Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

jimmy:

I hate this distinction between little ‘t’ tradition and big ‘T’ tradition. It is a good way of saying most things in Christianity are changable. The big T tradition is turned into patristic proof texting because all they are good for is for a few proof texts that show a few statements we would affirm. By changing the little t traditions you change everything.

The distinction is necessary. Without it, we fall into legalism, and would have a much greater chance of falling under the Lord’s condemnation against those who put the tradition of men over the more important things. Wouldn’t you agree?

jimmy:

You speak like it is nothing for the eastern churches to decide one day to not have married priests.

I say it is nothing for Easterns and Orientals to see celibate priests, but it has a high likelihood of causing scandal for a Western to see a married minister claiming to be Catholic. I believe it should be nothing for Easterns and Orientals to let go of traditions and practices, which might otherwise cause spiritual scandal or harm. The same goes for the Westerns. But let’s be real. It would have been dramatically more difficult for Westerns to let go of its tradition in the traditionally Latin lands because 1) there were SOOOOO much more Latins than Easterns/Orientals in the United States; 2) Latins don’t have examples of married priests, but Easterns/Orientals DO have examples of celibate priests.
Fr Ambrose:

Is this fact or myth-making, Mardukm?

Please quote the papal document which stipulates that the unmarried clergy demanded of the Eastern Rite Catholics in the States was only temporary.

Sorry I missed this earlier. The papal document is cum data fuerit. The main criterion used to justify the temporary ban on married Eastern/Oriental priests in traditionally Latin lands was that it would scandalize the majority of Catholics who just happened to be Latin. Conclusively, once that circumstance no longer exists, cum data fuerit would lose its purpose and its force. This is the argument I have heard from Eastern Catholic apologists, and I agree.

jimmy:

Somewhat on that point. mardukm mentioned that it expired or whatever in 1949. I don’t know how that jives with the fact that Maronites in the US still can’t have married priests.

The cause of the unique condition of the Maronites has not been conclusively determined, even by brother Yeshua’s admission. Can we agree to hold off on any judgments on the matter until we have more reliable information? In any case, the fact that there are married priests in traditionally Latin lands (in both the Eastern/Oriental and Western Churches!) at this time lends credence to my statement.

Some, I’m sure, might claim that this has occurred IN SPITE of the papal prescription, not because the papal prescription has lost its force. In response, I would admit that in particular areas, cum data fuerit is still in force. However, I would bet my bottom piastre that the areas where married priests exist (i.e., where cum data fuerit is no longer in force) are exactly those areas where the possibility of scandal over married ministers has been greatly reduced or nil.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I say it is nothing for Easterns and Orientals to see celibate priests, but it has a high likelihood of causing scandal for a Western to see a married minister claiming to be Catholic. I believe it should be nothing for Easterns and Orientals to let go of traditions and practices, which might otherwise cause spiritual scandal or harm. The same goes for the Westerns. But let’s be real. It would have been dramatically more difficult for Westerns to let go of its tradition in the traditionally Latin lands because 1) there were SOOOOO much more Latins than Easterns/Orientals in the United States; 2) Latins don’t have examples of married priests, but Easterns/Orientals DO have examples of celibate priests.

Just want to add that when I stated “it is nothing for Eastern/Orientals to let go of traditions and practices which might otherwise cause spiritual scandal or harm” I meant to add “temporarily.”

Blessings.
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

The distinction is necessary. Without it, we fall into legalism, and would have a much greater chance of falling under the Lord’s condemnation against those who put the tradition of men over the more important things. Wouldn’t you agree?

I don’t think we necessarily would fall into legalism. The saints didn’t make this distinction as far as I can tell.

I say it is nothing for Easterns and Orientals to see celibate priests, but it has a high likelihood of causing scandal for a Western to see a married minister claiming to be Catholic. I believe it should be nothing for Easterns and Orientals to let go of traditions and practices, which might otherwise cause spiritual scandal or harm. The same goes for the Westerns. But let’s be real. It would have been dramatically more difficult for Westerns to let go of its tradition in the traditionally Latin lands because 1) there were SOOOOO much more Latins than Easterns/Orientals in the United States; 2) Latins don’t have examples of married priests, but Easterns/Orientals DO have examples of celibate priests.

