Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

HERE IT IS:

Before I give the canons, I want to settle the issue regarding whether a bishop’s power of jurisdiction comes from God directly, or the Pope.
First let me repeat the infallible statement from Vatican II, already quoted in post#107 above, with some additional emphases:
The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them… by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock…This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church and can be confined within certain limits should the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it. In virtue of this power bishops have a sacred right and a duty before the Lord of legislating for and of passing judgment on their subjects, as well as of regulating everything that concerns the good order of divine worship and of the apostolate. The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff; for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently, their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power, is much rather defended, upheld, and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in his Church.
Whose vicars are the bishops? The Pope’s? No! Vatican II infallibly declared that they are vicars of Christ. Not only that, V2 declared EXPLICITLY and INFALLIBLY that they are NOT VICARS of the Roman Pontiff. Further, “legislating for and passing judgment on their subjects” is nothing more nor less than the power of governing, and that power, according to the same infallible Council, is their SACRED RIGHT – though indeed its exercise can be regulated by the supreme authority of the Church. Rights are inherent, they are not given. Simple as that.

But there is more from Vatican II regarding the inherent power of the bishops to govern:
In fact, from tradition, which is expressed especially in the liturgical rites of the Eastern and Western Church, it is abundantly clear that by the imposition of hands and through the words of consecration**, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops in a resplendent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representatives.

Everyone knows that the descriptive of “shepherd” denotes the act of governing, and according to this excerpt from the infallible statement of Vatican II, it is inherent in the powers a bishop receives.

Further:
By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors.

What is a “pontiff” if not a title denoting governing power?

(All excerpts from Vatican II are from Lumen Gentium and Chistus Dominus)

I am not saying that any previous prelates (Pope or not) who expressed a contrary opinion (i.e., that the bishops’ power of jurisdiction comes from the Pope) were wrong per se. The fact is that this was one of the questions that was still unanswered regarding the relationship of the Popes to his brother bishops, a question that was unsettled at Vatican I due to circumstances beyond the control of the Council, a question that was FINALLY and thankfully settled by Vatican II.

[CONTINUED]**

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]

On to the Canons. In the following inventory, “E” refers to Eastern Code; “L” refers to Latin Code. The adjacent number is the number of the Canon. In some instances, I could not find analogous Eastern canons for the Latin ones (I just did not know where to look), and – naturally – there are certain Eastern canons that have no Latin equivalents.

Though the Code(s) was promulgated under the singular authority of HH Pope John Paul II of thrice-blessed memory, he specifically exhorted:
In promulgating this code today, we are fully conscious that this act stems from our pontifical authority itself, and so assumes a primatial nature. Yet we are no less aware that in its content this Code reflects the COLLEGIAL solicitude for the Church of all our brothers in the episcopate. Indeed, by a certain analogy with the Council itself, the Code must be viewed as the fruit of COLLEGIAL cooperation, which derives from the combined energies of experienced people and institutions throughout the whole Church.
Thus, we are assured that the contents of the Canons were created by a free and deliberate exchange between the Pope and bishops, not by a unilateral or purely monarchical action.

First, some general principles:

L17/E1499: Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains in doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstance of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

L21/E2, E1503: In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

L27/E1508: Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

** Unless otherwise specified, the word “law” or “laws” in the Code refers to the Canons in the Code itself. It can concurrently refer to such indisputable laws as Divine Law. The Eastern Code gives the particular designation “common law” to laws and customs common to the Eastern/Oriental Churches.

These preliminaries require absolute attention, because by them we understand that unless otherwise specified, the legal obligations enacted in the Code apply to EVERY member of the Church, including the Pope.

On to the Canons affecting papal power or regarding papal power in relation to the episcopate:

L4/E5: Acquired rights, and likewise privileges hitherto granted by the Apostolic See to either physical or juridical persons, which are still in use and have not been revoked, remain intact, unless they are expressly revoked by the canons of this Code.

L6-1/E6: When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2. other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;
3. all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in the Code itself;
4. any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.
   NOTE: The Eastern Code includes centenary and immemorial customs as matters which the current code does not affect.

