Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Phillip_Rolfes]

though you didn’t use the “quote” button, you wrote (emphasis mine)

"The same held for Polish Catholics. Eastern Catholics in Ukraine, since they are neither Roman Catholic nor “Orthodox” (in the sense of not being in communion with Rome) were particularly persecuted because it seemed nobody really fully understood where their loyalties were in regards to the state. "

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8180010&postcount=417

I may have misunderstood you but, I’m reading your comment as Eastern Catholics in the Ukraine aren’t Roman Catholics, they aren’t Orthodox, and they aren’t in union with the pope. Did I misread you?

The confusion here is I said that Ukrainian Greek Catholics are neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox. You’ve made the same mistake most Roman Catholics make in equating the terms “Catholic” and “Roman”. As has been enumerated innumerable times on these threads, the Roman Church does not constitute the entirety of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a communion of somewhere around 22 or 23 sui iuris/particular Churches, of which the Roman happens to be the largest. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is fully Catholic (in the sense of being in communion with Rome), but not Roman, it is Ukrainian/Byzantine.

I don’t know you and you don’t know me. So for my part, I try and make it easy for the one I’m conversing with. When I say something to someone that if the table was reversed, I know I would want the source, I not only give the sources upfront in anticipation of the question, I also add the link if I can, so they don’t have to doubt what I post, or spend lots of time trying to look for what I’ve given. And I’ve given you sources and links up front, in anticipation, you will ask for them…true?

All I asked you for, is a source document so I can see what the context is to your statement is refering to. That’s all.

Well, check out the Encyclical “Orientale Lumen” for starters. The late John Paul II mentions the need to reexamine the role of the Papacy, and Papal Primacy in particular, in light of the First Millennium. Cardinal Ratzinger also called for such a reexamination, I believe in the book “Principles of Catholic Theology”. I’m sorry that I cannot provide links to anything. I hate reading long documents on the internet, so almost all of my sources are books.

Ecumenical councils are Catholic councils. those who are seperated from the chair of Peter are not Catholic.

The Orthodox who are separated from the Chair of Peter are fully Church and fully Catholic. Read the documents of Vatican II and the CCC on the Orthodox Churches. The 14 post-Schism Councils are local Councils held by Rome to respond to problems affected the Roman Church (not the Catholic Church at large). Again, as I posted above, Nicaea II stipulated the conditions for a council to be Ecumenical. Unless/until those conditions are met, the 14 post-Schism Councils cannot be considered Ecumenical. This, however, does not necessarily make them heterodox. There I go repeating myself again… If you want to read the documents of Nicaea II they may be posted on New Advent’s website.

 

[steve_b]

The confusion here is I said that Ukrainian Greek Catholics are neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox. You’ve made the same mistake most Roman Catholics make in equating the terms “Catholic” and “Roman”. As has been enumerated innumerable times on these threads, the Roman Church does not constitute the entirety of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a communion of somewhere around 22 or 23 sui iuris/particular Churches, of which the Roman happens to be the largest. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is fully Catholic (in the sense of being in communion with Rome), but not Roman, it is Ukrainian/Byzantine.

I’ve never made that mistake. The Roman/Latin rite is 98%+ of the Catholic Church. All the other rites make up the remaining ~2%. All rites have equal dignity, they are all fully Catholic…as long as they remain united to the pope.
PR:

Well, check out the Encyclical “Orientale Lumen” for starters. The late John Paul II mentions the need to reexamine the role of the Papacy, and Papal Primacy in particular, in light of the First Millennium. Cardinal Ratzinger also called for such a reexamination, I believe in the book “Principles of Catholic Theology”. I’m sorry that I cannot provide links to anything. I hate reading long documents on the internet, so almost all of my sources are books.

now that’s better. See, that’s all I ask…specific references. Now I need to get you to quote within the reference, so I can get to your point quickly. Afterall, I don’t know if you’re paraphrasing or not. btw, I didn’t see in that encyclical what is underlined above.

Help me out here. Can you quote from the document?

btw, I recognize reading long documents is not easy. When I quote from a long document, I always give the link. iow, I do the work for the one I am conversing with. If I paraphrase I say I’m paraphrasing. It goes without saying, I appreciate the same when it is done in return
PR:

The Orthodox who are separated from the Chair of Peter are fully Church and fully Catholic.

No they aren’t Catholic.


one being seperated from Peter AND claiming to be Catholic is a contradiction.
PR:

Read the documents of Vatican II and the CCC on the Orthodox Churches. The 14 post-Schism Councils are local Councils held by Rome to respond to problems affected the Roman Church (not the Catholic Church at large).

