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

[steve_b]

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.

What did the article identify that determines collegiality? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7739493&postcount=531

Didn’t it say
“*ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators…[snip]…*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.”
i.e. the Roman Pontiff

Re:
Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

Don’t neglect canon 338 .

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

IOW
it is for the Roman Pontiff alone to approve a council [Can. 338 §1], because councils alone, CAN’T approve themselves. They require the pope [Can. 341 §1]
M:

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.

Re: Canon 338 and 341 above, do you see the word “alone” in the above canons?

Councils alone don’t have the authority to approve themselves. But the pope alone CAN approve a council. [Can. 338 §1]
M:

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.

My position reflects the quotes above. If you agree with that, we have no problems.
M:

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 posts = quotes + links so people can see context, and don’t take my word for it or think I’m pulling stuff out of a hat.
M:

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.

The context was with respect to, agreeing/disagreeing to the # of, E councils. I said 21 and provided my reference to why there are 21. You said less than 21, with no reference provided other than yourself…
M:

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.

Which of those councils mentioned, don’t concern matters of faith or morals?

BTW, as you could see from the link, the pope confirmed those 21 councils.
M:

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.

That list is YOUR list with YOUR reasons.

21 ecumenical councils is NOT my list. It came from the Catholic encyclopedia

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That list is YOUR list with YOUR reasons.

21 ecumenical councils is NOT my list. It came from the Catholic encyclopedia

Steve, the Catholic encyclopedia is no more authoritative than Marduk’s opinion is. It’s an encyclopedia…

You - and I - don’t have to agree with Marduk, but his opinion that there have been only 11 ecumenical councils is not heterodox.

 

[steve_b]

Steve, the Catholic encyclopedia is no more authoritative than Marduk’s opinion is. It’s an encyclopedia…

You - and I - don’t have to agree with Marduk, but his opinion that there have been only 11 ecumenical councils is not heterodox.

As I said previously, 21 councils isn’t my list or my opinion.

The Catholic encyclopedia is an established and recognized Catholic source that gives copious references to support positions it takes and reports on. Is it the gold standard by which everything rests? Probably not, but it’s an excellent source, used by many many other sources… That’s about all I can say. Other than it’s also immensley convenient

Karl Keating head of CA, names the same 21 councils catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306ch.asp

To settle this, the question is, what does and does NOT constitute an ecumenical council… True?

The answer came from canon law already referenced previously. Confirmation by the pope. If the pope doesn’t confirm a council, it isn’t ecumenical, and it’s decrees aren’t binding.

Here’s something else for consideration.

:
"In 358 Eastern and Western councils were held in Ariminum (Rimini) in Italy and in Seleucia in Asia Minor. Pope Liberius’ legate presided at the opening of the Council of Ariminum, at which more than 400 bishops were present. The council excommunicated heretics who were disturbing the Church. With the Pope’s confirmation this could have become an ecumenical council. However, the emperor took control, and the Pope’s legate left the council. Then the emperor forced the remaining bishops to sign a heretical creed.

Things went no better at the council in Seleucia. There the bishops submitted to the emperor’s will and signed the heretical creed exacted from the bishops in Ariminum. Ultimately, hardly more than eighteen or nineteen bishops in all of Christendom remained faithful to the Nicene faith. And so, wrote Jerome later, “The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian.”

Athanasius, Eusebius, Hilary—all faithful bishops and all exiles—did not sign the heretical creed. But it remained to Pope Liberius to repudiate the formula. Because he repudiated it, the emperor sent him into exile. Because Jesus Christ had commissioned Peter and his successors to “strengthen the brethren,” the Pope’s repudiation prevailed. It remained to Damasus, Liberius’s successor, to make the papal repudiation of Ariminum finally effective. Earlier I noted Meyendorff’s claim that Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers brought about the final triumph of orthodoxy over Arianism. We have seen that Athanasius appealed to the pope and ultimately was vindicated by the pope.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

btw, Did a pope confirm each of those 21 councils on that list? Yes.

 

[steve_b]

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.”

The issue is who wants to be greatest. As Jesus said earlier, to be at my right or left hand (positions of power and authority) is not mine to give but my Father in heaven.

Lk 22 :24… the same argument happened.

Lk 22: 31 Jesus identifies who among them is the greatest. It’s Peter.

