S
spina1953
Guest
I agree with your thoughts and info, I thought that was so as per my reading the news.
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
How does accepting canon 28 have anything to do with removing bishops, i.e., Pope St. Leo did not accept canon 28 on the grounds that it usurped the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria from their rightful positions as stated in Nicea? The fact of the matter is that those bishops (not the whole assembly as the canon was introduced during the 15th session) sought out the pope’s final ratification on the matter, and they received an affirmative “no”.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Misplaced Book,
First of all, the Pope does not and can not depose any bishop at will. He must do so according to the canons. No Pope can violate the acquired rights of an individual in the Church according to Canon Law, so the idea that a Pope can depose a bishop “at will” is a gross misconception of the papal prereogatives.
Secondly, what normally happens in a deposition is that the higher authority confirms the deposition by a decree. This confirmation will state the canonical basis for the deposition. This is often seen by the regular observer as the higher authority deposing the bishop, but it is actually the law that deposes the bishop, while the higher authority confirms.
Thirdly, the actual power of the Pope in regards to episcopal depositions is not the power to depose, but rather the power to dispense from the deposition if such dispensation is truly merited. This normally requires an ecclesiastical trial, as the ancient canons state is required for any matter involving the discipline of bishops. The (geographically) universal prereogative of the Pope to hear appeals from deposed bishops was affirmed by the ancient Canons of Sardica.
As far as Canon 28 of Chalcedon is concerned, as noted by others, it was accepted by Rome in 869. Is there something else in particular about it that you want to discuss?
It might also be mete at this point to offer a brief explanation of the “veto power” of the Pope to which certain Catholic apologists allude. The “veto power” is based on the ancient apostolic Canon 34 that states that in matters of great importance, the consent of the head bishop is necessary. If the head bishop does not agree, that matter has no valid standing in the entire Church.
But a clear distinction must be made here. In a doctrinal matter, if the head bishop on the universal level does not agree, it has no valid standing for the entire Church, and for every particular Church within the Church universal On canonical matters, however, the head bishop’s disagreement only goes to the question of the ecumenical status of that canonical matter. It does not necessarily mean that the canonical matter cannot be valid for a local Church. So, for example, on the matter of Canon 28, while the Latin Church did not recognize it, Eastern Christendom could still conduct its internal affairs as if it was valid. Likewise, while the Latin Church rejects the Eastern canons on the use of unleavened bread or married priests, it does not mean that such canons cannot be valid for the Byzantine Churches. Of course, this is all notwithstanding the fact that even the head bishop can be corrected by his brother bishops, and so the head bishop can change his mind.
I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, please do present them.
Blessings,
Marduk
Well, this is a rather different notion than the initial one proposed - the Pope being able to remove any bishop at will.
First of all, the Pope does not and can not depose any bishop at will. He must do so according to the canons. No Pope can violate the acquired rights of an individual in the Church according to Canon Law, so the idea that a Pope can depose a bishop “at will” is a gross misconception of the papal prereogatives.
Secondly, what normally happens in a deposition is that the higher authority confirms the deposition by a decree. This confirmation will state the canonical basis for the deposition. This is often seen by the regular observer as the higher authority deposing the bishop, but it is actually the law that deposes the bishop, while the higher authority confirms.
Thirdly, the actual power of the Pope in regards to episcopal depositions is not the power to depose, but rather the power to dispense from the deposition if such dispensation is truly merited. This normally requires an ecclesiastical trial, as the ancient canons state is required for any matter involving the discipline of bishops. The (geographically) universal prereogative of the Pope to hear appeals from deposed bishops was affirmed by the ancient Canons of Sardica.
As far as Canon 28 of Chalcedon is concerned, as noted by others, it was accepted by Rome in 869. Is there something else in particular about it that you want to discuss?
It might also be mete at this point to offer a brief explanation of the “veto power” of the Pope to which certain Catholic apologists allude. The “veto power” is based on the ancient apostolic Canon 34 that states that in matters of great importance, the consent of the head bishop is necessary. If the head bishop does not agree, that matter has no valid standing in the entire Church.
But a clear distinction must be made here. In a doctrinal matter, if the head bishop on the universal level does not agree, it has no valid standing for the entire Church, and for every particular Church within the Church universal On canonical matters, however, the head bishop’s disagreement only goes to the question of the ecumenical status of that canonical matter. It does not necessarily mean that the canonical matter cannot be valid for a local Church. So, for example, on the matter of Canon 28, while the Latin Church did not recognize it, Eastern Christendom could still conduct its internal affairs as if it was valid. Likewise, while the Latin Church rejects the Eastern canons on the use of unleavened bread or married priests, it does not mean that such canons cannot be valid for the Byzantine Churches. Of course, this is all notwithstanding the fact that even the head bishop can be corrected by his brother bishops, and so the head bishop can change his mind.
I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, please do present them.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Anthony,
Thank you for your patience. The following provides the Magisterial sources for the High Petrine view. You will notice below, I quote several times the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser. An explanation is in order. Vatican 1 was the first Council wherein a commission composed of some representative bishops was given the responsibility and authority to formulate its Decrees. In the past, this role belonged to the general body of bishops, the formulation occuring during the process of discussion/debate. At V1, due to the large number of bishops, the Pope placed the formulation in the hands of a special Commission (the authority of this Commission is comparable to the authority of the Commissions set up by the Pope during V2). Several rounds of discussion/debate based on the official formulation occurred among the general body of bishops, and emendations from the general body were noted and applied to the text accordingly. The name of the special commission was the deputation De fide. Bishop Gasser was the official spokesman of the Commission. On July 11, he delivered the official explanation of the Decree on “papal” infallibility according to the mind of the Commission that formulated the Decrees. It was according to this official understanding that the Fathers were to cast their votes. This official explanation is known in academia as the Relatio of Bishop Gasser.
(1) Catholics generally believe in the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. But there is a difference between how this universal jurisdiction is understood.
AP view: the Pope has ordinary and proper authority in any particular diocese in the Church.
HP view: the Pope (the Metropolitan and Patriarch, as well) only has ordinary authority in any particular diocese, but not proper authority. Only the local bishop has ordinary and proper authority in his diocese.
More concisely:
AP view: the Pope has proper authority in every particular diocese in the Church.
HP view: only the local bishop has proper authority in his own diocese.
See explanation in this thread above on the use of the terms “ordinary,” “immediate” and "proper."
(2) AP and HP advocates both believe the Ecumenical Council is the Supreme Authority in the Church, and the Pope is also the Supreme Authority in the Church. But there is a difference in how this is conceived (NOTE: the term “supreme” is not generally conceived by Orientals in the absolutist sense that Easterns or Westerns might attach to it):
AP view: the Ecumenical Council is supreme only because the Pope who is supreme invests it with his personal authority;
HP view: the Ecumenical Council is supreme because of the collegial authority of ALL the bishops (including its head bishop);
Canon Law: The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council…" (CIC 341; CCEO 54)
AP view: the Pope is supreme APART FROM anyone in the Church;
HP view: the Pope is supreme only in communion with his brother bishops, never apart.
Canon Law: The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops… (CIC 333-2; CCEO )
V2 Theological Commission: Such [a] norm is demanded by the nature of the case, since there is question of functions which must be exercised by several subjects working togther by Christ’s will in a hierarchical manner.
