What's Your Authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It may be an accurate sentiment, Lion; the fact remains though, is that we are discussing canonical law. On this matter, that is, the ex cathedra decisions of the Pope…or even the regular normative decisions of the papacy…are not bound by any law save its own. Is there anything, outside of tradition, custom and antiquity, that binds what a Pope can and cannot decide?
As I’ve said before … The Pope cannot just change theology, The Pope cannot just declare by himself alone that he’s speaking with Magisterial Authority. There is a process The Pope enters into before declaring that he’s speaking with Magisterial Authority. It’s usually in cases that necessitate such an Authoritative voice. I imagine following the Synod on the Family The Pope may have a few words to speak within the context of Magisterial Authority.

The process that leads to The Pope speaking with Magisterial Authority is a process I’d like to learn more about. I’m rather ignorant about it. All I know is that there’s a process that takes place before The Pope speaks with Magisterial Authority. He will speak and teach all the time but mostly not with Magisterial Authority but from his place of leadership. There’s a huge difference between speaking and teaching from a place of leadership and speaking and teaching WITH Magisterial Authority.

What binds The Pope from changing doctrine ??

MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY
TRADITION
SACRED SCRIPTURE

If Magisterial Authority was declared in historical teachings the current Pope has to honor and recognize Papal Authority with those who were Pope before him so if one can declare something as not being from Magisterial Authority there is a breakdown in the process and will basically call into question every Magisterial teachings that ever existed from within the Catholic Church. If believed to be Magisterial teachings 500 years ago it should still be believed as Magisterial teachings today and therefore honored and recognized. Does any of that makes sense to you?
 
Without tradition and magisterial authority the Catholic Church is no longer a Catholic church. Without tradition and magisterial authority there ceases to be the office of Pope but everyone becomes their own Pope so to speak.

What do we have without tradition and magisterial authority?

Certainly not a Catholic faith.
 
As I’ve said before … The Pope cannot just change theology, The Pope cannot just declare by himself alone that he’s speaking with Magisterial Authority. There is a process The Pope enters into before declaring that he’s speaking with Magisterial Authority. It’s usually in cases that necessitate such an Authoritative voice. I imagine following the Synod on the Family The Pope may have a few words to speak within the context of Magisterial Authority.
Where is it spelled out in canon law that he has to consult with any of the bishops before issuing a statement ex cathedra (or close to it)?
 
Where is it spelled out in canon law that he has to consult with any of the bishops before issuing a statement ex cathedra (or close to it)?
I sense there’s a question hidden with this one and my answer won’t be good enough. I don’t have any materials of the specific canon laws you probably would have to discuss this question further with a canonical lawyer. I’m certain there’s a way and a means to contact a canonical lawyer.

As a Catholic I trust that once ex cathedra is spoken what The Pope says following is also held accountable to past ex-cathedra spoken words. You cannot claim Magisterial Authority on one topic and then contradict the Magisterial Authoritative words spoken by previous Popes because then it ceases to be infallible if not in line with previous times Popes have spoken with Magisterial Authority. If it’s an infallible word spoken then it’s pretty much written in stone and Popes to follow would recognize and respect that.
 
I sense there’s a question hidden with this one and my answer won’t be good enough. I don’t have any materials of the specific canon laws you probably would have to discuss this question further with a canonical lawyer. I’m certain there’s a way and a means to contact a canonical lawyer.
I am asking you sincerely. The reason being because I get what you’re saying about tradition, history, etc. preventing Popes from decreeing something willy nilly. However and ultimately, there’s nothing that prevents one from doing so. At least, not anything binding. Because, as I’ve said before, the only ultimate authority within Catholic ecclesiology is the papacy. Everything else is secondary to his authority.
As a Catholic I trust that once ex cathedra is spoken what The Pope says following is also held accountable to past ex-cathedra spoken words. You cannot claim Magisterial Authority on one topic and then contradict the Magisterial Authoritative words spoken by previous Popes because then it ceases to be infallible if not in line with previous times Popes have spoken with Magisterial Authority. If it’s an infallible word spoken then it’s pretty much written in stone and Popes to follow would recognize and respect that.
Unless he infallibly asserts that what was spoken previously was, in fact, not infallible. In which case, the present infallible assertion (since its infallible) is, in fact, true.
 
