Pope Victor

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

No we don’t know the precise reason. I’m sure Constantinople’s usurp of Alexandria had alot to do with it (which Rome eventually acknowledged too).

To be perfectly clear, the reason Rome felt that Constantinople was usurping Alexandria’s status was because Constantinople was claiming precedence for non-apostolic reasons - i,.e,. because she was the new capital of the empire. Rome, as protector of the Church’s Tradition, could never accept that such a geo-political rationale took precedence over the apostolicity of Alexandria. It was not until the 7th century that Constantinople began claiming apostolicity from St. Andrew. With that proper justification, Rome could, in the 9th century, finally acknowledge Contantinople’s claim.

But I think there were a number of factors involved including the schism in Antioch. It all was very complicated, maybe the Pope just wanted to let the dust settle down first.

Agreed.

You mean Rome should have had a beef with Paulinus. Even a more important reason why the Pope should have had a beef with Paulinus is the same reason most of the East did, namely that Lucifer (“hell” of a name for a bishop, huh!) of Cagliari uncanonically consecrated Paulinus as successor of Euststhius, having no commission or jurisdiction in Syria.

I don’t believe it was uncanonical because he had no jurisdiction per se. The Church of Antioch did not have a head bishop at the time because St. Meletius was in exile. In a Church controlled by many Arian bishops, he must have felt compelled (being a papal legate) to take appropriate measures to provide the Church with a head bishop. In the absence of any other claimants, Paulinus was canonically installed, though it should have been understood that his position was only likened to the modern-day co-adjutor bishop. Ecclesiastically speaking, he should have given up his sedes when St. Meletius returned. The problem was that Paulinus didn’t. But the real problem was that the issue was not purely ecclesiastical. The Paulinists were rigorists of a sort (in fact, Lucifer of Cagliari who installed Paulinus eventually went into schism as a rigorist), and regarded the Meletians as Arian collaborators (the Meletians were forgiving of Arians who rejected their heresy, and accepted their baptisms and orders, while the Paulinists did not). The Paulinists were similar to the Novatians in their rigorism, and were ecclesiastically the Cyprianists of their day.

Nevertheless, the Pope still favored Paulinus. Both Meletian & Paulinus desired communion with Rome, but Rome favored Paulinus.

As mentioned above, was his approval of Paulinus based on a rejection of St. Meletius, or simply on his concern that Antioch should have a head bishop (in the absence of St. Meletius)? If the Pope was basing his decision on a rejection of St. Meletius, why does not his letter of approval to Paulinus explicitly state that he rejects the claims of the Meletian party?

And if you are right that Rome was in communion with both parties, they were “guilty by association” as well. The only thing I’m sure of is that Rome was in communion with Paulinus.

If you can say that you are not certain that he rejected the Meletian party, then as far as I’m concerned, we are in agreement on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Do you know where I can read about this language change?

I wish I had my book resources with me here in the Philippines. Alas! It is in Dom Cuthbert Butler’s seminal work Vatican 1: 1869 - 1870.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear Brother Marduk,

I want you to know that I still highly value everything you have taken the time to share with me. No one has been more influential in Christian matters than you. Thank you!

To be perfectly clear, the reason Rome felt that Constantinople was usurping Alexandria’s status was because Constantinople was claiming precedence for non-apostolic reasons - i,.e,. because she was the new capital of the empire. Rome, as protector of the Church’s Tradition, could never accept that such a geo-political rationale took precedence over the apostolicity of Alexandria. It was not until the 7th century that Constantinople began claiming apostolicity from St. Andrew. With that proper justification, Rome could, in the 9th century, finally acknowledge Contantinople’s claim.

Rome should have dismissed the claim that Constantinople was founded by St Andrew. And if that was the justification, Alexandra should still be in 2nd place after Rome. Of all the claims of what apostle founded what, the claim that St Andrew founded Constantinople has to be by far the weakest of all! More like false-apostolicity in order to justify the rank of the See for political reasons. Rome was right on this one in the beginning, but Rome should have stayed the course.

