Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Angelic is obviously a lucid, insightful, intellectual poster!

Gobbledygook—I stand with Gurney. It’s got to be Marvel, baby!

(jk. I don’t read either.)

 

[suissemissed]

1. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (ekporousis) from the Father alone, but is eternally and temporally manifested through the Son. This is the Orthodox teaching In Latin Catholicism, procession is from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.

Here’s what the Catholic Church says about this issue in the Council of Florence: “For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.”

 

[Shiranui117]

To what doctrinal correction are you referring?

I’m not referring to a doctrinal correction.

From what I can glean, Haec Sancta Synodus, a decree issued at the council of Constance, (a novelty) - which gave primacy to the authority of said Council and thereby becoming the sole reliance for ecclesial conciliarism, of which even the papacy was supposedly, now bound to obey, was not considered valid by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Why? It was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors. Why? The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an “invalid and illicit assembly of Bishops,” gathered under the authority of Emperor Sigismund and antipope John XXIII.

Which sessions? Would you happen to know if they’re speaking of the Council of Constance in 1414, and saying that those were invalid? What I quoted from was Session 3 of the Council of Constance in 1415. If it helps, I can give my source, so you can look as far into the text of the Council as you like.

Pope Gregory XII eventually responded by sending legates to Constance, whom he granted full power to preside over an Ecumenical Council. Gregory, in an attempt at ecclesial resolution, authorized his legates to present his resignation of the Papacy, which gave way the end of the western schism. The papal legates were received by Emperor Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops and Emperor Sigismund yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, at which point, the Bull of Gregory XII, (which appointed his proxies, at the council) - was formally read before the assembled bishops; the Bull officially convoked and authorized the council and its succeeding acts, and the presiding bishops proceeded to accept the summons, at which point the papal legates informed the Council that they were there with the expressed purpose of resigning the Papal throne, on the pope’s behalf. The bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication and the legates proceeded to hand a written copy of the resignation to the assembly. Pope Gregory XII was eventually assigned as Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by said Council; Gregory XII’s cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council; the anti-popes were all deposed and the new pope, Martin V, was elected and soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal office.

I’ll

 

[Shiranui117]

To what doctrinal correction are you referring?

I’m not referring to a doctrinal correction.

From what I can glean, Haec Sancta Synodus, a decree issued at the council of Constance, (a novelty) - which gave primacy to the authority of said Council and thereby becoming the sole reliance for ecclesial conciliarism, of which even the papacy was supposedly, now bound to obey, was not considered valid by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Why? It was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors. Why? The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an “invalid and illicit assembly of Bishops,” gathered under the authority of Emperor Sigismund and antipope John XXIII.

Which sessions? Would you happen to know if they’re speaking of the Council of Constance in 1414, and saying that those were invalid? What I quoted from was Session 3 of the Council of Constance in 1415. If it helps, I can give my source, so you can look as far into the text of the Council as you like.

Pope Gregory XII eventually responded by sending legates to Constance, whom he granted full power to preside over an Ecumenical Council. Gregory, in an attempt at ecclesial resolution, authorized his legates to present his resignation of the Papacy, which gave way the end of the western schism. The papal legates were received by Emperor Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops and Emperor Sigismund yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, at which point, the Bull of Gregory XII, (which appointed his proxies, at the council) - was formally read before the assembled bishops; the Bull officially convoked and authorized the council and its succeeding acts, and the presiding bishops proceeded to accept the summons, at which point the papal legates informed the Council that they were there with the expressed purpose of resigning the Papal throne, on the pope’s behalf. The bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication and the legates proceeded to hand a written copy of the resignation to the assembly. Pope Gregory XII was eventually assigned as Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by said Council; Gregory XII’s cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the Council; the anti-popes were all deposed and the new pope, Martin V, was elected and soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal office.

I’ll get back to you on this when I’m done reading through the Council (may take me a while )

 

[Shiranui117]

Here’s what the Catholic Church says about this issue in the Council of Florence: “For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.”

