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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Truly a holy man, jam, enlightened and full of the truest comic book gnosis! We must pray for brother Marduk and hope for his enlightenment. We must pray that his heart be opened to Sabertooth, the Green Goblin, Daredevil, Whiplash, Colossus, and the Human Torch. There is always hope!

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

 

[SnakeMauler]

That one guy did make a pretty nice post about the Orthodox but nice replies from the Orthodox people. Overall I’d just have tos ay that Patriarch guy should just be slapped upside the head and just straight up say abortion is always wrong rather than making it kind of “Eh”?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Who is the “one guy” and the patriarch “guy” ?? I’m lost with what you’re saying here snake?

That one guy did make a pretty nice post about the Orthodox but nice replies from the Orthodox people. Overall I’d just have tos ay that Patriarch guy should just be slapped upside the head and just straight up say abortion is always wrong rather than making it kind of “Eh”?

 

[josephdaniel29]

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)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

Explain Apostolic Canon 34 and the language of the Council of Sardica, please.

 

[steve_b]

Explain Apostolic Canon 34 and the language of the Council of Sardica, please.

Re: council of Sardica newadvent.org/cathen/13473a.htm

If you search apostolic canon 34 you find mostly EO activity on that , not much Catholic activity.

So what do you think of the following article?
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/e...ents=contents_Texts.asp&main=texts&file=9.htm

particularly the following exerpt

“Even a superficial reading of the Canons shows that the Church they depict is not, as it is today for us, a network of “sovereign” and “independent” entities called Patriarchates or Autocephalous or Autonomous Churches each having “under” itself (in its “jurisdiction”) smaller and subordinated units such as “dioceses,” “exarchates,” “parishes,” etc. This “jurisdictional” or " subordinationist " dimension is absent here because, when dealing with the Church, the early ecclesiological tradition has its starting point and its basic term of reference in the *local church. *This early tradition has been analyzed and studied so many times in recent years that no detailed elaboration is needed here. What is important for us is that this local Church, i.e. a community gathered around its bishop and " clerus,” is a *full *Church. It is the manifestation and the presence in a given place of the Church of Christ . And thus the main aim and purpose of the canonical tradition is precisely to “protect” this fullness, to “guarantee,” so to speak, that this local Church fully manifests the oneness, holiness, apostolicity and catholicity of the Church of Christ . It is in function of this fullness, therefore, that the canonical tradition regulates the relation of each Church with other Churches, their unity and interdependence. The fullness of the local Church, its very nature as the Church of Christ in a particular place depends primarily on her unity in faith, tradition and life, with the Church everywhere; on her being ultimately the *same *Church. This unity is assured essentially by the bishop whose office or " leitourgia " is to maintain and to preserve, in constant union with other bishops, the continuity and the identity in space and time of the universal and catholic faith and life of the one Church of Christ . For us the main point, however, is that although *dependent *on all other Churches, the local Church is not “subordinate” to any of them. No Church is “under” any other Church and no bishop is “under” any other bishop. The very nature of this dependence and, therefore, of unity among Churches, is not “jurisdictional.” It is the unity of faith and life, the unbroken continuity of Tradition, of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that is expressed, fulfilled and preserved in the consecration of one bishop by other bishops, in their regular Synods, and, in brief, in the organic unity of the Episcopate which all bishops hold *in solidum *(St. Cyprian).

The absence of “jurisdictional” subordination of one Church to another, of one bishop to another, does not mean absence of hierarchy and order. This order in the early canonical tradition is maintained by the various levels of *primacies, *i.e. episcopal and ecclesiastical centers or focuses of unity. But again primacy is not a “jurisdictional” principle. If, according to the famous Apostolic Canon 34, the Bishops everywhere must know the *first *among them-the same canon “refers” this primacy to the Holy Trinity which has “order” but certainly no “subordination.” The function of primacy is to express the unity of all, to be its organ and mouthpiece. The first level of primacy is usually that of a “province,” i.e. a region in which all bishops, together with the Metropolitan, take part in the consecration of the bishop of that region, and meet twice a year as Synod. If we had to apply the notion of “autocephaly” to the early Church it should be properly applied to this provincial level, for the main mark of “autocephaly” is precisely the right to elect and to consecrate bishops within a given region. The second level of primacy is that of a wider geographical area: “Orient” with Antioch, Asia with Ephesus, Gaul with Lyons, etc. The “content” of this primacy is primarily doctrinal and moral. The Churches of any given area usually “look up” to the Church from which they received their tradition and in times of crisis and uncertainty gather around her in order to find under her leadership a common solution to their problems. Finally, there is also from the very beginning a universal “center of unity,” a universal primacy: that of the Mother Church of Jerusalem at first, then that of the Church of Rome, a primacy which even modern Roman theologians define, at least in that early period, in terms of “solicitude” rather than in those of any formal “power” or “jurisdiction.”

