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

[jam070406]

I hear ya, Jam. I’m always struggling to stay Catholic. I look with wonder at these people to whom it all seems so full of obvious good sense, and they just buy it all lock, stock, and barrell. I think the fact that ALL the parishes in my entire area have really stuffy parishoners, HORRIBLE priests, banal homilies, and heaps of liturgical irregularities doesn’t help one bit. But the way Lumen Gentium tells us the following:

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others

So when people in here say that the pope cannot pronounce infallibly on anything without consulting the Church and/or a council, etc. I fail to see how they can justify saying that when LG 25 says he doesn’t really need the consent of the Church to make “irreformable” doctrine?

I struggle with this part of LG25 as well:
***This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. ***

Yes! The Liturgy is THE biggest thing for me. The fact that one man, the Pope, can completely overhaul the Liturgy practically overnight is mind boggling. Especially after I went to a TLM and saw what I was robbed of, compared to what I have to endure every Sunday.
And when I try to talk to fellow parishoners about what was lost and how I actually prefer all the bells and smells and chants, and the art, and beauty, and reverence, they act like I am an alien freak. And I sink into a feeling that we will never get back what was jettisoned.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Dittoes, jam. At work when I’m talking to these fierce Catholics who even teach catechism and are “into it,” when I say I wish we had Latin or incense at Mass they say, “Oh God…puke!”

Everyone thinks I’m nuts for wanting incense or the priest to face the altar instead of me. They act like I’m crazy when I say that we have lousy priests in these parts with the motivation of an aphid. The pastoral care, confessors, preaching, and overall job performance of the priests in these parts is just terrible. My old Anglican priest/rector, Father James, man, that guy was AWESOME. I miss the Anglican parish I went to frequently…

Yes! The Liturgy is THE biggest thing for me. The fact that one man, the Pope, can completely overhaul the Liturgy practically overnight is mind boggling. Especially after I went to a TLM and saw what I was robbed of, compared to what I have to endure every Sunday.
And when I try to talk to fellow parishoners about what was lost and how I actually prefer all the bells and smells and chants, and the art, and beauty, and reverence, they act like I am an alien freak. And I sink into a feeling that we will never get back what was jettisoned.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read through this whole thread, though it may seem ridiculously long by your estimation!!!

I hear ya, Jam. I’m always struggling to stay Catholic. I look with wonder at these people to whom it all seems so full of obvious good sense, and they just buy it all lock, stock, and barrell. I think the fact that ALL the parishes in my entire area have really stuffy parishoners, HORRIBLE priests, banal homilies, and heaps of liturgical irregularities doesn’t help one bit.

Gosh! I certainly do feel for you, brother. I feel very fortunate not to have experienced that (so far).

But the way Lumen Gentium tells us the following:

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others

So when people in here say that the pope cannot pronounce infallibly on anything without consulting the Church and/or a council, etc. I fail to see how they can justify saying that when LG 25 says he doesn’t really need the consent of the Church to make “irreformable” doctrine?

There are two distinct issues here which may not be obvious:
(1) What is necessary to regard something as having the nature of Truth (i.e., irreformible).
(2) What is necessary for the unity of the Church.

The Apostolic Canon 34 which is the Rule of Faith even for ex cathedra definitions of the Pope is very clear as to the purpose of consensus - it is for nothing more nor less than the preservation of the unity of the Church. That’s it. Caput. Period. It is NOT necessary for the nature of a teaching as Truth (i.e. “irreformible”).

Here’s an easy example to grasp. When St. Peter gave to the Church its first dogma (i.e., that the Gentiles should be included into the People of God), was it True (i.e., “irreformible”) because the Church agreed that it was true, or was it True by its very nature as having come from God? LG is simply asserting what is already obvious from the Bible - namely, Christian Truth is not determined by consensus, but because it is considered to be from God.

Though consensus is not necessary for the determination of Truth, it IS necessary, according to the apostolic Canon, for the sake of preserving the unity of the Church. That is why the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 asserts that this Rule of Faith applies even to the definitions of the Pope - namely, because unity is a divine imperative enjoined by our Lord Himself. It is necessary for the Pope to determine the consensus of the Church before he makes his definition, NOT for the purpose of determining the Truth (we trust that it is the Holy Spirit Himself that is responsible for ensuring this), but, rather, for confirming the unity of the Church on the definition to be proposed.

