Here’s a question for the Catholic readers of this blog: What is the status of the document Dictatus Papae, issued during the pontificate of Gregory VII? (See a translation of the text of the document here.) It is a document essential to the Catholic understanding of the Papacy? Does Benedict XVI, for instance, understand his primacy exactly as is expressed in Dictatus Papae? Using the distinction of the late John Paul II, does the papal doctrine of the Dictatus Papae belong to the essence of the Petrine ministry, or is it simply one of the ways in which this ministry has expressed itself in history (for better or for worse)?
A Prayer for Unity
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
RC Curious on Reflections on the Ravenna… Paul on Primacy and Conciliarity … Mark Bej on More from Ravenna depeccatoradvitam on Constantinople denounces… Michael on Dictatus Papae Archives
Categories
Blog Stats
- 106,793 hits
Cathedra Unitatis 
P.S. For my Orthodox readers: Let’s sit back and let the Catholics comment before diving in. 🙂
OK, I’ll bite…just briefly, as I must get the kids ready for Faith Formation and Mass.
First, I’m struck by the fact that this is not (it seems) an official papal document. Apparently, we don’t even know exactly who wrote it or when. It seems it was never formally promulgated as official Church Teaching, e.g., as in a bull or encyclical or papal decree. (This might explain why I’ve never heard of it before, despite my many years’ experience as a fairly informed Catholic. :))
In short, it is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. And I don’t think anyone would ever argue that it’s part of the body of Official Catholic Teaching, let alone that it falls within the purview of infallible dogma. Far from it.
Secondly, I would say that some of the papal prerogatives mentioned in the Dictatus are of the esse of the papacy while others are not. (Have you seen any princes kissing the pope’s feet lately? Has the pope deposed any emperors lately? ;))
Some of the papal prerogatives mentioned in the Dictatus are proper to the pope’s historic position as Patriarch of the West (e.g., his right to depose bishops). Post-Schism, some of the pope’s prerogatives as Patriarch of the West were collapsed with his role as universal primate. In a reunited Church, presumably, these specifically Western prerogatives would be disentangled from the universal ones…so, for instance, Eastern patriarchs would retain the right to depose their own bishops (with right of final appeal reserved to the pope, as in patristic times).
Be that as it may…and pace the Fordham graduate student’s opinion that the Dictatus represents the mind of the medieval popes…the Dictatus itself most certainly is not part of the body of official dogma comprising official Catholic Teaching.
BTW, I studied the medieval investiture controversy in college. Can’t say I remember much about it.
Related anecdote later. Right now it’s time for Mass.
God bless,
Diane
Yes, the Dictatus Papae seems, as a whole, to be a bit over the top, and I’m glad to hear that it is not considered to be an “official” document, part of what Catholics understand to be the Deposit of Faith. The bit about all Popes being automatically saints through the merits of Saint Peter is especially wild!
Oh, I was going to mention that one! I mentioned it to my husband, and he hooted. LOL–Dante put his least favorite popes in the Inferno. And as for those Borgia popes…well, let’s not go there. 🙂
Wait a minute. It is too easy just to say that this is “not a part of the deposit of faith”. Of course I agree with that assessment, but I am quite sure that Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand thought his statements were “part of the deposit of faith”, and he and his successors in the high Middle Ages certainly acted as though they thought they were.
Just because modern Catholics also find these statements over the top doesn’t mean that earlier Catholics didn’t take them quite seriously.
Do not forget that the pope (at the behest of then-archdeacon Hildebrand) handed over England to William the Norman; another pope handed over Ireland to England; England and Ireland were papal fiefdoms under Innocent III; that he placed England under Interdict for six years so that the faithful could not receive Communion, or be baptized or married or buried with Church rites; and that Innocent III was also virtual overlord of Christian Spain, Scandinavia, Hungary, and the Latin states of the East.
Do not forget the papal tiara I mentioned elsewhere, used as recently as 1963 with the coronation of Paul VI: “Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that you are Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, and Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ”.
Remember also the Eastern Rite Patriarch who displeased Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council, so that when the patriarch kissed Pio Nono’s feet, the pope pressed his foot upon the patriarch’s neck and held him down while upbraideding him for his “stubbornness”.
In the light of Vatican II, “Dictatus Papae” may seem like an inconvenient or even silly relic of the past. But for centuries, its claims were taken seriously.
I would submit that the vision of Gregory VII Hildebrand died out, not because the popes wished to renounce it, but because (as in the case of Pius V’s attempt to dethrone Elizabeth I) Catholics just stopped listening….
Remember also the Eastern Rite Patriarch who displeased Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council, so that when the patriarch kissed Pio Nono’s feet, the pope pressed his foot upon the patriarch’s neck and held him down while upbraideding him for his “stubbornness”.
