Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[mardukm]

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

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

WRONG. CCC#88 explicitly distinguishes between “defined dogmas” and “truths proposed in a definitive way.”

The “papal” infallibility defined by V1 only refers to the “defined dogmas.” “Defined dogmas” are the dogmas defined by the EXTRAordinary Magisterium - i.e., an Ecumenical Council or the Pope through an ex cathedra decree as defined by V1.

“Truths proposed in a definitive way” are acts of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium, which is just as authoritative, and just as infallible, and thus also requires the assent of Faith. Humanae Vitae and such fall in this category. When the Pope affirms Church teaching in this way, it is not an act of formal “papal” infallibility as defined by V1, but rather an act of formal COLLEGIAL infallibility of the whole College, the Pope speaking for the College as its head.

You seem to be deliberately conflating the two concepts in order to support the sola papa error.

 

[mardukm]

Does it come any stranger than this:

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

Brother, you had me ROLLING!

Since Abu is evidently a Trekkie, and being a fellow Trekkie, I’ll take it easy on him.

 

[jinc1019]

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

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

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

That is why it is impossible.
The Pope is the Magisterium, as is the Pope and the bishops under the Pope.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
MAGISTERIUM. The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
There are none, and never can be, as shown above.

You didn’t “prove” anything…You just made assertions.

 

[jinc1019]

Tertullian

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, I do agree one man’s See is greater than all others…But “greater” doesn’t necessarily mean the authority to lord over everyone else. It’s all about offices and authority. A United States Senator is “greater” than a United States Representative in the House. Does that give the senator the authority to force the rep to do anything he or she wants? No. There are rules in place, guidelines, and limits to the authority of an office. You yourself MUST agree the Pope’s authority is limited because the Church is very clear that the Pope can only have authority over “faith and morals.” You already admit then that the Pope’s authority is not absolute. The issue is what kind of authority does the Pope have. More power/status/authority/position,etc. DOES NOT EQUAL absolute power/status/authority, etc.

In regards to your quotes, and I can’t stress this enough, the history on this matter is absolutely no in favor of the absolutist position. You clearly have no verified or vetted any of your own sources. If you had, you would know that St. Cyprian was ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to supreme papal authority. Even a cursory look at his writings would show that he believed all bishops shared in the “keys” and the Petrine ministry. Further, and this is important as well, there is nothing in any of the 7 ecumenical councils which suggest supreme papal authority. None of them were called by a pope, and at least one was only confirmed YEARS after it had been completed. There is a great deal of other historical evidence as well to support the claim that the Pope did NOT have the supreme authority you claim. I recommend Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs.” The evidence from the Early Church in that book is exceptional (I don’t agree with all of his conclusions by the way).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jinc1019:

There is a great deal of other historical evidence as well to support the claim that the Pope did NOT have the supreme authority you claim.

Just to be clear, everyone (even Abu) has noted that the Pope does not have absolute power in the Church. But supreme authority is another matter. I don’t remember what steve b claimed about the Pope’s supreme authority.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019

Regarding my post 273, you said:

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

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

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

I am not sure specifically what you are referencing…I do think I addressed your question in my previous post on the issue.

 

[Abu]

mardukm #299
The “papal” infallibility defined by V1 only refers to the “defined dogmas.” “Defined dogmas” are the dogmas defined by the EXTRAordinary Magisterium - i.e., an Ecumenical Council or the Pope through an ex cathedra decree as defined by V1.

The snide falsifications, without any proof, are endless.

He has absolutely no answer to the truth that the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility expressly affirmed that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) which covers both dogmas and the secondary related truths. Pastor Aeternus mandates the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be held (tenendum), not only what must be believed (credendam).

**Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4. **
“….we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he **defines a doctrine **concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

So far, he has been quite unable to assent to these truths mandated by Bl John Paul II in Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, that the category 2 truths (doctrines) are to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2).

Thus real Catholics can feast on the studied realities present in the acknowledgement of the truths of Vatican I, and the truths in Bl John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, both obviously beyond the capabilities of those unable to see the wood for the trees.
See:
vatican.edu/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

The obvious intent of mardukm is to express a studied refusal to assent to the clear teaching of the Church and to substitute a false interpretation which he is never able to support by any dogma nor doctrine, nor Magisterial confirmation of the doctrine such as in the Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem.