These two Canons prove that even the Pope is subject to the Canons, as even his own decisions are subject to it. Someone might retort that this proves nothing except that the Pope rules himself, and can cancel the laws of a previous Pope – which is no comfort at all. In response, I would say this is an utterly hypocritical distinction since any ecumenical council can invalidate the laws of previous ecumenical councils. In fact, any bishop can invalidate the laws of any previous bishop in his diocese. So neither does the Orthodox system offer any comfort, and there is a possibility that there would be various and conflicting laws from one diocese to the next, which not only is no comfort, but ultimately scandalous.

I imagine the response would be – “that is ludicrous, and there is no reason for you to assume it will happen.” I would respond, “It is indeed extremely ludicrous. But if you do not want a Christian to base his/her impression of a Church on the mere possibility of something bad happening, you should not be using the same argument against the papacy.” As the Lord exhorts us, focus on today, for tomorrow has troubles of its own.

[CONTINUED]

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]

L33-1/E??: General executory decrees, even if published in directories or other such documents, do not derogate from the law, and any of their provisions which are contrary to the law have no force.
NOTE: laws, unless otherwise specified, generally come into force by their publication (i.e., they are made known to the party/parties for whom they are intended in the form of writing). This publication comes in directories. An example of a directory is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the publication for the universal ecclesiastical laws of the Church, whether promulgated by the Pope (personally, or through the Curia), the special Synod of bishops, or the college of bishops.

L38/E1515: An administrative act, even if given Motu proprio, has no effect in so far as it harms the acquired right of another, or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogatory clause.
NOTE: A motu proprio is an administrative decree given by the Pope.

L57-1/E??: Whenever the law orders a decree to be issued, or when a person who is concerned lawfully requests a decree or has recourse to obtain one, the competent authority is to provide for the situation within three months of having received the petition or recourse, unless a different period of time is prescribed by law.
L57-3/E??: A presumed negative reply does not relieve the competent authority of the obligation of issuing the decree, and, in accordance with L128/E935, of repairing any harm done.
Canon law states that every Christian has right of recourse to the Pope; this right of the Christian places an actual obligation on the Pope.

L63-1/E1529-1: Except where there is question of a rescript wich grants a favor motu proprio, subreption, that is, the withholding of the truth, renders a rescript invalid if the request does not express that which, according to canonical law, style and practice, must for validity be expressed.
L63-2/E1529-2: Obreption, that is, the making of a false statement, renders a rescript invalid if not even one of the motivating reasons submitted is true.
NOTE: The first has a derogatory clause for a Motu proprio, while the second does not. Applying the principle of Canon L17/E1499, L63-2/E1529-2 pertains to a Motu proprio, proving once again that Canon law applies even to the Pope and his actions.

L87-1/E1538-1: Whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual welfare, a diocesan Bishop can dispense the faithful from disciplinary laws, both universal laws and those particular laws made by the supreme ecclesiastical authority for his territory or his subjects. He cannot dispense from procedural laws or from penal laws, nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or to some other authority.
L87-2/E1538-2: If recourse to the Holy See is difficult, and at the same time there is danger of grave harm in delay, any Ordinary can dispense from these laws, even if the dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided the dispensation is one which the Holy See customarily grants in the same circumstances.

L90/E??: A dispensation from an ecclesiastical law is not to be given without a just and reasonable cause…otherwise, the dispensation is unlawful and, unless given by the legislator or his superior, it is also invalid.

L94-3/E985-2: The provisions of statutes which are established and promulgated by virtue of legislative power, are regulated by the canons concerning laws.

L119-2/E924-1: In regard to collegial acts, unless the law or the statutes provide otherwise, in regard to other matters *, provided a majority of those who must be summoned are present, what is decided by an absolute majority of those present has the force of law. If the votes are equal after two scrutinizes, the person presiding can break the tie with a casting vote;
L119-3/E924-2: In regard to collegial acts, unless the law or the statutes provide otherwise, that which affects all as individuals must be approved by all.

Comment for brother Yeshua: If the Pope indeed requested a unanimous vote, it seems he was justified by this Canon. It seems recourse to immemorial custom would not help, because we can find examples of collegial acts that came into force both by unanimous and non-unanimous agreement.

[CONTINUED]*

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]

L127-1/E934-1, E166: When the law prescribes that, in order to perform a juridical act, a superior requires the consent or advice of some college or group of persons, the college or group must be convened in accordance with L166/E948, unless, if there is question of seeking advice only, particular or proper law provides otherwise. For the validity of the act, it is required that the consent by obtained of an absolute majority of those present, or that the advice of all be sought.
(See below for the portions of L166/948 relevant to our topic of the relationship of the Pope to his brother bishops).