Phillip, ya gotta be more specific

Vat II alone, has 16 documents.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2all.htm

If I’m going to guess, I’d say you probably want me to look in the following document ewtn.com/library/councils/v2all.htm I don’t see anything in there refering to 14 post-schism councils being local councils meant for only the Roman Church. Ya gotta be more specific with your references,

As for the CCC, it’s a BIG book. What exactly am I supposed to look up?
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
PR:

Again, as I posted above, Nicaea II stipulated the conditions for a council to be Ecumenical. Unless/until those conditions are met, the 14 post-Schism Councils cannot be considered Ecumenical.

As I said, an ecumenical council is a Catholic Church council. Those who aren’t united to the pope are not Catholics, nor are they the Catholic Church.
PR:

This, however, does not necessarily make them heterodox. There I go repeating myself again… If you want to read the documents of Nicaea II they may be posted on New Advent’s website**.**

How about quoting from the documents of Nicea II specifically, instead of firing a shotgun at the subject.. Then we can deal specifically with what you’re referencing.

 

[mardukm]

Papal approval and promulgation ensures orthodoxy AND ecumenicity…by definition

A necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT condition…by definition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Russia can blow all the smoke she wants, but the true primacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church lies in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Q:

What makes him ecumenical among EO, *if *Moscow doesn’t accept him as having (in EO terms) “primacy of honor”?

 

[steve_b]

A necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT condition…by definition.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is mandatory for a pope’s approval otherwise it can’t be ecumenical., therefore when he approves it and promulgates it, it is sufficient.

 

[Cecilianus]

It is mandatory, therefore when he approves it and promulgates it, it is sufficient.

Does not follow. A necessary cause is not necessarily a sufficient cause.

 

[steve_b]

Does not follow. A necessary cause is not necessarily a sufficient cause.

All the bishops can’t make a council ecumenical. The popes approval and promulgation is a must or the council is not ecumenical. After that, it is sufficient.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

I’ve never made that mistake. The Roman/Latin rite is 98%+ of the Catholic Church. All the other rites make up the remaining ~2%. All rites have equal dignity, they are all fully Catholic…as long as they remain united to the pope.

You misunderstood brother Philip and you made a mistake. In his original statement, he attached the phrase “in the sense of not in communion with Rome” to the term “Orthodox,” not to the term “Roman Catholic.” Any 3rd grader can see that. Brother Philip himself made absolutely no implication whatsoever that Ukranian Catholics are not Catholics. The mistake must have been imposed by your own mind.

now that’s better. See, that’s all I ask…specific references. Now I need to get you to quote within the reference, so I can get to your point quickly. Afterall, I don’t know if you’re paraphrasing or not. btw, I didn’t see in that encyclical what is underlined above.

Help me out here. Can you quote from the document?

btw, I recognize reading long documents is not easy. When I quote from a long document, I always give the link. iow, I do the work for the one I am conversing with. If I paraphrase I say I’m paraphrasing. It goes without saying, I appreciate the same when it is done in return

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”
From Cardinal Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology.

As I said, an ecumenical council is a Catholic Church council.

But not all Councils in the history of the Church that are orthodox Catholic are necessarily Ecumenical. Why is the Council of Sardica not considered Ecumenical, even though it had the confirmation of the bishop of Rome?

How about quoting from the documents of Nicea II specifically, instead of firing a shotgun at the subject.. Then we can deal specifically with what you’re referencing.

It’s been quoted here in the ECF before, so I know it exists. I’m sure brother Philip can assuage your query. For myself, I will quote an Ecumenical Council near and dear to my own heart as an Oriental, the Council of Ephesus. Here are excerpts from Pope St. Celestine’s address to the Council:
“For He that had sent them was their Teacher; He Who had commanded what was to be taught was their teacher; He Who affirms that He Himself is heard in His Apostles, was their Teacher. This duty has been entrusted to all the Lord’s priests in common…Dear brethren, you should observe that we have received a general command: for He wills that all of us should perform that office…We must strive together to keep the faith which has come down to us today, through the Apostolic Succession.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is mandatory for a pope’s approval otherwise it can’t be ecumenical., therefore when he approves it and promulgates it, it is sufficient.

It is also mandatory that the rest of the bishops give their approval even before the Pope can grant his confirmation. So the Pope’s approval/confirmation alone is INSUFFICIENT.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

All the bishops can’t make a council ecumenical. The popes approval and promulgation is a must or the council is not ecumenical. After that, it is sufficient.

