C
Cecilianus
Guest
Choosing or accepting candidates for ordination to the priesthood, for example - something the local bishop does.
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother TrentCath,
Absolutist Petrine advocates (in pretended support of the papacy) and Low Petrine advocates (to detract the papacy) misinterpret that clause above in the same way. Because of the terms “episcopal” and “immediate” they think that the Pope is simultaneously the bishop of any given diocese ALONG WITH the proper ordinary of the diocese. But that is not the case.
The term “immediate” is a specific canonical term that means something wholly different from its secular usage. If one understood the term according to its secular usage, instead of its ecclesiastical usage, one would interpret it to mean that the Pope’s jurisdiction in any single diocese is DIRECT - that nothing stands in the way of its exercise - for that is what “immediate” normally would imply in secular terms. I’m sure you know that the term “immediate” is also utilized to describe the jurisdiction of any bishop in his own diocese. Likewise, many apply the secular (mis) understanding in that context, and interpret it to mean that a bishop’s jurisdiction is DIRECT - i.e., that nothing stands in the way of his exercise of it in his own diocese. But that is not what the term “immediate” means according to its ecclesiastical usage. The term “immediate” in ecclesiastical/canonical jargon does not mean the “direct” exercise of jurisdiction. Rather, it means that it comes directly from God. So a Pope’s jurisdiction, just like any other bishop’s, is referred to as “immediate” not because it can be directly exercised, but because it is directly received from God. The term “immediate” does not refer in any way to the EXERCISE of jurisdiction – nor does it refer in any way to the EXTENT of jurisdiction. It simply means that the jurisdiction comes from God (i.e., it is of divine establishment).
As far as the term “episcopal” is concerned, the use of this term is often misinterpreted by Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates and non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates to mean that the Pope is the co-bishop of the local ordinary in his local diocese. That was, in fact, a concern proposed by a few Fathers at Vatican 1. But the term “episcopal” was not used for that purpose, and its use has nothing to do with the Pope’s relation to any individual local diocese outside his own. The term “episcopal” was used by V1 to basically indicate that the papal prerogatives, great as they are, flow from his own office as bishop - i.e., they are a function of his episcopal office, but does not make him ontologically superior to other bishops. Some Fathers wanted to use descriptives such as “superordinary” or “superepiscopal” or “extraepiscopal.” The problem with that was that the divine constitution of the Church asserts that the episcopal office is the HIGHEST office of orders in the Church. Using any other term would imply that the Papacy is another level of orders, which is not true (proven by the fact that when a Pope is elected to his office, there is no separate rite of consecration, which is the same for ALL head bishops), and would violate the divine constitution of the Church. So the use of the term “episcopal” does not by any means imply that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of another diocese at his whim and fancy. Far from it, it was only intended by the Fathers at V1 to affirm that the Pope IS a bishop, despite his greater prerogatives and responsibilities.
CONTINUED
One needs to study the background debates of Vatican 1 in order to properly understand its Decrees. The quote you gave above is one of many items from V1 that are easily liable to misinterpretation if one does not have a knowledge of those debates.
Absolutist Petrine advocates (in pretended support of the papacy) and Low Petrine advocates (to detract the papacy) misinterpret that clause above in the same way. Because of the terms “episcopal” and “immediate” they think that the Pope is simultaneously the bishop of any given diocese ALONG WITH the proper ordinary of the diocese. But that is not the case.
The term “immediate” is a specific canonical term that means something wholly different from its secular usage. If one understood the term according to its secular usage, instead of its ecclesiastical usage, one would interpret it to mean that the Pope’s jurisdiction in any single diocese is DIRECT - that nothing stands in the way of its exercise - for that is what “immediate” normally would imply in secular terms. I’m sure you know that the term “immediate” is also utilized to describe the jurisdiction of any bishop in his own diocese. Likewise, many apply the secular (mis) understanding in that context, and interpret it to mean that a bishop’s jurisdiction is DIRECT - i.e., that nothing stands in the way of his exercise of it in his own diocese. But that is not what the term “immediate” means according to its ecclesiastical usage. The term “immediate” in ecclesiastical/canonical jargon does not mean the “direct” exercise of jurisdiction. Rather, it means that it comes directly from God. So a Pope’s jurisdiction, just like any other bishop’s, is referred to as “immediate” not because it can be directly exercised, but because it is directly received from God. The term “immediate” does not refer in any way to the EXERCISE of jurisdiction – nor does it refer in any way to the EXTENT of jurisdiction. It simply means that the jurisdiction comes from God (i.e., it is of divine establishment).
