Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[Cathoholic]

Mardukm. You said:

The Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei. . . . . 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.

Nobody is asserting that Mardukm.

Nobody is saying:

“Oh yes he does. The Pope can contradict the faithful!”

No. Nobody is asserting that.

But there are differences in the order of authority between the Pope and Catholic laity (or for that matter, the Pope and the Bishops).

And the Pope if acting in his official capacity, is the one on whom God-given protection in this area rests.

When obstinate differences occur, the Pope is the one who receives Divine protection by virtue of his office.

If the these people usurp their proper role, they are really the “sensus un-fidelium” (un-faithful) and not part of the sensus fidei anymore.

The question also isn’t if the Pope has the authority to contradict the authentic “Word of God” (such as reflected in the sensus fidei) Mardukm. He doesn’t.

The issue is WHO in their official capacity has the authority to define what the official word of God is and isn’t.

The Pope is protected against errors in this area.

You and I as individuals are not (unless we remain united to the Pope).

The people if they stray from the word of God (and thus do not remain united to the Pope) are not protected (and are thus no longer part of the sensus fidei).

The Bishops if they do not remain in union with St. Peter (and his successors), are not protected against error.

The Pope also has no “authority” to contradict Himself either when he (or his predecessors) have given definitive clarification of faith and morals (and will be protected from doing so).

The Pope is protected from doing this (officially teaching erroneously).

VATICAN II (From Dei Verbum Section 10) But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on [8], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [9], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

The Pope is protected from officially teaching against the authentic Word of God passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.

We (apart from the Magisterium) do not enjoy this protection, so we stay close to St. Peter.

So if St. Peter says, “I am going fishing”, we reply, “We will go with you”. If he says “I am going fishing for men” we say “We will go with you” as well.

The issue is: What is the proper order of authority?

What is the proper order of authority for the teachings to continue in their integrity?

And the answer is, the “body of bishops” and the “faithful” must remain united with the Roman Pontiff.

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium sec. 22) The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Mardukm. Do you affirm that the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God is entrusted exclusively to the teaching office of the Church?

Do you affirm the teaching office of the Church is the Magisterium?

Do you affirm that the Magisterium is THE POPE, and the Bishops IN UNION with him?

WHO comprises the sensus fidei Mardukm?

The answer is those guided AND obedient to the Magisterium.

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 . . . .

This is the part that takes humility Mardukm. Obedience.

You also said:

. . .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”

Absolutely. I affirm this. I already gave reference to it in Lumen Gentium 12.

So I am not sure why you even brought that point up (?).

**VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, from section 12) **The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing . . . . 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.

The real issue is, what is the proper ORDER of authority?

And you seem to be saying (that’s why I asked you in the form of a question before), that the Pope has to check with the people before clarifying apostolic doctrine.

And I am saying, IF THAT is what you are asserting, you are not affirming Catholic teaching.

VATICAN II . . . People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it

Obedience to the Magisterium Mardukm.

Obedience to the Pope, and the Bishops in union with him is where we will find the protection we need on earth.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Cathoholic: I respect and admire most everything you post, until this last one that is.

First, you are misunderstanding mardukm

Second, you are falling into a common error I see here on CAF.

You are conflating “The Faithful” with the “Listening Church” (generally the lay faithful)

Read your documents again but keep in mind that the Faithful according to Lumen Gentium is*** the whole people of God from the bishops to the last layman. *** ALL OF THEM, INCLUDING THE BISHOPS (WHICH INCLUDES THE POPE) must be faithful and obedient to the Magisterium, which is the Teaching Church and includes Sacred Tradition. No individual bishop (or Pope) is exempt. They must also listen just like the Listening Church. That is where we find the Sensus Fidelium. (Always guided by the Holy Spirit of course.) That is the basis for the infallibility of the Faithful, and therefore THE CHURCH. That is why mardukm said that no Pope can contradict the Sensus Fidelium. If he (the Pope) did, that would mean he was DISOBEDIENT or UNFAITHFUL to the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

Since this is a thread about Papal Authority, and not Papal infallibility, better keep things like the Sensus Fidelium and infallibility out of it. We’ve already got enough threads on Infallibility!

 

[CarmelJerome]

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?