 

[mardukm]

HERE IT IS FOLKS! AN OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN 1’S DECREE ON THE PRIMACY FROM THE CDF (forget Abu’s citation of non-Magisterial opinions from singular theologians):

This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.
The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

THIS IS ALL CONTRARY TO ABU’S ABSOLUTIST PETRINE SOLA PAPA ERRORS.

I pray that all who read this thread, especially non-Catholics, will finally be convinced of the distinction between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view, and that the High Petrine view is indeed the constant and official teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

So far, he has been quite unable to assent to these truths mandated by Bl John Paul II in Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998, that the category 2 truths (doctrines) are to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2).

You must have missed the part where I stated that the infallible teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium must be adhered to with assent of Faith.

Seriously, Abu, your cut-and-paste out of context citations of everything really is the problem.

Praying for you.

Blessings.

 

[steve_b]

You already admit then that the Pope’s authority is not absolute. The issue is what kind of authority does the Pope have. More power/status/authority/position,etc. DOES NOT EQUAL absolute power/status/authority, etc.

Once the pope issues an infallible statement, that statement becomes irreformable. Subject to no other appeal or authority. Not my words but the Church’s. (look at post 105 which you agree to). What makes the statement infallible? it’s due to Jesus promise to Peter, that the HS assisting the pope like He promised Peter, it’s not the pope as an individual making the statement, but as Jesus promised to Peter as the teacher of the entire Church helped by the HS. In THAT case the statement is irreformable. (see #105)
j:

In regards to your quotes, and I can’t stress this enough, the history on this matter is absolutely no in favor of the absolutist position.

In addition to what I already said in response to your post here #284

I would just add that while you refer to Michael Whelton, who is an Orthodox writer, all the ECF’s I posted in my response to you, (by your request) are all before there is such a thing as Eastern Orthodoxy. The span of time those ECF’s that I quoted for you spans, is the first 500 years. Since it is your point that you raise, please find for me in that same 1st 500 year period of time, where “Orthodox Church” appears in writing and quote it for me properly referenced… If you can’t do that for me don’t bring it up again.

To further make my point, In the 4th century, both Nicean councils in the 300’s made the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” an article of faith. There WAS no “Orthodox Church” then. That should narrow down your search.

As for absolutist,

There is no such view in the Catholic Church for a petrine view nor the definition.

The Church is 2000 years old. Either name the actual example properly referenced that you want to present, or stop the silly what-ifs.
j:

You clearly have no verified or vetted any of your own sources. If you had, you would know that St. Cyprian was ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to supreme papal authority.

Cyprian never went against the following.

"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access*."***Epistle 54 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm

Cyprian got wrapped around the axle with Pope Stephen over rebaptism of heretics, and pope Stephens position prevailed. We’ve already been over this.
j:

Further, and this is important as well, there is nothing in any of the 7 ecumenical councils which suggest supreme papal authority. None of them were called by a pope, and at least one was only confirmed YEARS after it had been completed. There is a great deal of other historical evidence as well to support the claim that the Pope did NOT have the supreme authority you claim. I recommend Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs.” The evidence from the Early Church in that book is exceptional (I don’t agree with all of his conclusions by the way).

I answer each question of yours and it’s always something else. Reminds me of a situation that Irenaeus had with the gnostics

Bk 3 Chapter 2 vs 2-3

1. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
2. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

 

[Abu]

mardukm cannot even understand what he quotes for in answer to the Holy Father’s invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996.

But this how he mangles it in his #306, which conclusively unmasks his confusion:

“This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.”

The real significance, which he cannot appreciate, but which other viewers may, is now revealed:

“Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.”+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect

• Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
  Note

1. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

 

[mardukm]

“This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.”

The real significance, which he cannot appreciate, but which other viewers may, is now revealed:

Wrong again. The real significance is the fact that the official interpretation states “THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER…” This is to combat the errors spread by Absolutist Petrine advocates like Abu that it is the Pope ALONE. To people like Abu, they want to completely excise this mitigating factor as if it did not exist. Their misrepresentation of Catholic teaching directly opposes the unifying purpose of the papacy (since their aberrations powerfully contributes to the reasons that non-Catholics refuse to join the Catholic Church - our non-Catholic OP will easily testify to that) and, far from supporting it, actually undermines the very purpose for which it was instituted by Christ.

