Question About Limits to Papal Authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patricius79

Guest
What are the limits on Papal power? I know the Catechism says that the Pope’s authority universal, full, immediate, and supreme. But obviously he cannot command us to violate the commandments or to deny the faith. So what are the limits?

Just trying to understand better so that I don’t misunderstand or misrepresent the faith. I want to be obedient to the Holy Father.

Peace of Jesus in Mary,

Pat
 
The limits to his Authority would be sources of our Tradition (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Ecumenical Councils, Fathers, etc). Papal Power cannot go against these sources since the Holy Spirit would not allow such contradiction. In order to be even more specific concerning these sources, I will just repaste my opinion of the ordering and hierarchy of the sources, which I wrote in another thread:

“This Tradition is composed of two primary sources of information (the Baptism-Chrismation/Laying of Hands-Eucharist source and the Scriptural-Second Temple Hopes source) that obviously intersect. These two primary sources, in turn, permeate a fuller list of sources that clearly must follow a hierarchy of importance (1a. Baptism-Chrismation/Laying of Hands-Eucharist, 1b. Scripture [which contains references to the other four Sacraments] and Second Temple Hopes, 2. Trinitarian and Christological teachings of ecumenical councils, 3. Creeds, 4. what the Fathers taught concerning, and the development of understanding of, the other four sacraments, 5. the various liturgies throughout history, and 6. other dogmatic aspects of Ecumenical Councils and infallible papal pronouncements, 7. what all Fathers held in common …] all sources need to be understood according to their proper literal sense, and not literalistically, together with a familiarity of the cultural understanding of the times within which some of them were, and others are still being, established (the Mass and the Bible, obviously, would have not only the literal senses but also other more deeper senses).” While there are other lower sources that I have not mentioned, I believe these to be the 7 (7 1/2) top sources. Lower sources can be “outranked” by higher sources, and should be, unless these lower sources are, themselves, in perfect agreement with the higher sources. Again, there must be a hierarchy of importance.

Further limits to Papal Authority would be those specific situations offered to clarify when a pope may act in a universal, full, immediate, and supreme way. The only one that I can think of is the limit concerning infallibility: the Pope only speaks infallibly when speaking ex-cathedra, to the entire Church, only on matters concerning Faith and morals, while using specifically clear and binding language that he is, in fact, doing so.

Within my undergrad in Eastern Christian Studies, however, one of my professors, who is a faithful Eastern Catholic priest as well as a scholar, has said that the three areas of the Pope’s office (head of the universal Church, Patriarch of the West, and merely Bishop of Rome) still need to be clarified, meaning, how do we know when he is acting merely as bishop vs. patriarch (although we seem to know when he is acting as universal head from the discussion of infallibility mentioned above).
 
tiny_augustine said:
Within my undergrad in Eastern Christian Studies, however, one of my professors, who is a faithful Eastern Catholic priest as well as a scholar, has said that the three areas of the Pope’s office (head of the universal Church, **Patriarch **of the West, and merely Bishop of Rome) still need to be clarified, meaning, how do we know when he is acting merely as bishop vs. patriarch (although we seem to know when he is acting as universal head from the discussion of infallibility mentioned above).
Click to expand...
Wikipedia:
Popes have in the past occasionally used the title Patriarch of the West, without defining it. Beginning 1863, this title appeared in the annual reference publication, Annuario Pontificio, which in 1885 became a semi-official publication of the Holy See. This publication suppressed the title in its 2006 edition. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity explained the decision in a press release issued later that year. It stated that the title “Patriarch of the West” had become “obsolete and practically unusable” and that it was “pointless to insist on maintaining it”. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Church, with which the title could be considered associated, is now organized as a number of episcopal conferences and their international groupings.
(Just a minor detail, fyi)
 
Thanks, commenter, for the info. But the question is, while these episcopal conferences do have weight, how much authority do they actually possess since they are not, by definition, infallible? The Pope delegates these conferences his Authority, but he doesn’t delegate to them his infallibility. And, technically, he still would be Patriarch of the West, since this is, partly, what the early Church considered him to be.