I don’t believe it was uncanonical because he had no jurisdiction per se. The Church of Antioch did not have a head bishop at the time because St. Meletius was in exile. In a Church controlled by many Arian bishops, he must have felt compelled (being a papal legate) to take appropriate measures to provide the Church with a head bishop. In the absence of any other claimants, Paulinus was canonically installed, though it should have been understood that his position was only likened to the modern-day co-adjutor bishop. Ecclesiastically speaking, he should have given up his sedes when St. Meletius returned. The problem was that Paulinus didn’t. But the real problem was that the issue was not purely ecclesiastical. The Paulinists were rigorists of a sort (in fact, Lucifer of Cagliari who installed Paulinus eventually went into schism as a rigorist), and regarded the Meletians as Arian collaborators (the Meletians were forgiving of Arians who rejected their heresy, and accepted their baptisms and orders, while the Paulinists did not). The Paulinists were similar to the Novatians in their rigorism, and were ecclesiastically the Cyprianists of their day.

Very good! You have proved your point once again.

If you can say that you are not certain that he rejected the Meletian party, then as far as I’m concerned, we are in agreement on the matter.

Yes, I can say, that I am not certain that he rejected the Meletian party. I concede to you on this. My former assertion that Rome was not in communion with Meletius was because as a Cyprianists myself (recovering) I did not think it possible that the Pope would communion with both sides of a schism.

I’m sure I would make life easier on you if I just threw in the towel and just agreed with you on everything, but I’m sorry, the Gregorian Calender reforms did not make it closer to Nicaea. There’s a little matter of not celebrating the passover with the Jews. Nicaea did not permit Pascha (Easter) to take place until after the Jewish passover. - I’m sure you have the perfect rebut on this too, because Rome is never ever wrong. - I do not consider this to be a issue of faith however, so it is not a big deal.

As far a Pope Victor calling those who celebrated Easter on a day other than a Sunday heretics, I only know what I just read. It’s Philip Schaff once agian, but he is supposed to be quoting Eusebius when it say here: “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.” - I do not consider this matter a faith issue, but it sure sounds like Pope Victor did!

Blessing & Peace!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

As far a Pope Victor calling those who celebrated Easter on a day other than a Sunday heretics, I only know what I just read. It’s Philip Schaff once agian, but he is supposed to be quoting Eusebius when it say here: “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.” - I do not consider this matter a faith issue, but it sure sounds like Pope Victor did!

The term “heterodox” does not mean “heresy.” Heresy implies a different doctrinal FAITH, whereas heteroxy merely implies a different belief about something. If you believe that apples are sweeter than oranges, and I believe that oranges are sweeter than apples, we could call each other “heterodox” (i.e., eteran doxa), but neither of us certainly regard the other as a heretic, holding to different faiths (i.e. eteran pistein).

So for Eusebius to say that the churches in Asia were eteran doxa is not a justification to claim that Pope Victor regarded the Asian as heretics just because they hald to a different date of Easter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Do you know where I can read about this language change?

From the CCC, 2 distinct forms of infallibility

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor,** they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

Be careful – there are certain Catholics who will take the statement from the Catechism quoted by Steveb and claim that the infallibility enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff when exercising his supreme pastorship is wholly separated from the infallibility of the Church and from his brother bishops. In fact, there are those who will claim that the Pope is the ONLY one who enjoys the charism of infallibility in that instance, while all other bishops have fallen into error (I’ve debated two such Catholics in the past here on CAF).

But the Canons explicitly assert:

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.

So when the Roman Pontiff exercises his supreme pastorship, he simply CANNOT be separated from his brother bishops and the Church universal. Canon 333§2 reflects the intentions of the V1 Fathers in their change of the title of the Decree on infallibility. it rejects the notion that the exercise of papal infallibility is some sort of unilateral, monarchical exercise of authority by the bishop of Rome, without any regard for the orthodox witness of his brother bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

From the CCC, 2 distinct forms of infallibility

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor,** they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

 

[utunumsint]

Dear brother MarcoPolo,

Be careful – there are certain Catholics who will take the statement from the Catechism quoted by Steveb and claim that the infallibility enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff when exercising his supreme pastorship is wholly separated from the infallibility of the Church and from his brother bishops. In fact, there are those who will claim that the Pope is the ONLY one who enjoys the charism of infallibility in that instance, while all other bishops have fallen into error (I’ve debated two such Catholics in the past here on CAF).