Also, he completely misses the point that “the episcopal body and the sensus fidei,” though not “juridical factors,” NECESSARILY informs the decisions of the Pope, and the Pope’s decisions cannot exist apart from it. That’s just the way the Church works and that’s the way Christ wanted it to work.

Here is what else the CDF had to say in the same document:
The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church’s obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church’s divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.

This is exactly what High Petrine advocates have been saying all along, but it is something that Abu has consistently and explicitly denied. Abu and his cohorts in the SSPX believe that the only limit on the Pope is divine law. High Petrine advocates, in opposition to this aberration and in adherence to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, believe that the Pope is also limited by the divine constitution of the Church - collegiality.

This is nothing new. Already, immediately after Vatican 1, the Swiss conference of bishops issued a pastoral to their flock:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society."

To this, Pope Pius IX himself replied: "…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral."

Abu and those like him have never responded to this on the numerous times I have quoted it (and he will not do so now) over the years. The fact is, they can’t, because it demolishes their sola papa aberrations.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Jinc,

I’m sure you have already noticed the strange mindset of Absolutist Petrine advocates. They say that the Pope does not have absolute power, but whenever anyone else but them says it, they will immediately challenge it.

So do not rest easy just because they make the claim to agree that the Pope “does not have absolute power.” In fact, Absolutist Petrine advocates mean something different from how the rest of the world would understand that statement. Absolutist Petrine advocates make the claim only in relation to God. They will say things like “of course the Pope does not have absolute power, because only God has absolute power.” In truth, in relation to the rest of the world, Absolutist Petrine advocates do indeed believe that the Pope has absolute power. This is, however, not the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church.

Continue to combat the errors of the Absolutist Petrine advocates. You will have many Catholics on your side - not to mention the ecclesiastical Magisterium. Of course, there still seems to be one or two things about the papacy that is preventing you from becoming Catholic. I suppose only prayer can help at that point.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

The pretenders have been wrong for years and they are adamant in not assenting to the teaching of the Church. They try to tie the Pope to their petty view rather than to the plain teaching of the Magsiterium.

Thus:
The Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the first Vatican Council, teaches that Christ made Peter “a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of the faith and of communion”(21); and the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has declared: “The teaching office of the bishops is for the believer the sign and channel which enable him to receive and recognize the Word of God.”(22) Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent.(23)
Notes:
21. Vatican Council II: Ibid., 18; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 124ff. Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor aeternus, Prologue; Conciliorum Ecumenicorum Decreta 3, ed. Institute per la Scienze Religiose di Bologna. Herder, 1973, p.8. (DS 3051).
22. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Quinque iam anni, AAS 63 (1971), p. 100.
23. Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, 6, AAS 40 (1907), p.471 (DS 3406). Cf. Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Consitution, Pastor aeternus, ch. 4

mardukm has fallen into the trap, as I have seen often on this, by misrepresenting Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium #12 by failing to realise that “the whole body of the faithful….cannot err in matters of belief” ONLY WHEN as “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. 1Th. 2:13)",….

This is precisely what the good Fr. John A Hardon, S.J., made clear:
“Not only are some equating the possession of the truth with the right to decide what is truth, but they are obscuring the role of the papacy in the exercise of the Church’s teaching authority.” [Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Teaching Church In Our Time, 1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 114].

Or as Msgr George A Kelly explains: “The sensus fidei of the Catholic Church calls for Catholics to be trained “to think with the mind of the Church…” (Battle for the American Church (Revisited), Ignatius, 1995, p 33).

The faithful Msgr Eugene Kevane reinforces this truth in his work Creed and Catechetics, Christian Classics, 1978, p 83, in quoting from theologian Candido Pozo, S.J.: “The acceptance of this profession of faith by the People of God,” concludes Pozo, “confers on it [the People of God] a consequent infallibility.” And he points out that a doctrinal definition ex cathedra possesses “antecedent infallibility,” rooted in the very act of its definition, prior to any acceptance. “This infallibility of which we speak now is consequent upon the acceptance.”

The silly pretension of the pretenders of “an ACTIVE infallibility to the faithful, as Newman taught” well describes the morass into which they have sunk.

