Was fascinates us about the papacy.

• Why the Pope wears a white robe.

• Can Catholics reject the authority of the Pope?

• How the papacy will develop in the future.

The attention of the whole world these days is focused on the personality of the late Pope and especially on the election of his successor. What attracts people so much to it?

Gabriel Hunchaga: As the head of a church of more than a billion people, the Pope has no alternative in the Catholic environment and is also an essential societal figure. There is only one, although there have been episodic periods of two or even three papacies in history.

Igor Augustinič: The events we are experiencing these days remind me of the funeral and subsequent coronation of the new British monarch. Somewhere inside, we like the rituals and ideals associated with these ceremonial steps. We hope for something good and beautiful.

At the same time, the Pope is currently the only global authority, regardless of whether one of us accepts him as their religious leader or only observes him from afar. Many people who do not even have a formal relationship with the church look up to this figure and this office in their subconscious.

A few days ago in the church calendar we had the memory of Saint Pope Pius V, who is interesting for several reasons: he was a Dominican like you, Gabo, he went down in the history of the Battle of Lepanto, where in 1571 the combined Christian troops defeated the Ottoman Empire, and he is buried in Santa Maria Maggiore, where not long ago the body of Pope Francis was also stored. But I didn’t mention one interesting thing related to him, I’m leaving it up to you…

Gabriel Hunchaga: It is said that after he was elected pope, he kept his white Dominican habit, and it became so established in the church that his successors remained with the white garment.

Will the Dominicans also have their representation at the next conclave?

Gabriel Hunchaga: One of the electors will be the former top official of our order, Timothy Radcliffe. It is interesting that after his appointment as a cardinal, he did not receive episcopal ordination and remained a religious priest. At the age of almost 80, he is one of the oldest electors.

Photo: Attitude

In a few days, the cardinals will elect the 267th head of the Catholic Church. The apostle Peter was the first after Jesus Christ, but he probably wouldn’t understand the Pope’s address. Do we know when this title first came into use?

Gabriel Hunchaga: The name Pope is derived from the Greek term pappas, by which every bishop was referred to in the early church.

However, as the Roman bishop’s importance grew, he began to be perceived as vicarious Petri, whether vicarious Christi, and his seat as sedes apostolic, so the name Pope settled just for him. Pope Liberius, who lived and died in the 4th century, was the first to have it listed directly on his tombstone.

On the other hand, the patriarch in Constantinople, which was the second most important spiritual and power center after Rome, used the title patriarch universalis (ecumenic patriarch).

Can it be said that during this period, the papacy begins to be born as an institution?

Gabriel Hunchaga: Yes, because the Roman bishop is already perceived as the first among equals, to whom other bishops turn as a natural authority in causae maiores, that is, in the more critical issues.

Who is the Pope in terms of canon law? Otherwise, even if I probably don’t ask it in legal language, but rather in human language, what makes the Pope the Pope? What is the most essential essence?

Igor Augustinič: Canon law most often refers to the Pope as Romanus Pontifex. Although Pontifex means high priest, in literal translation, it is a bridge builder, which was also used in ancient Rome to denote emperors.

Later in antiquity, as already mentioned, every bishop was referred to as a pontiff, but in time, it was the Roman bishop whom they called Summus Pontifex or Pontifex Maximus. The highest high priest, that is, the guarantor of unity, who unites everything.

The bishop of the Roman Church, the office that Jesus Christ entrusted to Peter, the first of the apostles, and which is handed down to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, Christ’s representative, and shepherd of the whole church here on earth. It is on the basis of this office that he has the highest, full, immediate, and universal regular power in the church.

In summary, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. In the first speech after his election, the late Francis also referred to himself not as a pope but as a Roman bishop. To put it another way, someone becomes pope on the basis of being elected bishop of Rome, and not the other way around.

Did it help the papacy that popes ceased to be secular rulers controlling large parts of the Apennine Peninsula and became almost exclusively spiritual leaders?

Gabriel Hunchaga: The answer depends on the specific historical context. The Papal State was created in the middle of the 8th century and lasted until 1871, i.e., one whole millennium.

This was thanks to Pippin the Short, Charlemagne’s father, who was anointed king of the Franks, befriended Pope Stephen II., and took Patrimonium Petri under the protection against the expansionism of the Lombards and Byzantium. Later, this monarchical state unit was headed by the popes themselves.

In some historical periods, it played a positive role so that the Pope also had real worldly power, for example, at the time of the expansion of the Muslim Ottomans, who were also stopped thanks to the aforementioned Pope Pius V.

In the current context, however, probably most people—including me—see it as a positive thing that the Pope gradually became an exclusively spiritual authority again.

Igor Augustinič: I agree with what was said. I would add and underline just one thing: Past events can never be examined from today’s point of view, and current criteria must be applied to historical events.

What does the fact that great saints held this office, but on the other hand, also by great sinners, say about the papacy?

Gabriel Hunchaga: It testifies that the church is a living and dynamic organism. Metaphorically speaking, the body can function even when everything is not right with the head.

But the opposite is also true: the head may be fine, but the body may experience a kind of depression. There is not always a mutual symbiosis, but there is always Someone above it, thanks to whom all such situations can be overcome. The Church is simply God’s work administered by human means.

