Papal Primacy vs. Papal Supremacy
Of course, Popes are still kings, having had that role restored in 1929.

As for Pastor Aeternus, it was not promulgated as a response to the loss of temporal power.  It was promulgated before that happened (the Council being suspended when Piedmontese troops took the city). It had been planned earlier as well, of course. It had more to do with the fact that the Church and society no longer had an organic unity. Pastor Aeternus was part of a larger scheme of planned documents that were intended to provide a comprehensive definition of what the Church actually is, what its jurisdiction is, what it has power over and what it does not, and what its relationship to the secular/civil power is in light of all that, as well as the parallel relationship between faith and reason (the Church's infallibility touches on both topics of course).  There were certainly proposals to also address the temporal power of the Pope, given the potential for its loss and what that might mean, but it was part of this larger context on the nature of the Church and ultimately was not included in Pastor Aeternus so as not to confuse the issue.

The temporal power of the Pope has always been seen as a providential (but not absolutely essential) means for maintaining the Church's freedom and independence.
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]

Messages In This Thread
Papal Primacy vs. Papal Supremacy - by Markie Boy - 04-03-2019, 07:48 AM
RE: Papal Primacy vs. Papal Supremacy - by SaintSebastian - 04-08-2019, 09:38 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)