CONT’d
Thank you for your patience. The following provides the Magisterial sources for the High Petrine view. You will notice below, I quote several times the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser. An explanation is in order. Vatican 1 was the first Council wherein a commission composed of some representative bishops was given the responsibility and authority to formulate its Decrees. In the past, this role belonged to the general body of bishops, the formulation occuring during the process of discussion/debate. At V1, due to the large number of bishops, the Pope placed the formulation in the hands of a special Commission (the authority of this Commission is comparable to the authority of the Commissions set up by the Pope during V2). Several rounds of discussion/debate based on the official formulation occurred among the general body of bishops, and emendations from the general body were noted and applied to the text accordingly. The name of the special commission was the deputation De fide. Bishop Gasser was the official spokesman of the Commission. On July 11, he delivered the official explanation of the Decree on “papal” infallibility according to the mind of the Commission that formulated the Decrees. It was according to this official understanding that the Fathers were to cast their votes. This official explanation is known in academia as the Relatio of Bishop Gasser.
(1) Catholics generally believe in the universal jurisdiction of the Pope. But there is a difference between how this universal jurisdiction is understood.
AP view: the Pope has ordinary and proper authority in any particular diocese in the Church.
HP view: the Pope (the Metropolitan and Patriarch, as well) only has ordinary authority in any particular diocese, but not proper authority. Only the local bishop has ordinary and proper authority in his diocese.
More concisely:
AP view: the Pope has proper authority in every particular diocese in the Church.
HP view: only the local bishop has proper authority in his own diocese.
See explanation in this thread above on the use of the terms “ordinary,” “immediate” and "proper."
(2) AP and HP advocates both believe the Ecumenical Council is the Supreme Authority in the Church, and the Pope is also the Supreme Authority in the Church. But there is a difference in how this is conceived (NOTE: the term “supreme” is not generally conceived by Orientals in the absolutist sense that Easterns or Westerns might attach to it):
AP view: the Ecumenical Council is supreme only because the Pope who is supreme invests it with his personal authority;
HP view: the Ecumenical Council is supreme because of the collegial authority of ALL the bishops (including its head bishop);
Canon Law: The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council…" (CIC 341; CCEO 54)
AP view: the Pope is supreme APART FROM anyone in the Church;
HP view: the Pope is supreme only in communion with his brother bishops, never apart.
Canon Law: The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops… (CIC 333-2; CCEO )
V2 Theological Commission: Such [a] norm is demanded by the nature of the case, since there is question of functions which must be exercised by several subjects working togther by Christ’s will in a hierarchical manner.
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
IMPORTANT NOTE: There is a particular portion of the Theological Commission’s statements regarding collegiality that deserve particular attention, because it has been corrupted by Absolutist Petrine advocates to support their position. Nota 3 of the Commission’s statement runs thus:
“Of the College, which cannot exist without its head, it is said that “it is the subject also of supreme and full power over the whole Church.” This must be allowed of necessity if the fullness of power of the Roman Pontiff is not to be jeopardized. For necessarily and always the College carries with it the idea of its head, who preserves intact in the College his role of Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the universal Church. In other words there is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is the head of the College, he alone can perform certain acts which in no wise belong to the bishops, for example, convoking and directing the College, approving its norms of action, etc.”
The only thing the Nota is explaining is that there are some things that the Pope with his brother bishops do by virtue of a formal COLLEGIAL authority, while there are other things the Pope as head and member of the College does that no other bishop within that same College can do by virtue of a formal PERSONAL authority (“personal,” since he is the only one who can do it), but always as a member of, and in communion with the other members of, the college. The High Petrine position of the Catholic Church understands that the Pope holds these unique prerogatives as a MEMBER OF the College, and NEVER apart from it – hence, the examples given at the end of the Nota particularly involve his explicit role as head (and, thus, member) of the College (these are, btw, normative, personal prerogatives of any head bishop -i.e., metropolitan, patriarch- within a Synod). Absolutist Petrine advocates, in opposition to the intention of the Council, (mis)interpret the Nota (particularly, the highlighted portion above) to mean that the Pope APART FROM the College holds certain prerogatives.
Understand that the assumption of all Absolutist Petrine advocates (along with their opponents in the Low Petrine camp) is that the head bishop, on the one hand, and his brother bishops, on the other, are SEPARATE and COMPETING entities in the Church. The High Petrine view, in distinction, regards a head bishop with his brother bishops as one entity. The definition of “college” to the Catholic Church is the head bishop TOGETHER WITH his brother bishops. In opposition to this, the definition of “college” in the minds of Absolutist Petrine advocates is all the bishops combined EXCEPT the head bishop. This helps one understand the (mis)interpretation imposed by Absolutist Petrine advocates upon the Commission’s Nota 3. AP advocates (mis)read Nota 3 thus:
“there is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the College taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the College.”
I hope you will agree that the presumption imposed by Absolutist Petrine advocates to support their idea that the Nota is separating the Pope from the College of bishops is unjustified. Brother Anthony, I would particularly ask for your comment on this. Do you agree with the High Petrine or the Absolutist Petrine understanding of this Nota from V2’s theological Commission?
CONT’d
IMPORTANT NOTE: There is a particular portion of the Theological Commission’s statements regarding collegiality that deserve particular attention, because it has been corrupted by Absolutist Petrine advocates to support their position. Nota 3 of the Commission’s statement runs thus:
“Of the College, which cannot exist without its head, it is said that “it is the subject also of supreme and full power over the whole Church.” This must be allowed of necessity if the fullness of power of the Roman Pontiff is not to be jeopardized. For necessarily and always the College carries with it the idea of its head, who preserves intact in the College his role of Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the universal Church. In other words there is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is the head of the College, he alone can perform certain acts which in no wise belong to the bishops, for example, convoking and directing the College, approving its norms of action, etc.”
The only thing the Nota is explaining is that there are some things that the Pope with his brother bishops do by virtue of a formal COLLEGIAL authority, while there are other things the Pope as head and member of the College does that no other bishop within that same College can do by virtue of a formal PERSONAL authority (“personal,” since he is the only one who can do it), but always as a member of, and in communion with the other members of, the college. The High Petrine position of the Catholic Church understands that the Pope holds these unique prerogatives as a MEMBER OF the College, and NEVER apart from it – hence, the examples given at the end of the Nota particularly involve his explicit role as head (and, thus, member) of the College (these are, btw, normative, personal prerogatives of any head bishop -i.e., metropolitan, patriarch- within a Synod). Absolutist Petrine advocates, in opposition to the intention of the Council, (mis)interpret the Nota (particularly, the highlighted portion above) to mean that the Pope APART FROM the College holds certain prerogatives.
Understand that the assumption of all Absolutist Petrine advocates (along with their opponents in the Low Petrine camp) is that the head bishop, on the one hand, and his brother bishops, on the other, are SEPARATE and COMPETING entities in the Church. The High Petrine view, in distinction, regards a head bishop with his brother bishops as one entity. The definition of “college” to the Catholic Church is the head bishop TOGETHER WITH his brother bishops. In opposition to this, the definition of “college” in the minds of Absolutist Petrine advocates is all the bishops combined EXCEPT the head bishop. This helps one understand the (mis)interpretation imposed by Absolutist Petrine advocates upon the Commission’s Nota 3. AP advocates (mis)read Nota 3 thus:
“there is no distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the College taken collectively, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff together with the College.”
