The Vatican Dogma

[Abu]

Vico
For ex cathedra, the Supreme Pontiff must in moral conscience refer to the other bishops, it is not in isolation, not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.

I’ve already referred to the opposition to the infallible ex cathedra definition against contraception in Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) – by several Bishops’ Conferences around the world, and at Vatican II, Pope Paul VI overruled the majority to ensure that reference to Pius XI’s Casti Connubii was made in the footnote to Gaudium et Spes, 51.

The U.S. Bishops even concocted “norms for licit theological dissent” (1968) which Pope John Paul II had to shoot down at his Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987.

Paul VI did consult, and did set up his Commission, before proclaiming the truth. Do you think that Paul VI relied on the majority view of his Commission or on similar views from bishops who would allow contraception?

While all means are required to ascertain the truth, consent is not a necessary condition before or after a definition is made. No Pope or Ecumenical Council teaches that error.

 

[Abu]

mardukm
Does the Pope need the rest of the Magisterium to exercise the legislative element of an ex cathedra decree? Absolutely YES.

Naturally – it is the function of the Bishops as successors of the Apostles, to teach the dogma and doctrine defined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council confirmed by him and, though not individually infallible, the Bishops are part of the Magisterium and infallible when they so teach.

Bishop Gasser had assured the bishops that the word “define” was not to be understood in a juridical sense but rather “signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc, by the Roman Pontiff.”

Closely following Gasser’s explanation, however, Vatican II immediately shows that it considers the words “define” and “proclaim” to be equivalent by using the word “definition” when it states: “Therefore his definitions…are justly styled irreformable, etc.”

“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.” (Lumen Gentium, 25).
*42. Gal. 4:26; cf. Rev. 12:17.

 

[Vico]

I’ve already referred to the opposition to the infallible ex cathedra definition against contraception in Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) – by several Bishops’ Conferences around the world, and at Vatican II, Pope Paul VI overruled the majority to ensure that reference to Pius XI’s Casti Connubii was made in the footnote to Gaudium et Spes, 51.

The U.S. Bishops even concocted “norms for licit theological dissent” (1968) which Pope John Paul II had to shoot down at his Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987.

Paul VI did consult, and did set up his Commission, before proclaiming the truth. Do you think that Paul VI relied on the majority view of his Commission or on similar views from bishops who would allow contraception?

While all means are required to ascertain the truth, consent is not a necessary condition before or after a definition is made. No Pope or Ecumenical Council teaches that error.

Did Pope Paul VI rely? Yes, he must use all appropriate means to ascertain the truth, including prudent advice, however this does not imply a majority view. The pope makes the binding judgement in his role as Supreme Pontiff through the guidance of the Holy Spirit; it is not a matter of personal inspiration. Consent of the Church will occur in time for any infallible teaching, also through the action of the Holy Spirit.

…

Extraordinary Magisterium

1. Pope defining and proclaiming a doctrine definitively
   …a. Infallible: a truth of faith or morals. *
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

• What has been proclaimed is not subject to review or approval by the other bishops or the faithful, but is guaranteed infallible through the action of the Holy Spirit (and the assent of the Church will eventually be evident).
  …
  So we see here that for infallibility the assent of the whole Church is necesary (eventually) but must, at the first moment of certainty, include the assent of the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

False again.

Never is the “consent” of the faithful needed to MAKE (or “guarantee”) any doctrine true – the faithful are faithful ONLY WHEN they ASSENT to the true doctrine or dogma, only when they agree on possessing the truth from the Magisterium. This cart-before-the-horse fantasy belongs to dissenting theologians – never can it be shown to be taught by any Ecumenical Council or any Pope!

That the true faithful have often kept the faith against erring bishops demonstrates that they had assented to the truth proclaimed by the Magisterium, or refused to be misled by some new teaching that was not from the Magisterium – they were faithful to the Magisterium instituted by Christ.

How instructive it is, that you would disagree with me, and then go on to enlarge on the exact reason you in fact agree with me!

