The Limits and Bounds of Papal Authority?
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 07. 2024
- "Ultramontanism and Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith"
osjustipress.com/products/ult...
"Unresolved Tensions in Papal-Episcopal Relations"
osjustipress.com/products/unr...
"Are Canonizations Infallible? Revisiting a Disputed Question"
osjustipress.com/products/are...
"Illusions of Reform: Responses to Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy in Defense of the Traditional Mass"
osjustipress.com/products/ill...
Bishop Joseph Fessler - True and False Infallibility
archive.org/details/TheTrueAn... - Zábava
Erick please don't ever stop having these conversations! The church is in desperate need of the honesty and transparency you and few others bring to it. Praying for you brother as you continue to do good and necessary work 💪🏼🙏🏼🩷
Fantastic discussion, and THE conversation that needs to be happening among the faithful.
You are late to the show. The question rose 1000 years ago and we Orthodox told you you were making a huge mistake. ☦️
@@Hope_Boat yea you guys have been doing great…
They certainly have. They have maintained unity in the faith, unlike Catholicism.@@TheCatholicBrothers
@@EasternChristian333 lol preposterous
@EasternChristian333
So much so that the EP is blaming Russia for Papal like claims while Russia is blaming the EP for Papal like claims. Whether you submit to the Pope, or not, the spirit of the Pope is still haunting yall 1,000 years later demonstrated in the schism amongst Patriarchs.
I have some serious disagreements with Dr. K's view of liturgical/disciplinary issues, and most of his takes on VII, but I 100% agree that the "hyper-papalist" position is untenable. The Catholic tradition (both first and second millennium) has all the tools it needs to both uphold papal infallibility under certain conditions, and affirm the possibility papal error under others. It baffles me why there are so many who try to deny the latter in the name of the former.
*Everyone* affirms papal error is possible in the **ordinary** magisterium. But what is rejected is by the Church is the commonly alleged and frequently assumed "freedom" of Catholics to reject whatever they privately deem erroneous as long as the teaching is "not-infallible" thereby not binding on their intellect and will, EVEN WHEN Lumen Gentium clearly teaches even magisterial acts of the ordinary magisterium bind intellect and will and consciences. If papal error is possible in this category, yet we are bound to submit anyway to every lawful exercise of ordinary magisterial authority (as determined by Rome), then it follows and must be true that the errors possibly contained in that magisterial act are not a danger to souls. This preserves the indefectibility of the Church.
Great discussion gentleman!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for this Erick!
It actually amazes me how many people out there don't grasp what “faith and morals” means on even a basic level. (e.g. a lot of people seem to not know whether or not Traditionis Custodes is about faith and morals. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of the more extreme traditionalists seem to think that every traditional liturgical practice is a matter of faith & morals). And I actually see a lot of people saying they don't understand what faith & morals really means / how to apply it.
Hello, Eric , your viedos are really great for talking so many important questions about faith and church. Have you consider put these into podcasts?
Very interesting discussion. I've left some of my thoughts in separate comments.
KABOOM! Ybarra the Beautiful pulls it off again! Simply brilliant. Thank you so much.
I followed Lofton for a long time and I assumed some things (unknowingly) about Dr. Kwaneiski because he’d criticize him all the time. After seeing two interviews with Dr. Kwaneiski, all those assumptions are completely shattered. Thank you for your work, Doctor.
"The Pope said": I mean, he is a studied man with authority and ample support of the most competent people appointed by God. I think it is imprudent to go against any teaching spoken by the Pope. I, as layman, in my humbleness, cannot do other than accept.
Even if I was a theologian, the Pope also has theologians right? Why am I better than his? And if I was the best in the field, wouldn't I be among the ones serving the Pope? I don't see also that it would follow from being humble in this manner that I'm subscribing to a accepting all contradictions. Humbleness and obedience are distinct virtues.
All in all, if the Pope is wrong, this is not a problem for public discussion. This is a problem, that even if I say what could be the issue at play here, I would be at fault for the same. So I'm not pointing at nobody.
Ironically, it's the Vatican II that gave the laity a wider range of options to discuss and critique (also publicly) the actions of the Pope and papal officials. So it's not wrong in itself, I think it becomes problematic when critiquing (and criticising) has become a full time job for some.
@@2righthands816good points
@@2righthands816 there is a nuance that I feel: while the priests became less opulent in dressing and grew in humility, we need to offer willingly our submission.
So the pope cannot be held accountable for his actions?
