M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Now, I would like to expose another of your cut-and-paste hackjobs. In your quote from the Explanatory Note, you provide the following excerpt “…As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.” Readers should be aware that two sentences before this excerpt, the Explanatory Note affirms that this “at will” power is restricted in its scope “in order to meet the changing needs of the Church in the course of time.” It is no wonder that our SSPX brother intentionally left it out of his cut-and-paste hackjob. This clause utterly refutes his opposition to the Truth that the Pope’ has no authority beyond that which is necessary for the good of the Church.
To conclude, permit me to offer some contextual excerpts from the Explanatory Note that utterly refutes our SSPX brother’s erroneous Absolutist Petrine misinterpretations:
Hence in reply to Modus 12 it is explicitly asserted of the Twelve that the Lord established them "in the manner of a college or a stable group."
Accoding to the Council, Christ Himself is the originator of the collegial nature of Church authority.
Therefore, it is significantly stated that hierarchical communion is required with the head of the Church and its members. Communion is an idea which was held in high honor by the ancient Church (as it is today, especially in the East). It is understood, however, not of a certain vague feeling, but of an organic reality which demands a juridical form, and is simultaneously animated by charity.
Enough of this Absolutist Petrine pretense that the Pope can be separated from the College. The collegial nature of the Church is part of its ontological make-up, which the Absolutist Petrine view denies.
The phrase is “with the consent of its head;” for there should be no thought of a dependence on some outside person. The word “consent,” on the contrary recalls the communion existing between head and members.
Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that the first sentence of this excerpt is meant to affirm that the Pope is a member of the College, not some authority or power outside of it. Another Absolutist Petrine advocate - Steveb - responded that was not the reason, but that the statement only meant that no outside authority has a say in the College. True to the non-contextual misinterpretations of the Absolutist Petrine view, he completely neglected the very next sentence, which confirms exactly what I stated, refuting his own misinterpretation.
This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is undoubtedly a recurring feature of Tradition.
This is the very last, concluding sentence of the Explanatory Note. It refutes once and for all the Absolutist Petrine pretensions that deny the collegial nature of the Church’s hierarchy, affirming that collegiality is the reality enshrined in the Tradition of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
Now, I would like to expose another of your cut-and-paste hackjobs. In your quote from the Explanatory Note, you provide the following excerpt “…As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.” Readers should be aware that two sentences before this excerpt, the Explanatory Note affirms that this “at will” power is restricted in its scope “in order to meet the changing needs of the Church in the course of time.” It is no wonder that our SSPX brother intentionally left it out of his cut-and-paste hackjob. This clause utterly refutes his opposition to the Truth that the Pope’ has no authority beyond that which is necessary for the good of the Church.
To conclude, permit me to offer some contextual excerpts from the Explanatory Note that utterly refutes our SSPX brother’s erroneous Absolutist Petrine misinterpretations:
Hence in reply to Modus 12 it is explicitly asserted of the Twelve that the Lord established them "in the manner of a college or a stable group."
Accoding to the Council, Christ Himself is the originator of the collegial nature of Church authority.
Therefore, it is significantly stated that hierarchical communion is required with the head of the Church and its members. Communion is an idea which was held in high honor by the ancient Church (as it is today, especially in the East). It is understood, however, not of a certain vague feeling, but of an organic reality which demands a juridical form, and is simultaneously animated by charity.
Enough of this Absolutist Petrine pretense that the Pope can be separated from the College. The collegial nature of the Church is part of its ontological make-up, which the Absolutist Petrine view denies.
The phrase is “with the consent of its head;” for there should be no thought of a dependence on some outside person. The word “consent,” on the contrary recalls the communion existing between head and members.
Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that the first sentence of this excerpt is meant to affirm that the Pope is a member of the College, not some authority or power outside of it. Another Absolutist Petrine advocate - Steveb - responded that was not the reason, but that the statement only meant that no outside authority has a say in the College. True to the non-contextual misinterpretations of the Absolutist Petrine view, he completely neglected the very next sentence, which confirms exactly what I stated, refuting his own misinterpretation.
This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is undoubtedly a recurring feature of Tradition.
This is the very last, concluding sentence of the Explanatory Note. It refutes once and for all the Absolutist Petrine pretensions that deny the collegial nature of the Church’s hierarchy, affirming that collegiality is the reality enshrined in the Tradition of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
