A fascinating article by Ed Feser:
St. John Henry Newman famously noted that during the Arian crisis, “the governing body of the Church came short” in fighting the heresy, and orthodoxy was preserved primarily by the laity. “The Catholic people,” he says, “were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not.” Even Pope Liberius temporarily caved in to pressure to accept an ambiguous formula and to condemn St. Athanasius, the great champion of orthodoxy. Newman wrote:
The body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism… at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them.
As Newman emphasized, this is perfectly consistent with the claim that the pope and bishops “might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions.” The problem is not that they made ex cathedra pronouncements and somehow erred anyway. The problem is that there was an extended period during which, in their non-ex cathedra (and thus non-infallible) statements and actions, they persistently failed to do their duty. In particular, Newman says:
There was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens’ [teaching Church]. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.
Newman goes on to make it clear that he is not saying that pope and bishops lost the power to teach, and in a way that was protected from error when exercised in an ex cathedra fashion. Rather, while they retained that power, they simply did not use it.
In recent years, some have borrowed Newman’s language and suggested that with the pontificate of Pope Francis, we are once again in a period during which the exercise of the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church has temporarily been suspended. Now, this “suspended Magisterium” thesis is not correct as a completely general description of Francis’s pontificate. For there clearly are cases where he has exercised his magisterial authority – such as when, acting under papal authorization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under its current prefect Cardinal Ladaria has issued various teaching documents.
To be sure, there may nevertheless be particular cases where the “suspended Magisterium” characterization is plausible. Consider the heated controversy that followed upon Amoris Laetitia, and in particular the dubia issued by four cardinals asking the pope to reaffirm several points of irreformable doctrine that Amoris seems to conflict with. As Fr. John Hunwicke has noted, because Pope Francis has persistently refused to answer these dubia, he can plausibly be said at least to that extent to have suspended the exercise of his Magisterium. Again, this does not mean that he has lost his teaching authority. The point is rather that, insofar as he has refused to answer these five specific questions put to him, he has not, at least with respect to those particular questions, actually exercised that authority. As Fr. Hunwicke notes, he could do so at any time, so that his teaching authority remains.
Again, though, it doesn’t follow that the “suspended Magisterium” thesis is correct as a general description of Pope Francis’s pontificate up to now. However, recently there has been a new development which, it seems to me, could make the thesis more plausible as a characterization of the remainder of Francis’s pontificate. The pope has announced that Cardinal Ladaria will soon be replaced by Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernandez as Prefect of what is now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).
Go here to read the rest. Pope Benedict abdicated the office of Pope. Has Pope Francis abdicated the teaching authority of the Church, and the duty of the Pope to defend those teachings? Heckuva job Conclave of 2013, heckuva job.
B16 never abdicated. He resigned instead. In Amoris Laetitia, Bergoglio issued in writing that a couple living in adultery, Christ’s definition, is allowable and in some cases woukd be sinful if they were refraining from having sex, and can also partake in Communion. The primary writer of that document, “Kissy” Fernandez will now be in charge of the new DDF.
I see no way that anyone can excuse them as “not using their teaching authority”.
Instead of bending ourselves into pretzels in order to preserve the dubious notion of an indefectible church, why don’t we just admit that the institutional church is capable of effing up in a big way, and take it from there? We of the faithful laity have it right, and our
shepherds have it wrong. Simple as that. If that messes up our belief system, so be it. Maybe our belief system needs some work, eh?
Maybe our belief system needs some work, eh?
Our belief system is fine. Our knowledge of the history of the Church is near non-existent.
There is absolutely nothing Francis has taught infallibly. However, part of me almost wishes he would attempt to do so. I wouldn’t mind seeing lightning strike the Vatican a second time.
My bride says that it is the job of the Pope to reflect the light of Christ. As best, PF reflects vox populi. He either diffuses the light of Christ or, in many instances, is the theological equivalent of a black hole reflecting nothing. We stopped listening to PF after Amoris. What part of Matt 19:9 is hard to understand?
