Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[jinc1019]

It is Popes John XXIII, and Paul VI; and since when have you the knowledge, scholarship and fidelity to truth to query Fr John A Hardon, S.J.? Why haven’t you cited the declaration and date of the doctrine, smart alec?

Abu,
All I asked for was a reason why I should believe one particular priest’s opinion…That’s it. It’s a fair question. He, on his own, has no authority, so wondering why I should listen to this one opinion is fair. I am not saying he is automatically wrong because his statements aren’t authoritative, I just wanted to know why he is even in this conversation.

 

[jinc1019]

For all of you who proclaim that the Pope has absolute power and authority apart from the rest of the Church (as well as the protection of the Holy Spirit), I ask you this…Did Pope Leo X infallibly teach that it was permissible to burn heretics?

In Papal Bull Exsurge Domine, a letter written to the churches of the world to point out the errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo met every single condition put forward by Vatican I (assuming Vatican I allows the Pope to teach completely apart from the rest of the Church) regarding an infallible ex cathedra decree.

Before listing the errors of Martin Luther, he states quite clearly:

He then says later in the same introduction:

So here you have the Pope:

1. Writing as the head of the Church,
2. Invoking the spirit and office of St. Peter,
3. For edification of the entire Church,
4. With the intention that his command would be taken authoritatively as the successor to Peter,
5. On many issues of faith and morals.

All the qualifications of an ex cathedra infallible decree are met according to the Vatican I standard so many of you are suggesting exists. Yet, one of the ERRORS the Pope laments about is:

So based on your own standard, the Pope infallibly taught that it is an ERROR to teach that the burning of heretics is “against the will of the [Holy] Spirit.”

How many of you are prepared to accept this as official and binding and infallible? If you aren’t, you have a lot of explaining to do since it clearly meets every qualification for infallibility.

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself declares that this Papal Bull was held by successive Popes to be a standard for automatic excommunication…meaning anyone who disagreed with it would be automatically excommunicated from the Church.

I am still waiting for this to be addressed.

 

[fhansen]

Hi Everyone,

I have visited every single denomination, read the Early Church Fathers, and have really taken the time to study scripture carefully. Having done all of that for countless hours, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and orthodox Anglicans are closest the apostolic faith.

However, one huge problem I have had with Catholicism for a long time now is papal authority (I don’t want to discuss papal infallibility). I have been persuaded by the case made by Orthodox and Anglicans that the Pope did not historically EVER have the authority the Church claims today. The history, in my opinion, leans in favor of their claims (but I admit it’s not definitive).

With that said…I am ONLY interested in the truth, and if a reasonable AND logical argument can be made for the Pope, I would definitely be willing to accept the authority of the Holy See.

I have read Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Brant Pitre, etc. on this issue (as well as countless others), and while I am willing to accept that authority was passed down from bishop to bishop, I have yet to see a really definitive reason to believe that the Bishop of Rome should have more authority than the rest.

Matthew 19 very clearly grants the “binding” and “loosing” authority to the other Apostles, and Jesus even says that when two or three are gathered in His name, He is there with them (talking to, at least, the Apostles).

I know Peter was the Bishop of Rome, but he was also the bishop of other historic churches BEFORE being Bishop of Rome…So why does Rome hold the authority the other seats do not?

What I would really love is a strong, logical, reasonable case for the authority of the Pope. Historical arguments are fine, but I have read nearly all of those and I don’t think the history really definitively answers the question.

As always, I am very grateful for your time and help in my spiritual journey.

God Bless,
Justin

In the case of a dispute or controversy regarding doctrine or pratice, whatever it may be-the calendar controvery, for example-who can even speak for all the Orthodox Churches? Who but a single, central, living authority could guarantee doctrinal unity? Who but the Bishop of Rome could call together anything even close to an ecumenical council today?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure how this is relevant.