I hope you will agree that the presumption imposed by Absolutist Petrine advocates to support their idea that the Nota is separating the Pope from the College of bishops is unjustified. Brother Anthony, I would particularly ask for your comment on this. Do you agree with the High Petrine or the Absolutist Petrine understanding of this Nota from V2’s theological Commission?
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
(3) AP and HP advocates both believe that the Pope is the chief lawmaker of the Church, but there is a difference:
AP view: The Pope is above Canon Law, and can change the law at his mere and sole discretion;
HP view: The Pope is bound to Canon Law in the same way any lawmaker is bound to the law. The Pope can change Canon law only in reponse to the needs of the Church and in communion with his brother bishops (Catholic Canon law itself mentions other conditions).
Canon Law: All penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, are abrogated, unless they are resumed in this Code itself. (CIC 6-1); an administrative act, even a Motu Proprio, has no effect insofar as it harms the acquired right of another, or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority expressly added a derogatory clause.**(CIC 38; CCEO 1515).
** A derogatory clause is something that limits the applicability of the act or adds a limiting condition to the act.
Minutes of Vatican 1:
Bp Verot of Savanna (Minority) proposed the addition of a canon to the Decree on the Primacy : “If anyone says that the authority of the Pope in the Church is so full that he may dispose of everything by his mere whim, let him be anathema.”
Cardinal Capalti (president of the general congregation) responded: “We are not in a theatre to hear buffooneries, but in the church of God to transact the serious business of the Church, in transacting which nothing should be said either conteumelious or absurd or erroneous.” (apparently, the kind of papal power imagined by Bp. Verot was an absurdity in the first place
)
Bishop Freppel, one of the formal theological advisors of the Council: “When Popes have said they may not act counter to the canons, does that imply they are bound to the canons? I distinguish: as a legislator by his own law, yes; as an inferior to a superior, no. Every legislator in every kind of government is bound to observe the laws he has made or confirmed…this by natural and divine law, because the common good and right order of any society require it…This distinction excludes the fantastic despotism, or absolutism, that we have heard spoken of. Absolutism is the principle of Ulpian in the Roman law, that the mere will of the prince is law. But who has ever said that the ROman Pontiff should govern the Churc according to his sweet will, by his not, by arbitrary power, by fancy, that is, without the laws and canons? We all exclude mere arbitrary power; but we all assert full and perfect power. Is power arbitrary because it is supreme? Are civil governments arbitrary because supreme? Or a General Council confirmed by the Pope? Let all this confusion of ideas go!”
(4) AP and HP advocates both believe the Pope has the authority to speak infallibly with an ex cathedra decree on faith/morals, but there are several major differences on the matter:
(3) AP and HP advocates both believe that the Pope is the chief lawmaker of the Church, but there is a difference:
AP view: The Pope is above Canon Law, and can change the law at his mere and sole discretion;
HP view: The Pope is bound to Canon Law in the same way any lawmaker is bound to the law. The Pope can change Canon law only in reponse to the needs of the Church and in communion with his brother bishops (Catholic Canon law itself mentions other conditions).
Canon Law: All penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, are abrogated, unless they are resumed in this Code itself. (CIC 6-1); an administrative act, even a Motu Proprio, has no effect insofar as it harms the acquired right of another, or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority expressly added a derogatory clause.**(CIC 38; CCEO 1515).
** A derogatory clause is something that limits the applicability of the act or adds a limiting condition to the act.
Minutes of Vatican 1:
Bp Verot of Savanna (Minority) proposed the addition of a canon to the Decree on the Primacy : “If anyone says that the authority of the Pope in the Church is so full that he may dispose of everything by his mere whim, let him be anathema.”
Cardinal Capalti (president of the general congregation) responded: “We are not in a theatre to hear buffooneries, but in the church of God to transact the serious business of the Church, in transacting which nothing should be said either conteumelious or absurd or erroneous.” (apparently, the kind of papal power imagined by Bp. Verot was an absurdity in the first place
)Bishop Freppel, one of the formal theological advisors of the Council: “When Popes have said they may not act counter to the canons, does that imply they are bound to the canons? I distinguish: as a legislator by his own law, yes; as an inferior to a superior, no. Every legislator in every kind of government is bound to observe the laws he has made or confirmed…this by natural and divine law, because the common good and right order of any society require it…This distinction excludes the fantastic despotism, or absolutism, that we have heard spoken of. Absolutism is the principle of Ulpian in the Roman law, that the mere will of the prince is law. But who has ever said that the ROman Pontiff should govern the Churc according to his sweet will, by his not, by arbitrary power, by fancy, that is, without the laws and canons? We all exclude mere arbitrary power; but we all assert full and perfect power. Is power arbitrary because it is supreme? Are civil governments arbitrary because supreme? Or a General Council confirmed by the Pope? Let all this confusion of ideas go!”
(4) AP and HP advocates both believe the Pope has the authority to speak infallibly with an ex cathedra decree on faith/morals, but there are several major differences on the matter:
- AP view: The Pope can unilaterally decide to make an ex cathedra decree on faith/ morals;
HP view: The Pope can only make an ex cathedra decree in response to the needs of the Church as expressed by her bishops (iow, it is an appellate authority).
Pastor Aeternus: The bishops of the whole world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to the Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith, so that here where the faith can suffer no diminution, the harm suffered by the faith might be repaired…
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
(1) As explained earlier, the primary focus of the V1 definition of “papal” infallibility was to combat the excesses of NEO-ultramontanism. It was only towards the end of the Council that concerns were explicitly expressed (done so AFTER Bishop Gasser presented the Relatio) that the definition was not an effective safeguard against the Gallican principle that a papal definition needs to have the consensus of the bishops before it is valid (i.e., Truth) for the Church. It was in this specific and sole context whereby at the 11th hour, the statement “not from the consent of the Church” was added to the definition - the final voting was on July 17, and the foregoing phrase was added only on July 16.;
(2) “Consent” can be understood in several senses, and it was used according to these several senses at V1 (one won’t understand this unless one has studied the background debates at V1 that led to the definition). “Consent” can mean “agreement,” or it can mean “permission.” The Fathers of the Majority party (except the NEO-ultramontantists) had no problem with the idea of consent as “agreement.” The problem was with the second sense, for this was the sense that Gallicans understood the term. The idea that the Pope still needs the permission of the bishops after the ex cathedra decree has been made (but before it is promulgated) was utterly illogical to the majority of the Fathers at V1. The fact is, the exercise of “papal” infallibility is only activated (so to speak) when the bishops themselves approach the Pope for his determination on a matter that the bishops could not decide among themselves (this was made explicit in the historic Proem of the Decree on infallibility - partly quoted in (4) above). But what good is it to appeal to an authority, if one intends to subsequently throw doubt on the decision of that same authority? That is simply anarchy and will only sow confusion and disorder in the Church. So “consent” in the sense of “permission,” was rejected by V1 - hence, “not from the consent of the Church.”
