Open question: what is the significance of papal encyclicals? To what extent are they binding teaching, especially where they contradict each other? Are we to look at them as loquacious pastoral letters concerning whatever happens to be on the pope's mind?
The difficulty is that the encyclical replaced the papal bull around the time of Gregory XVI. Previously, popes would write "bulls" to the bishops and priests of the Church to legislate with regard to a particular problem or a binding teaching to clarify a matter of dispute. Then came the Italian unification movement and the popes began to write about more general issues. The culture of the time and the rather dull theological outlook were not conducive to considering the contents of encyclicals, only receiving them. Indeed, when traditionalists speak of "traditional Roman Catholic theology" they mean the encyclicals of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, most of Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pacelli. These letters were to be taken as typical Catholic teaching on all matters much as how neo-conservatives take John Paul II and Francsis' encyclicals to be gospel, as well as Humane Vitae (which we must admit is not a teaching, but a re-iteration of a long standing teaching). Then Cardinal Burke caused a small firestorm by suggesting Francis' first unique encyclical was not "Magisterium."
Another problem is that, regarding papal bulls, prior to Vatican I, one is not entirely clear as to how binding bulls were. Some were purely legislative. Some, like Benedictus Deus, were clearly didactic and binding. And others, like Unam Sanctam, were shameless political posturing. We can dangerously read into formulae like "we define" and "we declare" a level of authority generally used in one era, but bound to signify invocations of infallibility in a later era. Is the fine for mis-printing the Roman Missal stated in Quo primum tempore a dogma of the faith?
In all the centralization and bureaucracy, no one seems very keen on separating the essentials of teaching from what is pastoral care and what is just irrelevant. Thoughts?
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.
ReplyDeleteHumani Generis
Good to know that one is outside the Body if they are in a non-Roman Catholic Church.
DeleteWhat a load of crock, but I guess that's par for the course with that pontiff.
Well, I know Mediator Dei and Auctorem Fidei are heresy while Unam Sanctam is worthless. The rest have an absurd variance of validity ranging from "this is bad pastoral advice" to to "this is good pastoral advice", to "this is a necessary reaffirmation of Doctrine to remind Catholics of said doctrine".
ReplyDeleteI laugh when someone asks whether a Catholic belief or tradition is "ex Cathedra". There isn't an "ex Cathedra" statement for the Crucifixion or Resurrection, but would not one be a complete heretic to deny either one?
There have been two, yes ONLY two, Ex Cathedra statements ever:
1. The Immaculate Conception by Pius IX
2. The Assumption by Pius XII (which was waste of time, because it stated the obvious and failed to reaffirm the truth that the Theotokos did, in fact, die)
Mediator Dei - heresy? Can you please clarify?
DeleteI think it's satire.
DeleteThe reversal of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
DeleteBlatant, unforgivable, inexcusable, modernist garbage.
Ah, that. :-/
DeleteArticle 47: ""Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief.[45] The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer."
DeleteHe explicitly reversed the teaching on the relationship between liturgy and belief in order to justify grabbing what little non-papal authority remained regarding liturgy. It was a preparation for the coming reform (he did form the commission that created his new un-Holy Week and eventually the New Mass, hiring Bugnini personally). Indeed, I cannot think of any other occasion where a pope unambiguously reversed an immemorial teaching, although the same pope did change his predecessor's (Eugene IV) teaching on the form of episcopal consecration.
"There have been two, yes ONLY two, Ex Cathedra statements ever"
DeleteI understand the impulse to follow this line of thought, but then what do we make of "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII. a correction of his predecessor's (John XXII) notorious ideas about the beatific vision. It seems to be definitive and binding: it concerns faith, it is a resolution and clarification rather than a novelty, and it is meant for the entire Church—which received it without much hassle.
"Benedictus Deus" falls under "this is a necessary reaffirmation of Doctrine to remind Catholics of said doctrine". It's like "Humane Vitae" in that regard.
DeleteWhen you had a previous Pope who spewed heresy so notoriously that the Dominican Order mobilized against him (How's that for "supreme obedience", eh?) then a little reaffirmation is called for.
Lord of Bollocks is truly the Lord of Bollocks.
Deletehttp://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2014/08/when-did-mary-die-and-for-how-long-was.html
And Rad Trad, wasn't the nicaean Creed put in the liturgy for the faith to be publicly expressed? Weren't new prayers for new feasts compiled throughout history of the Church?
DeleteHe didn't reverse anything. He said that the relationship is mutual. And i don't see any valid reason why it wouldn't be, and why it should be only the one way.
Pacelli's reversal is objectionable because the "legem credendi" means something a bit different here than it did when St Prosper coined that phrase when talking about Baptism. When Pius XII spoke of the lex credendi, he means definitions, doctrines, and ideas given by formal means. Prosper's dictum means "faith" in the most colloquial, vulgar, and lay-oriented sense of the word, not just what to believe, but also how to believe. Liturgy informed the way of belief in untold manifold ways through various acts (the vigils, the hours, the stational churches, the Baptisms on great feasts etc). This is theology in the most accessible and instinctive way possible. Written theology which expounds upon problems in a quasi-scientific manner is something else, something to be revered and respected, but just not the same thing.
