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

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

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

I was not aware of that, though I’m not surprised. If I had had to guess, I would not have supposed that these distinctions are in any way recent.

When I was first exposed to the documents of Vatican I, I was a bit uncomfortable. I knew - even back then, when I knew very little about the eastern Catholic churches - that the pope’s authority does not impede or supersede the authority of a local bishop, and that he really cannot interfere “at his mere discretion” as you put it.

I had basically been sitting on the question passively for a long while, and your explanation explained the source of and solution to the tension I perceived.

The reason I expected all along to discover an explanation is that I never viewed Vatican I in isolation. Looking in a nuanced way at all of Sacred Tradition regarding ecclesiology, the way the Church functioned historically, and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on collegiality and the eastern Catholic churches, I knew that Vatican I couldn’t possibly be saying what some people interpret it to mean when looked at out of context of the rest of Tradition.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

When I mention Church history with regard to these matters, I’m referring to my consistent discovery as I read more and more that the pope never sought to micromanage everything - even in the Latin Church in the High Middle Ages. Obviously the reasons for that are technological as well (even if he’d wanted to, he couldn’t have; it’s not like they had the Internet or even telephones in those days, so communication necessarily worked more slowly and locally), but even so: I knew that the position you describe as “Absolutist Petrine” just couldn’t hold up to the way the Catholic Church had always functioned.

 

[mardukm]

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…

Aaaah! But the Flash can travel through time and would sneak up on her temporal behind and knock her out before she knew he was coming. We have seen in the X-men that Phoenix is vulnerable to magic (e.g., she was Kulan Gath’s lapdog), and Amazons are trained to resist telepathic attacks, so, as stated before, after WW gets her magic golden lasso around her, Phoenix will just soil her panties, and game over.

Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne are both a joke without the toys.

Batman without his toys beat your Captain America in the DC vs. Marvel series. But, yeah, I’ll concede that your Tony stark is a joke.

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!

Batman built Brother Eye and the OMACS who gave all the heroes in the DCU a run for their money. Iron Man hasn’t come up with anything comparable in the Marvel Universe.

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.

You got that wrong. Superman has the strength to move the entire planet Earth, and can even resist the pull of a Black Hole!!! Magneto can’t do a thing against him.

I almost injured myself laughing when you said that Wonder Woman and the Flash could handle the X-Men.

I said “Supreman, Flash, and Wonderwoman.” But now that I think about it, WW could probably do it all by herself.

First of all, Mystique would fool them all into a trap.

The Martian Manhunter is telepathic and couldn’t fool him.

Cyclops would blast 'em into oblivion,

Those optic blasts can’t even move Superman. They’ll just bounce off WW’s bracelets. He can’t even hit the Flash. The Martian Manhunter will just turn immaterial. Zatanna would turn his optic blasts into flowers.

If your DC wimps tried an all-out attack, Nightcrawler would teleport them all.

Nightcrawler gets weakened anytime he tries to teleport anyone but himself, so after one try, he’s out of the picture. Whattayagonnado?

Then Ice Man would freeze all of them silly

Superman’s heat Vision would melt him to water.

followed up by Colossus kicking their tushies easily.

He’s a little kid on the strength level compared to Superman, WW, or the Martian Manhunter.

Then we’d call in the X Men member Magma who’d melt y’all down

Against Superman? Don’t make me laugh. Wonderwoman can withstand temperatures at least as hot as molten magma (she got thrown in a vat of molten steel by an OMAC and she came out feeling fresh as a daisy).

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.

Superman would sneeze and it’d be all over for those three.

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

Actually, Checkmate is a copyrighted character in the DCU, so you’ve got no right to even use those terms.

Halls of Justice?

At least the Superfriends headquarters is made of concrete, marble and steel. The Avengers and X-men live in mansions made of wood.

