Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[JohnVIII]

So the Fathers of the First Vatican Council excommunicated themselves? Did you read the links I gave? They contain quotes from several V1 Council Fathers.

Blessings

I looked at it only briefly. It looks as if you’re just gathering a consensus of what people think the pope’s power is. I think it matters much more what the Vatican itself claims its powers are. Of course I have not looked at the very closely, I don’t have the time right now, I will have to take the time and examine this issue very carefully before he can comment any further.

God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

I looked at it only briefly. It looks as if you’re just gathering a consensus of what people think the pope’s power is. I think it matters much more what the Vatican itself claims its powers are. Of course I have not looked at the very closely, I don’t have the time right now, I will have to take the time and examine this issue very carefully before he can comment any further.

God bless!

If you do have a comment, perhaps you can resurrect one of the linked threads. I was just thinking that this current conversation is maybe not really germane to the OP.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

Absolutely right. If I were to convert to the Roman Catholic Church there is no doubt I would have to accept this. It is clear and straightforward. Quite frankly I cannot understand how anyone can actually believe that they have converted to the Roman Catholic Church and yet denied this!

I believe it was St. John Chrysostom that said that a church either falls or stands on the bishop. Now if you believe in one universal bishop for the whole Church, then the whole universal Church either falls or stands on that one bishop - the Pope! (And of course that is why the doctrine of infallibility is so important to the Roman Catholics). I personally have no fear of this anathema because I am secure in my belief in the genuine orthodox ecclesiastical nature of the Catholic Church; but if I were to change my faith and convert to the Roman Catholic Church, and yet deny the absolute supremacy of the Pope, I think my conscience would bother me tremendously as I think my so-called “conversion” would be quite hypocritical!

This is why I understand the reluctance of the Orthodox to submit to any reconciliaiton with the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope has declared that he has the whole plenitude of full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church. Now regardless of what the apologists say, this theory of the whole plenitude of full and supreme power over the whole Church obviously would include the authority to throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil whenever he deems it appropriate to do so and to replace it by the New Mass. And even if the apologists say it isn’t so, it does not change the fact that the Orthodox view it to be such and will not agree to any reconciliation until this point is clarified to their satisfaction.

 

[mardukm]

This is why I understand the reluctance of the Orthodox to submit to any reconciliaiton with the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope has declared that he has the whole plenitude of full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church. Now regardless of what the apologists say, this theory of the whole plenitude of full and supreme power over the whole Church obviously would include the authority to throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil whenever he deems it appropriate to do so and to replace it by the New Mass. And even if the apologists say it isn’t so, it does not change the fact that the Orthodox view it to be such and will not agree to any reconciliation until this point is clarified to their satisfaction.

Well, it’s people like you who are the real problem, since you like to promote and perpetuate the extreme papalist views. There would be a greater chance for unity if Latin Catholics like you bothered to actually read the actual intentions of the Vatican 1 Fathers, and promote the true meaning of these statements from Vatican 1, instead of your own divisive interpretations…

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

Well, it’s people like you who are the real problem, since you like to promote and perpetuate the extreme papalist views. There would be a greater chance for unity if Latin Catholics like you bothered to actually read the actual intentions of the Vatican 1 Fathers, and promote the true meaning of these statements from Vatican 1, instead of your own divisive interpretations…

Blessings

The Orthodox have a justifiable reason to be wary of a reconciliation and this is evident from the declarations of Vatican I. I did not have anything to do with these declarations as they have been written down here, so it makes no sense to launch a personal attack on me for pointing out what was said and done during Vatican I. I don;t see where it contributes to the discussion by advocating that we put our heads in the sand and avoid the obvious implications of these declarations which many see as divisive and not helpful toward any reconciliation between East and West.

 

[mardukm]

The Orthodox have a justifiable reason to be wary of a reconciliation and this is evident from the declarations of Vatican I. I did not have anything to do with these declarations as they have been written down here, so it makes no sense to launch a personal attack on me for pointing out what was said and done during Vatican I.

The problem here is that you have in fact NOT pointed out what was said and done during Vatican I. You are simply foisting your own interpretations on statements from Vatican I that the Fathers never intended. It’s interesting that throughout this discussion (and others in the past on the same topic), you’ve never once claimed to have read any accounts of Vatican I from the Fathers who were actually there.

I don;t see where it contributes to the discussion by advocating that we put our heads in the sand and avoid the obvious implications of these declarations which many see as divisive and not helpful toward any reconciliation between East and West.

I’d believe you if anything you’ve ever written here (that I’ve seen) ever actually contributed to meaningful discussion. All I’ve ever seen you do is parrot the worst caricatures of Catholicism that non-Catholic polemicists like to imagine. That’s not discussion. If you want to claim that you are contributing to discussion, try reading the links I gave you and comment on the statements from the Fathers who framed those decrees. Otherwise, your statements hardly seem sincere.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

So the Fathers of the First Vatican Council excommunicated themselves?

If they did “excommunicate themselves” it had to have occurred at the Second Vatican Council, not the First Vatican Council.