I have heard of this before, and I have also heard that it is something of an urban legend. If it did happen, of course, it’s inexcusable. There’s no way to know for sure, but in the interests of fairness I thought I’d mention that this report is disputed by some.
No, I don’t think it is an urban legend. Jesuit Luis Bermejo’s book “Infallibility on Trial” (complete with an imprimatur!) references this event, and I found the following on the internet. The notes are taken from “How the Pope Became Infallible” by August Bernhard Hasler.
“It is little wonder, Hasler felt, that questions were raised by historians then, and ever since, about the lack of freedom of the council fathers leading to the question of the validity of the conciliar declaration on infallibility. Other historians like Giuseppe Martina, the author of a massive biography of Pius IX, found this portrait much too unnuanced, and concluded that the irregularities in the running of the council were not serious enough to invalidate its conclusions. But even in Martina’s account, we find stories that illustrate the danger of confusing papal prerogatives with a cult of personality. The first example has to do with the Melkite patriarch Gregory II Yussef who on June 14, 1870 defended the rights of the patriarchates on the council floor. Hasler’s account goes like this: “In wild exasperation the pope ordered the patriarch to come see him. When Yussef kissed the foot of Pius IX in the traditional fashion, the pope placed his foot on the patriarch’s head (some said his neck) after the manner of a pagan conqueror, and said, “Gregor, you hard head you.” Then he rubbed his foot about on the patriarch’s head a while longer. After Pius had died, the Holy Synod of the Greek-Melkite church (under the presidency of Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh) filed two separate reports of this event in Rome in order to block the pope’s canonization. For a long time Yussef himself did not dare to speak of the incident, for fear of causing a schism in his church.”12 This, at least, was the story that was transmitted orally to a few Melkites, including Maximos IV. There was, however, a milder version of this event written down at the time in which the pope simply told the patriarch that he had a hard head, and this account Martina finds more probable.13”
It seems Patriarch Yussef was reticent to speak of the incident, but it seems that Maximos IV would be a good witness of what was told to him. This is not akin to stories of white alligators in New York sewers, but an account handed down with gravity and pain by Melkite prelates.
I wish I had available to me the reports of the Holy Synod of the Greek-Melkite Church mentioned here, but I don’t have those resources. In any case, the Melkite bishops and Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh found the event scandalous enough to protest the canonization of Pius IX.
I would not be at all surprised if the Pope told the Patriarch he had a “hard head” or was “stubborn” (the version of the event written down at the time).
The Pope actually putting his foot on the Patriarch’s head or neck is what sounds a tad urban-legendy (the version of the event as recounted by a second-hand source decades after the event).
The first version of the event is bad enough, of course. The second sounds like something of an embellishment. I could be wrong, but I don’t see any way that we would know for sure.
Oh, there’s this also:
But let’s end our parenthesis on the Melkites, and return to a more widely known incident that occurred at the First Vatican Council, and one which Martina does accept the authenticity of. It came in the wake of a speech by Cardinal Guidi who had dared to say on the council floor that instead of talking about the personal infallibility of the pope, one should speak, rather, of a magisterial infallibility, and it should be anathema to say that the pope makes infallible statements independent of the church. This speech gained Guidi the congratulation of many council fathers, but that very evening he was called in by the pope who told him that it was an error to say that in irreformable decrees the pope was obliged to investigate the tradition of the church. Guidi disagreed with him, and the pope, in a revealing outburst, said: “Yes. It is an error because I, I am the tradition. I, I am the Church!” (“Io, io sono la tradizione, io, io sono la Chiesa!”)20 Even if we write this off as a temperamental outburst of the pope under strain, it can be taken as a prime example of the danger of fusing the infallibility of the pope, expressing the understanding of the church, and infallibility as somehow the pope’s personal prerogative.
The grandiose titles of the pope were certainly not restricted to the time of Pius IX. J.M.R. Tillard in The Bishop of Rome draws on modern, Vatican I, and medieval examples to illustrate a theme he calls making the pope “more than a pope.” He calls this tendency: “An ancient spring that knows neither theological criticism nor enlightened pastoral care lies hidden in devotion and popular spirituality, waiting for a pretext to break out.”21 And we would not go too far wrong if we located this spring in the depths of the unconscious. In recent times, he tells us, a group of bishops, perhaps inadvertently, styled the pope “successor of God,” and a lay catechist asked on the occasion of the pope’s visit to the Philippines why the pope was so important to him said, “Because the pope is the person on whose word the whole life of the Church depends.”22
At the time of Vatican I, a Roman prelate declared: “I am very happy that the bishops are coming to Rome, for they will see that the pope is everything and the bishops nothing.”23 What kind of atmosphere exists when a pope could be called “the vice-God of mankind,”24 or a pre-Vatican II theologian could write: “If, in a world which is becoming one, the Church wishes to remain one, the papacy must speak, must speak often and must direct everything.”?25
This florid papal praise of recent centuries can be traced as least as far back as the Middle Ages. Innocent III (d. 1216) for example, said that the pope “stands mid-way between God and man… less than God but more than man.”26 The Cardinals Colonna in 1297 said that the transition and deposition of bishops ought to be reserved to the pope because “in some way he is God, that is to say, he is God’s vicar. (quodammodo Deus est, id est Dei vicarius)”27 And Álvarez Pelayo (d. 1349) put it this way: The pope “is not simply a man but God, that is, the vicar of God. He is in some way as it were God on earth. (quasi Deus in terris est)”28
The above references are the interesting fruit of “Dictatus Papae”.