• Did Peter want to be first? No. There’s no indication in scripture he ever wanted top job…
• He didn’t lobby or have anyone lobby for him for top job, unlike James and John.
• No vote was taken to put Peter in top spot.
• Peter didn’t usurp top job

Jesus didn’t deny one of THEM would’nt be greatest among them. Jesus criticized those who WANTED to be greatest. He said a position like that comes from the Father.

Jesus said

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

ERGO, all those promises Jesus gave Peter, the keys, bind and loose, feed and rule my Church etc etc IOW, top job, came from the Father. Peter is the Father’s choice so If anyone is seperated from Peter, can they even think they’re in the Church? On the last day, (as in when people individually die, and are judged immediately) I personally wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of that argument, especially considering it is so well documented on which side a person should be.
1v:

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.

Just an observation,

in 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

I thought you Protestants condemned tradition.

Well, anyway,

Petros = Rock (Peter) and Petra = Rock (Jesus), even though in Greek, Petros is masculine, and Petra is femanine and Jesus is NOT femanine… Anyway, Jesus the Rock giving Simon the name Rock, [Mt 16:17…]gives Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever he binds and looses on earth is bound and loosed in heaven. IOW Peter the Rock, is the prime minister of the Rock Jesus, His Church, and His kingdom of heaven. Peter is given incredible power from God the Father… And the Church Jesus builds, the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and it will last forever… And after Jesus resurrection and before His ascension back to heaven, Jesus tells Peter the Rock, His prime minister, to feed and rule His sheep. Jesus tells this to Peter in front of all the apostles. And we see from Peter, in the first council, (Acts 1) that the apostles office have successors. And the 266th successor to St Peter is Benedict XVI.

Now back to the topic.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Michael Akzoul is a follower of John Romanides.
This article creates numerous reprehensible distortions and false illusions which will guide the ignoramus into thinking better of Orthodox for having the true faith, when what is presented is not even traditional Orthodox teaching on many of the points.

He is a typical reactionary modernist “Orthodox” who mixes liberal protestant theology in to replace genuine Orthodox teachings .

Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism believe in original sin and that it is a guilt of some sort passed on to the ancestors of Adam and Eve.

Generally the more traditional Russian Orthodox have less biased, more correct resources for teaching about the genuine differences between Latin and Greek traditions, which are far less profound and more subtle than Fr. Michael Akzoul will have you believe.

Orthodoxy has a development of doctine too, it simply uses different terminology, but in principle it is the same there idea.

The canons changed because the very circumstances of the Church’s life changed. The Church’s dogmatic teaching became more precise; old heresies fell by the wayside and new ones took their place. Even the external structure of the Church’s government changed and new conditions arose in the life of the Church. The Church’s canons are reflections of the Church’s living organism, and, therefore, in considering this or that canon, one must thoroughly investigate its spirit, taking into account those circumstances which we listed above.

• Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pagodin)

For an example of the false modernist Orthodox theology vs the genuine Orthodoxy theologt take a read here to compare:

razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

 

[mardukm]

What did the article identify that determines collegiality? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7739493&postcount=531

Didn’t it say
“*ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators…[snip]…*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.”
i.e. the Roman Pontiff

The Absolutist Petrine mindset is utterly puzzling and alien to me. You give a quote that explicitly uses the terms “CO-OPERATORS” and “CO-OPERATION” in explaining the relationship between head and members, yet for some reason that I cannot fathom, the Absolutist Petrine mindset utterly neglects these words in its interpretion of these self-same statements. Seriously, do you even know what those terms mean, or do you just purposefully put on blinders when these terms that dictate the collegial nature of the Church come up? As I proved in the other thread wherein we had this debate, the Absolutist Petrine view depends completely on a consistent act of eisegesis of the texts (magisterial or otherwise) it uses to support its position. Absolutist Petrine advocates must necessarily IGNORE the ENTIRE context of the statements they pretend support their position.

Re:
Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

Typically, you have to avoid section 2 of Canon 341 which explicitly asserts that these acts that the Roman Pontiff confirms must be COLLEGIAL. That’s OK. It only proves how weak your Absolutist Petrine position actually is.

Don’t neglect canon 338 .

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

IOW, it is for the Roman Pontiff alone to approve a council [Can. 338 §1], because councils alone, CAN’T approve themselves. They require the pope [Can. 341 §1]

I refuted your use of Canon 338 in the other thread. Typically, you had no response. I will repeat the refutation here, and I predict that, typically, you will have no response here either.

