Dear brother jimmy,
What I find vague about the quote above is that it isn’t backed up by reality. It is a theological arguement that has no canonical backing. It says the pope doesn’t have the right or obligation to intervene in everyday workings of the local church, but can he intervene two out of every three days, or every other day?
You realize that your statement here is a fallacy, don’t you? You say, “since he doesn’t say he can’t do it every other day, then that means he must be able to.” That’s an argument from silence. It’s illogical.
This restriction is purely a moral restriction, not a physical restriction.
He’s quoting not just the canons, but Vatican 1. So the restriction is not merely moral, not merely canonical, but doctrinal as well.
As P.JPII mentioned Vatican I did not want to place any limits on the authority of the Pope. “Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy.” The primacy is absolutely unlimited. He can intervene at any time, for any reason, and regarding any issue.
Your misconception invalidates the first statement. The two sentences can be interpreted w/o resorting to fearmongering interpretations.
The statements mean that the Pope
cannot regularly intervene in the affairs of local Churches, but in those rare circumstances when necessity compels him to do so, there should be nothing in the way for him to render service to and for that local Church.
So the fair reader has two options: interpret the two sentences in a way that makes them contradict each other, or interpret the statements as one harmonious expression.
Besides, he contradicts the whole idea of the high petrine view as you have asserted it in your posts.
Let’s not make such hasty conclusions.
His statements affirm that the authority of the pope is personal, and has no relation to the college of bishops, whereas that of the bishops is collegial.
The authority of
every bishop is personal. What, praytell, is the basis for this fanciful complaint?
This also means that his authority is immediate upon all the clergy and faithful in the Church.
So what? It doesn’t mean he can regularly use it (“
Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches”), which is different from the
proper, ordinary, and immediate authority of a local bishop.
Meaning he acts directly on the local church,
Yes. If and when he uses such a prerogative, which is only during extenuating circumstances (indicating it is very, very, very rare that he would do so), on such occasions when a local See is deprived of its own bishop (by virtue of heresy, death, imprisonment, or whatever other reason), it will be direct. What’s wrong with that?
irregardless of the bishop.
Didn’t you read the whole document?
Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).
I hope any reader will listen to HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, rather than the exaggerated misinterpretations of a layman. Brother, in the words of HH JP2, you are completely erroneous.
What does it mean that the pope is a servant? In what way does that make it any less of a monarchy? It sounds like spin to me to use this to argue that it is not a monarchy.
Monarchy, defined as a system with supreme authority invested in one person who can exercise that authority at will.
The Catholic Church, an organization whose supreme authority is a college of bishops with a supreme head, the unique prerogatives of that headship exercised when necessary.
Some people just don’t see, or rather refuse to see, the difference.
Btw, as to your question, “What does it mean that the Pope is servant?” permit me to respond with some rhetorical questions. What does it mean that a bishop is a servant? What does it mean that the Apostles were servants? Are these just “spins” - in your words - so that they can appropriate absolute power to themselves in their spheres of influence? Were/Are the Apostles or our bishops really just dictators at heart, waiting to exercise domineering power under the guise of being “servants?” I pray these rhetorical questions will move your conscience to see the undue prejudice underlying your own question.
Brother Jimmy, you really have a tendency to put blinders on when reading documents regarding papal primacy. You consistently and purposely neglect passages that contradict your preconceived notions, and instead look for little snippets that
on their own,
devoid of any context, you think somehow support your point of view. I can’t conceive that such a mindset gives you the peace of Christ, but I pray you have it.
Blessings,
Marduk
