Pope Victor

[steve_b]

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.

Absolutist as it’s being used, is aka a totalitarian. Totalitarians have all the power, and are not bound by anything. They make all the rules as they go along. The pope is not a totalitarian. He is bound by the faith and Tradition. I’ve been on this forum for 7 years. I personally, haven’t run into any abolutist in conversation holding that view of the papacy. Not one. Agreeing as you do with the Church docs presented doesn’t make your view absolutist, it makes it Catholic.
u:

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.

I also find the Church docs presented, are very clear.
u:

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

good point.

As Bp Gasser pointed out in his apologetic, all bishops are equal. Therefore, in this example you use, 51% of bishops might agree with the pope, but that also means 49% don’t. What is an acceptable ratio of Y’s to N’s?

this is why conciliarism doesn’t work.
u:

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. *

Keeping with your previous example, let’s put actual numbers to the “Church as a whole” vs “Western”.

The Catholic Church worldwide, is made up of

• Latin Rite = ~98% of the Catholic Church worldwide
• Catholic Eastern Rites ~20 in number, = ~2% of the Catholic Church worldwide

Therefore, ~1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, we can estimate the numbers borken out by rite…

Regardless of disperity of numbers, all rites in the CC are fully Catholic, and the pope is pope of ALL…
u:

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

The pope doesn’t operate in a vaccuum, and the pope isn’t a totalitarian. Therefore, As the docs I presented said, bishops also have authority, and the pope has the bishops to always draw from, even though he does NOT need anybody’s approval or consent to make his teaching infallible. If he did, then as Bp Gasser stated, the Church couldn’t get anything done. (paraphrased).
u:

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

Actually, from New Advent

“St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.”

It should also be noted, Eusebius says councils formed in Rome, Palistine, Jerusalem, Gaul, Greece, etc and all condemned quartodeciman for not celebrating Easter on Sunday. The entire Church celebrated Easter on Sunday. Therefore Eusebius indicated this controversy was contained within the Asiatics, specifically, Asia minor. And as we know after the issue with Victor, the Asiatics came around and the controversy soon died out.

 

[utunumsint]

Absolutist as it’s being used, is aka a totalitarian. Totalitarians have all the power, and are not bound by anything. They make all the rules as they go along. The pope is not a totalitarian. He is bound by the faith and Tradition. I’ve been on this forum for 7 years. I personally, haven’t run into any abolutist in conversation holding that view of the papacy. Not one. Agreeing as you do with the Church docs presented doesn’t make your view absolutist, it makes it Catholic.

I think what Mardukm is claiming is that the Pope is not only bound by faith and Tradition, but he must also consult with the church in some way before making infallible pronouncements: either directly with the bishops or through some other means… Mardukm, correct me if I’m wrong.

I also find the Church docs presented, are very clear.

It would seem to me that you and Mardukm are seeing things a little differently, so perhaps it isn’t that clear? Again, I may be off base.

good point.

As Bp Gasser pointed out in his apologetic, all bishops are equal. Therefore, in this example you use, 51% of bishops might agree with the pope, but that also means 49% don’t. What is an acceptable ratio of Y’s to N’s?

this is why conciliarism doesn’t work.

Agreed… I think that perhaps what Mardukm is getting at, is that there has never been a time when the bishops have been in opposition to an infallible declaration… therefore, they too participate in this infallibility.

Keeping with your previous example, let’s put actual numbers to the “Church as a whole” vs “Western”.

The Catholic Church worldwide, is made up of

• Latin Rite = ~98% of the Catholic Church worldwide
• Catholic Eastern Rites ~20 in number, = ~2% of the Catholic Church worldwide

Therefore, ~1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, we can estimate the numbers borken out by rite…

Regardless of disperity of numbers, all rites in the CC are fully Catholic, and the pope is pope of ALL…

By Wester, I simply meant North American.

The pope doesn’t operate in a vaccuum, and the pope isn’t a totalitarian. Therefore, As the docs I presented said, bishops also have authority, and the pope has the bishops to always draw from, even though he does NOT need anybody’s approval or consent to make his teaching infallible. If he did, then as Bp Gasser stated, the Church couldn’t get anything done. (paraphrased).

