What Can The Pope Do?

[mardukm]

Due to software error, the polling data in the original thread disappeared. If you had voted before, I hope you will take the time to do so again. If you have not voted, I pray you do so now. It will go a long way to answering the questions and objections of non-Catholics regarding the papacy.

The Mod will (Edited).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Michael_Francis]

Due to unforeseen technical difficulties, I cannot now merge the old posts back into this thread, so I will just suggest that those who had voted and posted in this discussion do so again.

Two adages come to mind.

1. To err is human. To really mess things up requires a computer.
2. No good deed ever goes unpunished. (By the computers…)

God bless,

 

[mardukm]

Please remember:

THIS POLL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR CATHOLICS IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE.

It is meant to gauge the beliefs of orthodox Catholics in the face of accusations by non-Catholics (and even by Catholics) who contend that we believe the Pope can do what he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. These folks contend that 1) there is no practical or canonical limit to the Pope’s authority,
2) Since there is no authority higher than the Pope, then he has a laissez-faire authority to do anything.
3) The only thing limiting the Pope is his own conscience.
4) If there is a bad Pope who wants to take away another bishop’s authority. well, we just have to live with it.
5) If there is a bad Pope who commits every depravity in the world, well, we just have to live with it.

Is this what Catholics believe?

 

[TheDoctor]

I don’t do polls, but I will give you an answer to what I believe:

1. there is no practical or canonical limit to the Pope’s authority.

True.

1. Since there is no authority higher than the Pope, then he has a laissez-faire authority to do anything.

True.

1. The only thing limiting the Pope is his own conscience.

True (along with the Holy Spirit).

1. If there is a bad Pope who wants to take away another bishop’s authority. well, we just have to live with it.

True. All priests take vows of obedience. I don’t recall a vow that includes the words “…obedient except for the stuff I don’t agree with”.

If there is a bad Pope who commits every depravity in the world, well, we just have to live with it.

True, as well as pray for his soul.

Is this what Catholics believe?

It is what this Catholic believes. Jesus gave Peter and through him the following Popes the Keys To The Kingdom, which I have always taken as the absolute right and authority to rule in Jesus name until either Jesus returns or calls that Pope home.

The Church is not a democracy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear TheDoctor,

I don’t do polls, but I will give you an answer to what I believe:

True.

True.

True (along with the Holy Spirit).

True. All priests take vows of obedience. I don’t recall a vow that includes the words “…obedient except for the stuff I don’t agree with”.

True, as well as pray for his soul.

It is what this Catholic believes. Jesus gave Peter and through him the following Popes the Keys To The Kingdom, which I have always taken as the absolute right and authority to rule in Jesus name until either Jesus returns or calls that Pope home.

The Church is not a democracy.

That is an interesting perspective that I seriously had never heard before except from anti-papal advocates.

What do you make of the following statement from the Swiss bishops immediately after Vatican I:

“*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 *[COMMENT: the phrase “constitution of the Church” has great relevance to discussions about the Pope’s relationship to his brother bishops]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[happymommy]

Due to unforeseen technical difficulties, I cannot now merge the old posts back into this thread, so I will just suggest that those who had voted and posted in this discussion do so again.

Two adages come to mind.

1. To err is human. To really mess things up requires a computer.
2. No good deed ever goes unpunished. (By the computers…)

God bless,

:takethat: :manvspc:

 

[mardukm]

For those who voted for #1 - #3, can you please show us some explicit statement in the teaching of the Church that demonstrates the authority of the Pope in those matters?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TheDoctor]

“*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 *[COMMENT: the phrase “constitution of the Church” has great relevance to discussions about the Pope’s relationship to his brother bishops]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”
Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk - what do I think? Well, here is my $0.02:

1. Since I don’t know the context or where this comes from, I will only comment on what you have posted.
2. Since these are the musing of the “Swiss Bishops”, they are not binding on the Pope (or the USCCB or the English Bishops or the Chinese Bishops, etc.)
3. The statement seems to me to be affirming Papal Infallability by reminding us that on matters of dogma the saying Pope must follow what has been divinely revealed before not because of some rule or canon law but because the Holy Spirit protects him from error.
4. I see nothing inconsistent with this statement and my answers to you. Of course, in answering your questions, the one point I did not specifically point out but should have done to make clear, is that the only way the power of the chair is limited is that the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals. Again, the Church is not a democracy.

 

[Genesis315]

The first set of options in the poll I interpret to essentially be saying the Pope has the authority to promulgate teachings and ecclesiastical laws contrary to the orthodox faith or punish bishops for the teaching orthodoxy–which is of course not true.

While I voted for the last three, I would say that the obligations to follow divine law, etc. and to uphold the authority of the other bishops are more than just canonical, but more like divine mandates.

As for consulting other bishops, that is the tradition, as the First Vatican Council shows (its very convocation is proof enough of this):

1. 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.