If you were more interested in finding the common agreement instead of always niggling about people not expressing themselves exactly the way you would, this whole thread would have died long ago.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

Thank you for this mitigated understanding of Father Hardon. I do agree that consensus before the definition would be impossible to achieve if it is an extreme case where half or even a majority of the rest of the bishops are wrong.

Although I don’t count Hardon among authors I have read, and fear he is too much a product of his era, the quotes provided from Abu actually come from a book called The Teaching Church in Our Time, Editor - Msgr. George A. Kelly © 1978, Daughters of St. Paul, “Lectures were given by the faculty of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine at St. John’s University during the spring of 1977.” Perhaps Hardon was a speaker there.

If it wasn’t for this thread, I doubt if any of us would have ever heard of Hardon.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother SteveB,

Yes. Vatican 2 is clear that both infallibility and authority are primarily collegial within the Church.

• I focused on authority. We can add infallibility after we deal with papal authority…
• Look the following over. The following does NOT apply to anyother bishop or group of bishops. The following applies to the pope ALONE. His authority is his.

Session 4 Chapter 3.On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
   To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
   All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Marduk,

You’re absolutizing “with” and “collegiality” in opposition to papal primacy. You’re trying to make the pope into a 1st among equals. Do you agree with this document, and particularly with #'s 9 & 10?

(cont)

 

[steve_b]

(cont)

I pointed this out to you in the very quote you gave in an earlier post (i.e., the clauses containing the preposition “with”). You and brother Abu’s position depends wholly on simply ignoring such important terms – that’s Cafeteria Catholicism, brother.

You’re failing to recognize the primacy of the pope OVER the other bishops. The pope is NOT first among equals. But I think you’re trying to make him that.

The pope, by virtue of his office, has authority, by himself, over the ENTIRE Church… I quoted Vat I & Vat II to make my point.
M:

Your first question is wrong, and the answers to both your questions are very lacking.

My 1st question is absolutely correct. And the answers to both questions were meant to be simple and direct because they are simple and direct truths

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

M:

Brother Vico explained a nuance which you seem content to ignore. Permit me to answer, taking brother Vico’s considerations into account.
As far as an Ecumenical Council is concerned, you ask the wrong question. The infallibility and authority of an Ecumenical Council is collegial, and its subject is not the Pope in relation to the rest of the bishops or the rest of the bishops in relation to the Pope, but the Council (all the bishops) in relation to the rest of the Church.

I focused on papal authority. not infallibility. I used 2 documents
· Vat I Session 4 Ch 3 ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 July 18, 1870
· Lumen Gentium #22 va/archive/hist_councils/…entium_en.html NOV 21, 1964
M:

As Bishop Gasser asserted in his Official Relatio, in a Council, it is a matter of the bishops judging along with the Pope, not the Pope judging the bishops, or vice-versa.

How does that fit with the following?

From Vat I in previous post

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

(cont)

 

[steve_b]

(cont)

Your understanding of the relationships within an Ecumenical Council is obviously at odds with the teaching of the Vatican Councils.

Marduk, I’m quoting from the councils. I’m not giving you my opinions.
M:

The correct question to ask as far as an Ecumenical Council is concerned is, “does the Church need the Council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church?”

technically No.
M:

That you consistently set up the head in opposition or separation from the rest of the body in the context of an Ecumenical Council demonstrates to me a novel and unpatristic concept of the “Ecumenical Council,” which, again, is at odds with the teaching of the Fathers of both Vatican Councils.

He is NOT first among equals

You’re failing to recognize the primacy of the pope and what that means in the way the Church defines him. I’ve given you the Council passages.
M:

As far as the ordinary Magisterium, again, since this is a collegial infallibility and authority, the Pope exercises no unique infallibility or authority.

let’s stay on authority for the moment.

LG #22
va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

***“But the college or body of bishops has no authority ***unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.”

Do you understand that statement? Do you agree with that?

If you reverse that statement

• The pope has no authority unless it is understood with the body of bishops.

