T
TrentCath
Guest
Consistent? Seeing as neither the Catechism of the Council of Trent nor the Catechism of St Pius X nor any code of canon law agrees with your interepretation, I hardly see how it can be consistent
- Status
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
You reference the Catechisms of Trent and St. Pius X quite a bit, TrentCath. What about the most recent CCC, which was promulgated (or whatever the official term is) by Pope Blessed John Paul II?Consistent? Seeing as neither the Catechism of the Council of Trent nor the Catechism of St Pius X nor any code of canon law agrees with your interepretation, I hardly see how it can be consistent
T
TrentCath
Guest
I find that catechism a bit too ‘wordy’ and ambigous at times, I prefer the other two.
I also use them as the two express the same faith despite being ‘promulugated’ (not sure thats the correct word) just under 400 years apart, I see in that an admirable example of the churches true faith.
M
mardukm
Guest
T
TrentCath
Guest
There are two major problems here
*]The sources you have cited are not relevant, they show why the primacy was set up and do not limit the popes powers to only being supreme if they meet some vague definition of what is ‘the good of the church’
*]It is for the pope to decide what is ‘for the good of the church’, unless something explicitly endangers souls by contradicting in an irreconciliable way previous infallible teaching something must be presumed to be for the good of the church
I have never denied that the Papal primacy was set up ‘for the good of the church’, what I do refute is the idea that this somehow means that actually the Bishops can say ‘oh, sorry, we don’t think thats for the good of the church and so we’re not going to follow it’ That would lead to chaos and anarchy. No. It is only if something strays into endangering the salvation of souls, something which can only be determined if the pope contradicted De Fide teachings (non-infallibly) of course.
No, the Catechism of St pius X was based on the vision of an easily accessible and universal catechism but was only ever ‘the binding catechism’ of Italy, nevertheless it was widely used and being forumlated by one of only two popes sainted in some 400 years as well as directly after the First Vatican Council has some considerable weight and is relevant to the discussion.
As for my ‘lying’, thats slander I’m afraid.
Your attempts to show that the popes power is limited by those sources is frankly pointless. Who determines what is for the good of the church? The Pope (except in the very very very rare circumstances I have spoken of above) Who decides what the needs of the church are? The Pope. Who decides whether to exercise his supreme authority individually or collegially? The Pope. Who can convoke, move or dissolve ecumenical councils whensoever he wishes? The Pope. Who is the last court of appeal in ALL cases? The Pope. Who can dismiss and appoint bishops? The Pope. Who has the chief responsibility to protect and faithfully expound the deposit of faith? The Pope
Who is the only person who can forgive certain sins and revoke certain excommunications? The Pope. Who has supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction? The Pope. Who has an ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over all the clergy and faithful? The Pope. To whom must all clergy and the faithful submit to both individually and collectively in matters of faith,morals, discipline and the government of the church? The Pope.
All the above can be found from:
*]The Lateran Council’s
*]The Council of Florence
*]The First Vatican Council
*]The Second Vatican Council
*]The Catechism of The Council of Trent
*]The Catechism of St Pius X
*]The ‘Baltimore’ Catechism
I do not quote from all the above because the quotes would fill a book but you can of course look at the catechisms and see that they do in fact agree with what I am saying, interestingly the latter two both identify the One True Church of Christ as ‘Roman’ going so far as to explain why it is Roman and why the church is properly called the ‘Roman Catholic Church’. Disagree as you may with me, that makes three catechisms stretching 400 years that interpret the teaching of the church that way, you can disagree with me thats your inalienable right, you cannot however say that I am the only way saying it or that I am saying something new or novel. Its not, its been said time and time again by many many others and taught by the church.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dependant in what way? For ALL things, or is it for correction when it is necessitated. It certainly can’t be for ALL things, since your quote states that they are placed in their position by the Holy Spirit, not the Pope. If it can’t be for ALL things, then the Pope’s power can’t be absolute as you claim. If it’s for correction, then since you agree that the Pope can be corrected, then there is more equality than you pretend to deny.
That’s not true, because the Council of Florence did not count as “ecumenical” several of the Councils are today referred to as “ecumenical.”
No. You started by impugning Eastern theology, which the Church accepts as valid, which is why there are Eastern and Oriental Catholics (i.e., Orthodox in communion with Rome). You are ignorant of the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. And you admitted that you were in error on several points.
Whoever said that? It’s just in your typically fanciful imagination?
Unacceptable to you (because you are ignorant of what non-Latin Catholics teach), but not to the Church.
Oh you mean like your catechisms? The Official Relatio IS a conciliar document, reflecting the true understanding of the V1 teachings. But you are ignorant of what the Fathers expressed in that document, since you choose to remain ignorant.
How can you appeal to a non-conciliar document after you criticized the use of non-conciliar documents. You are typically being inconsistent, if not downright hypocritical.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cecilianus
Guest
If you believed that you would practice what you preach by leaving the SSPX and returning to the Catholic Church.