Does that help?

I struggle with this part of LG25 as well:
***This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. ***

The authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra is his exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium (i.e., an ex cathedra Decree by the Pope is EXCLUSIVELY an exercise of his EXTRAordinary Magisterium). As explained previously, the ordinary Magisterium is inherently collegial, not personal (though there are levels of that personal exercise, some more collegial than others), because when the Pope exercises his ordinary Magisterium, it is specifically as mouthpiece of the infallible teaching ALSO proposed by his brother bishops (across time and across space).

Recall that in an earlier post, I explained to brother Shiranui that infallible teaching through the ordinary Magisterium is just a bit harder to identify than an infallible teaching through dogma pronounced by the extraordinary magisterium (i.e., a papal ex cathedra decree or a decree from an Ecum Council). To steal the words of brother Thistle from another thread, we give “assent of Faith” to teachings of the extraordinary Magisterium because we are 100% positive that it is true. In distinction, we give “religious assent” to teachings of the ordinary Magisterium because we are positive they are true beyond a reasonble doubt.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What’s up with the PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE admonishment? No, marduk, I’m not going to read posts that have 15,000 words in them and go on for two pages. Yes, I do have limited attention with stuff like that. And I fail to see why you think I have to read every post. I have a life, man, and I’d never live it at all if I read every single last post in a thread like this. You guys have been arguing for pages about how many councils there were and if the Church has infallibly claimed how many were legit, etc. That’s a snoozer for me and not worth reading. Lumen Gentium and this bizarre verbage that it contains is worth reading…

And regarding whether something comes from God or whether it is something confirming the unity of the Church on the definition to be proposed it both is something one cannot prove and be sure that the Pope isn’t cooking up himself. Take the Immaculate Conception. He can infallibly state that Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin. You can say, ‘well, that came from God.’ An Eastern Orthodox might disagree. You could say he’s only confirming what we already know from God. Who says? Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard didn’t agree with the I.C. belief? Many folks didn’t, some did. And the pope can unilaterally adopt that as dogma without consulting cardinals, bishops, and councils…

Dear brother Gurney,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read through this whole thread, though it may seem ridiculously long by your estimation!!!

Gosh! I certainly do feel for you, brother. I feel very fortunate not to have experienced that (so far).

There are two distinct issues here which may not be obvious:
(1) What is necessary to regard something as having the nature of Truth (i.e., irreformible).
(2) What is necessary for the unity of the Church.

The Apostolic Canon 34 which is the Rule of Faith even for ex cathedra definitions of the Pope is very clear as to the purpose of consensus - it is for nothing more nor less than the preservation of the unity of the Church. That’s it. Caput. Period. It is NOT necessary for the nature of a teaching as Truth (i.e. “irreformible”).

Here’s an easy example to grasp. When St. Peter gave to the Church its first dogma (i.e., that the Gentiles should be included into the People of God), was it True (i.e., “irreformible”) because the Church agreed that it was true, or was it True by its very nature as having come from God? LG is simply asserting what is already obvious from the Bible - namely, Christian Truth is not determined by consensus, but because it is considered to be from God.

Though consensus is not necessary for the determination of Truth, it IS necessary, according to the apostolic Canon, for the sake of preserving the unity of the Church. That is why the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 asserts that this Rule of Faith applies even to the definitions of the Pope - namely, because unity is a divine imperative enjoined by our Lord Himself. It is necessary for the Pope to determine the consensus of the Church before he makes his definition, NOT for the purpose of determining the Truth (we trust that it is the Holy Spirit Himself that is responsible for ensuring this), but, rather, for confirming the unity of the Church on the definition to be proposed.

Does that help?

The authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra is his exercise of the ORDINARY Magisterium (i.e., an ex cathedra Decree by the Pope is EXCLUSIVELY an exercise of his EXTRAordinary Magisterium). As explained previously, the ordinary Magisterium is inherently collegial, not personal (though there are levels of that personal exercise, some more collegial than others), because when the Pope exercises his ordinary Magisterium, it is specifically as mouthpiece of the infallible teaching ALSO proposed by his brother bishops (across time and across space).