2 Peter 1:20-21 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Hebrews 13:7 “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.”

Martin Luther in regards to changing Romans 3:28:
“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul … Say right out to them: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so … I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or in the Greek text.”

Martin Luther is the father of Protestantism and this attitude is what has led the world to 20,000 heretical denominations.
 
To take the evangelical position is to believe that the Holy Spirit was silent for approximately 1600 years. I am not biased. I am a revert to the Catholic Church. I attended Pentecostal churches (three years) and a non-denominational church (four years)
and met many wonderful people along the way who love the Lord, but boy the drama! Pastors making a point by creating sermons out of problems and situations in the personal lives of congregants rather than just expounding on the word of God; or claiming to study the bible verse by verse and chapter by chapter only to white wash the parts that do not fit their theology. I find it amazing how the majority of the civilized world gave up paganism to become Christians without the mass production of bibles that are in circulation today. Something must be said of the sacraments and “faith comes by hearing.”
 
I am asking you sincerely. The reason being because I get what you’re saying about tradition, history, etc. preventing Popes from decreeing something willy nilly. However and ultimately, there’s nothing that prevents one from doing so. At least, not anything binding. Because, as I’ve said before, the only ultimate authority within Catholic ecclesiology is the papacy. Everything else is secondary to his authority.

Unless he infallibly asserts that what was spoken previously was, in fact, not infallible. In which case, the present infallible assertion (since its infallible) is, in fact, true.
I find it rather difficult that Jesus would, after establishing His Church would leave the Church to go astray and not preserve the Church He established. In fact, I believe that God is powerful enough to preserve the Church He founded. And in knowing that since Martin Luther ie The Reformation and through “bible alone” doctrine more herecies and division have come especially with people saying, “I have read the bible and see that certain doctrines believed by the early church is wrong. How do I know? I read thebible” every Cult leader has some guy that says, “I have the true interpretation” … With The Pope speaking with Magisterial Authority He speaks with the Unity of the Magisterium and His words will be congruent with what other Popes in history would say with Magisterial Authority.

I SAY AGAIN! EVERY POPE THAT SPEAKS WITH MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY DOES SO IN THE UNITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM HOBORING TRADITION AND PAPAL AUTHORITY THROUGHOUT THE AGES.

JUST BECAUSE POPE FRANCIS IS POPE TODAY THAT IN NO WAY NULIFIES PAPAL AUTHORITY IN PAST HISTORY. PAPAL AUTHORITY IS SOMETHING EVEN THE POPE HAS TO RESPECT AND HONOR.
 
The Authority is Papacy plus Magisterium with The Pope as the one to represent and speak for the Authority guided by a process with The Magisterium not excluding tradition.
 
…Unless he infallibly asserts that what was spoken previously was, in fact, not infallible. In which case, the present infallible assertion (since its infallible) is, in fact, true.
Per Crucem,

Again, your reading on Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” is not consistent with any Catholic Theologian I have ever read. But I do understand that you seem to want us to prove that to you. While it may be above my competency, I will try to still explain some.

If I humor you and say, ok, let’s say that some hypothetical future Pope were to try and bind the faithful to the teaching of Monophysitism, and declare that the St. Leo’s teaching and the Council of Chalcedon were wrong, then, according to what I believe is still an acceptable Theological opinion, such a Pope would be considered by the Church to be in error. That is not to say that a Council is above a Pope, which was declared against at Vatican I, but let me explain by citing the “Catholic Encyclopedia” again:

"Can a council depose the pope?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

-ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)

-ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience."