If I may, I’d like to give an explanation of the issue and see if we agree on this:

There are 2 different types of procession. The Greek verb used is a procession of origination (ekpourosis, as Madaglan brought up), whereas the Latin one (procedit) is a procession of movement. For example, if we were using the Greek word, you’d use it like “I proceed from my mother’s womb.” If you were using the Latin verb, on the other hand, you’d use it like, “I proceed from my chair.”

So, using the Latin, you can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In Greek, saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is a very big heretical no-no. The Holy Spirit can “procedit” from both Father and Son, but He can only “ekpourosis” from the Father, as the Father is the source of the Godhead. Having the Son also be a point of origin for the Holy Spirit unbalances the Trinity by upsetting the Arche of the Father and giving an attribute to two Persons. With the Trinity, attributes only go to one Person or all of them, never two.

If we wanted to be doctrinally correct about it, then, then we would want to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, not AND, because AND can lead to the heresy of Double Procession.

^Is that what you were trying to say?

 

[mardukm]

Good Lord, brother mardukm. I’l pretend I didn’t hear that and you didn’t realize what you were saying. If it is your contention that DC is superior to Marvel in any way, shape, or form it is a mortal sin. You are making this claim will full awareness of what you’re saying, it involved grave matter, and it should be confessed at once!

Only exceptions where I’ll let DC slide: Batman and Green Lantern

Oh please! Any hero in the DC universe can kick the butt of any comparable hero in the Marvel universe.

The deciding factor for me is the supernatural element. The greatest mystical hero in the Marvel universe is Dr. Strange, who, though he has called on the Tetragrammaton a few times to battle evil, is basically a pagan sorcerer. The greatest mystical hero in the DC universe is the Spectre, WHO HAS A DIRECT CONNECTION WITH GOD, AND WHO WILLFULLY SUBMITS TO GOD.

For that reason ALONE, you should humbly abjure your “Marvel” heresy.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

We cannot become so enamored with the idea of winning converts that we too give up that idea, and our practice of that reality in the manner befitting the true God.

Yes, those are definitely possible pitfalls.

And indeed that is a perfect illustration of this concept, and the extra one I had in mind. Even if it occurs nowhere else in the history of Catholic thought, it is bad enough that it exists in such a fundamental instructional document. It is false. Entirely false.

You clearly misunderstand that particular teaching, dzheremi. It in no way constitutes agreement with any false teaching in Islam. For instance, the Qur’an says that God has no Son. The Qur’an is wrong about God on that matter. We know that the One True God does have a Son, eternally begotten and of the same divine nature.

There really ought not be anything controversial in the Catechism’s statement that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have the same God. It’s simply a recognition that all three choose to believe in and direct their prayers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It doesn’t imply agreement with any particular Islamic idea about God.

I appreciate your friendly manner in discussing this, but I am afraid that this is a perfect example of why union is not forthcoming: It does not matter at all what Rome would or would not require of the Orthodox; it matters what Rome would intend to hold as true even as others disagree.

I see your point. I often find my fellow Catholics in a state of unrealistic optimism about reunion with the Orthodox, because they really haven’t seen their point of view. Usually I escape that trap, but I suppose I too have fallen into it in this case.

This is why it seems so weird and wrong to me that, for instance, the ECs do not have to recite the filioque, but nonetheless cannot teach against it (this is my understanding; if it is wrong, please correct me). Why is that? Why shouldn’t they, if it is against the traditional theology of the mother churches that they are told to return to?

From what I’ve read, the Latin Church’s own understanding of its own doctrine on this matter holds that the filioque does not violate what the East rejects it in order to preserve. The eastern Catholic churches obviously accept that much, but that doesn’t logically obligate them to accept the filioque on their own terms - which, linguistically speaking, it seems Rome agrees would be theologically problematic.

It doesn’t make sense to me. I do not want that kind of communion, with Rome or anyone. I do not think it is healthy. It seems quite schizophrenic.

Perhaps.

Still, what strikes me is this: it seems no less schizophrenic than the notion of the Incarnation itself - that the incorporeal, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal God could become a corporeal, time-bound mortal man who on occasion denied his own knowledge (Mark 13) and miraculous ability (Mark 6) - and yet be one Person, always. That sort of paradox is always at the heart of Christianity itself, and it’s the very reason I find Christianity ultimately more compelling than Islam, which is clear and strong but irredeemably rationalistic in its theology - and therefore spiritually incomplete on both a divine and human level.