Your thoughts? Then I’ll give you mine.

 

[mardukm]

If you search apostolic canon 34 you find mostly EO activity on that , not much Catholic activity.

I wonder why that is? The Fathers of Vatican 1 in the Official Relatio referred to Apostolic Canon 34 as the Rule of Faith to which even the ex cathedra decrees of the Pope are subject. The fact that Catholics such as you, brother Steve, have a hard time reconciling Apostolic Canon 34 with your views - whereas the Fathers of V1 did not - demonstrates how far your position is from the true teaching of the First Vatican Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Session 4 Ch 3 Vat I

8.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.

Which does not contradict the belief that “it is lawful to appeal from the judgment of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical council wherein he as head of the Council can be persuaded to change his decision.”

But let’s test your logic. You claim that the Pope is above an Ecum Council and can override its decisions, correct? So, then, you must believe, to be consistent, that the Roman Pontiff has the authority to contradict the decision of a previous Ecum Council on an issue of Faith and morals. We’ll wait patiently for your response.

1. 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 alland each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

No problem here, at least from my Oriental perspective. When I was in the OO communion, I affirmed that the Pope of Alexandria was the SUPREME authority in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Every Syriac Orthodox believes their own patriarch is the SUPREME authority of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Etc. And every OO believes that the jurisdiction of each Patriarch is indeed “OVER” the entire Church of which he is Patriarch. But no one believes that this meant that the Patriarch can EXERCISE his authority UNILATERALLY without the agreement of the rest of the bishops. Having prereogatives is not automatically equivalent to the exercise of those prerogatives. The exercise of prerogatives (a distinct concept than the prerogatives themselves) is governed by an even more basic set of rules dictated by the very constitution of the Church, which is of divine origin.

What you have presented to us are nothing more than the prerogatives of Pope as coryphaeus of the Church militant. Every faithful Catholic believes these prerogatives belong to the Roman Pontiff. But the exercise of these prerogatives is another thing altogether. The Decree states that these prerogatives do not impede the authority of the local bishop, a teaching reflected in our Canons - the Canons affirm that the Pope has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction in any local Church, but do not assign to him proper jurisdiction in any local Church. Every head bishop (be it Pope, Patriarch, Major Archbishop, Catholicos, or Metropolitan) has proper jurisdiction only (1) in his own local diocese and (2) in a matter that pertains to their territorial jurisdiction as a whole; head bishops do not have proper jurisdiction in any other singular local diocese outside their own. Obviously, anyone who believes that the Roman Pontiff can exercise his prerogatives at his mere discretion in a local Church is not being faithful to the teaching of the First Vatican Council.

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

Sure. I’ve got no problem with this. He has the highest authority in the Church. Does this mean that he can exercises his authority without any consideration of the authority of local bishops? NOPE. To repeat, the possession of a prerogative is not equivalent to the laissez-faire exercise of those prerogatives.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

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.
You have GOT to be joking! This very quote refutes your Absolutist Petrine pretensions. It indicates that the Pope performs these functions AS A MEMER OF THE COLLEGE, not, as you pretend, as a supreme bishop APART FROM AND OVER the College.

Do you even really bother to read these self-refuting quotes you give? It states quite plainly that “it is NOT a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively.” Do you understand what that means? It means that in the supreme authority of the College of bishops (whether dispersed or in Council), the POPE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE BISHOPS IN AUTHORITY. The Supreme authority of the College is not about the authority of the Pope, on the one hand, and a subordinate authority of the rest of the bishops taken collectively, on the other. The Supreme authority of the College is the COLLECTIVE authority of the Pope and bishops TOGETHER. What your quote states it is NOT, is exactly what you Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend it is.:tsktsk:

Please, submit yourself to the teaching of the Vatican Councils, instead of continuing in your Absolutist Petrine errors.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

After a cursory, 2-minute scan of Vat 2, yeah, you’re right. My bad.

