #86:‘
“The mandate of Jesus, the Son of God is crystal clear in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
**All four 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)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) Later, also to the Twelve]

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

Again, none of that discounts the promises made to the Apostles themselves. I don’t dispute Peter was the chief apostle, so I am not certain what the point of your argument is.

 

[twf]

Just wanted to throw my two cents in. As a Latin Catholic who fully accepts the teachings of the First Vatican Council, I, for the most part, agree with Marduk’s “high petrine” position and believe that it best represents the authentic teaching of the Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, together with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, makes it clear that the bishops are not mere “vicars” of the Pope and exercise the supreme authority of the Church with him as their head:

“The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.” But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope. CCC #895

Blessed John Paul II had some interesting thoughts on this topic during his General Audience of Feb 24, 1993 (vatican.va/holy_father/jo…9930224en.html):

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

It is a mission of service to the universal Church, which necessarily entails a corresponding authority precisely because of this service: the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing, without prejudice to the privileges and rights of the Eastern patriarchs, according to the order of their dignity.

In this regard it would be well to clarify immediately that this “fullness” of power attributed to the Pope in no way detracts from the “fullness” also belonging to the body of bishops. On the contrary, one must assert that both the Pope and the episcopal body have “all the fullness” of power. The Pope possesses this fullness personally, while the body of bishops, united under the Pope’s authority, possesses it collegially. The Pope’s power does not result from simply adding numbers, but is the episcopal body’s principle of unity and wholeness.

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

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).

Because of this new clarification the erroneous interpretations often made of Vatican I’s definition are rejected and the full significance of the Petrine ministry is shown in its harmony with the doctrine of episcopal collegiality

He will never subordinate what he has received for Christ and his Church to his own personal aims.

Regarding his relationship with his brothers in the episcopate, he must remember and apply the words of St. Gregory the Great: “My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored, then, when each of them is not denied the honor due him”

[CONTINUED]

 

[twf]

[Continued from above]
The problem is that many Latin Catholics confuse the role of the Bishop of Rome as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church with his role as head (de facto Patriarch) of the Latin Church, over which he exercises more direct governance. In reality, even within the Latin Church, I think you would be hard pressed to find any examples of the Pope of Rome making any major decisions or issuing any significant doctrinal clarification without the collaboration of at least some subset of the college of bishops. In addition to the College of Cardinals and the Roman Congregations, the Synod of Bishops in Rome was instituted at Vatican II for just this purpose, and the national conferences of Latin bishops in each country were recognized as a means of the local bishops, in union with Rome, exercising common governance over their regions and adapting universal norms according to local needs. Our Holy Father Francis has suggested that the Latin Church may benefit by returning to an even more Synodal praxis:

We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us. I want to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document. We must continue on this path.” - "The Big Interview - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

Within the confines of the deposit of faith and the Tradition of the Church, is the Pope the Supreme Judge and does he exercise the supreme authority of the Church? Most definitely. Does he exercise this supreme authority in a vacuum? Never. He always does so in union with his brother bishops, and even if circumstances prevented him from doing so in an active sense, he would still draw from the “ordinary magisterium”, the teaching of his brother bishops down through the centuries united to their head.

 

[jinc1019]

[Continued from above]
The problem is that many Latin Catholics confuse the role of the Bishop of Rome as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church with his role as head (de facto Patriarch) of the Latin Church, over which he exercises more direct governance. In reality, even within the Latin Church, I think you would be hard pressed to find any examples of the Pope of Rome making any major decisions or issuing any significant doctrinal clarification without the collaboration of at least some subset of the college of bishops. In addition to the College of Cardinals and the Roman Congregations, the Synod of Bishops in Rome was instituted at Vatican II for just this purpose, and the national conferences of Latin bishops in each country were recognized as a means of the local bishops, in union with Rome, exercising common governance over their regions and adapting universal norms according to local needs. Our Holy Father Francis has suggested that the Latin Church may benefit by returning to an even more Synodal praxis:

Within the confines of the deposit of faith and the Tradition of the Church, is the Pope the Supreme Judge and does he exercise the supreme authority of the Church? Most definitely. Does he exercise this supreme authority in a vacuum? Never. He always does so in union with his brother bishops, and even if circumstances prevented him from doing so in an active sense, he would still draw from the “ordinary magisterium”, the teaching of his brother bishops down through the centuries united to their head.

First, thank you for posting!

I have said many times now that this sort of understanding of the papacy is fine for me if it is accurate…But the problem I have is this: What if some, most or all of the bishops disagree with the Pope’s view on any particular topic? Then what?

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #213
What if some, most or all of the bishops disagree with the Pope’s view on any particular topic? Then what?

So what? A “view” is not dogma nor doctrine.

There have been bishops, and priests (like Luther), who have “disagreed”. If they dissent from dogma or doctrine they are given every opportunity to assent to truth – if they continue in their dissent they will become heretics.

“Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.”
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Cathoholic]

Sorry about this but I am just getting caught up on this thread. (Some of this will be repetitious with Abu as I composed it before I saw Abu’s post).

jinc1019. You asked (bold mine):

What if some, most or all of the bishops disagree with the Pope’s view on any particular topic? Then what?