DeleteYes, they did compose new feasts, but they did not, interestingly, through out old feasts or old texts. The feast of the Circumcision is itself the concatenation of three distinct Masses into one (octave day of Christmas, the Maternity of Mary, and the Circumcision of the Lord). The general aversion to replacing texts and aligning them to the latest theological trends was not an accepted practice until Pius IX's Mass for the Immaculate Conception (formerly a minor, low key repetition of the Mass of the Nativity of the Virgin). The real context to Pius XII's writing which gives it definition in favor of my reading is that he rebranded quite a few feasts in line with his theology and his reform agenda (even though it was only completed a decade after his death). He canned the unique feasts of many pope-saints and the Common of bishops used for popes in order to apply a unique, papally focused Common Si diligis me.... He dumped the Mass and large parts of the Office for the Assumption (removing the liturgical evidence for his own proclamation) which aligned with the Eastern and Western Marian theology in favor of a new Mass and revised Office that calls to mind the plasticine devotion in vogue at the time. And then there is his remarkable violence to Holy Week, reflective of the populistic and modernistic liturgical theology of the time which he advance; I agree with Fr Hunwicke that Pius XII's Holy Week changes were only less radical that the Pauline reforms in that they effected one week of the year. His actions give his words clearer form.
At least that's my opinion!
Alright, Marko, fair enough. It's implied.
DeleteThis just illustrates more why devotionalists who claim she never died are just flat-out wrong.
That both the real Roman office of the day St. John of Damascus' account confirm her death is enough for me. I don't require an ex Cathedra statement to rehash what I already know.
Well those who contest Her death are not Popes, and certainly not Pius XII but devotionalists.
DeleteI see we already have a hot discussion box! Let's try to keep to the question at hand and not focus entirely on Pius XII's newfangled ideas.
ReplyDeleteThere's at least one case where one papal bull explicitly rejects what was said in a previous bull. In Cum Inter Nonnullos, John XXII declared it heresy to claim that Christ and the apostles owned nothing whatsoever, whether individually or in common, which directly contradicts what Nicholas III had previously said in Exiit Qui Seminat, that Christ and the apostles both taught and practised the complete renunciation of property as part to the perfect life.
ReplyDeleteNicholas III *was* a Franciscan after all!
DeleteMore precisely, John XXII issued an Apostolic Constitution to address the controversies between seculars and regulars, and between regulars and "spirituals," regarding the legitimacy of renouncing all property. Nicholas III had issued a Decree, in the form of a rescript, declaring that such renunciation was holy and perfect, taught by Christ and His Apostles in word and confirmed by their example--which is at least somewhat ambiguous, i.e. to what extent did they confirm it "by their example"? Pope Nicholas was defending the regulars from the attacks by some seculars that their way of life was heretical. Pope John, on the other hand, clearly states that he intends to put an end to the controversies, fanned by the "spirituals" (it may be inferred), that Christ and the Apostles lacked the power to use property for selling or buying or acquiring anything--something clearly contradicted by Scripture--which assertion, he concludes,is "inimical to Catholic doctrine," among other things. I do not see this as a "direct contradiction," I'm afraid, insofar as the two Popes were addressing two different assertions.
DeleteApart from my (almost) total agreement with Lord of Bollocks regarding Pius XII, I'm stating what is just my personal, fallible, and probably mistaken opinion:
ReplyDeleteFrom my (personal) point of view, papal documents have absolutely no binding authority for the universal Church, except when they restate a traditional teaching and/or condemn a heresy - and, in those cases, the infallibility of their statements comes not from the person of the Pope, but from Tradition of whose integrity they are witnesses as successors of Peter. I'm not saying that the Pope is just a bishop equal to the others, but that he has the mission of commanding the Church by professing and safeguarding the traditional Faith, and not by theological speculations or submitting the local churches to his will.
If my opinion is erroneous, I am open to correction. God bless!
K. e.
Interestingly, prior to the high Middle Ages and Papa Sengi (Innocent III), ever bishop was considered the "vicar of Christ." The pope had the unique appellation "vicar of St Peter"—"vicar" being the Latin word for "deputy" and etymologically connected to "flesh" and "way".
DeleteIf the pope has "ordinary" episcopal jurisdiction everywhere, then we cannot say he is another gradation of Holy Orders or of some exalted status. Any bishop is to be followed when he preaches Christ in line with his predecessors. I cannot see how the pope is any different. Taking papal episcopal jurisdiction too far, pretending he is more than a [universal] bishop (Chalcedon), gives people the impression that bishops and Councils are redundant (there was talk in the 19th century about whether bishops were actually necessary for anything other than Sacraments). The opposite extreme is to meld the pope into a kind of honorary "first among equals" which never existed and which undermines the unity of the Church by undermining the necessity of Communion with Rome (personally, I think the pope's place as the visible center of the union of the Church is more important than his proactive teaching authority).
