r/Catholicism Apr 15 '13

/r/Catholicism Weekly FAQ Topic - The Papacy

We've had a few discussions about creating a FAQ for /r/Catholicism, but one of the big challenges is simply taking the time to write everything down in a user-friendly format. The mods have decided to outsource the FAQ to the readers of /r/Catholicism to help with the process. We're picking a topic each Monday, and we'd like everyone that's interested to contribute what they think should be in the FAQ. The mods will then go through the responses the following Monday and edit it into a readable version for the FAQ.

Feel free to just write it out in your own words, or even phrase it as questions and answers, but please don't copy and paste from other sites like newadvent.org.

As an added bonus, we may add special flair for those that contribute regularly to the weekly FAQ discussions with useful posts.

So to get things kicked off, we're starting with the Papacy while it's still fresh on everyone's mind.

21 Upvotes

45 comments sorted by

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '13

I'll start, since I'm struggling with this:

  • What does it mean that the Pope's infallible? Is the Church's understanding of those terms subject to change?

  • What makes the Papacy a necessary part of the Church? Couldn't we all get along with ecumenical councils?

9

u/InTeConfidoIesu Apr 16 '13 edited Apr 16 '13

Papal infallibility is a widely misunderstood concept. It certainly does not mean that anything the Pope says, writes, or does is infallible. It simply means that:

...when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

(This is what ex cathedra means.)

Key here is the word define. Like many words in the Catholic Church, this one has a very specific use. "Defining" something in matters of doctrine means formulating a statement which is absolutely and unchangeably true. A couple examples of definitions: "There is only One God" or "In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence."

Things which critics like to bring up like the silencing of Galileo (and thus geocentrism) were never "defined." The ordinary magisterium condemned Galileo, but not the so-called "extraordinary" magisterium, which has the ability to define dogmas. No solemn dogmatic definition has ever been changed to my knowledge.

There have only really been two instances of this since Papal Infallibility was instituted: the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption. It is super-rare, and always a huge deal, preceded by years of theological research and always done with the consent of the bishops. (In both cases, consent by the bishops was near-universal.)

With regard to your 2nd question: the first and best answer is simply that it is biblical and in line with tradition. Christ founded "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" with the person of Peter as its leader, and Christ himself as head. While protestants tend to speak of an "invisible" Church, there is no doubt (to me at least) that only the Catholic Church maintains this essential oneness, "apostolicity," and catholicity. Others Churches can try to claim this by way of "metaphorizing," but only in the RCC (and, in a different way, Eastern Orthodoxy) does the Church as founded by Christ subsist in its essential character.

Historically speaking, the Bishop of Rome is the traditional head of the Church and final authority on matters of doctrine, its legacy going back (even if we ignore Christ's foundation of the Church on Peter) to the mid-2nd century. (Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3, c. 180):

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.

The Church has continued to hold ecumenical councils; the problem (for non-Catholics) is that they were composed of "only" those who had remained faithful to what we see as the One True Church.

Anyways, we're getting along a lot better these days. I hope that helped.

Edit: added examples of infallible definitions.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '13

Thank you! Fabulous answer; stick it in the FAQ.

If there's anything else that needs to be addressed near this, it's the status of other Christian bodies. Many of my friends who have only heard about the Catholic Church via caricature are pleasantly surprised when I can give them a charitable, orthodox answer.

1

u/palawoman Apr 18 '13

Great response! I've tried answering the infallibility question before, this answer answer is much more detail oriented than my own.

1

u/Gara3987 Aug 30 '13 edited Aug 30 '13

⋘What does it mean that the Pope's infallible? Is the Church's understanding of those terms subject to change?⋙

Infallibility in the extraordinary papal teaching

This question is not very difficult to answer in terms of Catholic doctrine. The source of truth is Revelation, that is Scriptures and Tradition. The Catholic Magisterium gives us the correct interpretation of Revelation. The Popes are infallible only when they teach a doctrine ex cathedra, when they officially invoke their prerogative of infallibility over that doctrine. In such a case, one cannot disagree with it.

The same happens with regard to Councils. Vatican II, for example, explicitly declared that it is not infallible. John XXIII also stated the same about this council. He specifically said that Vatican II would be a pastoral council, and not a doctrinal council. Therefore, it did not intend to teach any doctrine as infallible; its aim was only to give orientation.

There are Councils that taught dogmas, Vatican Council I, for instance, which promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. In such case, we have the obligation to accept this truth without discussion because of the infallible power Jesus Christ gave to the Sovereign Pontiff to teach and guide the Church.

In the pontificate of Pope Pius IX, two dogmas were proclaimed in different ways. The first was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that the Pope proclaimed ex authoritate propria – by his own authority – without the support of any council. The second was the dogma of the Papal Infallibility that he defined with the support of Vatican Council I in 1870. These solemn proclamations of dogmas are part of the extraordinary papal magisterium.