Recall that in an earlier post, I explained to brother Shiranui that infallible teaching through the ordinary Magisterium is just a bit harder to identify than an infallible teaching through dogma pronounced by the extraordinary magisterium (i.e., a papal ex cathedra decree or a decree from an Ecum Council). To steal the words of brother Thistle from another thread, we give “assent of Faith” to teachings of the extraordinary Magisterium because we are 100% positive that it is true. In distinction, we give “religious assent” to teachings of the ordinary Magisterium because we are positive they are true beyond a reasonble doubt.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

What’s up with the PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE admonishment?

Admonishment? I guess you didn’t notice the smilies.

No, marduk, I’m not going to read posts that have 15,000 words in them and go on for two pages.

That’s OK. It’s there for anyone else who wants to read it. Btw, I’m pretty certain my post was less than 1,000 words.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And I don’t usually listen to the admonishments of a DC troglodyte either but there’s always a first for everything!

My bad. Forgive me? (though I am not usually inclined to ask forgivenes from a Marvel heretic ).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Slightly under 100,000 words I think… Admonishment means “to give friendly, earnest advice” so I didn’t mean it in a nasty reproval mode, rest assured, Marduk. Being a friend of the X-Men and Avengers, I’m too honest and upright to be so negative and glum!

Admonishment? I guess you didn’t notice the smilies.

That’s OK. It’s there for anyone else who wants to read it. Btw, I’m pretty certain my post was less than 1,000 words.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

He can infallibly state that Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin. You can say, ‘well, that came from God.’ An Eastern Orthodox might disagree.

There is no record of an EO disagreeing with the teaching of the IC after it was promulgated until the last decade of the 19th century. The EO apologetics I’ve read have come up with at most 2 sources between the 15th century until the dogma was promulgated that explicitly denied the IC. All other Eastern sources support the teaching.

You could say he’s only confirming what we already know from God. Who says? Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard didn’t agree with the I.C. belief?

Really? Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard explicitly believed that Mary was purified at her spiritual conception. That’s EXACTLY what the dogma of the IC teaches.

Many folks didn’t, some did.

I’ve yet to see any proof of “many.”

And the pope can -]unilaterally/-] adopt that as dogma without consulting cardinals, bishops, and councils…

Yes. The Official Relatio explains that whereas the consensus of the Church is necessary even for definitions by the Pope (which means that “unilateral” is an erroneous word to describe the matter), it simply asserts that he can determine this consensus by a multitude of means other than consultation with his brother bishops. He can do it through cardinals, through theologians, through studying statements by bishops without consulting with the bishops directly, through study of local catechisms, through studying the decrees of Councils, through polling the local Churches directly, through Scripture, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., or through any combination of these. The Council simply did not want to absolutely restrict the Pope in the means by which he could determine the consensus of the Church. What’s the problem with that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is well-documented that Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard didn’t accept the Immaculate Conception. You’re the first person I have yet to see doesn’t know that, Marduk?

What’s up with the etcetras tonight? You are in the mood to argue, aren’t you? Your explanations of how meandering and vague and multi-faceted as well as confusing the whole infallibility thing is doesn’t endear one to the whole notion! And you take this maze of thinking and present it as if it were easy as pie for the layman to digest and comprehend.

Dear brother Gurney,

There is no record of an EO disagreeing with the teaching of the IC after it was promulgated until the last decade of the 19th century. The EO apologetics I’ve read have come up with at most 2 sources between the 15th century until the dogma was promulgated that explicitly denied the IC. All other Eastern sources support the teaching.

Really? Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard explicitly believed that Mary was purified at her spiritual conception. That’s EXACTLY what the dogma of the IC teaches.

I’ve yet to see any proof of “many.”

Yes. The Official Relatio explains that whereas the consensus of the Church is necessary even for definitions by the Pope (which means that “unilateral” is an erroneous word to describe the matter), it simply asserts that he can determine this consensus by a multitude of means other than consultation with his brother bishops. He can do it through cardinals, through theologians, through studying statements by bishops without consulting with the bishops directly, through study of local catechisms, through studying the decrees of Councils, through polling the local Churches directly, through Scripture, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., or through any combination of these. The Council simply did not want to absolutely restrict the Pope in the means by which he could determine the consensus of the Church. What’s the problem with that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

Slightly under 100,000 words I think…

Here are two responses that are certain beyond a reasonable doubt (I’m not claiming infallibility here):
(1) Each post is limited to 6000 characters. By the law of averages, this would amount to at best a little over 1,000 words. Since you were able to fit my entire post in your response, it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not use more than 1,000 words in my post.