M
mardukm
Guest
V1, the Canons, V2 and the CC are not relevant. Gotcha!
Apparently, your schismatic group have no problem figuring out for themselves what is “good for the Church.” Why can’t anyone else? That’s hypocrisy.
The Pope decides…UNLESS [fill in the blank according to the whims of a schismatic group]. It’s very hard to take you seriously.
Oh, you mean like the chaos of your group’s schism? Thanks You cleared that up for all here.
And who determines this? Are you going to hypocritically claim “It’s the Pope alone who determines, but I belong to a group who has judged that he actually can’t do that.”
But that catechism doesn’t say anywhere that the Pope has absolute power. So it’s best value is simply to demonstrate your own inconsistency.
Not if it’s the truth. I did not accuse you of lying on the quotes from the Canons and the CCC (because I had not provided them previously), but I did so for the quotes from V1 and V2 because they had already been priorly been given. You responded to the posts where those quotes where given, so there is no excuse that “I missed it.”
Where are the quotes? You haven’t given any.
True.
Where are the quotes that contain the clause “whensoever he wishes?” Your empty claims are insufficient.
Nope. The local bishop, with the moderation of the regional body of bishops, has the final word on the celebration of the Eucharist in his diocese. The local bishop is also the ONLY one who has the final authority to grant to a priest in his diocese the plenary faculty to forgive sins. And other things besides on which the local bishop is the final word, not the Pope. The Pope can intervene only if the local bishop is somehow impeded. The Pope himself has no authority to impede the authority of a local orthodox Catholic bishop in his own territorial jurisdiction.
But your group does not believe this, so save your breath. In any case, other head bishops can also do this.
A responsibility also given to the College of Bishops as a supreme authority in the Church. But your group doesn’t really believe this for it feels free to contradict V2, confirmed by a Pope, on some doctrinal matters, so save your breath.
ALL BISHOPS CAN FORGIVE ALL SINS. Are you truly ignorant of this fact? What is in the sole competence of the Pope is to remit the temporal penalties of certain sins and excommunicable offenses.
So is the College of Bishops.
True.
Also, the College of Bishops.
You haven’t been able to give a single quote that says the Pope has absolute authority in the Church, so your proposal is novel and erroneous.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TrentCath
Guest
As I’ve said before there is simply no point continuing the discussion, you can choose to continue your particular beliefs of the pope and the papacy but they are not the beliefs of the church. I do not accept that the ‘relatio’ of Vatican I says what you say it does and it is clear that it you are blind to the fact that the pope can for all intents and purposes exercise his supreme power whensoever he wishes.
I referred to non-conciliar documents not because the council did not clearly say what i interpreted it as saying but in order to show you that the consistent interpretation of the church has been my view not yours.
I have no intention of engaging in discussion about the SSPX here and I will ignore any further comments made about them in whatsoever way. I do this not because I cannot defend my position but because it is not allowed on this forum, you can choose to find out their position if you so wish.
I’m afraid the Catechism does say that, to the degree that it even says the bishops exercise their power on dependence to him. That is in fact almost a word for word quote from it, so you saying otherwise shows me that you havent’t read it.
As for continous obssession with the need to give quotes, all that I have said is professed by the Latern Councils and the two Vatican Councils, unless of course you resort to your convoluted and against the text interpretation. As for those who hold to your interpretation? Well the fact that the catechism created by St Pius X and intended to convey the teachings of the council, it rejects it.
I will engage in NO further discussion on this matter because we have reached an impasse, It suffices for me to say that those catechisms sum up my beliefs accept or reject them as you may.
God Bless
I referred to non-conciliar documents not because the council did not clearly say what i interpreted it as saying but in order to show you that the consistent interpretation of the church has been my view not yours.
I have no intention of engaging in discussion about the SSPX here and I will ignore any further comments made about them in whatsoever way. I do this not because I cannot defend my position but because it is not allowed on this forum, you can choose to find out their position if you so wish.
I’m afraid the Catechism does say that, to the degree that it even says the bishops exercise their power on dependence to him. That is in fact almost a word for word quote from it, so you saying otherwise shows me that you havent’t read it.
As for continous obssession with the need to give quotes, all that I have said is professed by the Latern Councils and the two Vatican Councils, unless of course you resort to your convoluted and against the text interpretation. As for those who hold to your interpretation? Well the fact that the catechism created by St Pius X and intended to convey the teachings of the council, it rejects it.
I will engage in NO further discussion on this matter because we have reached an impasse, It suffices for me to say that those catechisms sum up my beliefs accept or reject them as you may.
God Bless
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
We all admit that there are differences between Orthodox doctrine and western doctrine, TrentCath. That’s not in question. What we deny is that there is anything heterodox about Orthodox theology - except, of course, for its contemporary ecclesiology that does not acknowledge the universal authority of the bishop of Rome.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that we “believe the exact same things.” The claim of most Catholics is that neither Catholic theology nor Orthodox theology is actually heterodox from the other’s perspective.