But the Canons explicitly assert:

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.

So when the Roman Pontiff exercises his supreme pastorship, he simply CANNOT be separated from his brother bishops and the Church universal. Canon 333§2 reflects the intentions of the V1 Fathers in their change of the title of the Decree on infallibility. it rejects the notion that the exercise of papal infallibility is some sort of unilateral, monarchical exercise of authority by the bishop of Rome, without any regard for the orthodox witness of his brother bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,

How would this look in practice? Does it mean that an infallible declaration from a pope would be invalide if all the bishops rejected his proclamation? Does it mean that a Pope’s infallible annoucements have to be ratified by ecumenical councils?

Just curious about how this would work, and whether you see our current papacy working in these terms?

God bless,
Ut

 

[steve_b]

Hi Marduk,

How would this look in practice? Does it mean that an infallible declaration from a pope would be invalide if all the bishops rejected his proclamation? Does it mean that a Pope’s infallible annoucements have to be ratified by ecumenical councils?

Just curious about how this would work, and whether you see our current papacy working in these terms?

God bless,
Ut

Just a few comments

There are some who don’t see the Roman Pontiff in his unique position, . NOR can they see him acting alone when necessary.

for example,

they interpret the following not as a distinction with a difference, but a distinction and no difference.

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor,** they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm

Marduk quoted the following

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.

That’s NOT complete. It’s missing an important part. The underlined, completes the canon and the thought, and is important and can’t be ignored or discounted. It also qualifies “always”

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

Some would have us think the pope can ONLY act collegially. As you can see, that’s not true. He has a choice how he will exercise his office, whether it is personal OR collegial.

further example,

Some think “always enjoyned with his fellow bishops” gets translated as, the pope requires collegial “consent” either before or after a papal teaching is made, in order to make papal teaching infallible.

while consent is with him, and not lacking to him, that consent of the Church is NOT a condition required for efficacy of his dicision either prior to, or after the decision. That’s why the following quote says from Vat II

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Utunumsint,

Hi Marduk,

How would this look in practice? Does it mean that an infallible declaration from a pope would be invalide if all the bishops rejected his proclamation? Does it mean that a Pope’s infallible annoucements have to be ratified by ecumenical councils?

Just curious about how this would work, and whether you see our current papacy working in these terms?

God bless,
Ut

It is not possible for orthodox bishops to reject his proclamation, because the Pope has ALREADY actually determined the consensus of the Church BEFORE he makes his ex cathedra decree. That is one of the practical conditions of the exercise of papal infallibility of which the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 informs us. Infallibility is not inspiration or revelation, so the Pope must use ORDINARY means to arrive at his final decision. These ordinary means always involves the the aid of the Church, and normatively, though not necessarily, the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. So the Pope must determine the consensus of the Church FIRST before making his final judgment.

In that way, the agreement of the Church can never be wanting to an ex cathedra decree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Marduk quoted the following

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church.

That’s NOT complete. It’s missing an important part. The underlined, completes the canon and the thought, and is important and can’t be ignored or discounted. It also qualifies “always”

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

Some would have us think the pope can ONLY act collegially. As you can see, that’s not true. He has a choice how he will exercise his office, whether it is personal OR collegial.

Absolutist Petrine advocates want very badlly for “personal” to mean “unilateral and apart from his brother bishops,” but such an interpretation is already ruled out by the preceding sentence in the canon.