It’s something I’m trying to understand…

From a High Petrine point of view, it would only make sense if the absolute authority would designate another absolute authority. But if the absolute authority is designated by a body, then the body is inalienable tied to the absolute authority.

I’m trying to balance between High Petrine advocates and Low Petrine. Don’t know if it still makes sense…

 

[jinc1019]

In the case of a dispute or controversy regarding doctrine or pratice, whatever it may be-the calendar controvery, for example-who can even speak for all the Orthodox Churches? Who but a single, central, living authority could guarantee doctrinal unity? Who but the Bishop of Rome could call together anything even close to an ecumenical council today?

To some extent, I don’t totally disagree with you! I believe the Pope has an important role to play. The issue is…does he have absolute authority and infallibility apart from the rest of the Church?

Perhaps you should weigh in on my question regarding Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull, which presents, in my opinion, an extremely difficult scenario for those who believe in absolute Papal authority/infallibility.

 

[jinc1019]

It’s something I’m trying to understand…

From a High Petrine point of view, it would only make sense if the absolute authority would designate another absolute authority. But if the absolute authority is designated by a body, then the body is inalienable tied to the absolute authority.

I’m trying to balance between High Petrine advocates and Low Petrine. Don’t know if it still makes sense…

No it definitely makes sense now that you explain it! Personally, I think it’s curious as well, but it doesn’t definitively prove anything because at the time of succession, the Pope, who is viewed by many here to be an absolute authority, is usually dead. Thus, there really isn’t a true absolute authority at that time.

Even when he is not dead, the office is empty…thus no one has the absolute authority any longer.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No it definitely makes sense now that you explain it! Personally, I think it’s curious as well, but it doesn’t definitively prove anything because at the time of succession, the Pope, who is viewed by many here to be an absolute authority, is usually dead. Thus, there really isn’t a true absolute authority at that time.

Even when he is not dead, the office is empty…thus no one has the absolute authority any longer.

Right!

The Church persists and still holds the keys for the next key holder! The authority always present to designate the Successor of Peter!

 

[MilesVitae]

Those are great quotes (assuming they are accurate)…I would, however, point out that the classical understanding of Petrine authority in the East understood that Peter had been given a unique role and power, but instead believed that all bishops shared the power of Peter’s keys. This is evident in St. Cyprian’s writings, who predates Chrysostom by quite a bit.

I am not saying I necessarily buy that, only that your quotes don’t deny that classic Eastern view of the keys.

Fair enough. I provided the quotations as they seemed relevant to the discussion y’all were having on the election of Matthias and the authority of Peter - take what you can and will from them

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #383
I believe the Pope has an important role to play. The issue is…does he have absolute authority and infallibility apart from the rest of the Church?

His authority is absolute in expressing finality with no implication of possible change in defining dogmas and doctrines. As stated ad infinitum, Popes do not have absolute power such as God possesses. There is no real issue but merely a paper tiger by those tilting at windmills.

Since Christ has given us His Church with His Pope, protected from ever teaching error in dogma or doctrine, and because it was challenged through the errors of Gallicanism among others, this has been explained by an infallible dogma which confirms that:
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.”

There is no ambiguity – those who refuse to acknowledge the fact of this dogma thus confuse themselves and cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

[steve_b]

Steve,
Your response to me about the Papal Bull is proof that you don’t even bother to read the posts. Look at it again please. It has nothing to do with whether Martin Luther deserved to be excommunicated or not. The issue is that the Pope infallibly declared that burning heretics at the stake is permissible. Are you ready to defend that?

1. That’s not an infallible document. The words required for an infallible statement aren’t used. We’ve already been over wording that is used.
2. “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” Remember, those are Luther’s words.
3. One then has to ask, How did God get rid of Sodom and Gomorrah? Genesis 19:24-25 By fire! And everyone in it were burned up… Obviously the will of the spirit is NOT against burning heretics
4. Neither is capital punishment against the will of the Spirit (Exodus 22:18-20 , Deuteronomy 13:5-15 , Deuteronomy 18:20 ) .

j:

Secondly,
No, you never once presented any evidence that refuted my point, which was that the other Apostles were also promised infallibility.

