www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Trying to understand the authority of the Pope

Some quick thoughts:

Just because it comes from Rome does not mean it is binding on anyone, Latin or otherwise. Example: Encyclicals are circular letters from the Pope. By definition they are not binding because they contain nothing that could bind someone (those documents have other names). They might remind us of the pre-existing tradition (example: Catholic teaching on contraception) or explain something in a new light, but they are not, in and of themselves, binding. Other papal documents, such as bulls, can be binding on those to whom they are addressed, within the limits of their application. This is where the whole Eastern Catholic distinction comes into play.

Secondly I'd submit (and with out a CCC (catechism) handy, for I should read the preface and such to make sure there was no "this is a binding document" statement) that the CCC is not a binding document, it is instead the executive summary of those portions of a library of documents that are considered either binding, or the best, considered opinion of the theological community. furthermore, the CCC was written by Rome for a particular audience. In this case that audience is largely the Bishops, and more generally the faithful, and everyone else.

Lastly the CCC is not by any means a complete expose of theology, even from the Roman perspective. In some places it states what people say, but does not state what the Catholic church says. Also the CCC was not intended to replace the role of the local bishop - but was intended to help guide the local Bishops and synods in developing their own materials.

Unfortunately the Roman church is all too often filled with this concept that everything uttered by the Pope, or published by Rome to be infallible, or at least binding -- hence a "you aren't (good) Catholic if you don't think X" effect. While I would agree that many things that Popes say are binding, because they have been the consistent teaching of the Church, are the teachings of ecumenical councils, or much more rarely have been dogmatically defined ex-cathedra (there are what 1 or 2 such pronouncements?), just because the Pope holds a particular theological opinion, and talks about it does not make it correct.

Herb is correct - sorry it took me a few hours to say so but I've been busy.

Fr. Serge

JP II seemd to think that the Catechism was for the universal Church. He wrote in the "APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM; ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:"

The "Eastern distinction" cited above misrepresents the teaching of the Universal Father in regard to the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae. In order to see this, it is first important to review what Vatican I taught about the marks of infallibility and then see if Humanae Vitae falls within that category. Here is the relevant statement from the "Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:"



In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI certainly intended "in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, ....to define a doctrine concerning morals to be held by the whole Church."

Paul VI wrote:



It seems quite clear that Paul VI intended to teach the whole Church with the authority invested in him by Christ as head of the Apostles on a (grave) moral matter. Certainly this moral truth need not be defined as being "divinely revealed" because the truth of the matter can also be attained by human reason since it is an application of the natural moral law. This is a teaching, therefore, on which no Catholic can question the Holy Father on the grounds that he was simply "setting forth the tradition or teaching only to the Latin Church."

It is of course THE teaching on which a great portion of the Church has rebelled since promulgated by the Holy Father and a rebellion which by its very nature has caused the greatest decline in membership to the Eastern Catholic Churches in the United States. To claim that Humanae Vitae is not infallible is to take a theological position held by the "reformers" who misapplied Vatican II in a myriad of ways.

I think my point has been missed. As it isn't germaine to the thread, I'm going to skip arguing if Humanae Vita is ex-cathedra. I would just point out that I used it as my example of a Pope reminding people that the teaching of the church already binds them. I wasn't disagreeing with the document. Nor did I (or anyone else I think in this thread) insinuate that Humanae vitae wasn't addressed to Eastern Catholics, or that Church teaching on contraception doesn't apply in the east. I leave whether it is "ex-cathedra" or not to the lawers. I'm a Physicist, cannon law is not my field. Instead I will affirm that I believe Humanae vita is correct and leave it at that.

Regardless of the exact legal status of particular points in Humanae Vita, I think we can agree that, in general, encyclicals do not bind or legislate. Generally they are used to REMIND their audience of things they should already know. Hence, in general, they do not bind but remind people they are already bound. The point here being, that most of the things folks think Rome is demanding, ordering, or teaching for the first time are really instead things the Church has always demanded, or taught. Additionally, Popes use arguments to support their positions that may or may not be valid. The arguments are not usually binding, even if the position those arguments support is something that every Christian needs to hold or live up to.

The point here being, that when one reads a papal document, one has to realize that it may not bind anyone, but instead remind people they are and have been bound all along. And that if it does any binding, it only binds those to whom it is addressed. We shouldn't read more into a document than is right there in front of us, and should allow room for Popes to make strong statements heard, that we must take and consider seriously, yet know that they might be reformed in the future.