There’s a great misunderstanding of what a pope’s work is, not only among non-Catholics but among many Catholics who want the pope to be perpetually in the trenches of controversy or debate. In Evangelii Gaudium, in reference to the recent synod’s work on evangelization, Pope Francis very quietly mentions this problem:

  Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.

Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI had to do a great deal of theological work because of the chaos in the episcopacy, precisely among many who had yielded their pastoral authority to theological figures who were viewed as heavyweights in the press. But they weren’t simply develping their own ideas, but attempting to rid the field of the many wrinkles and innovations and outright heresies that the bishops themselves were letting run wild.

Having seen so often over several decades how groups of governing bodies fall victims to trends, I see the danger of the lemming-like behavior of bishops running after popularity or publicity as greater than the danger of a single pastor given universal responsibility doing so.

 

[Cathoholic]

AmbroseSJ. You said:

Read your documents again but keep in mind that the Faithful according to Lumen Gentium is the whole people of God from the bishops to the last layman. ALL OF THEM, INCLUDING THE BISHOPS (WHICH INCLUDES THE POPE) must be faithful and obedient to the Magisterium, which is the Teaching Church and includes Sacred Tradition.

I affirm this.

I thought I matter-of-factly re-affirmed that when I quoted Vatican II in my post #215.

**VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, from section 12) **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.

Here it is again with salient portions bolded and ul.

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, from section 12) 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.

I don’t want anybody trying to re-define what the “sensus fidei” is for their own agendas. I am not trying to accuse Mardukm of trying to redefine the “sensus fidei” either. But Mardukm made it sound like other people were.

And although I don’t see people trying to re-define the sensus fidei here, I likewise don’t want it to occur either.

I recently listened to a radio debate where a man with an advanced theology degree from a well-known Catholic University here in America tried to re-define the “sensus fidei” as a proverbial Gallup Poll of American Catholics to support so-called same-sex “marriage” (if you PM me I can send you an uploaded link).

I don’t want readers of this forum coming away with that false idea of “authority” either.

Since the thread does concern authority, this needed clarification (and I guess although quoting the documents, I still did not make myself clear:shrug.

You also said:

First, you are misunderstanding Mardukm.

Could be. That’s why it baffled me to hear this:

The Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei. . . . . 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.

Nobody on this thread is saying:

“Oh yes. The Pope CAN contradict the sensus fidei!”

You also said:

Since this is a thread about Papal Authority, and not Papal infallibility, . .

But my point isn’t to define or not to define Papal infallibility. If it were, I’d be quoting Vatican I documents directly.

It is to show there is a Divine ORDER of authority. And it begins with Jesus Christ through St. Peter.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Cathoholic:

I don’t want anybody trying to re-define what the “sensus fidei” is for their own agendas. I am not trying to accuse Mardukm of trying to redefine the “sensus fidei” either. But Mardukm made it sound like other people were.

Ah.

I affirm this.

I thought I matter-of-factly re-affirmed that when I quoted Vatican II in my post #215.

Yes, about your posts #215:
You said:

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.

But what you seem to miss is that the Pope and the Bishops are ALSO a part of “the Faithful” when determining the sensus fidei. Lumen Gentium

So your statement might be misinterpreted as saying that the Pope and bishops do NOT have to be submissive to the infallible Magisterium of the Church (which includes Sacred Tradition) You SEEM to be saying that it is ONLY the laity that must be submissive and faithful. Not because you explicitly say it, but because you seem to draw a dichotomy between the laity and the Magisterium, which does not apply when considering the Sensus Fidelium. In the Sensus Fidelium we are always speaking of the Whole People of God, from the Pope down to last layman.

Do you see how easily your statement can be seen as conflating authority with infallibility?

All members of God’s Church must be submissive/obedient and faithful to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. It’s a matter of submission to the Holy Spirit by all of the Faithful. That is how we find the Sensus Fidelium.

But this submission is not the submission of laity to hierarchy, it is the submission of the Whole people of God to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Abu]

It is most gratifying to see the recent great contributions from Cathoholic #215, #221, #224, jonathan_hili #216, MrSnaith #217, in consonance with the Magisterium. So we see that consonance again here:

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Chicago
Friday, 5 October 1979
"In the community of the faithful—which must always maintain Catholic unity with the Bishops and the Apostolic See — there are great insights of faith. The Holy Spirit is active in enlightening the minds of the faithful with his truth, and in inflaming their hearts with his love. But **these insights of faith and this sensus fidelium are not independent of the Magisterium of the Church, which is an instrument of the same Holy Spirit and is assisted by him. It is only when the faithful have been nourished by the word of God, faithfully transmitted in its purity and integrity, that their own charisms are fully operative and fruitful. Once the word of God is faithfully proclaimed to the community and is accepted, it brings forth fruits of justice and holiness of life in abundance.