Neither can the Pope alone make a Council Ecumenical. If an only if the entire College approves (or at least has the approval of a moral majority) can a Council be considered truly Ecumenical.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As always, brother Marduk has explained things so much better than I ever could. Thank you, Marduk, and many years to you!

I will do what I can to find the quote from Nicaea II as time permits, but it won’t be until tomorrow at the earliest.

Once I provide the quote I will step back from this thread and remain an observer. I never really intended to enter into the discussion to begin with, I just wanted to step to the defense of our brother, Alex, who now seems to have vanished from the forums…???

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It is mandatory for a pope’s approval otherwise it can’t be ecumenical., therefore when he approves it and promulgates it, it is sufficient.

No, that’s a logical error, Steve. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises.

What we all agree on is that papal approval and promulgation are necessary for a council to be ecumenical. Without said papal approval and promulgation, no conciliar documents can be ecumenically binding.

It does not, however, follow from that that a council the pope approves is therefore ecumenical. The pope has approved all sorts of councils throughout Catholic history that weren’t ecumenical. Marduk gave the example of the Council of Sardica - has papal approval, but is not ecumenical.

No one denies that the latter fourteen councils that are often called ecumenical have full papal approval. That alone does not make them ecumenical.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

No, that’s a logical error, Steve. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises.

What we all agree on is that papal approval and promulgation are necessary for a council to be ecumenical. Without said papal approval and promulgation, no conciliar documents can be ecumenically binding.

It does not, however, follow from that that a council the pope approves is therefore ecumenical. The pope has approved all sorts of councils throughout Catholic history that weren’t ecumenical. Marduk gave the example of the Council of Sardica - has papal approval, but is not ecumenical.

No one denies that the latter fourteen councils that are often called ecumenical have full papal approval. That alone does not make them ecumenical.

:tiphat:

 

[mardukm]

The problem Marduk quite simply is that the Catholic faith does not change, so complaining about me using catechisms that are not binding isn’t actually an argument or valid point at all. No one is going to be foolish enough to say that a catechism formulated on the authority of the council of Trent is wrong nor that one approved by one of only 2 popes sainted in the last four hundred years is wrong nor that one so revered and widely used as the Baltimore catechism is wrong. So to make the argument that just because it is not binding now its not relevant is simplistic and ignorant especially as the catechism of the council of Trent was binding for some specific period of time.

You’re the one who made the distinction between “authoritative” and “binding.” Now you resort to your typical inconsistency.

You’ll notice I only resorted to catechisms when you could not or would not accept the clear teaching of the church on these matters, none of these catechisms interpret the doctrines of papal infallibility, supremacy, the nature of the Roman catholic church or a whole host of other things the way you do. You now therefore have to argue against not only the most obvious interpretation of numerous council texts but also the way those texts were interpreted by 3 seperate catechisms and for that matter by the 1917 code of Canon law.

Except the “clear teaching” does not claim that the Pope has absolute power, nor that the Pope has authority beyond that which is good for the Church, nor that it is the Pope that determines the good of the Church, nor any of a host of other errors that you have proposed.

As for your references to Vatican II a council which is used to justify so many erroneous views, I am afraid that neither it nor the catechism it spawned put forth your point of view.

Exactly why you are not Catholic, and cannot be trusted to accurately represent the Faith of the CC.

Nowhere will you see it state that a pope cannot interfere in other bishops diocese’s,

And nowhere does it say he can. In fact, Vatican 1 says that his primatial authority is NOT for the purpose of impeding the authority of the local ordinary. But we already know that your views do not accurately represent the Catholic Faith.

nowhere will you see it say that you should obey a pope only if what he is doing is for the good of the church,

Yet in a thread in the Traditional Catholic Forum, you approvingly cited sources (e.g. Archbishop Kenrick) who stated just that. Your rhetoric is full of inconsistencies, and, yes, hypocrisy. You pretend the Pope has absolute power, but the very existence of the group to which you adhere is testimony to the inconsistency of your arguments.

nowhere will you see it say that a pope must exercise his power collegially,

I quoted Pope St. Celestine earlier. I also quoted the CCC that states that it is in the nature of the the Sacramental ministry that it is collegial. Unless you claim that the Pope is not part of the Sacramental ministry. But since you are not Catholic, you do not recognize the authority of the CCC.

the list goes on. If it did say such things it would have to explain why it contradicted no less than 3 catechisms one of which was its predecessor.

Only your misinterpretations causes the previous 3 catechisms to contradict Catholicism.

As for your seemingly tribalistic comments about me coming into ‘the eastern catholic section’ I would remind that anyone on this forum has a right per the rules to go where he pleases

Sure, but not a right to pretend that the views of his group that is not in communion with the Catholic Church is supposed to be the standard of the Catholic Church.

and for you to say that to a fellow catholic is even more amusing.