Given all that, I generally take no surprise at what the Catholic Church considers sufficient for “full communion.” Much is counter-intuitive in the Christian faith itself. That’s why the insufferably rationalistic Enlightenment thinkers couldn’t stand it - and why the Enlightenment’s contribution to western thought was intellectually brilliant but soulless, devoid of mystery and wonder.

Not at all.

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible. - Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

Fair enough.

But then why does His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew participate to such an extent in ecumenical activities? I read a letter to him - a translated version, obviously - from the Mount Athos monasteries in which they blasted him for celebrating the Liturgy with Pope Benedict and - I paraphrase - “bestowing on him honors befitting only an Orthodox bishop.”

The quote you provided makes it sound like he would agree with the very criticism they leveled against him. josephdaniel, would you be willing to explain to me exactly what the position of Bartholomew I is on the current state of the church to which I belong? I truly am curious and would like to learn more.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother Steve,

I hope you or brother Shiranui do not mind if I respond here.

Brother Shiranui has already admitted that the role of the head bishop is necessary in an Ecumenical Council according to Apostolic Canon 34. What he does not agree with (a position which I also hold as a faithful Catholic) is your claim that the Pope is above a Council.

Absolutely NOTHING in the texts you have given can lead to a conclusion that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council. The Pope confirms the decisions of his brother bishops WITHIN an Ecumenical Council as its head bishop, NOT as an entity separate from or above it. This is what you get from a DIRECT and COMPLETE reading of the Catholic Decrees and Canons, not the cut-and-paste gymnastics that Absolutist Petrine advocates propose.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for your patience and thoroughness in this thread, Marduk. I for one have appreciated reading what you have to say, and as your fellow Catholic I have learned a lot. I find quite compelling your understanding of Sacred Tradition on the matter of popes and councils.

Here comes the part where Mardukm attempts to explain to legions of Latin Catholics that what they believe about the papacy isn’t actually correct and that the texts of Vatican I and II don’t actually mean what they say.

On the contrary. I’m a Latin Catholic and I’m with Mardukm all the way on this. His understanding is, to my knowledge, by far the most consistent with Catholic Tradition.

 

[mardukm]

Good Lord, brother mardukm. I’l pretend I didn’t hear that and you didn’t realize what you were saying. If it is your contention that DC is superior to Marvel in any way, shape, or form it is a mortal sin. You are making this claim will full awareness of what you’re saying, it involved grave matter, and it should be confessed at once!

Only exceptions where I’ll let DC slide: Batman and Green Lantern

Oh please! Any hero in the DC universe can kick the butt of any comparable hero in the Marvel universe.

The deciding factor for me is the supernatural element. The greatest mystical hero in the Marvel universe is Dr. Strange, who, though he has called on the Tetragrammaton a few times to battle evil, is basically a pagan sorcerer. The greatest mystical hero in the DC universe is the Spectre, WHO HAS A DIRECT CONNECTION WITH GOD, AND WHO WILLFULLY SUBMITS TO GOD.

For that reason ALONE, you - and angelic06 - should humbly abjure your Marvel heresy.

 

[joe370]

Hey Shiranui…

I’m not referring to a doctrinal correction.

Oh, OK…

Which sessions? Would you happen to know if they’re speaking of the Council of Constance in 1414, and saying that those were invalid? What I quoted from was Session 3 of the Council of Constance in 1415. If it helps, I can give my source, so you can look as far into the text of the Council as you like.

The fourth and fifth sessions…

I’ll get back to you on this when I’m done reading through the Council (may take me a while )

Ok…And if I made any mistakes please let me know.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh buh-ruuuuther. Look at Batman and Iron Man, for example. Both are typical men with no powers at all. Bruce Wayne has his “toys” and inventions, Tony Stark has his. Iron Man would melt Batman’s face off in a New York minute. With the exception of Superman, the Hulk and The Thing are stronger than anybody in DC and then again the Phoenix of the X-Men or Silver Surfer could clean Superman’s plow royally. Galactus would pose a problem, too! Aquaman? Give me a break. The X-Men could womp the superfriends, Wonderwoman’s invisible jet would get nuked by Storm, Phoenix, or any of a host of female X-Men members. The Avengers could kick any DC brat pack’s tukus easily as well. And the bad guys? Shoot, Magneto or Doctor Doom versus the wimpy Penguin, Joker, or Ridler or Lex Luther (none of which have any powers!) would be over in seconds. X Men, Avengers, Spiderman, as they say in Marvel land—“nuff said!”

