The Pope Can Modify Divine Law?

[steve_sansoucie]

On many anti-Catholic websites, you can find accusations that the Pope claims to be God on earth and that he can change the laws of God. Seventh-Day Adventists use this argument when stating that the Pope changed the Sabbath into Sunday because he believed he was Christ on Earth, and thus, making him the Anti-Christ that the Bible talks about. And they give quotations from many Catholic sources to substantiate their claims. One of them is a quotation from Lucius Ferraris Prompta Bibliotheca Volume 6, in a section titled “Papa,” Article II. The quote states, “The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth.” Here they say, is proof that the Catholic Church believes the pope has the power to change God’s commandments. I thought that it may be just a mistranslation or a total forgery, so I searched Ferraris’s work. I found the original Latin wording which reads,

“Papa Jus Divinum potest modificare, cum ejus potestas non fit ex homine fed ex Deo in terris Dei vices fungitu.”

I translated it into English using a Google translator and it reads exactly what the anti-Catholics are saying. What are we to make of this? From what I understand, Ferraris’s works were considered to be an authentic source for doctrine, church history, moral theology, and canon law. It seems then, that either the Pope can really change God’s commandments or Ferraris was teaching heresy. And if it’s the latter, why weren’t his writings denounced by the church? I hope you can explain this and not just explain it away.

 

[Maximilian75]

The pope does not change divine law. However,he can correct faulty understandings of Gods will here on earth.

 

[guanophore]

. Seventh-Day Adventists use this argument when stating that the Pope changed the Sabbath into Sunday because he believed he was Christ on Earth

Actually this happened before the papacy developed. Jesus rose on Sunday, so it was observed as “the Lord’s Day” from the beginning (before Christianity made it’s way to Rome). Jesus then appeared to His disciples on the following Sunday. He appeared to His disciples on the Road to Emmaus on Sunday. Jesus also poured out His Spirit to the Church on Pentecost (Sunday).

Christians therefore observe “the Lord’s Day” as Sunday.

8 For if 2Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

For Christians, Jesus IS OUR SABBATH rest!

the Pope believed he was Christ on Earth

If any Pope ever believed this, I am sure that God put them to death.

What are we to make of this? From what I understand, Ferraris’s works were considered to be an authentic source for doctrine, church history, moral theology, and canon law.

"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Luke 10:16

It is true that all the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, are to serve as an authentic source for doctrine, church history, moral theology and canon law. This does not make them the “anti-christ” but it means they fulfill the office to which God has appointed them.

the Pope can really change God’s commandments

No. the duty of all the Bishops is to preserve the faith as it was handed down to us.

 

[Kathleen18]

I really would not take what The 7th day Adventists have to say without a grain of salt. They predicted the end times when their membership reached a certain biblical number. I forget the number. Anyways, end times did not happen and their “biblical” number keeps growing to include more members.

 

[BlackFriar]

Looks like the book got it wrong then.

 

[ErraticFaith]

No mere mortal can change the word of God.

Does the premise not sound utterly ridiculous just by reading it?

The Pope isn’t even remotely qualified to alter the word of an omnipotent creator.

I think we can safely lay this one to rest, on the basis of applied common sense.

 

[BlackFriar]

The Pope isn’t even remotely qualified to alter the word of an omnipotent creator.

Though he has the last word on defining what His human mouthpieces actually meant…which may be quite different from what they appeared to say.

 

[twf]

No, he can’t modify the word of an omnipotent creator, but he can, by the grace of God, together with the other bishops, as successors of the Apostles, interpret the word of God.

 

[ErraticFaith]

Which I’d argue wasn’t the question implied in the title.

Can the Pope ‘modify’ divine law. Ergo; can he change the word of God or the foundation of its resulting laws.

Answer: No.

Such a suggestion is applying divine power to a mortal. Of which he has none

 

[BlackFriar]

Your point is really just platitudinous in practice.
The power to interpret effectively means things do get modified…like usury, slavery and so on.

Which means God never really said those things as was thought.

Seems complicated.

