The Magisterium of the Orthodox Church

A Latin Apology for Roman Claims

Pope Peter defends the papacy while explaining its role and limits by Casey Chalk Joe Heschmeyer offers many of the standard Catholic arguments but also presents fresh material in his welcome and well-timed book.

Pope Peter: Defending the Church’s Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis by Joe Heschmeyer

A product of (Roman) Catholic Answers, so I expect no nuance or discussion of non-Latin ecclesiology or views regarding primacy.

Yet, as Heschmeyer rightly notes, popes can be both wrong or sinful, even egregiously so, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impeccability. Nor does it mean everything the pope says or writes must be obeyed unquestionably. When the pope or the bishops exercise the powers of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium, we are right to obey. The rest of the time, as Heschmeyer rightly notes, we retain the right to ignore, or, given certain extraordinary circumstances, criticize what our Holy Father says or does.

This begs the question: When is the pope not exercising the powers of the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium when he is putting forth his opinions regarding faith and morals?

Organic Development and Its Reception by the Faithful

Does organic development of doctrine or of the liturgical rite require that it must be accepted and received by the faithful? If so, then the faithful must understand what is being given to them, should they not? If they do not understand it, how can they possibly judge and decide whether to receive it or not? The Latin answer might be they just need to submit and obey, but is that doing an injustice to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian faithful?

Those who create liturgical texts and prayers in Latin use monasteries for the use of the monasteries may not have a problem, provided that the simple monks understand Latin or come to understand Latin through their formation. (A similar point can be made with religious orders, but one can ask whether religious orders have the authority to modify or shape their own liturgical rites.) But what of the non-Latin-speaking faithful?

Regardless of whether the rejection by many Latins of the Pauline Missal and its implementation was objectively correct or not, could we not say that there were acting in accordance with their sensus fidelium, and rejecting what they viewed as not being orthodox (not in the sense of merely right belief but encompassing orthopraxy, right practice, right living or the correct giving or glory to God)?

(Similar points could be made not only with respect to liturgical reform, but Latin dogmatizing in their supposed "ecumenical councils" during the second millenium, to a populace that was ignorant of Latin and mostly ignorant of Scripture and the sources of the faith, if not the Christian faith.)

Latin "Integralism"

Tied to a notion of the Papal [ordinary] Magisterium which can make sense only from a maximalist view of the papacy.

The Josias: Coronavirus and Public Masses: An Integralist Perspective by Felix de St. Vincent

In the integralist understanding, the civil authority is subject to the law of the ecclesiastical authority. In Immortale dei, Leo XIII reminds us that nature and reason confirm, “we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will” (Par. 6).

"Ordinary Magisterium"

If the synod is not a real synod but a rigged one, then of what value is it, and of what value is the opinion of the pope on the synod, when he has no infallibility with respect to the judgment of particulars? The defenders of Rome's claims may go as far as to say that the pope's judgment about what is a legitimate synod and what is not falls under his authority and may even be "infallible" but is that true?

Vatican officials: ‘Querida Amazonia’ is magisterium, Amazon synod’s final doc is not

The text of the Post-Apostolic Exhortation.



CWR: Pope Francis’ Amazon exhortation calls for holiness, not married priests
Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis’s much-anticipated post-synodal apostolic exhortation, presents the pope’s “four great dreams” for the Pan-Amazonian region’s ecological preservation and “Amazonian holiness.”

5 things to know about ‘Querida Amazonia’
America Magazine: Five Takeaways

Much Ado About...

Latin traditionalists may bemoan the fact that Pope Francis has done away with the reform by Benedict XVI of the rite canonization, using a simpler formula and omitting the petitions before the formula. (See, for example, Fr. Hunwicke.)

Some remarks:
1. Regarding the pope's response to the third petition in the Benedictine reform: "Let us, then, invoke the Holy Spirit, the Giver of life, that he may enlighten our minds and that Christ the Lord may not permit his Church to err in a matter of such importance."

One can invoke God's help, but if the act exceeds the authority given by God, is there any point?

The second petition itself was rather presumptuous:
"Most Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord's promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the Supreme Magisterium free from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the saints."

The Church Universal? No. A few members and representatives of the patriarchate of Rome and maybe representatives of those non-Latin particular Churches which have been Latinized to one degree or another and are still under the captive sway of Rome in their mindset.


2. It is inferred that the papal decree of canonization is an infallible act because it is supposedly an act regarding the Church Universal, and not the way around (e.g. the act must be proper to the pope because it is or needs to be infallible, and only the pope, representing the whole Church is infallible.)

But if it is not properly an act regarding the whole Church, despite what the decrees may say, but regarding only his patriarchate, the urgency of determining whether such an act is infallible is mitigated.