Oh please! Any hero in the DC universe can kick the butt of any comparable hero in the Marvel universe.

The deciding factor for me is the supernatural element. The greatest mystical hero in the Marvel universe is Dr. Strange, who, though he has called on the Tetragrammaton a few times to battle evil, is basically a pagan sorcerer. The greatest mystical hero in the DC universe is the Spectre, WHO HAS A DIRECT CONNECTION WITH GOD, AND WHO WILLFULLY SUBMITS TO GOD.

For that reason ALONE, you should humbly abjure your “Marvel” heresy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother FoneBone,

Thank you for your patience and thoroughness in this thread, Marduk. I for one have appreciated reading what you have to say, and as your fellow Catholic I have learned a lot. I find quite compelling your understanding of Sacred Tradition on the matter of popes and councils.

On the contrary. I’m a Latin Catholic and I’m with Mardukm all the way on this. His understanding is, to my knowledge, by far the most consistent with Catholic Tradition.

You can’t know how much I appreciate this statement from you, a Latin Catholic. I so often have to contend with Low Petrine Eastern Orthodox who state I am misrepresenting the Catholic Faith (I’m not saying brother Josephdaniel is one of these). Interestingly, I have conversed with Eastern Orthodox who adhere to a High Petrine view of ecclesiology who fully support the teachings of the Vatican Councils as I have presented them. It is only the Low Petrine advocates who have a real problem with my understanding. Low Petrine advocates claim that the only possible road to reunion is to utterly destroy the relevance of the First Vatican Council, and blindly reject any possibility that V1 can be interpreted in any other way except through the eyes of the Absolutist Petrine view. And of course, Latin Catholics who promote the Absolutist Petrine view are ABSOLUTELY (pun intended ) no help whatsoever, and likewise blindly reject any possibility of rapport with our Eastern Orthodox brethren on the matter of ecclesiology.

I have been PM’d and e-mailed by many Latin Catholics who greatly appreciate my presentations on the papacy. Some have even admitted “I never realized that before.” But there is a question on my mind at the moment which I have never thought to ask, and which I will ask you right now. Did you at one point, before reading what I have written, have a more Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy? Did you think that the Absolutist Petrine view was the only way to understand Vatican 1?

Thank you, once again, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

You clearly misunderstand that particular teaching, dzheremi. It in no way constitutes agreement with any false teaching in Islam. For instance, the Qur’an says that God has no Son. The Qur’an is wrong about God on that matter. We know that the One True God does have a Son, eternally begotten and of the same divine nature.

There really ought not be anything controversial in the Catechism’s statement that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have the same God. It’s simply a recognition that all three choose to believe in and direct their prayers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It doesn’t imply agreement with any particular Islamic idea about God.

This is so true. It’s interesting that brother Dzheremi claims “it occurs nowhere in Catholic thought,” yet the old Catholic Encyclopedia, written almost a century before the modern Catechism was published, states “The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible.” and also states that the term “infidels,” which was used by the Latin Church over a 1,000 years ago, refers to “those who adore the true God but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans.” Brother Dzheremi seems to be in a world all his own if he thinks that the CCC is teaching anything new about the idea that the Muslims and Jews believe in the same God as the Christians. At the very least, he’s not being historical about his opinions.

An interesting thing I did not know until recently is that Mohammad considered both the Old and New Testaments as Divine Revelation. This is probabaly why the first Fathers who encountered the Muslims referred to them as “heretics” instead of pagans.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Oh buh-ruuuuther. Look at Batman and Iron Man, for example. Both are typical men with no powers at all. Bruce Wayne has his “toys” and inventions, Tony Stark has his. Iron Man would melt Batman’s face off in a New York minute.