I also thought of more that I could add to my previous post.

In another thread entitled “Primacy but not Supremacy?”, it was discovered by some of us, through the conversation, that the Eastern Orthodox argument of Papal Primacy and the Western Roman Catholic argument of Papal Supremacy were, within most contexts (there still is some differences though), the same. What unites East and West, then, would be the Tradition that the Pope can offer a final, binding ruling in situations only when division is occuring up to the level of Patriarchs (and I believe this can work equally as well with St. Ignatius’ second century words as many Roman Catholics claim that supremacy does). Therefore, another limit to Papal Authority has been discovered: it can and should only be used when there is such a division in the Church, even at the level of Patriarchs (and this has always been in the background of many ecumenical councils).

NOW A FURTHER DISCUSSION: There is a difference between revelation, inspiration, and infallibility (infallibility being “lower” in importance than the two former works of God…the first would make the Pope, literally, an Apostle and not merely the highest Bishop, a successor to the Apostles, and the second would make him capable of writing a new Book of Scripture), and the Pope cannot reveal a new public revelation from God, nor can he, in an obvious and public way, be discerned to be inspired. Infallibility only means that he is guarded by the Holy Spirit from teaching any error as regards to the Faith and morals (but some would say that he is guarded from even teaching anything that could possibly even lead to error in these).

In light of the above, why do we have infallibility defined according to such specific criteria (speaking to the whole Church, ex-cathedra, on Faith and morals, using clear and binding language that he is doing so), when we are, also, supposed to grant him an ascent of the will and mind, whenever he speaks, in non-infallible matters?

This is all the more problematic since the Pope, not revelation-giving nor being clearly inspired, is what I call a “custodian of the sources of our Tradition,” in fact, the head custodian. If he is only using the Tradition and synthesizing answers from its sources in order to teach, so long as he is not making infallible statements (which depend on certain criteria, and, as I have said, should only be made when there is top-level ecclesial conflict) couldn’t we, therefore, disagree on his non-infallibly stated interpretations. We, too, after all have the ability to learn and become masters of the Tradition, ourselves. I too can teach. However, I will admit that I do not have the Grace given to even an ordained priest in whatever leadership role that I have (say, within my family, or as a school teacher, or as a Bible study leader) in order to lead the Body. I’m not equipped with that kind of ecclesial Grace for leadership. I’m just naturally, and not supernaturally, equipped…although, paradoxically, God can also use me, through Grace, as his instrument.

Therefore, are there limits to Papal Authority in regards to individual believers? Shouldn’t there be?
 
commenter said:
Wikipedia:
Popes have in the past occasionally used the title Patriarch of the West, without defining it. Beginning 1863, this title appeared in the annual reference publication, Annuario Pontificio, which in 1885 became a semi-official publication of the Holy See. This publication suppressed the title in its 2006 edition. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity explained the decision in a press release issued later that year. It stated that the title “Patriarch of the West” had become “obsolete and practically unusable” and that it was “pointless to insist on maintaining it”. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Church, with which the title could be considered associated, is now organized as a number of episcopal conferences and their international groupings.
(Just a minor detail, fyi)
Click to expand...
Even more: “In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), alongside the four Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Rome, on the other hand, favored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.”

“Without using the title ‘Patriarch of the West,’“ the group added, “the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_says_abandoned_papal_title_patriarch_of_the_west_was_unclear_obsolete/
 
Hey again! Thanks for the news article. I understand what it’s saying, but, isn’t this just semantics? The Office of the Pope would, therefore, still have three areas: when he acts as merely the Bishop of the canonical territory of Rome itself, when he acts as chief head of the West only (but not the Eastern Catholic Church), and when he acts as the Chief Head of the entire Church, both East and West. The second one still could be expressed as Patriarch of the West. Vatican II also said that Eastern Catholics should continue to develop their own ecclesial Tradition, and he allows the Eastern Churches to run themselves. They submit to his Authority only in matters of infallibility, and, therefore, when he acts as the Universal Head of the Church.
 