3. Even if the Benedictine reform is "better" at emphasizing certain aspects of the Latin conception of the authority of the bishop of Rome than the simpler formula now being used by Francis, the simpler formula nonetheless in its essence still reflects that same Latin conception, maximalist as it is.

See the document of the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, "NEW PROCEDURES IN THE RITE OF BEATIFICATION":

In the 11th century, the principle that as universal Pastor of the Church the Roman Pontiff alone has the authority to prescribe a public devotion began to gain ground, both in the particular Churches and the universal Church. With a Letter to the King and Bishops of Sweden, Alexander III asserted the Pope's authority to confer the title of Saint and the relevant public cult. This norm became a universal law with Gregory IX in 1234. 

Historical evidence that non-Latin particular Churches were agitating for this? And just because a pope decrees it doesn't make it a universal law.

Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. 

 And there it is.

When Papal Positivism Replaces Tradition

Is it linked to the Jesuits, and what St. Ignatius of Loyola recommended in his Spiritual Exercises? "We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical Church defines it thus."

Robert Fastiggi:

7. Feser’s rejection of the new teaching of the Church on the death penalty is in direct violation of what Lumen Gentium, 25 teaches about the need to adhere to teachings of the ordinary papal Magisterium “with religious submission of mind and will.” His rejection also violates canon 752 of the 1983 CIC and no. 892 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Feser and his followers do not seem to understand the “argument from authority” that applies to teachings of the ordinary papal magisterium and judgments of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Catholics who support the new formulation of CCC 2267 are being faithful Catholics. Prof. Feser’s attempt to put such faithful Catholics and the Pope on the defensive suggests that he believes he has more authority than the Roman Pontiff. If he has difficulty accepting the Church’s new teaching on the death penalty he should, in a spirit of humility, make every effort to understand the teaching “with an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve his difficulties” (CDF, Donum, Vertiatis, 30). I have no difficulty with the new teaching. I hope and pray that Prof. Feser and his followers will overcome their difficulties.

Again, Fastiggi does not realize that he undermines his own case if his claim that capital punishment is a defined [Roman Catholic] dogma is true. If it isn't, then it isn't part of Tradition and any claim pertaining to its moral goodness or evil or permissibility must be a conclusion of moral theology and evaluated in accordance with the logic of sound reasoning. Justifying a claim based on an appeal to the person who said it or his authority (in this case, Pope Francis) would be an appeal to authority, as his authority does not extend to competence with respect to matters of moral theology per se. Perhaps Fastiggi is too attached to his own Latin opinions regarding the role of the pope to realize this.

Regardless of where they stand on various issues, Latins, traditionalists, "conservatives," or "progressives" will not let go of their belief in the [exaggerated] authority of the pope.

The Pope as Language Scholar

The prophet is not guaranteed to be an oracle or a prophet, in the sense that every utterance is directly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Even in the first millenium, there were misunderstandings about Greek, which arguably was the lingua franca of the early Church. Now, when the bishop of Rome no longer speaks Greek fluently, and many of the apostolic Churches do not use it? At least they have been able to avoid misunderstandings so far in the joint statements that have been released.

Why should we understand the successor of St. Peter as having a special competence as to determining the orthodoxy of some definition of faith or statement in Greek or any other language not his own?
What special competence has he received to ensure that his statements are translated properly into the languages used by the other apostolic Churches for communication? He must rely and trust what scholars and representatives of those churches tell him.

Even when everyone was using Greek, Chalcedon would have not been such a big problem if charity was being exercised in all things, with a prayer for a strong dose of patience with one's brothers, and bishops humbly asked for clarification when in doubt. Now when the representatives of the Apostolic Churches speak other languages (I don't think English is a lingua franca for them but I could be wrong)? This is even more true.

Instead of determining that only one formulation is orthodox, might it be that the bishop of Rome is merely expressing a preference for one statement rather than another, which must be coupled with the fixing of terms and their definitions at that time , or at least including some sort of terminological appendix to any statement so that readers in the future know what the word means? And thus the bishop of Rome plays a role as the final arbiter?

In a Church in which many languages can be used, can any statement of faith be free from problems of translation?

Pope Francis on the Development of Teaching on Capital Punishment

Rorate Caeli: Recent Profane Novelties: A Dialogue on the Death Penalty

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick on the Bible

Written by a Latin Apologist

So I do not expect there to be any deviation from received Latin opinion regarding the office of the pope.