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m gonna end this whole thing, dude. Magneto and Professor Xavier get tired of mardukm’s jive talkin’ nonsense, they go into Cerebro, locate ALL the DC comic characters all over the Planet Earth and heck, even some sissies in the Phantom Zone and nuke 'em all in minutes. Even Superman, dressed like a nerd on the way to type up a big story feels this weird sensation and tingling and TTTTTTHWAAP! He is disintegrated by Cerebro. Then Batman is out on the town with Vicky Vale, gone dude…The flash in his silly red and yellow goofery getup gets a whiff of it with his mind powers but then Magneto quickly puts on his mind probe-proof helmet and loans one to Professor X so the Flash is dead in the water. Wonder Woman is flying in her goofy invisible jet and all of a sudden, history…Cerebro strikes again. Then the Phoenix with just a thought sucks up the Hall of Justice and crushes it like a can of Sprite and kicks it up to Galactus who belches it into the nether regions of time and space!

Detective Comics…phhooey! Marvel baby! X Men and Avengers’d nuke 'em all in minutes.

Our badguys could crush those civilian wimps of DC! Aquaman? Only good in the water. Wonder Twins? Good grief! LOL…While Cerebro is doing its dirty work on the DC nancy boys and girls, we’ll set up a skirmish line to guard Cerebro with Wolverine, Thor, Spiderman, Cyclops, Storm, Hulk, the Fantastic 4, Iron Man, and a host of other mean mothers who’ll clean some Detective Comics plows! Oh yeah…

check and mate!

One word: Cerebro!

Aaaah! But the Flash can travel through time and would sneak up on her temporal behind and knock her out before she knew he was coming. We have seen in the X-men that Phoenix is vulnerable to magic (e.g., she was Kulan Gath’s lapdog), and Amazons are trained to resist telepathic attacks, so, as stated before, after WW gets her magic golden lasso around her, Phoenix will just soil her panties, and game over.

Batman without his toys beat your Captain America in the DC vs. Marvel series. But, yeah, I’ll concede that your Tony stark is a joke.

Batman built Brother Eye and the OMACS who gave all the heroes in the DCU a run for their money. Iron Man hasn’t come up with anything comparable in the Marvel Universe.

You got that wrong. Superman has the strength to move the entire planet Earth, and can even resist the pull of a Black Hole!!! Magneto can’t do a thing against him.

I said “Supreman, Flash, and Wonderwoman.” But now that I think about it, WW could probably do it all by herself.

The Martian Manhunter is telepathic and couldn’t fool him.

Those optic blasts can’t even move Superman. They’ll just bounce off WW’s bracelets. He can’t even hit the Flash. The Martian Manhunter will just turn immaterial. Zatanna would turn his optic blasts into flowers.

Nightcrawler gets weakened anytime he tries to teleport anyone but himself, so after one try, he’s out of the picture. Whattayagonnado?

Superman’s heat Vision would melt him to water.

He’s a little kid on the strength level compared to Superman, WW, or the Martian Manhunter.

Against Superman? Don’t make me laugh. Wonderwoman can withstand temperatures at least as hot as molten magma (she got thrown in a vat of molten steel by an OMAC and she came out feeling fresh as a daisy).

Superman would sneeze and it’d be all over for those three.

Actually, Checkmate is a copyrighted character in the DCU, so you’ve got no right to even use those terms.

At least the Superfriends headquarters is made of concrete, marble and steel. The Avengers and X-men live in mansions made of wood.

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hey Shiranui…

Oh, OK…

The fourth and fifth sessions…

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

It seems that the sessions before Session 14 of July 4th, 1415 are all deemed not-ecumenical. So, the section I quoted from before, Session 3 of March 26th 1415, is indeed from the pre-ecumenical Council. However, my point still stands, that the council was called to heal the schism, because it was the only thing that could do so.

From Session 39 on October 9th, 1417:

If it happens—though may it not!—that a schism arises in the future in such a way that two or more persons claim to be supreme pontiffs, then the date of the council, if it is more than a year off, is to be brought forward to one year ahead; calculating this from the day on which two or more of them publicly assumed the insignia of their pontificates or on which they began to govern. All prelates and others who are bound to attend a council shall assemble at the council without the need for any summons, under pain of the law’s sanctions and of other penalties which may be imposed by the council, and let the emperor and other kings and princes attend either in person or through official deputies, as if they had been besought, through the bowels of the mercy of our lord Jesus Christ, to put out a common fire. Each of those claiming to be the Roman pontiff is bound to announce and proclaim the council as taking place at the end of the year, as mentioned, in the previously assigned place; he is bound to do this within a month after the day on which he came to know that one or more other persons had assumed the insignia of the papacy or was administering the papacy; and this is under pain of eternal damnation, of the automatic loss of any rights that he had acquired in the papacy, and of being disqualified both actively and passively from all dignities. He is also bound to make the council known by letter to his rival claimant or claimants, challenging him or them to a judicial process, as well as to all prelates and princes, insofar as this is possible. He shall go in person to the place of the council at the appointed time, under pain of the aforesaid penalties, and shall not depart until the question of the schism has been fully settled by the council. None of the contenders for the papacy, moreover shall preside as pope at the council. Indeed, in order that the church may rejoice more freely and quickly in one undisputed pastor, all the contenders for the papacy are suspended by law as soon as the council has begun, on the authority of this holy synod, from all administration; and let not obedience be given in any way by anyone to them, or to any one of them until the question has been settled by the council.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

I don’t see where the thinking has changed. Isn’t this in truth the point we are at today? I’m not talking about relationship or violence but perspective.

God Bless, Gary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Fascinating post, brother Marduk,

At the extreme risk of sounding like a dullard or simpleton here, doesn’t one need to be baptized to be a heretic? Or at least in some type of relationship with Christ at least approximating the Church to begin with? Just curious…

When I think of heretics I think of Arius, Nestorius, Donatus, Tertullian, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, etc. The gnostics even had a type of baptism and, though bizarre and imperfect, a Christological relationship…I guess Muslims would come closest to the gnostic twinge of heresy?

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

 

[Shiranui117]

I’m not certain it was condemned. I think it simply passed out of recognition. From what I know, the reason it was no longer recognized had nothing to do with the doctrinal matter of the Photian controversy, but with regards to some disciplinary canons that contradicted other ancient canons of the Latin Church. I think it is well within the rights of each particular Church to pick and choose its own discplinary canons, so I don’t see anything wrong with the Eastern Synod of 879 to have passed out of the recognition of the Latin Church. The same goes for the Council of Trullo. Some will consider it ecumenical, others not, but it was a synod meant to settle purely disciplinary questions, so differences in opinion on it don’t really affect the doctrinal integrity of any particular Church, which is what counts.

So, Vatican 2, going off this, can’t really be considered ecumenical because it doesn’t address issues of faith or morals?

As I have proposed in the past, a distinction must be made between the concept of ecumenicity and the concept of infallibility. They are not identical. Even a local council can teach infallibly, yet not be considered “Ecumenical.” For instance, all the local Councils recognized by the Ecumenical Councils taught infallibly as far as doctrine was concerned, but none of them were considered “Ecumenical” in and of themselves. And not all Councils considered “Ecumenical” have the mark of infallibility for the plain reason that they were not convened for the purpose of settling an issue of doctrine or morals - the Council of Trullo which many Easterns regard as “Ecumenical” and several of the post-Schism Latin Councils which the Latins consider “Ecumenical” immediately come to mind.

I understand that local councils can teach infallibly and not be ecumenical. I also understand that not every general council can be considered ecumenical (the failed Ephesus II is case in point here) but my understanding of the phrase “ecumenical council” is a council whose decrees are adopted by the whole Church as expressing the Apostolic faith, and as being binding on every Christian. That being said, I don’t understand how an ecumenical council can’t be infallible. I think we’re using different definitions again.

As far as initial papal approval of the Eastern Synod of 879, the polemic Eastern use of this Council against the dogma of the Pope’s infallible Magisterium (i.e., that it was once approved by Popes, and later rejected by Popes, throws a big monkey-wrench on the idea of papal infallibility) is based on a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility. And this for one important reason: the Catholic teaching on the infallible papal Magisterium is a DIFFERENT concept from the Catholic teaching on the infallible Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council (as affirmed in a previous post).

So, ecumenical councils are infallible by nature, whereas Papal infallibility must fulfill requirements and be actively invoked and called upon. Is that the difference you’re getting at? Sorry for being dense here.

And if one pope approves and another one revokes approval, was the council therefore never really ecumenical?

