Papal Infallibility

[Isaiah45_9]

You are pitting all the other members of the Church against one member. Are we talking about majority rule here? Who are these other members of the Church to decide the Pope should be deposed? Where did THEY derive THEIR authority?

Don’t you realize that if there were no authorities within the Church, then no one could say who is teaching properly and make decisions to exclude him (or her)?

And even if there were a group having authority, once again, is majority rule the case here (or was it ever)?

peace
steve

Goodness, what a great set of straw men…

I am not pitting anyone. Canon Law is clear.

• 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.
• 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.
• Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

What do you think Ecumenical Councils are for?

In this instance, your appeal to authority is not only irrelevant but inadequate. The authority is for the Church.

How come we have had, arguably, the biggest schism in the history of the Church (Reformation) with a Pope in place? How useful was/is this authority in a single man’s hands?

Are our Eastern Brothers dismantled, disappeared?

Like I said, it is astounding.

Will it work? Only time will tell, as this present Office has only worked as it is now for about 600 years. We have had some wonderful Popes in the last century. If you look at our history you can only cringe what would have happened if other not so wonderful Popes had the power the present Popes have.

 

[DCNBILL]

Goodness, what a great set of straw men…

I am not pitting anyone. Canon Law is clear.

• 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.
• 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.
• Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

What do you think Ecumenical Councils are for?

In this instance, your appeal to authority is not only irrelevant but inadequate. The authority is for the Church.

How come we have had, arguably, the biggest schism in the history of the Church (Reformation) with a Pope in place? How useful was/is this authority in a single man’s hands?

Are our Eastern Brothers dismantled, disappeared?

Like I said, it is astounding.

Will it work? Only time will tell, as this present Office has only worked as it is now for about 600 years. We have had some wonderful Popes in the last century. If you look at our history you can only cringe what would have happened if other not so wonderful Popes had the power the present Popes have.

You speak as if Jesus, the very incarnation of God become man, went through all that He went through over the three years of ministry gathering a faith community of followers with a clear hierarchy. Then taken by His very creatures was arrested, beaten, nailed to a cross, and killed, rose from the dead and appeared to his faith community giving them the mission to spread the faith, ascended back to heaven and did not leave anyone in charge?

Is God ignorant? Does God not know His creation? Imagine a corporation with no one who has the final say in a matter, even if it means consulting with a group of aids, such as a magisterium, it would be chaos.

It does not take a lot of theology or study of Sacred Scripture to know that somebody has to be in charge. In the case of a Divine Institution that is trying to bring an entire world back to God, well it would seem that person might have to make a stand every now and then that needs to be paid attention to.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You speak as if Jesus, the very incarnation of God become man, went through all that He went through over the three years of ministry gathering a faith community of followers with a clear hierarchy. Then taken by His very creatures was arrested, beaten, nailed to a cross, and killed, rose from the dead and appeared to his faith community giving them the mission to spread the faith, ascended back to heaven and did not leave anyone in charge?

Is God ignorant? Does God not know His creation? Imagine a corporation with no one who has the final say in a matter, even if it means consulting with a group of aids, such as a magisterium, it would be chaos.

It does not take a lot of theology or study of Sacred Scripture to know that somebody has to be in charge. In the case of a Divine Institution that is trying to bring an entire world back to God, well it would seem that person might have to make a stand every now and then that needs to be paid attention to.

Can you please elaborate how your post relates to Canon Law and my post?

It would be as if I asked you:

Is God unable to lead His Church without current Canon as He obviously did for the first 1,400 years of Church history?

Your burden of proof is much higher than mine. History already shows that the Church did operate without current Canon Law for more than 1,400 years.

Why did God “need” current Canon Law?

See what I mean?

 

[DCNBILL]

Isaiah45_9, I am sorry that I did not direct my comment directly to your post, it was directed more to your understanding of, why or why not, having to have someone in charge. God has created a community of faith modeled after what Jesus did while he walked the earth and then developed, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, (which by the way we receive the fullness of at confirmation along with the gifts that come with Him), allowed the Church to develop, guide and guard the deposit of faith.