Further, note that the additional clause given by Steveb states “according to the needs of the Church,” so the Pope never just uses his supreme pastorship according to his own discretion, apart from the Church. He must always be using it in response to the needs of the Church. That dictates that he must be listening to his brother bishops. So “personal” does not mean “alone.” It just means that the decision is his, but it never neglects the involvement of his brother bishops (just like your or my decisions are informed and/or influenced by others). In distinction, there is the collegial manner of exercising his supreme pastorship. This simply means that the decision belongs to a group, instead of him deciding personally. In either instance, the collegial reality of the Church is evident, and the Pope NEVER acts alone or unilaterally.

Some think “always enjoyned with his fellow bishops” gets translated as, the pope requires collegial "consent" either before or after a papal teaching is made, in order to make papal teaching infallible.

Whoever said that? Infallibility belongs to God and God alone. No one but God makes it infallible. Neither the Pope nor the Church can make anything infallible. If you think the Pope makes teachings infallible, I’m afraid you are misunderstanding what infallibility is about.

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

Absolutist Petrine advocates completely misinterpret this underlined passage. They think it is a statement that distinguishes the Pope from the Church (typical of their attempts to separate the head from the body). The key to understanding the phrase is the clause “of themselves”; other translations have “by their very nature.” Absolutist Petrine advocates misinterpret this clause to mean “because the Pope said so.” But the actual meaning of the term “of themselves”/“by their very nature” given by the Vatican 1 Fathers, and explicitly asserted by Vatican 2, is “because of the assistance of the Holy Spirit.” It is irreformible because it is GOD’s doctrine, not because it is the Pope’s. The declaration or consensus of the Church (or the Pope, who is a member of the Church) CANNOT MAKE a teaching irreformible. A declaration of the Church (by way of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council) merely assures us subjectively that a teaching is irreformible, but its OBJECTIVE irreformibility (the point of the statement at issue) is assured simply because it is GOD"s Truth. PERIOD. In fact, being God’s Truth, it was irreformible even BEFORE its declaration by the Church - for God’s Truths are in the mind of God in the eternal moment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

Absolutist Petrine advocates want very badlly for “personal” to mean “unilateral and apart from his brother bishops,” but such an interpretation is already ruled out by the preceding sentence in the canon.

Thanks for clarifying the issue Steve and Marduk.

I’m thinking, though, that there will always be bishops, perhaps even more than a minority at times, that will claim that the pope is being unilateral, and acting against their wishes… (for example, Humane Vitae). It seems to me that it is ultimatly up to the Pope to decide whether he is pronouncing something that is according to the needs of the church. Would you agree?

God bless,
Ut

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Dear brother Utunumsint,

It is not possible for orthodox bishops to reject his proclamation, because the Pope has ALREADY actually determined the consensus of the Church BEFORE he makes his ex cathedra decree. That is one of the practical conditions of the exercise of papal infallibility of which the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 informs us. Infallibility is not inspiration or revelation, so the Pope must use ORDINARY means to arrive at his final decision. These ordinary means always involves the the aid of the Church, and normatively, though not necessarily, the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. So the Pope must determine the consensus of the Church FIRST before making his final judgment.

In that way, the agreement of the Church can never be wanting to an ex cathedra decree.

Blessings,
Marduk

Another point to consider; A pope’s infallible decree is not really a mechanical type of operation. IOW, it is organic. For example, the wording of the decree is to be understood or interpreted according to the consensus of the Church Magisterium and sensus fidelium as well as the continuous teaching of the Church and its deposit of Faith. That interpretation may also be organically subject to development over time, just as the infallible decrees of previous popes and councils is still subject to development and refined articulation.

Even in a legalistic society that we have today, it is easy to understand the perplexities of even the most clearly stated idea being subject to the vagaries of individual interpretations. Just as we have the Supreme Court to decide exactly WHAT the Constitution is saying, we have the whole Church ultimately giving its stamp to exactly WHAT a papal infallible decree is saying.

Therefore, the Pope is never out of step with either the Magisterium or the Faithful in general, in any of his infallible decrees. Not that he needs their OK first. NO. But that it just works that way in fact, or in reality.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for clarifying the issue Steve and Marduk.