If the disagreement is merely on “any particular topic” nothing happens.

They might disagree on calculus, or geography, or any number of things.

If the disagreement is merely on “any faith and morals topic” and the Pope is discussing it with him/them as a private theologian, likewise nothing happens.

I am sure they have those types of disagreements from time to time.

But if the disagreement is on “any faith and morals topic” and the Pope is discussing it with them as supreme pastor of the Church, they need to submit. They realize the Pope is protected in such a sphere and he will not err.

Somebody has got to have Divine protection in this instance. And somebody does. And because it is one person (Peter) who was entrusted with the keys, we as the faithful will know where to follow (and the Bishops will too).

The Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in union with him (the Pope). Not the Pope and anybody who is a Bishop.

That doesn’t mean the Pope always gives a great definition of what he is teaching, but he will be protected from giving the wrong information on this teaching.

---

Mardukm. You stated in post 184:

Yes, it depends on what kind of mindset informs your beliefs about the papacy - an Absolutist Petrine mindset (sola papa error) or a High Petrine mindset (collegiality).

Why do you do that with this topic Mardukm?

I have told you on other posts, this whole rhetorical device could be turned around on you and stated as:

Yes, it depends on what kind of mindset informs your beliefs about the papacy - an Absolutist Petrine mindset (the Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in union with him) or a High Petrine mindset (sola democracia error).

You went on to state:

It’s obvious that for people like Abu, who claim that there is no necessity for the Pope to be in agreement with the sensus fidei (which the Church teaches is infallible) in his ex cathedra decrees, then we can be sure that there is no misunderstanding here.

What do you mean by:

It’s obvious that for people like Abu, who claim that there is no necessity for the Pope to be in agreement with the sensus fidei (which the Church teaches is infallible) in his ex cathedra decrees . . . .

You don’t mean the Pope has got to “check in” with the people do you?

The Pope doesn’t need to be submissive to what you are calling the sensus fidei, but rather the sensus fidei are the people who ARE submissive to the Magisterium, they OBEY the Magisterium (otherwise they’d be the “sensus UNfidei”).

And of course the Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

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.

You are not implying the Pope has got to “check in” with the people do you?

I sure hope not.

If you mean the Pope cannot officially teach error, the Pope cannot officially teach faith and morals opposed to that which was handed down by Christ and His inspired Apostles and affirmed (not ratified) by the sensus fidei, I don’t think anybody here is disagreeing with that.

CCC 1594 The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, from section 12) 12. The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful”[8] they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.

Notice the above concerns the faithFUL not the faithless. And notice below they OBEY the Magisterium (it is not a mere Gallup poll of people calling themselves “Catholic”).

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, also from section 12) By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.

CCC and Vatican II bold and ul mine

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Jinc, to get back to what you said:

I don’t disagree with the first half of your post. The second half, however, MAY be flawed. Why? Because you argue that the Pope and the Catholic magisterium has never taught anything that has contradicted the faith. But the Eastern Orthodox bishops disagree. They would say the Catholic Church most certainly has, especially in regards to the filloque (sorry about spelling), supreme papal authority, and supreme papal infallibility.

I think you make the point that the argument may be flawed. Obviously, those doctrinal points are not accepted by the Orthodox, but that doesn’t mean that they are mistaken or that they contradict the faith. I mean, there are other Christians who do not accept the Real Presence of the Eucharist and that doesn’t result in the Real Presence being a handy fiction!

If you think they are flawed, it’s good to discuss these points (as you have papal authority). In fact, there are some Eastern Churches (those in union with Rome), that do in fact accept these doctrinal matters.

Also, I don’t agree that the Catholic Church has always held that it doesn’t have supreme authority and power over temporal matters or discipline in general. Read up on the “Donation of Constantine.” The Catholic Church argued for centuries that it had authority over all the earth, not just in matters of faith and morals.

Interesting you mentioned that. I was just teaching about the “Donation of Constantine” to my Year 11 History class. This forged document was not used to justify a temporal claim over all the earth (in terms of land or political authority) but over the Papal States, which had just been granted to the papacy by Pepin III.

The Catholic Church does have authority over all the earth, but it’s not a political authority, it’s a spiritual one. In fact, although the Church was heavily involved in political matters during the 4th-14th centuries, she never asserted a role of supreme political authority; there was always a balancing act between the Church and other political powers.

And this goes back to what I said in one of my earlier posts about context. The Church filled a socio-political power vacuum in the West. Like it or not, the Church was really all that was left after the Roman Empire shifted eastwards. One might argue that this meant that the Church got involved in matters in which she shouldn’t have. But at the same time, it’s difficult to see what the alternative could have been.

 

[MrSnaith]

I think it might be helpful at this point to bring in some real-world examples. I don’t have any specific news articles I could point to right now, but maybe some of our more news-knowledgable members can help in this regard.