Thus, as faithful Catholics know and understand, **that acceptance **of the proclamation of the Magisterium is what makes the sensus fidelium.

If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

**Universal consent = give an affirmative reply to; respond favourably to: **And thus as Cathoholic in #224 emphasises: “my point is to show there is a Divine ORDER of authority. And it begins with Jesus Christ through St. Peter.”

But the faithful Catholics have known this all along:
Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **"the *universitas fidelium *(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.”**The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #225
But this submission is not the submission of laity to hierarchy, it is the submission of the Whole people of God to the Holy Spirit

The continued fatal error of these dissenters is not assenting to the reality that the only way that any of the People of God know what is the infallible teaching through the Holy Spirit is by listening to and accepting the dogmatic and doctrinal teaching of the Magisterium through the Pope and the papally approved teaching of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Cathoholic]

AmbroseSJ. You stated,

But this submission is not the submission of laity to hierarchy, it is the submission of the Whole people of God to the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely.

The issue is HOW does the Holy Spirit manifest these truths. And all of the faithful Catholics here agree (including you), . . . . it is through the Magisterium.

And the Magisterium IS . . . . the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

Thanks for helping me clear up my addled example.

I just want to re-state my point with a different emphasis (to make it more clear).

The Pope doesn’t need to be submissive to what you are calling the sensus fidei, . . .

And I should have said,

The Pope doesn’t need to be submissive to what some people are calling and re-defining as “the sensus fidei” . . . .

It broke my heart to hear a Catholic try to re-define the “sensus fidei” as a proverbial Gallup Poll of American Catholics (this is actually what I had in mind with the above statements) and broadcast this at a major university.

I am still contemplating the ramifications of those statements that were broadcast publicly and I let them implicitly spill over to my apologetic here.

But I am glad I did let those concerns spill over here (but I am not so glad I didn’t make myself more clear). Why?

Because Catholics need to be on guard when they hear someone talking about the “sensus fidei” because at least in some places, the phrase “sensus fidei” is trying to be hijacked and re-defined.

You also said:

But what you seem to miss is that the Pope and the Bishops are ALSO a part of “the Faithful” when determining the sensus fidei. Lumen Gentium

But I don’t miss that. I am not sure what else I can say to affirm it.

I specifically quoted and highlighted Church documents that say:

. . . sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful”

These “bishops” includes the Bishop of Rome.

I am not saying the Pope (nor am I saying the Bishops) are excluded from “the sense of the faithful” (sensus fidei).

The Pope and the other Bishops ARE part of the sense of the faithful (sensus fidei).

I likewise affirm the sense of the faithful transcends American boundaries, Roman boundaries, and even transcends time (that’s WHY we are in union with St. Peter). I just want to pre-empt this, in case someone tries to say I don’t affirm that either.

Also some people want to accuse Catholics of implying Popes can CHANGE or trump defined doctrine.

All that I am trying to do on that issue, is point out that this assertion false. This assertion is attacking a straw man. Catholics have never taught such a thing.

That’s precisely WHY I quoted Dei Verbum in post 221 as saying . . . .

This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously

So when the Magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops in union with him) teach us something, and someone else objects and says, “Well that goes against the sensus fidei”, I am saying they have no authority to even assert such a thing. I am saying by definition, the dissenters are wrong.

I am NOT saying: “Well that’s OK. The Church can change doctrine. The Pope trumps defined doctrinal matters. The Pope trumps the sensus fidei.” No!

But the Pope is Divinely protected from officially transgressing these doctrinal matters and thus will not do this.

It sounded to me like Mardukum was trying to say, “High Petrine” Catholics (or whatever term he used) think the Pope can trump defined doctrinal matters. The Pope trumps the sensus fidei”.

It sounded like Mardukum was trying paint Catholics this way (I provided the quotes).

And I am saying, Catholics don’t think this way. I have never heard a Catholic say this . . . . ever.