I’m thinking, though, that there will always be bishops, perhaps even more than a minority at times, that will claim that the pope is being unilateral, and acting against their wishes… (for example, Humane Vitae). It seems to me that it is ultimatly up to the Pope to decide whether he is pronouncing something that is according to the needs of the church. Would you agree?

God bless,
Ut

Here’s some other thoughts

If one says the pope can’t make a decision irreformable by himself, without the consent of the Church, (i.e. collegially) that’s the error of conciliarism. Condemned at Vat I. Bp Gasser, quoted in Vat II docs, gives an elaborate description of that error.

Gasser’s comments
it is evident that the analogy about the head and members limps. But now it is asked whether the bishops also - although they are constituted by God as witnesses, teachers and judges of the Christian faith - do not relate to the Pope as disciples to teacher, when he is defining for the whole Church and exercising his duty as universal teacher. Such is the case. For this is what the words of Christ and the words “supreme judge,” “universal doctor,” and “pastor of the whole flock of Christ” signify. So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls…"

“[W]hoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth”

conciliarism was condemned because as he said, it would usher in the death knell of the Church.

What can the pope do alone? (feel free to add )

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees

“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 (43)” [LG 25 quoting Vat I footnote #43]

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother utunumsint,

I’m thinking, though, that there will always be bishops, perhaps even more than a minority at times, that will claim that the pope is being unilateral, and acting against their wishes… (for example, Humane Vitae).

First, I would like to ask what makes you think Humanae Vitae was against the wishes of the rest of the bishops, or even a majority of the bishops? The reality of the circumstances surrounding Humanae Vitae has been hidden by Absolutist Petrine advocates in their pretended support of their opinions.

Actually, what happened was that during Vatican 2, a bishop from South America raised a ruckus over the issue of ABC, It was not even on the original agenda of V2. The issue eventually gained the ear of the Pope and he formed a commission of a handful of bishops and theologians to make a study on it. The commission came back with a recommendation to relax the Traditional teaching on ABC. The Pope rejected the recommendation, and then the matter came to a vote before the Council. Nearly 2,000 bishops voted to retain the Traditional teaching of the Church on the matter. Would you call that an example of a unilateral decision by the Pope? The fact is, the only thing that the Pope rejected was the recommendation of a handful of bishops/theologians. He was not at all acting against the consensus of the Church on the matter.

So Humanae Vitae is a very bad example to use to try to demonstrate that the Pope can act unilaterally.

Do you have any other examples you might think demonstrates the Absolutist Petrine claim that the Pope can act unilaterally and apart from the consensus of the orthodox Church?

It seems to me that it is ultimatly up to the Pope to decide whether he is pronouncing something that is according to the needs of the church.

I read Canon 333, and I see that it is saying that the Pope can decide whether to respond to the needs of the Church personally or collegially.

What I don’t see is:
(1) The idea that the Pope can act unilaterally, unless you believe that the definition of “personal” is “unilateral.” But to support that interpretation, you must at least be able to supported it by instances in the history of the Church where the Pope has done this or has been able to do this. If you can give just three examples, I will concede the issue.

(2) That the Pope can determine the needs of the Church, and then impose what he thinks are its needs onto local Churches. The Canon says that the Pope can only use his supreme pastorship “according to the needs of the Church.” It does not say that the Pope can use his supreme pastorship “according to what he thinks are the needs of the Church.”

I remember a long time ago in the Eastern Catholicism Forum where the question was posed whether the Pope has the authority to change the liturgy of an Eastern Church. It was in relation to the perception of some that the Pope unilaterally changed the liturgy of the Latin Church. But that is a bogus perception. The fact is that many bishops had appealed to the Pope to reform the Liturgy. It was by no stretch of the imagination a unilateral decision of the Pope. So I could not even understand why the question was being posed whether the Pope has the authority to unilaterally change the Liturgy of an Eastern Church, especially as such a thing did not even happen in the Latin Church.

Would you agree?

