I don’t see where the papal encyclical says they had a choice in the matter. I read in the Encyclical that in some cases, the Roman Pontiff insisted that the filioque be added. As everyone knows by now, the Roman Pontiff claims the plenitude of full and supreme authority in these matters, otherwise, why would he insist on such a change?
Can you give us the text of the encyclical?
It’s rather illogical that if the Pope really had the absolute authority you claim, he would even bother trying to justify his actions by appealing to “some cases” in the past when the Roman Pontiff did so. Why would the Pope need to justify his actions? It seems to me he should just be able to say “DO IT!” and that’s that. Please explain.
The encyclical is available everywhere. I already gave the relevant passages that I was interested in:
Yes, we all already know that the tactic of the absolutist party is to take snippets of documents to create their own version of Catholicism, just like other Cafeteria Catholics.
So what? The REAL question is, was the filioque able to be added by a UNILATERAL action of the Pope, or was it able to be added by the consent of the Eastern and Oriental Churches?
However it is a guarantee that there is nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, is it not?
As already explained earlier, and avoided by you (as usual), if a bishop gives those approbations, its doctrinal relevance only stretches as far as the jurisdiction of that bishop.
We should hope not, but that does not equate to infallibility. One bishop grants a nihil obstat and imprimatur on a book teaching the existence of purgatorial fire. This does not contradict the de fide Tradition of the Catholic Church, but that is not an infallible teaching. Another bishop grants a nihil obstat and imprimatur on another book rejecting purgatorial fire, and that likewise does not contradict the de fide Tradition of the Church. But neither is that an infallible teaching. The examples can easily be multiplied. In short, a nihil obstant and imprimatur does not equate to infallibility. In other words, absolutely no one is obligated to believe in something with the assent of faith from a book merely because it has a nihil obstat and imprimatur.
I see ad hominem arguments, but I don;t see one single example of an article which was granted both the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 and had something in it which was contrary to Catholic teaching. This leads me to beleive that the article in the Catholic encyclopedia to which I referred above is correct when it states: “the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church.”
Vatican 2 infallibly teaches, contrary to this opinion from the CE:I take it then you don’t have a learning disability. That is all you had to say. I just wanted to know where you were coming from.
Still, I don;t see one single article which was granted both the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950, and contains something contrary to Catholic teaching. I recall that the article I mentioned was contained in a standard Catholic reference work and everyone can easily check that it says: “the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church.”
It is therefore bishops who are the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God, and it is their function to control, promote and protect the entire liturgical life of the Church entrusted to them. Christus Dominus, ch. 2.15
Do we trust Bobzills, or Vatican 2?
Whether such exists or not is not the point. Further, most items published with nihil obstat and imprimatur (whether before or after 1950) deal with the Latin Church. The East and Orient are all too often simply forgotten. I have to presume that’s the case in that old CE article you’ve cited umpteen times. If it is not the case, however, as I said very early on in this thread, there’s going to be a long line of Easterners and Orientals waiting to get to the nearest exit.
So the authority of an Ecumenical Council is no greater than a nihil obstat and imprimatur?
Or are cafeteria Catholics really the supreme authority in their own minds?I am just pointing the elephant out in the room that it seems that everyone wants to ignore. I don’t support it, I am simply trying to read the documents how they are written.