That’s quite true, but of course it’s misleading. The decrees of Nicea did not exist in apostolic times, either, but surely you would concur that they convey “the despoit of the faith,” right?

It is not the fact that Dictatus Papae did not exist in apostolic times which invalidates it as part of the depositum. It is a host of other factors, including the fact that parts of the Dictatus do not even [i]deal[/i] with the Faith-and-Morals substance of the depositum. (We all know that emperors kissing popes’ feet is not part of the depositum…it is just plain silly to claim that Catholics corporately have ever thought otherwise.)

Sounds like this was the “bottom line” for Irenaeus, back in 180 AD or thereabouts.

But no doubt someone can explain his statement away, along with so many other patristic texts to the same effect.

Sure. But neither your communion nor mine identifies the indefectibility of the Church with a particular institutional structure, nor invests a particular, local Church with an a priori guarantee that it will always be orthodox. Of course, a Roman Catholic will say “that’s not a bug, it’s a feature”.

If the patriarch of Constantinople, or your local bishop, starts spouting heretical nonsense, you have the right as an Orthodox Christian to tell him to put a sock in it — repent, or be deposed. If the Pope starts spouting heretical nonsense, no Roman Catholic has the standing to call him on it. The Pope has an ironclad, in-advance guarantee of orthodoxy. He is orthodox by definition. That is the difference.

It’s the first principle of Catholicism, really: it is not possible for Rome to fall away. If you really believe that, everything else in Catholicism falls into place. If you believe that, be a Catholic (what choice do you have, really?). If you don’t believe that, you really can’t be a Catholic. Whatever else seems good and true about Catholicism you will have to find elsewhere, because the Pope is the absolute bottom line in Catholicism.

Suffice it to say that if I do come into communion with Rome, and Rome begins to teach, say, that Mary is the Fourth Person of the Trinity, then of course I would repent in sackcloth and ashes. But as long as we are dealing with hypotheticals and “what-ifs”, could not I have the same anxieties about the Orthodox Churches? Could you not say the same about your own Lutheran communion?

such horror stories do not necessarily invalidate for me what the Roman Church officially teaches today

The difficulty, CA, is that you may very well accept what the Roman Church officially teaches today, but you are signing on to what it will officially teach tomorrow as well. And there is no predicting what that might be.

Diane,

You claim that Dictatus Papae is not part of the deposit of faith. You are, of course, quite right. The deposit of faith was given to the Apostles by Christ, and it has not changed. Dictatus Papae did not exist then, so it could not be part of the deposit of faith then. And if it was not part of the deposit of faith then, it cannot be part of it now.

Of course, I do wish he would suppress dissent a tad more vigorously…but I guess one can’t have it both ways.

Well, that’s kind of the key, isn’t it, Dr. Tighe? If it has not been officially declared de fide–either by the ordinary or the extraordinary Magisterium–then it can very properly be allowed to slip into Limbo. (To invoke another example of non-de fide teaching. )

Of course, some of the stuff in the Dictatus is proper to the papal role. But that bit about the automatic sanctity of the pope…hoo-boy! Julius II, call your office.

I think of it as being similar to the papal states. I’m not sure it was ever a good idea for the popes to control all that territory. But no one could argue with a straight face that it was of the esse of the papacy…seeing as the popes functioned just fine for many years before they acquired the papal states, and they continue to function just fine now that they no longer hold the papal states.

Considering that we don’t even know if Pope Gregory wrote it–or even precisely when it was written–that’s a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?

And do you have the slightest documentation, the slightest scrap of evidence, that ANY pope thought that Dictatus Papae was part of the Deposit of the Faith? Was it ever part of any official papal decree stating that it was binding de fide dogma? Was it ever incorporated into any Catechism? Do we have any evidence that any pope believed and taught expressly that his own automatic sanctity was part of the Deposit of the Faith? Or that the papal right to despose emperors was binding on the cconsciences of all Catholics?

Considering that the Deposit of the Faith closed with the death of the last apostle, it’s pretty hard rto see how the right of popes to depose Christian emperors could be part of it. There were no Christian emperors at the time St. John died at Patmos.

And whether any particular pope “took it quite seriously” is beside the point. Doesn’t the Catholic Church get to define what’s part of its own Deposit of Faith and what isn’t? Since when do non-Catholics get to say, “Well, that’s part of your de fide dogmatic beliefs, whether you say so or not.” By that logic, y’all can tell us that not eating meat on Friday is part of our de fide beliefs. Sheesh.

Sorry for testiness, but this is ridiculous. It’s unscholarly and unhistorical. It ignores crucial distinctions that any halfway-decent historian must make as a matetr of course.

Dr. Tighe, where are you?? Help!

(BTW, if Catholics of the past accepted Dictatus Papae as de fide Catholic dogma, then how come Dante put popes in Hell? Does Dante not qualify as a Catholic of the past? The fourteenth century seems pretty “past” to me.)

God bless,

Diane