Well—no.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

Another point to consider; A pope’s infallible decree is not really a mechanical type of operation. IOW, it is organic. For example, the wording of the decree is to be understood or interpreted according to the consensus of the Church Magisterium and sensus fidelium as well as the continuous teaching of the Church and its deposit of Faith. That interpretation may also be organically subject to development over time, just as the infallible decrees of previous popes and councils is still subject to development and refined articulation.

Even in a legalistic society that we have today, it is easy to understand the perplexities of even the most clearly stated idea being subject to the vagaries of individual interpretations. Just as we have the Supreme Court to decide exactly WHAT the Constitution is saying, we have the whole Church ultimately giving its stamp to exactly WHAT a papal infallible decree is saying.

Therefore, the Pope is never out of step with either the Magisterium or the Faithful in general, in any of his infallible decrees. Not that he needs their OK first. NO. But that it just works that way in fact, or in reality.

Agreed.

The problem with the Absolutist Petrine view is that they presume there will ever be a time when ALL bishops except the Pope, or the WHOLE CHURCH except the Pope will fall into heresy (yes, believe it or not, I had debated two Absolutist Petrine advocates here on CAF who held such heterodox views).

Of course, the Church teaches that can never happen, since the gift of infallibility is given to the Church as a whole, and the entire Magisterium. If there will always be orthodox bishops left other than the Pope, then the Pope NATURALLY has no authority to oppose their teaching. As you said, it just works that way. The infallibility of the Pope in exercising the extraordinary Magisterium (as defined by V1) simply never works apart from or opposed to the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If one says the pope can’t make a decision irreformable by himself, without the consent of the Church, (i.e. collegially) that’s the error of conciliarism.
No it’s not. It would be good of you to give the PROPER account of the High Petrine view and a PROPER definition of conciliarism before you can even begin to pretend that anyone here is proposing conciliarism.

First of all, the Pope nor the Church can’t MAKE anything irreformible. The quality of irreformibility is an ETERNAL quality of Truth, and the Pope has absolutely no authority to make something True if it is False, or to make something False, if it is irreformibly True.

Secondly, unlike the Absolutist Petrine view that you support, the High Petrine view, first of all, does not try to oppose “the Pope” with “the Church” The Pope is a MEMBER of the Church, and a MEMBER of the Council, not separated from them, as Vatican 1 and 2 assert. The Pope is an indispensable member of the Council and the Church, whose consent is necessary (as the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 asserts of the prerogative of the head bishop).

Conciliarism, on the other hand, claims that the Council is ABOVE the Pope, and does not regard the Pope as an indispensable member, but rather merely another bishop whose opinions can be disregarded.

Another important difference between the High Petrine view and conciliarism is that the High Petrine view only demands that the Pope must ensure BEFORE he promulgates an ex cathedra decree that he is not contradicting the sensus fide of the Church or the orthodox teaching of the present Magisterium (in fact, he has no authority to contradict those things, and the charism of infallibility will not allow him to contradict these things). Here, the High Petrine view regards the Church and her orthodox bishops as necessary WITNESSES to the Truth that the Pope naturally has no authority to contradict.

Conciliarism, on the other hand, even after the Pope has ensured his adherence to orthodoxy in formulating an ex cathedra decree, claims that such decree can still be judged by the Church and possibly denied. Here, conciliarism regards the Church and her bishops as JUDGES of the Truth proposed by the Pope.

Gasser’s comments

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

What can the pope do alone? (feel free to add )

Thanks. I’ll add some comments.

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical

council,
There has never been a single Ecumenical Council convoked by the Pope unilaterally. Every Ecum Council has been convoked upon the appeals and pleas of the Church through her bishops. “Personal” does not mean “unilateral” or “alone” or “apart from the Church.”

preside over it personally

There has never been an Ecumenical Council over which he presided over personally in which he made decisions unilaterally. “Personal” does not mean “unilateral” or “alone” or “apart from the Church.”

or through others,

Nothing “unilateral” about this.

transfer, suspend, or dissolve

This has never happened without the prior appeal or subsequent support of his brother bishops.

and to approve its decrees.

Such approval has always been collegial, as it is made in the context of an Ecumenical Council, which is a COLLEGIAL authority through and through. When the Pope approves an Ecum. Council, he approves as a MEMBER OF the Council, not apart from it.