Blessings,
Marduk

In a sense I agree that it probably would cause less scandal for the east to give up its tradition. But the problem is that that is really an irrelevant question. It is not a good reason to suppress the eastern tradition.

Now the only times the eastern churches have married priests is when they ordain them on their own without getting permission from Rome. There is one diocese(the archeparchy of Pittsburgh) in the US that has permission from Rome to have married priests and that is by permission from Rome on a case by case basis. The east will eventually get their married priesthood back but it will only be through the fact that they will not listen to Rome when Rome says no.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

mardukm;2814331:

The answer to the first question is a standard orthodox Catholic position.

I have to disagree. What does he mean when he says that if doctrines coming from the pope are incompatible with the discipline of a particular church,that the clergy may remonstrate and not receive those regulations? If he means doctrines on faith and morals,no clergymen or local church can decide that those doctrines are not “compatible”.
The clergy may perhaps remonstrate to the pope over local disciplinary matters,but it is not for the clergy to decide for themselves whether he receives orders from the pope. As for doctrines on faith and morals,there should be no remonstrating with the pope.

I agree with you insofar as it is on an issue of defined theological and moral doctrine. But I don’t agree with you on matters of doctrinal theologoumena. It is obviously to the latter that the question refers, for there are NO DIFFERENCES among the Churches with regard to de fide doctrines. Wouldn’t you agree? So I don’t see the reason for your disagreement.

anthony022071:

mardukm:

As to the second question, the idea that a Council is above its head bishop is indeed irresponsible, an idea not contained in the Church of the first millenium. The orthodox, patristic, and biblical Catholic doctrine is that the head bishop is an indespensable member of the body of Catholic bishops. The body is not above the head, nor is the head above the body.

The head of the church is,by definition,above the body of the church. It is the head that must direct and discipline the body,not the other way around.

The only head that is above the body is Jesus Christ.Look to I Corinthians 12 for a proper understanding of the relationship of the earthly head to the earthly body - one cannot say to the other “I have no need of you.”

anthony022071:

mardukm:

As to the third question, it is actually partly correct. Dogmatically and canonically speaking, the decrees of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL are not binding without the approval of BOTH the head and the body.

An ecumenical council is one thing,the “whole church” is another.

Ultimately,it is the opinion of the pope that is the determining factor. It is the pope who decides if the decisions of a council are to be universally binding. Even if the “whole church” does not agree with a docrine of a pope,or if the majority of a council rejects a doctrine of a pope,it is still the pope who is in the right.

First, the question was not with respect to the “whole church,” but with respect to the Ecumenical Council, which indeed requires the approbation of BOTH the head and body, not one without the other - that is what the Eastern AND Latin Code of Canons state.

Second, the Pope is normally the last in the line of approving bishops. But there is generally a whole list of approvals before it gets to the Pope for his confirmation. Even if you were to appeal to Pope St. Leo’s actions at Chalcedon, your argument still fails, for even if Pope Leo instructed the bishops at Chalcedon to no longer discuss the matter, he nevertheless understood that for his pronouncement to have UNIVERSAL authority, it needed to obtain the consent of the Council.

However, please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the TRUTH of Pope Leo’s doctrine required conciliar consent (and this is ALL that Vatican I meant after all). It was simply that for that doctrine to become universal, the consent of the Council was nevertheless required.

anthony022071:

mardukm:

In truth, the answer to the third question is also a matter of HOW the papl infallibility is acquired, not a matter of whether papal infallibility existed. In truth, the acts of the Popes in history have always been collegially enacted, so there was a legitimate question as to whether or not his infallibility was immediate or derived.

Papal infallibility is from the promise of Jesus Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No argument there, brother. But the fact remains that the NATURE of papal infallibility was still debated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I don’t think we necessarily would fall into legalism. The saints didn’t make this distinction as far as I can tell.

Well, the early Church regarded the Easter controversy as not important enough to break communion over. And consider the Quinisext Council. The Western Church did not accept MANY of its canons that that Council attempted to impose on the Western Church. Nevertheless, communion was not broken over these matters. I think the early Church was quite discerning on what could or could not constitute a matter that would break communion.

In a sense I agree that it probably would cause less scandal for the east to give up its tradition. But the problem is that that is really an irrelevant question. It is not a good reason to suppress the eastern tradition.