Go back and look again. All you do is deny. That’s not an answer
j:

Further, you never once presented evidence that proved that Peter has the authority you claim today…Yes, we all know he was head of the church, but what does that office allow? You basically are saying “anything.” I disagree. That was my point. And…by the way, this isn’t a NEW argument by me…I have said NUMEROUS times throughout this thread that I accept Peter’s primacy and his position as head of the Church. The issue is related to how much power and authority the head of the Church was given/should now have.

All you do is deny. It’s not an answer.
j:

Once again, I would like you to answer my question about the Papal Bull. Why? Because it proves my point.

Obviously it doesn’t prove your point.
j:

If your assertion is true, which is to say that when a Pope speaks authoritatively, to the Catholic world, on an issue of faith and morals, he is, without any question, speaking infallibly, then how can you explain the problem I presented?

Infallibility is a definitional issue. It requires certain language. We’ve been over this already.
j:

I presented to you a scenario where that clearly occurred…and one of the things Pope Leo X argued was that it’s ok to burn heretics (or, more properly said, he argued it was a grave error worthy of excommunication to argue that it WASN’T right to burn heretics).

Did Pope Leo actually say that or are those your words?
What about this? Genesis 19:24-25 is that against the will of the spirit?
j:

So which is it Steve? Is the Pope’s power and authority and infallibility unlimited apart from the Church?

never said he had unlimited power, you said that.
j:

Or is it ok to burn heretics? That appears to be the only solution since the Papal Bull fulfills every single guideline set forth by Vatican I and Vatican II for speaking infallibly.

here’s your big chance. Where has that encyclical fulfilled the guidelines for speaking infallibly?

 

[thenobes]

I am still waiting for this to be addressed.

For all of you who proclaim that the Pope has absolute power and authority apart from the rest of the Church (as well as the protection of the Holy Spirit), I ask you this…Did Pope Leo X infallibly teach that it was permissible to burn heretics?

He might be saying that in some cases the burning of a heretic is warranted. That is cannot be ruled out altogether. If that is the reasoning, I can assent to it.

peace
steve

 

[jinc1019]

1. That’s not an infallible document. The words required for an infallible statement aren’t used. We’ve already been over wording that is used.
2. “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” Remember, those are Luther’s words.

Ok Steve, Fair enough. I will walk you through it since I think it is an exceptionally important point.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states regarding papal infallibility:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…

Catholic Answers supports this understanding and quotes Vatican I:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

Jimmy Akin quite clearly explains that although the ordinary way infallibility is given by the Pope is through the statement “I define” or the use of the word “define,” the Pope can and does use other language which also triggers this:

While theoretically a pope or a council can engage the Church’s infallibility by using any form of words that adequately communicates the pope or council’s intent to make an infallible definition, in practice there have developed certain standard forms of expression that are understood to communicate this intent.

In the case of a pope, the standard form of expression uses the verb “define,” as in “I declare and define that X.”

So there you have it, a Pope doesn’t have to use the term “define” for a statement to be infallible. Akin repeats this again in another post on infallibility:

Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

Akin goes on to show that infallibility has been used by the Pope, in his view, many times throughout history (not just one or two as some claim).

In Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull, all of the qualifications for an infallible statement are met. He clearly acts:

1. Writing as the head of the Church,
2. Invoking the spirit and office of St. Peter,
3. For edification of the entire Church,
4. With the intention that his command would be taken authoritatively as the successor to Peter,
5. On issues of faith and morals which are also doctrines (at least by his own admission).

In the Papal Bull, it is written:

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

Notice that the terms “decree and declare” are used to state that each of those statements of Luther are “condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”

Further, the Pope writes:

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood.

Peter’s authority is CLEARLY being invoked here. You can’t possibly deny it. It’s in plain language.