As for contradictions, I think a lot of people really overestimate their certainty that two things contradict. And it seems the vast majority of people trying to warn other Catholics about magisterial contradictions don't have the qualifications and haven't done the necessary study to claim the level of certainty that they do.
Brilliant as always Erick. ✝️🇻🇦
This was extremely helpful, E!
It seems that Dr. K is completely misreading and misunderstanding the passage he sites from Gasser’s Relatio. Gasser is saying that Albert Pighius’s opinion is *not* some extreme view of one particular school, but that it’s actually the same as Bellarmine’s.
Here’s the full passage:
“As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."
As for the first millennium model of the papacy, I wonder if today is necessarily different because the Church now has tons of additional magisterial documents that didn't exist yet back then.
Thank you for the video! I left the Church shortly after Fiducia because the Catholic answers crowd and spohists like Lofton made me think that to question the magisterium was to essentially be uncatholic.
I’ve since found Dr. K’s books and some videos that have made me realize that I wasn’t going crazy. The death penalty change was a break from tradition and I can reject Fiducia because of the distinctions between teaching and prudential judgments etc. I am hoping to be able to really understand what the faith is before I decide whether I need to come back to the Catholic Church or not.
What you describe is the death-trap of magisteriumitis or hyperpapalism: since we "must" accept everything that is "official," then when there is a flagrant contradiction between it and what we know by faith or reason, the Catholic Faith is the loser. But this is a false dilemma. As Erick rightly pointed out, the Faith itself is objective and knowable - we have 2000 years of definitions, canons, anathemas, the universal ordinary magisterium as indicated by the unanimous teaching of catechisms, etc., so in this situation it is the supposedly "official" teaching of Francis that is the loser, against the backdrop of a far greater authority than his.
Come back to the Church, it is the home of the saints!
🤡
@@krkenheimerWhat a thoughtful and charitable response to someone who is having a crisis of faith.
Dr. K is, of course, right- even with all the confusion created by fallible humans, the Catholic Church is the one Christ established.
@@DrKwasniewskithank you Dr. Kwasniewski! Means a lot to have you answer my comment yourself.
Interesting hypothetical about a bishop’s removal. The pope has full and immediate jurisdiction, so it would seem pretty hard to argue that the Pope doesn’t have the power to remove him validly. “Should the pope” remove any given bishop is a different question from “can the pope” remove them. Power can certainly be abused, and it has been in the life of the Church. For instance, past centuries saw shady and even sinful dealings with the appointment of Cardinals and bishops. But the pope appointing someone to an office for money, which is clearly wrong, doesn’t mean that that person didn’t truly hold that office. As for who the true local ordinary is, that seems like something pretty important for the local clergy and laity to know. Even if a bishop were removed for completely legitimate reasons, there will also be people who will call foul. At any rate, it does seem like it's the pope’s prerogative to authoritatively settle disputes.
I hope you gentleman can get together more often!
Just because the Pope can impose unjust burdens, one can make the argument that we still have no right to disobey or resist. Jesus said the Pharisees imposed unjust burdens and yet still affirmed their authority and the obligation to obey them (until authority was transferred to Apostles). There's a difference between an unjust burden and a truly immoral/illicit command (e.g. like Apostles in Acts saying "we must obey God rather than man"). Taking away the TLM seems a very unjust burden but not one that can be legitimately resisted.
St Thomas Aquinas: “An unjust law is no law at all”
So what would you do if the Pope said that everyone has to eat only bananas from here on out, and that such a rule is binding on all?
@@Erick_Ybarra what a childish response.
@@alternativefactory7190you confuse good will yt comments section humor with childish. Ybarra gave an example of an unjust and irrational burden that is not intrinsically immoral.
@@alternativefactory7190childish? Should I have picked another form of food? Philosophy and theology is filled with questions. Some of them are quite interesting for the sake of learning more
I think this topic is one of the most important and overlooked in today's discourse. Diving into what is the theory and practice of Papal Infallibility and also Papal Fallibility. Then also what can we do about it, should do about it, if anything, that is appropriate, depending on if we are cardinal, bishop, priest, deacon, laity, if we think a Pope might have made a mistake, because then there is a dimension where we should reason using Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit but also a dimension when we should rely on Magisterium against our own understanding, in case we are the ones in error.
