www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Papal Authority

In the recent thread entitled "Lost Respect For The Pope," there was an important point that nobody even addressed--the fact that if the Pope were to deny Holy Communion to anyone without first consulting with the individual's bishop, he would effectively be overruling that bishop in a public display.

In any organization, it is considered bad form for a superior officer to do that sort of thing--policy issues are worked out privately so that the people do not get the wrong idea about the unity of the organization, which in turn could lead to factions, infighting, etc. and ultimately lead to the break-up of the organization.

When we apply this to the Catholic Church and add in the notion of episcopal collegiality, together with the fact that JPII has already called for a new understanding of the petrine office, I would hardly blame Pope Benedict for not making an issue of this.

In every moral decision all factors need to be considered, and this often involves choosing the "lesser evil." While many Catholics would like to see the Pope override his bishops' decisions on a number of issues, such actions could actually do more harm than good in the long run.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Dear Deacon Richard,

I think that I alluded somewhat to that point, when I mentioned in two of my posts that the Bishops have been given autonomy--(as such, decisions would be there's).

There is a misconception, espcially among uninformed laity of other faiths, that the Pope can call all shots at all times, and that he has supreme power. If I am not mistaken, this may have been true in the past, but not now.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

In Christ,
Alice

ALICE:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!!

I believe you are, indeed, correct. I've heard a lot about the principle of "subsidiarity." In essence it means that things are supposed to be handled at the lowest possible level. So every problem is not sent Rome.

In Christ,

BOB

Is papal supremacy no longer a dogma then?

Papal supremacy was never a dogma -- papal infallibility on matters of Faith and Morals is a dogma of the Catholic Church, but the pope must be speaking ex cathedra and, I think, with the support of the bishops.

I think the thing about this whole issue is that no one seems to remember that it has only been exercised twice in the past 150+ years. Both times it revolved around the Mother of God and both times, it seems to me, it was to reinforce what the Church had already believed. It doesn't happen every day and it doesn't involve everything that a Pope says.

BOB

According to The Church Teaches, Papal Supremacy was declared a dogma concurrently with the dogma of Papal Infallibility in 1870.

Then what IS papal supremacy? Is that his temporal right to be an absolute monarch in Vatican City?

Bob...

I think what is being missed here is that the 2 times it was utilized were/are objected to doctrine in the Eastern Church...Without getting into specifics here...I'm sure if people are interested they can go to the archives and find lengthy discussions...For example, there are those in the East who "dogmatically" believe the Virgin Mary was assumed after her death. There are those who simply state, "She may have, but we don't know. It may be a pius belief." Either way, the belief of her assumption, is not something that is of "vital necessity" to being a Christian...and we won't even get started on the immaculate conception which flys in the face of the eastern understanding of "original sin"...the infallable statements muddied the waters more than they clarified them...

The pope is supreme over the (Papal) Catholic Church. Although, popes don't often exercise this authority...according to (papal) Catholic Church law he can if he so wishes...

Unless the Holy Father says that he, in union with his bishops, is going to pronounce something which concerns faith and doctrine, most of what he says doesn't necessarily need to be agreed or adhered to. He is infallible ONLY when he acts in union with his brother bishops.

However, so far though, I agree with most of what he says as it is reasonable and logical enough to be stomached. I don't think even he would approve of blindly adulating or listening to him. He's not the dictator that people have been made to believe. He never said "you must listen to me because I am always right and you're not... muahahahaha".

Yes Alice that is correct!
While Catholic believe the Pope has supreme and immediate jurisdiction of the entire Church, in essence how this is exercised is quite different!

The Bishop has rule of his diocese and unless there is something seriously wrong, the Pope is not going to step in.
Stephanos I

Collin, I might be mistaken but I don't think this is correct.
The Pope is not infallible only when he acts in union with his brother Bishops but in his own person when teaching on matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra.
Stephanos I

Father bless!

My opinions are based on what I roughly remember of my catechism classes and reading of Catholic apologetics. Perhaps I must have missed out on the "personal" part. But I've always thought that the Pope speaks ex-cathedra only upon prayerful discussion with the Synod or Magisterium. But again, this is purely my understanding of the whole theory and I must go back and read about this all over again.

Hi,



I am not sure what is meant by "papal supremacy", but if that means that the Pope enjoys ordinary, immediate and supreme jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, in each particular Church or grouping of Churches in the Catholic Communion and with respect to each individual of the Catholic faithful and their groupings within the Church then I would say that yes, this has been defined as dogma.

To clarify about papal infallibility, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he enjoys the same infallibility of the Church. However, in order to speak ex cathedra, he does NOT require any support from the bishops.

Shalom,
Memo