“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 (43)” [LG 25 quoting Vat I footnote #43]

If you read it carefully, the subject of your underlined portions is the DEFINITION, NOT the POPE.

333§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office

“Personal” does not mean “unilateral” or “alone” or “apart from the Church.”

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

You should take the time to read the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. There you will discover that the term “unhindered” does NOT mean “unrestricted.” Rather, it means “uncoerced.” This statement originally came from Vatican 1, and was made primarily in the context of a response to attempts by secular governments to control the Church or the papacy. So it does not mean what Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend -that the Pope can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, whereever he wants. “Unhindered” simply means that the papal power is exercised of the Pope’s own volition. If you check Canon Law, you will also find that the term “unhindered” refers to the use of free will.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Mardukm,

This level of analysis of papal infallibility is new to me. I think my default position is absolutist, and I think this is true for many Catholics, but this probably represents the lack of clarity about this issue. Many of the points you make depend on a certain point of view, or interpretation that are not immediatly evident from, say the catechism, or perhaps even the canons.

If anything, this discussion is bringing home to me possible avenues of dialogue with the orthodox catholic church, and possible avenues of growth in the church’s understanding (or clarification) of what it means by infallibility. I see this as a good thing.

Anyway, back to your statements, this seems to be your first point:

In that way, the agreement of the Church can never be wanting to an ex cathedra decree.

But what does this mean in practice? 51% of the bishops are in favour or a papal decree?

I understand your point though that infallibility must extend to the bishops and to the church as a whole. Perhaps the situation in the West gives western catholics the impression that the church as a whole is against what the magisterium teaches, and what the pope declares. But this is probably an arrogant Western-centric assumption that does not reflect the situation of the church as a whole.

I read Canon 333, and I see that it is saying that the Pope can decide whether to respond to the needs of the Church personally or collegially.

What I don’t see is:
(1) The idea that the Pope can act unilaterally, unless you believe that the definition of “personal” is “unilateral.” But to support that interpretation, you must at least be able to supported it by instances in the history of the Church where the Pope has done this or has been able to do this. If you can give just three examples, I will concede the issue.

I can’t off hand. You make a good point, although finding even one such example would cause problems for your theory…

(2) That the Pope can determine the needs of the Church, and then impose what he thinks are its needs onto local Churches. The Canon says that the Pope can only use his supreme pastorship “according to the needs of the Church.” It does not say that the Pope can use his supreme pastorship “according to what he thinks are the needs of the Church.”

Would you say that the case of Pope Victor is a situation where the pope failed to properly determine what the needs of the local churches were, or that his response to the needs of the local church was disproportionate to the situation?

God bless,
Ut

 

[AmbroseSJ]

utunumsint:

But what does this mean in practice? 51% of the bishops are in favour or a papal decree?

I understand your point though that infallibility must extend to the bishops and to the church as a whole.

It would be better to say that Church infallibility extends in an individual way to the Pope and not the other way around.

In my understanding, there is no “formula” for defining an infallible statement. It is precisely this fixation that is causing so much misunderstanding. To me, it is like the Consecration at Mass. The words of institution are not “magic” words that summon the Lord to earth. Rather the organic whole of the Mass, along with the Consecration (whether the words of institution are used or not (as in some Eastern rites) is immaterial.) The Truth is in fact a mystery of Faith. There is no “scientific” way to explain the consecration. Likewise, in my understanding, there is no scientific formula for determining the exact moment or exact statement that is infallible. Rather, it is the organic, whole Church that is protected by infallibility (including the Pope in his statements) that matters. Just as Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is not such that one can say “here it is” or “there it is.” So also Divine mysteries like Church infallibility are not so easily pointed out as individual instances. Although, everyone agrees that the definition of the Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary do fall into that category.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
So Humanae Vitae is a very bad example to use to try to demonstrate that the Pope can act unilaterally.
…

Well, Canadian Bishops made some adjustments in Winnipeg. (26)
Different country, different meaning.