See above. And thanks for the laugh: asking an OO Christian about who reprimanded Pope Leo?Wandile said:universal truth is not measured in mass appeal... Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo and Gregory the Greats as well as Pope Damasus, Agatho and many others for their claims? Who reprimanded Maximus the confessor or patriarch John of jerusalem for his claims about the papacy? Or many other countless fathers of the west and the east who said the same?
Wandile, the RC faith is not "if it's not ex cathedra, feel free to disagree as much as you want". Yes, a Pope's "private writings" are not binding on the faithful in the sense that an ex cathedra statement would be, but LG 25 seems to be more inclusive than you want to admit:That's not my logic . The fact is he can write as a private theologian. I never said his writings won't be a big deal or that it would be ok for him to teach heresy in those writings. These writings are not binding on the faithful. What don't you get about that?
Notice, first of all, that when speaking of bishops in general (which includes the Pope), the council says "in matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent". There's nothing about "ex cathedra" or "promulgations of ecumenical councils" or "papal infallibility" there. It's simply "The job of bishops is to teach the faith and morality of the Church, and the faithful are to accept their teaching as from Christ".Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Lumen Gentium, 25
When speaking specifically about the Pope, however, the council specifies that even when not invoking infallibility, what above applies to bishops in general is even more the case with the Pope. The faithful's religious submission of mind and will "must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will". The Pope's mind and will "may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking".
You can fly a space shuttle through that gaping hole. It is not nearly so restrictive as "not binding on the faithful unless it's ex cathedra", it is not as restrictive as you want us to believe in order to suit your polemic. The average faithful Catholic gets that: only various stripes of conservative and liberal try to take advantage of the restriction for which you advocate.
And yet, the Pope is only the Pope because he is elected by the clergy of Rome (Cardinals) as Bishop of Rome. You can't claim that his universal authority comes from his Papacy and not his Episcopacy when his Papacy derives precisely from his Episcopacy.The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.
And as far as "a bishop is a bishop", see above. In fact, read Vatican II in light of Vatican I and previous RC tradition.
It's not that a Pope's writings are automatically binding on the faithful because they're a Pope's writings. It's that, even if they're not "automatically binding", you still have to accept them with "religious submission of mind and will". IOW, even if he says it's not infallible, you better treat it as if it is.And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.