You are a brother in Christ, but not a fellow Catholic since you adhere to a group that is not in communion with the Catholic Church. You are as small-c catholic as any of our Orthodox brethren. So you have no credentials to call yourself more catholic than them, or to doubt the orthodoxy and big-C Catholicity of Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

As for your attempts to paint me as not catholic well all I have to say on that matter is that all the cardinals and bishops who support the traditionalist movement by encouraging the group to which I adhere including most of Ecclessia Dei are in an awful lot of trouble if we’re not even catholic!

Yes, there are good things about your group. The Catholic Church has always accepted all that is truly good even in those groups that are outside her communion. Do these cardinals and bishops support your state of schism? I seriously doubt it.

The problem is that you have elevated your view that there is nothing wrong with the orthodox church’s doctrines from mere opinion to a tenet of faith, therefore it cannot be disproved without your entire faith being disproved.

These were the same tenets of faith that non-Latins lived by when the Church was united in the first millenium. That you claim you cannot live with Eastern/Oriental Catholics now simply demonstrates how far your views are from the Faith of the early Church.

Rather than reject those doctrines which are rejected by the church you have carried over the Orthodox view I’m certain matters even if it be irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Catholic church.

You haven’t demonstrated that the doctrines of the Easterns and Westerns are mutually exclusive from any Magisterial sources. You’ve only given your opinions.

I have no such issue if someone was to show that the point of view was wrong I would be the first to beg forgiveness for my grievous errors.

Your gross misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching on Original Sin deserves a retraction from you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

By way of proposition, perhaps it was the case that in the first millennium, the Church’s infallibility was exercised collegially, through Ecumenical Councils (in fact, I’m convinced that it was). That in no way denies the Petrine Ministry, especially as it developed in later centuries.

A former acquaintance of mine, a Redemptorist theology student, was working on a paper in which he was attempting to “adapt” the papal dogmas where he affirmed that the Church could, foreseeably, affirm that the pope is said to exercise infallibility when defining doctrine when he approves the decisions of an ecumenical council.

In fact, I believe this makes great sense. The pope does not teach in isolation from the Church’s tradition, of course. And he does not create “new doctrine.” When Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption, he did ask the world’s bishops for their view on it. Was that not a form of “conciliarity?”

In any future reunion between Rome and the Eastern Churches, the issue of collegiality will be revisited together with the relationship between the Pope’s Infallibility and that of the entire Church together.

Development of doctrine continues.

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Okay, here’s my promised post on Nicaea II, which is a little disappointing. I re-read my source last night so that I could go straight to the section of Nicaea II that dealt with ecumenical councils It was supposed to be in the 5th and 6th sessions of said Council. Unfortunately those sessions do not exist in the translation provided on New Advent’s website. So my search will have to continue.

Alex, once again, I’m glad you’re back!!!

 

[steve_b]

From Vat II Dei Verbum

APPENDIX

From the Acts of the Council*

’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL

OF THE COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 16, 1964

***Preliminary Note of Explanation ***

1. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
2. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
   It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Your highlights reflect the typical Absolutist Petrine rhetoric that completely misses the collegial intent of the Explanation. I have highlighted the portions that you have neglected.

***Preliminary Note of Explanation ***

1. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of COLLEGIAL activity.

As the Explanation affirms, contrary to the pretensions of Absolutist Petrine advocates, the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council, since the Ecumenical Council (the formal convention of the College of Bishops) is ALSO the subject of full and supreme power over the universal Church.

1. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.

The only power that the Pope possesses, the only power that the Supreme Pontiff can exercise at will, is the power to do that which is good for the Church. It is not his prerogative to determine what the good of the Church is - that is always determined collegially. It is only within his prerogative to ensure the good of the Church (along with his brother bishops). His power is not absolute power, as Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend, but only supreme power, which has limits.

Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

As this portion of the Explanation affirms, when the Pope performs his unique functions, he does so as A MEMBER OF the College, not as an “outsider.” Thus, Vatican 2 confirms the constant belief of the Church that the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.”

No apostolic Christian denies this (except for the unpatristic Low Petrine view of some Eastern Orthodox), for it rests upon the sure standard of the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 that the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 affirmed is the RULE OF FAITH EVEN FOR DEFINITIONS BY THE POPE.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Does not follow. A necessary cause is not necessarily a sufficient cause.

the pope not only is the necessary cause of an ecumenical council, but when he makes decrees, it is sufficient to end the matter. Nothing else is needed.