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.

So, based on this distinction, an Ecumenical Council can indeed be termed “fallible,” or subject to change, at the very least.

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).

I’m not entirely sure how an Ecumenical Council can be “demoted” so to speak; it can be recognized as never having been Ecumenical, though I’m not sure how it can simply be “demoted” as time goes on. Though, I suppose this has yet to do with the issue of infallibility. However, if it invoked infallibility, then how can it be downgraded?

Also, which post-schism Latin councils can be downgraded? Nearly all of them condemned some heresy or preached something on faith or morals. You go on later to say that a council that is both infallible and ecumenical can’t be downgraded. Were any of these councils fallible, or do you think they were merely more local than truly ecumenical?

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.

Subjectivity? Or just a lack of infallibility on the part of the 879 Synod?

 

[Shiranui117]

Re: council of Sardica newadvent.org/cathen/13473a.htm

Not entirely sure what your point is by posting that.

If you search apostolic canon 34 you find mostly EO activity on that , not much Catholic activity.

Doesn’t mean it ain’t on the Catholic books. People of your opinion just ignore it as a threat to the tenability of your position and hope no one else notices.

“Even a superficial reading of the Canons shows that the Church they depict is not, as it is today for us, a network of “sovereign” and “independent” entities called Patriarchates or Autocephalous or Autonomous Churches each having “under” itself (in its “jurisdiction”) smaller and subordinated units such as “dioceses,” “exarchates,” “parishes,” etc. This “jurisdictional” or " subordinationist " dimension is absent here because, when dealing with the Church, the early ecclesiological tradition has its starting point and its basic term of reference in the *local church. *This early tradition has been analyzed and studied so many times in recent years that no detailed elaboration is needed here. What is important for us is that this local Church, i.e. a community gathered around its bishop and " clerus,” is a *full *Church. It is the manifestation and the presence in a given place of the Church of Christ . And thus the main aim and purpose of the canonical tradition is precisely to “protect” this fullness, to “guarantee,” so to speak, that this local Church fully manifests the oneness, holiness, apostolicity and catholicity of the Church of Christ . It is in function of this fullness, therefore, that the canonical tradition regulates the relation of each Church with other Churches, their unity and interdependence. The fullness of the local Church, its very nature as the Church of Christ in a particular place depends primarily on her unity in faith, tradition and life, with the Church everywhere; on her being ultimately the *same *Church. This unity is assured essentially by the bishop whose office or " leitourgia " is to maintain and to preserve, in constant union with other bishops, the continuity and the identity in space and time of the universal and catholic faith and life of the one Church of Christ . For us the main point, however, is that although *dependent *on all other Churches, the local Church is not “subordinate” to any of them. No Church is “under” any other Church and no bishop is “under” any other bishop. The very nature of this dependence and, therefore, of unity among Churches, is not “jurisdictional.” It is the unity of faith and life, the unbroken continuity of Tradition, of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that is expressed, fulfilled and preserved in the consecration of one bishop by other bishops, in their regular Synods, and, in brief, in the organic unity of the Episcopate which all bishops hold *in solidum *(St. Cyprian).

St. Ignatius of Antioch’s eucharistic ecclesiastic model of the Church. Not one problem with it. Moreover, the Orthodox don’t have a problem with it, either.

The absence of “jurisdictional” subordination of one Church to another, of one bishop to another, does not mean absence of hierarchy and order. This order in the early canonical tradition is maintained by the various levels of primacies, i.e. episcopal and ecclesiastical centers or focuses of unity. But again primacy is not a “jurisdictional” principle. If, according to the famous Apostolic Canon 34, the Bishops everywhere must know the *first *among them-the same canon “refers” this primacy to the Holy Trinity which has “order” but certainly no “subordination.” The function of primacy is to express the unity of all, to be its organ and mouthpiece. The first level of primacy is usually that of a “province,” i.e. a region in which all bishops, together with the Metropolitan, take part in the consecration of the bishop of that region, and meet twice a year as Synod. If we had to apply the notion of “autocephaly” to the early Church it should be properly applied to this provincial level, for the main mark of “autocephaly” is precisely the right to elect and to consecrate bishops within a given region. The second level of primacy is that of a wider geographical area: “Orient” with Antioch, Asia with Ephesus, Gaul with Lyons, etc. The “content” of this primacy is primarily doctrinal and moral. The Churches of any given area usually “look up” to the Church from which they received their tradition and in times of crisis and uncertainty gather around her in order to find under her leadership a common solution to their problems. Finally, there is also from the very beginning a universal “center of unity,” a universal primacy: that of the Mother Church of Jerusalem at first, then that of the Church of Rome, a primacy which even modern Roman theologians define, at least in that early period, in terms of “solicitude” rather than in those of any formal “power” or “jurisdiction.”