Bishop Gasser, who has been mentioned numerous times in this thread already, stated in his OFFICIAL commentary on Vatican I’s definition:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted
because we are not dealing with something new here. “Already thousands and
thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;” where is
the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

The idea that a limited number of infallible decrees have been released, based on your standard for papal infallibility, is totally false. “Thousands and thousands” have been released.

Is Pope Leo X’s Exsurge Domine one of them? Why wouldn’t it be? It meets every single requirement for the test of papal infallibility, including the language requirement (I know “define” isn’t used, but “declare” and “decree” was).

Further, you seem to be defending it anyway…So I am not sure why you are even arguing on this point.

 

[steve_b]

Ok Steve, Fair enough. I will walk you through it since I think it is an exceptionally important point.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states regarding papal infallibility:

Catholic Answers supports this understanding and quotes Vatican I:

Jimmy Akin quite clearly explains that although the ordinary way infallibility is given by the Pope is through the statement “I define” or the use of the word “define,” the Pope can and does use other language which also triggers this:

So there you have it, a Pope doesn’t have to use the term “define” for a statement to be infallible. Akin repeats this again in another post on infallibility:

Akin goes on to show that infallibility has been used by the Pope, in his view, many times throughout history (not just one or two as some claim).

In Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull, all of the qualifications for an infallible statement are met. He clearly acts:

1. Writing as the head of the Church,
2. Invoking the spirit and office of St. Peter,
3. For edification of the entire Church,
4. With the intention that his command would be taken authoritatively as the successor to Peter,
5. On issues of faith and morals which are also doctrines (at least by his own admission).

In the Papal Bull, it is written:

Notice that the terms “decree and declare” are used to state that each of those statements of Luther are “condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”

Further, the Pope writes:

Peter’s authority is CLEARLY being invoked here. You can’t possibly deny it. It’s in plain language.

Bishop Gasser, who has been mentioned numerous times in this thread already, stated in his OFFICIAL commentary on Vatican I’s definition:

The idea that a limited number of infallible decrees have been released, based on your standard for papal infallibility, is totally false. “Thousands and thousands” have been released.

Is Pope Leo X’s Exsurge Domine one of them? Why wouldn’t it be? It meets every single requirement for the test of papal infallibility, including the language requirement (I know “define” isn’t used, but “declare” and “decree” was).

Further, you seem to be defending it anyway…So I am not sure why you are even arguing on this point.

Jimmy clearly says

“The most fundamental way of resolving the alleged dilemma is to examine the question of whether or not *Exsurge Domine *involves an infallible exercise of papal teaching. The answer is that it does not.”

then he goes on to explain why it is not infallible

archive.is/45zFo

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jinc1019:

Bishop Gasser, who has been mentioned numerous times in this thread already, stated in his OFFICIAL commentary on Vatican I’s definition:
Gasser's Relatio:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted
because we are not dealing with something new here. “Already thousands and
thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;” where is
the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
The idea that a limited number of infallible decrees have been released, based on your standard for papal infallibility, is totally false. “Thousands and thousands” have been released.

Jinc, this is a very interesting point. Gasser’s OPINION that infallibility has been exercised “thousands and thousands” of times is open to dispute. John Henry Newman supposed that the Popes had only exercised infallibility “very rarely.” Many Theologians and Newman Scholars would agree with Newman.

There is NO dogmatic list of infallible papal statements, nor can there be. It is open for conjecture.

Another point worth pondering; EVEN WHEN the Pope DOES issue an infallible statement, the understanding or Truth behind the statement may not be so obvious, or close to the surface. Even when the Pope issues a (supposedly) infallible statement, it is up to the Church to further define the statement (if need be) or make clear the actual intent of the statement, as needed. As usual, that is for the Magisterium, vested in the Pope and Bishops to decide.