And I am not accusing Mardukum of asserting this, but I am saying . . . . IF this is what Mardukm is trying to assert Catholics say, . . . . it is a straw man that Mardukm is painting and trouncing. But it is not Catholicism.

Mardukum. You are around here. Is THAT what you are trying to say Catholics think or is it not?

Again many thanks for the admonition AmbroseSJ. I hope I have adequately clarified myself.

I deny NO Catholic doctrine (at least that I am aware of).

I DO scramble my explanations at times, and with the help of you and others, I will hopefully be more articulate in communicating in the future.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Cathoholic:

It sounded to me like Mardukum was trying to say, “High Petrine” Catholics (or whatever term he used) think the Pope can trump defined doctrinal matters. The Pope trumps the sensus fidei”.

Lol, actually he was saying the exact opposite!

Anyway, I thank you for your kind explanation. I knew from your language that you were not REALLY saying what it SEEMED to the casual reader you might be saying.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The continued fatal error of these dissenters is not assenting to the reality that the only way that any of the People of God know what is the infallible teaching through the Holy Spirit is by listening to and accepting the dogmatic and doctrinal teaching of the Magisterium through the Pope and the papally approved teaching of the Ecumenical Councils.

Abu, it is as if you are TRYING to misunderstand me.

I said exactly what you are saying just one sentence earlier!

 

[Cathoholic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathoholic

It sounded to me like Mardukum was trying to say, “High Petrine” Catholics (or whatever term he used) think the Pope can trump defined doctrinal matters. The Pope trumps the sensus fidei”.

Originally Posted by AmbroseSJ

Lol, actually he was saying the exact opposite!

Fair enough. You may be right AmbroseSJ on what Mardukm is trying to say. I’ll just ask.

Mardukm. WHO are you addressing when you say (bold ul mine):

Mardukm:

The Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei. . . . . 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.

WHO are you correcting here?

Nobody (why bring it up)?
Somebody (who)?

 

[Abu]

mardukm #177
The authority of Peter that is passed on to the Pope can only be exercised in communion with the College of bishops.

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.”

Present to us evidence from a MAGISTERIAL source (not popular apologetics or singular theologians) which supports your claim - that Peter was infallible ALONE separated from the Apostles, or the Pope is infallible ALONE separated from the Church or his brother bishops,)

The evidence is from Vatican II, as above, as it is in Vatican I – the Pope needs no other approval, since the Holy Spirit assists him.

The continued confusion here is evident to all faithful Catholics, but it seems not to mardukm and AmbroseSJ. They are unable to express clearly what the Church actually teaches on infallibility because they have this hangup as expressed by mardukm #35 from the thread Papal infallibility simplified and explained: ‘when the High Petrine intentions of V1 as evinced by the Relatio was exposed to the public, there grew a general awareness that this “uncontested control” was not what V1 had in mind when it promulgated Pastor Aeternus.’

Such a phobia needs to be overcome, the “awareness” of mardukm is that of darkness.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc, to get back to what you said:

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.

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.

Jonathan,
First, you are correct in saying that just because the Orthodox bishops reject a papal claim doesn’t mean the Orthodox are correct. However, the point I have made is that the same promises of “binding and loosing” made to Peter were also made to the other Apostles. What you want to do is to say, “Well they only have that authority when in communion with Peter.” But where does it say that? Nowhere. You are reading that into the passage.

Secondly, on the point about the “Donation of Constantine,” you are correct and I was incorrect that it was “the whole world.” The Donation allegedly gave power to the Pope to rule over every other church in the whole world AS WELL as all of the Western Empire, not just the “Papal states” of Italy and the various estates around the world. In fact, the “Donation of Constantine” was used to justify the British invasion and capture of Ireland, as Michael Whelton explains in Popes and Patriarchs. Wikipedia also makes this clear:

The proximity of Ireland to England as well as the Holy See’s ongoing dispute with the Irish Church over Papal Supremacy, provided the impetus of conquest to the Papacy who had suggested the idea of invasion to both William the Conqueror and Henry I. Richard Lingard said that to justify the invasion of a “free and unoffending” people by Henry II, the Papacy “discovered” that the civilisation of the people and reform of their clergy were needed and for the benefits of this civilisation, and the Irish would cheerfully purchase with the loss of their independence. Furthermore,** the Holy See claimed, under the Donation of Constantine, that every Christian island as the property of the Papacy and foresaw that any Papal Bull issued to the English crown authorising invasion of Ireland would cement the Pope’s authority over the British Isles**.