(2) You should consider that when you use the “quote” feature, it adds these GIGANTIC line spaces before and after the quote. So it only SEEMS as though I am using 100,000 words or less; the illusion is generated because those GIGANTIC line spaces causes the entire post to not fit on your screen. I would exhort (not admonish ) you to learn to imagine those spaces away, so my posts don’t seem so lengthy.

Being a friend of the X-Men and Avengers, I’m too honest and upright to be so negative and glum!

Yes, I can see that. I’ve noticed that the X-men and Avengers are prone to long, boring monologues about the righteousness of their actions :yawn:, so that might rub off on its readers. DC characters, on the other hand, live by the principle, “teach by your example; preach by your actions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Marduk,

I know your posts are not 100,000 pages. I was obviously kidding. You don’t have to go into anlaysis of how many words exist in each one by a law of averages and maximums, etc. I am joking with ya here! For being an Easterner, you’re awfully legalistic and numerical you know! something that the lowly Latins always get accused of by their Eastern brethren…

DC is goofy and cliche, Marvel is sleek, cool, tougher, and more fun. Case in Point:

Exhibit A: Marvel villain:

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

DC Villain:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Mxyzptlk.PNG

Darkseid was the only DC villain with any style or guts!

Dear brother Gurney,

Here are two responses that are certain beyond a reasonable doubt (I’m not claiming infallibility here):
(1) Each post is limited to 6000 characters. By the law of averages, this would amount to at best a little over 1,000 words. Since you were able to fit my entire post in your response, it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not use more than 1,000 words in my post.

(2) You should consider that when you use the “quote” feature, it adds these GIGANTIC line spaces before and after the quote. So it only SEEMS as though I am using 100,000 words or less; the illusion is generated because those GIGANTIC line spaces causes the entire post to not fit on your screen. I would exhort (not admonish ) you to learn to imagine those spaces away, so my posts don’t seem so lengthy.

Yes, I can see that. I’ve noticed that the X-men and Avengers are prone to long, boring monologues about the righteousness of their actions :yawn:, so that might rub off on its readers. DC characters, on the other hand, live by the principle, “teach by your example; preach by your actions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1voice]

I realize that this will probably fall on deaf ears and considered to be totally irrelevant …

Mark 9:33
… on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

You two sides are like proud bullies in a school yard that each demand their rightful place as the captain of the team.

Pride comes before the fall.
… Proverbs

---

Jesus asked… 'Who do you say that I am?
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Petros, and on this Petra I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

1Corinthians 10:4
… and the Petra … was Christ.

---

… The Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy.

 

[1voice]

I hear ya, Jam. I’m always struggling to stay Catholic. I look with wonder at these people to whom it all seems so full of obvious good sense, and they just buy it all lock, stock, and barrell. I think the fact that ALL the parishes in my entire area have really stuffy parishoners, HORRIBLE priests, banal homilies, and heaps of liturgical irregularities doesn’t help one bit. But the way Lumen Gentium tells us the following:

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others

So when people in here say that the pope cannot pronounce infallibly on anything without consulting the Church and/or a council, etc. I fail to see how they can justify saying that when LG 25 says he doesn’t really need the consent of the Church to make “irreformable” doctrine?

I struggle with this part of LG25 as well:
***This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. ***

LOL! … I’m still just trying to wrap my head around the expression … solemn joy?!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

It is well-documented that Thomas Aquinas and St. Bernard didn’t accept the Immaculate Conception. You’re the first person I have yet to see doesn’t know that, Marduk?