L128/E935: Whoever unlawfully causes harm to another by a juridical act, or indeed by any other act which is deceitful or culpable, is obliged to repair the damage done.

L139-1/E993: Unless the law prescribes otherwise, the fact that a person approaches some competent authority, even a higher one, does not mean that the executive power of another competent authority is suspended, whether ordinary or delegated.
L139-2/E??: A lower authority, however, is not to interfere in cases referred to higher authority, except for a grave and urgent reason; in which case, the higher authority is to be notified immediately.

L153-1/E943-1: The provision of an office which by law is not vacant is by that very fact invalid, nor does it become valid by subsequent vacancy.
L153-3/E943-3: The promise of any office, by whomsoever it is made, has no juridical effect.

L166-1/E948-1: The one who presides over the college or group is to summon all those who belong to the college or group…
L166-2/E948-2: If someone who should have been summoned was overlooked and was therefore absent, the election is valid. However, if that person insists and gives proof of being overlooked and of absence, the election, even if confirmed, must be rescinded by the competent authority, provided it is juridically established that the recourse was submitted within no more than three days of having received notification of the election.
NOTE: Though these canons refer specifically to elections, L127-1/E934-1 gives the process a greater application.

L193-1/E975-1: No one may be removed from an office which is conferred on a person for an indeterminate time, except for grave reasons and in accordance with the procedure defined by law.
L194-1/E976-1: The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself: one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church; a cleric who has attempted marriage, even a civil one.
Canon law states that the Pope is judged by no ONE, but since Canon law is not a physical or juridical person, this Canon conclusively applies even to the Pope himself. Canons L1314/E1408 and L1321-2/E1464, cited below, are relevant.

E54-1/L341-1: Decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the Fathers of the Council, and are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his order.

L364-2/E46: The principal task of the papal legate is continually to make more firm and effective the bonds of unity which exist between the Holy See and the particular Churches. Within the territory assigned to him, it is the responsibility of the Legate to assist Bishops by action and advice, while leaving intact the exercise of their lawful power.
NOTE: In the Latin Church according to the Latin Code, the papal legate is a permanent feature of the exercise of the papal prerogative. Among the Eastern/Oriental Churches according to the Eastern Code, however, a papal legate is relevant only “according to the needs of the times.”

L375-2/E77: By their episcopal consecration, Bishops receive, together with the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of ruling, which however, by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.

If the infallible decrees of Vatican II were not enough, this Canon closes the case on whether a bishop obtains the power of governance through the Pope, or from God directly.

[CONTINUED]

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]

L381-1/E178: In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan Bishop has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme or to some other ecclesiastical authority.
NOTE: You will not find the term “Supreme Pontiff” in the Eastern Code. There is a distinction made between the “Roman Pontiff” who is “supreme administrator,” “supreme pastor,” and “supreme judge,” on the one hand, and the “supreme authority of the Church,” on the other.

L1314/E1408: A penalty is for the most part ferendae sententiae, that is, not binding upon the offender until it has been imposed. It is, however, latae sententiae, so that it is incurred automatically upon the commission of an offence, if a law or precept expressly lays this down.
NOTE: There is no strictly equivalent concept of latae sententiae in the Eastern Code. Penalties are normatively assigned explicitly by a personal authority, though the Eastern Code recognizes that the Pope and/or an Ecumenical Council can assign penalties apart from an explicit sentence.

L1321-2/E1464: A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept. If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

E385/L??: Dispensation from the form for the celebration of marriage required by law is reserved to the Apostolic See or the patriarch, who will not grant it except for a most grave reason.

E1065: The tribunal of third instance is the Apostolic See, unless common law expressly provides otherwise.
E1492: Laws enacted by the supreme authority of the Church, in which the passive subject is not expressly indicated, affect only the Christian faithful of the Eastern Churches insofar as they treat matters of faith or morals or declarations of divine law or these Christian faithful are explicitly included in these laws or they grant a favor which contains nothing contrary to the Eastern rites.
If there is any doubt among my Western, Eastern and Oriental Catholic (and Orthodox) brethren as to my original statement of belief (in post#1 of this thread), I hope this latter canon settles the issue for you.
[CONTINUED]

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]
As a matter of interest, I also want to quote E604:
Pastors of the Church above all are to take earnest care that amidst the varieties of doctrinal enunciations in the various Churches or cultures, the same sense of faith is preserved and promoted, so that the integrity and unity of faith suffer no harm, rather that the catholicity of the Church is put in a better light through legitimate diversity.

