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

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

This is the main reason you’ve really got me convinced, Marduk, at least on some councils. I always thought it was strange, even before I learned all this stuff, that several councils considered ecumenical dealt with such specifically local/external matters.

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

Oh, Josephdaniel, we know as well as you that the emperors convened the first seven ecumenical councils, and that other bishops or patriarchs presided over them.

So no, it didn’t always work like that on a practical level. Still, the only important rationale behind the citation you were responding to is that a body cannot act without its head. It’s enough for us Catholics that the pope officially confirmed the decrees and decisions of those councils. Obviously neither of our churches would handle ecumenical councils the same way we did in the first millennium, since there isn’t even a Byzantine emperor anymore…

As Marduk has made clear with his High Petrine/Absolutist Petrine distinction, the authority of an ecumenical council is not an extension of papal authority. The pope confirms a council’s decrees not as an outside power exercising authority over it, but as a part of it - as its head.

To 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.

Well said, Marduk. I agree with both this distinction and its critical importance. Christ washed the feet of His Apostles and taught them that leadership is service. I’m comfortable with saying that the real meaning of universal papal jurisdiction is that the entire Church is entitled to the service-leadership of the pope when they need it.

Besides, as I said earlier, even though I don’t know a lot of history I already have learned too much to realistically consider the papacy “an agency of control over the Church.” Not even in the High Middle Ages did the pope even seek to micromanage everything, and all Magisterial authority has never, even in the Latin Church, truly been regarded as a mere extension of papal authority.

Even without reading works of ecclesiology, watching how the Church actually functions throughout history tells us this.

 

[steve_b]

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.

Now THAT is a reactionary statement to what I said.
M:

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.

You create the labels “absolute” vs “high” petrine understanding. Not me. You can’t accept the word “alone” in canon 338 which refers to the pope ALONE. You can’t accept the words “he” and “him” (singular), when referring to the pope, because you want the words “they” and “them” plural, to replace the exclusive reference to the pope’s authority “alone”

also consider

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Re: 333.2?

• Did you notice, in fulfilling his office as supreme paster of the Church, the pope has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

how do you interpret the part that says

The pope “has the right according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.”

especially since to you, EVERYTHING the pope does, MUST be done collegially, NOT personally/alone. YOU are the one who has absolutized one aspect of exercising the office, (collegially) to the exclusion of his right to act (alone) if he determines so.

Plus, canon law specifies what he can do alone.
M:

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,

You create this distinction (absolute vs high), not me, then you make this distinction a huge deal, and now you admit in your mind the distinction YOU created, in reality, isn’t sharp/clear as you would like it to be?

Is it because I continued to quote Church docs, rather than paraphrase canons, and thus wouldn’t let you rewrite the canons to suit the labels and distinctions of your making?
M:

and your seemingly reactionary responses are a bad witness for the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

You finally admit, after all the posts, that your distinctions of your own making, aren’t clear in your own mind, yet I’m the reactionary and a bad witness for the Catholic Church?

I’ll ignore your insult this time. But added to all your other insulting posts in the past, I’m real close to putting you on ignore status.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother SteveB

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.

An ecumenical council isn’t ecumenical unless the pope approves it. The council can’t approve itself .

The pope is NOT just one of the co-operators. That’s the problem. You still have an EO mentality when it comes to papal jurisdiction.
M:

Your next sentence or clause should be, “it must be approved by the Pope TOGETHER WITH the Council Fathers,” exactly as the Canon states.

The point is, the council can’t approve itself.

HOWEVER,

338 §1-2 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

The pope has the right according to his office, to act personally (alone) OR collegially. He determines that.
M:

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.

I left nothing out.

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.

Do you see in canon 341, confirmed by THEM? No. You see confirmed by HIM (the pope)

Do you see promulgated by THEM? No. You see promulgated by the pope.

338 §1-2 is about the Pope acting “alone” to

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

M:

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.

(cont) next page
M:

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.

If you’re talking about 341 §1 above, it’s clear, a council can’t approve itself alone it requires the pope. And the pope not the council, confirms and promulgates the council.

The pope CAN act alone. 338 §1-2 (above)
M:

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?

(cont) next page
M:

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.

Are you denying canon 338?
M:

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

Look them over.

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306ch.asp

I presume you want to look at 8-21

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

Now THAT is a reactionary statement to what I said.

My response was not reactionary, but true. Your post #538 in response to Voice1’s citation of Mark 9 does not once admit the truth that the office of the papacy is one of service. And neither did your follow up response to me in post#550 contain any admission on the truth that the office of the papacy is one of service. Your ONLY concern was to prove that the Pope has control over the Church given to him by Jesus.