Newman understood the importance of the Petrine Office so the “suspended magisterium” is probably the best take we can put on the last 10 years. But he also knew how important sensus fidelium is. Maybe we should take solace from what he said when he became cardinal. “For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more than now.” Everything old is new again, so to speak.
Interestingly enough, Newman didn’t want to be made bishop before he became cardinal. Might be a message there.
It’s more than evident w what the youth are doing – fleeing parishes that have secular priests that are the result of his nominations to Bishop office.
I can not tell the difference between him, WHO and UN. He has done so much damage and has stacked the deck in his favor of secular views that I don’t have to wait on what the Synod decides on re ss unions and homosexuals. That’s been the whole point all along.
They don’t care about the spiritual well-being (abstinence from any sexual activity before marriage/marriage only between man/woman). They can’t even get basics right.
There is no way I would trust any nominations they put forth – will be he chose him, let’s go w opposite or ignore them completely.
His push, closures of Churches and heir celebration of jab on coins just really solidified it for me.
Whether it’s suspended, we dig his corpse up and chop off fingers etc, it matters not. We are not listening to him and sending our children to elsewhere where at least the basics are correct
“Whether it’s suspended, we dig his corpse up and chop off fingers etc, it matters not.”
I’m sure that the city of Rome has anti-pollution laws in place for the Tiber.
Sorry. This is rather long…
There are lots of Church Teachings that ALL Papal Teachings should be followed and we can’t pick and choose.
Pope Leo XIII:
“To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.”
(Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua)
“If in the difficult times in which Our lot is cast, Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behooves them to do, they will readily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as action. As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.”
(Encyclical Immortale Dei, n. 41)
“In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.”
Pope Benedict XV:
“All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.”
(Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 22)
Pope St. Pius X:
“They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith.”
(Apostolic Letter Tuum Illud)
“And this is why, when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.”
(Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 752)
There are many more such writings going back into history. The question is whether or not Bergoglio fits the definition the Church has established?
JFK, think how many times Popes reverse prior papal teaching. There is plenty of papal teaching that falls still born right after it is issued, including a papal condemnation of Magna Charta. St Pius X imposed the Oath against Modernism which has been a dead letter for decades. Leo XIII imposed the Saint Michael Prayer, one of my favorite prayers at Mass and that was nullified in 1964. It would be easy to accept the binding nature of the Magisterium if Popes weren’t so cavalier in dispensing with prior actions of Popes.
My point is most Church teachings on Papal Authority makes little actual distinction between his off-the cuff comments, his ordinary Magisterial Teachings and his speaking ex cathedra.
Using the Oath as an example, an individual pope has the authority to require it or suspend it, and the authority to proclaim the truth in it, but not (as I understand it) the ability to proclaim that it’s false.
By their ‘fruit’ you will know them. Who is the Vatican and the Sin-nods serving? God or man?
I will not be part of a church that blesses homosexual unions of any type or doctrinally allows sexually active homosexuals as deacons, priests, etc.
While many Popes have been reprobates of one type or another, I know of no one who has contradicted prior dogma or settled doctrine as has Francis. Magna Carta was a secular document and the Prayer to St. Michael and the Oath Against Modernism were not contradicted, but their use discontinued (to my sorrow). The Modernist, including the Pope and most Cardinals, are in total control of the Church. Just wait until Cardinal designate “Kissy” Fernandez gets warned up. The Pope, who has renounced the title “Vicar of Christ “ is destroying the Church in all but name. I am at a loss as to what to do except pray. I can’t escape the feeling that God expects some action on our part. What? I know not. God Bless You All.
[…] Spectator Martyrs & Quarter-Martyrs – Fr. John Hunwicke at Mutual Enrichment Blog PopeWatch: Suspended Magisterium? – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at The American Catholic Federal Appeals Court Upholds Religious […]