It’s important to understand that infallibility is a safeguard AGAINST (a negative) teaching error. Whether people erroneously interpret a Pope’s statement, is for the Magisterium to decide. (IOW, the Church) Therefore there is no cause for alarm when the Pope issues an infallible statement. It is a safeguard, not a hammer to oppress the Church.

 

[jinc1019]

Jimmy clearly says

“The most fundamental way of resolving the alleged dilemma is to examine the question of whether or not *Exsurge Domine *involves an infallible exercise of papal teaching. The answer is that it does not.”

then he goes on to explain why it is not infallible

archive.is/45zFo

Hi Steve…Yes I am well aware of Jimmy Akin’s argument. It’s terrible. He first argues that it’s possible the Church meant that burning heretics could be valid…Then he argues that maybe it’s only valid in certain circumstances, thus the prohibition against the ban is only meant to highlight the fact that sometimes, in some “ages,” as Jimmy puts it, burning heretics is ok. What a ridiculous position. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are quite clear regarding how Christians are supposed to “turn the other cheek” and deal with those who won’t listen to the Church…and there is no talk of murder, executions, or the burning of heretics.

His next argument is that the Papal Bull isn’t infallible anyway…so who cares? But his evidence for why it’s not infallible is full of holes. He first argues that the word “define” isn’t used…but he himself, as I have already shown, admits that infallibility occurs without the word “define.” He quotes Bishop Gasser (incredibly) to make that argument when he knows that Gasser, as I have already shown, argued that Popes have made THOUSANDS of infallible decrees…so obviously Gasser wasn’t arguing that infallibility was limited.

His third argument, and his best argument, states that it isn’t clear…and only CLEARLY infallible statements are meant to be infallible. Even though this is his best case, it’s still horrific. Why? Because the language of the Papal Bull IS CLEAR. It meets every single one of the qualifications established by Vatican I.

Steve, why don’t you tell me where the Papal Bull fails to meet one of the standards of Vatican I? You can argue that the word “define” isn’t in there, but we already know that it isn’t necessary…AND nowhere in any dogmatic statement about papal infallibility do we see the requirement of “define” in order for an infallible statement to be made.

FURTHER…

In the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, the Pope and the Catholic bishops agreed that:

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the
holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained;
condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished
and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as
they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the Faithful, so for the
defense of the Faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will
strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the
territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the
Church… If [a ruler] refuses to [comply] let the matter be made known
to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved
from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics,
who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance
and preserve it in the purity of faith… Catholics who have girded
themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy
the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the
Holy Land…

So even if you are right that it is not infallible, are you prepared to argue that the Fourth Lateran Council is not as well? If not, are you prepared to argue that murdering heretics is infallible?

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc, this is a very interesting point. Gasser’s OPINION that infallibility has been exercised “thousands and thousands” of times is open to dispute. John Henry Newman supposed that the Popes had only exercised infallibility “very rarely.” Many Theologians and Newman Scholars would agree with Newman.

There is NO dogmatic list of infallible papal statements, nor can there be. It is open for conjecture.

Another point worth pondering; EVEN WHEN the Pope DOES issue an infallible statement, the understanding or Truth behind the statement may not be so obvious, or close to the surface. Even when the Pope issues a (supposedly) infallible statement, it is up to the Church to further define the statement (if need be) or make clear the actual intent of the statement, as needed. As usual, that is for the Magisterium, vested in the Pope and Bishops to decide.

It’s important to understand that infallibility is a safeguard AGAINST (a negative) teaching error. Whether people erroneously interpret a Pope’s statement, is for the Magisterium to decide. (IOW, the Church) Therefore there is no cause for alarm when the Pope issues an infallible statement. It is a safeguard, not a hammer to oppress the Church.

Ambrose,
You are correct…Gasser’s opinion is just an opinion, although his opinion is quite important in these matters as I am sure you would suggest. I wasn’t trying to argue that papal infallibility gets used all the time…I was simply trying to point out that the Papal Bull cannot be ruled out on those grounds alone (on the grounds that infallibility is rare).