But there was another sense of “consent” that came up in the debates, and it is evident in the quote given above from the Relatio. Again, the notion of consent as “agreement” was not contested. Rather, some among the Minority Party insisted that the consent (i.e., “agreement”) had to come in the form of a formal and explicit assertion from the bishops. This meant that the Pope would have to approach every single bishop (or at least a majority of them) personally in order to obtain this “agreement,” and these particular bishops wanted this condition placed in the definition on the Infallibility. Bishop Gasser critically referred to this notion as “manifest consent.” The Minority Party was not unanimous in this proposal. There were those (e.g., Hefele, Moriarty, Rauscher, Tarnoczy, etc.) who felt this was really a practical impossibility and unreasonable. Needless to say, the proposal was rejected by the Deputation De fide, and “consent” - in this sense of “manifest consent” - is also included in the statement “not from the consent of the Church.”
CONT’d
- AP view: The Pope does not need the consensus of the Church in any way, shape or form for an ex cathedra decree;
HP view: the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium is a necessary condition for any ex cathedra decree, but the Pope need not obtain the explicit, formal agreement of every single bishop, for he can determine this agreement in other ways aside from direct consultation.
Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser: It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church united with its head is the rule of faith even for definitions by the Pope. But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity of inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be deduced from…
(1) As explained earlier, the primary focus of the V1 definition of “papal” infallibility was to combat the excesses of NEO-ultramontanism. It was only towards the end of the Council that concerns were explicitly expressed (done so AFTER Bishop Gasser presented the Relatio) that the definition was not an effective safeguard against the Gallican principle that a papal definition needs to have the consensus of the bishops before it is valid (i.e., Truth) for the Church. It was in this specific and sole context whereby at the 11th hour, the statement “not from the consent of the Church” was added to the definition - the final voting was on July 17, and the foregoing phrase was added only on July 16.;
(2) “Consent” can be understood in several senses, and it was used according to these several senses at V1 (one won’t understand this unless one has studied the background debates at V1 that led to the definition). “Consent” can mean “agreement,” or it can mean “permission.” The Fathers of the Majority party (except the NEO-ultramontantists) had no problem with the idea of consent as “agreement.” The problem was with the second sense, for this was the sense that Gallicans understood the term. The idea that the Pope still needs the permission of the bishops after the ex cathedra decree has been made (but before it is promulgated) was utterly illogical to the majority of the Fathers at V1. The fact is, the exercise of “papal” infallibility is only activated (so to speak) when the bishops themselves approach the Pope for his determination on a matter that the bishops could not decide among themselves (this was made explicit in the historic Proem of the Decree on infallibility - partly quoted in (4) above). But what good is it to appeal to an authority, if one intends to subsequently throw doubt on the decision of that same authority? That is simply anarchy and will only sow confusion and disorder in the Church. So “consent” in the sense of “permission,” was rejected by V1 - hence, “not from the consent of the Church.”
But there was another sense of “consent” that came up in the debates, and it is evident in the quote given above from the Relatio. Again, the notion of consent as “agreement” was not contested. Rather, some among the Minority Party insisted that the consent (i.e., “agreement”) had to come in the form of a formal and explicit assertion from the bishops. This meant that the Pope would have to approach every single bishop (or at least a majority of them) personally in order to obtain this “agreement,” and these particular bishops wanted this condition placed in the definition on the Infallibility. Bishop Gasser critically referred to this notion as “manifest consent.” The Minority Party was not unanimous in this proposal. There were those (e.g., Hefele, Moriarty, Rauscher, Tarnoczy, etc.) who felt this was really a practical impossibility and unreasonable. Needless to say, the proposal was rejected by the Deputation De fide, and “consent” - in this sense of “manifest consent” - is also included in the statement “not from the consent of the Church.”
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
(3) V1 affirmed that an ex cathedra Decree is irreformible (i.e. Truth) because of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not because the Church agreed to it. Even in a general sense, this is true. The Church generally (both Catholic and Orthodox) rejects the heretical modernist principle that Truth depends on consensus. Further, the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 informs us explicitly what consensus is intended to achieve - it is not for the determination of the Truth, but rather to ensure unanimity in the Truth (I quoted the Canon earlier in this thread). if "non-"Catholics intend the sensus fidei to be the determinant of Truth, then there is no patristic warrant for this. Consensus is not the condition for Truth, but is, rather, a characteristic of Truth. St. Vincent Lerins famous principle uses consensus to identify doctrinal Truth, because consensus is characteristic of Truth - hence, where there is consensus/unanimity on a doctrinal matter, it is more than likely that the doctrinal matter is the Truth. But consensus does not itself make Truth what it is (i.e., irreformible). Truth is Truth (i.e., irreformible) for the mere and sole reason that it is from God. This is the intention of the V1 assertion that the irreformibility of an ex cathedra decree does not depend on consensus, but rather on the mere fact that we believe it was made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, It is very important to properly understand the grammar/syntax of the statement “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformible of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” This proper understanding will easily evince the validity of explanation (3) above. Note that the prepositional clause “not from the consent of the Church” is not a descriptive attached to “such definitions,” but rather describes the term “irreformible” – the entire portion subsequent to the term “irreformible” refers directly to that term ("…of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church"). Detractors of V1 (and Absolutist exaggerators besides) misread the statement thus: “Such definitions are not from the consent of the Church.” This is an impossible and unjustified reading given the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser, which affirmed that the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium is the RULE OF FAITH even for definitions by the Pope. The true meaning of the V1 statement is simply this: “Truth (i.e., irreformibility) is Truth of itself [because it is God’s Truth] and not from the consent of the Church.”
This explains the oft-noted statement that it is neither “antecedent nor consequent” consensus that determines the irreformibility of an ex cathedra decree – namely, because consensus has no place at all in granting Truth (i.e. God’s Truth) its nature as Truth (i.e., irreformibility). To make any claim otherwise is nothing more nor less than the modernist heresy that it is consensus that determines what truth is.
The more philosphically-minded might have a greater appreciation for the following concise explanation: There is an efficient and formal cause of Truth in the Church. The Efficient Cause is, of course, God Himself, while the formal cause is the Church. The V1 statement under consideration was simply affirming the Efficient Cause of Truth/irreformibility (the assistance of the Holy Spirit), not the formal cause (the Church).
Vatican 2: For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person. Rather, as the supreme teacher of the unviersal Church, as one in whom the charism of the infallibility of the Church herself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic Faith.
CONT’d
(3) V1 affirmed that an ex cathedra Decree is irreformible (i.e. Truth) because of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not because the Church agreed to it. Even in a general sense, this is true. The Church generally (both Catholic and Orthodox) rejects the heretical modernist principle that Truth depends on consensus. Further, the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 informs us explicitly what consensus is intended to achieve - it is not for the determination of the Truth, but rather to ensure unanimity in the Truth (I quoted the Canon earlier in this thread). if "non-"Catholics intend the sensus fidei to be the determinant of Truth, then there is no patristic warrant for this. Consensus is not the condition for Truth, but is, rather, a characteristic of Truth. St. Vincent Lerins famous principle uses consensus to identify doctrinal Truth, because consensus is characteristic of Truth - hence, where there is consensus/unanimity on a doctrinal matter, it is more than likely that the doctrinal matter is the Truth. But consensus does not itself make Truth what it is (i.e., irreformible). Truth is Truth (i.e., irreformible) for the mere and sole reason that it is from God. This is the intention of the V1 assertion that the irreformibility of an ex cathedra decree does not depend on consensus, but rather on the mere fact that we believe it was made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, It is very important to properly understand the grammar/syntax of the statement “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformible of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” This proper understanding will easily evince the validity of explanation (3) above. Note that the prepositional clause “not from the consent of the Church” is not a descriptive attached to “such definitions,” but rather describes the term “irreformible” – the entire portion subsequent to the term “irreformible” refers directly to that term ("…of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church"). Detractors of V1 (and Absolutist exaggerators besides) misread the statement thus: “Such definitions are not from the consent of the Church.” This is an impossible and unjustified reading given the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser, which affirmed that the consensus of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium is the RULE OF FAITH even for definitions by the Pope. The true meaning of the V1 statement is simply this: “Truth (i.e., irreformibility) is Truth of itself [because it is God’s Truth] and not from the consent of the Church.”