I think Mardukm is saying that the Pope does neet to get, at least the implicit approval of what he declares…

Actually, from New Advent

“St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.”

It should also be noted, Eusebius says councils formed in Rome, Palistine, Jerusalem, Gaul, Greece, etc and all condemned quartodeciman for not celebrating Easter on Sunday. The entire Church celebrated Easter on Sunday. Therefore Eusebius indicated this controversy was contained within the Asiatics, specifically, Asia minor. And as we know after the issue with Victor, the Asiatics came around and the controversy soon died out.

But what was controversial was the degree of punishment that Victor handed out.

God bless,
Ut

 

[steve_b]

I think what Mardukm is claiming is that the Pope is not only bound by faith and Tradition, but he must also *consult *with the church in some way before making infallible pronouncements: either directly with the bishops or through some other means… Mardukm, correct me if I’m wrong.

Consult is not the issue. Consent/approval, is the issue and it’s covered in Lumen Gentium

“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]
u:

Agreed… I think that perhaps what Mardukm is getting at, is that there has never been a time when the bishops have been in opposition to an infallible declaration… therefore, they too participate in this infallibility.

Actually, there WERE bishops who opposed papal infallibility

scroll to the section “the Parties”
newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm
u:

I think Mardukm is saying that the Pope does need to get, at least the implicit**approval of what he declares…

• what happens then if he doesn’t get approval?
• what’s the acceptable ratio of Y’s to N’s?
• Does the pope need 100% approval?, a majority? simple majority? a mere minority? What’s acceptable?

This is conciliarism, and it was condemned at Vat I.

That’s why requireing approval/consent, prior to or consequent to a papal decree as a condition to make a decree valid, contradicts Lumen Gentium

“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]
u:

But what was controversial was the degree of punishment that Victor handed out.

God bless,
Ut

It’s interesting, no one said Victor couldn’t do it. Just that it was heavy handed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Utunumsint,

Absolutist as it’s being used, is aka a totalitarian. Totalitarians have all the power, and are not bound by anything. They make all the rules as they go along. The pope is not a totalitarian. He is bound by the faith and Tradition. I’ve been on this forum for 7 years. I personally, haven’t run into any abolutist in conversation holding that view of the papacy. Not one. Agreeing as you do with the Church docs presented doesn’t make your view absolutist, it makes it Catholic.

Don’t let this rhetoric fool you. None among the High Petrine camp in CAF have ever accused the Absolutists of defending a totalitarian Pope or a Pope that is not bound by Faith and Tradition. What Catholics of the High Petrine view reject about the views of Absolutist Petrine advocates such as Steveb are the following beliefs:

(1) That the Church is infallible only because the Pope is infallible;

(2) That an Ecumenical Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible;

(3) That an Ecumenical Council is authoritative ONLY because the Pope grants it authority, and not that it is ALL the bishops, including the Pope, that gives it authority.

(4) That there might come a time when the ENTIRE CHURCH except the Pope will fall into heresy;

(5) That there might come a time when ALL BISHOPS except the Pope will fall into heresy;

(6) That the Pope does not need to heed the teaching of orthodox bishops when he formulates an ex cathedra decree.

(7) That the Pope can interfere in the affairs of a local Church on his mere discretion.

(8) That the supreme authority of the Pope need not be exercised in response to the needs of the Church, but at his mere discretion.

(9) That the Pope is separate from and above an Ecumenical Council

(10) That the Pope can make unilateral decisions for the whole Church without any (name removed by moderator)ut from his brother bishops.

Etc., etc. ,etc. I and others have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF on exactly these points. And our brother Steveb has supported several of the viewpoints mentioned above.

The pope doesn’t operate in a vaccuum, and the pope isn’t a totalitarian. Therefore, As the docs I presented said, bishops also have authority, and the pope has the bishops to always draw from, even though he does NOT need anybody’s approval or consent to make his teaching infallible. If he did, then as Bp Gasser stated, the Church couldn’t get anything done. (paraphrased).

All that High Petrine advocates have ever said is that the Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidelium or the orthodox teaching of the Magisterium when he pronounces an ex cathedra decree. AT EVERY TURN, brother Steveb and his Absolutist Petrine cohorts have tried to resist that basic truth - with no success, thankfully.

