MilesVitae
Well-Known Member
- Nov 12, 2012
- 473
- 61
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't think that position would be as problematic, but when you read stuff by Pius X who said that even if you knew that the Pope is Satan himself, you should listen to him, I think that shows that the Pope can supersede a council.
I'm not familiar with this quotation, but that doesn't seem to contradict what I'm saying - the Pope's ex cathedra statements are infallible, that is, they are protected from error, no matter who or how sinful the Pope may be. Since ecumenical councils are infallible too, they can't contradict (in theory....).
I know that is not what many teach now, but it seems it is what was at least once taught, and leaves the door open for that interpretation to come back again.
Where do you see this being taught?
Here's an excerpt from the official Relatio by Fr. Vincent Gasser, who had the task of explaining the meaning of Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I so the Bishops understood what they were voting on:
"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is
either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to
him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church
will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is
not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion,"
and while they do say this (I think because they have to), whenever the councils contradict the Pope, Rome usually sides with the Pope (ie the filioque).
Probably so.
Upvote
0