This explains the oft-noted statement that it is neither “antecedent nor consequent” consensus that determines the irreformibility of an ex cathedra decree – namely, because consensus has no place at all in granting Truth (i.e. God’s Truth) its nature as Truth (i.e., irreformibility). To make any claim otherwise is nothing more nor less than the modernist heresy that it is consensus that determines what truth is.
The more philosphically-minded might have a greater appreciation for the following concise explanation: There is an efficient and formal cause of Truth in the Church. The Efficient Cause is, of course, God Himself, while the formal cause is the Church. The V1 statement under consideration was simply affirming the Efficient Cause of Truth/irreformibility (the assistance of the Holy Spirit), not the formal cause (the Church).
- AP view: Papal infallibility is separate and different from the infallibility of the Church in the process of an ex cathedra decree.
HP view: “Papal” infallibility is not papal infallibility at all, but rather the Church’s infallibility uniquely exercised by the Pope as a member of the infallible Church, when the need arises.
Vatican 1: The Roman Pontiff…is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals. (Pastor Aeternus)
Vatican 2: For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person. Rather, as the supreme teacher of the unviersal Church, as one in whom the charism of the infallibility of the Church herself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic Faith.
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
Brother Anthony, I hope you see the import of this. We need only apply a few evident truisms to arrive at the definite conclusion that “papal” infallibility does exist (those not in the Catholic communion might not agree with the conclusion, but they cannot deny the following truisms):
Truism (1) - It is a definite rule of Tradition (with a capital “T”) that a head bishop has the unique prerogative to speak for and represent the plenary geographic jurisdiction of whom he is head. No other bishop in that plenary geographic jurisdiction has that prerogative;
Truism (2) - No local Church is infallible in and of itself, but the Church as a whole is indeed infallible.
Truism (3) - Since a patriarch or metropolitan represents in his person a local Church that is in fact not infallible, they do not, as the representative of that local Church, have the ability to speak with an infallibility that a local Church does not possess.
Conclusion (4) - However, since the Pope represents the WHOLE Church which is indeed infallible, he must necessarily, when in that specific role of representing the whole infallible Church, share in the infallibility of that body which he represents.
A major source of "non-"Catholic objections to “papal” infallibility is the misconception that it is utterly unique and separate from the infallibility of the Church. Understanding that it is in fact merely a subset (so to speak) of the Church’s own infallibility puts things in a very different perspective. Analogically, an Ecumenical Council does not possess an infallibility that is uniquely separate from the infallibility of the Church, but rather merely utilzes that selfsame infallibility (i.e., the Church’s own infallibility) in an extraordinary way. The Ecumenical Council formally represents the infallible Church, and respresenting the whole infallible Church as such, it necessarily shares in the Church’s infallibility. It is In this same sense - i.e., as representative of the infallible Church, not some private person expressing his personal belief that should be imposed on the Church - that we say that the Pope “is infallible.” Btw, you might notice that I am always careful to put “papal” in quotes when I speak of “papal” infallibility. I am simply aligning my expressions with the intentions of the Fathers of V1 when they changed the title of the Decree from “the infallibility of the Pope” to the “infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” – indeed, the infallibility utilized by the Pope is not his personal property, but is rather the Church’s infallibility utilized in an extraordinary way (like the Ecumenical Council utilizes the Church’s infallibility in an extraordinary way).
CONT’d
Brother Anthony, I hope you see the import of this. We need only apply a few evident truisms to arrive at the definite conclusion that “papal” infallibility does exist (those not in the Catholic communion might not agree with the conclusion, but they cannot deny the following truisms):
Truism (1) - It is a definite rule of Tradition (with a capital “T”) that a head bishop has the unique prerogative to speak for and represent the plenary geographic jurisdiction of whom he is head. No other bishop in that plenary geographic jurisdiction has that prerogative;
Truism (2) - No local Church is infallible in and of itself, but the Church as a whole is indeed infallible.
Truism (3) - Since a patriarch or metropolitan represents in his person a local Church that is in fact not infallible, they do not, as the representative of that local Church, have the ability to speak with an infallibility that a local Church does not possess.
Conclusion (4) - However, since the Pope represents the WHOLE Church which is indeed infallible, he must necessarily, when in that specific role of representing the whole infallible Church, share in the infallibility of that body which he represents.
A major source of "non-"Catholic objections to “papal” infallibility is the misconception that it is utterly unique and separate from the infallibility of the Church. Understanding that it is in fact merely a subset (so to speak) of the Church’s own infallibility puts things in a very different perspective. Analogically, an Ecumenical Council does not possess an infallibility that is uniquely separate from the infallibility of the Church, but rather merely utilzes that selfsame infallibility (i.e., the Church’s own infallibility) in an extraordinary way. The Ecumenical Council formally represents the infallible Church, and respresenting the whole infallible Church as such, it necessarily shares in the Church’s infallibility. It is In this same sense - i.e., as representative of the infallible Church, not some private person expressing his personal belief that should be imposed on the Church - that we say that the Pope “is infallible.” Btw, you might notice that I am always careful to put “papal” in quotes when I speak of “papal” infallibility. I am simply aligning my expressions with the intentions of the Fathers of V1 when they changed the title of the Decree from “the infallibility of the Pope” to the “infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope” – indeed, the infallibility utilized by the Pope is not his personal property, but is rather the Church’s infallibility utilized in an extraordinary way (like the Ecumenical Council utilizes the Church’s infallibility in an extraordinary way).
- AP view: the Pope does not need the Church in the process of an ex cathedra decree;
HP view: The Church necessarily aids the Pope in the process of an ex cathedra decree, because infallibility is not revelation nor inspiration.
Pastor Aeternus: The Roman Pontiff, on their part, according as the condition of the times and the circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the whole world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps with divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scriptures and with the apostolic tradition. The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposti of faith that was handed down through the apostles.
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
(5) AP view: The Pope is above an Ecumenical Council;
HP view: the Pope is a member of the Ecumenical Council as its head bishop and can be corrected by his brothers within that Council.
Sacred Tradition: ****
(1) Pope Vigilius: The relevance of this instance in Church history to support the High Petrine view is obvious. What is often overlooked, however, is that whereas two previous ecumenical councils deposed an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan Patriarch, Pope Vigilius was never deposed. The Council Fathers could have simply disposed of him and claimed “your agreement is not needed anyway, so go back to your see and don’t bother us.” (which is the position of Low Petrine advocates). In fact, it would have been rather easy to depose Pope VIgilius since he had lost support in many quarters of the Latin Patriarchate. Instead, the Council kept him bound until he gave his confirmation. The implications for the unique position of the bishop of Rome in the early Church is important for Catholics.
