:The pope has entire and supreme authority over the Church; he can change or ignore Canon Law, and is the sole and supreme arbiter… [etc]
This is disproved by the conduct of the faithful Catholic bishops during the Arian Crisis.
During this period, as S. Jerome famously remarked, ‘The world awoke and groaned in amazement at finding itself Arian’. Many church historians have commented how, for a period of many decades, the teaching office of the Church was in effect suspended. The huge majority of bishops, for whatever reason, joined the Arian heresy - or rather, constellation of heresies, because like all heresies, by its very nature Arianism was immediately fragmented into innumerable sects. The name most often recalled in this instance is that of S. Athanasius, who worked relentlessly through a long lifetime to combat this gravest of threats. We know the saying, “Athanasius contra Mundum” - ‘Athanasius against the World’. But fortunately, he was not entirely alone. S. Eusebius of Samosata travelled from place to place, not only consecrating bishops, but even giving them jurisdiction over certain dioceses (See Theodoret of Cyr, Histoire ecclésiastique, Migne, tome 82, col,1147-1148; col 1201-1206; footnotes, Is. B.)…”The great Eusebius, having returned from exile, then ordained [keirotonein] Acacius, a man of great renown, as Bishop of Berea, and Theodorus, who was praised by all for his ascetic life, as Bishop of Hierapolis. He then ordained [keirotonein] Eusebius in Calchis, [and] Isidorus in Cyr, both of whom were admirable for their zeal in the Lord’s service…” (etc etc).
num: [keirotonein] literally means “the conferring of office (in Ancient Greek, a king) by the imposition of hands”, and in Church usage is here unambiguously referring to the consecration of bishops.
Fr F. Pivert writes (”Schism or not?” ISBN 0-935952-54-3), “Eusebius even went so far as to declare the Arian bishops deposed, though these were put in place according to the apparent rules of Church Law! Let us imagine Archbishop Lefebvre declaring Cardinal Lustiger deposed and establishing in his place a bishop consecrated by him!”
num: We see from the above that the actions of Mgr Lefebvre were actually much milder than that employed by S. Eusebius, yet the latter was canonised and his actions have never been censured by the Church. This is not, at this point, to claim that this proves Mgr Lefebvre was justified in his concrete actions (although I will argue in another post that they were), but to affirm that his actions were not, in themselves, against Catholic principles. Notice that S. Athanasius & S. Eusebius did not say, “We will remain in obedience to the Pope and leave the rest in God’s Hands”. They appealed above the Positive Law to the higher hierarchies of The Law (see previous posting). I know of someone who was handing out leaflets at a street corner a few years ago. A well-meaning passer-by suggested, “leave it in God’s Hands”. The leafletter held out their own hands and delcared, “But these
are God’s Hands!”
During the debates on infallibility during Vatican I (there is full documentation, with examples of rejected drafts as well as the final, approved draft, in Cork Central Library. I’m not sure if it is online) … there were basically three schools of thought: the most extreme wanted to declare every formal statement of the pope to be infallible. The Irish bishops were of this school. The majority were for a qualified statement. After several re-draftings, this carried the day. The third school of thought opposed any statement at all, on the grounds that the Faithful would not understand the nuances, and would begin to exaggerate the infallibility and authority of the pontiff beyond the actuality. When it came to the final vote, this group left Rome before the vote was taken. It was their way of abstaining. Once the vote had been taken, however, nearly all accepted the decision as from the Holy Spirit. A small group aligned themselves with other dissenters into what is currently known as the “Old Catholics’. Having rejected an infallible pronouncemenet of Vatican I, these are schismatic and heretical.
But the problem envisaged by this group did surface in later decades. Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.
Ref:
sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
The real fruit of the current controversy will be a clarification in the common perception of the Faithful about the extent, and limits, of legitimate obedience and authority.