This describes Orthodox ecclesiology. By the way, the definition of solicitude:

1
a : the state of being concerned and anxious b : attentive care and protectiveness; also : an attitude of earnest concern or attention
2
: a cause of care or concern —usually used in plural

^Going off that, the primacy of the “center of unity” is not one of power or jurisdiction, but merely care for the whole of the church, checking with the other bishops to make sure things are stable and going alright. Nothing in that article suggests absolute Papal authority or anything of the like, but instead describes Orthodox ecclesiology. Not sure what your point is here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

So, based on this distinction, an Ecumenical Council can indeed be termed “fallible,” or subject to change, at the very least.

Yes.

I’m not entirely sure how an Ecumenical Council can be “demoted” so to speak; it can be recognized as never having been Ecumenical, though I’m not sure how it can simply be “demoted” as time goes on.

I can agree with that. I guess it’s just a matter of determining the objective jurisdictional relevance of a Council (whether universal or local), instead of completely cancelling the relevance of its decrees. Does that sound right?

Though, I suppose this has yet to do with the issue of infallibility. However, if it invoked infallibility, then how can it be downgraded?

I’m not aware that any Council has ever explicitly invoked infallibility. Councils (Ecumenical or local) simply affirim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit (e.g., “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”, etc.). The Holy Spirit can and does certainly guide a Council - even local - on its decisions, but if its decisions are only disciplinary in nature, it is not the specific charism of infallibility that is being exercised, since infallibility only applies to the those things which are irreformible (i.e., the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church).

Before I continue, I want to point out that though we have been discussing [1] recognition by the Pope and [2] infallibility (i.e., concerning doctrine on faith and morals) in relation to an ecumenical council, I don’t want you to think that these are the only two criteria for a Council to be considered Ecumenical and irreformible. I do believe that there are two additional, and equally important, conditions for a Council to be considered Ecumenical and irreformible, which are:
[3] It must be called to discuss a matter that is relevant for the ENTIRE Church (it’s not just a local issue of the Latin Church).
[4] It must have the intent of including the entire Church in its deliberations (i.e., a council that is only intented to have representatives from the Latin Church that can deliberate its decisions cannot truly be called “Ecumenical”). An example that immediately comes to mind is the Council of Orange, which meets criteria [1] through [3], but not the fourth criterion.

I know that many Orthodox want to add a fifth criterion - namely, the acceptance of the Church as a whole. Though ideal, it is not practicable, workable, or biblical. If you agree, there’s no need to discuss, if not, we can discuss this fifth criterion further (or if anyone else wants to discuss it further, let me know).

Also, which post-schism Latin councils can be downgraded? Nearly all of them condemned some heresy or preached something on faith or morals. You go on later to say that a council that is both infallible and ecumenical can’t be downgraded. Were any of these councils fallible, or do you think they were merely more local than truly ecumenical?

From my personal studies, the following do not meet all four criteria to be considered an “Ecumenical Council” that is irreformible:

• the 8th Ecumenical Council, which only dealt with ecclesiastical matters, and simply settled the schism arising from the position of St. Photius as Patriarch.
• the 9th Ecumenical Council, called to deal with the investiture conflict with the secular powers.
• 10th, to settle the ecclesiastical schism of Anacletus II.
• 11th, primarily to settle the election of bishops (including the Pope).
• 12th, condemned Cathari, defined Transubstantiation, established Latin discipline regarding confession and communion.
• 13th, deposition of an Emperor
• 14th, reunion Council of Lyons with the Greeks. Though it apparently meets all four criteria I gave, I am under the impression that the Greeks attended out of duress.
• 15th, Supression of the Templars, controversy over Franciscan poverty, certain reforms in Latin Church
• 16th, Council of Constance, called to settle local schism of the three Popes.
• 18th, against the schismatic local Council of Pisa.