(2) Pope Pius IX: Pio Nono was well-known to have been at least a political NEO-ultramontanist. His leaning towards theological NEO-ultramontanism BEFORE the Council was evident in two letters of commendation to William Ward for tracts upholding the papacy in neo-ultramontanist terms (the tracts by Ward were written as criticism of a tract by Abbot Gueranger entitled La Monarchie Pontificale, which itself criticized NEO-ultramontanism and gave a restricted sense to “papal” infallibility almost identical to the definition of V1). But Pio Nono submitted to the corrections of the Council. AFTER the Council (June, 1871, to be exact), the Swiss bishops, in a pastoral clearly rejecting the excesses of both political and theological NEO-ultramontanism, wrote to their flock:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church; [NOTE: this foregoing clause refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our topic] lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domoain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we ow in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”
Pope Pius IX’s response: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”
NOTE: There are also other examples in the history of the Church wherein a Pope was corrected, even outside the context of an Ecumenical Council.
Given all this, it is legitimate to ask - what about the claim in both Pastor Aeternus and Canon law that there is no appeal from a judgment of the Pope? If you require an explanation for this, let us know, and perhaps I, or others, can clarify the matter to your satisfaction.
(6) AP view: an Ecumenical Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible and therefore grants it its infallibility;
HP view: an Ecumenical Council is infallible because all the bishops TOGETHER are infallible.
Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser: decrees of faith even made by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope. The reason of this is not the one which I have sometimes heard, I say it with sorrow, alleged in this ambo, namely, as if all the infallibility of the Church were seated in the Pope and from the Pope derived and communicated to the Church…The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the entire magisterium of the Church…
NOTE: In this portion of his speech, he is explicitly calling out the Absolutist Petrine advocates on their error.
Catholic Encyclopedia (1910): 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 … are distinct organs of infallibility. (“Infallibility”)
NOTE: The CE is not a Magisterial source, but as far as the Latin Church goes, it is considered by most to generally reflect the Traditional Latin Catholic consensus on its beliefs.
CONT’d
(5) AP view: The Pope is above an Ecumenical Council;
HP view: the Pope is a member of the Ecumenical Council as its head bishop and can be corrected by his brothers within that Council.
Sacred Tradition: ****
(1) Pope Vigilius: The relevance of this instance in Church history to support the High Petrine view is obvious. What is often overlooked, however, is that whereas two previous ecumenical councils deposed an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan Patriarch, Pope Vigilius was never deposed. The Council Fathers could have simply disposed of him and claimed “your agreement is not needed anyway, so go back to your see and don’t bother us.” (which is the position of Low Petrine advocates). In fact, it would have been rather easy to depose Pope VIgilius since he had lost support in many quarters of the Latin Patriarchate. Instead, the Council kept him bound until he gave his confirmation. The implications for the unique position of the bishop of Rome in the early Church is important for Catholics.
(2) Pope Pius IX: Pio Nono was well-known to have been at least a political NEO-ultramontanist. His leaning towards theological NEO-ultramontanism BEFORE the Council was evident in two letters of commendation to William Ward for tracts upholding the papacy in neo-ultramontanist terms (the tracts by Ward were written as criticism of a tract by Abbot Gueranger entitled La Monarchie Pontificale, which itself criticized NEO-ultramontanism and gave a restricted sense to “papal” infallibility almost identical to the definition of V1). But Pio Nono submitted to the corrections of the Council. AFTER the Council (June, 1871, to be exact), the Swiss bishops, in a pastoral clearly rejecting the excesses of both political and theological NEO-ultramontanism, wrote to their flock:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church; [NOTE: this foregoing clause refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our topic] lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domoain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we ow in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”
Pope Pius IX’s response: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”
NOTE: There are also other examples in the history of the Church wherein a Pope was corrected, even outside the context of an Ecumenical Council.
Given all this, it is legitimate to ask - what about the claim in both Pastor Aeternus and Canon law that there is no appeal from a judgment of the Pope? If you require an explanation for this, let us know, and perhaps I, or others, can clarify the matter to your satisfaction.
(6) AP view: an Ecumenical Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible and therefore grants it its infallibility;
HP view: an Ecumenical Council is infallible because all the bishops TOGETHER are infallible.
Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser: decrees of faith even made by a General Council are not infallible and firm unless confirmed by the Pope. The reason of this is not the one which I have sometimes heard, I say it with sorrow, alleged in this ambo, namely, as if all the infallibility of the Church were seated in the Pope and from the Pope derived and communicated to the Church…The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the entire magisterium of the Church…
NOTE: In this portion of his speech, he is explicitly calling out the Absolutist Petrine advocates on their error.
Catholic Encyclopedia (1910): 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 … are distinct organs of infallibility. (“Infallibility”)
NOTE: The CE is not a Magisterial source, but as far as the Latin Church goes, it is considered by most to generally reflect the Traditional Latin Catholic consensus on its beliefs.
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
(7) AP view: The keys belong to St. Peter and his unique successors alone; other bishops do not share the keys with the successor of St. Peter, but rather share the power of the keys;
HP views: The keys belong to St. Peter/his unique successors, who share both the keys and the power of the keys with his brrethren (fellow Apostles/ bishops).
Tradition: This was the explicit teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great (sorry I do not have the quote off-hand). Further, the Rite of consecration of new bishops Traditionally included a request for God to grant the bishop the keys. The Rite was changed in the 1960’s.
(8) AP view: The Catholicity of a particular Church is judged by its union with the Church of Rome;
HP view: the Catholicity of a particular Church is judged by its union with every Church in the Catholic communion.
As the bishop is intimately and irrevocably tied to his local Church, this is the natural and logical conclusion from (9) below.
*Vatican 2: * collegial union is apparent also in the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. (Lumen Gentium, 23)
(9) AP view: The Catholicity of a particular bishop is judged by his union with the bishop of Rome;
HP view: the Catholicity of a particular bishop is judged by his union with every orthodox Catholic bishop in the Church.
*Vatican 2: * one is constituted a member of the episcopal bodyby virtue of sacramental consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body. (Lumen Gentium, 22
V2 Theological Commission: A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.
(10) AP view: The whole Church can fall into error, but the Pope cannot. As long as there is one orthodox member of the Church left standing (who is the Pope), then the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church remains.
HP view: Christ taught us that where two or three are gathered, there He is in our midst. So it is impossible that there will ever come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox member of the Church left remaining.
I don’t think one can find a greater Magisterial source than Scripture.
(11) AP view: Since the Pope is a member of the episcopate, and it is impossible for the Pope to fall into public heresy, even if all the rest of the episcopal Magisterium were to fall into public heresy, the existence of the Pope would preserve the Church’s dogma in the infallibility of the universal Magisterium;
HP view: The office of bishop is of divine origin, just as the role of a head bishop is of divine origin. Since Christ’s exhortation regarding “two or three” were spoken to the Apostles specifically, then it has greater application to the episcopate (who are the successors of the Apostles) than the Church in general. Hence, it is impossible that there can ever come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. And whereever there is an orthodox bishop, the Pope is bound by divine law to work with them and in communion with them in anything that affects the entire Church.