 

[ErraticFaith]

I see it as obvious fact.

Applying divine power to elected sinners, is heretical.

Nobody has even the slightest power to change Gods word - aside from him himself.

If we change the structure of the question, we change it’s meaning.

If we were to verse it ‘can the pope alter interpretation of the Bible’; you may answer in the affirmative.

Yet if scripture can be that broadly interpreted and changed to such a degree that it is unrecognisable from original point of view and essentially, ‘appears to be changed entirely’ then the fault lies with the scripture itself.

Which is again dangerous ground.

 

[steve_sansoucie]

But you people have not responded to the issue at hand. I posted this topic because I’m trying to inquire why Lucius Ferraris said this if it isn’t true, given that he was a reliable canonist for that time. I have searched the all over the internet and cannot find a Catholic answer to this question. I’ve already explained to you that the translation is accurate and it wasn’t “made up” by Seventh-Day Adventists. We can bash SDA’s all we want about how anti-Catholic they are, but they quote from authentic Catholic sources that give statements like this, it only gives them reliable ammunition. And this isn’t a lone statement. They have many other quotes from various sources. I haven’t had a chance to go through all of them to find out if they are accurate, but you can find them on the URL below:

http://www.the-bible-antichrist.com/antichrist-speaks.html

It appears that there have been several Church voices throughout history that have claimed the Pope can modify divine laws and, to my knowledge, none of them have been censured by the Church. Why? In today’s world, if any Catholic were to write a piece arguing that the Church could change its position on contraception, his/her article would immediately be denounced (and rightly so) by the orthodox voices. It would seem then, that the Catholic sources claiming the Pope’s ability to change doctrine would have gotten the same treatment throughout history. Or is the idea that the Pope cannot change doctrine just a new ideology?

P.S. I did find one Catholic blogger stating that Ferraris never made that statement and the fact that it is found only on anti-Catholic websites should lead anyone to conclude that it’s a forgery. But it is not. I actually found it in one of works and provided you with the Latin translation. Thus, one could easily argue that Catholic voices do not have an answer to this and so have chosen not to answer it, but to keep it buried. How are we supposed to defend the faith and claim that we have the truth if cannot respond to things like this? Like I said, it’s not good to explain away things. You’ll never convert an SDA to the Catholic faith by doing that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s interesting how the 7th Day Adventist’s use Scripture to justify their attack against Catholicism.

So, I just ask if they believe and follow the Bible ?

Of course they’ll say yes.

Then I ask, how is it you follow the founder of the 7th Day Adventist who is a woman, Ellen White, when the Bible says women should not teach men ?

Of course the Church teaches the correct understanding on this, but 7th Day Adventists are more fundamental with literal interpretation of Scripture.

Jim

 

[ErraticFaith]

I would assume it’s a doctrine of common sense.

If any old elected sinner can alter the word of -and laws of God, why even call it his unchanging word at all.

Just call it the ‘ever changing word of whoever could be bothered’

 

[acanonlawyer]

Over the course of the centuries, there have been occasional exaltations of papal authority and these are sometimes overstated. Anyway, for this particular comment, one wonders whether or not it is correct to say that modificare is best translated as “modify.” What did that word actually mean to this author?

For a contemporary reflection on the limits of papal authority, related to the indissolubility of marriage, Pope John Paul II said the following:

6.Today’s meeting with you, members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, is an appropriate setting for also speaking to the whole Church about the limits of the Roman Pontiff’s power over ratified and consummated marriage, which “cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” (CIC, can. 1141; CCEO, can. 853). By its very nature this formulation of canon law is not only disciplinary or prudential, but corresponds to a doctrinal truth that the Church has always held.

Nevertheless, there is an increasingly widespread idea that the Roman Pontiff’s power, being the vicarious exercise of Christ’s divine power, is not one of those human powers referred to in the canons cited above, and thus it could be extended in some cases also to the dissolution of ratified and consummated marriages. In view of the doubts and anxieties this idea could cause, it is necessary to reaffirm that a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage can never be dissolved, not even by the power of the Roman Pontiff. The opposite assertion would imply the thesis that there is no absolutely indissoluble marriage, which would be contrary to what the Church has taught and still teaches about the indissolubility of the marital bond.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-...uments/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana.html

He offers a few other comments on this topic in the subsequent paragraphs.