CWR Dispatch: New book addresses key questions about Church’s teaching authority by Paul Senz
“The impact of the Magisterium is powerfully felt today,” says apologist Jimmy Akin, author of Teaching With Authority, “as illustrated by stories constantly appearing in the media about what popes and bishops have said. “

Remnant: The Infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium by Robert J. Siscoe

An attempt to increase the authority of the next synod. For what purpose?

cna: Pope approves new constitution for synod of bishops

Edward Pentin

Ed Peters on the Recent Change to the CCC

The death penalty debate and the Church’s magisterium by Edward N. Peters
I regard the liceity of the death penalty as having been established with infallible certitude by the Church’s ordinary magisterium.

The ordinary magisterium, one must see, takes a long, long time, to develop; it requires repetition and consistency over many generations, this, not simply on the part of popes but also by the bishops around the world, and even incorporates, to some extent, the lived acceptance of teachings by Catholic pastors, academics, and rank-and-file faithful through time.

This however applies to the theologoumena of the Latins as well.

Exemplifying What is Wrong with Much of Contemporary Latin Theology

and the understanding of the Church's teaching authority, the Magisterium, especially papal authority.

Making sense of U.S. immigration law, enforcement, and the current crisis by David R. Upham
The teachings of the Magisterium mostly vindicate Sessions’s policies in interpreting and enforcing American law. At the same time, these teachings strongly suggest grave deficiencies in that law.

Latin Teachings on Authority

A product of papal centralization -- so do they reflect a second millenium claim about episcopal (or papal) authority and the attendant obligations of the Christian faithful?

What is included in the deposit of Faith for a bishop? Only that which has been explicitly determined to be a part of the deposit of Faith? Or do theological conclusions count as well? Or are such conclusions to be taken to be opinion until agreed upon by the Church Universal? What about laws or precepts? Which laws are to be made by a bishop for the good of the local Church? Which precepts are not laws that are binding but only recommendations or suggestions? (Does a bishop really have the authority to set laws pertaining to diet, for example)

On non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium and the meaning of “obsequium religiosum” by Dr. Jeremy Holmes
Sometimes “religious obsequium” is translated “religious assent,” at other times “religious submission,” and at other times “religious respect”. What exactly are we being asked to do?

Guardian of Scripture

NLM: The Solemnity of St Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church 2016

Established back in the high days of Roman pretensions, when Pius IX thought he could legislate such matters to the Church Universal. Is it uncontroversial to say that (apostolic) Christians have always believed that the Theotokos has a special relationship to the Church? Is the same true of St. Joseph?

The Status of Amoris Laetitia

Amoris Laetitia is "non-magisterial"? Not so fast ...
in which the author reminds us:

During this speech, which he addressed to the Synod Fathers, Francis made clear that at the end of the Synodal process, he intended to pronounce authoritatively: "the synodal process culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, who is called upon to pronounce as "pastor and teacher of all Christians," not based on his personal convictions but as a supreme witness of “totius fides Ecclesiae” (the whole faith of the Church), of the guarantor of obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ and to the Tradition of the Church."

Several points, not directly in response to the above:
1. Where does the synodal process, as it is outlined by Pope Francis, in evidence during the first millenium? (Reception or non-reception of canons is not the same as making a pronouncement.)
2. Some have distinguished an (extraordinary) synod from an ecumenical council -- I saw a link to one such article, but I can't find it at the moment. I won't attempt to guess what is says.
3. Even if the synod is more of a consultative body, the pope is still claiming to exercise his own ministry over the Church Universal with the apostolic exhortation (even if it is of a lower authority than other papal documents). Even if he has the authority to do so, what can He do but witness to the unchanging Tradition of the Church with respect to "Faith and morals"? As for being a universal pastor, especially over other bishops and their clergy, the practical, prudential, and legal limits of this may be in dispute.

Three Tiny Notes on Amoris Laetitia

Antonio Socci: There has been a coup in the Church
Let us rebel against “the dictatorship of relativism” which is destroying Catholicism and our civilization.

De Mattei - The Post-Synod Exhortation, Amoris laetitia: First reflections on a catastrophic document guest piece by Roberto de Mattei

Related:
NCReg: ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church
REGISTER EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Burke says a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, ‘by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.’
by CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE

Cardinal Burke’s Exhortation Response Leaves Faithful Wanting

The Papacy Attempting Too Much

Peters focuses on one school of weighing papal documents; he does not think (as I do) that the problem is with the practice of the bishop of Rome frequently promulgating his opinion (regardless of authoritative weight) apparently to the Church Universal. It's a feature of the modern papacy, not present in the first millenium.

The slow decline of the Ordinary Magisterium by Edward N. Peters
I think many in the Church have been slipping into associating the noun “Magisterium” with the adjective “infallible” and assuming that, if some papal/episcopal assertion is not “infallible” then it is not “magisterial”.