I am secure in my belief that the Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican 1, and Vatican 2 are Ecumenical Councils in the fullest sense of the word.

Subjectivity? Or just a lack of infallibility on the part of the 879 Synod?

I believe the 879 Synod lacked the mark of infallibility because it was only meant to justify the position of St. Photius as Patriarch. On the issue of filioque, it did not settle any doctrinal issue, but only the canonical matter of whether it should be included in the Creed of the Latins. Certainly, Photius made mention of the doctrinal import, but the Latins never agreed that the filioque is doctrinally heretical in the context of the Latin understanding. At best, Photius’ doctrinal interpretation was relevant only for the Easterns, and was not “universal” by any means.

In this matter of filioque, please read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7722576&postcount=9

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I might regret admitting this but here goes…some of these posts are SO LONG that I tune them out and just skip on…These posts are out of hand!

 

[mardukm]

I might regret admitting this but here goes…some of these posts are SO LONG that I tune them out and just skip on…These posts are out of hand!

These posts have a 6000 character limit (including spaces, punctuation, and each smiley actually takes up at least four characters). Surely, even your average comic book has over 6000 characters, and you’d have no problem reading through one of your Marvel pieces in one sitting - no matter how boring it actually is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

reading Marvel is different. It is captivating and life-changing. DC comics make one depressed and prone to banal ramblings and odd musings. It puts one into the Phantom Zone or makes one’s hair fall out like Lex Luthor!

These posts have a 6000 character limit (including spaces, punctuation, and each smiley actually takes up at least four characters). Surely, even your average comic book has over 6000 characters, and you’d have no problem reading through one of your Marvel pieces in one sitting - no matter how boring it actually is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Not entirely sure what your point is by posting that.

I wasn’t sure what you wanted from the canons of sardica.

Was it about these 3 canons?

Canon 3
Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.
But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.
But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

Canon 4
Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that— when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome— that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

Canon 5
Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in his most wise judgment.
s:

Doesn’t mean it ain’t on the Catholic books.

That wasn’t denied.
s:

St. Ignatius of Antioch’s eucharistic ecclesiastic model of the Church. Not one problem with it. Moreover, the Orthodox don’t have a problem with it, either.

This describes Orthodox ecclesiology. By the way, the definition of solicitude:

1
a : the state of being concerned and anxious b : attentive care and protectiveness; also : an attitude of earnest concern or attention
2
: a cause of care or concern —usually used in plural

^Going off that, the primacy of the “center of unity” is not one of power or jurisdiction, but merely care for the whole of the church, checking with the other bishops to make sure things are stable and going alright. Nothing in that article suggests absolute Papal authority or anything of the like, but instead describes Orthodox ecclesiology. Not sure what your point is here.

The purpose of posting that link was to show the contrast between IT’s position and Vat I and Vat II particularly with regards to primacy, power, authority etc.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Shiranui,

This describes Orthodox ecclesiology. By the way, the definition of solicitude:

1 a : the state of being concerned and anxious b : attentive care and protectiveness; also : an attitude of earnest concern or attention
2: a cause of care or concern —usually used in plural

Going off that, the primacy of the “center of unity” is not one of power or jurisdiction, but merely care for the whole of the church, checking with the other bishops to make sure things are stable and going alright. Nothing in that article suggests absolute Papal authority or anything of the like, but instead describes Orthodox ecclesiology. Not sure what your point is here.

I’d never read Fr. Schmemann until brother SteveB gave that excerpt, and find his POV very appealing. Though I don’t agree with his basic assumption that the Church was conceived of locally first - I believe the Church perceived its universal nature from the very beginning - I thoroughly agree with his idea of understanding episcopal authority in terms of solicitude instead of jurisdiction. In fact, I have promoted that exact terminology here in CAF and at ByzCath (especially Byzcath) several times in the past.