If he could even hit the Batman. Pit Bruce Wayne against Tony Stark without the toys and the history will be written in 5 seconds flat or less.

:yawn:

With the exception of Superman, the Hulk and The Thing are stronger than anybody in DC and then again the Phoenix of the X-Men or Silver Surfer could clean Superman’s plow royally.

As you admittted, Superman could clean the Hulk and the Thing’s clock in a second. The Flash would beat the Phoenix unconscious before she could even lift a finger. There’s nothing the Silver Surfer can throw at Superman that he can’t handle.

Galactus would pose a problem, too!

Trigon could split whole worlds with his deathstare. Galactus would be pea soup before he could even set up his machinery to absorb enough power from a world to challenge Trigon.

Aquaman? Give me a break.

Oh, you mean the guy that gave that wannabe King of Atlantis the Sub-mariner a can of whoop-a## in the Marvel vs. DC series?

The X-Men could womp the superfriends.

That’s JUSTICE LEAGUE to you, sir. Well, let’s see. The quorum of Superman, the Flash, and Wonderwoman alone could trash 9/10’s of the X-men. The only real trouble is the Phoenix and Prof X. With her super-speed, WW would have the golden lasso around Phoenix before she could bat an eyelid and command her to soil her panties. The Flash is faster even the speed of thought, so Prof X would be out cold before he could yawn. In your own words - 'Nuff said."

Wonderwoman’s invisible jet would get nuked by Storm

If she could even catch up to WW.

Phoenix, or any of a host of female X-Men members.

We saw the result of the WW vs. Phoenix match-up above. The other female members of the X-men don’t even hold a candle to the Phoenix. Rogue? She isn’t even on the same strength level as WW, plus she doesn’t have super-speed.

The Avengers could kick any DC brat pack’s tukus easily as well.

Yes, I understand. You have to pit Marvel’s Avenger’s to groups of teen-agers because you already know that the Justice League would clean their clocks.

And the bad guys? Shoot, Magneto

Parasite steals his powers. Whattayagot now? Nada, zilch. zero. zip. TKO in 10 seconds.

or Doctor Doom

Doomsday skewers him in 5 seconds.

Spiderman

This is the only one you’ve got left. But I kinda like Spiderman, so I’ll let him pass and actually join the DCU.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Phoenix can exterminate everyone within a mile radius with just a thought. It’s pretty doubtful the Flash could get in her mind! Plus she’d know he’s coming before he even leaves LOL…Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne are both a joke without the toys. It’s all about the toys. Take them away and there is no Batman or Iron Man. I want to see Bruce Wayne invent an arc reactor and the weapons that T-Stark cooked up. Stark’s IQ would make Wayne look like a goob LOL!

Superman is a goofy idea in general. A guy who is basically strong enough to carry the Eiffel Tower? Goofy. But still, Magneto would finish him off. I almost injured myself laughing when you said that Wonder Woman and the Flash could handle the X-Men. First of all, Mystique would fool them all into a trap. Cyclops would blast 'em into oblivion, if your DC wimps tried an all-out attack, Nightcrawler would teleport them all. Then Ice Man would freeze all of them silly, followed up by Colossus kicking their tushies easily. Then we’d call in the X Men member Magma who’d melt y’all down Gambit, Wolverine, and Mirage would take care of Superman with illusions, kinetic energy manipulation, and fighting a guy that can heal himself in the meantime.

Our badguys kick your badguys’ butts…Lex Luthor? LOL…no powers, just bald and cagey. The Joker? Lots of makeup and a smart alleck. the Penguin? Fat and overrated. The Catwoman? LOL LOL LOL!! The Riddler? phhhhhht…The Evil Brotherhood of Mutants in league with Dr. Doom, the Red Skull, Sandman, Venom, shoot, they’d clean those wussies’ plows in a second! Batgirl? Swampthing? Egg head? LOL LOL!

'Nuff said…" Marvel rules…check and mate, mate!

WONDERTWIN POWERS ACTIVATE!! :jrbirdman::whackadoo: Halls of Justice?

If he could even hit the Batman. Pit Bruce Wayne against Tony Stark without the toys and the history will be written in 5 seconds flat or less.