Is that a true statement? NO

There is an exclusivity and primacy to the papacy you’re not recognizing.
M:

His (name removed by moderator)ut, being the protos, is certainly necessary –

It is essential.

You’re making the pope into an advisor which is anathema in the previous post items # 8 & 9 from the council
M:

in fact, the only singular bishop whose (name removed by moderator)ut is absolutely necessary in this context – but his (name removed by moderator)ut alone does not constitute the infallibility and authority of the ordinary Magisterium. Again, in this context, you ask the wrong question.

As far as the Pope’s exercise of the infallible Magisterium, your question has the greatest relevance, but at this point, a “Council” has no bearing. I would break it down to the legislative, judicial, and executive elements. Does the Pope need the rest of the Magisterium to exercise the judicial and executive elements of an ex cathedra decree? No. Does the Pope need the rest of the Magisterium to exercise the legislative element of an ex cathedra decree? Absolutely YES.

You’re trying to apply EO concepts onto the papacy. I’ve posted links to the council records to support my position.

 

[Abu]

steve b
Posts #145-147 – very well emphasised, great stuff.

It is sad to see the lack of knowledge which this thread has exposed, knowledge which your posts have provided in truth.

AmbroseSJ
If it wasn’t for this thread, I doubt if any of us would have ever heard of Hardon.

That’s a great example of a reason for the confusion – a scholar and priest of such fidelity to truth expressed in his writings that his beatification process is now in hand. Some of his best-known books are The Catholic Catechism, the Modern Catholic Dictionary, and the Treasury of Catholic Wisdom.

 

[steve_b]

steve b
Posts #145-147 – very well emphasised, great stuff.

It is sad to see the lack of knowledge which this thread has exposed, knowledge which your posts have provided in truth.

those documents from Vat I & II, were very clear and specific on papal primacy and infallibility. Untill this discussion, I hadn’t read those documents so closely. For that reason, I’m glad for this discussion.

 

[steve_b]

What I posted was covered in the relatio Session 4, Chapter 4, Part 2

ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
Sess 4 Ch 4 pt 2 and following. What is it you would like to stress? Is it "we teach and define" vs “teach and declare”]?.

.

1. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].
   What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
   “The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
   Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
   “The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]
2. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
3. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].
4. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
5. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
   Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
6. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
7. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
8. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
   So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

 

[Vico]

ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
Sess 4 Ch 4 pt 2 and following. What is it you would like to stress? Is it "we teach and define" vs “teach and declare”]?. …

Neither. What I am saying is “So it is important in understanding the concepts of Pastor Aerternus which did not include the words personal, separate, and absolute that were used in the relatio. This may be the most important portion of the relatio.”

And that what I posted previously does not correspond to what you identifed it with in the previous Chapter.

 

[steve_b]

Neither. What I am saying is “So it is important in understanding the concepts of Pastor Aerternus which did not include the words personal, separate, and absolute that were used in the relatio. This may be the most important portion of the relatio.”

Could you be more specific in the point you’re making?

 

[steve_b]

Neither. What I am saying is “So it is important in understanding the concepts of Pastor Aerternus which did not include the words personal, separate, and absolute that were used in the relatio. This may be the most important portion of the relatio.”

And that what I posted previously does not correspond to what you identifed it with in the previous Chapter.

Re: the question from my previous post clarified,

Is the issue between Pastor Aerternus vs Bp Gasser and THEIR language, or is this about the documents of Vat I & Vat II as given in the links provided

 

[Vico]

The first is ex cathedra and the second is conciliar. Not covered in these two, but similar to conciliar, is the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. For ex cathedra, the Supreme Pontiff must in moral conscience refer to the other bishops, it is not in isolation, not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.

Re: the question from my previous post clarified,

Is the issue between Pastor Aerternus vs Bp Gasser and THEIR language, or is this about the documents of Vat I & Vat II as given in the links provided

None of those things. The comment is on your original two questions. When we consider that the Supreme Pontiff makes a judgment (decision) without a council, it means ex cathedra or ordinary magisterium, when it is a decision on faith or morals. So I posted in 131: that:

“…in general the Supreme Pontiff’s authority is not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.