That should be "Papa Segni" and "every bishop"
DeleteThe Pope is not a mere primus inter pares, nor a monarch, of course. The main problem here are his jurisdition's limits: apart from condemning heresies and safeguarding Tradition (by "preaching in line with his predecessors", as you say), how long the power given by Our Lord do reach? Maybe it is due to my lack of theological formation, but I have never understood what Papal ordinary jurisdiction outside Rome really means.
DeleteOn the other hand, it seems to me that the main problem we are discussing here is, above all, the use of encyclicals as if they were sermons (as it happens since Gregory XVI), and their complete swallowing by neocons and traddies. From my point of view, the only way to examine their auctority is their anchorage in Tradition: if their teaching is traditional, then it must be followed (but not because it is papal, but first of all because it is traditional!); if it is not, why should we obey it?
K. e.
PS: I would like to ask Lord of Bollocks what happened about Auctorem Fidei, but I don't want to give back Pacelli to our discussion.
DeletePPS: Another problem: most traddies swallow Gregroy XVI-Pius XII "magisterium" (with both its truths and errors) because they think that if it was taught by them, it must be traditional. The problem I mean is that most people does not actually know how to distinguish Tradition from preconciliar "magisterium".
DeleteThere was, in the 19th century...a certain exuberance with the possibilities of new mass media technology, and Leo XIII embraced it with a vengeance - and so did plenty of ultramontanists. One thinks of William George Ward of the Dublin Review, who famously said, " I should like a new papal bull with my Times and breakfast every morning."
DeleteMr. Ward may not have been put off by the watering down of bulls to extended sermons because the teachings were generally so salutory. But what happens when they aren't?
It strikes me that most recent encyclicals would be more properly categorized as "apostolic exhortations" or "apostolic letters." The problem is that there's a Catholic media machine that is well trained to give higher profile to encyclicals, and Popes are content to take advantage. And so the cycle repeats itself. I'm likewise struck by the fact that the most important documents of Benedict XVI's pontificate weren't encyclicals at all.
I think a great many of the encyclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XII, JP2, Benedict XVI, and the latest offering of Francis amount to an extended dialogue with the self about whatever has occupied the pope's mind for the last year.
DeleteJustiniane, what you say about papal teaching being followed because it is traditional is quite true (as opposed to following it only because of its papal origin). Many will quote the sermons of Innocent III or Gregory the Great as Magisterium but conveniently ignore the heterodox sermons John XXII fondly gave or the letters that got Honorious I anathematized by a Council. So long a pope expounds and passes on what he has received, he is a good pope. When he fails in this duty or avoids it, he is a bad pope.
Actually, Justinian, Auctorem Fidei has nothing to do with Pius XII. It has to do with the resurrection of the heretical Pelagian innovation of an "Infant Limbo" through Post-Reformation neoscholastic sophistry. Pius VI was probably speaking out of ignorance of the Council of Carthage (Canon 110 if you're interested) when he made that regrettable statement.
DeleteInterestingly enough, the Council refused to make a statement on the infants' destination, as they were split between Augustinian hardliners ("the torments of hell, but only the mildest ones") and everyone else ("we do not know because God has not revealed it to us").
The "state of natural happiness" put forth by some cannot possibly exist because it goes against the basic need for God so intrinsic to our nature. I'd say the belief borders on the blasphemous.
The official teaching remains as it was from the beginning. We simply do not know because we are not inside the infant's soul when at his/her death. To deny the possibility of God providing a means of salvation, just because we do not "see it", for these people would be arrogance derived from the monster of Rationalism.
If you want my position on the issue, look up the theory put forth by the excellent orthodox German theologian (that's four words you don't usually hear together) Heinrich Klee. He was a champion against liberal and Rationalist trends in the 19th century without being a scholastic drone. Think, the good things about George Tyrell without the stigma or taint of "Modernism".
"Let the little children come to me, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see some serious research on the matter, but I do not think reversing Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is heresy, because I do not think it is a dogmatic item of faith. It seems more like a logical axiom than anything else--the principle that the ancient liturgies of the Church cannot err theologically or morally, and that it is the wellspring of our belief. I do not recall it ever being strongly emphasized by the Apostolic or Church Fathers, it was moreso utilized by medieval Bishops in order to counteract the errors of their day. But I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Papal authority: I do not think encyclicals are inherently infallible, but they are to be obeyed until supersession. After all, the Supreme Pontiff is the acting head of the Church, not just a fancier prelate that can occasionally declare things infallible. Nevertheless, I've never heard a clear, concise, and universal answer as to when it's OK to disobey your ecclesiastical authority. Aquinas says never, unless they order an obvious sin. But that flies in the face of certain saints like Anthony of Padua or Athanasius that did not have moral qualms in rhetorical beat-downs for bad Bishops who deserved it.