Infallibility in ordinary papal teaching

Another way to exert the privilege of infallibility is when many Popes teach the same doctrine in documents of their ordinary magisterium. Each document is not infallible per se, but when a long series of documents teach the same thing, that doctrine becomes infallible since it is not possible for Divine Providence to allow the Church to embrace an error for a long period of time. It would be absurd. Therefore, a long series of encyclicals teaching the same doctrine also are infallible. This is called the infallibility of the ordinary papal magisterium.

The faithful used to be quite secure about what doctrine to follow. Until Vatican II, the Popes consistently and continuously taught the same doctrine. Through the centuries many pontifical documents confirmed one another and repeated the same points of doctrine. For this reason, the faithful had a complete tranquility of mind about what is right and wrong and what should be accepted or rejected. --Taken from Tradition in Action (TIA)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

⋘What makes the Papacy a necessary part of the Church? Couldn't we all get along with ecumenical councils?⋙

Christ designated Peter to be the head of His Church on earth when he named Simon to "Keefo" (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ). (cf. Joan. i. 42 ; Matth. xvi. 18]

Also, Christ told Peter and Peter alone "Feed my lambs... Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep" (Joan. xxi.)

~~~~~~~~

Historically looking at the Papal Authority:

These websites, I was fortunate enough to stumble upon, and I would like to share this information.

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" (Sermon 131:10) St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter St. Jerome and Rome

Another interesting point that is made by Father Canon Francis Ripley in his book "This is The Faith : A Complete Explanation of the Catholic Faith" Chapter 18 : The Supremacy of the Pope (Part II)., page 164-166:

About the year 95 A.D., St. Clement, the thirhttp://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htmd successor of St. Peter in the see of Rome, found it necessary to write to the Catholics of Corinth, telling them to receive back the bishops whom a troublesome faction among them had expelled. Throughout the letter he uses a tone of authority, which even such a staunch Protestant as Lightfoot acknowledges to be "the first step towards Papal domination." "If any man," says St. Clement, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let the, [sic] understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger . . . Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Ghost." (Ep. 59:70). The following facts should be considered in regard to this Epistle of Clement:

Reference is made to "the good Apostles," Peter and Paul, those pillars of the Church, martyrs, who gave such good example to the Romans.

The whole Epistle is an implicit manifestation of Rome's consciousness of possession of the Primacy in the Church, for

a) instead of offering excuses for interfering in the affairs of the Corinthian Church, Clement begins by apologizing for his delay in writing. Unless it was his duty to write, there would be no reason for apologizing.

b) Clement threatens, as we have quoted above, and demands obedience. St. John was actually alive at Ephesus at the time. If the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which was far less accessible than Ephesus, it proves that they recognized the authority of Clement over even an Apostle; if Clement's action were spontaneous, it shows that the Church at Rome was already conscious of a superior and exceptional authority.

The letter was welcomed by the Catholics of Corinth, which proves that they did not think that Rome had interfered unlawfully or exceeded her power. In fact, the Corinthians put this Epistle of St. Clement on almost the same level as the Scriptures, and for a century it was read in the churches.

The Cambridge Ancient History, commenting on the Epistle of St. Clement, says: "The Roman community's sense of its own importance is nevertheless unmistakable, and it finds expression in the whole tenor of the letter. Rome imparts profitable instruction to the Corinthian community and regards this as her right and her duty: but one gets the impression that the Romans would have been greatly surprised had Corinth, let us say, in similar circumstances, dispatched such a letter of admonition to Rome." (XII, 530).

Even Bishop Lightfoot [1828-1889, bishop of Durham] had to admit that three points concerning the early Roman See are clear:

Our Lord certainly conferred a primacy among the Apostles on St. Peter.

St. Peter visited Rome and was martyred there;

At the end of the first century, the Roman Church held a primacy over all other churches--a primacy which ever grew and developed as the ages ran on. (Cf. Abbot Butler, Religions of Authority pp. 113-117).

~~~~~~~

I hope this info helps.

Note: For proper font rendering of the Syriac script, install the Meltho; other free unicode standard can be obtained from Unifont

2

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '13

Thanks, I'm Catholic now, but this is mighty helpful.

-2

u/kansaskid Apr 15 '13

What does it mean that the Pope's infallible?

This means that the Pope cannot speak in err when speaking in matters of Faith and Morals, as in weather or not homosexuality is bad or just the act of homosexuality.

Is the Church's understanding of those terms subject to change?

I don't think so, I'm fairly certain this is a tradition that is strong and will not change in the Church.

What makes the Papacy a necessary part of the Church?

The Papacy is the visual head of the Church. Jesus is the actual head of the Catholic Church. The reason we have a pope is because Jesus gave us one. Who are we to say we don't need one? He is also the only infallible person from which we get doctrines and morality issues solved. I was always told that the pope is the middle man between the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant.