I just finished reading The First Vatican Council which I found at ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM, and my comments are under a new thread:

[thread=349498]Is it possible and/or ethical to convert to Roman Catholicism without accepting the supremacy of the Pope?[/thread]

 

[bobzills]

The problem here is that you have in fact NOT pointed out what was said and done during Vatican I.

I have given an exact quote from the documents of Vatican I.
You can check this yourself:
" 1831 (canon.) Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles: anathema sit."
These are simple words which anyone who knows latin can understand and which many Orthodox find objectionable.

 

[bobzills]

Here;s another quote I have seen:
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

 

[Harpazo]

Here;s another quote I have seen:
Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

What about “Unam Sanctam?” That document basically said what you’re saying but came about in the 1100s, I believe. I don’t think it’s interpolating one’s view when you just post the document in the open. They basically speak for themselves and don’t need anyone adding to their words. It’s the naked truth.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[SyroMalankara]

An important principle to remember is that one local Conference, Episcopal Synod, Regional Council, or even Ecumenical Council cannot be taken in isolation from all of Tradition - whether that be Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, or Nicæa…

When sentences are taken in isolation from all of Sacred Tradition, the interpretation is guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[Seamus_L]

And as Catholics we believe that Tradition fully supports Papal Infallibility.

 

[bobzills]

An important principle to remember is that one local Conference, Episcopal Synod, Regional Council, or even Ecumenical Council cannot be taken in isolation from all of Tradition - whether that be Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, or Nicæa…

When sentences are taken in isolation from all of Sacred Tradition, the interpretation is guaranteed to be wrong.

Can you then tell us what the declarations that I have quoted mean? Do they mean what they say or not? Are you not subject to an anathema if you deny these declarations?

 

[mlouise007]

I wonder if someone would want to move this discussion to another thread. It seems pretty far from the concern of the OP.

 

[mardukm]

Can you then tell us what the declarations that I have quoted mean? Do they mean what they say or not? Are you not subject to an anathema if you deny these declarations?

Why do you bother asking this when you know you are not going to listen. You are stuck in your extremist papalist view that has no interest in unity with the East or Orient. I already told you what they mean - or rather, the Fathers of the Vatican Council did, as I quoted them in those links I provided. Again, you simply can’t respond to the quotes I gave. Why are you, and people of like mind, so scared to address them? It pretty much evinces the weakness of your position.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

Why do you bother asking this when you know you are not going to listen. You are stuck in your extremist papalist view that has no interest in unity with the East or Orient. I already told you what they mean - or rather, the Fathers of the Vatican Council did, as I quoted them in those links I provided. Again, you simply can’t respond to the quotes I gave. Why are you, and people of like mind, so scared to address them? It pretty much evinces the weakness of your position.

Blessings

Dear brother mardukm, I’m sure you know that I don’t have an “extremist papalist view”, and I wouldn’t mind it if the East and the West came into unity, but I believe it must happen in accordance with the truth. I wish that I could see things the way you do. Please look at my post number 51 above and link there to the new thread I created and make your reply there if you could - thanks!

 

[mardukm]

And as Catholics we believe that Tradition fully supports Papal Infallibility.

Papal infallibility, as the Council taught, is the selfsame infallibility that God endowed to his Church. Why people think papal infallibility gives the Pope absolute power is beyond me.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

What about “Unam Sanctam?” That document basically said what you’re saying but came about in the 1100s, I believe. I don’t think it’s interpolating one’s view when you just post the document in the open. They basically speak for themselves and don’t need anyone adding to their words. It’s the naked truth.

In Christ,
Andrew

If memory allows, please bring this up again in the new thread that brother JohnVIII started. It is a good topic for discussion.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I have given an exact quote from the documents of Vatican I.
You can check this yourself:
" 1831 (canon.) Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles: anathema sit."
These are simple words which anyone who knows latin can understand and which many Orthodox find objectionable.

Your quotations don’t mean anything unless you study what the Council Fathers meant, when they framed those decrees. I give a thorough discussion on this in the links I provided, as well as the many changes they made to the original decree in their work to teach the Truth about the matter.

Even the Ecumenical Councils of old required testimony from the Fathers for a proper exposition of its decrees, since many were misinterpreting the words of the Councils to sow discord and factiousness in the Church, in much the same way that you are doing.

Are you ever going to address the quotes I gave you from the Vatican Council Fathers who themselves explain what they meant when they framed those decrees? We have the testimony of the Vatican Fathers themselves. Why should you place your misinterpretations over their testimony to their own intentions?

Blessings.

 

[bobzills]

Why do you bother asking this when you know you are not going to listen. You are stuck in your extremist papalist view that has no interest in unity with the East or Orient. I already told you what they mean - or rather, the Fathers of the Vatican Council did, as I quoted them in those links I provided. Again, you simply can’t respond to the quotes I gave. Why are you, and people of like mind, so scared to address them? It pretty much evinces the weakness of your position.

Blessings

ad hominem argument.
Anyway, it is off the topic of the OP. Where did you say that this line of discussion was going to be continued?