The Church has one Leader (Pope) and whoever opposes him opposes Jesus simple

[englands123]

All these break away groups Church of England, JOW, Anglican, Protestant there so many others have reformed themselves outside The Pope who is leader of the church.

Like it or not.

There has to be a leader or otherwise you get this one big mess.

Just like a referee in sport. His decision is final like it or lump it. Or otherwise there are no rules.

When the Pope changes a ruling it’s not himself changing the ruling or adhering to certain rules. It’s Jesus… Jesus gave St Peter the rules and prayed for him. As he knew the Devil would try and break the Church. Now the Pope is St Peter in Spirit.

 

[MikeInVA]

No, it’s a little more nuanced than that. Much of what the current Pope says are personal statements, and are not magisterial statements.

 

[englands123]

No it isn’t.

The Pope has views just as any human does.

But his teachings are pure regarding the Rules so to speak.

 

[BartholomewB]

When a pope solemnly proclaims that an earlier pope committed a serious mistake, how can we tell which of the two is right and which is wrong?

 

[Genesis315]

When a pope solemnly proclaims that an earlier pope committed a serious mistake, how can we tell which of the two is right and which is wrong?

What kind of mistake are we talking about? Generally, it is the current Pope that must be followed:

Leo XIII, letter to Cardinal Guibert (Archbishop of Paris):

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

 

[MNathaniel]

his teachings are pure regarding the Rules so to speak.

What do you mean by “teachings”, and what do you mean by “pure”?

For example, do you know the difference between a papal definition ex cathedra, and a personal prudential opinion, even if expressed in a papal homily? Do you understand the criteria necessary for a teaching to be considered infallible, and the limitations an infallible defined teaching places on the scope of possible future teachings (even if by future popes)?

 

[Genesis315]

The Pope has views just as any human does.

But his teachings are pure regarding the Rules so to speak.

You and MikeInVa might be saying the same thing. Here’s how St. Francis de Sales put it:

And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form. Thus we say that we must appeal to him not as to a learned man, for in this he is ordinarily surpassed by some others, but as to the general head and pastor of the Church and as such we must honour, follow, and firmly embrace his doctrine, for then he carries on his breast the Urim and Thummim, doctrine and truth. And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

But he cannot err when he is in cathedra , that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith.

 

[tonyh12]

There are different levels of ‘opposing st Peter’ eg being passive just being born into a faith that has doctrines that don’t have papal authority, this i think is the realm of invincible ignorance.

Knowingly rejecting papal authority as the early reformers did (and thus became essentially ‘false popes’) is another matter but who am I to judge?

Papal authority to form sound doctrine with the the magisterium is God’s will, most christians say ‘thy will be done’ the Lord’s Prayer, they are our separated brethren not separated by Christ but by full communion with Rome).

 

[AlNg]

When the Pope changes a ruling it’s not himself changing the ruling or adhering to certain rules. It’s Jesus…

In his recent book, Pope Francis has come out in favor of a universal basic income. It is interesting to know that this was actually Jesus who was saying this. So if we oppose a universal basic income we are opposing Jesus?

 

[MNathaniel]

In his recent book, Pope Francis has come out in favor of a universal basic income. It is interesting to know that this was actually Jesus who was saying this. So if we oppose a universal basic income we are opposing Jesus?

This seems to be approximately the position that that certain politically-minded clericalists want to push, yes.

I’m not sure what they’d be saying if, say, Cardinal Sarah was pope.

But at least with Francis as pope, there do seem to be some activists pushing some kind of cult of personality in which the changing whims of a leader are law, without those pesky constraints of Tradition (including infallible teachings of previous popes) hemming him in. It seems to be people who want some kind of political outcome, and they see a pope as a useful tool for achieving that, and they long for the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to become as easy to micromanage as pulling a single lever (the pope) and then having those 1.2 billion people fall into unquestioning lockstep with whatever worldly political program.