Btw, forgive me for addressing you via quoting brother Steveb. Ever since I challenged him on his Absolutist Petrine viewpoints, he has put me on his ignore list, so I can’t respond to him directly. But my posts are not really directed towards him. My concern is with you. I am blessed to have you consider what I have to say - for the sake of unity with our Orthodox brethren - and I confess that I will do my best to convert you from the Absolutist Petrine camp.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

Are you going to be there long? I don’t have that book.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Mardukm,

I can’t reject or accept your position (or Steve’s) until I understand it. Thanks for sticking around to clarify your points.

Dear brother Utunumsint,

Don’t let this rhetoric fool you. None among the High Petrine camp in CAF have ever accused the Absolutists of defending a totalitarian Pope or a Pope that is not bound by Faith and Tradition. What Catholics of the High Petrine view reject about the views of Absolutist Petrine advocates such as Steveb are the following beliefs:

(1) That the Church is infallible only because the Pope is infallible;

I’d like to clarify what you mean by church… clearly individual lay, religious, priests, and bishops are fallible. How can “Church” as a collective, be infallible?

(2) That an Ecumenical Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible;

Again, there are certainly factions within Ecumenical councils. Some are right, and some are wrong, but it seems to me that the Pope is always among the group that are right. And so a clear indication that you are part of the group that is right, is first that the council ratifies your group’s position, and also that the Pope ratifies the position. Has there ever been a case where a Pope has not ratified a decision of an ecumenical council?

(3) That an Ecumenical Council is authoritative ONLY because the Pope grants it authority, and not that it is ALL the bishops, including the Pope, that gives it authority.

Even, I suppose those bishops who are wrong about an issue? Would you say that their opposition was infallible despite the fact that they were on the losing side of a debate?

(4) That there might come a time when the ENTIRE CHURCH except the Pope will fall into heresy;

Well it doesn’t have to be the entire church… I think you would agree with me that some bishops can fall into heresy, but can the Pope fall into heresy? If the Pope can’t fall into heresy, but the bishops can fall into heresy, then how are the bishops infallible?

(5) That there might come a time when ALL BISHOPS except the Pope will fall into heresy;

Again, it seems to me that the crux of the matter is that some bishops can fall into heresy, and the bishop of Rome cannot fall into heresy.

(6) That the Pope does not need to heed the teaching of orthodox bishops when he formulates an ex cathedra decree.

I would say that the bishop of Rome needs to heed the previous teachings and pronouncements of previous bishops of Rome and previous ecummenical councils. If a certain bishop is in line with these teachings, then the bishop of ROme would by default heed their teachings, because they are orthodox. However, the bishop of Rome does not need to heed their teachings on matters that are not controversial. Sometimes there are deep devisions on certain topics within the church, and the Pope (or council) pronounces a judgement. In my opinion, it would be the pope’s vote that fully ratifies a council’s decision. Without his agreement on a certain verdict, I would be left simply with a majority decision.

(7) That the Pope can interfere in the affairs of a local Church on his mere discretion.

I’m not sure what you mean here…

(8) That the supreme authority of the Pope need not be exercised in response to the needs of the Church, but at his mere discretion.

Well who decides what is the needs of the church? One bishop’s appeal to the Pope? What about one priest, or one lay person, or a group of priests, or a group of lay?

(9) That the Pope is separate from and above an Ecumenical Council

I think it goes back to the point that if a bishop is fallible, but the bishop of rome is not fallible…

(10) That the Pope can make unilateral decisions for the whole Church without any (name removed by moderator)ut from his brother bishops.

Well I don’t think that even Steve would advocate this. The pope is bound by “Faith and Sacred Tradition, and scripture…” as he said… but I do think that it is the job of the Pope to decide between two bishops in opposition, for example…

Etc., etc. ,etc. I and others have debated Absolutist Petrine advocates here in CAF on exactly these points. And our brother Steveb has supported several of the viewpoints mentioned above.

I’d like to understand better some of your objections, but on the whole, I think I’m in favour of many of the things you reject.