As far as the term “episcopal” is concerned, the use of this term is often misinterpreted by Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates and non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates to mean that the Pope is the co-bishop of the local ordinary in his local diocese. That was, in fact, a concern proposed by a few Fathers at Vatican 1. But the term “episcopal” was not used for that purpose, and its use has nothing to do with the Pope’s relation to any individual local diocese outside his own. The term “episcopal” was used by V1 to basically indicate that the papal prerogatives, great as they are, flow from his own office as bishop - i.e., they are a function of his episcopal office, but does not make him ontologically superior to other bishops. Some Fathers wanted to use descriptives such as “superordinary” or “superepiscopal” or “extraepiscopal.” The problem with that was that the divine constitution of the Church asserts that the episcopal office is the HIGHEST office of orders in the Church. Using any other term would imply that the Papacy is another level of orders, which is not true (proven by the fact that when a Pope is elected to his office, there is no separate rite of consecration, which is the same for ALL head bishops), and would violate the divine constitution of the Church. So the use of the term “episcopal” does not by any means imply that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of another diocese at his whim and fancy. Far from it, it was only intended by the Fathers at V1 to affirm that the Pope IS a bishop, despite his greater prerogatives and responsibilities.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Lastly, I would like to point out a very important detail related to the quote you gave that is pretty much unknown to those who have never studied the background debates of V1.
The greater context of the quote you gave above is this (the additional parts are in red):
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, in the disposition of God, the Roman Church holds the pre-eminence of ordinary power over all the other churches, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.”
The point at issue is the underlined portion. Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors often use this underlined portion to pretend that the Pope has absolute authority over the whole Church. But the background debates of V1 reveal that the wording was not intended for that purpose. The wording (underlined above) was intended not to give the Pope absolute authority, but just the opposite. The original wording was “ordinary power over all the other churches.” This was changed to “the pre-eminence of ordinary power over all the other churches.” However, as stated, the change was not meant to imply absolute authority, but just the exact opposite. The difference between the original wording and the new one (with the added term “pre-eminence”) is the same difference that I pointed out between the terms “bishop of the universal Church” and “head bishop of the universal Church” in the link that I previously provided.
The additional term “pre-eminence” was in fact enacted due to the solicitude of one of the leaders of the Minority Party, Archbishop Rauscher of Vienna. Here is the speech he gave which prompted the Council fathers to make the change in the original text:
It cannot be called in question that bishops in ruling their dioceses have a right that is their own, and they are not vicars of the Pope. The statement that the Pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is “ordinary” is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, “extraordinary.” I propose that in place of the opening words of the second paragraph of the schema, should be substituted the following, based on a canon of the Fourth Lateran Council…
And thus we have the wording as it stands with the additional term “pre-eminence.”
I hope that this information (in part) helps you understand the true meaning of the Decree of Vatican 1 on the matter of the Primacy. I would appreciate a response or comment.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. I haven’t forgotten about your prior posts.
Lastly, I would like to point out a very important detail related to the quote you gave that is pretty much unknown to those who have never studied the background debates of V1.
The greater context of the quote you gave above is this (the additional parts are in red):
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, in the disposition of God, the Roman Church holds the pre-eminence of ordinary power over all the other churches, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.”
The point at issue is the underlined portion. Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors often use this underlined portion to pretend that the Pope has absolute authority over the whole Church. But the background debates of V1 reveal that the wording was not intended for that purpose. The wording (underlined above) was intended not to give the Pope absolute authority, but just the opposite. The original wording was “ordinary power over all the other churches.” This was changed to “the pre-eminence of ordinary power over all the other churches.” However, as stated, the change was not meant to imply absolute authority, but just the exact opposite. The difference between the original wording and the new one (with the added term “pre-eminence”) is the same difference that I pointed out between the terms “bishop of the universal Church” and “head bishop of the universal Church” in the link that I previously provided.
The additional term “pre-eminence” was in fact enacted due to the solicitude of one of the leaders of the Minority Party, Archbishop Rauscher of Vienna. Here is the speech he gave which prompted the Council fathers to make the change in the original text:
It cannot be called in question that bishops in ruling their dioceses have a right that is their own, and they are not vicars of the Pope. The statement that the Pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is “ordinary” is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, “extraordinary.” I propose that in place of the opening words of the second paragraph of the schema, should be substituted the following, based on a canon of the Fourth Lateran Council…
And thus we have the wording as it stands with the additional term “pre-eminence.”
I hope that this information (in part) helps you understand the true meaning of the Decree of Vatican 1 on the matter of the Primacy. I would appreciate a response or comment.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. I haven’t forgotten about your prior posts.