This is where I am not sure I agree with you. An encyclical can well very well bind - as did Humanae Vitae , but I agree with you that because the Pope was speaking on a moral matter which could be known through reason alone, by the application of the natural law, he was not setting forth a new teaching. This does not mean that he was not also reminding the entire Church, in the face of new challenges, of the constant teaching of the Church. I think the gift of the Magisterium is that it never really creates a new teaching, but rather reminds the Church of the Revelation that was always implicit in the teaching given by Christ to the Apostles.

Hi,

Binding is not the same as Infallible.

I would definitively regard Humanae Vitae as Binding, but not as Infallible.

Paul VI was merely giving "his reply" (his own opinion), not a universal, definitive infallible and irreformable teaching.

Shalom,
Memo

All evidence is to the contrary, I'm afraid. By its very nature, and universal form of address, the Encyclical Letter of Humanae Vitae is clearly not merely an opinion piece, but rather a definitive teaching in "reply" to the commission he called to study the issue.

Even the whole first section on the competence of the magisterium to teach on matters that pertain to the interpretation and application of the moral law clearly lays out that he sees this as an authoritative act of the magisterium seen as guardian and interpreter of the faith which pertains to our salvation as Christians, not an Op Ed.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Since there doesn't seem to be a practical difference between "infallible" and "binding," then why make the distinction at all? Are there any binding statements from any pope in history that are now deemed to be in error and no longer binding?

Joe

I don't have the reference handy, but Father Archimandrite Robert Taft has found a few once-binding papal statements - including one which absolutely requires all the faithful to receive Holy Communion in both kinds!

There is also, of course, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII.

Fr. Serge

Father,

The example you give suggests that binding & "non-infallible" teachings are really disciplinary and not doctrinal. I'm curious though if there is an instance in church history where a pope teaches a doctrine and declares that teaching binding on all Catholics and later, the Church changes that teaching.

Joe

I always have interpreted "infallible" to mean "Well, he didn't get it wrong!" and "binding" as "To be in the Catholic communion we must believe that it is true."

BTW, has anyone ever run across the letter of Patriarch Athenegoras to Pope Paul VI on his agreement regarding HV?

I thought that this was quite interesting...

http://www.hli.org/seminarians_eastern_orthodoxy_contraception.html

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Yes, I have the teaching of the Catholic Church to back that up. The Pope IS our shepard, he is our direct leader. This is a fairly simple understanding. Sorry that my previous post has offended you but you should not be so sensitive to the truth. The Orthodox listen to what the Pope has to say, to them however, it is non-binding and they can choose to either say "good point" or roll their eyes. We as eastern Catholics can not take what our Supreme Pontiff has to say with the proverbial grain of salt. If you would like to have this freedom, join the Orthodox Church. Good luck and God bless.

This probably belongs in the recent thread on Humanae Vitae, but Fr. Deacon, since you've linked us to this article By Taras Baystar I feel the need to respond. First off, Patriarch Athanagoras certainly had the right to express his opinion and it is likely the case that most Orthodox at the time would have agreed with him about HV with possibly one caveat. Humanae Vitae allows birth control through the method of using only the infertile periods for sex. To this day, nearly all of the Orthodox I have ever read or spoken with who are opposed to contraception are also opposed to natural family planning. In fact, it goes without saying that the church fathers opposed natural family planning and saw as the only alternative to normal marital relations, abstinence. This is not period abstinence but complete abstinence. Look again at this quote by Lactantius:

"…complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power... or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife... the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.." 16

Lactantius is expressing the view held by the majority of the fathers (though ST. John Chrysostom and St. Athanasius are notable in expressing another view) that sex was only for procreation. They would have regarded any attempt to enjoy sex while avoiding procreation as sinful. For the fathers, it was the intention of the act that mattered. Also, they did not have the understanding of biology that we have today and so they morally equated abortion and contraception.

By the way, here is a clear condemnation of NFP by ST. Augustine, writing to the Manicheans:

"Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine goes on to condemn them. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-07.htm

Here is an interesting, short article on the rhythm method that I believe to be relatively accurate. http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Rhythm_Method

I include it because it points out that the first mention of a legitimate use of the rhythm method was in 1853. The first unoquivocal endorsement came from Pope Pius XII in an unofficial locution to midwives. Humanae Vitae, in proposing that NFP could be used, was teaching something new.

I include all of this to say that if we are going to start comparing churches to see who is closest to the teachings of the fathers, we must admit that all churhes today have a more lenient view of birth control and NFP is birth control. It is the use of a technique (called timing) in order to render a marital act infertile. There is nothing natural about that.

I feel I must write this because I feel that since the Orthodox Church is being criticized for apparently allowing some immoral act, I must defend her.

Joe

Try Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam.

Then quit trying to raise the bar!

Fr. Serge