I disagree. Just put yourself in the position of the Latin Church in the United States around the turn of the 19th/20th century, and well into the first half of the twentieth. Protestants were rabidly hungry to get Catholics out of the whore of Babylon. I can imagine that the Anglicans would have had a field day gaining converts if the Latins could not immediately distinguish their priests from the Anglican priests (and Anglicans were in the majority in the U.S at the time). Haven’t you heard of the complaints expressed by some ROC about the manner by which the CC is supposedly proselytizing in Russia? The ROC polemicists claim the CC do it by fooling their flock due to the similarities between the ROC and the CC in Russia. Think about that, and maybe you will begin to understand the danger that the Catholic Church faced in the U.S. from the Anglican Church.

Now the only times the eastern churches have married priests is when they ordain them on their own without getting permission from Rome. There is one diocese(the archeparchy of Pittsburgh) in the US that has permission from Rome to have married priests and that is by permission from Rome on a case by case basis. The east will eventually get their married priesthood back but it will only be through the fact that they will not listen to Rome when Rome says no.

When you say “Rome,” I feel we need to distinguish between the Curia and the Pope. I really believe that the Pope is on the side of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches. He has relinquished his title to the West, for goodness’ sake!!! The only thing keeping the Eastern/Oriental Churches from re-establishing the married priesthood, IMHO, is our hierarchs’ own papal mentality (which evinces itself by asking permission from the Roman Curia to ordain married men). The Roman Curia has such power over the Eastern/Oriental bishops because our bishops are GIVING them the power. Like I stated earlier, I am truly humbled by the great respect and love that the Eastern/Oriental hierarchs have for the Holy Father, but “exercising your rights” (as one Pope exhorted an Eastern hierarch) is certainly not mutually exclusive from respecting and loving the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

Then why do the Ukrainians still have an archbishopric and not a patriarchate? They assert that he’s a patriarch but Rome says nuh-uh. Doesn’t sound like all they need to do is name it and claim it.

 

[Aramis]

Then why do the Ukrainians still have an archbishopric and not a patriarchate? They assert that he’s a patriarch but Rome says nuh-uh. Doesn’t sound like all they need to do is name it and claim it.

That is one issue where the CCEO is explicit: the request can come from his synod, but only the pope can grant the title.

The differences in rights between a Major Archbishop and a Patriarch are few…

The primary difference is how they are approved by Rome. Patriarchs are not, MAbps are.

There are also small differences in how exarchates are handled.

And, of course, Patriarchs have precedence of honor over MAbps, who hold precedence over Archbishops…

 

[Amadeus]

That is one issue where the CCEO is explicit: the request can come from his synod, but only the pope can grant the title.

The differences in rights between a Major Archbishop and a Patriarch are few…

The primary difference is how they are approved by Rome. Patriarchs are not, MAbps are.

There are also small differences in how exarchates are handled.

And, of course, Patriarchs have precedence of honor over MAbps, who hold precedence over Archbishops…

Just a minor correction.

It is not the “title” that is involved here but, rather, the UGCC as a particular Church.

Under the CCEO, the authority to erect a Patriarchate (for the Eastern Catholic Churches) belongs exclusively to the Pope as the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church, if and when he determines the opportune time calls for it.

Thus, the UGCC Holy Synod decided about 2 or 3 years ago to elevate the Church from a Major Archepiscopate to a Patriarchate, transferring her headquarters from Lviv to Kyiv. As a consequence, the Holy Synod granted Cardinal Husar the title of “Patriarch” and addressed him accordingly thereafter as “His Beatitude.” (Cardinal Husar, himself, has NOT used the title “Patriarch” officially but he is being commemorated in Ukraine and in the diaspora as “His Beatitude, Patriarch Husar.”)

The UGCC Holy Synod then submitted their decision to Rome but it has not been approved by the Pope until today. Only the transfer of the seat of the UGCC has been recognized.

The crux of the matter is the determination of the “opportune time” for the UGCC to be elevated into a Patriarchate. Apparently, from the point of view of Rome, there are other factors (ecclesial and/or political considerations?) that prevent the Pope for now from approving the Holy Synod’s decision.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Anthony,

I agree with you insofar as it is on an issue of defined theological and moral doctrine. But I don’t agree with you on matters of doctrinal theologoumena. It is obviously to the latter that the question refers, for there are NO DIFFERENCES among the Churches with regard to de fide doctrines. Wouldn’t you agree? So I don’t see the reason for your disagreement.