From another article in the “Catholic Encyclopedia” by a different author:

“The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Continued…
 
Continued…

In a response to a question, the late Dr. Carroll (as EWTN.com has him cited), who seemed to be of this opinion, cites Sts. St Robert Bellarmine, Alphonsus de Liguori, and Francis de Sales:

"St Robert Bellarmine, “De Romano Pontifice”, liber II, caput 30:

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction,

Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori on the fate of a heretical pope:

“Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d’essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato.”

–“Verita della Fede”, part 3, ch. 8, no. 10. In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)

“For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant.”

St. Francis de Sales on papal infallibility and heresy:

“En l’ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu’il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres ipso facto il tombe de son grade hors de l’Eglise et l’Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s’en faut qu’il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu’il faysoit l’inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l’Extravagante qui se commence Benedictus Deus.

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)

“Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extravagantes which begins Benedictus Deus.” (Ib. p. 305-306)"

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=333437&language=en

Also he cites the documents from Popes Innocent III and Pope Paul IV (Ibid.)
 
With The Pope speaking with Magisterial Authority He speaks with the Unity of the Magisterium and His words will be congruent with what other Popes in history would say with Magisterial Authority.
I would argue that that hasn’t always been the case. Sometimes glaringly so.
I SAY AGAIN! EVERY POPE THAT SPEAKS WITH MAGISTERIAL AUTHORITY DOES SO IN THE UNITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM HOBORING TRADITION AND PAPAL AUTHORITY THROUGHOUT THE AGES.
That’s an assertion, not evidence. My question is, what canonical method exists to prevent the Pope from changing something that a previous Pope or council has said? The question is related to whether the Pope would do it, but whether he could do it.
 
Per Crucem,

Again, your reading on Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” is not consistent with any Catholic Theologian I have ever read. But I do understand that you seem to want us to prove that to you. While it may be above my competency, I will try to still explain some. What you are proposing as a hypothetical here would be like me proposing the hypothetical of an Eastern Orthodox council, that is understood by the Orthodox to be teaching with the full weight of the authority that the Eastern Orthodox communion of autocephalous churches claims, declaring that the Second Nicene Council didn’t teach the truth about a dogma.
Yes, it would be relatively the same question. But of course, bear in mind I am not asserting that the EO alternative of conciliarity is an improvement, in and of itself, over the papacy. I would only argue there that the EO view of consistent with Scripture and Tradition, whereas the papacy is not, but that’s a different question.
If I humor you and say, ok, let’s say that some hypothetical future Pope were to try and bind the faithful to the teaching of Monophysitism, and declare that the St. Leo’s teaching and the Council of Chalcedon were wrong, then, according to what I believe is still an acceptable Theological opinion, such a Pope would be considered by the Church to be in error. That is not to say that the Council is above a Pope, which was declared against at Vatican I, but let me explain by citing the “Catholic Encyclopedia” again:
That is what I was looking for…as far as previous precedent of a Pope being declared anathema (i.e., Honorious).
 
Continued…

In a response to a question, the late Dr. Carroll wrote (as EWTN.com has him cited), seemed to be of this opinion and he cites Sts. St Robert Bellarmine, Alphonsus de Liguori, and Francis de Sales:

"St Robert Bellarmine, “De Romano Pontifice”, liber II, caput 30:

Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction,

Fundamentum hujus sententiae est. quoniam haereticus manifestos nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiae, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori on the fate of a heretical pope:

“Del resto, si Dio permettesse che un papa fosse notoriamente eretico e contumace, egli cesserebbe d’essere papa, e vacherebbe il pontificato.”

–“Verita della Fede”, part 3, ch. 8, no. 10. In: Opere dommatiche di S. Alfonso de Liguori (Torino, G. Marietti, 1848), p. 720. (Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, v. 8)

“For the rest, if God should permit that a Pope should become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would cease to be Pope, and the pontificate would be vacant.”