I affirm the correctness of the Eastern Canons on this matter. In the Eastern Code, Canon 338 is translated from the original Latin as “it is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical Council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a Council, and to confirm its decrees.” The English translation of your Latin code causes Canon 338 and Canon 341 to contradict themselves - i.e., Canon 338 states the Pope alone approves, while Canon 341 states the Pope and the other members of the Council approve, while the Pope confirms).

The Eastern code is more consistent on the matter - the Canon analogous to the Latin Canon 338 states that the Pope alone confirms, while the Canon analogous to the Latin Canon 341 states that the Pope and the other members of the Council approve, while the Pope confirms.

Either admit that the English translation of your Code is a mistake, or just rest easy in the self-contradiction of your position.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Re: Canon 338 and 341 above, do you see the word “alone” in the above canons?

Councils alone don’t have the authority to approve themselves. But the pope alone CAN approve a council. [Can. 338 §1]

Yes. On the whole, the Absolutist Petrine position is inconsistent and self-refuting. Instead of admitting your error, you prefer to interpret your canons in a self-contradictory manner. No skin off my nose.

My position reflects the quotes above. If you agree with that, we have no problems.

I agree with you that the Absolutist Petrine view, canonically speaking, is self-contradictory. I assume you have no problem with that since you are the one providing proof for that self-contradiction.

My posts = quotes + links so people can see context, and don’t take my word for it or think I’m pulling stuff out of a hat.

It’s your eisegetic MISinterpretations of these quotes and links that you pull out of the hat.

The context was with respect to, agreeing/disagreeing to the # of, E councils. I said 21 and provided my reference to why there are 21. You said less than 21, with no reference provided other than yourself.

Then your citation was inappropriate, for it only referred to matters of faith and morals. You have yet to prove that the NUMBER of Ecumenical Councils is a matter of faith and morals.

Which of those councils mentioned, don’t concern matters of faith or morals?

At least 8 if them. Don’t you read the contents of the links you give? The link you gave gave the list and a brief description of each. Anyone can see for themselves that not all the Councils regarded as “ecumenical” were convened to deal with a matter of faith or morals. That you have to ask this question really only demonstrates that whenever you cite something, you typically don’t give regard for the full context of what it is you are citing, but rather myopically only home in on certain texts that your pretend support your erroneous Absolutist Petrine view.

BTW, as you could see from the link, the pope confirmed those 21 councils.

So what? The Pope confirmed the Council of Orange, but that never made it on the list. In fact, the Pope has confirmed a LOT of local Councils of the West, but they never made it on the list. It appears you have not fully worked out the inconsistencies in your logic.

That list is YOUR list with YOUR reasons.

Oh, OK. So you don’t agree that the list I gave corresponds to the list of Councils you regard as Ecumenical?

21 ecumenical councils is NOT my list. It came from the Catholic encyclopedia

An amusing statement, to say the least. I can picture our bishops preaching from the pulpit, and, instead of pulling out Scripture, or the text of the Fathers, they pull out the old Catholic Encyclopedia and thunderously affirm, “IT IS WRITTEN.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Did a pope confirm each of those 21 councils on that list? Yes.

The Pope has confirmed a LOT of Councils that never made it on the list of “Ecumenical Councils”. The Council of Orange and some of the Councils of Carthage are ones that I can think of off-hand.

Obviously, even though papal confirmation is a necessary determinant for the ecumenicity of a Council, it is not by any means the SOLE determinant.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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

As a faithful Catholic, I affirm the relevance of your quote to the issue of papal primacy/supremacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Jesus didn’t deny one of THEM would’nt be greatest among them. Jesus criticized those who WANTED to be greatest. He said a position like that comes from the Father.

Another stark difference between the High Petrine view and the Absolutist Petrine view.

The High Petrine view understands and accepts the thorough relevance of Voice1’s citation of the passage from Mark 9. Humility is an absolutely necessary component of not only the exercise, but also the very viability of the Petrine primacy/supremacy by Peter’s successors in Rome. The High Petrine view also understands and accepts that the office of the papacy is from Christ himself, given to the Church first in the person of St. Peter.

As demonstrated by brother SteveB’s response, the Absolutist Petrine position just wants to focus on the fact of divine establishment, and tries to deflect the relevance of the passage from Mark 9.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Don’t neglect canon 338 .

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

Is that the way things worked during the first millennium of the Church?

 

[mardukm]

Is that the way things worked during the first millennium of the Church?

I’d be interested in his response, as well.