Secondly, I don’t disagree AT ALL with the rest of your comment. I agree that the Magisterium has the responsibility to further define, teach, etc…But Steve and Absolutists like him don’t agree. The Pope’s authority is final, so EVEN IF the statement isn’t infallible, the statement that we should burn heretics is AUTHORITATIVE and must be carried out and assented to by the Church. I am trying to show Steve that the logical ends of his position can be quite messy.

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc, this is a very interesting point. Gasser’s OPINION that infallibility has been exercised “thousands and thousands” of times is open to dispute. John Henry Newman supposed that the Popes had only exercised infallibility “very rarely.” Many Theologians and Newman Scholars would agree with Newman.

There is NO dogmatic list of infallible papal statements, nor can there be. It is open for conjecture.

Another point worth pondering; EVEN WHEN the Pope DOES issue an infallible statement, the understanding or Truth behind the statement may not be so obvious, or close to the surface. Even when the Pope issues a (supposedly) infallible statement, it is up to the Church to further define the statement (if need be) or make clear the actual intent of the statement, as needed. As usual, that is for the Magisterium, vested in the Pope and Bishops to decide.

It’s important to understand that infallibility is a safeguard AGAINST (a negative) teaching error. Whether people erroneously interpret a Pope’s statement, is for the Magisterium to decide. (IOW, the Church) Therefore there is no cause for alarm when the Pope issues an infallible statement. It is a safeguard, not a hammer to oppress the Church.

Further, the purpose of my argument is to show that the laity, the rest of the bishops, and the Church as a whole has a duty to consider, whenever the Pope makes any kind of an official statement:

1. Is it infallible based on the accurate understanding of infallibility?
2. Does the Pope have the authority to make such a claim? (Is it a doctrine of faith and morals? Does it make sense within the context of the historic faith? Does it violate the plain teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, previous infallible statements and agreements?)
3. Does the Church agree or is the Pope acting on his own?

Steve would have us believe that none of this is necessary. If the Pope says it and it relates to faith and morals…It’s authoritative and possibly infallible…In either case, it can’t be ignored or refused.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Further, the purpose of my argument is to show that the laity, the rest of the bishops, and the Church as a whole has a duty to consider, whenever the Pope makes any kind of an official statement:

1. Is it infallible based on the accurate understanding of infallibility?
2. Does the Pope have the authority to make such a claim? (Is it a doctrine of faith and morals? Does it make sense within the context of the historic faith? Does it violate the plain teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, previous infallible statements and agreements?)
3. Does the Church agree or is the Pope acting on his own?

Steve would have us believe that none of this is necessary. If the Pope says it and it relates to faith and morals…It’s authoritative and possibly infallible…In either case, it can’t be ignored or refused.

I have bolded your excellent (and true) point! This would fall under the active infallibility of the Faithful, described by LG-12
" the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life."

In practice, the Pope, like any member of the Faithful, is free to express himself on whatever topic he chooses.

So it is rarely necessary to consider whether he is making an infallible statement. In fact I would go further and say it is immaterial. Being the Pope, his interest is in safeguarding the whole Church. Therefore we are obedient to whatever directive the Pope makes, as it falls within our capacity.

So in practice, it is a much more amicable situation. The Pope is there to watch over the entire flock. The bishops are the shepherds in our daily life. But they can’t speak for the whole universal Church the way the Pope can.

But getting back to your historic arguments, we see them in a completely different light now, and so would the Pope himself. Now the Pope prays publicly with Muslims and Jews. So times have changed and the Church has changed with the times. Not that the Deposit of Faith ever changes, but that the expression and understanding of that deposit does change over time.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Further, the purpose of my argument is to show that the laity, the rest of the bishops, and the Church as a whole has a duty to consider, whenever the Pope makes any kind of an official statement:

1. Is it infallible based on the accurate understanding of infallibility?
2. Does the Pope have the authority to make such a claim? (Is it a doctrine of faith and morals? Does it make sense within the context of the historic faith? Does it violate the plain teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, previous infallible statements and agreements?)
3. Does the Church agree or is the Pope acting on his own?