That’s not what the pope is for though. The pope’s authority has limits, which are clearly defined by the Church. He does have authority – but not at the level where he can say literally anything at all, issue any command at all, and to oppose him would be to oppose Jesus. If that were the case, he could advocate child abuse or child-abuse-enabling practices and we’d have to obey (and we definitely don’t).

 

[ReaderT]

The Church has one Leader (Pope) and whoever opposes him opposes Jesus

@englands123 what about when the Pope himself opposed Jesus through being a heretic, as was the case with anathematized Pope Honorius 1?

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I’m sorry and no disrespect intended to the OP but the description given is a grossly simplified take on Papal Authority. The Pope is not an Oracle who can invent new doctrines on the whim. He is the Vicar (representative) of Christ whose job is to pass on the faith as it was handed to him.

“The Pope’s authority, in the first place, is limited ot matters of religion, that is of faith and morals, and such things as Canon Law, liturgy, marriage cases, ecclesiastical censures and so on, which are part of faith and morals. The Pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in matters of Politics…His authority is ecclesiastical authority, it goes no further than that of the Church”…
But even in religious matters the Pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church. There are a number of things the Pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, or touch in any way, one single point the of the Revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard it against attack and false interpretation". (Sheehan & Joseph, Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, P 211)

 

[BartholomewB]

What kind of mistake are we talking about?

I was thinking of the unusual chain of events initiated by Pope Stephen VI in 896.

 

[ioannes_pius]

True, a condemnation of Honorius I for heresy was drafted at Constantinople, but ultimately that condemnation never received Papal approval. In the end, so your like states: ‘Leo’s letter states that Honorius is anathematized because he "did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”’

Not being diligent in keeping heresy in check in the Church is one thing. Actually proclaiming heresy is quite another.

 

[ReaderT]

True, a condemnation of Honorius I for heresy was drafted at Constantinople, but ultimately that condemnation never received Papal approval. In the end, so your like states: ‘Leo’s letter states that Honorius is anathematized because he "did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”’

Not being diligent in keeping heresy in check in the Church is one thing. Actually proclaiming heresy is quite another.

You’re agreeing a Pope was anathematized - Leo II didn’t attempt to undo the anathema, and that still poses problems for the OP.

Also I don’t think the condemnation was just “drafted” as if this was the rough draft and the final was still in the works - they clearly concluded and declared him to be a heretic. Here are the final words of the Council. (Obviously, whether a future Pope dissented doesn’t bear much weight to us in the East, but I know it would for you):

“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!”
(Session XVI)

Also, this bit here:

“But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose —namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome , Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind , of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action…”

 

[ioannes_pius]

Also I don’t think the condemnation was just “drafted” as if this was the rough draft and the final was still in the works - they clearly concluded and declared him to be a heretic. Here are the final words of the Council.

I’m sure you know that, for Catholics, the acts of an Ecumenical Council must in some way be approved by the Pope in order for them to be included in the Council’s official acts.

Another Pope had died at the right time centuries earlier. The General Council of Constantinople in 681 had drafted a condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy - which was untrue - Pope Agatho had intended to sign it. But he died before being able. The next Pope, Leo II, having better judgment, agreed only to sign a statement that Honorius had let our doctrine become unclear, in his letters to Sergius, which did not teach the Monothelite heresy, but left things fuzzy.
(Fr. Wm. Most, St. Thomas Aquinas on Actual Grace)

Also, it should be noted that in 641, Pope John IV defended Honorius I from the charge of heresy in a letter to Constantine III, saying that Honorius merely meant that there weren’t two contrary wills in Christ.

There have been numerous good (in my opinion) defences of Pope Honorius by many catholic theologians over the ages, and the case was brought up at Vatican I.

 

[ReaderT]

Also, it should be noted that in 641, Pope John IV defended Honorius I from the charge of heresy in a letter to Constantine III, saying that Honorius merely meant that there weren’t two contrary wills in Christ.

There have been numerous good (in my opinion) defences of Pope Honorius by many catholic theologians over the ages, and the case was brought up at Vatican I.

So none of them overturned the anathema against a Pope. So the Pope remained (/remains) anathematized.