I’m positive Marduk agrees with the obvious point that among western, eastern, and oriental Christianity there is no theological uniformity.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with you on that, either. Obviously the Orthodox deny those teachings. The disagreement was on whether eastern and oriental Catholics deny them - and I see absolutely no reason to think they do. But of course we acknowledge the obvious truth that the Orthodox deny them.
I still see no evidence of this from the Catholic perspective and am a little disheartened that you cling to it as a default position… unless we have a specific reason to think otherwise, we should trust Rome, which seems to think that the eastern Catholic churches (who hold to their eastern or oriental traditions on such matters) are just fine.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I’m not announcing anything here “ex cathedra.” I’m simply raising points with you. If I didn’t believe you to be an extremely well-educated and committed Catholic, I wouldn’t be raising these points with you. Don’t know about you, but my religious education is a continuous thing.Without the pope’s approval, no council, Trullo included, has authority outside of those who were represented by that council.
This is the point of discussion. Even without the pope’s approval, Trullo was a council and did not require the charism of papal infallibility to be such. What Trullo was not was an ecumenical council because the pope, representing the Western Church, had no participation in it and rejected it. That rejection did not make the canons of Trullo somehow “invalid” for the rest of the Church.
As I said, because it’s not an ecumenical council, this is NOT a good council to use for our discussion…true?
I think it is a good council for this discussion because it does show that papal approval was not required for it to stand for the Eastern Church. In fact, it shows that neither papal approval for its calling nor papal ratification of its canons implied it wasn’t a valid council for the East that considers it to be an important appendix to two Ecumenical Councils which is why it is still called the “Quinisext Council.” But I agree that you disagree!
Ecumenical status, is also the charism of the pope being successor to Peter, head of the Church.
So I’m asking for clear evidence that in the first millennium of the Church’s existence, the papal Petrine Ministry was something beyond that of representative of the Western Church during the first seven Ec. Councils. Was not the ratification of the canons of those councils done by all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian world? At what point was the Pope of Rome alone considered to bear the charism of indefectibility/infallibility in those instances? I’m asking, not telling.
Are we getting snippy?
.
Actually, my friends who are Tridentine Catholics are much more snippy about the Latin Church’s lax fasting/ascetical rules.
I never denied a pope can be disciplined.
Then we agree!
- Trullo isn’t an ecumenical council and therefore, didn’t apply to the West, AND isn’t going to help in this discussion of ecumenical councils, the topic of the thread, so I questioned bringing it up.
- IMO, I thought Honorius would be best handled on another thread.
- Where have I shown that I outright reject what you say?
With respect, (I messed up my response and included comments in the shaded area above . . .)
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Fone Bone,
I’ve read RC commentaries on Original Sin and purgatory - if someone could explain to me what the Latin Church of today really DOES believe about these two points, I would be very grateful!!
Alex
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Orthodox historically always accepted Petrine primacy - it was was his supremacy that they took issue with.
S
steve_b
Guest
- Cyprian ~70 years before Sardica referenced the pope as the court of appeal
- Irenaeus ~100 years before Cyprian referenced the pope as the one all churches are to agree with
- Clement ~100 years before Irenaeus, one could say Corinth went to the bishop of Rome because they knew it would bring closure to the sedition of their clergy
M:
The pope ALSO has the right to choose which manner he uses, whether it be his personal judgement, or collegial effort.
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.
M:
Neither can Pastor Aeternus violate the authority of the pope.
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Eastern CATHOLICS accept all of the Ecumenical Councils that the Catholic Church does. There is no difference at all.
They ARE a part of the Catholic Church and are NOT a part of the Orthodox Churches. therefore, they acknowledge and accept all of the rules of the catholic Church, including all of the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the church.
Why would you think that there is a difference? Those Churches that do not recognize Rome, have different beliefs, but not those that accept Rome.
They ARE a part of the Catholic Church and are NOT a part of the Orthodox Churches. therefore, they acknowledge and accept all of the rules of the catholic Church, including all of the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the church.
Why would you think that there is a difference? Those Churches that do not recognize Rome, have different beliefs, but not those that accept Rome.
S
steve_b
Guest
The history is a long one, that the pope was necessary for ecumenical status.
A:
Re: Trullo, .
S
steve_b
Guest
Obviously, intent isn’t what ultimately makes a council ecumenical.
M:
maybe it’s NOT a good example for many reasons
newadvent.org/cathen/13473a.htm
M:
For his approval, it’s already a given the other factors have taken place.
S
steve_b
Guest
mine too :tiphat:
A:
No one is saying it is. Those bishops can certainly speak for their own people.
A:
If I’m understanding you correctly
I’m sensing, that you’re in effect questioning the universal and pastoral care of the Church by Peter being passed onto the bishop of Rome.
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
Thank you for explaining your reasons, TrentCath.
A
Aramis
Guest
There is only ONE authoritative Catechism. The one promulgated by Rome. Trent has been superseded.
The baltimore was not promulgated by Rome, but by the Bishops of the US.
- Status