When it comes to what degree of error could be present in the magisterium, it seems hard to accept that the pope could teach heresy in his non-definitive magisterium. Because if that were so, the faithful would be at risk of submitting to heresy if they weren't aware of the definitive teaching that contradicted it. And something like this probably wouldn't come in any obvious way like the pope saying Jesus isn't God. It would probably come in a less cut and dry way or on a lesser -known area of Church teaching. And it would also mean we'd always have to be on the lookout for potential serious error in any magisterial document. It would additionally mean that an ecumenical council could likewise teach heresy non-definitively. This would also open the possibility that popes could teach heresies in their non-definitive teachings for centuries on end, or even that they might teach more heresies than actual truths. I am open to the counter arguments you made though.
Thank you this is very good
The analogies on the liturgy were bad (banning TLM is like blaming Mary for Mariolatry). To see that the good Dr. is wrong, Consider the standard response we have to make to the doctrinal development in icons and images. Why were the early fathers opposed? Well, you see, at that time, images were associated with idolatry and may lead the faithful into physicalistic conceptions of God. Even if they're good in themselves, best practice would prohibit their use. That's the same thing (one may argue, I'm not arguing) for the TLM. It's good in itself, but in the present time, in light of the present cultural practices and psychological dispositions of the faithful and society, it's promotion induces schism. Again, I'm not defending that claim, but I am defending the legitimacy of that *style of reasoning* by analogy to our reconciliation of Nicaea II with the early fathers.
So would you say that there is a potential, in direct contradiction to Nicaea 787, to resurface the ban on religious images of Christ, His Cross, our Lady, and the Saints? And how?
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 that is a good consideration.
@@Erick_YbarraInsightful question. One can argue both sides. Unimaginable that Church could ban such sacramentals entirely without any prudent distinctions (like banning an entire liturgy). Yet also pops into my head the destruction of the bronze serpent that became an idol, but that's also a far removed OT example of debatable relevance.
@@tonyl3762
The Bible is used terribly. We can't get rid of it. I can see how certain things that have grown into the wood of the Church and have become so consubstantial with her simply can't be etched out. I'm open to hearing arguments in favor otherwise. I personally think the data presents a case for how the Roman Pontiff can abolish a rite. It would be terrible to see that happen w/ the TLM whilst a rite (Novus Ordo) that actually does practically coincide with the liberal collapse of Catholicism is kept in place. We need a supreme power in the Church to guard truth and tradition. That requires immediate jurisdiction over the discipline and liturgy of the Church. But is there no misuse in that regard? Ever?
@@Erick_Ybarra It seems to me that the decoration of churches and the distribution of icons is a matter of Church discipline, so of course. Just imagine an extreme case where the faithful routinely, as a matter of course, worshipped (Latria) the images, and that Christ was in the icon in an identical way that He was in the Eucharist. Catechetical reasons might justify a temporary restriction.
(Of course, on the moral question, the Church could not say that due or appropriate veneration of images is to be abhorred. That would be heretical. But the Church can dial up or dial down the degree to which icons are integrated in the day-to-day public facing worship life of the Church).
Do you disagree with my use of the analogy? If so why?
it's interesting that when popes, at least on papers, were said to hold more authority we have all these figures saying how you can resist him, but now after V2, when the rights of the faithful laity have been proclaimed and the authority of the bishop of Rome has supposedly been reined in, his words hold more authority than ever.
The last statements recommending we get away from just quoting old texts on Tradition and “think outside the box” to find new ways of dealing with this era seems completely incoherent with this whole focus on Tradition.
Hasn’t the problem been precisely too much thinking outside the box? Also, how does one find new ways of responding from Tradition? That just felt self-contradictory and unhelpful.
The old tried-and-true *prayer and fasting* has conquered these crises of *new* first-times (as Dr. K pointed out they always are) for nearly 2000 years. Why not stick with those?
I suck at fasting, in particular, because I wasn’t raised at all to do it, and now it’s so foreign to every fiber of my being to do it completely voluntarily, but doesn’t that demonstrate the problem? I’m trying to be a good, Traditional Catholic, but fasting is so hard for me! I can only imagine for how many others this is true, and then factor in the non-Traditional Catholics who still unwanted heard it’s actually a good thing to do more than twice a year.
Maybe we just need to go back to the basics even harder!
Thanks to both of you. Great discussion! It's difficult to hear but true that, like you two said, there are no easy answers right now. In a weird way, i find some comfort in our current predicament through the honorius situation. If the church, including popes, can believe that a pope can be a heretic, then it seems that an extreme view of papal power was not the view of the early church. How we apply that to what's going on right now though is tricky.