This legitimate and holy focus on faith instead of theological or doctrinal formulations is one of the greatest gifts the Catholic Church gives to her members. You will not find it in the Orthodox Churches (though indeed the Oriental Orthodox Churches in particular preach this very principle, but have not yet fully realized it).

Blessings all,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adam,

You have no proof whatsoever of this. Once again, we’re not interested in your opinions, we’re interested in what the Latin Church of the late-18th and early 19th centuries believed regarding papal infallibility. Until you can show us that your Church condemned such statements and made an attempt to silence the mouths of these bishops (like your Church did to other heretical upstarts), then the evidence shows that papal infallibility was NOT a teaching of your Church before 1870. Teachings are defended, but new and false opinions cannot silence those who reject them. Remember that.

AAAAAARGH!!! What does this have to do with this thread? I wish it could be taken elsewhere, but as it is, please permit this response from me, which can be easily validated from the history books.

The fact of the matter is, the idea of “INFALLIBILITY” BEFORE Vatican I was often misunderstood as applying to the political/secular sphere. This was a definite concern expressed by many heads of state/ambassadors when there were rumors that Vatican I was about to be convened.

Whatever “infallibility” the Irish/British bishops were rejecting in response to their government, it was not the infallibility that was defined by the Vatican Council. Rather, what they rejected was really “infallibility” as it was often MISunderstood BEFORE the Vatican Council cleared it up.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Montalban]

Dear brother Adam,

AAAAAARGH!!! What does this have to do with this thread? I wish it could be taken elsewhere, but as it is, please permit this response from me, which can be easily validated from the history books.

The fact of the matter is, the idea of “INFALLIBILITY” BEFORE Vatican I was often misunderstood as applying to the political/secular sphere. This was a definite concern expressed by many heads of state/ambassadors when there were rumors that Vatican I was about to be convened.

Misunderstood is an understatement given the testimony of some Irish bishops.

But, despite it being misunderstood, do you know of any people condemned as heretics from within your church for calling into question papal Infallibility?

And, what do you do when a Pope argued against infallibility?

 

[ForeverAdam]

You will not find it in the Orthodox Churches

(though indeed the Oriental Orthodox Churches in particular preach this very principle, but have not yet fully realized it).

I don’t know about others on this forum, but I’m getting tired of seeing you use the Oriental Orthodox Churches as the coatrack for your conversion to Catholicism. You kept telling us all these differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, but you never substantiate this by quotes from Oriental Orthodox, themselves. This quote is the equivalent of an ex-Lutheran claiming that the Lutheran Church actually believes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, even though they haven’t fully realized it. And such quotes carry the same weight - none. They are just opinions, as are your other statements regarding the beliefs of the Oriental Orthodox.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

The fact of the matter is, the idea of “INFALLIBILITY” BEFORE Vatican I was often misunderstood as applying to the political/secular sphere. This was a definite concern expressed by many heads of state/ambassadors when there were rumors that Vatican I was about to be convened.

Whatever “infallibility” the Irish/British bishops were rejecting in response to their government, it was not the infallibility that was defined by the Vatican Council. Rather, what they rejected was really “infallibility” as it was often MISunderstood BEFORE the Vatican Council cleared it up.

Blessings,
Marduk

Are you seriously arguing that everyone in the Latin Church who rejected papal infallibility before Vatican I were only rejecting infallibility in the political/secular sphere?

God bless,

Adam

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

The Catholic Bishops of England and Ireland denied all this to the English Parliament. They were giving their testimony under oath.

I was talking about the church before the schism.

In 1825, a British Parliamentary Royal Commission was established in view of the forthcoming Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. Some of the questions put to Roman Catholic Bishops are as follows:

**Question to Dr. Oliver Kelley
**Q: Do the R.C. clergy insist that all the Bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience?

A: The Roman Catholic doctrine in respect to Bulls from the Pope is that they are always to be treated with respect; but if those Bulls or Rescripts proceeding from the Pope do contain doctrines or matters which are not compatible with the discipline of the particular Church to which they may be directed, they feel it their duty then to remonstrate respectfully, and not to receive the regulations that may emanate from the Pope.