About your question on canon law, God indeed does not need canon His people do. If you study the canons carefully you will find that they are a systematic way of protecting Gods people and the sacraments of the Church. Once again through the guidance of the Holy Spirit what was a moderate size community has now grown to a very large group that requires some guidance, this is usually accomplished in society by setting down laws. The larger and more complex the group the greater need to set down guidelines for people to follow. Once again we see that God knows His creatures and how to care for them.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah45_9, I am sorry that I did not direct my comment directly to your post, it was directed more to your understanding of, why or why not, having to have someone in charge. God has created a community of faith modeled after what Jesus did while he walked the earth and then developed, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, (which by the way we receive the fullness of at confirmation along with the gifts that come with Him), allowed the Church to develop, guide and guard the deposit of faith.

That is precisely my point, bill. This Church is currently rendered useless against the Pope under current Canon Law.

I’m all for community of faith and episcopal government and Church hierarchy.

About your question on canon law, God indeed does not need canon His people do. If you study the canons carefully you will find that they are a systematic way of protecting Gods people and the sacraments of the Church.

My questions were figurative in light of your unrelated questions in regards to the post you responded to.

I understand law well, bill.

Canon law is about the order, discipline, and rules of the Church. We have 2 codes of canon law: one for the Latin and one for the Eastern. Codes are the laws of a community (Think criminal and civil code in the secular arena).

The purpose of canon law is to inform the faithful in how to conduct themselves and how to protect their rights and how the Church exercises Her administrative authority.

The Catechism is the rule of Faith and the systematic way of living a life in Christ through the Church and the Sacraments.

Canon law can change, the deposit of faith cannot.

Big distinction here.

Once again through the guidance of the Holy Spirit what was a moderate size community has now grown to a very large group that requires some guidance, this is usually accomplished in society by setting down laws. The larger and more complex the group the greater need to set down guidelines for people to follow. Once again we see that God knows His creatures and how to care for them.

That is particular to the Western Church. Our challenges were different from that of our Eastern brothers.

 

[Abu]

Isaiah45_9 #19
Current Canon Law places the Pope above the entire Church, rendering the Church useless and unable to depose him for any reason. Even if the Pope is to be classified sui juris, the Church has no mechanism to remove him.

Precisely because the Pope as the successor of St Peter chosen by Christ IS His Supreme Vicar. (Post #9). No Pope has ever taught error in faith and morals to the whole Church in defining any dogma or doctrine, and cannot, due to Christ’s explicit guarantee.

As God, Christ knew what He was doing, unlike those who would detract from His infiniteness – that the God of truth has deceived us.

Nowhere has Christ sanctioned that “the Church” (Christ’s faithful) might be able to “depose” Christ’s Vicar. The reality is the removal and replacement of false “Popes” which is part of history.

Also, the only manner for us to know if the Pope is infallible or not is through the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth. That is the Church. The only reason for us to know anything true about God is through that same pillar. That this pillar is rendered useless against one of Her Bishops is astounding.

What is astounding is that such a feeling exists, because it is Christ who has given His Popes the keys of the Kingdom of heaven – yet some try to separate that Chief Vicar from His Church.

“The Pope is personally infallible, yet in a particular sense. His infallibility is personal because it belongs to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Church in Rome or to the Roman See. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of this See.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 229].

#21
This Church is currently rendered useless against the Pope under current Canon Law.

False.
The reality is that Canon Law reflects and expresses the truths of the structure and institution of the Church from Christ in order to preserve right order – thus the Church is protected against error precisely because of the infallibility of the Pope as Supreme Vicar.

There is no Catholic Church without Christ, and His Chief Vicar has been empowered and protected by Christ Himself from teaching error as explained.

 

[JoeT777]

The Eternal Shepherd

Behind the Vatican I declarations of papal infallibility stemmed from a real affront against the Church. The Canons of infallibility place firmly in the Church faith and moral truths, which is the basis of any sound political order.

1. 
   *]St. Peter and the popes, his successors, and the Church itself have received dominion [puissance] from God only over things spiritual and such as concern salvation and not over things temporal and civil. Hence kings and sovereigns are not by God’s command subject to any ecclesiastical dominion in things temporal; they cannot be deposed, whether directly or indirectly, by the authority of the rulers of the Church, their subjects cannot be dispensed from that submission and obedience which they owe, or absolved from the oath of allegiance.
   
   *]The plenitude of authority in things spiritual, which belongs to the Holy See and the successors of St. Peter, in no wise affects the permanence and immovable strength of the decrees of the Council of Constance contained in the fourth and fifth sessions of that council, approved by the Holy See, confirmed by the practice of the whole Church and the Roman pontiff, and observed in all ages by the Gallican Church. That Church does not countenance the opinion of those who cast a slur on those decrees, or who lessen their force by saying that their authority is not well established, that they are not approved or that they apply only to the period of the schism.
   