TBH, I used to propose that we get rid of the term “jurisdiction” altogether in our canons and replace it with “solicitude,” which gives a more apostolic concept of the prerogatives of bishops, no matter what grade. Over time, I came to have a more mitigated position. I now accept that the term “jurisdiction” is part of the ecclesiological language of the Church, given to us by the Ecum Councils themselves. Instead of promoting a wholesale rejection of the idea of “jurisdiction” I have come to propose/argue that we should learn to RE-INTERPRET “jurisdiction” in terms of “solicitude,” instead of “control.” This is a process of reevaluation necessary not only for Catholics, but also Orthodox.

In fact, Low Petrine advocates are just as guilty of the jurisdictional claim game as Absolutist Petrine advocates. To both of them, it is not about solicitude, but about control. For Absolutist Petrine advocates, the logic runs, “the Pope has control over the whole Church and every local Church.” For Low Petrine advocates, the logic runs, “Only the bishop has control of his local Church, and a head bishop has absolutely no business in it.” A paradigm of “solicitude” instead of “control” - a way of thinking that is more concerned about the needs of the Church, instead of the power of the bishop (no matter what grade) - should successfully do away with these jealousies. A local bishop who is more concerned about the needs of his local Church, instead of the amount of control he has over his local Church, will never fail to accept, and even look for, aid from his head bishop. A head bishop who is more concerned about the needs of the greater Church, instead of control over the greater Church, will never fail to realize that the local bishop has the best ability to care for the local Church and thus not feel the need to micromanage the Church.

In general, anyone who lets questions of rank or honor, of who has jurisdiction (or not) over whom, be a cause of schism for the Church (as Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates do) are really more concerned about issues of control, instead of the solicitude that the Church deserves from her bishops. Unlike Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates, High Petrine advocates are more concerned about how the head bishop can work with his brother bishops, and vice-versa, for upbuilding the Church, and don’t let questions of rank, honor or “jurisdiction” interfere in our ecclesiological understanding.

Compare Fr. Schmemann’s statements with this:
"**Inasmuch as the Church is a group of human beings called to carry out in history God’s plan for the salvation of the world, power in her appears as an indispensable requirement of mission. Nevertheless, the analogical value of the language used allows power to be conceived in the sense provided by Jesus’ maxim on "power in order to serve" and by the Gospel idea of the pastoral leader. The power required by the mission of Peter and his successors is identified with this authoritative leadership guaranteed of divine assistance, which Jesus himself called the ministry (service) of a shepherd…

Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061).

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).**”
This were the words of HH Pope John Paul 2 of thrice-blessed memory.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

From my personal studies, the following do not meet all four criteria to be considered an “Ecumenical Council” that is irreformible:

• the 8th Ecumenical Council, which only dealt with ecclesiastical matters, and simply settled the schism arising from the position of St. Photius as Patriarch.
• the 9th Ecumenical Council, called to deal with the investiture conflict with the secular powers.
• 10th, to settle the ecclesiastical schism of Anacletus II.
• 11th, primarily to settle the election of bishops (including the Pope).
• 12th, condemned Cathari, defined Transubstantiation, established Latin discipline regarding confession and communion.
• 13th, deposition of an Emperor
• 14th, reunion Council of Lyons with the Greeks. Though it apparently meets all four criteria I gave, I am under the impression that the Greeks attended out of duress.
• 15th, Supression of the Templars, controversy over Franciscan poverty, certain reforms in Latin Church
• 16th, Council of Constance, called to settle local schism of the three Popes.
• 18th, against the schismatic local Council of Pisa.

I am secure in my belief that the Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican 1, and Vatican 2 are Ecumenical Councils in the fullest sense of the word.

Marduk, thank you for clarifying this.

I was really uncomfortable when I first heard an eastern Catholic suggest that many of these latter councils could be general councils of the Latin Church rather than full ecumenical councils, but it was only because of certain councils: I was perfectly okay with, say, Lateran V and others like it being “downgraded,” but how, I wondered to myself, could a council like Vatican II be anything but fully ecumenical?

Your clarification has reassured me that the suggestion does not refer to all of the last fourteen ecumenical councils but only some of them. Thanks again, Marduk!

 

[Hesychios]

Your clarification has reassured me that the suggestion does not refer to all of the last fourteen ecumenical councils but only some of them. Thanks again, Marduk!

So then …

you get to pick and choose?

 

[steve_b]

So then …

you get to pick and choose?

Actually the CC is really good at putting what it teaches in writing. And makes it easy to find.
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm