Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[Abu]

jinc1019 #236
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?

It’s time you pay attention to the reality that the Christ expressly made St Peter His Supreme Vicar and no one else, which necessity is clearly shown by the thousands of different Protestant sects all teaching something different, and having no final authority in the Pope. Anyone with reasoning ability can see the results of denying the infallibility of the papacy instituted so clearly by Christ.

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. The collegial infallibility of the bishops is shown clearly by Christ in their common loyalty to Him and vocation to work, under Peter, as the nucleus of His Church. Their authority derives from their loyalty to Christ through His Pope. “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.” [Vatican II, #21].

The endowment from Christ of the decisions of the Supreme Vicar as final is essential to ensure freedom from doctrinal error. Where is any other sect, or religion, imbued from Christ with immunity from teaching error?

#238
Your entire argument is circular and completely unconvincing.

False.

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.

Why continue to ignore the Christ, the Son of the living God? The fault is yours if you continue to refuse to accept His truth as there is no other. The great St Augustine spoke directly, with no circularity, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” [Augustine, *Sermones, #31, 10; Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, p 217].

What specifically in Christ’s clear mandate do you unilaterally wish to tell Him are false, to be replaced by the god of jinc1019? The claim that Christ means NOTHING by His specific placing of Peter as His Supreme Vicar in His Church is ludicrous and made with no basis of fact whatsoever.

**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).

To Peter alone: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” (Mt 16:18)

 

[Jim_Solouki]

You guys do know that all the popes are burning in Hell, right? Pope John Paul II is there as we speak. Why? I tell you on my blog. I’ll share some of the key points on JPII, Satan’s best friend, here.
*
"Pope John Paul II lived in a life of luxury, in a mansion surrounded by gold. The extravagant trappings of the papacy are the trappings of wealth, and Jesus tells us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a wealthy man to make it into heaven. You don’t see Billy Graham practicing this type of extravagance! Why? Unlike the Pope, Billy Graham is a true Christian.

Pope John Paul II also defended pedophiles in the Catholic Church. He protected men that touched little boys while these boys should have been home playing with their toys and learning about Jesus. Defense of the work of Satan is the same as doing the work of Satan. John Paul II defended the Devil’s work, and therefore, John Paul II was an instrument of Satan."*

I challenge you to embrace the True Christ and reject the papist false church. It is time to take back Christianity for Christ!

I’m Jim Solouki, and I’m a True Christian.
www.creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com

 

[Cathoholic]

Jim Solouki. You said:

You guys do know that all the popes are burning in Hell, right?

A big welcome to Catholic Answers Forums Pope Jim!

I see this is your first post.

I am sure we will have lots to discuss.

God bless

Cathoholic

 

[mardukm]

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:

WHO are you correcting here?

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

The statement “the Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei” is absolutely true on its face and on the whole. Any Catholic who truly understands what the term sensus fidei means will agree.

The ones who consistently challenge that statement are the ones who have a lot of explaining to do. Wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

AmbroseSJ. You stated,
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.

It is THROUGH the Magisterium. It is not through the Pope ALONE. That is the issue.

This is why the Fathers of Vatican 1 deliberately changed the title of the Decree on the Infallibility from “The Infallibility of the Pope” to “the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.”

By next weekend, I will be starting another thread critically assessing Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals regarding the papacy. Abu loves to quote this singular theologian, and it is perhaps the source of a lot of his (and other Catholics’) misunderstanding of the papacy. Hopefully it will help explain and clarify the matter.

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukm. You said,

The statement “the Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidei” . . .

Just my opinion, but I would have worded it this way . . .

**
The Pope (St. Peter and his successors), the Bishops in union with the Pope, and the remainder of the authentic sensus fidei will never be in conflict. This is because of the protection given by Jesus Christ through St. Peter who is commissioned to strengthen the brethren. **

The way it was worded seems divisive to me unless you are actually addressing someone. Mentioning a single sentence with “the Pope” and “no authority” ought to have more context applied in my opinion.

You also said:

The ones who consistently challenge that statement are the ones who have a lot of explaining to do. Wouldn’t you agree?

But WHO is consistently challenging that (other than perhaps the way it is worded, or what the statement omitted)?

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukm. You said:

It is THROUGH the Magisterium. It is not through the Pope ALONE. That is the issue.

What or WHO is the Magisterium Mardukm?

 

[mardukm]

Dear jinc1019,

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

**
The Pope (St. Peter and his successors), the Bishops in union with the Pope, and the remainder of the authentic sensus fidei will never be in conflict. This is because of the protection given by Jesus Christ through St. Peter who is commissioned to strengthen the brethren. **

The way it was worded seems divisive to me unless you are actually addressing someone. Mentioning a single sentence with “the Pope” and “no authority” ought to have more context applied in my opinion.

It would seem to be divisive only to those who don’t have a proper understanding of the Church’s teaching on the sensus fidei. I’m not referring to you, however, since I know you have a proper understanding of it.

But WHO is consistently challenging that (other than perhaps the way it is worded, or what the statement omitted)?