St. Francis de Sales on papal infallibility and heresy:

“En l’ancienne loy le grand pretre ne portait pas le rational si non quand il estoit revestu des habits pontificaux et qu’il entroit devant le Seigneur. Ainsi ne disons nous pas que le pape en ses opinions particulieres ne puisse errer comme fit Jean XXII, ou etre du tout heretique comme peut etre fut Honorius. Or quand il est heretique expres ipso facto il tombe de son grade hors de l’Eglise et l’Eglise le doit ou priver comme disent quelques uns, ou le declarer prive de son siege apostolique et dire comme fit St. Pierre: Episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Quand il erre en sa particuliere opinion il le faut enseigner, adviser, convaincre comme on fit a Jean XXII le quel tant s’en faut qu’il mourut opiniatre ou que pendant sa vie il determina aucune chose touchant son opinion, que pendant qu’il faysoit l’inquisition requise pour determiner en matiere de foy, il mourut, au recit de son successeur en l’Extravagante qui se commence Benedictus Deus.

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Tan Books), p. 388 (part II, art. VI, ch. 14)

“Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, as some say, or declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric (Acts I). When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilest he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extravagantes which begins Benedictus Deus.” (Ib. p. 305-306)"

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=333437&language=en

Also he cites the documents from Popes Innocent III and Pope Paul IV (Ibid.)
Well LionHeart is providing some very insightful thoughts along with added facts that substantiate what I’m saying but with added substantial evidence to strongly side with the fact that a Pope can’t simply declare an infallible word without accountability and scrutiny. A Pope who continually speaks heretically shows himself as one who ceases to be Pope. So a Pope, if they’re wise will not be so quick to declare an infallible word without any counsel. Again this all speaks to a process. Not every word spoken or opinion a Pope has or speaks is considered infallible. Only when necessary will you see this take place.
 
I am asking you sincerely. The reason being because I get what you’re saying about tradition, history, etc. preventing Popes from decreeing something willy nilly. However and ultimately, there’s nothing that prevents one from doing so. At least, not anything binding. Because, as I’ve said before, the only ultimate authority within Catholic ecclesiology is the papacy. Everything else is secondary to his authority.

Unless he infallibly asserts that what was spoken previously was, in fact, not infallible. In which case, the present infallible assertion (since its infallible) is, in fact, true.
I think you haven’t been reading what LionHeart has been posting. I think you ignore what he’s saying because it flies in the face of what you are implying.
 
I think you haven’t been reading what LionHeart has been posting. I think you ignore what he’s saying because it flies in the face of what you are implying.
Or it could be less nefarious and I posted before I saw his reply 😃
 
Sorry Erich, but I don’t get what you mean by “approval”? Scripture says “all who call upon the name of the Lord can be saved”. All means everyone. There are no qualifications other than that one must be a sinner.
Some translations of 1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”
  • So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval. Hence, my question to you about whether or not those who do not have God’s can approval be saved? Yes or no?
 
]

"Can a council depose the pope?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:
What is the current ecclesiastical mechanism for this to happen?
 
From my research into numbers and beliefs, I feel that figure is a ridiculous figure. The same data set says there are over 200 Catholic churches, not 1.
The World Christian Encyclopedia ** does** refer to ** 33000+** total “Christian” denominations, but it defines the word “denomination” as an organized Christian group **within a specific country. **Virtually all of these “over 200 Catholic churches” are in union with the Pope, so there is actually one Catholic Church, not “over 200”.

As this link points out, Barrett’s Encyclopedia states this explicitly: “As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.” (Barrett, et al, World Christian Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 27, in the “Glossary” under definition for “Denomination” [later updated to 242], emphasis added)

These 33,000 are subdivided into “6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs”, and ordering them by denomination size we have (I am rounding up or down slightly for convenience, using year 2000 figures) :
22000 + 9000 + 1600 + 781 + 242 + 168 = 33,000+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top