:yawn:

As you admittted, Superman could clean the Hulk and the Thing’s clock in a second. The Flash would beat the Phoenix unconscious before she could even lift a finger. There’s nothing the Silver Surfer can throw at Superman that he can’t handle.

Trigon could split whole worlds with his deathstare. Galactus would be pea soup before he could even set up his machinery to absorb enough power from a world to challenge Trigon.

Oh, you mean the guy that gave that wannabe King of Atlantis the Sub-mariner a can of whoop-a## in the Marvel vs. DC series?

That’s JUSTICE LEAGUE to you, sir. Well, let’s see. The quorum of Superman, the Flash, and Wonderwoman alone could trash 9/10’s of the X-men. The only real trouble is the Phoenix and Prof X. With her super-speed, WW would have the golden lasso around Phoenix before she could bat an eyelid and command her to soil her panties. The Flash is faster even the speed of thought, so Prof X would be out cold before he could yawn. In your own words - 'Nuff said."

If she could even catch up to WW.

We saw the result of the WW vs. Phoenix match-up above. The other female members of the X-men don’t even hold a candle to the Phoenix. Rogue? She isn’t even on the same strength level as WW, plus she doesn’t have super-speed.

Yes, I understand. You have to pit Marvel’s Avenger’s to groups of teen-agers because you already know that the Justice League would clean their clocks.

Parasite steals his powers. Whattayagot now? Nada, zilch. zero. zip. TKO in 10 seconds.

Doomsday skewers him in 5 seconds.

This is the only one you’ve got left. But I kinda like Spiderman, so I’ll let him pass and actually join the DCU.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother FoneBone,

You can’t know how much I appreciate this statement from you, a Latin Catholic. I so often have to contend with Low Petrine Eastern Orthodox who state I am misrepresenting the Catholic Faith (I’m not saying brother Josephdaniel is one of these). Interestingly, I have conversed with Eastern Orthodox who adhere to a High Petrine view of ecclesiology who fully support the teachings of the Vatican Councils as I have presented them. It is only the Low Petrine advocates who have a real problem with my understanding. Low Petrine advocates claim that the only possible road to reunion is to utterly destroy the relevance of the First Vatican Council, and blindly reject any possibility that V1 can be interpreted in any other way except through the eyes of the Absolutist Petrine view. And of course, Latin Catholics who promote the Absolutist Petrine view are ABSOLUTELY (pun intended ) no help whatsoever, and likewise blindly reject any possibility of rapport with our Eastern Orthodox brethren on the matter of ecclesiology.

I have been PM’d and e-mailed by many Latin Catholics who greatly appreciate my presentations on the papacy. Some have even admitted “I never realized that before.” But there is a question on my mind at the moment which I have never thought to ask, and which I will ask you right now. Did you at one point, before reading what I have written, have a more Absolutist Petrine understanding of the papacy? Did you think that the Absolutist Petrine view was the only way to understand Vatican 1?

Thank you, once again, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

I wasn’t sure how to interpret the First Vatican Council properly before, but I never had an “Absolutist Petrine” view of the papacy.

When I first began learning about my Catholic faith in-depth, my sources basically ensured, through a nuanced presentation of Catholic ecclesiology, that I would not have such an absolutist view. I learned early on that the Church isn’t really a pyramid, hierarchically speaking, that in a very real sense all bishops exercise headship in their particular church/diocese, etc.

In short, I never held an Absolutist Petrine view because there was never a time when I was not taught collegiality. I was taught to reject both ultramontanism and conciliarism.

Then, the more history I learned, the more it became clear to me that an Absolutist Petrine view would not be tenable: for instance, that the emperors and not popes called the first seven ecumenical councils, or that today, practically speaking, the pope really isn’t involved in running the eastern Catholic churches (who handle their own ordinations, synods, tribunals, etc.).
*
What you helped me with, though, Marduk, is interpreting Vatican I.* I always just sort of viewed it in light of Vatican II, but taking it on its own I wasn’t sure how to get a proper interpretation of it. Your distinctions have helped in that regard - for instance, your explanation that though the pope has complete and even immediate authority over every part of the Church, he does not have the “proper” authority of the local ordinary (except in Rome itself, of course).