I don’t think there is a greater Magisterial source than Scripture on this matter. The question would be if you agree with the interpretation above that Jesus’ principle of “two or three” applies to the episcopate in a special way.
Brother Anthony, I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask
Blessings,
Marduk
(7) AP view: The keys belong to St. Peter and his unique successors alone; other bishops do not share the keys with the successor of St. Peter, but rather share the power of the keys;
HP views: The keys belong to St. Peter/his unique successors, who share both the keys and the power of the keys with his brrethren (fellow Apostles/ bishops).
Tradition: This was the explicit teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great (sorry I do not have the quote off-hand). Further, the Rite of consecration of new bishops Traditionally included a request for God to grant the bishop the keys. The Rite was changed in the 1960’s.
(8) AP view: The Catholicity of a particular Church is judged by its union with the Church of Rome;
HP view: the Catholicity of a particular Church is judged by its union with every Church in the Catholic communion.
As the bishop is intimately and irrevocably tied to his local Church, this is the natural and logical conclusion from (9) below.
*Vatican 2: * collegial union is apparent also in the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. (Lumen Gentium, 23)
(9) AP view: The Catholicity of a particular bishop is judged by his union with the bishop of Rome;
HP view: the Catholicity of a particular bishop is judged by his union with every orthodox Catholic bishop in the Church.
*Vatican 2: * one is constituted a member of the episcopal bodyby virtue of sacramental consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body. (Lumen Gentium, 22
V2 Theological Commission: A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of episcopal consecration and hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.
(10) AP view: The whole Church can fall into error, but the Pope cannot. As long as there is one orthodox member of the Church left standing (who is the Pope), then the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church remains.
HP view: Christ taught us that where two or three are gathered, there He is in our midst. So it is impossible that there will ever come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox member of the Church left remaining.
I don’t think one can find a greater Magisterial source than Scripture.
(11) AP view: Since the Pope is a member of the episcopate, and it is impossible for the Pope to fall into public heresy, even if all the rest of the episcopal Magisterium were to fall into public heresy, the existence of the Pope would preserve the Church’s dogma in the infallibility of the universal Magisterium;
HP view: The office of bishop is of divine origin, just as the role of a head bishop is of divine origin. Since Christ’s exhortation regarding “two or three” were spoken to the Apostles specifically, then it has greater application to the episcopate (who are the successors of the Apostles) than the Church in general. Hence, it is impossible that there can ever come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth. And whereever there is an orthodox bishop, the Pope is bound by divine law to work with them and in communion with them in anything that affects the entire Church.
I don’t think there is a greater Magisterial source than Scripture on this matter. The question would be if you agree with the interpretation above that Jesus’ principle of “two or three” applies to the episcopate in a special way.
Brother Anthony, I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask
Blessings,
Marduk
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
mardukm, thanks for posting the thread, interesting.
S
spina1953
Guest
I realize that you are replying to Misplaced Book as to his question. I agree with what you are stating. Ex-cathedra as you wrote about is how I understannd it, concerning faith and morals. I rather find it hard to believe that the Pope or any Pope for that matter would speak that way without consulting others, magisterium for example. I doubt any Pope thinks he has some absolute power to say what he wills without first getting all the information from others so that he can make the best decsion and without first praying or guidance from the Holy Spirit. Am I wrong in my thinking? Thanks fo the information on the subjecrt as I am always interested in learning more about our faith as well as the history of our Church and how it is ran.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Blessings,
Marduk
That is quite an essay. I have several observations.
You make a point that Eastern Orthodox understand the title “ordinary” differently than Catholics. I have never read or heard the term “ordinary” used to describe our Bishops. As far as I know we do not use that term.
The High Petrine view as you describe it states that the Pope can never be heretical. What do they do with the condemnation of Pope Honorius I for heresy as the 6th Ecumenical Council?
The Ecumenical Patriarch has no authority outside of his own Patriarchate. Even within his own Patriarchate, he must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod. All he can do is call and preside either personally or through his representative over Pan-Orthodox Councils to make decisions binding on the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. He cannot interfere in the internal affairs of an autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church and cannot on his own authority make pronouncements on the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, he acts as a facilitator to bring the representatives of the Church together to discuss common concerns. For example, after a particularly disturbing experience at a meeting of the World Council of Churches in 1991, he called a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches to discuss our response that met in Thessaloniki. As a result, we made certain demands for reform to avoid such incidents in the future. The Orthodox also decided not to participate in so called ecumenical worship at future meetings of the World Council of Churches. There was a schism in Bulgaria. He called a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches that met in Bulgaria and solved the problem. The Holy Synod of Jerusalem removed their Patriarch and he appealed to Constantinople which again called a pan-Orthodox council that ratified the decision of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem.
Our position is that the Pope exercised a similar role in the ancient undivided Church. He held a primacy of honor as the senior Bishop of the Church, but like all other Bishops was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
I should also add that we define the word “Catholic” differently. The word was first used by St.Ignaius of Antioch. In Greek “Catholic” does not mean universal. It means full or complete or nothing lacking. To us the Catholic Church is manifested by the Eucharist. When a Bishop in Apostolic Succession in communion with the other Bishops in Apostolic Succession presides personally or by a Priest authorized by him over the Eucharist there is nothing lacking in what it means to be Catholic. That means that all that is necessary to be Church is there in its fullness. Every Divine Liturgy must be celebrated on an antiminsion, which is a cloth icon of Christ being placed in the tomb signed by the Bishop with authority over the parish. When the Bishop retires of dies, new antiminsia are with his signature distributed to the parishes under his authority. Usually a relic is sown on the back of an antiminsia because the practice of the ancient Church was to serve the Eucharist on the tombs of the martyrs.
Fr. John
Marduk
That is quite an essay. I have several observations.
You make a point that Eastern Orthodox understand the title “ordinary” differently than Catholics. I have never read or heard the term “ordinary” used to describe our Bishops. As far as I know we do not use that term.
The High Petrine view as you describe it states that the Pope can never be heretical. What do they do with the condemnation of Pope Honorius I for heresy as the 6th Ecumenical Council?
The Ecumenical Patriarch has no authority outside of his own Patriarchate. Even within his own Patriarchate, he must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod. All he can do is call and preside either personally or through his representative over Pan-Orthodox Councils to make decisions binding on the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. He cannot interfere in the internal affairs of an autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church and cannot on his own authority make pronouncements on the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, he acts as a facilitator to bring the representatives of the Church together to discuss common concerns. For example, after a particularly disturbing experience at a meeting of the World Council of Churches in 1991, he called a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches to discuss our response that met in Thessaloniki. As a result, we made certain demands for reform to avoid such incidents in the future. The Orthodox also decided not to participate in so called ecumenical worship at future meetings of the World Council of Churches. There was a schism in Bulgaria. He called a meeting of the representatives of the autocephalous Churches that met in Bulgaria and solved the problem. The Holy Synod of Jerusalem removed their Patriarch and he appealed to Constantinople which again called a pan-Orthodox council that ratified the decision of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem.