"apostolic Church" isn't just about succession but that it is the same Faith the apostles believed. Not even the Pope can legitimately introduce actual novelties to the Faith. Francis' common self referencing is dubious but there are some instances where he introduced clear novelties.
1973 "the Catholics" is where limitless authority leads to.
good live Sr, I would like to interview you... bless
7:30 i think that quite a bit of pre-Vatican 2 priestly formatuon was reliance on papal encyclicals, which is good if yoy realize and study the earlier foundations, the fathers and the tradition, but bad if it is just "the Pope said so".
I don't think it's within a pope's power to bifurcate the office of the papacy into a synodal office comprising separate actively governing and passively contemplating ministries.
I'm a big fan of the show, Erik (love your work on the papacy) but must respectfully disagree with the whole framing of this episode by Dr. K. How will the pope be restrained in making grave doctrinal errors with his authority if we cannot judge his errors for ourselves and restrain him as lay people? I submit to you: the Holy Spirit will do that. It's that simple and epistemologically sound if we have supernatural faith in the authority that guarantees that. The Holy Spirit restrains the Pope from errors promulgated through authoritative organs of such a grade of error and makes it impossible that they inherently could damn us to hell or cause harm to our souls. The gates of hell without a doubt prevail if THE final authority on earth in the Church confirms with His authority as binding on our souls what damns or objectively and spiritually harms our souls. It is not for the sheep to tend and feed the shepherd. And digging up controversies and even examples from saints who "resisted popes" from earlier times in history when magisterial authority was less clear, and taking point from non-authoritative theological musings from theologians of eras belonging to more primitive doctrinal development, and trusting in ornate Scholastic syllogisms to evade the awesome duty and burden of submission of intellect and will, has always given me infinitely less peace than trusting in the promises Christ gave to the papacy as the true guardian of my soul. I've read so many of the authors Dr. K brings up as examples of tensions and respectful disagreement among traditional Catholics: I went crazy placing my peace and moral certitude in that byzantine maze of question marks. God will not judge me for submitting to His Pope, but I fear judgment for submitting to MY demonstrably fallible ability to wade through the ever-evolving, and novel proposals about how to "check and balance" the Pope as laity in his authoritative uses of magisterial authority.
So what will you do if the Pope says Christianity and Isalm are equal ?
"That's not possible!"
Why not?
"Because the Pope can't make that kind of error when he speaks infallibly?"
So you reserve the right to detect a contradiction?
Anything less than infallible teaching we are not guaranteed absence of contradictions. So you have to pay heed to the distinction between fallible vs infallible modes.
@@Erick_Ybarra Yes, I agree I can always identify apparent contradictions, even clear ones, in non-infallible teachings. But I believe the providential protection of the Holy Spirit that God will not institute an authority that we must obey (when she speaks magisterially even in non-infallible yet still magisterially binding teachings) that will (at the same time) be grave enough to damn us and harm our souls. To the Church God has given the awesome power of binding consciences unlike any other temporal authority, and to that ecclesial authority alone does God give his children certitude by faith that they don't have to choose between their conscience and their soul's salvation when the Church teaches authoritatively albeit not infallibly. If souls go to hell for submitting to Dignita Infinita's teaching, (which Lumen Gentium says qualifies for submission of intellect and will even as a non-infallible teaching), the church has defected for "binding" me to spiritual death. I would have to be honest enough with myself to leave the entire system of Catholicism that requires me to submit to a teaching that causes me to risk suffering hellfire in its system of belief. Even the idea that Catholics less educated than I, could be harming their souls or going to hell because they weren't smart enough to resist an authoritative document issued by the sitting Pope and meekly submitted to the authority they were taught is the Rock on which the church was built, is a scandal in itself. Therefore, it must be possible for the church to bind our consciences to non-grave theological errors which pose no risk to our salvation in submitting to them. We'll never know if Mary of Bethany is the same woman as Mary Magdalene, but the fact that the Roman liturgy said one thing for centuries, and the Byzantine liturgy affirmed they were separate people, is a perfect example of a low-grade error that poses no risk to souls for believing either way. It's not a magisterial example, but it's illustrative of the kind of error the "death penalty" issue might fall in if that teaching gets reversed in the future.
@@Nicodermus4Lifeso you agree with us?
@@Nicodermus4LifeThere's invincible ignorαnce (& infallible safety, that even if a pαpαl teaching is wrong you won't be dαmned for following out of mistaken obedience. If ρoρesρlainers are right that e.g. Fiducia has an orthodox sense but is being implemented sinfully in practice, does infallible safety cover an incorrect interpretation?). That is all different from whether there can just be pαpαl teachings with errors taken in themselves, without getting into the eternαl consequences of those errors.