Dan

 

[guanophore]

Your point is really just platitudinous in practice.

The power to interpret effectively means things do get modified…like usury, slavery and so on.

Which means God never really said those things as was thought.

Seems complicated.

I think this is more a modification of how we understand and apply the divine law. The case of Gallileo comes to mind.

I agree, the power to interpret effectively does lead us to modify our behaviors. But the modification is on our end, not His.

 

[guanophore]

I’m trying to inquire why Lucius Ferraris said this if it isn’t true, given that he was a reliable canonist for that time.

Are you suggesting that a reliable canonist cannot err? Or are you saying that the immutable Word of God is more likely to be in error than one human canonist.

Opinions are about as common as belly buttons. Perhaps if you were to study more of Lucius Ferraris writings you could discern why he would make such a statement? It is not considered inspired and inerrant, as the Scriptures are.

It appears that there have been several Church voices throughout history that have claimed the Pope can modify divine laws and, to my knowledge, none of them have been censured by the Church.

It is unlikely that you would hear about it, since this happens privately.

In today’s world, if any Catholic were to write a piece arguing that the Church could change its position on contraception, his/her article would immediately be denounced (and rightly so) by the orthodox voices.

I am sorry, I think you live in a dream world. this happens every day, and there is no way for the smaller Orthodox remnant to even keep up with all these writings, much less" immediately denounce" them.

Thus, one could easily argue that Catholic voices do not have an answer to this and so have chosen not to answer it, but to keep it buried. How are we supposed to defend the faith and claim that we have the truth if cannot respond to things like this? Like I said, it’s not good to explain away things. You’ll never convert an SDA to the Catholic faith by doing that.

Since you were able to find it, then it seems practical that you acknowledge that fact. It then could be placed in context. A canonist does not have the authority to speak for the Church. He is one man, with one opinion, which happens to be opposed to what the Church teaches about itself. He is not part of the Magesterium.

If you look you can find hundreds of thousands of “Catholics” writing and speaking on opposition to the doctrines of the faith, including politicians and even some clergy. Their errors do not change the immutable teachings of Christ preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Crocus]

But you people have not responded to the issue at hand. I posted this topic because I’m trying to inquire why Lucius Ferraris said this if it isn’t true, given that he was a reliable canonist for that time. I have searched the all over the internet and cannot find a Catholic answer to this question.

I find it very discouraging to try to answer points on anti-Catholic websites, it’s like chasing wild turkeys, while wearing high heels. Their argument is usually against something the Church doesn’t say, or a misinterpretation. Rarely is it against what the Church really says.

Off the top, we would need to verify whether: Lucius Ferraris was a reliable canonist; he said what they say he said; what he said was properly interpreted and relayed; proper authorities gave credence to the resulting understanding.

The OP admits internet search on the document cited is difficult. Would be best to have an actual copy for starters, to be sure of its content, then reliable scholarship on translation and context. Meanwhile, we’re grasping at tail feathers (to maintain the imagery).

A good read is at the link given by @(name removed by moderator) (very interesting thanks for it.)

 

[BlackFriar]

My question I suppose is how can the laity ever know the difference?
Nobody has direct access to the meaning of revealed truth directly from God. It is always mediated by the Church/Pope.

So we can never be sure what is of God and what is really only of the Pope (man) when it comes to public revelation.

This is exactly the problem that the 4-2 Cardinals have with Pope Francis over AL.

 

[BlackFriar]

Yet if scripture can be that broadly interpreted and changed to such a degree that it is unrecognisable from original point of view and essentially, ‘appears to be changed entirely’ then the fault lies with the scripture itself.

Exactly so. God does not speak clearly.
So platitudes about God says this and God says that, Divine Law this and Divine Law that have speed wobbles it seems.