So while you are right that the “whole world” wasn’t given to the Pope, the whole known Western world was, which was what I was referring to in my post.

Read on the Papal Bull of Laudabiliter for more. You can also read a little background on the Donation of Constantine from the Encyclopedia Britannica here: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133843/Donation-of-Constantine

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Yes, I understand this. I was referring to official teachings…like the perpetual virginity of Mary, the filloque, etc.

 

[jinc1019]

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

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.

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. 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), the majority of the Early Church did not hold this view. IN FACT, even Augustine himself, later in life, claimed that the “Rock” was NOT Peter, but was Jesus and the Gospel.

 

[jinc1019]

Mardukm. You said:

Nobody is asserting that Mardukm.

Nobody is saying:

No. Nobody is asserting that.

But there are differences in the order of authority between the Pope and Catholic laity (or for that matter, the Pope and the Bishops).

And the Pope if acting in his official capacity, is the one on whom God-given protection in this area rests.

When obstinate differences occur, the Pope is the one who receives Divine protection by virtue of his office.

If the these people usurp their proper role, they are really the “sensus un-fidelium” (un-faithful) and not part of the sensus fidei anymore.

The question also isn’t if the Pope has the authority to contradict the authentic “Word of God” (such as reflected in the sensus fidei) Mardukm. He doesn’t.

The issue is WHO in their official capacity has the authority to define what the official word of God is and isn’t.

The Pope is protected against errors in this area.

You and I as individuals are not (unless we remain united to the Pope).

The people if they stray from the word of God (and thus do not remain united to the Pope) are not protected (and are thus no longer part of the sensus fidei).

The Bishops if they do not remain in union with St. Peter (and his successors), are not protected against error.

The Pope also has no “authority” to contradict Himself either when he (or his predecessors) have given definitive clarification of faith and morals (and will be protected from doing so).

The Pope is protected from doing this (officially teaching erroneously).

VATICAN II (From Dei Verbum Section 10) But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on [8], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [9], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

The Pope is protected from officially teaching against the authentic Word of God passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.

We (apart from the Magisterium) do not enjoy this protection, so we stay close to St. Peter.

So if St. Peter says, “I am going fishing”, we reply, “We will go with you”. If he says “I am going fishing for men” we say “We will go with you” as well.

The issue is: What is the proper order of authority?

What is the proper order of authority for the teachings to continue in their integrity?

And the answer is, the “body of bishops” and the “faithful” must remain united with the Roman Pontiff.

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium sec. 22) The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Mardukm. Do you affirm that the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God is entrusted exclusively to the teaching office of the Church?

Do you affirm the teaching office of the Church is the Magisterium?

Do you affirm that the Magisterium is THE POPE, and the Bishops IN UNION with him?

WHO comprises the sensus fidei Mardukm?

The answer is those guided AND obedient to the Magisterium.

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 . . . .

This is the part that takes humility Mardukm. Obedience.

You also said:

Absolutely. I affirm this. I already gave reference to it in Lumen Gentium 12.

So I am not sure why you even brought that point up (?).

**VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, from section 12) **The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing . . . . 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.

The real issue is, what is the proper ORDER of authority?

And you seem to be saying (that’s why I asked you in the form of a question before), that the Pope has to check with the people before clarifying apostolic doctrine.

And I am saying, IF THAT is what you are asserting, you are not affirming Catholic teaching.

VATICAN II . . . People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it

Obedience to the Magisterium Mardukm.

Obedience to the Pope, and the Bishops in union with him is where we will find the protection we need on earth.

Please explain to me WHERE in scripture you find a promise of infallibility that is not also granted to the Church as a whole or at least the other Apostles. If you can’t find that, what makes you think Jesus taught it? How can Jesus promise the Apostles the protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church the protection of the Holy Spirit, AND the protection of the Holy Spirit to ONE OFFICE that can act completely separate from the others? How is this possible?

 

[jinc1019]

Cathoholic: I respect and admire most everything you post, until this last one that is.

First, you are misunderstanding mardukm

Second, you are falling into a common error I see here on CAF.