Our position is that the Pope exercised a similar role in the ancient undivided Church. He held a primacy of honor as the senior Bishop of the Church, but like all other Bishops was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
I should also add that we define the word “Catholic” differently. The word was first used by St.Ignaius of Antioch. In Greek “Catholic” does not mean universal. It means full or complete or nothing lacking. To us the Catholic Church is manifested by the Eucharist. When a Bishop in Apostolic Succession in communion with the other Bishops in Apostolic Succession presides personally or by a Priest authorized by him over the Eucharist there is nothing lacking in what it means to be Catholic. That means that all that is necessary to be Church is there in its fullness. Every Divine Liturgy must be celebrated on an antiminsion, which is a cloth icon of Christ being placed in the tomb signed by the Bishop with authority over the parish. When the Bishop retires of dies, new antiminsia are with his signature distributed to the parishes under his authority. Usually a relic is sown on the back of an antiminsia because the practice of the ancient Church was to serve the Eucharist on the tombs of the martyrs.
Fr. John
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/454/St._Peter_and_the_Keys__St._Leo_the_Great.html
As to the last sentence where prototype in mentioned. This is also touched on by Pope Benedict in Light of the World.
“The Bishop of Rome is the “protos”, as first laid down already at the Council of Nicaea. The question is precisely whether the Pope has specific tasks or not. This is a contentious issue which I would have to say more about than I can now…”
The issue is faith/person with the Keys, it has to be both.
The charisma is also passed on not by Council to specific individuals, by the more superior general agreement, which is true and why the Popes sought the greater authority of Council, not because the Council itself has greater authority but because it ratifies the already given faith authority of St Peter with His Apostles thus communion. Thus the power to bind and loose ratified as a whole. Not individually. Individual leads to the present dilemma. Which is exactly why all are called to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Its a check and balance of the faith and person of St Peter by His equal brothers which consolidates the whole. It doesn’t distract from the charisma already given, it gives it universal authority by the power to bind and loose of the whole when they utter the same words.
In other words the Catholic Church is not alone in teaching that only someone who belongs completely to her in faith can receive the Eucharist, also the teaching of the EO. It is a gift of Grace through the Lord at the center of the Church. Thus it cannot be detached from the condition of belonging, for it is an act and gift of belonging. Same with the Keys of Peter and the forward communion of ratified binding and loosing.
Course I could be wrong also. In general I agree with you, on this part, we are still a bit apart.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dearest Fr. John, bless,
Thank you so much for your comments in this thread (since I started it particularly - in part- for you
).
Humbly,
Marduk
Thank you so much for your comments in this thread (since I started it particularly - in part- for you
).It is usually only in the context of discussions about Catholic ecclesiology that I have seen EO use the term “ordinary.” Many EO’s are unaware of its actual meaning (as well as the term “immediate”) in Catholic ecclesiology, and often express great concern that the expression “the Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction” in the universal Church means that the Pope can replace the authority of the local bishop at his whim and fancy. I hope the explanation above helps dissolve that misconception.
Concisely, the High Petrine view only understands that the Pope cannot be a “public or notorious heretic.” In other words, he cannot (i.e., has no capacity or authority) publicly propose heresy as the teaching of the Church universal. Whether he can be a private heretic - that is a matter of personal opinion. St. Bellarmine thought that it was a permissible theologoumenon to believe it is impossible for the Pope to even be a private heretic. I’m not one of those. I don’t believe God restricts anyone’s free will. I do believe, however, that because the Pope is constrained in many ways when he proposes something in an ex cathedra decree, it is impossible for him to teach heresy in that ex cathedra decree.
It is a fact that Pope Honorius was not a public/notorious heretic - never publicly taught the heresy of monothelitism, much less taught it as the Faith of the whole Church - for the very fact that no Father of the 6th Ecum was even aware that Pope Honorius - much less, even any portion of the Western Church at any time - was involved in the heresy, until Sergius produced the private from the Pope.
Your description seems to be similar, if not identical, to the role of the Pope of Rome in the Church universal – i.e., Catholics believe the bishop of Rome has a role in the Church universal that is analogous to the role of a patriarch for the patriarchal Church (of course, the bishop of Rome is also a metropolitan and patriarch).
Yes, it seems your understanding of “Catholic” is somewhat different, as expressed by V2 (see Lumen Gentium 13). According to Catholic teaching, the uniqueness of each particular Church of the Church universal contributes to the completeness/perfection, or catholicity, of the Church universal. It is because the Church encompasses/includes the uniqueness of all these particular Churches that she is catholic (i.e., complete/perfect). Every particular Church shares in this completeness or catholicity of every other particular Church and the Church universal. So it is not that each particular Church is catholic apart from any other Church (which seems to be your understanding - correct me if I’m wrong), but each particular Church is catholic only because each particular Church inherently and ontologically contributes to that catholicity, and the contribution of each particular Church is shared by all other particular Churches within the body of the Church universal.
Humbly,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Gary,
It seems the impetus for your explanation was the statement that all bishops possess the keys? The bishops possess the keys, of course, only in communion with their coryphaeus, never apart. It is only as a member of the college that they possess the keys.
Blessings,
Marduk
I couldn’t quite understand your explanation and how you came to your conclusion (the highlighted portion of the above quote).
It seems the impetus for your explanation was the statement that all bishops possess the keys? The bishops possess the keys, of course, only in communion with their coryphaeus, never apart. It is only as a member of the college that they possess the keys.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I have been arguing that the Keys to the Kingdom that Our Lord promised to give to St. Peter in Matthew 16:19, were also to all the Apostles as it shown in John 20:21-23 adn has been given to all Bishops by virtue of their position as successors to the Apostles. Some have argued that I am wrong and that the Keys were only given to St. Peter. However, section 981 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says exactly the same thing that I have been writing on this subject.Dear brother Gary,
I couldn’t quite understand your explanation and how you came to your conclusion (the highlighted portion of the above quote).
It seems the impetus for your explanation was the statement that all bishops possess the keys? The bishops possess the keys, of course, only in communion with their coryphaeus, never apart. It is only as a member of the college that they possess the keys.
Blessings,
Marduk
The Keys to the Kingdom is the authority to pronounce absolution over a repentant sinner not some special authority over the Church. As a Priest authorized to hear Confessions, I have the Keys to the Kingdom promised to St. Peter through my Bishop who through his Apostolic Succession received the authority to bestow the right to hear Confessions on his Priests, thereby sharing with the the Keys to the Kingdom.
Fr. John
M
mardukm
Guest
Dearest Fr. John, bless,
Priests, in Catholic ecclesiology, share in the power of the keys to the extent that the bishop allows. Only bishops possess the actual keys, which is shared with them by the Pope. In this latter sense, bishops rule the Church together with the Pope, never apart from him.
Humbly,
Marduk
The power of the keys in the Church refers primarily to the ability to “bind and loose” sins. But it also refers to the power to distinguish right from false doctrine, the power to govern and make/apply disciplinary decisions in the Church (See CCC 553).
Priests, in Catholic ecclesiology, share in the power of the keys to the extent that the bishop allows. Only bishops possess the actual keys, which is shared with them by the Pope. In this latter sense, bishops rule the Church together with the Pope, never apart from him.
Humbly,
Marduk
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
In the Eastern Orthodox Church only a Priest authorized by his Bishop can hear Confessions. In our Antiochian tradition, a Priest who is allowed to hear Confessions is given the right to wear a vestment called an Epignathion which is a diamond shaped vestment that hangs down below the zone (cincture) on his right thigh. Because most of our parishes are far apart every Priest is given the right to hear Confessions. At least in Greece only certain Priests can hear Confessions.
Fr. John
- Status