   *]The exercise of this Apostolic authority [puissance] must also be regulated in accordance with the canons made by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the respect of the whole world. The rules, customs and constitutions received within the kingdom and the Gallican Church must have their force and their effect, and the usages of our fathers remain inviolable since the dignity of the Apostolic See itself demands that the laws and customs established by consent of that august see and of the Churches be constantly maintained.
   
   *]Although the pope has the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church.
   
   [Dégert, A. (1909). Gallicanism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 7, 2015 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06351a.htm]
   
   The entire matter of infallibility started over Louis XIV’s grab for the revenue of vacant Sees, in particular the Gallecan See. More importantly, without Vatican I Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae would never have been pronounced. As you might recall, the episcopate essentially acquiesced to abortion and birth control. The arguments for birth control were sophisticated, but all such arguments were without moral basis reducing the argument to “Protestants do it so why can’t Catholics”. Without Vatican I’s declaration of infallibility, the Catholic Church would have been reduced to independent Sees of episcopal Churches.
   
   What stood behind Vatican I was ‘push back’ to a real challenge relegating Rome to the confines of the Vatican in both a spiritually sense and a temporal sense. The infallibility doctrines were and remain the only sentinel against the “tyranny of relativism.” While at the turn of the 20th century the remaining aristocratic dynasties were the concern, within a century the major foe marching against the Church is a relativistic secular society. What the society deems good is good. Hence, the moralistic teachings of the Church become an affront it cannot abide and would soon ban. Vatican I established once and for the Pope had the right and duty to communicate with its Sees all over the world, regardless of custom or law. The Chair of Peter retains the direct power over the Sees world over, both direct and indirect.
   
   In reading the 4th Chapter of Vatican I we see each article of the Gallecan
   
   Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, 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.
   
   [First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4: https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#5]
   
   With a real assuredness (something real compared that of Luther’s) we can place our faith in the hands of a Divine Church that teaches divinely.
   
   JoeT

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Precisely because the Pope as the successor of St Peter chosen by Christ IS His Supreme Vicar. (Post #9). No Pope has ever taught error in faith and morals to the whole Church in defining any dogma or doctrine, and cannot, due to Christ’s explicit guarantee.

As God, Christ knew what He was doing, unlike those who would detract from His infiniteness – that the God of truth has deceived us.

I love poetry as well. Especially a poem by John Donne:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

However, poetry and canon law mix like oil and water.

Nowhere has Christ sanctioned that “the Church” (Christ’s faithful) might be able to “depose” Christ’s Vicar. The reality is the removal and replacement of false “Popes” which is part of history.
What is astounding is that such a feeling exists, because it is Christ who has given His Popes the keys of the Kingdom of heaven – yet some try to separate that Chief Vicar from His Church.

The exercise of the Vicar dramatically changed after the East and West schism. You are aware of the fact that this supremacy, immediate and absolute jurisdiction precedes sola scriptura by a mere 100 years? As late as the early 1,400’s the Council of Constance was still claiming jurisdiction of the Church over the Pope, or any other Bishop for that matter.

“The Pope is personally infallible, yet in a particular sense. His infallibility is personal because it belongs to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Church in Rome or to the Roman See. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of this See.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 229].
False.
The reality is that Canon Law reflects and expresses the truths of the structure and institution of the Church from Christ in order to preserve right order – thus the Church is protected against error precisely because of the infallibility of the Pope as Supreme Vicar.

There is no Catholic Church without Christ, and His Chief Vicar has been empowered and protected by Christ Himself from teaching error as explained.

Here is the dilemma, if you defend the person of Peter then you cannot alienate the other locations where Peter left successors after him. Because this charisma is not tied to a place. But to a person.

If you want to defend the location of the charisma, it is impossible to defend because the rock is Peter, not the city.

 

[phil19034]

That is precisely my point, bill. This Church is currently rendered useless against the Pope under current Canon Law.