My personal favorite example is communion in the hand. Magisterially, a priest CANNOT refuse anyone who wants to receive in the hand in a country with the permission, even though we know with multiple studies that sαcrilege of pαrticles, trampling God Himself on the floor, is extremely common. What can you call Rome protecting sαcrilege as a right except an error? It isn't like a complicated V2 maybe-contradiction, it's really simple: we can literally see the particles, we know Rome protects those particles being there, we also know that just isn't in harmony with the Apostolic Faith. You and I physically can't say this 5 equals 2+2 even if Rome insists it does.
Now, is someone sinning even a little who knows about that (no ignorαnce) but continues attending/celebrating NO out of obedience? I don't know, maybe not, but there should be discussions we can entertain about that without threatening to "leave the entire system of Catholicism." But I do know for my own soul (not binding you), thinking of Jesυs Christ in the Gospels rebuking the Phαrisees and legαlistic bare-minimum seeking, what the *best* choice would be: refuse any participation in sαcrilege. I remember an SSPX priest saying that in the current crisis we can't always be sure what to think, but we are more sure of what to *do.* The difficulty of our time is precisely to trust that what was clearly Christ's Church until 1965 where it started becoming less clear, remains His Church forever as it always was, without freaking out and leaving. Fatima said there would be a chαstisement & an αpostαsy in the hierαrchy. Our Lady of Good Success 400 years ago said there would be many sαcrilegious Mαsses in the 20th century. We are in God's hands always.
@@Nicodermus4LifeDo not follow them.
The comments and replies to Ybarra and Dr. K reveal just how out-of-depth, ignorant and simultaneously arrogant people are, and have become, by mindlessly listening to popesplainer talking heads. The disorientation is potent, objective critical thinking nonexistent. Thank you Erick and Dr. K for providing clarity.
So now you want boundaries to the Pontifical authority?
_laughing in Greek_
💯🔥
It would seem you've done away with the notion of infallibility altogether.
then so did 20 centuries of Roman Catholicism
The Authentic Magisterium still exists despite neomodernists attempt to pretend otherwise.
Listening to this discussion makes me think of the analogy of the authority in our church to a well ordered family. If a son has dubious or immoral commands by his father, how should he respond? It's mediated. How should he respond to other relevant commands: obedience.
Aw, peter. The guy that said he'd rather stay home and pray the rosary than go to a novus ordo mass.
Yes. And?
Oof
Yup.that same clown that taught dissent and said and promoted the idea that people don't have to obey the churches teaching on the day of obligation going to mass weekly on Sunday to fulfil their day of obligation. I heard years back Bishop athanius schneider on R&T promote the same satanic Idea and from that time onwards I lost all respect for Athanasius scheinder and Peter by the way also.
It's clear that this point ybarra has turned into Taylor Marshal lite.
@robertcarlin4876
But the Rosary is not traditional. It's old, but certainly not traditional.
@robertcarlin4876 Skipping Sunday mass is always a mortal sin, even if it's only because of a dislike of a particular liturgy. Failure to pray the Holy rosary is not even a venial sin.
Hmm, so an ecumenical council may resolve this, but also end up with a new schism as ecumenical councils are wont to produce
To be honest, most ecumenical councils did ended up having new schisms. Ole' Pete here just likes to redefine things to fit his narrative.
Already happened in 1054.
When faced with the challenges of their times, the Israelites of old demanded for a king.
Many Catholics in this day and age are doing the same thing with Pope Francis. They are demanding a king who can give them "certainty" as they struggle against drowning in a world of confusion.
They are erecting an edifice of a false papal monarchy because they just need something easy to cling to, instead of doing the heavy lifting of working out their salvation with fear and trembling as us more Francis skeptical people have been burdened with for the past decade.
@drhumupower8570 - great observation (well worded!)!!
Michael Lofton is a problem.
😂 ya think
Why?
To add to the discussion: Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870AD) states: "Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs. If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome."
A few points:
(1) Dioscorus and Photius attempted to punish the Roman Pontiff with excommunication. That is the kind of "𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔" or "𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡" that was published by these Hierarchs against the Pope of old Rome. This is why the canon qualifies with "𝒂𝒔 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝑖𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑜." Dioscorus "excommunicated" Pope St. Leo in 451 and Photius "excommunicated" Pope St. Nicholas I in 867 in and from the Synod of Constantinople. That is precisely what this canon is about. The last line sums it up: no one can " _𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑒. " Obviously, this would be an attempt to excommunicate the Pope via his being punished by the Church. I don't know of any current Catholic hierarchs or theologians that have attempted to do this. Do you?