OP, do you really fear that the Bishop of Rome, or any other Catholic bishop, is going to “command us to violate the commandments or to deny the faith”?
 
patricius79 said:
What are the limits on Papal power? I know the Catechism says that the Pope’s authority universal, full, immediate, and supreme. But obviously he cannot command us to violate the commandments or to deny the faith. So what are the limits?

Just trying to understand better so that I don’t misunderstand or misrepresent the faith. I want to be obedient to the Holy Father.

Peace of Jesus in Mary,

Pat
Click to expand...
Since you have brought this question from other sub-fora to this one, may I presume the scope of your question in the liturgy and sacraments sub-forum is regarding his authority specifically over liturgy and sacraments? Otherwise, I am not sure how to understand the question’s placement here.

You will find an article on this topic in The Catholic Encyclopedia

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

There you will find the following treatment
*Nature and extent of the papal power

This section is divided as follows:
Code: 
the pope's universal coercive jurisdiction
the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all the faithful, whether singly or collectively
the right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes.*
The relation of the pope’s authority to that of ecumenical councils, and to the civil power, are discussed in separate articles, which are cross-referenced via hyperlink.

A key quote from the treatment is:
Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose”; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter’s authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him.
 
tiny_augustine said:
Hey again! Thanks for the news article. I understand what it’s saying, but, isn’t this just semantics? The Office of the Pope would, therefore, still have three areas: when he acts as merely the Bishop of the canonical territory of Rome itself, when he acts as chief head of the West only (but not the Eastern Catholic Church), and when he acts as the Chief Head of the entire Church, both East and West. The second one still could be expressed as Patriarch of the West. Vatican II also said that Eastern Catholics should continue to develop their own ecclesial Tradition, and he allows the Eastern Churches to run themselves. They submit to his Authority only in matters of infallibility, and, therefore, when he acts as the Universal Head of the Church.
Click to expand...
CCEO (Eastern Canon Law)
Canon 45
  1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
  2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
  3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 46
  1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
  2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 49

The college of bishops, whose head is the Roman Pontiff and whose members are the bishops by virtue of sacramental ordination and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, and in which the apostolic body continually endures, together with its head, and never without its head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.

Canon 56

A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

Canon 79

The patriarch represents the patriarchal Church in all its juridic affairs.

Canon 151

A major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or recognized by the Supreme Authority of the Church, who presides over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris not endowed with the patriarchal title.

Canon 155
  1. A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to the norm of law.
  2. It is solely the right of the supreme authority of the Church to erect, modify, suppress and define the territorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.
Canon 174

A Church sui iuris, which is neither patriarchal, major archiepiscopal nor metropolitan is entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it according to the norm of common law and particular law established by the Roman Pontiff.
 
Thanks for the help, guys. I maybe could have posted this in the apologetics area. I was thinking along the lines of the Papacy being part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, so I posted it here. But then I realized it didn’t really belong here.
 
tiny_augustine said:
Hey again! Thanks for the news article. I understand what it’s saying, but, isn’t this just semantics? The Office of the Pope would, therefore, still have three areas: when he acts as merely the Bishop of the canonical territory of Rome itself, when he acts as chief head of the West only (but not the Eastern Catholic Church), and when he acts as the Chief Head of the entire Church, both East and West. The second one still could be expressed as Patriarch of the West. Vatican II also said that Eastern Catholics should continue to develop their own ecclesial Tradition, and he allows the Eastern Churches to run themselves. They submit to his Authority only in matters of infallibility, and, therefore, when he acts as the Universal Head of the Church.
Click to expand...
Actually are you aware that SOME of the Eastern Rite Churches fall directly under the Pope. The head of the Maronite Church Patriarch has its own head “Beatitude John X” whose title is Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. As you can see by his title “Patriarch of Antioch and All the East” not and throughout the world. As a result the Maronite Churches NOT in Antioch and NOT in the East are NOT under his jurisdiction but fall directly under the Pope. His Beatitude does write to ALL Maronite Churches throughout the world as he gives the Maronite Spirituality. Within the last 5 or so years he has come to my area of the U.S. twice and he considers my parish the “promised land” as it is the ONLY church he has NOT been able to visit while here. First time the church was under renovation and the second time the church had an active criminal case against it.
 