St. Francis de Sales, when defending the doctrine of papal infallibility against the Protestants explained it this way too:

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said [the Holy Spirit] shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally**, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the *Urim *and *Thummim *of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail. Happy the man who follows him and puts himself under the discipline of his crook! Happy the man who embarks in his boat, for he shall feed on truth, and shall arrive at the port of holy doctrine !

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope14.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Genesis315,

Thank you for your invaluable (name removed by moderator)ut! I especially want to thank you for the quote from St. Francis de Sales, and for highlighting this:

who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally,

In past threads, I had provided quotes of Fathers of the Vatican I Council from the Majority party stating that the Pope did not need to seek the advice of his brother bishops for an ex cathedra decree ONLY if the matter was sufficiently clear from Sacred Tradition; otherwise, he was/is required to obtain the advice of his brother bishops. I did not realize that viewpoint was even more ancient, much more that the great St. Francis de Sales taught the same thing!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

While I voted for the last three, I would say that the obligations to follow divine law, etc. and to uphold the authority of the other bishops are more than just canonical, but more like divine mandates.

I definitely agree. However, I was constrained by the number of options I could include (only 10). I originally had 20 options, wherein I wanted to include the options “has a DIVINE obligation” and “has a Divine AND canonical obligation” to the ones that have have the clause “has a canonical obligation.” Since I was restricted to 10 options, I thought the statement of “canonical obligation” would be sufficient. My thinking was that if the Pope has AT LEAST a canonical obligation, it stands to reason he must also have a divine obligation. since no canon law can legitimately be contrary to Divine law.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TheDoctor,

Please help me understand. According to the poll, EVERYONE has voted that the Pope has a canonical/divine obligation to act and teach according to Divine Law and Sacred Tradition.

I am assuming that you are one of those who voted for #2 and #3 (that the Pope has the authority/right to reject the orthodox advice of orthodox bishops for an ex cathedra decree and to veto the orthodox teaching of orthodox bishop in an ecumenical council.

How does a Pope who follows #10 have the authority to do #2 and #3? I mean if the Pope rejects the orthodox teaching of orthodox bishops or vetoes such orthodox teaching in an ecumenical Council, then obviously he is not bound by #10 either, correct?

Eagerly awaiting your response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TheDoctor]

Please help me understand. According to the poll, EVERYONE has voted that the Pope has a canonical/divine obligation to act and teach according to Divine Law and Sacred Tradition.

Please re-read my original post. I did not vote in the poll, however I do agree with this. And more than just having the obligation he is prevented from teaching in error by the Holy Spirit.

I am assuming that you are one of those who voted for #2 and #3 (that the Pope has the authority/right to reject the orthodox advice of orthodox bishops for an ex cathedra decree and to veto the orthodox teaching of orthodox bishop in an ecumenical council.

How does a Pope who follows #10 have the authority to do #2 and #3? I mean if the Pope rejects the orthodox teaching of orthodox bishops or vetoes such orthodox teaching in an ecumenical Council, then obviously he is not bound by #10 either, correct?

Again, since I did not vote this point is moot. However, I do believe that the Pope does have the authority to reject any Bishops advice on any subject. While it is worthwhile for the Pope to work with the wisdom of his felllow Bishops, the “buck” really stops with him, doesn’t it? Jesus selects the Pope as His vicar on Earth, the one He gave authority over all the Chruch to. No other Bishop can claim this. No other Bishop or group of Bishops has this responsibility or this authority.

As to the ecumenical council, I believe that the Pope needs to approve any new doctrine or dogma from such councils, and as such Papal Infallability would prevent him from approving a teaching that a later Pope would veto as false.

The Pope is not first among equals. No other Bishop holds the absolute power he does. While it is true that he is the “Servant of the Servants of God” it is also true that he alone holds the Keys.

 

[mardukm]

Please re-read my original post. I did not vote in the poll, however I do agree with this. And more than just having the obligation he is prevented from teaching in error by the Holy Spirit.

Good to know. But I would submit that the charism of infallibility is not applied to ALL his teachings. Or is that really what you believe?

Again, since I did not vote this point is moot. However, I do believe that the Pope does have the authority to reject any Bishops advice on any subject. While it is worthwhile for the Pope to work with the wisdom of his felllow Bishops, the “buck” really stops with him, doesn’t it?

You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe the Pope has the right to reject the orthodox advice of orthodox bishops? Naturally, he has the right to reject the heterodox advice of heterodox bishops, but you did not answer the question.

Jesus selects the Pope as His vicar on Earth, the one He gave authority over all the Chruch to. No other Bishop can claim this. No other Bishop or group of Bishops has this responsibility or this authority.

I disagree. An Ecumenical Council (a “group of Bishops”) has the EXACT same responsibility and authority as the Pope singularly.

Further, EVERY bishop is a vicar of Christ in his see/diocese, and EVERY bishop SINGULARLY in a limited sense has responsibility for the ENTIRE Church. If a particular bishop of Asia just happens to be in America, do you seriously think that his divine obligation to uphold the faith in his capacity as a successor of the Apostles ceases to exist?