These are the above footnoted references:
20. Giacomo Martina. Pio IX, Volume III, p. 556.
21. J.M.R. Tillard, O.P. The Pope… More than a Pope? p. 18.
22. Ibid., p. 19.
23. Ibid., p. 22.
24. Ibid., p. 24.
25. Ibid., p. 32.
26. Ibid., p. 59.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
But with all this spotlight on Pio Nono, please don’t forget all the earlier things I mentioned, e.g., England, Ireland, fiefdoms, interdict, tiara, etc.
At the risk of talking way too much — perhaps I already have — I should mention that (1) Your commenting “Father Patrick” has utterly convinced me with his fine ecclesiology, so very Christ-centered; and (2) I dearly wish that there was reconciliation between East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, with all bishops honored as holding Peter’s place as to their sacramental office, *and* with the bishop of Rome as chief spokesman and honored head of the Church as to primacy. May Christ speed the day.
Michael –
All of the things you mention are certainly problematic. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that at many times in history, the Popes misunderstood the nature and limits of their own office, and caused great scandal to the faithful. The Orthodox are right to be wary of such things – although scandals are not unknown in the East. Any healthy Christianity must take into account the fact that, in this “vale of tears” sometimes the “hirelings” and “wolves” outnumber the true shepherds of Christ’s flock. There is no guarantee that every Pope or every Bishop is going to be a true shepherd and worthy successor to the Apostles.
But such horror stories do not necessarily invalidate for me what the Roman Church officially teaches today about the nature of the Petrine ministry. Again, I am very interested in Pope John Paul II’s crucial distinction between the “essence” of the Petrine ministry and its “exercise” (which has varied greatly throughout the centuries, in both good and bad forms).
BTW, I am also very impressed by Father Patrick’s comments. He should write a book!
Cathedra Unitatis:
Wasn’t it precisely the bad theology of Hildebrand et al that led to the bad exercise of that age?
I too am drawn by the vision of a renewed Petrine ministry of Rome, but I believe it will take a major overhaul of theology…and reunion with the East…to make it the reality Christ intends.
Yet I do look for that, seeing in the Lord’s words to Peter also a prophecy for the future: “When you are converted, strengthen your brothers.”
Wasn’t it precisely the bad theology of Hildebrand et al that led to the bad exercise of that age?
Yes, in my (very inexpert) opinion, Dictatus Papae is informed by bad theology. And I’m not sure that the objectionable and excessive elements of DP are representative of the official RC doctrine of the Petrine Office as it has come down to us today. Things have a way of balancing out, I suppose.
Of course I agree with that assessment, but I am quite sure that Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand thought his statements were “part of the deposit of faith”
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
I don’t know of any declaration that the “Dictatus Papae” was de Fide, but, on the other hand, I have never hears that any aspect of it has been repudiated or disclaimed by Rome (as opposed to being quietly allowed to fall into desuetude). But, then, I tend in practice to be a papal minimalist and in theory a papal maximalist (or is it the other way around?).
I don’t know of any declaration that the “Dictatus Papae” was de Fide…
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.
BTW, I like your distinction. I think I’d concur: I’m a papal maximalist in theory but I like to see the pope exercise his primacy in a more low-profile way in practice.
Of course, I do wish he would suppress dissent a tad more vigorously…but I guess one can’t have it both ways.
CA,
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.
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.
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?
could not I have the same anxieties about the Orthodox Churches? Could you not say the same about your own Lutheran communion?
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.
“With this church (Rome), all other churches must agree….”
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. 😉
Dictatus Papae did not exist then, so it could not be part of the deposit of faith then.
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.)
Assuming the foot on head story is true.. is it possible that Pius was having an epileptic seizure? He was thought to have wild mood swings and manic episodes.. he fits the description.. either way, if the Melkites had an issue canonizing him, I would have not.. and as a courtesy, perhaps his cultus should be suppressed until the Melkite Patriarchate is convinced otherwise.