I have my own response, but I want to see what he has to say first.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

The Absolutist Petrine mindset is utterly puzzling and alien to me. You give a quote that explicitly uses the terms “CO-OPERATORS” and “CO-OPERATION” in explaining the relationship between head and members, yet for some reason that I cannot fathom, the Absolutist Petrine mindset utterly neglects these words in its interpretion of these self-same statements. Seriously, do you even know what those terms mean, or do you just purposefully put on blinders when these terms that dictate the collegial nature of the Church come up?

Am I to understand collegiality to you is NOT about co-operators who co-operate?
M:

As I proved in the other thread wherein we had this debate, the Absolutist Petrine view depends completely on a consistent act of eisegesis of the texts (magisterial or otherwise) it uses to support its position. Absolutist Petrine advocates must necessarily IGNORE the ENTIRE context of the statements they pretend support their position.

We’ll see
M:

Typically, you have to avoid section 2 of Canon 341 which explicitly asserts that these acts that the Roman Pontiff confirms must be COLLEGIAL. That’s OK. It only proves how weak your Absolutist Petrine position actually is.

Not so fast.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.
§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

ergo

§1

• Since a council has no obligatory force unless it is approved by the pope together with the council fathers. Then a council can’t approve itself alone. It requires the pope
• confirmed by him, pope (singular) NOT them (plural)
• promulgated at his order. pope, (singular) NOT them (plural)

§2.

• to have obligatory force, decrees from the college must be accepted by the pope and need the SAME confirmation and promulgation, i.e. it is the pope (singularly), not the college (plural)

#2 reiterates #1.
M:

I refuted your use of Canon 338 in the other thread. Typically, you had no response. I will repeat the refutation here, and I predict that, typically, you will have no response here either.

I affirm the correctness of the Eastern Canons on this matter. In the Eastern Code, Canon 338 is translated from the original Latin as “it is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical Council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a Council, and to confirm** its decrees.**” The English translation of your Latin code causes Canon 338 and Canon 341 to contradict themselves - i.e., Canon 338 states the Pope alone approves, while Canon 341 states the Pope and the other members of the Council approve, while the Pope confirms).

The Eastern code is more consistent on the matter - the Canon analogous to the Latin Canon 338 states that the Pope alone confirms, while the Canon analogous to the Latin Canon 341 states that the Pope and the other members of the Council approve, while the Pope confirms.

Either admit that the English translation of your Code is a mistake, or just rest easy in the self-contradiction of your position.

CONTINUED

Let’s review the canons.

Canon 338 says

338 §1.*It is for the Roman Pontiff alone *to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.
§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

Highlighting the 2 canons

338 §1-2 is about the Pope acting “alone” ( I didn’t add the word “alone” )

• convoke an ecumenical council
• preside over it or someone of his choosing
• transfer, suspend, dissolve a council
• approve its decrees

341 §1-2 is about the council in action. “alone” is missing. IOW, the council can’t approve, confirm, or promulgate, its decrees.
But the pope CAN do all that “alone” [338 §1-2 ]

 

[steve_b]

Is that the way things worked during the first millennium of the Church?

Depends I guess on what is stressed.

Have you seen this article? Your thoughts?

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

 

[josephdaniel29]

Depends I guess on what is stressed.

Have you seen this article? Your thoughts?

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

I think it’s a typical way for a Catholic to look at the subject. One that’s completely colored by your peculiar presuppositions.

 

[steve_b]

Another stark difference between the High Petrine view and the Absolutist Petrine view.

The High Petrine view understands and accepts the thorough relevance of Voice1’s citation of the passage from Mark 9. Humility is an absolutely necessary component of not only the exercise, but also the very viability of the Petrine primacy/supremacy by Peter’s successors in Rome. The High Petrine view also understands and accepts that the office of the papacy is from Christ himself, given to the Church first in the person of St. Peter.

As demonstrated by brother SteveB’s response, the Absolutist Petrine position just wants to focus on the fact of divine establishment, and tries to deflect the relevance of the passage from Mark 9.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t discount Mark, It’s just that Luke adds more detail about this event. That’s why I stressed Luke.

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

it’s not cool to be arguing like this in the upper room especially after they just received the Eucharist. Jesus tells us who instigated the argument. Satans been there in the upper room the entire time. Jesus saw him, the apostles didn’t. He entered Judas at the table.

how did Jesus end their argument? Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO. Did He say one would NOT (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No, He confirmed that one of them would ( hegeomai).

Hegeomai definition

**1)**to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

Right after Jesus makes this general statement, Jesus addresses Peter.