More precisely, St. Thomas says (in IIaIIae, Q. 106, a. 5, and elsewhere) that one is not bound to obey a superior if 1) one is legitimately impeded; or 2) he is commanded to do something that does not lie under the jurisdiction of the superior (including the case of a Religious who is commanded by his Superior in something that does not pertain to life in common as set forth by the Rule--ad 3). An obedience against the things of God the Angelic Doctor calls "illicit obedience," which would ipso facto seem not to be a part of the discussion on obedience properly so called.
DeleteFr Capreolus,
DeleteVery Thomistic of you: some affirmation, no denial, and a lot of distinction!
Guilty as charged!
DeleteThis seems to imply that one is only permitted to disobey their superior if commanded an obvious sin--like if the Pope were to tell you to receive Holy Communion despite being in perpetual unrepentant mortal sin. However, what if your Bishop tells you to e.g. throw out your parish's beautiful artwork and replace it with modernistic paint splotches? Any good Christian would be nauseated at the thought of it, but this is not the type of thing that warrants disobedience as according to the Summa.
DeleteFurthermore, there is also this prevailing idea that one should *never ever* openly criticize a prelate; the only reprimanding permitted is privately and respectfully. How exactly does this square with Athanasius saying "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops"? Or Anthony of Padua calling upon hellfire for gnostic or otherwise corrupt Bishops?
Addendum. I am fairly sure as well that the current Code of Canon Law strictly prohibits criticism of prelates. Yet what is one to do with Cardinal Kasper, that recently said that we should not repeat the words of Jesus because they are offensive?
DeleteI guess we must then shout the words of Jesus from the rooftops in defiance. Do as the early Christians did when their bishops and prelates accepted Arianism. Channel your internal St. Peter Damien.
DeleteCan. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
DeleteSource http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P53.HTM
What say you to that?
If a bishop demanded you to sin, would you?
DeleteIf I ever have to make the choice, I'm siding with basic morality and not "Canon Law", a concoction by Vatican bureaucrats that didn't even exist before 1917.
"If a bishop demanded you to sin, would you?"
DeleteNo, but that disobedience is explicitly permitted by literally every law in Catholicism that exists (consensus of the Church Fathers, the Summa, the modern Code of Canon Law, etc.). The question about eccleasistical authority here is whether one is allowed to disobey Papal encyclicals or throw rotten fruit at heretical prelates if a sin is not explicitly commanded, but something that subtly undermines the faith (my example was your Bishop telling you to remove your parish's beautiful and holy artwork and replace it with modernistic paint splotches).
"If I ever have to make the choice, I'm siding with basic morality and not "Canon Law", a concoction by Vatican bureaucrats that didn't even exist before 1917."
Well that's just plainly wrong--canon law goes back to apostolic times. The Pio-Benedictine Code of 1917 was merely a matter of convenience for canon lawyers in that all of the relevant laws in force at that time were compiled into a single volume--not unlike how "the Bible" is an ordered collection of all of the books of Holy Scripture.
Allow me to clarify.
DeleteThe idea that Canon Law trumps or is equal to dogma (as many Catholics seem to believe) is a 20th century innovation that followed the implementation of the 1917 code. Canon law is only disciplinary and is immediately trumped if it comes into conflict with ethics, morality, or dogma. You must also consider that Canon Law can be arbitrarily rewritten any time (as was done is 1983).
I am well aware that canon laws have existed from the ancient days. Even the Orthodox (Byzantine and Oriental) and the Assyrian Christians have their own. One example of a modification of the laws was the ban in the West on married priests.
"Canon law is only disciplinary and is immediately trumped if it comes into conflict with ethics, morality, or dogma."
DeleteBut the Magisterium is both the Parliament that made Canon Law, and the Supreme Court that decides if the law comes into conflict with ethics, morality, or dogma. That means the Church gets to decide exactly WHEN you're allowed to disobey the canon. If you're saying that the whole process is corrupt (id est: the law is unethical, and the judge errs in letting it stand, and the executer errs in imposing it), this leaves only schism and apostasy as options for a faithful Catholic.
To summarize the problem I am raising: the Rad Trad asks to what degree of authority are we to ascribe to Papal encyclicals. I respond that, since the Supreme Pontiff is the acting head of the Church, all of his commands are to be followed, unless he directly orders an obvious sin. But the quandary is that there seems to be a species of commands that are not obvious sins but should still be disobeyed--what is to be done about these? Canon Law says that they should be obeyed anyway, because provoking subjects to disobey their Ordinary or the Holy See is illegal, and even punishable by withholding of the Sacraments. If you, Lord of Bollocks, are saying that the current in-force laws should be set aside according to one's personal interpretation of when one can disobey their Ordinary, this amounts to anarchy in the Church, does it not?
I think you fail to understand that the Church is not a human institution.
DeleteIf there is an outright heretic or danger to the faith (Kasper, Mahoney, et al.) then a Catholic must follow the example of Peter Damien.
If the order is not in and of itself "bad" but is not practicable, then it may be quietly and prudently ignored, but not outright defied.