tiny_augustine said:
The limits to his Authority would be sources of our Tradition (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Ecumenical Councils, Fathers, etc). Papal Power cannot go against these sources since the Holy Spirit would not allow such contradiction.
Click to expand...
So is it a matter of faith for us, that the Holy Spirit would simply prevent the Pope from ever teaching anything contrary to faith or morals? Or is the idea that if he did so, it would make him not Pope anymore… or that we simply not have to follow it, or what?
 
tiny_augustine said:
Hey again! Thanks for the news article. I understand what it’s saying, but, isn’t this just semantics? The Office of the Pope would, therefore, still have three areas: when he acts as merely the Bishop of the canonical territory of Rome itself, when he acts as chief head of the West only (but not the Eastern Catholic Church), and when he acts as the Chief Head of the entire Church, both East and West. The second one still could be expressed as Patriarch of the West. Vatican II also said that Eastern Catholics should continue to develop their own ecclesial Tradition, and he allows the Eastern Churches to run themselves. They submit to his Authority only in matters of infallibility, and, therefore, when he acts as the Universal Head of the Church.
Click to expand...
In a way, the pope’s authority indirectly extends to Protestants, too. When the Pope defines a doctrine, such as the Assumption, that is true not only for Catholics but for Lutherans. When the Pope teaches that contraception is wrong, it is not wrong only for Catholics, but for anyone. Protestants, or Anglicans, etc, vary widely in how much they “recognize” the papacy. Some explicitly identify the pope as a crucial leader of Christianity in general, whose teachings much be given consideration (not necessarily adherence). But even those who deny any authority, or any credibility to the papacy, often find themselves following at least a parallel path to the popes, (and ****not ****to other religious leaders) on many things.

An Baptist might be looking at the papal agenda over the last 100 years, and say he agrees with A, does not agree with B, agrees with C, and so on. But note which agenda he is agreeing/disagreeing with. And the many he is not looking at.
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

A(nother) book could be written on the topic. Maybe you can find some of the books which have been published at a local library or googlebooks or something like that.

A brief, summary document which touches upon your question can be found here: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

Dan
Click to expand...
I thank you, Dans. That looks like a document that can help me. I read where it says that Papal primacy has limits set by divine law and Revelation, and that the Pope, too, is subject to the Word of God.
 
I just read the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article entitled “The Pope.” While it offers many great insights from the Fathers, based upon the even higher source of our Tradition that is Scripture, I can’t help but think that many of the early Church disputes prompting a response from Rome, presented within this article, still would fall within my earlier point: “[t]herefore, another limit to Papal Authority has been discovered: it can and should only be used when there is such a division in the Church, even at the level of Patriarchs [or the highest Church Authorities]…”.

Furthermore, while the article does talk about “binding and loosing” power and the “keys,” which I don’t object too, it doesn’t fully deal with the fact that “binding and loosing” power was given to the other Apostles, and this in light of Isaiah 22 and Davidic Tradition.

HERE’S WHAT I WROTE WITHIN ANOTHER FORUM’S POST: Peter’s reception of the Keys is based upon the Old Testament (Isaiah 22). The Tradition was, back then, when the Davidic King was to go away for a period of time he would charge the Prime Minister of his 12 Ministers to rule on his behalf. From what I learned from Scott Hahn, paraphrased, “if the Ministers were divided on an issue, say, the Minister of Finance wanted to go to war with a neighbouring gentile nation, but the Minister of Tourism opposed this, the Prime Minister would step in and make an authoritative decision of whether or not to go to war.”

That’s all I know on the matter concerning the Davidic Prime Minister. But, based on what I see so far, Peter would be said to have primacy instead of supremacy because that’s what seems to fit the picture best. **Why have Twelve Ministers if you really only need one? Why not have Peter alone as the Apostle, and a bunch of bishops underneath him? **All the Apostles had “binding and loosing power” (Matthew 18), but only Peter had the Keys. Why give the others this power?