You create the labels “absolute” vs “high” petrine understanding. Not me. You can’t accept the word “alone” in canon 338 which refers to the pope ALONE. You can’t accept the words “he” and “him” (singular), when referring to the pope, because you want the words “they” and “them” plural, to replace the exclusive reference to the pope’s authority “alone”

Funny. I always admitted that these are the Pope’s unique prerogatives WITHIN the Council. But that’s not enough from your Absolutist Petrine perspective. You want the Pope to be in SOLE control of the Council, with absolutely no regard for his brother bishops. I don’t have a problem with the Canons - I only have a problem with your attempts to make the Council a monstrosity that is a body separated from its head.

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.
§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.
§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

:yawn: A power that is “always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church” and cannot be used to impede the local authority of his brother bishops. Oh well – so much for your concept of an absolute religious monarch.

Re: 333.2?
how do you interpret the part that says The pope “has the right according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.”

especially since to you, EVERYTHING the pope does, MUST be done collegially, NOT personally/alone. YOU are the one who has absolutized one aspect of exercising the office, (collegially) to the exclusion of his right to act (alone) if he determines so.

.
Though your own mindset cannot conceive of it, those who are more grounded in Church history know that the term “personal” is not equivalent to the term “unilateral” or “solitary.”

The Pope can indeed exercise his authority in a personal or collegial fashion. Permit me to explain according to the reality of the Church’s Sacred Tradition:

When exercised in a collegial manner, that means the Pope is FORMALLY exercising his authority within a Synod or in some other collegial setting as a member of the Synod or College wherein he is the head bishop. The authority is formally collegial - i.e., the whole Synod or College is the authority, not just the Pope alone. This is the way of it, for example, in an Ecumenical Council. As head bishop, the Pope has some unique prerogatives that no other bishop has, but when he exercises those prerogatives, he is doing so not in his own name, but in the name of the Council of which he is a member. His actions of approving, confirming and promulgating are done WITHIN the Council, not outside or above it. These are his personal prerogatives WITHIN the Council, but to someone outside the Council, such as you or I, they are actions OF the Council (or College). So the Pope, for example, confirms and promulgates the teaching of the Council as a member of it, but we would not say that the Pope has given us this teaching - rather, we would say that the COUNCIL has given us this teaching.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

When exercised in a personal manner, that means the Pope is utilizing the authority that is formally invested in the unique Petrine office of the papacy (i.e., not as a formal member of a Synod or College). But even when the Pope exercises authority in this personal manner, does this mean that he exercises it unilaterally or in a solitary way? Does this mean that he can exercise it without taking into consideration the needs of the universal Church or the local Church? Does this mean that he can exercise it in violation of the local authority of the proper bishop of a diocese. Does this mean he can exercise it in violation of the canons of the Church which have been legislated in a collegial manner? Does this mean he can exercise it to oppose the dogmas of the Church that have been established collegially? The answer to all these questions is “no.” The authority itself is personal, but it is always utilized with collegial considerations.

Plus, canon law specifies what he can do alone.

The only examples you’ve given are in the context of a COLLEGIAL exercise of authority. As consistently demonstrated, all your examples have merely been self-refuting.

You create this distinction (absolute vs high), not me, then you make this distinction a huge deal, and now you admit in your mind the distinction YOU created, in reality, isn’t sharp/clear as you would like it to be?

Is it because I continued to quote Church docs, rather than paraphrase canons, and thus wouldn’t let you rewrite the canons to suit the labels and distinctions of your making?

You finally admit, after all the posts, that your distinctions of your own making, aren’t clear in your own mind, yet I’m the reactionary and a bad witness for the Catholic Church?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I did not say that the distinction between your Absolutist Petrine excesses and the High Petrine view “isn’t sharp/clear.” I was merely referring to one specific point - the distinction between service vs. control. I made that statement because I am aware that Absolutist Petrine advocates sometimes like to pretend that “control” is a form of “service” to the Church.

There are admittedly several things that the Absolutist and High Petrine views share in common, as opposed to the Low Petrine view. For example:

1. The necessity of the office of head bishop for the Church universal;
2. The divine establishment of this office of head bishop for the Church universal, with its attendant prerogatives and responsibilities;
3. That there are levels of episcopal jurisdiction in the Church.
4. That an Ecumenical Council is not above the Pope.

There are also several things that the High and Low Petrine views share in common, as opposed to the Absolutist Petrine view. For example:

1. The collegial reality of the Church;
2. The necessity of Apostolic Canon 34 as a Rule of Faith;
3. That the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council
4. That the Pope does not have the proper authority to impede the local authority of his brother bishops.