The relatio of Bishop Gasser details this through elaborating on personal, separate, and absolute, in his comments for Session 4, Chapter 4, Part 2. Certainly Lumen Gentium Chapter 3 contains the topic of the supreme teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, especially affirming Vatican I in Lumen Gentium 18, without change.

 

[Abu]

Vico
When we consider that the Supreme Pontiff makes a judgment (decision) without a council, it means ex cathedra or ordinary magisterium, when it is a decision on faith or morals.

Pope John Paul II explains the truth in a General Audience, March 24, 1993
The Holy Spirit Assists the Roman Pontiff
“With these conditions one can speak of the extraordinary papal Magisterium, whose definitions are unreformable per se, and not “from the consent of the Church" (ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae). This means that these definitions do not need the consent of the bishops in order to be valid, neither an antecedent consent, nor a consequent consent, “since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment” (LG 25).
“The Supreme Pontiffs can exercise this form of Magisterium, and in fact they have done so. Many Popes, however, have not exercised it. But it must be noted that in the conciliar texts we are explaining, a distinction is made between the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” Magisterium, emphasizing the importance of the first, which is permanent and ongoing, while the second, which is expressed in definitions, could be called exceptional.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html

 

[Vico]

Pope John Paul II explains the truth in a General Audience, March 24, 1993
The Holy Spirit Assists the Roman Pontiff
“With these conditions one can speak of the extraordinary papal Magisterium, whose definitions are unreformable per se, and not “from the consent of the Church" (ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae). This means that these definitions do not need the consent of the bishops in order to be valid, neither an antecedent consent, nor a consequent consent, “since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment” (LG 25).
“The Supreme Pontiffs can exercise this form of Magisterium, and in fact they have done so. Many Popes, however, have not exercised it. But it must be noted that in the conciliar texts we are explaining, a distinction is made between the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” Magisterium, emphasizing the importance of the first, which is permanent and ongoing, while the second, which is expressed in definitions, could be called exceptional.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930324en.html

Exactly, the definitions are irreformable due to the Holy Spirit not due to consensus of the Church before or after. (The Church, through the Holy Spirit, is destined to accept such definitions in time.)

From Lumen Gentium:

Quare definitiones eius ex sese, et non ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles merito dicuntur, quippe quae sub assistentia Spiritus Sancti, ipsi in beato Petro promissa, prolatae sint, ideoque nulla indigeant aliorum approbatione, nec ullam ad aliud iudicium appellationem patiantur. Tunc enim Romanus Pontifex non ut persona privata sententiam profert, sed ut universalis Ecclesiae magister supremus, in quo charisma infallibilitatis ipsius Ecclesiae singulariter inest, doctrinam fidei catholicae exponit vel tuetur(79).

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

I’ve already referred to the opposition to the infallible ex cathedra definition against contraception in Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) – by several Bishops’ Conferences around the world, and at Vatican II, Pope Paul VI overruled the majority to ensure that reference to Pius XI’s Casti Connubii was made in the footnote to Gaudium et Spes, 51.

This statement requires several corrections:

1. The Church’s teaching on contraception was not an example of the Pope’s exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, but of the ordinary magisterium. Hence, it was not an “ex cathedra” decree, but a teaching that reflected the desires of the majority of the bishops around the world.
2. I don’t know what “majority” you think Pope Paul VI overruled according to your sources, but is was not the “majority” of the bishops at Vatican 2. The only “majority” that was overruled was the majority of the members of the Special Commission the Pope set up during the Council to study the issue of contraception in marriage. As a matter of fact, even after the conservative revisions to the chapter on Marriage and the Family, the revised text was passed by a vote of 2309 to 75. A dramatically poor example of “the Pope alone” standard you are promoting.

The U.S. Bishops even concocted “norms for licit theological dissent” (1968) which Pope John Paul II had to shoot down at his Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987.