*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. 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

My comments

• One could say an ecumenical council is the popes council *Can. 338 *§1.& §2
• the bishops (college) at least have to confirm what they propose in council, for the pope to approve/not approve, confirm/not confirm, promulgate/not promulgate, what the bishops approve.
• The pope can approve all, partial, or none of what the bishops approve. iow, he has veto power.
• He can approve or disprove their approvals, (collegially or personally) he determines the manner(see can 333 §2 )
• What he (the pope) decrees, there is no appeal or recourse (can 333 §3)

 

[TrentCath]

You’re the one who made the distinction between “authoritative” and “binding.” Now you resort to your typical inconsistency.

There is nothing inconsistent in what I have said, I merely made the distinction between authoritative and binding, a distinction which wasn’t aimed at you. If you don’t understand the distinction then I suggest you re-visit some basic theology

Except the “clear teaching” does not claim that the Pope has absolute power, nor that the Pope has authority beyond that which is good for the Church, nor that it is the Pope that determines the good of the Church…

**Except that it does, as I have said the catechisms I have mentioned all state this. **

Exactly why you are not Catholic, and cannot be trusted to accurately represent the Faith of the CC.

This isn’t really worthy of a response, its more amusing than anything else

And nowhere does it say he can. In fact, Vatican 1 says that his primatial authority is NOT for the purpose of impeding the authority of the local ordinary. But we already know that your views do not accurately represent the Catholic Faith.

No of course they don’t neither do the views of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of St Pius X. All I have stated is simply what these three catechisms teach, to deny my arguments is to deny them.

Yet in a thread in the Traditional Catholic Forum, you approvingly cited sources (e.g. Archbishop Kenrick) who stated just that. Your rhetoric is full of inconsistencies, and, yes, hypocrisy. You pretend the Pope has absolute power, but the very existence of the group to which you adhere is testimony to the inconsistency of your arguments.

**No, No and No. The statements I quoted stated that if a pope were to do something that harmed the church, that endangered the salvation of souls, that contradicted anything laid down by scripture or divine law then it is legitimate to resist his authority. That is quite different from saying he does so only when he acts for the good of the whole church, why? Because what is for the good of the whole church is left up to individual opinion, that is dangerous and no different to protestantism. Further who can tell if a pope removing a bishop or cardinal is for the good of the church? Perhaps it is not, do we then on this probability disobey the Holy Father? No, that is madness and contrary to catholic faith.

As for inconsistencies, no they only occur when you try to simplify matters that really are not simple. You call my position incosistent because you wish to put me in a box as an ‘absolutist petrine advocate’, I don’t fit into this box however and so you call me inconsistent. It is not I that have the problem it is you**

I quoted Pope St. Celestine earlier. I also quoted the CCC that states that it is in the nature of the the Sacramental ministry that it is collegial. Unless you claim that the Pope is not part of the Sacramental ministry. But since you are not Catholic, you do not recognize the authority of the CCC.

As I said before none of these state that the pope can only exercise his supreme authority collegially, indeed even Vatican II states that it is up to the pope how to exercise his authority

Only your misinterpretations causes the previous 3 catechisms to contradict Catholicism.

I’m sorry have you actually read these catechisms? Anyone who has, knows that you can only speak such nonsense because you have in fact not done so. They really do not require any interpretation to contradict your view of catholicism, one can simply read the words on the page.

You haven’t demonstrated that the doctrines of the Easterns and Westerns are mutually exclusive from any Magisterial sources. You’ve only given your opinions.

You are blind, you do not hold the Catholic view of Primacy or Papal supremacy and of course to such a person Catholic and Orthodox views do not conflict. Why? Because your view of the catholic faith is essentially the Orthodox faith dressed up as Catholicism.

These were the same tenets of faith that non-Latins lived by when the Church was united in the first millenium. That you claim you cannot live with Eastern/Oriental Catholics now simply demonstrates how far your views are from the Faith of the early Church.

**I am sorry, this is simply not true. As much can be seen by a glance at the Council of Florence where the departure of the Orthodox from Catholic doctrine can be clearly seen. Further the Churche’s doctrines have developed since that time as the deposit of faith has been more clearly expounded and many of these developments are now De Fide, one cannot return to the way things were without rejecting these develpments. But it is not legitmate to reject these developments as they are De Fide, ergo it is not possible simply to have the Orthodox and West profess the doctrines of the First Millenium as the church has more fully expounded its truths since then. **

Your gross misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching on Original Sin deserves a retraction from you.

Your gross misreprensentation of Papal Supremacy, Papal Primacy and various other catholic doctrines require a retraction from you.