I will agree with you that the Pope’s jurisdiction extends to the entire Church - but even then, he is constrained by the canons and by divine law to uphold and reinforce the rights of his brother bishops.

As to the ecumenical council, I believe that the Pope needs to approve any new doctrine or dogma from such councils.

Yes, I agree that the consent of the head bishop is necessary.
Yes, I agree that the Pope can approve new dogma from such councils.
No, I absolutely do not agree that the Pope can approve new doctrine from such Councils.
In fact, I do not believe such Councils can propose new doctrine at all.

and as such Papal Infallability would prevent him from approving a teaching that a later Pope would veto as false.

We agree on that.

The Pope is not first among equals.

In the Ordinary Magisterium, YES HE IS. In the Extraordinary Magisterium, he is NOT MERELY first among equals.

No other Bishop holds the absolute power he does.While it is true that he is the “Servant of the Servants of God” it is also true that he alone holds the Keys.

The Pope holds absolute power in NO sense of the word. I have given quotes in the past in another thread from member bishops of the Majority Party at Vatican 1 stating exactly what I just said (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259973)). The ideal of the title “Servant of the Servants of God” is directly contrarty to the holding of absolute power in any sense.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

1. Since I don’t know the context or where this comes from, I will only comment on what you have posted.

As you might know, every bishop and/or Synods, sent out encyclicals to their respective jurisdictions to enact the decrees of the Council. The excerpt was from the encyclical of the Swiss bishops sent to their dioceses, and also submitted to the Pope.

1. Since these are the musing of the “Swiss Bishops”, they are not binding on the Pope (or the USCCB or the English Bishops or the Chinese Bishops, etc.)

Pope Pius IX replied, when he read the Pastoral encyclical, "“…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

1. The statement seems to me to be affirming Papal Infallability by reminding us that on matters of dogma the saying Pope must follow what has been divinely revealed before not because of some rule or canon law but because the Holy Spirit protects him from error.

I don’t see mention of the divine protection of the Holy Spirit in those words. It simply affirms the restrictions placed upon the Pope.

1. I see nothing inconsistent with this statement and my answers to you. Of course, in answering your questions, the one point I did not specifically point out but should have done to make clear, is that the only way the power of the chair is limited is that the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from teaching errors in matters of faith and morals.

The canons also place restrictions on what the Pope can or cannot do.

Again, the Church is not a democracy.

I agree, but neither is it an absolute monarchy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

I think a primary question that needs to be answered is:

**How does the Church (or we) know what teachings, advice, and/or Bishops are or are not orthodox? **

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JMJ_Coder,

I think a primary question that needs to be answered is:

**How does the Church (or we) know what teachings, advice, and/or Bishops are or are not orthodox? **

Originally, the poll options had an extra word attached to them - namely, the word “objectively.” For example,

• Does the Pope have the right to reject the OBJECTIVELY orthodox advice of OBJECTIVELY orthodox bishops.

Unfortunately, when I submitted the poll, it said that some of the questions were too long, so I had to edit them accordingly.

The objection/concern that has been posed to me by non-Catholics and anti-Catholics is the idea that the Pope, EVEN IF the advice of the bishops is orthodox, can reject that advice, given that there is no canonical obligation for him to accept the advice of his brother bishops. There is only a canonical obligation to HEAR the advice of his brother bishops. Debating back and forth with non-Catholics and anti-Catholics, I’ve found there is no objection to the notion that the Pope has the right to reject the heterodox advice of other bishops. The main concern is really whether or not the Pope has the right to reject the advice of other bishops if that advice is actually orthodox.

A few have expressed the theoretical concern you have proposed. Their main concern is that it leaves dogma up to the Pope as judge and arbiter of the Faith. At this point, I explain to them that this is an authority given to St. Peter divinely (Jesus prayed for St. Peter singularly to confirm the faith of his brethren) and passed on to his successors (by the principle of apostolic succession), and given to (or rather recognized to be possessed by) the Pope canonically at Sardica. Then the next round of objections is proffered about the biblical interpretations (though no one ever objects to the Sardican appeal). Eventually, it all goes back to the concerns expressed in the prior paragraph ANYWAY.

I hope that helps. Please ask any and all questions. I appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Unfortunately, when I submitted the poll, it said that some of the questions were too long, so I had to edit them accordingly.

Bad forum software, bad! :tsktsk:

 

[JMJ_coder]

Brother Marduk,

I assume that you are referring exclusively to issues of faith and morals and not on issues of discipline and administration (of which there is no gift of infallibility attached).

One thing that must be remembered is that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility states that when the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, that the Pope will not teach error. It is a negative protection. Nowhere is it a Church teaching that the Pope will teach the truth, only that what he doesn’t teach in his capacity as Pope will be true. It may be a subtle difference for some, but it is the crux of the issue.

 

[mardukm]

BUMP

I’m surprised not more Catholics (Latins, especially) are concerned about this issue.

Blessings,
Marduk