Generally speaking, what you’re referring to as the High Petrine view is the reason I’m Catholic. In discussions on the papacy, I often see Orthodox using historical arguments that clearly successfully refute an Absolutist Petrine, hyper-Ultramontantist sort of position, but that are actually quite consistent with the Catholic Church’s own understanding of papal supremacy.

For all these reasons, I find the Catholic view of the papacy genuinely most convincing. The High Petrine position satisfies me Scripturally - I really am convinced by Matt 16:18 and all the other passages that point to Peter’s unique position of leadership - and historically, as Church history in my - so far very limited - experience usually seems most consistent with what we’re calling the High Petrine view.* I’ve seen many examples of where the Absolutist and Low Petrine positions both contradict the evidence presented.
*
Anyway, Marduk, I’m really glad my reply encouraged you! Don’t worry, I’m definitely not alone. Most Latin Catholics I know do understand these nuances, so don’t feel alone, even if you do encounter a bit of ignorance from us Latins every now and then. God bless you too, brother!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

This is so true. It’s interesting that brother Dzheremi claims “it occurs nowhere in Catholic thought,” yet the old Catholic Encyclopedia, written almost a century before the modern Catechism was published, states “The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible.” and also states that the term “infidels,” which was used by the Latin Church over a 1,000 years ago, refers to “those who adore the true God but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans.” Brother Dzheremi seems to be in a world all his own if he thinks that the CCC is teaching anything new about the idea that the Muslims and Jews believe in the same God as the Christians. At the very least, he’s not being historical about his opinions.

An interesting thing I did not know until recently is that Mohammad considered both the Old and New Testaments as Divine Revelation. This is probabaly why the first Fathers who encountered the Muslims referred to them as “heretics” instead of pagans.

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting! I never saw those quotes from the old Catholic encyclopedia before. It all reinforces precisely the point I was trying to make: this teaching isn’t some newfangled modernist capitulation. It’s simply the logical recognition of the fact that if one intends to direct his or her worship and prayers to the One True God… then to the One True God they will go, even if that person misunderstands certain things about God.

 

[mardukm]

Interesting! I never saw those quotes from the old Catholic encyclopedia before. It all reinforces precisely the point I was trying to make: this teaching isn’t some newfangled modernist capitulation. It’s simply the logical recognition of the fact that if one intends to direct his or her worship and prayers to the One True God… then to the One True God they will go, even if that person misunderstands certain things about God.

The article references are “ISLAM” and “INFIDEL”.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

What you helped me with, though, Marduk, is interpreting Vatican I.

I always just sort of viewed it in light of Vatican II, but taking it on its own I wasn’t sure how to get a proper interpretation of it. Your distinctions have helped in that regard - for instance, your explanation that though the pope has complete and even immediate authority over every part of the Church, he does not have the “proper” authority of the local ordinary (except in Rome itself, of course).
Were you aware that the canonical distinction between the terms “immediate,” “ordinary,” and “proper” is contained not only in our current respective Codes of Canon Law, but also in the old Code of 1917? Obviously, the bishops at and after Vatican 1 never understood the Decree on the Primacy of V1 to mean that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of local Churches at his mere discretion (not to mention the explicit statement in the Decree on the Primacy that the Pope’s authority does not impede the authority of the local bishop).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

What you helped me with, though, Marduk, is interpreting Vatican I.

I always just sort of viewed it in light of Vatican II, but taking it on its own I wasn’t sure how to get a proper interpretation of it. Your distinctions have helped in that regard - for instance, your explanation that though the pope has complete and even immediate authority over every part of the Church, he does not have the “proper” authority of the local ordinary (except in Rome itself, of course).
Were you aware that the canonical distinction between the terms “immediate,” “ordinary,” and “proper” is contained not only in our current respective Codes of Canon Law, but also in the old Code of 1917? Obviously, the bishops at and after Vatican 1 never understood the Decree on the Primacy of V1 to mean that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of local Churches at his mere discretion (not to mention the explicit statement in the Decree on the Primacy that the Pope’s authority does not impede the authority of the local bishop).

Blessings,
Marduk