The only head that is above the body is Jesus Christ.Look to I Corinthians 12 for a proper understanding of the relationship of the earthly head to the earthly body - one cannot say to the other “I have no need of you.”

First, the question was not with respect to the “whole church,” but with respect to the Ecumenical Council, which indeed requires the approbation of BOTH the head and body, not one without the other - that is what the Eastern AND Latin Code of Canons state.

Second, the Pope is normally the last in the line of approving bishops. But there is generally a whole list of approvals before it gets to the Pope for his confirmation. Even if you were to appeal to Pope St. Leo’s actions at Chalcedon, your argument still fails, for even if Pope Leo instructed the bishops at Chalcedon to no longer discuss the matter, he nevertheless understood that for his pronouncement to have UNIVERSAL authority, it needed to obtain the consent of the Council.

However, please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the TRUTH of Pope Leo’s doctrine required conciliar consent (and this is ALL that Vatican I meant after all). It was simply that for that doctrine to become universal, the consent of the Council was nevertheless required.

Lumen Gentium disagrees:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
2. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Well, the early Church regarded the Easter controversy as not important enough to break communion over. And consider the Quinisext Council. The Western Church did not accept MANY of its canons that that Council attempted to impose on the Western Church. Nevertheless, communion was not broken over these matters. I think the early Church was quite discerning on what could or could not constitute a matter that would break communion.

I disagree. Just put yourself in the position of the Latin Church in the United States around the turn of the 19th/20th century, and well into the first half of the twentieth. Protestants were rabidly hungry to get Catholics out of the whore of Babylon. I can imagine that the Anglicans would have had a field day gaining converts if the Latins could not immediately distinguish their priests from the Anglican priests (and Anglicans were in the majority in the U.S at the time). Haven’t you heard of the complaints expressed by some ROC about the manner by which the CC is supposedly proselytizing in Russia? The ROC polemicists claim the CC do it by fooling their flock due to the similarities between the ROC and the CC in Russia. Think about that, and maybe you will begin to understand the danger that the Catholic Church faced in the U.S. from the Anglican Church.

When you say “Rome,” I feel we need to distinguish between the Curia and the Pope. I really believe that the Pope is on the side of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches. He has relinquished his title to the West, for goodness’ sake!!! The only thing keeping the Eastern/Oriental Churches from re-establishing the married priesthood, IMHO, is our hierarchs’ own papal mentality (which evinces itself by asking permission from the Roman Curia to ordain married men). The Roman Curia has such power over the Eastern/Oriental bishops because our bishops are GIVING them the power. Like I stated earlier, I am truly humbled by the great respect and love that the Eastern/Oriental hierarchs have for the Holy Father, but “exercising your rights” (as one Pope exhorted an Eastern hierarch) is certainly not mutually exclusive from respecting and loving the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting how we are to submit to the supreme pontiff and he can’t even manage his own household, allegedly, in Rome. What does I Timothy say on that?

Popes come and go, but the Roman curia is immortal.

 

[Amadeus]

Popes come and go, but the Roman curia is immortal.

As a romantic notion, this could pass!

Factually speaking, however, the Roman Curia’s life is co-terminus with that of the Pope.

During the interregnum (between the death of the Pope and the election of his successor), the College of Cardinals takes over the reins of governance in the Catholic Church.

The Roman Curia comes to life again if and when the new Pope says so!

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Well, the early Church regarded the Easter controversy as not important enough to break communion over. And consider the Quinisext Council. The Western Church did not accept MANY of its canons that that Council attempted to impose on the Western Church. Nevertheless, communion was not broken over these matters. I think the early Church was quite discerning on what could or could not constitute a matter that would break communion.

I disagree. Just put yourself in the position of the Latin Church in the United States around the turn of the 19th/20th century, and well into the first half of the twentieth. Protestants were rabidly hungry to get Catholics out of the whore of Babylon. I can imagine that the Anglicans would have had a field day gaining converts if the Latins could not immediately distinguish their priests from the Anglican priests (and Anglicans were in the majority in the U.S at the time). Haven’t you heard of the complaints expressed by some ROC about the manner by which the CC is supposedly proselytizing in Russia? The ROC polemicists claim the CC do it by fooling their flock due to the similarities between the ROC and the CC in Russia. Think about that, and maybe you will begin to understand the danger that the Catholic Church faced in the U.S. from the Anglican Church.