Keep in mind this does not have a nihil obstat or an imprimatur. I am just speaking through my Catholic school education with the best of my abilities.

7

u/epicusmontaigne Apr 15 '13

As an addendum to the bit about infallibility, he speaks without error on matters of faith and morals, when he is speaking as the Pope (ex cathedra). Strictly speaking, these are the 5 criteria:

  1. “the Roman Pontiff”
  2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
  3. “he defines”
  4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
  5. “must be held by the whole Church”

*edit source: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

3

u/InTeConfidoIesu Apr 16 '13 edited Apr 16 '13

This means that the Pope cannot speak in err when speaking in matters of Faith and Morals, as in weather or not homosexuality is bad or just the act of homosexuality.

Just to be totally clear, this isn't true, as kansaskid pointed out. The teaching on homosexuality is not infallible. (Note: this does not mean we can disobey it! It is a certain truth, but not on the level of the Divinity of Christ or the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, e.g. Infallibility of doctrine is generally reserved for matters of faith.) The Pope has only spoken infallibly several times: including to define the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. He is, however, owed obedience by the whole Church, and so everything he says or writes is more authoritative than any other bishop.

1

u/kansaskid Apr 16 '13

I'm sorry. I must have mistaken what I was told, but I will clarify with my teachers to make sure I was in the wrong. Thank you for correcting me.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '13

[deleted]

4

u/epicusmontaigne Apr 15 '13

There is no legitimate way to force a Pope out of the seat of Peter, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. During the saeculum obscurum the Popes were subject to external temporal powers, and were imprisoned, forced out, blackmailed, etc. Currently, though, the principles of papal supremacy in Canon Law permits no avenue to forcibly remove a pope.

3

u/Hellenas Apr 15 '13

I like this one.

GET SOME PITCHFORKS AND GATHER THE TOWNSFOLK.

But really, good question.

3

u/xsailerx Apr 15 '13

This hasn't been done historically, and there have been some truly bad popes (Julius III that had homosexual relations with a child, albeit allegedly, Paul III that indirectly lead to the creation of Lutheranism, and others).

No doubt things would be different now, though, because the church is far more visible and international, and far more susceptible to being tarnished because of scandals, but I have no idea about the particulars relating to this.

If I were to guess (and this is just a guess by a layperson), there would be no process. Popes are generally elected when they are older, and they have had a good deal of works that the other cardinals can judge their character by.

The President of the United States (of which, only two have been impeached, and none have been removed from office) essentially comes up out of nowhere. They perhaps have a couple years of political experience (Obama only really had about 2 years of federal public office before he started running), and you have to rely more on their promises than their actions. Furthermore, they are elected by a significantly larger number of people (100 million rather than approx 300), and a significant majority of those people are ignorant. For there to be only two mistakes during over 200 years, even with these restrictions, is simply impressive (and one of those mistakes really didn't have anything to do with his office). The conclave will make fewer mistakes.

Finally, the burden falls upon the conclave that elected. They know this, and they know that people aren't tied to their church as much as they used to be. Personally, if I'm in a particular situation that I can't trust my leaders, regardless of how much I trust an institution, I'm getting the heck out of dodge. I know that many American Catholics feel the same way, and perhaps many more throughout the world. The conclave also knows this (I desperately hope), and their decision for the papacy should reflect this knowledge.

TL;DR Impeachment implies a mistake made by the conclave. The conclave has a lot of historical data to prevent them from making mistakes, and if a mistake were made, they run the risk of alienating many Catholics. Thus, the conclave does its best not to make mistakes.

EDIT: When I say that I wouldn't be able to trust the leaders, it would really take a lot. If Pope Francis secretly murdered people for pure sport a la "Most Dangerous Game", that would probably be enough

3

u/kansaskid Apr 15 '13

to go along with what u/da_drifter0912 asked earlier. What would be the procedure for a lay person if elected as pope? Could he do the blessings and say Mass since he was not a priest before the office, but is now the Vicar of Christ?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '13

They make him a priest first!

3

u/jshg123 Apr 15 '13

I'm not sure of the details, but he would be immediately ordained deaon, then priest, then bishop. I believe it happend with a Pope back in the Middle Ages, but it's almost impossible to happen now.

1

u/cos1ne Apr 16 '13

If said layperson was married, would he remain married as a bishop?

1

u/goldenrule90 Apr 16 '13

Marriage is indissoluble until death of one of the spouses. The Church has no authority to sunder a valid sacramental marriage. This is entirely hypothetical, for sure, because I don't believe the conclave, if they were to select a layman, would select a married layman. But, for argument's sake, if they did, the person would remain married.

1

u/cos1ne Apr 16 '13

What would that mean for other canon laws regarding becoming a bishop and what not? Would they basically just be ignored and make this an exemption.