I do agree, though, that the general rule is to follow Canon Law. The times to disobey are the exception, not the rule.
"If there is an outright heretic or danger to the faith (Kasper, Mahoney, et al.) then a Catholic must follow the example of Peter Damien."
DeleteHeretic, sure. Danger to the faith--what's your definition of 'danger to the faith', and what's the evidence for your assertion that one can (or must) disobey their Ordinary if they are a spiritual danger? Because to my knowledge, H.E. Card. +Kasper has technically not said anything heretical, he has only suggested a change in discipline that would amount to turning a blind eye to systemic unrepentant mortal sin. Can we pelt him with rotten fruit? The example of numerous saints says yes. But canon law says no, and in effect that means the Church says no. Can you prove absolutely that canon law in this instance contradicts divine law? Because I have not found an accredited theologian who says that you can disobey your Ordinary if you think they're making a bad decision (replacing artwork with paint splotches) that's not an obvious sin.
I think the most prudent move in this case is to "vote with your feet". If you find yourself under such an ordinary, then change your ordinary (easy enough for laypersons, but a bit more difficult for clergy). There is precedent. When Arians took over and exiled orthodox priests and prelates (like St. Anthanasius) the faithful either boycotted the churches as long as the Arians controlled them or followed the exiled clerics.
DeleteIn the case of things like the paint splotches, which is not outright heresy but a bad decision nonetheless, I'd recommend the following options:
1. Protest privately to the prelate and try to change his mind
2. Don't follow the order unless he absolutely demands it of you (passive disobedience)
If these two fail...
3. Louis Boyer approach: Stay "in the system". You can attempt to mitigate the damage done while remaining in your position (don't throw out the good artwork and iconography but save it or "lose" it conveniently, don't put up the bad artwork unless forced, get new artwork that isn't bad but is nothing like the old... there are many forms of good Church art).
4. If all else fails, tender your resignation and make it known to your bishop why you resigned. Hopefully, it will get him thinking.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you publicize or politicize the conflict and make it a cause of scandal.
Does this answer satisfy you?
Seems like a good answer. Do you apply the same principles to a 'passive disobedience' of the Supreme Pontiff?
DeleteIf something is contrary to the mind and examples of the saints, can we truly call it an act of the Church? As far as a danger to the faith, Kasper's proposal and others like him do not controvert teaching in one fell swoop, for Satan is more subtle than that. It gradually changes minds by changing behavior, a perverse "lex suplicandi legem statuat credendi." The hoped-for change in teaching would eventually follow. It is as if one were on a sinking ship, all the lifeboats gone, and one still does not jump into the water because of the sign "Do not lean over the railings." Are we to wait for the "abandon ship"?
DeleteLord of Bollocks: The Orthodox are just as bad about canon law and hurl at each other. We just happen to have many more micromanaging laws (rather than the legislation of the supposedly ecumenical quinisext council). I would be interested in knowing if the prohibition against abjuring bad prelates is in the 1917 Codex or the previous Corpus Iurici Canonici. I would not conflate the "Magisterium"—which must include all gradations of clergy, saints in particular, past and present—with whoever happens to run the Vatican at a given moment; the Magisterium cannot be a machine or robot guaranteed to give the right answer; Christ entrusted the Church to people, not inerrant computers.
The canon against against criticizing clergy reminds me of a phrase: turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving.
To Joseph:
DeleteAbsolutely. The dissolute Benedict IX technically never committed heresy, but the Catholic faithful mostly ignored him. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain refused the execrable Borgia pope when he tried to use ecclesiastical authority to sway them politically to move their troops out of Italy ("An excommunication from you and for this reason would mean nothing, your excellency"... the WIlliam Thomas Walsh book on Isabella is an excellent read). To threaten someone with an excommunication over a political reason was a pretty bad abuse of the act, so the monarchs were quite correct in calling his bluff.
John XII and Stephen VI/VII are cans of worms I don't want to even touch right here.
Totally an aside I know, but: I too whole-heartedly recommend W.T. Walsh's book on Isabella la Catolica. I believe that's where I read that the Catholic Kings ordered the bells of the kingdom rung out in rejoicing and the "Te Deum" sung when news of Alexander's death reached their court.
DeleteThat's alright, Father. We veered off topic a long time ago!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI hate jumping into a conversation so late, and my apologies for restarting something that had already died down, but the limits of papal authority and power are very interesting to me. While still in RCIA, I remember reading a book on Catholic history that recounted an incident wherein a certain pope (I wish I could remember which one) was besieged in a palace, half-mad and tossing out excommunications at everyone and everything surrounding him. For all the apologists' assertions that papal infallibility only extended to matters of faith and morals, they sure were quick to apologize for everything the pope says and does.