Believe it or not, there are also a few things that the Low and Absolutist Petrine views share in common, as opposed to the High Petrine view. For example:

1. A diminution of the proper authority of other head bishops in the Church. To Absolutist Petrine advocates, other head bishops are just practical conveniences at the service of the Pope; to Low Petrine advocates, head bishops don’t have true and proper jurisdiction over other local Churches, but are at best administrative entities.
2. Consistent exaggeration of the office of the Roman Pontiff. The Absolutist Petrine advocates do it to defend the papacy; the Low Petrine advocates do it to oppose the papacy.

I’ll ignore your insult this time. But added to all your other insulting posts in the past, I’m real close to putting you on ignore status.

I’m not going to retract my statements until you admit that the office of the papacy must necessarily and always exercise humility in a spirit of service to his brother bishops - which you have yet to do.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

No response to my post #542?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7758786&postcount=542

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

An ecumenical council isn’t ecumenical unless the pope approves it.

Correction. A Council is not ecumenical unless the Pope TOGETHER WITH his brother bishops approves it.

The council can’t approve itself .

Yes it can, because a council by definition is the head bishop together with his brother bishops.

The pope is NOT just one of the co-operators. That’s the problem.

Yes. The problem is that you wish to place the Pope outside of and above the Council, instead of being a member of it.

You still have an EO mentality when it comes to papal jurisdiction.

I was never EO.

338 §1-2 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.

You didn’t add the word “alone,” but you add an interpretation that the Canons don’t intend.

The pope has the right according to his office, to act personally (alone) OR collegially. He determines that.

That’s exactly where your error lies. The Ecumenical Council is a COLLEGIAL entitity, and in this setting, the Pope exercises authority COLLEGIALLY, not personally. Every unique action the Pope performs as a member of and for the Council is an action of the COUNCIL ITSELF, never of the Pope apart from the Council.

I left nothing out.

Correction: When you quote it, you leave nothing out, but when you interpret it, you leave a LOT out.

Do you see in canon 341, confirmed by THEM? No. You see confirmed by HIM (the pope)

Do you see promulgated by THEM? No. You see promulgated by the pope.

In Canon 341, do you see approved by THEM? Yes.

In Canon 341, do you see that the Pope confirms and promulgates “truly collegial” acts? Yes.

if you’re talking about 341 §1 above, it’s clear, a council can’t approve itself alone it requires the pope.

It requires the Pope AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, not apart from it.

And the pope not the council, confirms and promulgates the council.

Correction: the Pope confirms and promulgates as a MEMBER OF the Council, not apart from it.

The pope CAN act alone. 338 §1-2 (above)

Nope. Those are simply his unique prerogatives WITHIN the Council. It doesn’t mean that the Pope acts alone in a Council.

Are you denying canon 338?

I’m denying your interpretation of Canon 338 that makes it contradict Canon 341

Look them over.

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306ch.asp

I presume you want to look at 8-21

Is this new reference different from the list and descriptions given by the old Catholic Encyclopedia? If not, then why should I bother to read it? If it is different, then I have no reason to trust it - and thus no reason to read it. As a source of things Latin, I trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia more than modern Latin Catholic apologetics.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

:yawn: A power that is “always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church”

“He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.”
M:

.
Though your own mindset cannot conceive of it, those who are more grounded in Church history know that the term “personal” is not equivalent to the term “unilateral” or “solitary.”

when distinguishing personal from collegial, solitary is EXACTLY what is being said. And the pope chooses which one, according to circumstances.
M:

The Pope can indeed exercise his authority in a personal or collegial fashion. Permit me to explain according to the reality of the Church’s Sacred Tradition:

[snip]
.

It’s all identified in canon law.

:

THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS
Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

Without the head, the college does NOT have supreme and full power over the universal Church.

Can. 337 §1. The college of bishops exercises power offer the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.
§2. It exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which the Roman Pontiff has publicly declared or freely accepted as such so that it becomes a true collegial act.
§3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.

It’s the Roman Pontiff declaring or accepting a council that makes the council collegial. The pope selects ways bishops exercise collegiality

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.

Can. 339 §1. All the bishops and only the bishops who are members of the college of bishops have the right and duty to take part in an ecumenical council with a deliberative vote.
§2. Moreover, some others who are not bishops can be called to an ecumenical council by the supreme authority of the Church, to whom it belongs to determine their roles in the council.

Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

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.

refer to Can. 338 §1-2 the pope is over every aspect of the council.

Can. 341 §1-2 was designed to refute those who think the council is over the pope, or that a council could approve it’s own decrees without the pope…

 

[mardukm]

“He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.”

when distinguishing personal from collegial, solitary is EXACTLY what is being said. And the pope chooses which one, according to circumstances.

If he exercises his right according to the needs of the Church, then it is never solitary.

refer to Can. 338 §1-2 the pope is over every aspect of the council.