But as a matter of general public knowledge, you may recall instances of our current pope engaging in public interviews which set off firestorms of public opinion in the last year. While I’m not going to comment on the content of those interviews, I will say this: in those interviews, the words of the Pope could not be taken as doctrinal, or infallible. What he said may certainly, and probably was fully in line with Church doctrine, but the manner in which he spoke, in the context of the dialogue, was not the setting of infallible authority. He was speaking from a personal standpoint, not ex cathedra. Therefore, there would be nothing inherently wrong about any lay faithful, or priest, or bishop, calling into question any of those things he spoke about, except perhaps if what they questioned was already clearly defined doctrine.

For example, I have seen a quotation (whether accurate or not), wherein Pope Francis states something along the lines of “poverty and hunger are the greatest evils we need to fight today” (this isn’t an accurate quote, I know, I’m just recalling from memory, and guaranteed my memory is flawed. Moreover, what was reported in the news was very likely not exactly accurate anyway, since secular news rarely gets Catholic news correct as it is. But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend this is what he actually said). I might look at such a statement and say, well, categorically speaking, that’s not correct, because offenses against God are always considered worse than offenses against our neighbor. Poverty and hunger are bad things, and yes we are obligated to relieve such ills in our brethren, but cursing the Holy Spirit, for example, is a much worse evil by comparison. I could say this, be critical of this pope quote (which, again, I must stress, isn’t exactly accurate) and I wouldn’t suffer either personal sin in this regard, or any kind of excommunication.

In fact, regarding other things Pope Francis has said and done since his election, I have read articles of some priests and bishops being critical of him, who have not felt any reprimand from Rome, because what they are critical of is the Pope’s personal opinions and actions. There’s nothing wrong with dissenting from any given pope’s personal opinions, and as a rule, doing so doesn’t draw action from the Vatican. It is only when something is taught officially that criticism or dissidence draws action from the Vatican, because in those cases it is important for the protection of the Faithful, and for the avoidance of scandal of both the Faithful, and the secular world, that the expression of our doctrine be unified.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cathoholic,

I have told you on other posts, this whole rhetorical device could be turned around on you and stated as:

No, it can’t. What I and others have stated is correct. The Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei. That your (and Abu’s) immediate response has to do with the “people” not submitting to the Pope demonstrates that both of you do not have a proper understanding of the term “sensus fidei.”

As brother AmbroseSJ has incisively pointed out, the sensus fidei is not JUST the sense of Faith of the laity, but ALSO the sense of Faith of the bishops and the Pope; In short, it is about the sense of the Faith of the “FAITHFUL” - which, I hope you will agree includes the Pope and the bishops. Further, the sensus fidei inherently includes not just the sense of Faith of the Faithful of today, but of the ENTIRE Church throughout time. As mentioned, restricting the sensus fidei to the laity demonstrates an improper understanding of the term,

Why any Catholic would in any way disagree or challenge the statement “the Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei” is really a mystery.

Blessings

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

As brother AmbroseSJ has incisively pointed out,

Post 186, when in Linear mode

 

[steve_b]

It’s not that Jesus puts a limit on Peter’s authority expressly, it’s that Jesus CLEARLY promises a great deal of authority to the other Apostles in Matthew 18, which by its very institution effectively limits Peter’s authority.

point out specificall the authority in context, that Jesus gives in Mt 18.
j:

The promises made to the Apostles in Matthew 18 cannot coexist with your version of the papacy. When Jesus says, “When 2 or 3 of you speak in my name, I am there with you,” does he mean it? If so, how can the Pope, completely on his own, discount the binding and loosing authority of the other apostles? How?

In Mt 16, in the Greek, Jesus speaks directly to Peter in the singular tense.

i.e.

• I (Jesus) will build my Church on Rock (Peter)
• I (Jesus) (1st person singular) give you Simon / Rock (2nd person singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven
• Whatever you (Simon / Rock, singular) bind and loose on earth is bound and loosed in heaven

Jesus again, singles Peter out from the others… And talks directly to Peter in front of all the apostles.

For comparison and contrast

I’d like to draw your attention to a statement made by the apostles earlier in the chapter. Was there any interruption in thought after they make the acknowlegment? No. Anything special happen immediately after the statement is made? No

: [Mt 14:33 ]
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” 34 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret. 35 And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought all their sick to him 36 and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.

While not exact, that statement by the apostles is real close to what Peter said 2 chapters later to Jesus.

When that statement and acknowledement was made by the apostles, did Jesus stop what everybody was saying at that acknowledgement and say to the apostles, hey guys “your confession was a revelation from the Father” and so I’m going to change everybody’s name (plural) to a new name ROCK (Peter) , and give all you (plural) the keys to the kingdom,? Nope! He didn’t do that. This would be the place to do it if the office we refer to as Peter’s office, was

• based on that confession alone,
• or making this office a plural office with everyone equal to each other, and no one over another,
• and not an office that only one at a time occupied.

Obviously the office Peter is given didn’t happen by his confession alone. The fact nothing was said to the apostles by Jesus for THEIR collective response HERE, tells us, when Jesus sets up the office that Peter is given 2 chapters later, it’s by God’s selection of Peter, to be in that office singularly not collectively given, and it is established here by God.