The facts are:

1. Papal approval of a council by which it gains Ecumenical status is NOT an exercise of “papal infallibility.” An Ecumenical Council is considered infallible IN AND OF ITSELF, and the Pope’s approval WITHIN the Council is a function NOT of the infallible papal Magisterium, but rather simply of the Pope’s action as head bishop of the body of bishops WHICH TOGETHER (NEVER APART) is the subject of the infallibility given by God to His Church.

So, all ecumenical councils are infallible?

1. Though papal approval is a necessary condition for the Ecumenicity of a Council, it is not a sufficient condition for its ecumenicity. Note that our Canons state ONLY that a Council must have papal approval for it to be considered Ecumenical. It takes some mental gymnastics to force this statement to mean that papal approval is the ONLY thing that causes a Council to be considered Ecumenical (as Absolutist Petrine adovcates pretend).

Since the Pope is supposed to be a part of the proceedings in one dimension or another, then we cannot have an ecumenical council without the Pope’s approval and participation, as no body can act without its head?

So given the disconnect between the concept of the infallible papal Magisterium, on the one hand, with the concept of the Ecumenical Council, on the other, it cannot be the case (as non-Catholic polemicists pretend) that papal approval of the 879 Synod at one time, and lack of it at another time, demonstrates something against the Catholic teaching on the infallible papal Magisterium.

It merely demonstrates something against the ecumenicity of Trullo.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

It seems that the sessions before Session 14 of July 4th, 1415 are all deemed not-ecumenical. So, the section I quoted from before, Session 3 of March 26th 1415, is indeed from the pre-ecumenical Council. However, my point still stands, that the council was called to heal the schism, because it was the only thing that could do so.

From Session 39 on October 9th, 1417:

I agree with you. It’s interesting that the TRUE Pope - Gregory XII, confirmed the ruling of Constance and then willfully abdicated, whereas the anti-Popes had to be deposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Those blasted antipopes!

Dear brother Shiranui,

I agree with you. It’s interesting that the TRUE Pope - Gregory XII, confirmed the ruling of Constance and then willfully abdicated, whereas the anti-Popes had to be deposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

Fascinating post, brother Marduk,

At the extreme risk of sounding like a dullard or simpleton here, doesn’t one need to be baptized to be a heretic? Or at least in some type of relationship with Christ at least approximating the Church to begin with? Just curious…

Technically, one does not need to be baptized, because the baptisms of certain heretics were considered invalid in the first place. Your second criteria is more justified.

When I think of heretics I think of Arius, Nestorius, Donatus, Tertullian, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, etc. The gnostics even had a type of baptism and, though bizarre and imperfect, a Christological relationship…I guess Muslims would come closest to the gnostic twinge of heresy?

Owing to the general geographic locale of the first Muslims they encountered, The Fathers who first encountered the Muslims thought they were Nestorians who had gone off the REALLY deep end.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Like Nestorians with burqas and hadiths!

Dear brother Gurney,

Technically, one does not need to be baptized, because the baptisms of certain heretics were considered invalid in the first place. Your second criteria is more justified.

Owing to the general geographic locale of the first Muslims they encountered, The Fathers who first encountered the Muslims thought they were Nestorians who had gone off the REALLY deep end.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

So, Vatican 2, going off this, can’t really be considered ecumenical because it doesn’t address issues of faith or morals?

Actually, V2 addressed MANY issues on faith and morals. What makes you think otherwise? The usual understanding of V2 is that it simply did not establish any dogmas. The problem comes when someone thinks that infallible teaching can ONLY come in the form of dogma - as we discussed earlier in the thread, this is not the case. The idea that infallible teaching can ONLY come in the form of dogma is an idea that you can really only find in Latin Catholic circles (though certainly not all Latins believe this way). Easterns and Orientals tend not to think that way.

I understand that local councils can teach infallibly and not be ecumenical. I also understand that not every general council can be considered ecumenical (the failed Ephesus II is case in point here) but my understanding of the phrase “ecumenical council” is a council whose decrees are adopted by the whole Church as expressing the Apostolic faith, and as being binding on every Christian. That being said, I don’t understand how an ecumenical council can’t be infallible. I think we’re using different definitions again.

So, all ecumenical councils are infallible?

So, ecumenical councils are infallible by nature, whereas Papal infallibility must fulfill requirements and be actively invoked and called upon. Is that the difference you’re getting at? Sorry for being dense here.