All that High Petrine advocates have ever said is that the Pope has no authority to contradict the sensus fidelium or the orthodox teaching of the Magisterium when he pronounces an ex cathedra decree. AT EVERY TURN, brother Steveb and his Absolutist Petrine cohorts have tried to resist that basic truth - with no success, thankfully.

Uggg… I see what you are saying, but I’ve heard very heretical people claim to have the sensue fidelium… and it is sometimes hard to discern who has orthodox teachings. For example, some could claim that the Pius X society are ultra orthodox… and yet they oppose the papacy. Are they infallible?

Btw, forgive me for addressing you via quoting brother Steveb. Ever since I challenged him on his Absolutist Petrine viewpoints, he has put me on his ignore list, so I can’t respond to him directly. But my posts are not really directed towards him. My concern is with you. I am blessed to have you consider what I have to say - for the sake of unity with our Orthodox brethren - and I confess that I will do my best to convert you from the Absolutist Petrine camp.

Blessings,
Marduk

I appreciate your point of view. I certainly do not want to cut off dialogue on this issue. I find this topic very interesting, even though I am somewhat confused…

God bless,
Ut

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Utunumsint,

I think what Mardukm is claiming is that the Pope is not only bound by faith and Tradition, but he must also consult with the church in some way before making infallible pronouncements: either directly with the bishops or through some other means… Mardukm, correct me if I’m wrong.

You are absolutely correct. But brother Steveb and his fellow Absolutist Petrine advocates have consistently resisted that suggestion. They think that to even require ANY consultation with the Church is to somehow demean the singular, unilateral authority of the Pope.

Agreed… I think that perhaps what Mardukm is getting at, is that there has never been a time when the bishops have been in opposition to an infallible declaration… therefore, they too participate in this infallibility.

Well, there have been times in the past when bishops were in opposition. That’s natural when the Pope has to decide between two parties. The party with whom the Pope sides is the orthodox party, and hence has indeed shared in the charism of infallibility.

You have to understand that there is only ONE infallibility - the infallibility of God. “Papal infallibility” is not something utterly unique. “Papal infallibility” is merely the infallibility of the Church utilized in a unique way by the Pope. This unique way is known as an exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. An Ecumenical Council also utilizes this same EXTRAordinary Magsterium when it makes definitive decrees on Faith and/or morals. But infallibility is also utilized in another way - the more common way - which is through the ORDINARY (and universal) Magisterium. When the Extraordiinary Magisterium is utilized, bishops act as JUDGES of the contents of Sacred Tradition; when the Ordinary Magisterium is being utilized, bishops act as WITNESSES to the contents of Sacred Tradition. When the Pope is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium as JUDGE during an exercise of “papal infallibility,” the infallibility of bishops exercising the Ordinary Magisterium as WITNESSES still exists (and the infallibility of the Church as a whole, of rhat matter). And this is what Absolutist Petrine advocates constantly fail to understand. Instead of the one infallibility working together, they imagine that “papal infallibility” is some sort of stand-alone charism that is separated from or opposed to everything else - whence the ridiculous idea proposed by Absolutist Petrine advocates that there may come a time when the ENTIRE Church or ALL the bishops except the Pope will fall into heresy.

I think Mardukm is saying that the Pope does neet to get, at least the implicit approval of what he declares…

Yes, this implicit approval comes not by way of judgment, but by way of WITNESS to the Truth. Again, we High Petrine advocates have explained this time and again. We have only insisted that the Pope MUST sound the orthodox mind of the Church before he makes ex cathedra decrees - after all, infallibility is not some magic power that the Pope possesses; in the exercise of infallibility, the Pope must use ordinary means to arrive at his judgment or decision. But brother Steveb and his cohorts to not want even one iota of restriction on what they percieve to be a unilateral, monarchical authority of the Pope.

But what was controversial was the degree of punishment that Victor handed out.

You are correct. The Pope did not have the authority to excommunicate on that matter, because Sacred Tradition evinces that Churches can live at peace even while celebrating different dates of Easter. The Pope is bound by Sacred Tradition, as are all bishops, the Pope even moreso. So the Pope was wrong - PERIOD - to excommunicate the Asians Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother utunumsint,

I can’t reject or accept your position (or Steve’s) until I understand it. Thanks for sticking around to clarify your points.