When you say “Rome,” I feel we need to distinguish between the Curia and the Pope. I really believe that the Pope is on the side of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches. He has relinquished his title to the West, for goodness’ sake!!! The only thing keeping the Eastern/Oriental Churches from re-establishing the married priesthood, IMHO, is our hierarchs’ own papal mentality (which evinces itself by asking permission from the Roman Curia to ordain married men). The Roman Curia has such power over the Eastern/Oriental bishops because our bishops are GIVING them the power. Like I stated earlier, I am truly humbled by the great respect and love that the Eastern/Oriental hierarchs have for the Holy Father, but “exercising your rights” (as one Pope exhorted an Eastern hierarch) is certainly not mutually exclusive from respecting and loving the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

How can you distinguish the pope and the curia? Doesn’t each document recieve the popes signature? If that is the case then it is as good as written by the pope. I agree that a large part of it is our own bishops betraying their tradition but that is what the pope has encouraged. Up until recently there was a continual push by the pope to make the Maronites(I can’t speak for the Byzantines) more latin in every way possible. This banning of married priests in the US and other countries just seems like the same type of thing to me.

Maybe they should ban the eastern liturgies too if they are concerned about confusing people. Multiple liturgies is just as confusing as married priests.

I am done with this arguement for now. I hate long back and forth arguements. I don’t have the stamina for them.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Amado,

Under the CCEO, the authority to erect a Patriarchate (for the Eastern Catholic Churches) belongs exclusively to the Pope as the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church, if and when he determines the opportune time calls for it.

I partly disagree with this interpretation. The Code of Canons for the Eastern Catholics does not specifically identify the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church as the Pope. Thus, it could very well refer to the Ecumenical Council, which even the Latin Code admits.

I am not saying it cannot be the Pope. I am just wary of giving that descriptive (“Supreme Authority”) to the Pope ALONE, especially when the Canons state otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

If you read your quotes in posts #404 and 405 more carefully, you will find it supports exactly what I stated-

That the TRUTH of the Pope’s ex cathedra definition does not depend on consent.

It’s strange for non-Catholic apologists/polemicists to argue otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Interesting how we are to submit to the supreme pontiff and he can’t even manage his own household, allegedly, in Rome. What does I Timothy say on that?

Popes come and go, but the Roman curia is immortal.

I don’t know why you would say things like this when you know that the Eastern Orthodox have their own internal problems.

Please be careful about your accusations. You know very well how the Lord hates hypocrites.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

How can you distinguish the pope and the curia? Doesn’t each document recieve the popes signature? If that is the case then it is as good as written by the pope. I agree that a large part of it is our own bishops betraying their tradition but that is what the pope has encouraged. Up until recently there was a continual push by the pope to make the Maronites(I can’t speak for the Byzantines) more latin in every way possible. This banning of married priests in the US and other countries just seems like the same type of thing to me.

Maybe they should ban the eastern liturgies too if they are concerned about confusing people. Multiple liturgies is just as confusing as married priests.

I am done with this arguement for now. I hate long back and forth arguements. I don’t have the stamina for them.

Like I requested earlier, perhaps we should hold off making judgments on the Maronite issue.

IMHO, if you let go of extrapolated exaggerations such as your second paragraph entails, you might be more at peace about the situation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please be careful about your accusations. You know very well how the Lord hates hypocrites.

Blessings,
Marduk

This quote reminds of General Zod’s remarks to Lex Luther: “Why do you say this? You know I will kill you for it.” Instead of Zod, its God… you put “you know very well how the Lord hates hypocrites.”

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Amado,

I partly disagree with this interpretation. The Code of Canons for the Eastern Catholics does not specifically identify the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church as the Pope. Thus, it could very well refer to the Ecumenical Council, which even the Latin Code admits.

I am not saying it cannot be the Pope. I am just wary of giving that descriptive (“Supreme Authority”) to the Pope ALONE, especially when the Canons state otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

Eastern canon law

c. 597 CCEO: “The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Eastern canon law

c. 597 CCEO: “The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

I’m not sure if you are supporting my statement or contending it.

Blessings