Question to Bishop Doyle
Q: Can you state in what respect the national canons received in Ireland, or any particular construction put upon the general canons, differ from those which are received in other countries?

A: For instance, a particular church, or the canons of a particular church, might define that the authority of a general council was superior to that of the Pope: Such canon may be received, for instance in Ireland or France, and might not be received in Italy or Spain.

Question to Bishop Murray
Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?

A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council.

Those are stupid and irresponsible things for clergy to say. A local church cannot reject as incompatible a doctrine of the pope and still be in communion with Rome. A local church cannot define for itself that the authority of a council is superior to that of the pope. Matters of doctrine are not dependent upon the consent of the whole church to be binding.

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

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. They are BOTH joined in ONE BODY organically AND DIVINELY for the proper functioning.of the entire body. Howver, I do not think the principle tenets of Gallicanism had heretofore been dogmatically repudiated for one to be able to assign the word “stupid” to that view. Gallicanism did not deny papal infallibility - it was only a question of HOW the infallibility was acquired.

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. 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.

I hope that explanation offers a mitigation of some people’s positions.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adam

I don’t know about others on this forum, but I’m getting tired of seeing you use the Oriental Orthodox Churches as the coatrack for your conversion to Catholicism. You kept telling us all these differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, but you never substantiate this by quotes from Oriental Orthodox, themselves. This quote is the equivalent of an ex-Lutheran claiming that the Lutheran Church actually believes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, even though they haven’t fully realized it. And such quotes carry the same weight - none. They are just opinions, as are your other statements regarding the beliefs of the Oriental Orthodox.

I am certainly just as tired of people not making a proper distinction between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. I know Orthodox (both EO and OO) may have a flowery (and unrealistic) perception of the relationship between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, thinking that the only difference was Chalcedon, but that is simply not the case.

I have given many quotes and contexts in the past regarding my beliefs, and I do not feel particularly obligated to do so again, especially in this thread.

I do apologize for bringing it up in this thread. It was not germane, I must admit. I was thinking “since we’re discussing the canons right now, might as well include this,” failing to distinguish that the TOPIC of the particular canon was not actually germane to this thread. If you wish, please start a new thread on this issue you want to discuss, and I will respond there.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Are you seriously arguing that everyone in the Latin Church who rejected papal infallibility before Vatican I were only rejecting infallibility in the political/secular sphere?

Not a single bishop at the Vatican Council denied the infallibility of the Pope (neither did the past actions of the Irish bishops amount to a denial of papal infallibility). What Vatican I settled was the NATURE of the infallibility - HOW was it acquired? Was it immediate or derived?, Under what conditions? Is papal infallibility different from the infallibility of the Church? Is it different from the infallibility of ecumenical Councils? Do all bishops share in this infallibility that the Pope has? In what matters is the Pope infallible? How do we know when the Pope has spoken infallibly?

So the answer to your question is “no.” But I reassert that no one in the Catholic Church can be shown to have denied papal infallibility. The actual issue was - and always has been - the NATURE of papal infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SiempreFiel]

Dear brother Adam

I am certainly just as tired of people not making a proper distinction between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy. I know Orthodox (both EO and OO) may have a flowery (and unrealistic) perception of the relationship between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, thinking that the only difference was Chalcedon, but that is simply not the case.

I have given many quotes and contexts in the past regarding my beliefs, and I do not feel particularly obligated to do so again, especially in this thread.

I do apologize for bringing it up in this thread. It was not germane, I must admit. I was thinking “since we’re discussing the canons right now, might as well include this,” failing to distinguish that the TOPIC of the particular canon was not actually germane to this thread. If you wish, please start a new thread on this issue you want to discuss, and I will respond there.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother mardukm,

I love it when you point out how similar Oriental Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. In all honesty, I don’t know much about Oriental Orthodoxy, that is why it makes me feel great when I learn how close both of our Churches really are.

THANK YOU

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The fact of the matter is, the idea of “INFALLIBILITY” BEFORE Vatican I was often misunderstood as applying to the political/secular sphere. This was a definite concern expressed by many heads of state/ambassadors when there were rumors that Vatican I was about to be convened.

Whatever “infallibility” the Irish/British bishops were rejecting in response to their government, it was not the infallibility that was defined by the Vatican Council. Rather, what they rejected was really “infallibility” as it was often MISunderstood BEFORE the Vatican Council cleared it up.