False. (1) the bishops (especially the Cardinals) are the Pope’s advisors and make sure he has all available information

(2) Christ and The Holy Spirit protect the Church from papal error. The only time that we know a pope was about to teach error, he died the night before he had scheduled to declare his false doctrine/dogma

 

[Isaiah45_9]

False.
The reality is that Canon Law reflects and expresses the truths of the structure and institution of the Church from Christ in order to preserve right order – thus the Church is protected against error precisely because of the infallibility of the Pope as Supreme Vicar.

I wanted to respond to this separately.

Canon law is not Divine. It is not Divine revelation. It is of human origin and changeable, like disciplines.

The Church is protected against error **only **in matter of faith and morals.

Can you please provide an authoritative source that says the Church is protected against error in Canon law?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

False. (1) the bishops (especially the Cardinals) are the Pope’s advisors and make sure he has all available information

(2) Christ and The Holy Spirit protect the Church from papal error. The only time that we know a pope was about to teach error, he died the night before he had scheduled to declare his false doctrine/dogma

People just love to throw false around without any proof.

Read this:

• 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.

We are talking canon law and the indisputable fact that the Church is rendered useless against a Pope, per canon law.

There are **NO **provisions to remove a Pope or to take **any **actions against him.

If you think this is not true then please produce the Canon law that says otherwise. Otherwise please retract the false accusation.

 

[DCNBILL]

Note that there are provisions in canon law to ensure that the pope does act collaboratively. Taking canon law and forcing absolutes out of them does not change the reality of the situation that no pope, acting under canon law, has taken it upon himself to change any part of the faith or doctrine of the Church. The Holy Spirit is vigilant.

Can. 333 §1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

§2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

§3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 The Bishops are available to the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his office, to cooperate with him in various ways, among which is the synod of Bishops. Cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and, according to the needs of the time, various institutes; all these persons and institutes fulfil their offices in his name and by his authority, for the good of all the Churches, in accordance with the norms determined by law.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Note that there are provisions in canon law to ensure that the pope does act collaboratively. Taking canon law and forcing absolutes out of them does not change the reality of the situation that no pope, acting under canon law, has taken it upon himself to change any part of the faith or doctrine of the Church. The Holy Spirit is vigilant.

Can. 333 §1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

§2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

§3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 The Bishops are available to the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his office, to cooperate with him in various ways, among which is the synod of Bishops. Cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and, according to the needs of the time, various institutes; all these persons and institutes fulfil their offices in his name and by his authority, for the good of all the Churches, in accordance with the norms determined by law.

Ensure is not a word I’d use since it cannot be enforced and it is entirely optional.

Again it is to the freedom of the Pope to use the collaboration, et. al. He is free to exercise his powers without any impediment from anyone.

That is the bottom line.

 

[thenobes]

Isaiah,

I’m not fashioning strawmen but trying to get down to brass tacks here.

Goodness, what a great set of straw men…

I am not pitting anyone. Canon Law is clear.

• 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.
• 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.
• Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Yes you are. You are pitting them against one another by throwing doubt on Canon Law’s authority. The rule of the majority (what seems to me to be your pov) against the decision of the Pope (Canon law).

I can see only one possible out for your pov (actually it is outside both your and my povs as stated, but I am inclined to believe in it.) Reading other threads, I have seen that some great minds in the Church conclude that the Pope may indeed be removed from office, but only by his own doing; to wit, when he infallibly tries to proclaim doctrine which plainly contradicts previous doctrine infallibly proclaimed. Ipso facto, he has removed himself from office in that no pope can do this and ergo he is a pope no longer. This sounds logical to me.

What do you think Ecumenical Councils are for?

To find the judgement of the Church, of course. But no council’s judgement are considered decisive for the Church merely due to the assent of the majority.

In this instance, your appeal to authority is not only irrelevant but inadequate. The authority is for the Church.

How come we have had, arguably, the biggest schism in the history of the Church (Reformation) with a Pope in place? How useful was/is this authority in a single man’s hands?

Usefulness has to be judged through God’s eyes not mine. I am only to understand that God is logical and as far the Orthodox and Catholic acceptance of Councils goes ( at least before the split), it was never “majority rules”.

Are our Eastern Brothers dismantled, disappeared?

No, and neither have other non-“C in communion with the bishop of Rome”.

peace
steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah,

I’m not fashioning strawmen but trying to get down to brass tacks here.

Yes you are. You are pitting them against one another by throwing doubt on Canon Law’s authority. The rule of the majority (what seems to me to be your pov) against the decision of the Pope (Canon law).