Steve would have us believe that none of this is necessary. If the Pope says it and it relates to faith and morals…It’s authoritative and possibly infallible…In either case, it can’t be ignored or refused.

Actually Steve might presenting it with a different wording, but when I look at current Canon Law:

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.

Further:

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Meaning that even if the Pope becomes non sui compos (Can. 99 Whoever habitually lacks the use of reason is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos) and is equated with infants.) there is no legal authority to exercise according to current Canon Law.

Here’s a more informative blog post regarding: Are there Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?

 

[steve_b]

He first argues that it’s possible the Church meant that burning heretics could be valid…Then he argues that maybe it’s only valid in certain circumstances, thus the prohibition against the ban is only meant to highlight the fact that sometimes, in some “ages,” as Jimmy puts it, burning heretics is ok.

try being accurate instead of giving your opinions and carecatures.
j:

What a ridiculous position. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are quite clear regarding how Christians are supposed to “turn the other cheek” and deal with those who won’t listen to the Church…

Personally, I always wondered why Peter a fisherman and apostle, carried a sword. What for? And why would Jesus allow him to carry it? Especially considering when Malchus put his hands on Jesus Peter drew his sword immediately and cut off his ear. Now I’m also thinking, what was Peter aiming at? Why just his ear? Either Peter has the precision of a surgeon and only meant to take off his ear, or he’s got a really bad aim because an inch off and he completely misses Malchus, or Malcus ends up with a split personality. Either way, I simpathize with Peter’s motives.
j:

and there is no talk of murder, executions, or the burning of heretics.

You never addressed what I previously posted. Are you putting God on trial now? Genesis 19:24-25 , (Exodus 22:18-20 , Deuteronomy 13:5-15 , Deuteronomy 18:20 ) .
j:

His next argument is that the Papal Bull isn’t infallible anyway…so who cares?
But his evidence for why it’s not infallible is full of holes. He first argues that the word “define” isn’t used…but he himself, as I have already shown, admits that infallibility occurs without the word “define.” He quotes Bishop Gasser (incredibly) to make that argument when he knows that Gasser, as I have already shown, argued that Popes have made THOUSANDS of infallible decrees…so obviously Gasser wasn’t arguing that infallibility was limited.

He gave a cogent answer. Every time a saint is beatified for example, that is an infallible action.

Akin isn’t saying infallibile decrees are rare either. But he addressed Exsurge Domine in particular and showed in detail why it is NOT an infallible document.
j:

His third argument, and his best argument, states that it isn’t clear…and only CLEARLY infallible statements are meant to be infallible. Even though this is his best case, it’s still horrific. Why? Because the language of the Papal Bull IS CLEAR. It meets every single one of the qualifications established by Vatican I.

you are hardly the one to judge on this matter.
j:

Steve, why don’t you tell me where the Papal Bull fails to meet one of the standards of Vatican I? You can argue that the word “define” isn’t in there, but we already know that it isn’t necessary…AND nowhere in any dogmatic statement about papal infallibility do we see the requirement of “define” in order for an infallible statement to be made.

Remember I said this is definitional? Here is the definition from Vat I

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
     2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
     3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
     
     I thought Jimmy Akin gave a cogent explanation why Exsurge Domine was not an infallible document.
     j:
     

     FURTHER…
     
     In the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, the Pope and the Catholic bishops agreed that:
     
     So even if you are right that it is not infallible, are you prepared to argue that the Fourth Lateran Council is not as well? If not, are you prepared to argue that murdering heretics is infallible?

     The text you highlight
     
     I condensed for space
     
     “…Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land…”
     
     What point is it you’re trying to make? Who are Catholics fighting in the holy Land? Why are they fighting?