 

[mardukm]

Thus:
The Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the first Vatican Council, teaches that Christ made Peter “a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of the faith and of communion”(21); and the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has declared: “The teaching office of the bishops is for the believer the sign and channel which enable him to receive and recognize the Word of God.”(22) Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent.(23)

And how in the world to you pretend that this quote actually supports your position – you (and others of your Absolutist Petrine mindset) who have inserted the word “ALONE” in almost everything you have stated where you mention “the Pope” at the same time. This quote you give plainly states that the “contemplation, life and study of the faithful” (a term which, again - you seem to keep forgetting - INCLUDES the bishops (including the Pope) naturally forms PART OF the teaching of the Sacred Magisterium, In opposition to this, you have consistently promoted the sola papa error.

As brother Jon S had once incisively stated, all you seem to be able to manage is to provide support for the position you are opposing. Give it up. You will not find any support for the Absolutist Petrine aberration from the Magisterial documents of the Church. You no doubt will find it form your favorite singular theologians, but not from the ecclesiastical Magisterium.

 

[jinc1019]

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

I am sorry but you are totally wrong on this point. The Catholic Church has held on numerous occasions that the separation of church and state FOR ANY COUNTRY is wrong and that anyone who believes it will be anathematized. See the Syllabus of Errors in 1864 if you don’t believe me. Further, your argument that this must somehow be related to the Vatican being its own country is also totally false SINCE the Vatican became its own country in the 20th century, around 70 years AFTER the Syllabus of Errors was written by Pope Pius.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019. You said in post 277:

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

But then this . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

But because God PROTECTS St. Peter from error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You will argue:

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

I agree.

Someone else will undoubtedly argue:

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

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

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

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

We faithful: “We will go with you”.

Again, I can’t stress this enough…evidence of Peter’s primacy really is meaningless. We all know and accept that. None of your examples have anything to do with infallibility…but even if they did, any promise relating to infallibility to Peter was also given to the other Apostles, which is why Christ said, “When 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I am there with them.” How can he be if those “2 or 3” are apostles or successors to the apostles who disagree with the teaching of Peter? You have yet to explain why the promises made to the other Apostles are conditional and purely dependent on Peter, when we have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to suggest Jesus said anything like that. All this talk about Keys and authority is meaningless when you are talking about infallibility, but even on the issue of authority, the passages you cite really don’t defend your position either since there is ample evidence from the early church that many early fathers, such as St. Cyprian, believed the keys given to Peter have been vested in ALL BISHOPS.

 

[jinc1019]

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to Marduk’s comments here,
I would like to ask Abu and others to answer the following: When has the Pope EVER said that he can teach something that is not ALREADY part of the Apostolic faith? When? In fact, many Popes have specifically stated that their teachings are BOUND to the Apostolic faith. Further, if they are bound to the Apostolic faith, how could the teachings occur apart from the bishops; don’t they too share in the same faith? Even further, the only way it would thus be possible for the Pope to teach something, according to the Church’s own teachings, that is NOT held by the rest of the Church is if the rest of the Church passes away, leaving only the Pope by his lonesome. This, of course, would mean no Church exists and would DENY THE PROMISES MADE BY JESUS that the “gates of Hades” will not prevail.

Logic actually makes it IMPOSSIBLE that the Pope, according to the Church’s own teachings, could teach something in opposition to the bishops. The only way the Pope could theoretically teach in error is if BOTH the bishops and the Pope were teaching error because this is the ONLY WAY the Pope could argue any given false teaching is of Apostolic origin, and I am certain you would also say that is impossible because you would argue that the Church teaching an error means the “gates of hades” has prevailed.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #301
You didn’t “prove” anything…You just made assertions

False.

Those who call the citations which prove the primacy and infallibility of the Pope from the Gospels mere “assertions” are asserting their ignorance of the reality of those Gospels and of the reality of the evidence for the primacy and infallibility therein.

The Reality
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

It is high time to face the facts of reality and listen to Christ who founded His Church on St Peter – His Supreme Vicar with His authority to teach on faith and morals.

How unfortunate that many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices. (William James).

 

[jinc1019]

Mardukm.

You said:

But that is not the point.

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

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

You also said (bold mine):

How much of a consensus?

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

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

And WHO is the Magisterium?

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

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

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

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

You said:

This is not the argument Mardukm.

NOBODY here is saying:

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

NOBODY has said that here. NOBODY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pope CAN do that.

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

I already talked about the heresy of Gallicanism here.

I don’t disagree with the logic behind your argument (only the conclusions). Unlike the others debating you here, I believe it IS possible for a Pope and bishops together to teach error. I believe it is impossible for the Church to fall completely into error, but that doesn’t mean the Pope is on the right side of the issue.