We experienced periods of antipopes that represented a significant decline from a moral point of view, but despite this, even in those days, holy people lived. We had the so-called two papal obediences, which differed in the exercise of power, but not in the confession of the same faith and morality. Thanks to this, today, as saints, we worship Catherine of Siena, who was obedient to the Roman obedience, and Vincent Ferrers, who converted thousands of people with his sermons, but was obedient to the Pope in Avignon.

Of course, it was not ideal, and fortunately, we have not experienced anything like it since 1417.

Igor Augustinič: Then and today, a lot of handsome and holy things happened and are happening in the church, but at the same time, the entire history of the church is also the history of divisions and scandals. Pope Francis often warned against Monophysitism, i.e., against the perception of only the good or only the bad.

He also talked about the church as the mother we should love as she is because she is simply our mother, with her strengths and faults.

Gabriel Hunchaga: The opposite is also true: a mother loves her children even when they may not behave as she would expect them to.

Throughout the history of the church, there has also been another mischief—the rejection of a pope as a person or the papacy as an office. Is it possible to act like this and remain Catholic?

Igor Augustinič: It is necessary to distinguish different levels between rejecting the Pope and criticizing some of his actions or statements.

Therefore, not every disagreement with the Pope or his criticism means breaking the bond with the church community. Finally, even among the cardinals themselves entering the conclave, we can see those who have been called critics of the late Pope. We may not like it, but in my opinion, they have never crossed the red line defined by canon law.

If we look at it from the opposite end, can the Pope, as the earthly head of the church, do what he wants, so to speak, or does he also have any ecclesiastical limits?

Igor Augustinič: Even if the Pope is the supreme legislator and the principle applies prima sedes a nemine iudicatur, that is, no one judges the first chair, it has its limits.

The first is that each person, no matter in what capacity, operates, and it is bound by natural law. Every believing person is also bound by God’s right contained in the Holy Scriptures and Tradition. Not even the Pope stands above this.

And although he has the highest, full, immediate, and universal regular power, he must always exercise it in communion with other bishops and the whole church. He is not detached from her and cannot command whatever he wants.

 While a council was held every 25 years from the 12th to 14th centuries, that is, every generation has experienced it, since the 16th century, when the Council of Trent was held, we have only had two councils in almost 500 years. Isn’t the papacy and conciliarity fighting a little?

Gabriel Hunchaga: No, because the council has never acted as an institution that wants to absorb papal authority. On the contrary, the Pope was the moderator and, mostly, the convener of councils, thereby showing that he cares about thinking with the entire church community. The Council has always been like that locus theologicus, the center of the presence of the Holy Spirit. One plane supports the other and thus creates mutual synergy.

I ask this because the First Vatican Council in the 19th century approved the dogma of the Pope’s infallibility, which seemed to further strengthen the papacy’s importance. And then, when John XXIII. Decided to convene the Second Vatican Council in 1959, many asked what we need a council for when the Pope is infallible and can decide for himself.

Gabriel Hunchaga: We can look at it differently. When John XXIII convened the council, it showed its importance and close connection with the performance of the papal office, which I spoke about a moment ago.

We should not take the dogma about the Pope’s infallibility out of its historical context. Pope Pius IX’s position on this issue was relatively open. Before its approval,—as with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary in 1854 —a survey among the bishops was conducted, which showed that both dogmas had strong support.

So, the Pope did not proceed directly; we could say that only synodally, with today’s dictionary.

Five hundred thirty-six bishops spoke in favor of declaring the aforementioned Marian dogma, 36 agreed, but considered the timing inappropriate, and only four were outright against it. When Pius IX took a kind of trial vote on papal infallibility, of the 601 council fathers present, 451 were in favor, 88 against, and the others did not appear for the preliminary ballot.

The dogma was finally approved by 533 votes in 1871. Two bishops opposed it, and the remaining, mainly German-speaking, left the council as a sign of disapproval.

Igor Augustinič: Each dogma results from a longer process, which is ended by a solemn and exact declaration of what was already part of the treasure of faith until then.

On the very topic of infallibility of the Pope, it should be added that it does not apply to any of his statements, but only to specific situations when solemnly and definitively – ex cathedra – declares some truth in the realm of faith or morals that is certain to be binding.

Gabriel Hunchaga: Papal infallibility has been applied to this day for the only time, namely by Pius XII, who declared the dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in 1950. Thus, fears that papal infallibility would lead to the burial of conciliarity did not materialize.

What development of the papacy do you expect in the future?

Gabriel Hunchaga: I believe the church will be more apostolic and less administrative, because even a flawlessly managed institution will not be attractive if it does not seek and offer new pastoral models and solutions. For this to be the case, she must first be more listening and exploring.

My favorite Pope Innocent III, who was only a deacon, already came up with the concept of distinctions at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. I also wish for the new pope and the church under his leadership.

Igor Augustinič: I can think of the image of the inverted pyramid, which says that the higher I am in the church hierarchy, the more I should serve and not be served. I’m not the one at the top, and you’re all below me, but I’m down and carrying you all.

The second image is the principle of subsidiarity, which increasingly penetrates canon law from the church’s social teaching. It says that what can be done at a lower level should be done there, and only what is really necessary should be moved to a higher level. Pope Francis also navigated the church in this direction.