I am aware of the opinion on the matter, but I did not come to the Catholic Faith by reading modern apologetic works, but by reading the sources. In this regard, I make two points:

1. There is an inconsistency in St. Thomas’ logic on this issue. He admits that a) Baptism does not cleanse us from the stain of concupiscence left by Original Sin; b) the sanctification we receive at baptism is the same sanctification Mary received in the womb. YET, he readily asserts that Mary had no concupiscence. It would seem logical that he should conclude that Mary never had Original Sin. There was obviously something that St. Thomas, with all due respect to his genius, had not yet quite worked out. At best, I will admit that St. Thomas was unsure of the matter.
2. St. Thomas asserts that Mary’s contraction of Original Sin (as with all humans) is by virtue of the carnal nature of the sexual act. But an ancient Eastern and Oriental tradition states that Sts. Joachim and Hannah conceived Mary in all holiness, with no carnal motive in mind.
3. St. Bernard believed the spiritual conception occurred LATER than the physical conception. He did not believe that Mary was sanctified at her physical conception, but rather at her spiritual conception (animation). Those who claim Bernard did not believe in the IC probably misunderstand the teaching of the IC to refer to Mary’s physical conception. That would be wrong. In fact, the IC refers to Mary’s SPIRITUAL conception - i.e. her animation. That is identical to St. Bernard’s teaching.

What’s up with the etcetras tonight?

That’s to stress, in case you might miss the point, that the Pope has other means besides consultation with the bishops to determine the consensus of the Church (which is necessary). It is not the mode of determination that is important, but the determination of consensus itself. But I guess the etceteras were to no avail, since you seem to be saying that you did miss the point (i.e., “vague”, “meandering,” “confusing,” a “maze of thinking”).

Well, I tried. Maybe others will understand.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on topic please

 

[steve_b]

Oooops! I just saw the note from the moderator. I’m not sure anymore if this part of the discussion still deals with that article of the op.

Dear brother Steve,

I gave you the criteria in a previous post - through that criteria, I believe there are for certain 11 Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church (including the first 7). The criteria I gave, btw, are reflected in the quotes you have just given, as will be explained below.

What is the main criteria for ecumenical status?
M:

I’m encouraged to see that you are not of that particular Latin mindset that believes only dogma can be regarded as valid de fide teaching of the Catholic Church (by which certain Catholics sometimes called “Traditionalist” deny the validity of V2 Council as an Ecumenical Council).

That’s never applied to me.

All 21 of those councils are ecumenical councils. Not 7, not 11, not 18, but 21.
M:

I’m aware of this article and have read fully through it before. It is the same article which refutes the position you defended in that thread in the Apologetic Forum wherein you and brother Abu claimed that the Infallibility of an Ecumenical Council depends on “papal infallibility.”

That’s YOUR take on what I said.
M:

Yes, the article indicates that “AS A RULE,” there must be the intent to have the other Patriarchs and metropolitans of the Church as deliberative members - or did you miss that part? If you will recall, that was basically condition # [4] in the explanation I gave in a previous post.

Here’s what I quoted. I didn’t miss anything. I didn’t rewrite requirements to suite my sensibilities. You’ll notice some ideas are a nice theory but wasn’t a cut in granite requirement, that had to be done.

(all emphasis mine)

*"The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators.*It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; *this *may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only the patriarchs and metropolitans received a direct summons to appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight general synods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern synods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent, than the organic connection of the council with the head of the Church."

here’s the entire article.
newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
M:

You’re again myopically focusing only on certain portions of your quotes, instead of considering the entire context.

My point was, and I didn’t treat the point myopically,

You’re creating a tension between dogma, which must be believed, and normal assent to the ordinary teaching of the Church particularly the pope. The point of the exerpt from the CCC that I quoted is to say, Obedience/ assent on our part to ordinary teaching of the Church IS an extension of faith.
M:

1. How is a belief in the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils a matter of “Faith and morals?”

A council by definition deals with matters concerning our faith or morals.
Why do you argue with the number when the Church says it’s 21.
M:

1. How is an argument over Church property (as one example among many of the so-called “Ecumenical Councils” of the Latin Church) between the Church and State a matter of “Faith and morals?”

Which council specifically are you speaking of?

 

[steve_b]

Oooops! just saw the note from the moderator. I think my last post is still within the topic of the op’s article

 

[steve_b]

Oooops! I just saw the note from the moderator. I’m not sure anymore if this part of the discussion still deals with that article of the op.