Jesus said

Lk 22:
31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers."

*sterizo definition
1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2) to strengthen, make firm
3) to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

Satan caused the argument, and Jesus settled it. To hear Jesus say, Satan is going to sift all of them but He only mentions He’s praying for Simon, because Simon’s the one to lead THEM, strengthen THEM, have authority over THEM, etc, If any of them had any doubts before this, who their leader is, that interchange by Jesus ended all arguments present and future.

Jesus confirms it again in [Jn 21:16…] after His resurrection. And Jesus told us who the Father’s choice was in [Mt 16:16…]

 

[steve_b]

I think it’s a typical way for a Catholic to look at the subject. One that’s completely colored by your peculiar presuppositions.

IMO, That article speaks directly to the op’s article. Particularly to point #2 in the op’s article regarding authority.

 

[mardukm]

I think it’s a typical way for a Catholic to look at the subject. One that’s completely colored by your peculiar presuppositions.

If you are satisfied with his response, that’s fine. I’m not. I don’t think he answered your question at all.

I would still like for him to answer your question directly, if you don’t mind - and, of course, if brother SteveB doesn’t mind.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I don’t discount Mark…

Then that’s the first thing you should have admitted.

Your immediate reaction to highlight the authority of the Pope, without first admitting the necessity of our Lord’s exhortation to humility, demonstrates a very different mindset.

To you Absolutist Petrine advocates, the papacy is an agency of control over the Church.
To High Petrine advocates, the papacy is an agency of service to the Church.

I can admit that such a distinction is not always so sharp between our respective camps, but to non-Catholics, it may not be so obvious, and your seemingly reactionary responses are a bad witness for the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB

Am I to understand collegiality to you is NOT about co-operators who co-operate?

Collegiality is exactly about co-operation of the co-operators. The Pope is one of these co-operators. The term “co-operators” and “co-operation” dictates that not only do his brother bishops cooperate with the Pope in collegial acts (whether in Council or dispersed), but ALSO that the Pope cooperates with his brother bishops. This refutes your claim that it is the Pope ALONE that makes an Ecumenical Council what it is. As stated, every single piece of “proof” you have attempted to give to support your Absolutist Petrine excesses have simply turned out to be self-refuting.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.
§2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

ergo

§1

• Since a council has no obligatory force unless it is approved by the pope together with the council fathers. Then a council can’t approve itself alone.

Your next sentence or clause should be, “it must be approved by the Pope TOGETHER WITH the Council Fathers,” exactly as the Canon states. But notice that your subsequent sentence describing what an Ecumenical Council requires strangely leaves that out. As consistenly stated and demonstrated, your Absolutist Petrine position is based on a myopic focus on particular texts, instead of a contextual consideration of the FULL text.

It should be noted, in addition, that your statement “A council can’t approve itself alone” is an error. In fact, a Council can indeed approve itself alone, because the Council is composed of the head bishop and his brother bishops, who TOGETHER NOT APART form the Council. Your idea of a “council” is a monstrosity that is a body separated from its head.

• to have obligatory force, decrees from the college must be accepted by the pope and need the SAME confirmation and promulgation, i.e. it is the pope (singularly), not the college (plural)
  #2 reiterates #1.

In the interpretation that you have pulled out of the hat, you forgot that the approval of the Council fathers is also a necessary condition. The approval is not singular, but plural.

When the Pope confirms, approves, and promulgates, it is an act of co-operation with his brother bishops, not a purely unilateral act by the Pope. Or did you put on your blinders again, and forget the prior quote you gave?

Let’s review the canons.

338 §1-2 is about the Pope acting “alone” ( I didn’t add the word “alone” )

• convoke an ecumenical council
• preside over it or someone of his choosing
• transfer, suspend, dissolve a council
• approve its decrees

341 §1-2 is about the council in action. “alone” is missing. IOW, the council can’t approve, confirm, or promulgate, its decrees.

But the pope CAN do all that “alone” [338 §1-2 ]

Sure. AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, those are his personal prerogatives. But without the approval of the rest of his brother bishops as a coincident and necessary condition, those acts alone are insufficient to give a Council its status and authority as an Ecumenical Council.

Btw, I see you are strangely silent on the issue of the “21 Ecumenical Councils.” Is your silence a tacit admission that you were wrong when you claimed that EVERY Ecumenical Council was called to settle an issue of Faith and/or morals?

Blessings,
Marduk