But you are fashioning strawmen.

You have not presented anything from Canon Law or Church authority that says otherwise. As such, you just assert that I am pitting something.

That is a strawman.

I am not pitting anything. The Church cannot depose or veto or initiate any proceedings against the Pope under current canon law.

Unless you can provide evidence of the contrary, anything you label me of doing is a straw man.

I can see only one possible out for your pov (actually it is outside both your and my povs as stated, but I am inclined to believe in it.)

There is no other point of view outside the one that the Church is rendered useless against the Pope under current canon law.

To find the judgement of the Church, of course. But no council’s judgement are considered decisive for the Church merely due to the assent of the majority.

You know, it is intriguing to see Catholics (Us) immediately trying to get around the majority argument when it comes to Councils and the Pope. And yet, it is incredibly ironic that the Pope is elected by the majority vote of the Cardinals… Any argument presented against the Councils in regards to majority just falls flat on the ground.

 

[thenobes]

You know, it is intriguing to see Catholics (Us) immediately trying to get around the majority argument when it comes to Councils and the Pope. And yet, it is incredibly ironic that the Pope is elected by the majority vote of the Cardinals… Any argument presented against the Councils in regards to majority just falls flat on the ground.

Have to admit that’s an interesting point. Jesus wasn’t selected by popular vote. And if you go back far enough I believe you can find where elders (priests) were the ones who selected the pope (bishop of Rome). And possibly popular aclamation by the laity and clergy around that time as well.

But I am sure that there have been councils where the"majority opinion" was not accepted by the church in general. On the other hand there have been times when the majority of bishops in the church have held positions later declared to be heretical, eg, Arianism.

So how would majority rule have worked out in that case? Or did the Holy Spirit prevent them from convening a council?

Or would the majority opinion of a council called by a majority of bishops, and then accepted by the majority of bishops be the determining factor in being accepted by the church?

peace
steve

 

[Abu]

Thenobes #36
But I am sure that there have been councils where the"majority opinion" was not accepted by the church in general.

I’m not aware of any such, but there have been occasions on which the Pope has refused to authorize a proposal passed in an Ecumenical Council.

‘Dr. Warren Carroll of Christendom College explains: “The Church and popes, subsequent to the Council of Trent, have all upheld the doctrine that the pope is superior over councils, and must approve the decrees of a council to make them binding. This position is firmly maintained by the great nineteenth-century German historian of the councils, Karl Joseph Hefele, and the great Austrian historian of the papacy, Ludwig von Pastor. It is denied by many twentieth-century scholars. The general case for the supreme authority of the pope over the last two thousand years is exceedingly strong beginning all the way back with the letter of Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthians in approximately 95 A.D.”

‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church is similarly definitive in this regard. Citing Lumen Gentium 22, which traces the unhindered and universal teaching authority of the Roman pontiff through the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius back to apostolic times as relayed in Matthew’s Gospel, “there is never an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.” ’
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/DISSIDEN.TXT

The infallibility of the Council is not open to question precisely because with his supreme power, given by Christ, the Pope has rejected a definite resolution of the bishops, which the pope sees is in error, thus singularly preventing a bishops-generated error and preserving single-handedly the integrity and truth of the Council’s teaching.

The evidence of papal final decision, subject to no Ecumenical Council bishops:
In *A Catechism Of The Catholic Church *by Fr Robert J Fox, Franciscan Herald Press, 1979, on the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, Fr Fox records that “ One decree, passed in the earlier stages of the council, asserted the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope; this was later rejected.” (p 246).

“Fourth Ecumenical Council – Chalcedon: 451
Though the council had approved the assertion that Constantinople should be ranked first after Rome ecclesiastically, Pope St. Leo did not.”
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/ecumcncl.htm

This is recorded here also: “Sixteenth Ecumenical Council – Constance: 1414 -1418
Pope Martin ratified the council …except the decrees which proposed conciliarism.”

The Council of Constance is recognised by the Catholic Church as the 16th Ecumenical Council – its valid decrees were approved by Pope Martin V, and the decree purporting to make a pope obey a Council was struck down (the thesis of Gallicanism – see note 6 of The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 2008, p 25-6).