(2) That very 21st canon implies that there is a possibility of addressing a purported error on the part of the Pope. When it says: "𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑓 𝑎 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑑 𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑦 𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [...]" When the canon says "a question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome", it means when a question of error or heresy comes up. That means it is possible to identify such a thing. Pope Hadrian II himself admits this as is evident in the Acts of this very Council of Constantinople (869-70): 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝐻𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑢𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝑖𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒚, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝒐𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠..” (Price, 314). Take a moment and let that sink in. Hadrian does not condemn the 6th council for publicly identifying a heresy in the corpus of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Honorius was "accused of heresy" and which is said to be an "offence" (i.e., crime) to which "inferiors" have both the freedom and right to reject.
(3) According to the Code of Canon Law (1983) in Book I of General Norms,, all prior anathemas were abrogated unless renewed in the 1983 renewed code of law (6 §1). And since the 21st canon of C'ple 869 was not renewed in its penal sentences (let alone the question of whether it was even valid up to 1983 or 1917), you can't cite this canon to condemn anyone today.
@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for your reply.
(1) I understand that Canon 21 is not strictly applicable to our case. However: a) Isn't the direction in which this goes a prohibition to criticize the Pope? b) Isn't the goal of this endless attack on Francis having him out of office? How can you do this without "pronouncing a sentence" against him practically? Let's grant anyway that this canon is not applicable.
(2) It is certainly possible to pronounce a sentence against the Pope, but the questions are: a) Who does it; 8) On what ground. During the council of Constance the Pope was judged. Why? Because nobody was sure who the pope was. Formosus was judged for heresy. But post-mortem. Honorius was condemned by his successors as well. So from this we can see that effectively the pope can be judged for heresy only by his successors because the case of Constance wasn't a judgement of the actions of the Pope, but the bishops had the task to establish who was the pope. They didn't give a judgement on his actions.
(3) I didn't know a Canon law could abrogate the Canon of a council. I find this very interesting, I wonder what other canons can be abrogated with the same method, but this is a question for another time.
The important point is (2). It seems to me that in no way the faithful can rebel against the legitimate authority unless this induces them into sin. Similarly to what happened during the Roman empire when Christians refused to offer incense to the gods (and go to war) but obeyed the Emperor in everything else. You brought up a very good point about Pope Hadrian and Honorius. And I agree that we have the right to resist false teaching. Resist, not rebel. What is even more interesting is how the sentence you quoted ends: "although even in this case no patriarch or other bishop has the right of passing any judgment on him unless the consent of the pontiff of the same first see has authorized".
Nobody judges the Pope. That is how it is. If Francis asks you to do something sinful, you don't do it. But he stays the Pope until the Lord our God doesn't convert him or call him to His presence.
@@andreaboghi5820
I'll correspond to your points:
(1) No, it has nothing to do with criticizing , complaining, or observing problems with the Pope. It has to do with what Photius and Dioscorus did. Of course, one should always maintain reverence for superiors. The canon says all the Patriarchs (since they succeed the holy Apostles) deserve that. However, that doesn't mean we can't identify problem in the Patriarchs or even the Popes. The issue of the canon is an ecclesiastical intervention seeking punishment of the Roman Pontiff, i.e., excommunication.
(2) I'm not following you here
(3) Yes
I think your original comment needs to be reviewed. I think its wrong.
@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for your time. I am sorry you don't follow point (2) because it is quite simple. Historically the Pope has only be judged of condemned by his successors. The only exception might be the council of Constance but it is not relevant because in that case it wasn't the teaching of the pope that were examined but who was the legitimate pope. Conclusion: there is nothing humanly we can do apart from praying and fasting for Pope Francis sanctification. God bless you and your family.
@@andreaboghi5820 Gotcha. Well that is perfectly in line with everything I've said on the matter.
I think we would do better to talk about papal imprudence and misgovernance rather than error (and especially heresy). As terrible as it is, if a teaching is just barely legalistically orthodox, like we find in FS or possibly AL, we are better off avoiding a confrontation with the legalistic defenses and just call it grave imprudence or misgovernance. The death penalty controversy seems more like an outright error, but can one make the argument that a speech to a penal assoc is not magisterial even in the ordinary sense? The Catechism revision itself is again just barely orthodox.