The ones who don’t have a proper understanding of the Church’s teaching on the sensus fidei. The ones who consistently try to separate the head from the body or the body from the head.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Just my opinion, but I would have worded it this way . . .

**
The Pope (St. Peter and his successors), the Bishops in union with the Pope, and the remainder of the authentic sensus fidei will never be in conflict. This is because of the protection given by Jesus Christ through St. Peter who is commissioned to strengthen the brethren. **

Brother, you do NOT have a gift for conciseness.

What or who is the Magisterium

The term “Magisterium” specifically refers to teaching authority, who are bishops of the Church (though the term actually does not refer to the holder of the authority, but the authority itself). Technically, it is the Magisterium universally considered that is infallible.

Blessings

 

[jonathan_hili]

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.

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

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: 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

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

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

The term “Magisterium” specifically refers to teaching authority, who are bishops of the Church (though the term actually does not refer to the holder of the authority, but the authority itself). Technically, it is the Magisterium universally considered that is infallible.

Very good point! I don’t think it can be over-emphasized enough in our discussions here.

The Magisterium is the TEACHING AUTHORITY that is vested in the College of Bishops in Union with the Pope.

The Supreme Magisterium is the Infallilble teaching authority of the Church.

Thus LG 25

The Pope’s;

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence,

The Bishops’;

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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. The collegial infallibility of the bishops is shown clearly by Christ in their common loyalty to Him and vocation to work, under Peter, as the nucleus of His Church. Their authority derives from their loyalty to Christ through His Pope. “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.” [Vatican II, #21].

I think you may be misinterpreting your source.

On the one hand I am gladdened by your actual statement, which is more than a mere quote. But on the other hand I see it as being extremely liable to misinterpretation itself. Exactly what do you mean by “but intrinsically the pinnacle of the process of assimilation and distribution?” I can not make heads or tails of that statement.

Also your conclusion ““The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.” [Vatican II, #21]” I do not find in LG 21 but in LG 22. But, remember, this is referring to the the authentic Magisterium of the bishops, not the authority of individual bishops per se. For we find in LG 27:

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(59*) Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it,(60*) since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

 

[mardukm]

EXCELLENT follow-up comments, brother AmbroseSJ.

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

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

Blessings

 

[spina1953]

Ambrose SJ and Mardukm: I agree with both of you concerning Papal Authority. It seems to me from reading the Gospels that all of the Apostles were together in agreement with Peter as their leader. It also seems to me that the often deferred to Peter and that peter was their spokesperson for the group. What I see in the catholic Church today is that it is or has always been a union, Pope with the Bishops, just as it was with Peter and the Apostles. It also appears to me that all of the Apostles while they may have grumbled at times; it was to Peter that they looked to just as they had looked to Jesus to make clear what they had been taught by Jesus and had learned. IOW’s they worked together in union and not apart from it.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

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

Exactly! As usual, very incisive! And to put it into the language of Vatican II:

LG 25

For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.*** To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, ***on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.

In the small quote above, the Church has described the infallibility of the Pope, the Bishops and the Faithful. :

“the Magisterium UNIVERSALLY considered” = Supreme Magisterium

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrose SJ and Mardukm: I agree with both of you concerning Papal Authority. It seems to me from reading the Gospels that all of the Apostles were together in agreement with Peter as their leader. It also seems to me that the often deferred to Peter and that peter was their spokesperson for the group. What I see in the catholic Church today is that it is or has always been a union, Pope with the Bishops, just as it was with Peter and the Apostles. It also appears to me that all of the Apostles while they may have grumbled at times; it was to Peter that they looked to just as they had looked to Jesus to make clear what they had been taught by Jesus and had learned. IOW’s they worked together in union and not apart from it.

Very well put!

 

[mardukm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings

I think you may be misinterpreting your source.

On the one hand I am gladdened by your actual statement, which is more than a mere quote. But on the other hand I see it as being extremely liable to misinterpretation itself. Exactly what do you mean by “but intrinsically the pinnacle of the process of assimilation and distribution?” I can not make heads or tails of that statement.

Also your conclusion ““The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.” [Vatican II, #21]” I do not find in LG 21 but in LG 22. But, remember, this is referring to the the authentic Magisterium of the bishops, not the authority of individual bishops per se. For we find in LG 27:

 

[mardukm]

Ambrose SJ and Mardukm: I agree with both of you concerning Papal Authority. It seems to me from reading the Gospels that all of the Apostles were together in agreement with Peter as their leader. It also seems to me that the often deferred to Peter and that peter was their spokesperson for the group. What I see in the catholic Church today is that it is or has always been a union, Pope with the Bishops, just as it was with Peter and the Apostles. It also appears to me that all of the Apostles while they may have grumbled at times; it was to Peter that they looked to just as they had looked to Jesus to make clear what they had been taught by Jesus and had learned. IOW’s they worked together in union and not apart from it.

I second that - or “third” it, since brother AmbroseSJ already seconded it earlier )

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is THROUGH the Magisterium. It is not through the Pope ALONE. That is the issue.

Correct!!!

Otherwise, how could the Magisterium bind a Pope in the first place?