Paul VI did consult, and did set up his Commission, before proclaiming the truth. Do you think that Paul VI relied on the majority view of his Commission or on similar views from bishops who would allow contraception?

There’s the problem with your jaundiced view of the matter. Any time the Pope makes a Decree, you think he has done it on his own as some sort of monolithic God-inspired prophet. But anyone willing to study the matter of contraception at Vatican 2 will discover that while the Pope may have had a role in the direction of the text, the teaching on contraception was hardly an instance of the Pope overriding the wishes of the Council. The conservative teaching on contraception was in fact the teaching of the very great majority of bishops at the Council. Absolutist Petrine advocates present a very twisted version of events by exaggerating the Pope’s actions in relation to the Special Commission as if the Special Commission was the Council itself. But informed Catholics are not going to let you get away with promoting such caricatures.

While all means are required to ascertain the truth, consent is not a necessary condition before or after a definition is made. No Pope or Ecumenical Council teaches that error.

We obviously have seriously different conceptions of what “consent” means. I understand it as being grounded in the sensus fidelium of the Church. I suspect you have a more secular definition in mind, so unless you adjust your understanding, I doubt we will ever agree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

You’re failing to recognize the primacy of the pope OVER the other bishops.
I recognize and understand your position quite well, and your expression here gives me more reason to reject it. It is simply an innovation that opposes the unity that our Lord commands his Church to have. That you understand the role of the papacy as being “OVER” his brother bishops is terribly destructive of the constitution of the Church established by Christ. Our Lord stated that he who is to be the greatest is the one who serves, not the one who sets himself up as “over” his brethren. Your conception of the papacy, as well as your (mis)interpretation of the Vatican Councils, deserve to be rejected, for it is neither patristic nor biblical.

The pope is NOT first among equals. But I think you’re trying to make him that.

Both those who hold your position (the Absolutist Petrine proponents) and those who propose the “first among equals” fallacy (the Low Petrine proponents) are guilty of the same thing. You are both more concerned about control (you, that the Pope must obviously have control over the whole Church, and the Low Petrine advocates, that each bishop has control over his own jurisdiction and no other), than about what is necessary for the good of the Church.

The pope, by virtue of his office, has authority, by himself, over the ENTIRE Church… I quoted Vat I & Vat II to make my point.

He has authority over the entire Church, but not “by Himself.” As Vatican 2 and our Canons make abundantly and explicitly clear, the COLLEGE of bishops is also the subject of supreme authority in the Church. A Pope who truly reflects the leadership that our Lord demanded will neither act nor think in the manner you wish him to act and think.

And don’t even entertain the idea that collegiality was a novel idea burgeoning at V2. Already at V1, we have the following Decree that was prepared by the theologians of that Council, but was unfortunately not voted upon due to the premature prorogation of the Council:
“There is a twofold power in the Church, one called the power of orders, and the other called the power of jurisdiction. We teach with regard to this latter power in particular that it is jurisdiction that is absolute and prefectly complete, legislative, judicition, and coercive, and that it pertains not only to the internal and sacramental forum, but also to the external and public. The subjects of this power are the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of any secular control, and, therefore, with all authority, they rule the Church of God with laws that are necessary and binding in conscience, etc.”
Draft of the Constitution on the Church of Christ

That authority in the Church is collegial was already in the sensus fidelium of the Church long before V2 dogmatized it.

My 1st question is absolutely correct. And the answers to both questions were meant to be simple and direct because they are simple and direct truths

You mean, half-truths. You expound on the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but miserably fail to properly account for the authority of the College.

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
   Yes. I already explained this Decree in light of Sacred Tradition. Your interpretation is novel and devoid of any relation to Sacred Tradition.

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world;

or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
A power that can only be exercised to serve others, as already explained. Your conception of the papacy is simply unbiblical.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

Marduk, I’m quoting from the councils. I’m not giving you my opinions.

You’re quoting it, but conveniently ignoring those portions of the text which refute your position. Your cafeteria catholicism, like all cafeteria catholicism, is just opinion, not truth.