Nope. Not “over” but IN COOPERATION WITH his brother bishops. Don’t you recall that quote you gave, or are you putting your blinders on again?

Can. 341 §1-2 was designed to refute those who think the council is over the pope, or that a council could approve it’s own decrees without the pope…

And also designed to refute those who think that the Pope acts apart from or above the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother SteveB,

Your post #538 in response to Voice1’s citation of Mark 9 does not once admit the truth that the office of the papacy is one of service. And neither did your follow up response to me in post#550 contain any admission on the truth that the office of the papacy is one of service. Your ONLY concern was to prove that the Pope has control over the Church given to him by Jesus.

1 voice said

"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.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7751209&postcount=538

There were 2 issues in that quote

Issue #1

• "Anyone who wants to be first "

Issue #2

• “must be the very last, and the servant of all.””

I addressed issue #1.

Is there any indication ANYWHERE in scripture that Peter wanted to be first? No. And because Mark’s gospel isn’t the only place this argument broke out. I chose to reference Luke.

Re: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7759446&postcount=550

Staying with issue #1, I selected Luke because he gives more information about this argument, which Luke shows happens again at the last supper.

It was the details Jesus gave that I found interesting

 

[steve_b]

If he exercises his right according to the needs of the Church, then it is never solitary.

When canon 338 says “alone” it means he doesn’t need anyone’s approval.
M:

Nope. Not “over” but IN COOPERATION WITH his brother bishops. Don’t you recall that quote you gave, or are you putting your blinders on again?

Can. 338 §1-2 the pope is over every aspect of the council.
M:

And also designed to refute those who think that the Pope acts apart from or above the Council.

It’s designed to refute those who think the pope CAN’T act alone. That’s why canon 338 §1 uses the word “alone”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ok the time has come to unsubscribe to this thread…migraine reading these five-mile posts and the back and forth…ay yay yay…:shrug:

 

[steve_b]

Is this new reference different from the list and descriptions given by the old Catholic Encyclopedia? If not, then why should I bother to read it? If it is different, then I have no reason to trust it - and thus no reason to read it. As a source of things Latin, I trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia more than modern Latin Catholic apologetics.

Blessings,
Marduk

The list is the same. All 21. As for your “modern” comment, these councils are on record. If someone tries to screw around with the details, it’s easy to find.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not going to retract my statements until you admit that the office of the papacy must necessarily and always exercise humility in a spirit of service to his brother bishops - which you have yet to do.

Blessings,
Marduk

Where did THAT come from? Who EVER said the pope doesn’t have to exercise the spirit of humility and service to his brother bishops? Not me…EVER. Nor have I come accross ANY Catholic at CA who has done that, and I’ve been around her since 04.

Conversation over. And as promised, You’re now on my ignore list

 

[mardukm]

Where did THAT come from? Who EVER said the pope doesn’t have to exercise the spirit of humility and service to his brother bishops? Not me…EVER. Nor have I come accross ANY Catholic at CA who has done that, and I’ve been around her since 04.

I never said you “said” it. But a reactionary response to a post by Voice1 (who intended to highlight the element of humility and service in Christ’s words) that focuses ONLY on trying to prove, according to your own words, that “*one of THEM *[would] be greatest among them,” without simultaneously affirming Voice1’s point, can easily be interpreted in a bad way by non-Catholics. That you cannot see that is truly disappointing.

When I had this debate at the Apologetics Forum with you and other Absolutist Petrine advocates, I distinctly recall that when I brought up the issue that the holder of the papal office was intended by Christ not to exercise control over the Church, but rather to exercise humility in service, the response I got was, "What does humility have to do with it?"

I stand by my statements that Absolutist Petrine advocates provide a bad witness for the Truths of the Catholic Faith.

Conversation over. And as promised, You’re now on my ignore list

I respect your decision.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It’s a shame the conversation has taken this turn, I think.

As a Latin Catholic, I just don’t see Marduk’s posts, explanations, and analyses as undermining in any way the truth of the papacy. On the contrary, I’ve found them immeasurably helpful in the way they bring specificity and clarity to the matter.

Marduk’s terminology and distinctions (Absolutist Petrine/High Petrine/Low Petrine) have taken hits from both eastern Orthodox Christians and some of my fellow Roman Catholic Christians, but these distinctions seem clear and valid to me.

As I’ve said before, I’m no expert on Church history. But everything I have seen so far seems to destroy the credibility of both the Absolutist Petrine and Low Petrine positions, and I truly do find the doctrine of the papacy and universal papal jurisdiction - as understood from the High Petrine view - to be the most historically and ecclesiologically credible.

Thank you for your patience and perseverance, Marduk.