You’re not being dense. I was being unclear. I wrote what I wrote with some basic assumptions that may not be obvious to others. The underlying assumption in my statement is the fact that the notion of infallibility ONLY applies to doctrinal or moral teaching. Infallibility applies to things of God that are UNCHANGEABLE - in other words IRREFORMIBLE. Disciplinary matters do not fall under that category, because the discpline of the Church can indeed change from time to time, and from place to place. When I wrote “Ecumenical Councils are infallible in and of themselves,” it was obvious (perhaps only to me) that this was perfectly equivalent to “Ecumenical Councils are infallible in and of themselves on matters of doctrine or morals.” If the purpose of an Ecumenical Council is merely to settle disciplinary matters, then infallibility does not come into play at all.

And if one pope approves and another one revokes approval, was the council therefore never really ecumenical?

It could indeed have been Ecumenical at one point. But if the Council was only called to settle disciplinary issues, and since discipline can change from time to time and place to place, the Church may no longer regard that Council as “Ecumenical” at a later point in time, and that council may only come to have local relevance. On this point, I think MANY of the post-Schism Councils regarded by Latins as “Ecumenical” can be downgraded to a “general council of the West” without any problem (IMO).

The real problem is with regards to a Council that is considered Ecumenical AND infallible by virtue of it settling an issue of doctrinal and/or moral teaching. No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to revoke the status of such a Council. The question with regard to the Eastern Synod of 879 revolves around whether it was ever regarded to have settled a doctrinal issue (by which it would be regarded as infallible as well as ecumenical). I believe the Latins have stronger arguments that demonstrate the 879 Synod only had a disciplinary - not doctrinal - relevance. It was really only called to justify St. Photius’ patriarchal position. Photius may have personally used the issue of filioque as a justification, but the Latins have demonstrated that though his doctrinal position may have been correct for the Easterns, it never truly and objectively applied to the Latin Church.

Since the Pope is supposed to be a part of the proceedings in one dimension or another, then we cannot have an ecumenical council without the Pope’s approval and participation, as no body can act without its head?

Yes.

It merely demonstrates something against the ecumenicity of Trullo.

Yes. And, to be sure, Trullo still does hold LOCAL authority for Easterns. E.g., it’s canons regarding married clergy are relevant only for the Easterns, not Latins; its canons against the use of unleavened bread are relevant only for Easterns, not for Latins, Armenians, or Ethiopians; etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

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

Mardukm,

Seriously, what is your problem? Are you just misquoting me for fun at this point? Whatever the reason, it does not speak highly of you. What I actually wrote in post #365 was:

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.

I don’t appreciate having my words taken out of context in order to further your arguments. It is clear that the original conditional statement that I made does not warrant or support the things you wrote following it. You are dishonest, and I would very much prefer that you not quote or otherwise address my posts anymore.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Saying “it occurs nowhere in Catholic thought”(my statement) is perfectly equivalent to “it occurs nowhere else in the history of Catholic thought” (your statement). In either case, your statement is simply false.

As far as I can see, your statements here regarding the ACOE and the issue of Islam is just sophistic damage control. They are your way of saying “I have said nothing wrong,” when in fact you did.

The question is not my honesty, but your humility. Please take that as a brotherly exhortation.

Blessings,
Marduk

Seriously, what is your problem? Are you just misquoting me for fun at this point? Whatever the reason, it does not speak highly of you. What I actually wrote in post #365 was:

I don’t appreciate having my words taken out of context in order to further your arguments. It is clear that the original conditional statement that I made does not warrant or support the things you wrote following it. You are dishonest, and I would very much prefer that you not quote or otherwise address my posts anymore.

 

[The_Sentry]

I’m gonna end this whole thing, dude. Magneto and Professor Xavier get tired of mardukm’s jive talkin’ nonsense, they go into Cerebro, locate ALL the DC comic characters all over the Planet Earth and heck, even some sissies in the Phantom Zone and nuke 'em all in minutes. Even Superman, dressed like a nerd on the way to type up a big story feels this weird sensation and tingling and TTTTTTHWAAP! He is disintegrated by Cerebro. Then Batman is out on the town with Vicky Vale, gone dude…The flash in his silly red and yellow goofery getup gets a whiff of it with his mind powers but then Magneto quickly puts on his mind probe-proof helmet and loans one to Professor X so the Flash is dead in the water. Wonder Woman is flying in her goofy invisible jet and all of a sudden, history…Cerebro strikes again. Then the Phoenix with just a thought sucks up the Hall of Justice and crushes it like a can of Sprite and kicks it up to Galactus who belches it into the nether regions of time and space!