And what about all the historical sins against the faith that come in the form of "barely orthodox"? I mean the theological censures?
@@Erick_Ybarra I guess I'd say that, when it comes to "what we should do" from a prudential/rhetorical perspective, it's a totally different animal when we are dealing with the Pope himself, compared to the "barely orthodox" historical episodes of the past when the teaching of the Pope was not the locus of the problem (e.g. Arianism). Even supposing we are correct that the Pope is teaching an outright error in a very low level of authority (e.g. speeches to lay groups), how successful are we (including concerned bishops and cardinals) going to be in persuading others, let alone the Pope himself, if we lead with accusations of error and heresy rather than questioning the prudence of the Pope? Why poke the Loftons of the world by mentioning error or heresy when they may be more open to arguments from prudence and misgovernance? We can even charitably assume the imprudence is due to ignorance at first until incompetence proven by a "long train of abuses and usurpations" to borrow a timely phrase for this week. Cardinal Zen and many others would have had the rhetorical, if not moral, high ground if they had left out any talk of heresy in association with Cdn Fernandez and FS and focused on prudence and good governance of the Church. I appreciate how careful you have been with your own language.
@@tonyl3762Are you aware of the years that have gone by that Francis and Fernandez are aware of both observations of imprudence as well as accusations of heresy? Both are exhausted. Long ago. So I see no sense in your preference.
@@Erick_Ybarra I cannot claim perfect awareness in that regard or comment much on the awareness of Francis and Fernandez. I'm very open to being better informed of the details. I'm aware that cardinals submitted dubias in 2016 asking questions regarding AL, which was certainly appropriate (and necessary). Looks like the Vatican never responded to those but did respond to some from Czech Cardinal Dominik Duka? Looks like Duka's dubia were very different though.... So the lack of response is certainly troubling, but again should raise questions of prudence and governance, rather than of error and heresy. What outreach has been done on the death penalty issue? The huge backlash from FS certainly made the Vatican respond with more caveats, clarifications, and an actual unofficial sample formula. So the Vatican is not entirely tone deaf.
While F&F likely are aware of sensational accusations of heresy (and turned off by them), I'm not aware of any prominent public Catholic figures, lay or cleric, esp not bishop or cardinal, who are approaching these controversies without any accusations of heresy/error and from the perspective of challenging the Pope's prudence and governance. Please name some for me and inform me. Has such an approach really been exhausted yet? Does not the backpedaling by the Pope on 60 Minutes and Fernandez on FS argue against such exhaustion?
No.
PLEASE, do not drive and watch you-tube videoes!
Vatican I binds us to obedience in faith, morals, liturgy, and government. The thing with Dr. K is the lack of engagement with the rules of theology such as Donum Veritatis.
Two things that stood out to me, from the onset. He's claiming there is division in the church, when he's one of the leading voices of division. The second was how he defines Montanism and Hyper-papalism, when he's redefining these terms to fit his narrative. He's got terrible theology, very protestant.
Yoy guys accuse the Church of the 1st millennium of Protestantism?
@@Erick_Ybarra Not me. I simply pointed out Vatican 1's definitive teachings.
Erick, you and I both know that Dr. K violated Canon 21 of the 8th ecumenical council when he accused the papacy of teaching heresy.
@@matthewschmidt5069 Well I am not sure he accused him of "formal" heresy. You'll recall that the canons of C'ple 869-70 do imply that there are ways to prudently approach the subject of approaching an error in the prelate of the Apostolic See. So the process begins somewhere. Secondly, there are MANY canons of Councils in the first 1800 years that are simply no longer in force. How do you know canon 21 is in force? According to the 1983 code, at the very least, all "anathemas" of old are simply now in a "null" status. Besides, canon 21 is not all about the Pope but also the Greek Patriarchs (perhaps, in weak implication, all successors to the Apostles?).
Dr. Peter is also not alone. There were Cardinals , Bishops, Theologians, and many Catholic faithful who initially raised concerns many years ago.
