Papal prerogatives

[Fr_Ambrose]

Any opportunity to bring up dissidents…

Dissidents??!!

We are speaking here of the National Association of all Catholic priests in Australia. Hardly “dissidents”!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Anyhow, all one has to do is look to the dubium concerning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to understand that while not ex cathedra, it is an infallible statement as put forth by the ordinary magisterium:.

A dubium is an attempt by someone in the Curia to explain something the Pope has said or decreed. It has no infallible authority itself and it may be mistaken.

 

[mtr01]

Dissidents??!!

We are speaking here of the National Association of all Catholic priests in Australia. Hardly “dissidents”!

Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all Catholic priests in Australia questioned the teaching.

 

[mtr01]

A dubium is an attempt by someone in the Curia to explain something the Pope has said or decreed. It has no infallible authority itself and it may be mistaken.

Ok now the Church is mistaken when it explains what the Church teaches

If there were any doubt, I suspect all the then Cardinal Ratzinger (who answered the dubium) had to do was ask the then Pope John Paul II what he meant. Cardinal Ratzinger mistaken…

 

[anthony022071]

Pope Leo:

The Lord . . . wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery . . . The Apostolic See . . . has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops . . . And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by longstanding custom.
(Letter to the Bishops of Vienne, July, 445 A.D., 10:1-2; in Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers (FEF), 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, p. 269)

Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.
(Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 270)

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:

“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”
(As cited in V. Soloviev, Russia and the Universal Church, trans. H Rees [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1948], p. 134)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Any opportunity to bring up dissidents…

Anyhow, all one has to do is look to the dubium concerning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to understand that while not ex cathedra, it is an infallible statement as put forth by the ordinary magisterium:
.

So some infallible statements are more infallible than others?

Whether it is ex cathedra, infallible by “Ordinary Magisterium” or infallible by the pope speaking as the head of the college of bishops, difference please? Because all I see is different ways to say things that are necessary to believe, and then, if circumstances warrant it, to say “that was never infallible teachings.” It all sounds like various ways of being a little pregnant. If ex cathedra=ordinary magisterium=head of college of bishops is one thing. But if ex>o.m.>head c.o.b. (or head c.o.b.>o.m.), I’m sorry, you are just hedging while claiming this direct pipeline to God.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Ok now the Church is mistaken when it explains what the Church teaches

Did I say that? :tsktsk:
Please revisit what I wrote about the nature of a dubium.

 

[twf]

Father: If literally every priest and bishop in Australia believed that women should be ordained to the priesthood it would mean nothing. When citing such examples you seem to forget that at one point the majority of bishops were Arian heretics…and that there were at least three occasions when ALL FOUR of the Eastern patriarchs (but not Rome of course ) were heretics…heresy and dissent, even among an entire national presbyterate, does not determine truth.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pope Leo:

Context, context, context.

The Lord . . . wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery . . . The Apostolic See . . . has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops . . . And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by longstanding custom.
(Letter to the Bishops of Vienne, July, 445 A.D., 10:1-2; in Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers (FEF), 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, p. 269)

Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.
(Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 270)

Was this the same Leo who got a decree from the Emperor Valtentian confirming Rome position on the basis of St. Peter’s primacy (and the Emperor’s credentials?).

As for the Council’s acceptance of his tome, that’s been recently posted again.

And the Church ignored his protest of canon 28.

Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, (d. AD 449), writing to Pope Leo I:

“The whole question [of Eutychianism] needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy… and so the convening of a council which is any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”
(As cited in V. Soloviev, Russia and the Universal Church, trans. H Rees [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1948], p. 134)

His succession to St. Proclus as bishop was in opposition to the wishes of the eunuch Chrysaphius minister of Emperor Theodosius, who sought to bring him into imperial disfavour… Pulcheria, the emperor’s sister, being Flavian’s staunch advocate Chrysaphius secured the support of the Empress Eudocia. Although their first efforts to involve St. Flavian in disgrace miscarried, an opportunity soon presented itself. At a council of bishops convened at Constantinople by Flavian, 8 Nov., 448, to settle a dispute which had arisen among his clergy, the archimandrite Eutyches, who was a relation of Chrysaphius was accused of heresy by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Flavian exercised clemency and urged moderation, but in the end the refusal of Eutyches to make an orthodox declaration on the two natures of Christ forced Flavian to pronounce the sentence of degradation and excommunication. He forwarded a full report of the council to Pope Leo I, who in turn gave his approval to Flavian’s decision (21 May, 449) and the following month (13 June) sent him his famous “Dogmatic Letter”. Eutyches’ complaint that justice had been violated in the council and that the Acts had been tampered with resulted in an imperial order for the revision of Acts, executed (8 and 27 April, 449). No materior could be established, and Flavian was justified.