I’ll be here as long as you are willing to listen.

I’d like to clarify what you mean by church… clearly individual lay, religious, priests, and bishops are fallible. How can “Church” as a collective, be infallible?

Well, it is a de fide teaching of the Church that the Church as a whole is infallible. I believe the Catechism has a section on this. I will implore the kindess of any of my brethren who will point out the CCC section to our brother here.

Again, there are certainly factions within Ecumenical councils. Some are right, and some are wrong, but it seems to me that the Pope is always among the group that are right. And so a clear indication that you are part of the group that is right, is first that the council ratifies your group’s position, and also that the Pope ratifies the position. Has there ever been a case where a Pope has not ratified a decision of an ecumenical council?

On a matter of doctrine? No. The Pope of Rome has denied the ratification of certain Canons however (most popularly, the canon granting Constantinople the second place after Rome). But the issue here is recognizing that the bishops who are united with the Pope even BEFORE the Pope ratifies their decisions are invested with infallibility. The Pope does not grant a Council its infallibility. Only God can grant infallibility.

Even, I suppose those bishops who are wrong about an issue? Would you say that their opposition was infallible despite the fact that they were on the losing side of a debate?

No, only the bishops who are correct share in the infallible Magisterium of God. But that is not the point of this section. The point is the AUTHORITY of the Council. Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 assert that the authority of a Council is COLLEGIAL authority- i.e., it rests in the COMBINED authority of ALL the orthodox bishops. Absolutist Petrine advocates claim that it rests entirely on the Pope. Would you side with V1 and V2, or Absolutist Petrine advocates?

Well it doesn’t have to be the entire church… I think you would agree with me that some bishops can fall into heresy, but can the Pope fall into heresy? If the Pope can’t fall into heresy, but the bishops can fall into heresy, then how are the bishops infallible?

That’s exactly what two Absolutist Petrine advocates I have debated have contended, that it is the ENTIRE Church that can fall into error (except the Pope, of course). I see that you do not agree with that.

And to answer your question about the Pope - YES, the Pope can theoretically fall into heresy. You have to understand what infallibility is - infallibility does not protect the belief of a single individual; rather, infallibility protects the Faith of the ENTIRE CHURCH. So the Pope can fall into heresy; the charism of infallibility is a negative charism that will PREVENT the Pope from TEACHING that heresy to the Church as the Faith of the Church as a whole. Similarly, several or many bishops within an Ecumenical Council can fall into heresy; theoretically, even the Pope within the context of an Ecumenical Council can fall into heresy. But the Ecumenical Council possesses a COLLEGIAL infallibility - it is the RESULTING OUTCOME OF THE ENTIRE GROUP AS A WHOLE that is guaranteed the charism of infallibility.

Here’s an excerpt from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibility do not logically stand or fall together, since in the Catholic view the co-operation and confirmation of the pope in his purely primatial capacity are necessary, according to the Divine constitution of the Church, for the ecumenicity and infallibility of a council. This has, de facto, been the formal test of ecumenicity; and it would be necessary even in the hypothesis that the pope himself were fallible. An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although neither taken separately is infallible. Hence the pope teaching ex cathedra and an ecumenical council subject to the approbation of the pope as its head are distinct organs of infallibility.

Again, it seems to me that the crux of the matter is that some bishops can fall into heresy, and the bishop of Rome cannot fall into heresy.

“Some” is not “all.” The point is that it is a de fide teaching of the Church (you can look it up in the CCC, or perhaps some kind reader will direct our brother to the appropriate section) that infallibility was not given to St. Peter alone, but to the entire College of the Apostles, whence this collegial infallibility was passed down to the College of Bishops through the Apostolic Succession. If this collegial infallibility was passed down, as the Church teaches, how can someone claim that ALL the bishops except the Pope can fall into error? Why would “papal infallibility” remain, but collegial infallibility disappear?

I would say that the bishop of Rome needs to heed the previous teachings and pronouncements of previous bishops of Rome and previous ecummenical councils. If a certain bishop is in line with these teachings, then the bishop of ROme would by default heed their teachings, because they are orthodox.