Nice try, Mardukm. But what does the political sphere have to do with the Catholic Catechism which categorically denied papal infallibility prior to 1870?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I reassert that no one in the Catholic Church can be shown to have denied papal infallibility. The actual issue was - and always has been - the NATURE of papal infallibility.

Again, nice try but no cigar! Look at Keenan’s Catechism, used throughout England and Ireland and parts of the United States.

The Irish and the English were taught to explicitly deny papal infallibility.

The Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:

(Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

(A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.

In 1826, in the time of Pope Leo XII, the Bishops of Ireland wrote to the faithful Catholics of Ireland a “Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland” :

“The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.” Of course a few years later in 1870 when the Pope was declared infallible, the poor Irish bishops, probably now in some sort of material heresy, had to hastily backtrack and try to forget that they had ever taught their people that he was not.

They were also obliged to change the Catechism and its teaching. What was Catholic teaching in 1869 had become heresy in 1870.

After Vatican I and 1870, the question was omitted from the Catechism, but 26 years later in 1896, the following was added:

"Q: Is the Pope infallible?

A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.

Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.

A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma." Does anybody other than me have to smile at the logic of that last answer? Declaring that the Pope is not infallible is an implicit assertion that he is!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I love it when you point out how similar Oriental Orthodoxy is to Catholicism. In all honesty, I don’t know much about Oriental Orthodoxy, that is why it makes me feel great when I learn how close both of our Churches really are.

It didn’t worry you at all when it was declared in the Coptic Cathedral that Catholics go to hell? It hasn’t worried you that the Coptic Magisterium has refused to retract this statement despite pressure from the Catholic authorities?

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose
Fr Ambrose:

Look at Keenan’s Catechism, used throughout England and Ireland and parts of the United States.

The Irish and the English were taught to explicitly deny papal infallibility.

The Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:

(Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

(A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.

In 1826, in the time of Pope Leo XII, the Bishops of Ireland wrote to the faithful Catholics of Ireland a “Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland” :

“The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.” Of course a few years later in 1870 when the Pope was declared infallible, the poor Irish bishops, probably now in some sort of material heresy, had to hastily backtrack and try to forget that they had ever taught their people that he was not.

They were also obliged to change the Catechism and its teaching. What was Catholic teaching in 1869 had become heresy in 1870.

After Vatican I and 1870, the question was omitted from the Catechism, but 26 years later in 1896, the following was added:

"Q: Is the Pope infallible?

A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.

Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.

A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma." Does anybody other than me have to smile at the logic of that last answer? Declaring that the Pope is not infallible is an implicit assertion that he is!

I guess I was not clear enough in my previous answer to brother Adam. The fact is, before the Vatican Council cleared up the issue, there was a general impression that “infallibility” inherently included many things that were not actually part of the God-inspired understanding of the term as held by the Church from the beginning. These impressions (or rather MISinterpretations) imposed infallibility on the following (among others):

1. The power of deposing secular rulers;
2. Judgment over the natural sciences and history (i.e., matters not strictly theological or moral).
3. declaring who was saved or not saved.
4. EVERY action of the pope
5. EVERY decree (Bulls, encyclicals, etc.) of the Pope
6. Decrees of the papal curia

In England in particular, there was even an extreme wing of ultramontanism which proposed that infallibility was tantamount to new inspiration (as represented most prolifically by W.G. Ward who was the publisher of the Dublin Review).

These were the usual impressions of infallibility that were running rampant before the Vatican Council. All of this was rejected by the Vatican Council Fathers. What Catholic even today would accept such definitions of infallibility? So in truth, those who rejected “infallibility” as it was popularly understood before Vatican I were being nothing more than faithful Catholics (I fully expect you to misquote me one day and state that I said “those who rejected ‘infallibility’ before Vatican I were being nothing more than faithful Catholics” )

Thus, there is no merit to your snide regarding the post-Vatican I catechism. In rejecting the misinterpretations of infallibility before Vatican I, those people were indeed implictly accepting the definitions of same-said Council.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No comments on the canons?

I hope to get some feed back when I get back tomorrow.

Blessings all,
Marduk

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

No comments on the canons?

I hope to get some feed back when I get back tomorrow.

I think you’ve overwhelmed us!

It probably took you several days to compose that monograph, so you cannot expect an immediate response.