ReplyDeletePapal encyclicals are a rich source of study in this regard. My understanding is that encyclicals, and many other types of magisterial documents like bulls and apostolic constitutions, were codified into a specific hierarchy of authority by the 19th century so that bishops and theologians could clearly understand their particular levels of demand on the Catholic conscience. In the 20th century that structure seemed to have fallen apart from disuse and apathy. No one in their right mind could think that Pope Francis's apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium should be taken seriously when he writes, "The first and the greatest of the commandments [is]: 'This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.'" It's an absurdity, but it was released in a form previously considered to be of very high authority by the Vicar of Christ himself. The only way to avoid ultramontanism is to read widely on the words and actions of past popes. Otherwise it's very easy to intellectually coast through reality.
"There have been two, yes ONLY two, Ex Cathedra statements ever..."
That would make things simpler, wouldn't it? But surely the Vatican Council: Episode I was not bestowing the power of infallibility upon the Bishop of Rome, but acknowledging a power that he had always possessed and occasionally used. The two ex cathedra definitions after V:I are the easiest to pin down, largely because P. IX and P. XII were clear that they were using this defined power. Many other papal statements before and after V:I are of debatable authoritative levels. For instance, I've heard it argued that John Paul's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an infallibly ex cathedra statement because of the following statement: "In virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." It's a weaker phrasing than that used by P. IX and P. XII, but still strong, and explicitly invokes his Petrine authority. Good arguments can be made for the ex cathedra nature of older papal documents as well, including Unam Sanctam, although I truly don't want to get into a fight about that one.
(continued)
(continuation)
Delete"I'm not saying that the Pope is just a bishop equal to the others, but that he has the mission of commanding the Church by professing and safeguarding the traditional Faith, and not by theological speculations or submitting the local churches to his will.... The Pope is not a mere primus inter pares, nor a monarch, of course."
I suppose it depends what is meant by "monarch." I'm not trying to be cute, but many equate the word incorrectly with "tyrant." Any understanding of the limits of papal authority will have to contend with the definitions of V:I, of course:
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... let him be anathema.
It sure sounds a lot like a monarchy to me, and it also sounds like he has the right to force local churches to submit to his will.
"If the pope has 'ordinary' episcopal jurisdiction everywhere, then we cannot say he is another gradation of Holy Orders or of some exalted status. Any bishop is to be followed when he preaches Christ in line with his predecessors. I cannot see how the pope is any different. Taking papal episcopal jurisdiction too far, pretending he is more than a [universal] bishop (Chalcedon), gives people the impression that bishops and Councils are redundant...
Most theologians I've read—even those I would consider to be otherwise ultramontane—agree that the papacy is not an exaltation of Holy Orders, and that the pope does not become something more than a bishop. Rather, he is given a role in addition to his episcopacy, that of the Petrine Office. (If a pope's Holy Orders were increased by assuming the office, this would surely be something intrinsic and unchangeable, much like the way a priest continues to be a priest even in the next life. Then a good argument could be made that any papal resignation would be intrinsically null and void.)
While I don't want to make more of papal authority and jurisdiction than tradition and common sense permit, we still have to deal with the conciliar definition of papal primacy:
If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
It's a matter of defined, conciliar dogma that the pope has universal primacy and jurisdiction. Perhaps the council did not define what both of those terms meant to our satisfaction, but the definitions still stand. However, a reasonable discussion should be had about the proper response of the faithful to pernicious and errant bishops, even popes. Speaking of which...
(continued)
(continuation)
Delete"Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties."
It's interesting that Can. 1373 was recently invoked in online discussions regarding Michael Voris, who has openly criticized American bishops for their obvious and public errors in his Youtube videos. Basically it's being used as a cudgel to force him to shut up about obvious things that anybody with half a mind can see. (As it turns out, Voris uses the same argument against anyone who would dare publicly criticize the pope. Maybe s--- rolls downhill in Vortexland? But I digress.)
A reasonable discussion about the moral limits of canon law is also much needed, especially when it can be used to silence critics of public scandal. I am sympathetic to the Peter Damian approach, although when left unchecked it might lead to schism. It's good to expose evil as evil. It's also good to promote peace and concord among all Christians. I know I don't enjoy being angry all the time, and the temptation to stick my head in the sand is frequent. But nobody is served except the Devil when wickedness rampages unopposed, especially in the Vatican.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565
ReplyDeleteSome excerpts:
"The Absolutist and High Petrine views exist in the Catholic Church. The Absolutist Petrine advocates are historically referred to as neo-ultramontanists. Neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) was an undercurrent in the Catholic mentality for centuries, but finally found formal expression in the early 19th century (two of the more popular names connected with this movement were William George Ward and Louis Veuillot). It had several causes (overreaction to Gallicanism, protection of Catholic interests in Protestant states, belief that the social turmoil of the day could only be healed by the Church with a strong leader, etc.). Ultramontanism was considered the Traditional position of the Latin Catholic Church, while NEO-ultramontanism, as the name implies, was a novelty. There were two types of neo-ultramontanists:
(1) POLITICAL neo-ultramontanism stressed the deposing power of the Pope and related prerogatives in the politicial sphere. This was a normal belief among Catholics for centuries, but what distinguished many neo-ultramontanists was the attribution of infallibility for all the Pope's formal acts. Though "papal" infallibility was not a formal teaching of the Church, this is what "papal" infallibility was believed to mean in many quarters. This being so, secular governments formally expressed their deep concerns during the Council (about 3 months after the Council began) about the rumors that "papal" infallibility was going to be defined (though it was not at that point even on the agenda of the Council), and that this would lead to a dogmatization of the deposing power of the Pope in the political sphere. Several threatened to forcefully march on the Council to end it (France threatened to withdraw its troops from Italy - historians will understand why withdrawing their troops would be considered a threat to the Vatican Council). This was the immediate impetus for the decision to finally include "papal" infallibility on the agenda, to tell the world what was and what was not "papal" infallibility. The secular governments in fact had a reasonable basis for their fears, as the two prime movers behind the Council (Archbishop Manning of England and Pope Pius IX) had neo-ultramontanist leanings.