However, the bishop of Rome does not need to heed their teachings on matters that are not controversial.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. If there is no controversy, then obviously the bishops are giving orthodox teaching. Why would the Pope not need to heed this orthodox teaching?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Sometimes there are deep devisions on certain topics within the church, and the Pope (or council) pronounces a judgement. In my opinion, it would be the pope’s vote that fully ratifies a council’s decision. Without his agreement on a certain verdict, I would be left simply with a majority decision.

The point is, are the decisions of the orthodox bishops in Council of no account? You do realize, I hope, that when the bishop of Rome does not ratify a non-doctrinal matter in an Ecumenical Council, that non-doctrinal matter STILL carries authoritative weight in the Sees of those bishops who support that non-doctrinal matter. That has happened several times in the history of the Church. If you are not aware of those instances, let me know, and I will point them out to you.

quote=mardukm That the Pope can interfere in the affairs of a local Church on his mere discretion.

I’m not sure what you mean here…
[/quote]

Absolutist Petrine advocates contend that the Pope can act as if the local bishop does not even exist and impose his will on the jurisdiction of the local bishop despite that bishop’s wishes. For example, a local Church has a certain liturgy that is wholly orthodox, and has been in use for centuries. Absolutist Petrine advocates contend that the Pope has the authority to just go in and change the liturgy of that Church despite what the local bishop says. And before you even think it, please be aware that the insitution of the Novus Ordo was NOT a unilateral decision of the Pope, but a collegial decision of an Ecumenical Council.

Well who decides what is the needs of the church? One bishop’s appeal to the Pope?

The local authorities decide what are the needs of the Church. How else can it be otherwise? How would the Pope know the needs of a local Church two thousand miles from Rome if not through its local bishop? Unless you believe the Pope micromanages the Church, how can the Pope know the needs of a local Church even 100 miles away from Rome if not for the local bishop? And the WHOLE Church? How would the Pope know what the needs of distant Churches are? Does not the Pope have to take their needs into account if he is going to make a decision that effects the whole Church? Actually, our canons state that local bishops, for the good of their flock, can dispense from universal laws, and even from papal rescripts. So the Pope may not need to know what goes on thousands of miles away. The Catholic Church’s laws already accomodate such extenuating circumstances.

What about one priest, or one lay person, or a group of priests, or a group of lay?

As God is a God of order, our Church is a Church of order. No one but a bishop is canonically authorized to take matters to the Pope. If priests or laypersons want an issue settled, they go to their bishop first. PERIOD. If the bishop does not meet their needs, they can go to the local Synod of bishops or episcopal conference. The buck normally stops there, depending on the gravity of the issue.

I think it goes back to the point that if a bishop is fallible, but the bishop of rome is not fallible…

An Ecumenical Council is only infallible AS A COLLEGE, not separately. That’s another one of the Absolutist Petrine errors - they think that the charism defined by V1 is active during an Ecumenical Council. The Ecumenical Council is a whole other animal, and the V1 definition of “papal infallibility” does not apply to it.

Well I don’t think that even Steve would advocate this. The pope is bound by “Faith and Sacred Tradition, and scripture…”

We’re not talking purely about matters of Faith, but canonical issues as well. This is exactly what Steveb is advocating - don’t you recall his list of things that the Pope can do alone (which were really not examples of the Pope doing things alone anyway:shrug

as he said… but I do think that it is the job of the Pope to decide between two bishops in opposition, for example…

And when a Pope decides between two bishops, isn’t he agreeing with one of the bishops? So how can his decision be unilateral? Is it PERSONAL? Yes, since the decision is his. But is it unilateral, devoid of the considerations of any other party? NO.

Uggg… I see what you are saying, but I’ve heard very heretical people claim to have the sensue fidelium… and it is sometimes hard to discern who has orthodox teachings. For example, some could claim that the Pius X society are ultra orthodox… and yet they oppose the papacy. Are they infallible?

Both the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine principles would aver that it is whoever is in union with the Pope who is correct. The difference between the two is that the High Petrine view would say that the Pope has correctly agreed with the sensus fidelium (since that sense of faith obviously existed before that decision by the Pope); the Absolutist Petrine view would claim that it is the Pope who has decided what the sensus fidelium is.

I look forward to your replies.

Blessings,
Marduk