HERE’S WHAT I SAY NOW, IN LIGHT OF THIS: therefore, wouldn’t it seem that Peter was to only use his Authority of “the Keys” when there was a conflict among the other Apostles, who also had the power to “bind and to loose?”

Wouldn’t the Roman Catholic Church, then, be taking a top-down approach (meaning that the Pope decides any matter, obviously taking into consideration the imput of other Church Authorities, but deciding and authorizing a position regardless of them) when the Davidic Tradition and Scripture may not, necessarily, be specifically implying this? Wouldn’t Orthodox Christians be somewhat legitimate in their different interpretation of Primacy instead of Supremacy (and no I don’t want to change our conversation into a Catholic vs. Orthodox debate)?

I would also say that it’s not a good thing that we are blurring the distinctions between the Prince of the Apostles (Peter) and the Prince of the Bishops (Pope Frances), or between Apostles and the Bishops who are their successors. To me, the Bishops are like the “sons of the Apostles,” but not the Apostles themselves. The differences are obvious: Apostles are not bound by canonical territories, while Bishops are; Apostles were given revelation and were divinely inspired, while Bishops are custodians of the divinely revealed Tradition given to them and do not possess, publically and obviously, divine inspiration, etc.

A final question emerges: if the Pope has Supreme Authority, why doesn’t he just always make infallible statements? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “infallibility,” it makes it clear that he only issues infallible statements when he wants an issue to be definitively resolved. But why are we still bound to give an ascent of the will and mind to the vast majority of his statements, which are non-infallible interpretations, that may, in fact, change or develop? Why would we consider these to be “bound and ratified” in/by Heaven itself when they may, in fact, not be the Truth? Providing that he is not causing division within the Body of Christ over the matter, would Christ really condemn one for not submitting intellectually to something that turns out to be, in the end, not of the Truth, but maybe only partially related to It?

Don’t get me wrong. I do submit to the Pope, but I take a position somewhat in the middle between Catholicism and Orthodoxy because I can’t help but see that there’s much more nuance here than we are ready to admit.

And know that I’m not trying to upset anybody’s Faith. I’m just trying to understand my own synthesis of the Traditon, and to learn more from others too. I need somebody to talk to concerning these things.
 
I want to clarify my own position too, which has to be taken within context with all my previous posts: It’s not that I’ll look at a Pope’s interpretation or statement, and then say, “well, he issued no infallible statement here because there’s no binding, solemn language…therefore, I’ll just reject these words.” Not at all. When they do make any interpretation or statement, I take it seriously, according to what I can see of the entire picture from the sources of our Tradition, according to their hierarchy. Sometimes, I’ll read or hear the Pope’s words and instantly agree because it, obviously, is in accordance to the Tradition. Other times, I’ll consider, study, and grapple with them, finding out that they are in line with the Tradition. Other times, I won’t find that they properly, or fully, agree with the Tradition, and, challenge them…but not because of a lack of humility, but because of a desire to know the fullness of the Truth, the full Truth.

I don’t make my interpretations of the Tradition from what tickles my fancy. I make my interpretations, like a junior custodian of the Tradition without ecclesial Authority over others, according to the whole Tradition, as best as I could. I don’t pick and choose within the Tradition, and acknowledge some parts of it while denying others, like a heretic would. I try to be faithful to the whole of it, and, from here, I synthesize even more answers for Faith, without adding anything “novel,” that is new BUT ALSO foreign into it.

I believe our Tradition is like a garden. You can see all its parts, and the full picture of it all, but you can’t help but notice little seeds, here and there, that still need to be watered. From here you start to see an even more lush garden, since new plants, which are actually from of old, start to make their growth. It’s still the same garden, but, yet, ever new, and it surprises you all over again. And this is the beauty of not merely receiving the Tradition, but also synthesizing further Truth from it, which can hardly be condemned as “novelties” or “corruptions.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top