You are conflating “The Faithful” with the “Listening Church” (generally the lay faithful)

Read your documents again but keep in mind that the Faithful according to Lumen Gentium is*** the whole people of God from the bishops to the last layman. *** ALL OF THEM, INCLUDING THE BISHOPS (WHICH INCLUDES THE POPE) must be faithful and obedient to the Magisterium, which is the Teaching Church and includes Sacred Tradition. No individual bishop (or Pope) is exempt. They must also listen just like the Listening Church. That is where we find the Sensus Fidelium. (Always guided by the Holy Spirit of course.) That is the basis for the infallibility of the Faithful, and therefore THE CHURCH. That is why mardukm said that no Pope can contradict the Sensus Fidelium. If he (the Pope) did, that would mean he was DISOBEDIENT or UNFAITHFUL to the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

Since this is a thread about Papal Authority, and not Papal infallibility, better keep things like the Sensus Fidelium and infallibility out of it. We’ve already got enough threads on Infallibility!

While I tend to lean on the side of you and Mardukm on this one, I have to admit that the serious flaw I see in it is that…If everything you are saying is true, then how is it possible that events like the Great Schism occur, where a huge percentage of the Church’s validly ordained bishops break away from any communion with Rome’s bishop over, in part, doctrinal issues?

 

[jinc1019]

It is most gratifying to see the recent great contributions from Cathoholic #215, #221, #224, jonathan_hili #216, MrSnaith #217, in consonance with the Magisterium. So we see that consonance again here:

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Chicago
Friday, 5 October 1979
"In the community of the faithful—which must always maintain Catholic unity with the Bishops and the Apostolic See — there are great insights of faith. The Holy Spirit is active in enlightening the minds of the faithful with his truth, and in inflaming their hearts with his love. But **these insights of faith and this *sensus fidelium ***are not independent of the Magisterium of the Church, which is an instrument of the same Holy Spirit and is assisted by him. It is only when the faithful have been nourished by the word of God, faithfully transmitted in its purity and integrity, that their own charisms are fully operative and fruitful. Once the word of God is faithfully proclaimed to the community and is accepted, it brings forth fruits of justice and holiness of life in abundance.

Thus, as faithful Catholics know and understand, **that acceptance **of the proclamation of the Magisterium is what makes the sensus fidelium.

If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

**Universal consent = give an affirmative reply to; respond favourably to: **And thus as Cathoholic in #224 emphasises: “my point is to show there is a Divine ORDER of authority. And it begins with Jesus Christ through St. Peter.”

But the faithful Catholics have known this all along:
Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **"the *universitas fidelium ***(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.”The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]

Your entire argument is circular and completely unconvincing. You are saying that in order to be considered apart of the “faithful,” you must be in communion with all of the Pope’s teachings. Then you argue that we know that the Pope’s teachings are true because it is part of the teachings always held by the Church. But when validly ordained bishops who can trace their succession back to the Apostles themselves say you are wrong, you argue that they are not part of the “faithful” because they are not in communion with Peter. But how do you know this? Because Peter’s successor and the bishops who agree with him told you. How do you know they are right? Because the Pope is infallible. How do you know the Pope is infallible? Because the Pope and the bishops who agree with him said so.

There is nothing convincing about that line of reasoning at all, even if it is true.

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. You said:

Please explain to me WHERE in scripture you find a promise of infallibility that is not also granted to the Church as a whole or at least the other Apostles.

OK. But so far I have not been trying to show you “in Scripture” where “the Church” was granted this (I have had side discussions here about it though with others).

WHY?

Because you asked to see this from common sense (“Logical case”), not necessarily from Sacred Scripture (at least as to how it related to the Church).

The Catholic model for the order of authority is Biblical.

You might say, “it is not the Catholic Church that fits this model”.

And I am saying, I am not trying to get you to think it IS the Catholic Church (yet).

But if you cannot see the model, an appeal on behalf of the Catholic Church is irrelevant.

You said:

If you can’t find that, what makes you think Jesus taught it?

But I can find it just fine. But so far, that has really not been the focus of my answers.

You said in the very first post:

What I would really love is a strong, logical, reasonable case for the authority of the Pope.

I asked you to solve a potential schism and plugged in the various models.

Protestantism(s) doesn’t work. jinc1019.
Eastern Orthodoxy(ies) doesn’t work. jinc1019.

You might say, “Well Catholicism doesn’t work.either!”

If you want to think that, I cannot change that.