I watched all the 1 hour and half of this discussion. I have to say it was a very weak discussion. All you did was make claims without any support. You appealed to the use of reason and conscience and that's it. But can you cite a magisterial document that says when and how the faithful can legitimately oppose papal teachings? The Church has 2000 years of history, I am sure there should be something. You don't like to be called Protestants on the basis that you hold on to tradition. But isn't one of the features of Protestantism the notion that we should think for ourselves and not listen to the hierarchy? Are you telling me that before Francis bishops were not removed from office for disagreeing with the Pope? Pope Victor wanted to excommunicate all the East just because they didn't celebrate Easter on the same date of the West. Are you telling me that Pius the IX would have behaved differently? How can the union of the Church be threatened by the Pope? One of the reasons we have a pope is to keep unity. It makes no sense. The definition of the schism is to break communion from Rome. On the mass: I liked the Mass described by Justin Martyr. Can I rebel on the basis that that mass was abolished? The Professor's answer on this point is ridiculous, effectively he didn't answer. Can you answer this question? Does the pope have the authority to suspend the mass, or to decide what rite has to be celebrated in the Church, yes or no? It is as simple as that. By the way, I am not a hyperpapalist, I think the pope can be an heretic materially and maybe manifestly but we have Canon law for a reason.
The magisterium has never taught when she can be resisted. She has never claimed that ALL of her utterances are to be unconditionally assented to. So much of this is left to theological speculation and rational discourse. But I can point you to many official decrees that IMPLY what we said. A clear example would be the cases of Pope Vigilius and Pope Honorius.
@@Erick_Ybarra Thank you for your answer. I am convinced that popes can be in error, even grave error and even heretics like Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius and Formosus. You have done a great job documenting it. It seems to me that these examples work against your case. Because if even in these cases the laity didn't have the liberty to rebel, what ground do we have against pope Francis? The fact that we have precedents make the Trads case worse in my view. There is a notable exception, the case of Formosus. After trial, the Roman people beat up his corpse. However, Formosus was condemned ecclesiastically, this wasn't a matter of private judgment. That being said, we have evidence of the fact that the Roman Pontiff demands absolute obedience like in Canon 21 of Constantinople 4. I could list all the other papal claims but you know them better than I do. The picture you drew with Dr. Peter, doesn't convince me a bit. The only thing I am confident to say about the limit of the papal Magisterium is that we need to follow it except we incur into sin. This is a decision that all of us should consider very carefully. Concerning the mass and Strickland it seems to me that you don't have a ground to stand. Unless I have missed something in Canon law, the pope has the authority to remove bishops and to promulgate and abolish missals, these happened many times.
@@andreaboghi5820 See my response to your below comment on Canon 21 of C'ple 869
The word you're looking for is, "post trad."
Just disappointed smh
I am a big fan of this channel but not a fan of Dr. K
Well, Erik's theology will eventually lead you to K's theology. It's inevitable.
@@ChungGuss Erick has actual Anglicans and others on, nobody cares, but someone who for better or worse is one of the foremost traditionalist Catholic academics in the world, comments section is on fire. (I really like both.)
@@rx0102 Isn't that interesting? We've seen numerous high-profile catholic _influencers_ perform interviews with Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims or atheists who are actual schismatics and/or heretics but the second you interview a Catholic who has a somewhat _radical_ views on certain things and the whole Catholic mainstream is up in arms protesting it's destructive to the Catholic faith. Yet, listening to those who openly reject Christ or even the existence of God isn't...
What’s a matter? Is DR K too deep for you to understand?
Oh Erik; really?! Kwasniewski?! A sede?! You can take the boy out of protestantism but you can't take the protestantism out of this boy. He has one of the poorest theological understanding. And claiming there are conflicts in the Church when he's at the forefront of creating these conflicts is fresh.🤦♂
Sounds like you have been toying with false rumors?
@@Erick_Ybarra I deal with facts and truth. Sorry but he's just rebranding Protestantism with the trappings of Catholicism. He's out said Pope Francis isn't the Pope, and denial of the Pope is, by definition, Sedevacantism. He might as well just go Anglican, since that's what his theology resembles the most.
@@EdwardBray-i1w Protestant theology is infinitely more than a rejection of the Papacy. You've truncated everything about Catholicism into mere authority.
@@Thunderjerky it ALWAYS boils down to rejection of Papal authority. ALWAYS. That there are other peripheral concerns and issues, sure. But in the end, rejecting Papal authority is at the heart. You're not the exception.
@@EdwardBray-i1w "iT aLWaYs BoIls DoWn To ReJeCtIoN oF pApAl AuThoRiTy" lmao. Sure dude
Yeah, if Catholicism is nothing other than sycophancy and bootlicking - it's not the religion of the early Church. Get off your knees and read a book - you can do that can't you?
Excellent content!
Glad you think so!
I'm curious what we do with this statement from Pius X: "Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough...we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority... whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope."
Do we say have to say that he's wrong there? Or that he is speaking hyperbolically in response to a specific historical situation of unwarranted dissent?