After reviewing my post and the op’s article again, I think we’re still on #2 of the article

From the article

2. The Development of Doctrine

"The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth centurybelieve precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.
To be sure, Orthodoxy recognizes external changes (e.g., vestments of clergy, monastic habits, new feasts, canons of ecumenical and regional councils, etc.), but nothing has been added or subtracted from her Faith. The external changes have a single purpose: To express that Faith under new circumstances. For example, the Bible and divine Services were translated from Hebrew and Greek into the language of new lands; or new religious customs arose to express the ethnic sensibilities of the converted peoples, etc.; nevertheless, their has always been “one faith, one Lord, one baptism” (Eph. 4: 4).
The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of “doctrinal development.”
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility” and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. In any case, the truth of these dogmas have always belonged to the Christian Tradition. They have been present from the beginning of that Tradition as “hints,” seeds that only waited for the right time to bloom. "

Still lots to talk about here re: councils, tradition, infallibility, etc etc etc

 

[mardukm]

What is the main criteria for ecumenical status?

According to Canon 341 of your Latin Code (reflected in the Eastern Canons, as well), it is:

1. approval by the Roman Pontiff
2. approval by the Fathers of the Council
3. of actions that are truly collegial
4. confirmation of the truly collegial actions by the Roman Pontiff
5. promulgation of the decrees by the Roman Pontiff.

That’s summed up in criterias [1], [3], and [4] which I explained in an earlier post.

That’s YOUR take on what I said.

I, and others, consistently and explicitly affirmed that an Ecumenical Council possesses neither its authority or infallibility by virtue of the authority or infallibility of the Pope alone. And you consistently and explicitly challenged that statement and never once expressed any sort of agreement, even though brothers AmbroseSJ (a Latin), Vico (an Eastern), and I (an Oriental) on separate occassions offered you and brother Abu the possibility that we might really all be saying the same thing. Even now, you claim that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, which is thoroughly consistent with your prior Absolutist Petrine claims in the other thread.

Here’s what I quoted. I didn’t miss anything. I didn’t rewrite requirements to suite my sensibilities. You’ll notice some ideas are a nice theory but wasn’t a cut in granite requirement, that had to be done.

Yes, and if anyone else has noticed, you have conveniently highlighted different portions of your current text to make it seem like you did not mean the absolutist Petrine excesses that you have been arguing all along.

My point was, and I didn’t treat the point myopically,

You’re creating a tension between dogma, which must be believed, and normal assent to the ordinary teaching of the Church particularly the pope. The point of the exerpt from the CCC that I quoted is to say, Obedience/ assent on our part to ordinary teaching of the Church IS an extension of faith.

I’m just applying exactly what your quote says - that assent of Faith and religious assent are only required for matters of faith and morals. You exceed the purpose of your quotes by claiming that a Council “by definition deals with matters concerning faith or morals,” which is a fallacy known as “begging the question.” You’re claiming something is true that you haven’t even proven to be true.

A council by definition deals with matters concerning our faith or morals.

Can you give us a magisterial quote for that (not even a statement from an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium - the ordinary Magisterium will do)?

Why do you argue with the number when the Church says it’s 21.

Because the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils is not a matter of faith and morals. You have yet to demonstrate that it is.

Which council specifically are you speaking of?

I gave you the list of Councils earlier, with the reasons for which each of them was convened. Please go back through the thread to look it up. I don’t think it’s that far away (page-wise), IIRC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Steve, it does seem - to my attempt at impartial perusal of this thread - that Marduk has a point: I cannot think of an authoritative source dogmatically defining the ecumenical status of the councils here in dispute.

I haven’t done the historical research myself, and if I did, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with Marduk on all points. But his claims clearly do not constitute dissent of any kind from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As I said, I’m certain that some of our latter councils - like Vatican II - have to be ecumenical. There’s just no way they’re not.

But I’m also certain that some others - like Lateran V - could easily be general councils of the Latin Church in light of their historical and theological contexts.

Besides, given the criteria Marduk just described, it’s pretty obvious which ones definitely are - and they are the ones he admits are fully ecumenical: Florence, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II.

I personally suspect that the Second Council of Lyon and the Fourth Council of Constantinople are ecumenical, but even in my potential disagreement with Marduk I can see the plain truth that he’s well within the bounds of orthodox Catholic teaching to question the ecumenical status of certain councils.