The long-standing rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinoble now became a strong factor in the dissensions. It had been none the less keen since the See of Constantinoble had been officially declared next in dignity to Rome, and Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, was quite ready to join forces with Eutyches against Flavian. Even before the revision of the Acts of Flavian’s council, Chrysaphius had persuaded the emperor of the necessity for an oecumenical council to adjust matters, and the decree went forth that one should convene at Ephesus under the presidency of Dioscurus, who also controlled the attendance of bishops, Flavian and six bishops who had assisted at the previous synod were allowed no voice, being, as it were, on trial. Eutyches was absolved of heresy, and despite the protest of the papal legate Hilary (later pope), who by his Contradicitur annulled the decisions of the council, Flavian was condemned and deposed. In the violent scenes which ensued he was so ill-used that three days later he died in his place of exile. Anatolius, a partisan of Dioscurus, was appointed to succeed him.
newadvent.org/cathen/06098c.htm

In the end a council was convened no matter St. Flavian’s opinion you quote. Rome, you claim, denied Constantinople’s second place, here affirmed. Rome also was otherwise ignored.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Father: If literally every priest and bishop in Australia believed that women should be ordained to the priesthood it would mean nothing. When citing such examples you seem to forget that at one point the majority of bishops were Arian heretics…and that there were at least three occasions when ALL FOUR of the Eastern patriarchs (but not Rome of course ) were heretics…heresy and dissent, even among an entire national presbyterate, does not determine truth.

If, as some here claim, the doctrine is ex cathedra, then a whole lot of Australian priests are heretics.

But they cannot be since they are still functioning as parish priests. And, no doubt, advising their flocks that women priests will come in one day.

Obviously, working for the introduction of women priests cannot be compared to Arianism or Rome would have removed these heretical priests.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers, sisters and Father in Christ,

The title might be misleading, but this thread is about an investigation of the CANONICAL norms that may or may not limit the scope of the exercise of papal prerogatives.

It is NOT about examples of contemporary or historical events that can or cannot prove the primacy - much less the infallibility - of the Pope.

I know you probably feel you are staying on topic by doing this, but you are really not.

I beg of you.

Thank you for your consideration.

Humbly,
Marduk

P.S. If this request does not curb the enthusiasm , I have also requested Joe to request the same from you, as I feel I don’t have any authority to ask you to stop what you’re doing and stay on topic. Good evening all, and see you when I get back.

 

[anthony022071]

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters,

I would like to resurrect an old topic and would like your (name removed by moderator)uton my belief about the papacy. I am open to correction (accompanied by right reason), so I hope you can help me out.

I believe that:

The Pope has immediate jurisdiction ONLY over his own Patriarchal Church on all matters regarding faith and discipline; his jurisdiction regarding discipline in other Patriarchal Churches is NOT immediate. Only in matters of universal Faith and morals and in the enforcement of a UNIVERSAL canon does the Pope have immediate jurisiction over all Churches. Further, the Pope also has ordinary jurisdiction over all Churches; but the exercise of this jurisdiction is EXTRAordinary.

Please let me know what you think as reflected in the poll and your comments.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well,obviously the pope doesn’t have immediate jurisdiction over all the churches because that is humanly impossible. But the pope does have universal jurisdiction over all the churches. Before the schism between East and West,the Pope was often called upon by Eastern clergy to use his authority to eradicate heresies through a pronaouncement of doctrine,remove heretical bishops from their sees,and reinstate bishops to sees from which they had been removed by heretics.

Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449:

“When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Dear brothers, sisters and Father in Christ,

The title might be misleading, but this thread is about an investigation of the CANONICAL norms that may or may not limit the scope of the exercise of papal prerogatives.

It is NOT about examples of contemporary or historical events that can or cannot prove the primacy - much less the infallibility - of the Pope.

I know you probably feel you are staying on topic by doing this, but you are really not.

I beg of you.

Thank you for your consideration.

Humbly,
Marduk

P.S. If this request does not curb the enthusiasm , I have also requested Joe to request the same from you, as I feel I don’t have any authority to ask you to stop what you’re doing and stay on topic. Good evening all, and see you when I get back.

I think people feel you have failed to prove that the petrine authority is limited in the Catholic Church and they are straying into other related topics.

 

[anthony022071]

Dear brothers, sisters and Father in Christ,

The title might be misleading, but this thread is about an investigation of the CANONICAL norms that may or may not limit the scope of the exercise of papal prerogatives.

It is NOT about examples of contemporary or historical events that can or cannot prove the primacy - much less the infallibility - of the Pope.

I know you probably feel you are staying on topic by doing this, but you are really not.

The “canonical norms” of papal prerogatives were themselves shaped by historical events. The popes of Rome were obliged to exert their authority over the other churches both because they were asked to step in by the clergy of other churches during crises and because the popes had a sense of responsibility,as successors to Peter,for maintaining unity and orthodoxy in the whole church – a responsibility which the other bishops did not share. This sense of responsibility for the whole church is evident even in the first century with the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well,obviously the pope doesn’t have immediate jurisdiction over all the churches because that is humanly impossible. But the pope does have universal jurisdiction over all the churches. Before the schism between East and West,the Pope was often called upon by Eastern clergy to use his authority to eradicate heresies through a pronaouncement of doctrine,remove heretical bishops from their sees,and reinstate bishops to sees from which they had been removed by heretics.

Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449:

“When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.”

The context has been given above.

 

[mikee]

mardukm:

A book by the Jesuits called “The Church Teaches.” From 1955, with the imprimatur of Archbishop Hunkeler, D.D. The foreword says the translators were all Latin and Greek scholars. And the book was intended for a college course in dogmatic theology.

But the difference is fascinating. ANOTHER thing I’m gonna have to contact my Latinist friend about. I’m willing to forestall any conclusions based on that text at this point. How about you?

Well, to be honest I still think it’s undeniable that the bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction derives directly from the Pope – regardless of the precise translation in question.

Consider the following: (a) no bishop can be licitly ordained without papal mandate (in fact, the Pope by Divine Law has reserved for himself the right to ultimately choose and approve which bishops are to be ordained); (b) no bishop can lawfully exercise the full power of teaching, governing and sanctifying without the Pope’s (at least tacit) consent; and (c) a bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction is limited to his diocese where he is appointed by the Pope.

Although I’ll admit that this issue been disputed by Catholic theologians, the position I’m asserting has historically been the more common one:

It is a controverted question whether the bishops hold their jurisdiction directly from God or from the sovereign pontiff. The latter opinion, however, is almost generally admitted at the present day, for it is more in conformity with the monarchical constitution of the Church, which seems to demand that there should be no power in the Church not emanating immediately from the sovereign pontiff. Authors who hold the contrary opinion say that it is during the episcopal consecration that bishops receive from God their power of jurisdiction. But habitually before their consecration the bishops have already all powers of jurisdiction over their dioceses (Bargilliat, I, 442-445) (Catholic Encylopedia: Bishop).

And according to that excerpt from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Cardinal Ottaviani himself affirmed that this more common opinion must now be accepted as certain in virtue of Pius XII’s words in Mystici Corporis Christi – and I think he would know.

 

[mikee]

deleted

 

[ForeverAdam]

Well,obviously the pope doesn’t have immediate jurisdiction over all the churches because that is humanly impossible. But the pope does have universal jurisdiction over all the churches. Before the schism between East and West,the Pope was often called upon by Eastern clergy to use his authority to eradicate heresies through a pronaouncement of doctrine,remove heretical bishops from their sees,and reinstate bishops to sees from which they had been removed by heretics.

Do you have quotes stating that these appeals to the Pope were based on a divinely established “universal jurisdiction” rather than the result of a pious custom of the East given to Rome because of her good track record of orthodoxy? Thanks.

God bless,

Adam

 

[anthony022071]

Context, context, context.

More like “deny,deny,deny”.

Was this the same Leo who got a decree from the Emperor Valtentian confirming Rome position on the basis of St. Peter’s primacy (and the Emperor’s credentials?).

The popes never based their ecclesiastical primacy upon secular power.

And the Church ignored his protest of canon 28.

Canon 28 was struck from council records after the pope rejected it,and for six centuries it was not regarded by the Eastern churches or Eastern historians as part of the council.

In the end a council was convened no matter St. Flavian’s opinion you quote.

It was Pope Leo who got the Emporers to call the Council of Chalcedon,after having been appealed to by Flavian and other bishops. And the Council of Chalcedom recognized Pope Leo as presiding over the council through his legates.

Rome, you claim, denied Constantinople’s second place, here affirmed. Rome also was otherwise ignored.

It was only the clergy of Constantinople that affirmed,against tradition,Constantinople’s second place. And they certainly did not ignore the pope – they begged the pope to agree with Canon 28.

 

[anthony022071]

Do you have quotes stating that these appeals to the Pope were based on a divinely established “universal jurisdiction” rather than the result of a pious custom of the East given to Rome because of her good track record of orthodoxy?

St. Maximos:

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

St. Theodore:

Writing to Pope Leo III ] Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

Theodoret of Cyrus:

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)