Detective Comics…phhooey! Marvel baby! X Men and Avengers’d nuke 'em all in minutes.

Our badguys could crush those civilian wimps of DC! Aquaman? Only good in the water. Wonder Twins? Good grief! LOL…While Cerebro is doing its dirty work on the DC nancy boys and girls, we’ll set up a skirmish line to guard Cerebro with Wolverine, Thor, Spiderman, Cyclops, Storm, Hulk, the Fantastic 4, Iron Man, and a host of other mean mothers who’ll clean some Detective Comics plows! Oh yeah…

check and mate!

One word: Cerebro!

This is a fantastic post.

 

[mardukm]

This is a fantastic post.

I can see there are more Marvel heretics in CAF than I had thought. In two weeks or so (when I have more time for this fun conversation), I will start a thread in the Catholic Living Forum and invite you heretics to discuss. I will prove to you there the dogmatic truth of the teaching, “DC is greater than Marvel.”

Ummm, someone PM me in two weeks to remind me. Otherwise I might forget about this thoroughly important matter that is necessary for the salvation of all Comicdom.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

I can see there are more Marvel heretics in CAF than I had thought. In two weeks or so (when I have more time for this fun conversation), I will start a thread in the Catholic Living Forum and invite you heretics to discuss. I will prove to you there the dogmatic truth of the teaching, “DC is greater than Marvel.”

Ummm, someone PM me in two weeks to remind me. Otherwise I might forget about this thoroughly important matter that is necessary for the salvation of all Comicdom.

Blessings,
Marduk

I look forward to helping the others make a Marvel convert out of you.

 

[steve_b]

That’s an interesting intepretation, and it would probably hold some merit to someone who was not aware of the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser from the First Vatican Council. The Official Relatio represented the OFFICIAL understanding of the Vatican Decrees according to the Committee that formulated the Decrees. Whatever it was that the Fathers of V1 voted for when they voted for the Decrees, it was voted upon with the interpretation that was expressed by the Official Relatio.

The Official Relatio affirms that in an Ecumenical Council, the bishops of the Council are JUDGES ALONG WITH the Pope. Do you understand what that means? It means that the Pope, in an Ecumenical Council, is not judging his brother bishops or their teaching - rather, the Pope ALONG WITH his brother bishops are judging a teaching that has been brought to their COLLECTIVE attention.

The Fathers of the Vatican Council do not agree with your claim that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council. So your interpretation of “as if” is obviously wrong, if it causes you to conclude that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

As I had asked you and other Absolutist Petrine advocates in the other thread wherein we debated this matter, please submit yourselves to the teaching of the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, instead of your own personal interpretations (which exaggerate and are thus not faithful to their Decrees).

Blessings,
Marduk

Session 4 Ch 3 Vat I

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction ***over ***the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

supreme power of jurisdiction over all

• the whole Church
• faith and morals and discipline & government of the Church worldwide
• Each of the Churches
• Each of the pastors and faithful

What’s that mean to you? Do pastors include bishops? Does government include councils?

Re: collective/collegiality etc

From Vat II

1. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately ***and ***the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The previous check and mate ended it, baby. DC stands for “deliciously cheesy!” Stan Lee, baby! Nobody’s going to remind you in a PM to create a heterodox thread full of falsehoods. DCism is akin to comic book gnosticism!

I can see there are more Marvel heretics in CAF than I had thought. In two weeks or so (when I have more time for this fun conversation), I will start a thread in the Catholic Living Forum and invite you heretics to discuss. I will prove to you there the dogmatic truth of the teaching, “DC is greater than Marvel.”

Ummm, someone PM me in two weeks to remind me. Otherwise I might forget about this thoroughly important matter that is necessary for the salvation of all Comicdom.

Blessings,
Marduk