He is NOT first among equals

True.

You’re failing to recognize the primacy of the pope and what that means in the way the Church defines him.

You mean the way you define him, given all the texts you (and brother Abu) have conveniently ignored in the quotes you gave.

let’s stay on authority for the moment.
***“But the college or body of bishops has no authority ***unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.”

Do you understand that statement? Do you agree with that?

Yes, but I don’t think you understand that statement.

If you reverse that statement

• The pope has no authority unless it is understood with the body of bishops.

Is that a true statement? NO

False. And this is where I feel you misunderstand rather starkly what the term “College” means. A “College” is a body of bishops with a head, the head never apart from the body, the body never apart from the head. When collegial authority is exercised, it is the authority of the COLLEGE - head + body, NOT, head apart from body, nor body apart from head.

Now, are there instances when the Pope is required to exercise a unique authority proper to him alone? Yes. for instance, the Council of Sardica recognized that the Pope has the unique and singular authority to judge whether a case involving a bishop needs to be reconsidered. But from there, the process is thoroughly collegial.

I suppose you imagine a theoretical instance when the Pope is the only source of orthodoxy for the whole Church, and therefore all authority rests in him alone. Well, rest assured that such a theory is pure fantasy. Why? Because just as much as the papacy is of divine institution, so is the episcopacy. There will never be a time when the Pope alone will be the source of orthodoxy, and therefore, there will never be a time when the Pope alone is the source of authority for the universal Church.

Brother Steve, you have a very secular understanding of the ecclesiology of the Church. You cite the Vatican Decrees in supposed support of your position. But note that no matter how much authority is vested in the Pope by the first Vatican Council, it never states that it is his alone (especially given the draft Constitution on the Church that I quoted in an earlier post). Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, I can tell you that the OO use the term “supreme” of the Patriarchal office rather freely. But “supreme” is never taken in the absolutist sense of “highest and only”; rather, it simply means “highest.” Though “highest” may imply “alone” according to the secular world - and according to Absolutist Petrine advocates such as yourself and brother Abu - it can never mean that in the context of the Body of Christ. I would urge you to go back to the Sources (Sacred Tradition, which includes the Scriptures). See the Vatican Decrees through the eyes of the Spirit instead of through secular eyes.

There is an exclusivity and primacy to the papacy you’re not recognizing.

Primacy in the universal Church belongs to the Pope alone. But does that mean that authority belongs to the Pope alone? No. The Pope does have unique prerogatives that are his alone, but never have such prerogatives ever been exercised for the universal Church in a solitary manner. And there is no reason to think that the Vatican Councils thought otherwise. As stated, your opinions are only interpretations of the Vatican Councils (an opinion that Vatican 1 repudiated when it rejected the excesses of the neo-ultramontanists), and don’t reflect what the actual context of the Decrees intend (in the context of the Decrees themselves, and in the context of Sacred Tradition).

It is essential.

“Necessary” and “essential” mean the same thing. You’re resorting to sophisms.

You’re making the pope into an advisor which is anathema in the previous post items # 8 & 9 from the council

You can only say that because you conceive of authority in the Church as the “power to control,” instead of the “power to serve” (in the words of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory). I’m not making the Pope into an advisor, but I do assert that he is not above correction. To serve requires humility, and humility requires that one can accept correction. It is the moral duty of bishops to correct the Pope if necessary, and it is the divine duty of the Pope to confirm the bishops, whether to correct his brother bishops, or after he himself has been corrected.

You’re trying to apply EO concepts onto the papacy. I’ve posted links to the council records to support my position.

Yes, I know many EO who accept the High Petrine position. I also know of EO who propose the Low Petrine position, which I oppose as much as I oppose your own position. Both you and the Low Petrine advocates have one thing in common - you both consistently seek to separate the head from the body, though with different ends in mind. Low Petrine advocates do it to demean the papacy, while you do it to support the papacy (though your position is actually just as damaging to the papacy as the Low Petrine position).

Blessings,
Marduk