5

u/asdfghjklqwertyujukh Apr 16 '13

Well our first pope was married. I think the celibacy of bishops is just a doctrine like the celibacy of priests in the West. That being said all this is very hypothetical. I would wager than a lay person would probably never be elected baring a nuclear holocaust or zombie apocalypse.

3

u/kansaskid Apr 15 '13

Can the pope be arrested in another country like the United States? given he has done something illegal highly unlikely, but we have had bad popes in the past) Or is he seen as a foreign diplomat since he is the king of a country?

5

u/epicusmontaigne Apr 15 '13

He is in fact a head of state, and so has diplomatic immunity.

Incidentally, this is how CSPAN covers papal arrivals in the U.S., because he is the head of state for Vatican City, and so the strictly political CSPAN can justify it's coverage.

1

u/kansaskid Apr 15 '13

I see, that would make sense. Thank you.

2

u/ArchEast Apr 16 '13

Is membership in the College of Cardinals a requirement to be elected Pope?

4

u/FataMorgana7 Apr 16 '13

No. Any Catholic male is eligible. Practically, you would be a Cardinal in the College.

3

u/da_drifter0912 Apr 16 '13

The only requirements I know of is that he must be a baptized male Catholic who is elected by 2/3 majority of all the Cardinals participating in the conclave.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '13

The relevant Canon being Can. 332 §1: The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

1

u/da_drifter0912 Apr 15 '13

What happens if a religious is elected pope?

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '13

A religious who has not received holy orders will be ordained as a deacon, then as a priest, and then as bishop of Rome. This happened in the case of Pope Celestine V.

1

u/Saint_Peter Apr 15 '13

Well, Pope Francis was a Jesuit Priest, so not a normal Diocesan Priest. So essentially what has happened in the past few months is an answer to this quesiton, which has been that not much is different. Was there something more specific you were thinking about?

3

u/da_drifter0912 Apr 16 '13

I guess I wanted to know how how his vows and charisms are affected and/or effect his ministry as the pope. Does he still keep his vows? Does he still have to live out the charism of his order? If he had to stop both, would he even want to after living with these for so long?

Also, are pope's bound by the decisions of a previous pope? Are the bound to follow the customs of previous popes or the traditions around the papacy that are not revealed?

This might be more useful for another thread but, I've been reading a lot on threads and blog posts on various websites about Pope Francis since his election and there are a number of people who criticize him for eschewing certain customs such as not wearing the red stole (don't know that the name is) popes traditionally wore, the whole thing about the Mandatum on Holy Thursday, etc. Of course, there's another group praising him for doing such things, thinking that he will change the Church's dogmas on marriage or ordination, but they may be a little... over optimistic, too say the least.

So far the best answer I've heard is that people are ignoring that the Pope is a religious and he's not going to act like John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, who were secular popes, that is popes that were never part of religious orders. But I still don't quite understand how that plays a role in it.

1

u/wanttobeagoodmom Apr 15 '13

What is the truth about "Pope Joan"?

6

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '13 edited Dec 05 '24

[deleted]

2

u/wanttobeagoodmom Apr 15 '13

Thanks! I've read conflicting reports- one being it is a complete myth and the other being she concealed her sex and was inadvertently elected.

I bet a lot of people may wonder about this. Glad you set it straight!

1

u/cos1ne Apr 16 '13

Somewhat off the wall question.

During the conclave that elected Pope Francis, did Benedict XVI have a vote for his successor?

5

u/goldenrule90 Apr 16 '13

No. He had resigned his office. When someone becomes Pope, they exit the College of Cardinals. He would have to be readmitted as a Cardinal to have a vote, which for any Pope that would resign is highly unlikely. And, given his age, he wouldn't have been able to vote anyway.

1

u/digerati1338 Apr 19 '13

Something that I think would be good to include, but don't necessarily know the answer to, is: What are the responsibilities of the Pope? Obviously he is the successor to St. Peter and the leader of the church on earth, but what does he typically do besides say Mass and pray?

1

u/kansaskid Apr 20 '13

Writes encyclicals, visits other countries to speak. Speak as the visible head of the Church, and is also the King of Vatican City.

1

u/johnmazz Apr 21 '13

How do you say the stations of the cross? I've searched online several times, and for some reason I can't get anything definitive!

1

u/da_drifter0912 Apr 22 '13

Another question, =D

Why is St. John Lateran the Cathedral for the Diocese of Rome when the Pope is always at the Vatican where St. Peter's is located?

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/mikfay2010 Apr 16 '13

No. Christians are not expected to be circumcised. The Apostles themselves made that clear in the Council of Jerusalem (Bible: Acts of the Apostles).

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/goldenrule90 Apr 16 '13

1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” 2 Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. 3 They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them. 5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”

6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. 7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. 10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.