But then you still need to find WHO on earth has this tremendous magnitude of authority to prevent Schism (if they follow the model set up because it eventually includes submission and it is backed with a promise from Jesus Christ Himself).

But even if you reject the Catholic Church you will still be left with the Biblical model.

Then you will still need to find WHO on earth has this tremendous magnitude of authority.

You will need to find WHO can say: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.”

You might object and say, “Well Cathoholic, you have already told me it (“Whatever you bind on earth . . .”) doesn’t concern “whatever” in the sense of “anything like math, geography, etc.”

To that I would say, I can assert that with impunity, because the Church TELLS me the “whatever” doesn’t have to do with math, geography, or whatever.

But the “whatever” DOES have to do with faith and morals.

So you are still left with SOME SENSE of somebody who DOES HAVE the God-given magnitude of authority to definitively settle an issue.

And in Protestantism you cannot settle it definitively in such a way.
And in “Orthodoxy” (Othodoxies) you cannot settle it definitively either.

Protestantism and various Eastern Orthodoxies are “exhibit A” for what I am putting forth here.

You might say: “Well if a Catholic Bishop doesn’t submit to the Pope . . . .”

But as soon as you get that far into your statement, they are taking themselves OUT of the UNION with St. Peter. As you get that far into your statement, they are basically declaring themselves as “schismatic” (assuming obstinacy).

That’s WHY it all boils down to ONE person finally having authority to settle it.

ALL the Bishops in a sense are given the Keys, but in another sense to only ONE Bishop (St. Peter), were the Keys entrusted. And I suspect that is precisely WHY the Bible only shows the Keys being given to ONE . . . . St. Peter.

That’s WHY Pope St. Leo back in the 400’s A.D. can matter-of-factly say something like . .

POPE ST. LEO “Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that He (Jesus) has given to others what He has not refused to bestow on them.” . . . . Blessed Peter is therefore told: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven. Whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. The authority vested in this power passed also to the other apostles, and the institution established by this decree has been continued in all the leaders of the Church. But it is not without good reason
that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one.

The Keys

• Bestowed on all (the Apostles)
• Entrusted to one (St. Peter)

You said:

How can Jesus promise the Apostles the protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church the protection of the Holy Spirit, AND the protection of the Holy Spirit to ONE OFFICE that can act completely separate from the others?

They will be cohesive Because of Jesus’ Divine protection and promise.

Regarding your comment to see Whelton in post 235:

see Michael Whelton’s Popes and Patriarchs

I would actually suggest you see:

**MICHAEL WHELTON VS. THE PETRINE PRIMACY :
HIS BOOK A “MAZE OF CONTRADICTIONS”

By James Likoudis. **

You can get it here or you can at least listen to Mr. Likoudis for free here.

As Mr. Likoudis aptly sums up the issue on the very first page of his rebuttal . . . .

There is no visible unity among their patriarchs and bishops because there is no visible center of unity.

Bold and italics original.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #235
I honestly don’t care about that at all. Why? Because what really matters is what the Early Church believed about the keys,
IN FACT, even Augustine himself, later in life, claimed that the “Rock” was NOT Peter, but was Jesus and the Gospel.

False.

The real St Augustine:
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51
americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/augustinecatholic.htm

See former Protestant Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy:
‘I recommend a three- volume work written by a Professor Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, and it goes through all the Fathers and the many, many things they said to show that they recognize this authority in the Pope. Augustine, for instance, “Even if some traitor crept into this order of Bishops which is drawn from Peter, himself, up to Anastasius who now occupies the same See, he would not prejudice the Church.” He speaks of the cathedre Petri.

‘When you look at St. Augustine, a great saint and Father that the Protestants revere, Augustine had more things to say about the Popes as successors to Peter with all of his plenary authority than almost anybody else in the first seven centuries of the Church. It’s astonishing. Augustine said, “Who is ignorant that the chief Apostolate is to be preferred to any Episcopate?” Of the dignity of Peter he says, "in whom the primacy of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace." ’
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Christ’s words are “I will build My Church” - and then He did just that – built His Church on Peter who He renamed “rock”. World shattering.

The Bible you use came from Her, you and I would know nothing unless Her members had not written some of what Jesus taught. It is not complete as John tells us.

Peter is the Rock on which Jesus built His Church.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way:”[Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.“ Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].