Pope as Heretic?

[Ahimsa]

But why do you even define ‘public’ in terms of the papal office?

Public includes both papal and non-papal offices.

 

[Peter_J]

Public includes both papal and non-papal offices.

But you would define it differently in each case, correct? Because you said (emphasis added):

In terms of the papal office, I would define ‘public’ to be any teaching requiring either intellectual or religious submission and belief on the part of the Church. The teaching would or would not have to be ex cathedra.

I guess my point is that it seems like back-door ultramontism.

 

[Ahimsa]

But you would define it differently in each case, correct?

Not really. A ‘public’ papal teaching would have approximately the same authority as a ‘public’ teaching of the bishops in communion with the papacy.

Because you said (emphasis added):

In terms of the papal office

, I would define ‘public’ to be any teaching requiring either intellectual or religious submission and belief on the part of the Church. The teaching would or would not have to be ex cathedra.
I guess my point is that it seems like back-door ultramontism.

 

[Peter_J]

Not really. A ‘public’ papal teaching would have approximately the same authority as a ‘public’ teaching of the bishops in communion with the papacy.

Well, I’d definitely call that ultra-montane.

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, I’d definitely call that ultra-montane.

Allow me to clarify. A document like Humane Vitae would be a ‘public’ teaching, requiring submission of intellect and faith (even if not exactly ex cathedra), because it reiterates the teaching of the universal magisterium. Such a document would be a type of ‘public’ teaching.

 

[Peter_J]

First, I trust you don’t take any of this personally – particularly my use of the term “ultra-montane” (I know that different people have different ideas of what constitutes ultra-montane; witness the various internet claims that Vatican I “wasn’t really ultramontane”.)

Allow me to clarify. A document like Humane Vitae would be a ‘public’ teaching, requiring submission of intellect and faith (even if not exactly ex cathedra), because it reiterates the teaching of the universal magisterium. Such a document would be a type of ‘public’ teaching.

Here’s how I see it: ultramontanes, or at least a lot of them, want to be able to claim that the Pope can’t publicly teach any error.

But, it would be asked, doesn’t Vatican I only say that the Pope is infallible when he defines a dogma (or, to be even more precise, when he makes an ex cathedra statement)?

So how can the ultra-montanes get around this little difficulty? Simple: they have a different definition for “public teaching” depending whether your talking about the Pope or somebody else. For example, they might claim that the Pope is only teaching “publicly” if he’s requiring everybody to believe something.

 

[Ahimsa]

Here’s how I see it: ultramontanes, or at least a lot of them, want to be able to claim that the Pope can’t publicly teach any error.

Well, it depends upon how you define “error”. I’m not ultramontane, but I do see how the ultramontane argument does hold water, if one defines “error” in a particular way. E.g., if a present pope states a public teaching that turns out to have been an error, one could say that the pope, just before he made the statement, was no longer pope, and, just after he made the statement, became pope once again. (Or maybe once he lost his papal position, never regained it; or any other possible explanation.) Some might see this possibility of papal error in public teaching as undermining papal authority, but papal authority was never meant to operate in a vacuum, outside of individual conscience and Tradition.