(2) THEOLOGICAL neo-ultramontanism focused on the prerogatives of the Pope within the Church, and included such notions as: (i) The Pope is infallible in matters even beyond what was defined at V1 (neo-ultramontanists described the infallibility of the Pope as "absolute"); (ii) the Pope's infallibility is separate from the Church's infallibility; (iii) The Pope is the one who grants the Church her infallibility through his own infallibility that he obtains directly from God; (iv) the Pope is ABOVE an Ecumenical Council, instead of being a member of it; (v) The Pope can impede the authority of any bishop at his sole discretion; (vi) the Pope is not bound by Canon law at all; (vii) Even the Pope's canonical decrees are infallible; etc...basically, the Pope is the absolute monarch of the Church.
Vatican 1 rejected these innovations. ..."
It is fascinating that Fr. John Morris, who from what I understand is the top liturgical scholar of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, pops in the thread.
Also relevant. The Pope can not merely depose Bishops as he wills it. The situation we often see today where the Pope seems to 'order' a Bishop to resign is not an inherent power of the Supreme Pontiff, but merely a quirk of today's views of the Papacy.
ReplyDelete"A lot of times, bishops won't say no, if they feel it would be against the Pope's wishes. In such instances, the Pope's authority is really on auctoritas, not potestas (in layman's terms, auctoritas is authority by virtue of love or respect, while potestas is authority by virtue of law). The Pope's authority is indeed indicated in our canon laws, but the ideal (as reflected in St. Paul's teachings) is always that our adherence to the law should be borne of sincerity and free exercise, not one forced by mere obligation or fear."
Note that Pope Gregory the Great says that anybody who declares himself a "Universal Bishop" is the antichrist.
Gregory the Great was opposing a Constantinopolitan archbishop named John who wanted to have episcopal presence in the metropolitan and suffrage dioceses as though he was the ordinary, with the local bishops as his servants. He was not denouncing the word "universal" in the sense I am using it.
DeleteThe same Gregory wrote that no one was "not answerable to the Apostolic See" (letter 21), which implies a power of episcopal judgment. He wrote that line with regard to the same ambitious patriarch John of Constantinople.
The Ultramontanism that won at Vatican I was not the document passed, but the spirit inculcated. Manning indirectly wrote against the far more sane and historically informed Newman for not aggrandizing the Papacy further and for opposing a stronger decision at the Council. Pius IX himself wanted to be infallible in all matters and bishops eager to curry favor behaved as such for time to come.
I would agree with Fortescue that Vatican I must be accepted, but that the infallibility matter must be read in a very minimalistic way informed by an understanding of history (and good taste on the part of the pope).
"Pius IX himself wanted to be infallible in all matters and bishops eager to curry favor behaved as such for time to come."
DeleteIn other words, most modern-day hyper-ultramontanists are not ideological fanatics, but rather, careerists eating the table scraps from the Supreme Pontiff. I do not disagree. In fact I do not think the Pope would disagree.
I have lately wondered if the Latin church should adopt the Eastern practice of only consecrating monastics to the episcopate. I would wager that less careerists would be willing to live ascetically for decades to get promoted. Furthermore that also cuts into the Bishops that undermine the Church's teachings in order to be more appealing to modern man and teenagers, since monks are less likely to be indoctrinated by parish priests that have thought this since the '60s.
"The Ultramontanism that won at Vatican I was not the document passed, but the spirit inculcated."
DeleteYes.
A while ago I posted a chopped-up (easier to read in small bites) version of Bishop Gasser's Relatio at Vatican One:
ReplyDeleteInfallibility. THOUSANDS OF INFALLIBLE JUDGMENTS (3)
030. But some will persist and say: there remains, therefore, the duty of the Pontiff - indeed most grave in its kind – of adhering to the means apt for discerning the truth, and, although this matter is not strictly dogmatic, it is, nevertheless, intimately connected with dogma. For we define: the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are infallible. Therefore let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment. It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here.
Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
http://bornacatholic.blogspot.com/2014/02/infallibility-vatican-1-relatio-of.html
I would like to add that owing to him possessing the Keys, the Pope has always had universal jurisdiction (as, by the way, did each infallible Apostle) in the church but he'd be wise to use it in rare instances
"A lot of times, bishops won't say no, if they feel it would be against the Pope's wishes. In such instances, the Pope's authority is really on auctoritas, not potestas (in layman's terms, auctoritas is authority by virtue of love or respect, while potestas is authority by virtue of law). The Pope's authority is indeed indicated in our canon laws, but the ideal (as reflected in St. Paul's teachings) is always that our adherence to the law should be borne of sincerity and free exercise, not one forced by mere obligation or fear."
ReplyDeleteThe State has a coercive power reaching unto death sentences and the same goes for the more perfect society, the Catholic Church.
E. Sylvester Berry, STD, argues thusly in "The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise"
Back to he topic of 'magisterium,' could there be something any more convoluted than section 5 of the CDF's 1973 "Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Errors of the Present Day," Mysterium Ecclesiae? At least, I think, it allows us to look at the dogmatic formula of Ineffabilis Deus and shun the idea of original sin imparting a "stain."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure Mysterium Ecclesiae 5 is so bad. What it seems to be saying is that context is key in understanding certain things. Very recently, we English speakers got a new translation of the Mass and Creed that correctly translated one line as "consubstantial to the Father." Understanding that requires a background in Greek philosophy and culture that few outside of academia possess. That does not make the Creed untrue, but it does mean care is required when expounding upon the meaning of that phrase. The document quotes Vatican I in saying "That meaning of sacred dogmas...must always be maintained which Holy Mother Church declared once and for all, nor should one ever depart from that meaning under the guise of or in the name of a more advanced understanding."
DeletePerhaps it would be best if the Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF were restructured. I never understood how they speak on behalf of the pope, as though they possess the same authority. Yes, the popes have said they do, but the Petrine office is the result of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and occupation of the Roman See's succession, which no theologian/monsignor/bureaucrat can ever have. Marko and I have been talking above about Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis, which the Holy Office said was infallible. I would like to know why they have A-the power to say something the pope did not and B-why the popes judgments and interpretations should require another round of judgments of interpretations....
Perhaps the CDF should be more of a counsel to the pope rather than a secondary or tertiary teaching body.
The key word was 'convoluted.' This is evident exactly in what you and Marko have been discussing a propos Sacramentum Ordinis. And you've repeated exactly what I've said above (somewhere) about the interplay between Roman Congregations and the Pope as an exercise in tautology.
DeleteIn practice, for hundreds of years, the papal Magisterium and Western theology (insofar as it was held captive by Counter-Reformation school theology) has attempted to draw theological and hence dogmatic conclusions from previously existing canonical situations. The best example of this is the case for clerical celibacy. First came the canonical prescription, then (just recently) has come a theology which speaks of the recipient of Orders are one ontologically configured to Christ the Bridegroom. We gets hints of this in Pastores dabo vobis and overtly in the public statements of Cardinals Piacenza and Sepe. I'm drawing this (about celibacy) from a review copy of Peter Galadza's chapter in an upcoming collection of papers on married Eastern Catholic priests edited by Adam DeVille. I'd post some quotes but it's under embargo.
Celibacy is of Apostolic Origins and it was the very praxis of Jesus and His Apostles. The inability to control lust led to the creation of a married and sexually active priesthood and the idea that this is an acceptable praxis issued from Hell.
ReplyDeleteMight want to tell St. Peter and his wife that. Also the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
DeleteAlready have. Our first Pope was continent.
ReplyDeleteThe heteropraxy of others can never become the norm
it is unclear what (if there was one at all) the universal practice for conjugal relations among married clerics was in the first three centuries. It seems to be that in the East, it was commonplace for married Bishops to be continent, but not for the lower orders. In any case, the Council of Nicaea chose not to rule on the issue, meaning that this is not a matter of dogma. Condemning married Eastern/Oriental Catholic/Orthodox Priests for having conjugal relations is not supported by Apostolic tradition.
DeleteThose interested in the topic of celibacy/continence ought read the piece about same at the Unam Sancatm Catholicam Blog where Boniface has posted a discerning recapitulation of the issue.
ReplyDeleteM.J. knows he is also preparing a piece on the eastern catholics who abandoned the shared West-East discipline of mandatory celibacy/continence.
Fr Christian Cochini's text, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, is indispensable when it comes to this matter
Go to Unam Sanctam Catholicam
ReplyDeleteClick on "History" in menu bar
Click on Historical Apologetics
Scroll downto article
Unam Sanctam Catholicam's blog lacks any credibility. The man is an extremist with lunatic views. One should listen to him about as much as they should Tony Cekada.
DeleteHe named his blog after the abominable Boniface VIII and featured an article called "The Lost Art of Catholic Shunning".
Stay far from him. He reminds me of the worst of my $$PX days.
And about the "priests were always celibate", I've checked his source. It looks like rewriting history to form one's own conclusions... a bit like the sophistries about Addai and Mari including the magic "words of institution"