“A dramatic instance of papal selectivity in confirming an ecumenical council involved the Council of Constance, which successfully healed the Western Schism when there were three claimants to the papacy. Among the Council’s decrees, however, was one drawn up by a minority of the bishops which stated that ‘all persons of whatever dignity, even the Pope himself, are bound to obey the council in all that regards the faith.’ Pope Martin V deliberately excluded this decree from his approbation.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 231].

 

[Abu]

Isaiah45_9 #30
Canon law is not Divine. It is not Divine revelation. It is of human origin and changeable, like disciplines.

Which gives no one a reason to try to belittle what the Supreme Vicar authorizes to govern the Church.

Can you please provide an authoritative source that says the Church is protected against error in Canon law?

And Fr Hardon eloquently and truthfully comments:
“Consequently union with the Vicar of Christ determines whether and how much authority the bishops actually exercise. The Pope, however, is not determined by a corresponding approval from the bishops. Collegiality notwithstanding” – and Fr Hardon quotes LG 22 again – ‘the pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.’ ” [From: *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 223].

“As the Church’s fundamental legislative document, and because it is based on the juridical and legislative heritage of revelation and tradition, the Code must be regarded as the essential instrument for the preservation of right order, both in individual and social life and in the Church’s zeal….Canon Laws by their very nature demand observance.” Apostolic Constitution, Pope John Paul II, January, 25, 1983].

The errors lie in those who fancy themselves as knowing more than the Magisterium. Christ placed His Chief Vicar as Supreme in His Church and never have any of the small number of bad Popes ever taught error as dogma or doctrine in faith and morals to the whole Church.

 

[rcwitness]

It doesn’t, but thank you.

Maybe I can give it a try

Current Canon Law places the Pope above the entire Church

In authority to Teach and bind, right?

rendering the Church useless and unable to depose him for any reason.

Depose? You are probably right. The eleven Apostles could never depose Peter either.

Even if the Pope is to be classified sui juris, the Church has no mechanism to remove him.

Right. The Church would need to pick up the very difficult task of rebuking bad behavior of an abusive Pope, yet still honoring what she has acknowledged of his position! That seems to echo how Jesus told the people to follow who sat on Moses` seat. I personally feel that the current state of holiness in a Pope, Pastor, Father, Mother, etc has a large relation to the prayers (and behavior in accordance with those prayers) of those under their authority. The Church selects who they have determined, through prayer and the best of their wisdom, best suitable to the office of Pope. Their influence on the Pope, then, must be in good conduct and by means of convincing or convicting him in the Holy Spirit. In times when we had less noble Popes, you could most likely find a less noble Church leadership in general. But God uses ways to keep the Church from failing.

Also, the only manner for us to know if the Pope is infallible or not is through the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth. That is the Church.

The only reason the Church is in Communion with the Truth, is because it holds to the Apostolic Tradition of a govenment leadership like Jesus established. He specifically appointed Peter first and seperately as the founding Apostle and gave him the Keys.

The only reason for us to know anything true about God is through that same pillar. That this pillar is rendered useless against one of Her Bishops is astounding.

A kingdom divided against itself is a pillar This Pillar is no Pillar of Truth without the office of Peter.

I think the positive way to approach a fear of the Pope having too much power is the trust that even a corrupt man who sits in the Chair is a means to show humility and determination to stand up for good behavior. If the Church cant maintain a leader as Jesus established, how can she manage the war with good and evil?

Paul gave us (as Scripture can somehow always seem to enlighten us) an example of the least of authorative Apostles, rebuking the behavior of the man who Jesus Himself appointed as the founding leader of the Church! Yet, Paul had spent 15 days with Peter explaining the Gospel personally delivered to him from Jesus. I think this was probably to go to the source of Catholic Confirmation.

I also think that examples of periods such as when there were 3 claiming Popes can rightly rely on the college of bishops to authoratively establish which Pope is legitimate. (I think I read a post with quotes from such a council)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Which gives no one a reason to try to belittle what the Supreme Vicar authorizes to govern the Church.

Are you talking to a general audience of lurkers or to my posts. If the later, please point to the post where I have belittled. If you are unable to point to such a post from me, please clarify or please retract.

The errors lie in those who fancy themselves as knowing more than the Magisterium. Christ placed His Chief Vicar as Supreme in His Church and never have any of the small number of bad Popes ever taught error as dogma or doctrine in faith and morals to the whole Church.

There is no fancying here. Do you have or don’t have a clause in canon law that contradicts the canon law I have provided?

Otherwise, please leave the poetry out of it.