+
JMJ
Church Teaching on the Papacy and Church
Dogmas
The following excerpts summarize what I think are the key teachings of the Church for these times concerning the papacy and the Church. As noted above a Dogma is something that must be believed by all Catholics. To deny a Dogma, like that of the Assumption, is to commit the sin of heresy.
Papacy
Christ founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time (DeFide) Ott p274
Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution (DeFide) Ott p276
The Powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops (DeFide) Ott p278
Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primary of jurisdiction (DeFide) Ott p279
According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time (DeFide) Ott p282
It is Dogma that the Catholic Church will always have a Vicar of Christ, so to deny this is to commit the Sin of Heresy.
Decrees of the First Vatican Council (link) Chapter 2 Art 5: 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.
The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome (DeFide) Ott p282
The Pope possesses full and surpreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (DeFide) Ott p285
The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (DeFide) Ott p286
The Church
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world (Sent. Certa) Ott p296
In the final decision on the doctrinces concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible (DeFide) Ott p297
Vatican 1: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
Summary
So - what do we know?
It is Dogma that the Catholic Church will always have a Vicar of Christ.
We also know from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church Teaching on the Four Marks - that the Pope is one half of the mark of Oneness of the Catholic Church
Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica)
Because Ott only briefly outlines Dogmatic Facts (see below), I will add additional references. Suffice to say, that because something is related to a revealed truth, it establishes a Dogmatic Fact the receives a degree of certainty.
Key Points
Ott: Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica).
By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed,
but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example
the legality of a Pope or of a General Council
Complete Quotation: By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with reveal truth, for example the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Pere. The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is alos, in a narrower sense, a “dogmatic fact.” In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgement on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text (D 1350: sensum quem verba pare se ferunt). (Ott pg 8)
Hunter
... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope;
according to the Catholic faith ... communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops
if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ...
it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud;
it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope,
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.
But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
Van Noort
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching.
Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas).
So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Billot
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself.
It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later.
God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.
For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander.
Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff.
For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
Doctrine: Infallible Dogmatic Facts vis-a-vis the election of a Pope
Bishops universal acceptance of a newly elected Pope, establishes with infallible certainty the legitimacy of the election of the prelate to the Papacy.
Hunter: if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
Van Noort: ... skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Bishops and members of the Church universal acceptance of a newly elected Pope, establishes with infallible certainty the legitimacy of the election of the prelate to the Papacy.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri: “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, ... by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
Billot: ... at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. ... For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. … He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
Summary
If an event or action would cast doubt upon the validity of the election to the Pontificate, acceptance of the newly elected as Pope by – at least by the Bishops – or by the Bishops and Faithful together, establishes an Infallible Dogmatic Fact that these acts did not invalidate the election and that the newly elected is the Pope.
References
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/08/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/09/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy-ii.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/09/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy-iii.html
Comments
Post a Comment