N
NinjaSnark
Guest
Oh boy! You disappear for a few days and your thread blows up. 
I have some serious reading to do.
I have some serious reading to do.
M
mardukm
Guest
Aside from the example brother Cecilianus gave, I can think of two others off-hand:
- The prerogative to grant a plenary faculty to hear confession to a priest;
- Jurisdiction over religious societies of episcopal privilege.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Oh boy! You disappear for a few days and your thread blows up.
I have some serious reading to do.
I’m glad you’re back! I’m looking forward to your usual incisive comments.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. You might also like to visit the “Primacy-revisited” thread. I’d appreciate your comments there, too, if you have the time.
V
Vico
Guest
Although he could change the laws, in keeping within the current law (pastor bonus, CIC, CCEO, etc.), he has all the normal powers of a bishop in the Sea of Rome as its bishop.
(Latin Church) CIC Can. 377 §1 The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints Bishops or confirms those lawfully elected.
He has additional jurisdiction in the exercise of his universal office in the Roman Curia and in the churches sui iuris, but because of the established eastern canon laws some functions belong to the patriarchs or major archbishops and synods, in electing bishops and other matters.
CCEO shows that the patriarchial and major archepiscopal churches elect their head and it is confirmed by the Holy See. They also establish an eparchy within their own territory. They elect their bishops within their territory (confirmed by Holy See). They elect candidates outside their territory (approved by Holy See). They have legislative power (must notify Holy See), establish liturgical Laws applicable everywhere and exercise discipline inside their territory only, also judicial power.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Vico,
More concisely:
Blessings,
Marduk
More concisely:
Patriarchs are not confirmed. Patriarchs are accepted through an acknowledgement of communion with and by the Pope. Major archbishops are confirmed.
The Pope does not confirm Eastern and Oriental bishops. It is the head bishop of those bishops who does the confirmation. The Pope gives what is called his “assent” which is a different canonical animal than a confirmation.
Candidates require papal approval only if they are not yet bishops. If the candidate is already a bishop (i.e., will be transferred or promoted), the Holy See is merely informed.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Trentcath,
Much more than “interesting,” brother, because the Bibles of the Easterns traditionally had more Scriptural books than the Latin Vulgate.
Blessings,
Marduk
I confess I really don’t understand your citation of this. You readily admit that the Pope does not have absolute authority in matters of Liturgy, so you obviously understand that this statement from V1 cannot be interpreted in an Absolutist Petrine sense. If it cannot be interpreted thus, then you must concede that it does not contradict the principle of collegiality. Perhaps I first need to ask you – what do you think the doctrine of collegiality means?mardukm:
This is simply not true I am afraid, Vatican I says 'Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.’
How do you suppose any of this contradicts the doctrine of collegiality?
I should rather thank you for humbly accepting correction.
All this indicates to me nothing more than that its author is himself ignorant of the distinction between culpa and reus. The author thinks that Trent/the Catholic Church teaches that we inherit the culpa of Adam. Thus, what this essay is rejecting is not actually the teaching of Trent, wouldn’t you agree? In fact, the author of the essay inadvertently admits to the teaching of Trent when he states that “it is not guilt that is passed on; it is a condition, a disease.” This is exactly the teaching of Trent, for this condition, which is the consequence of the first sin, is what reus actually is. The Catholic would agree with the EO author’s statement in these words, “It is not culpa that is passed on; it is reus.” It is a shame that many non-Catholic authors think that the documents of the Catholic Church were always written in English, so never bother to check the Latin originals.
Thank you, brother.
“Illogical” seems to be an awfully critical word for a Catholic to assign to the Fathers of the Church. The distinction between those Scriptural books used for “disputation with the heretics” (as several fathers put it) that were called canonical, and those scriptural books that were used only for spiritual edification, is evident everywhere in the writings of the early Fathers.mardukm:
To be honest this seems quite illogical, if somethings divinely inspired it would seem wasteful not to use it as a source for doctrine.
Much more than “interesting,” brother, because the Bibles of the Easterns traditionally had more Scriptural books than the Latin Vulgate.
How so?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Sorry. I read through your citations, but I could not find a single statement that could support your claim that the Eastern teaching on “particular judgment” is tantamount to “a state of waiting.” I suspect you are thinking of the doctrine of soul-sleep. Nothing in what you quoted indicates this is the Eastern teaching on the matter. The abode of Hades is not a state of soul-sleep. As your quote indicated, awareness exists in Hades, so there is suffering for the damned, and there is some measure of bliss for the saved. You also have to understand that in the Eastern understanding (at least according to many – there is really no dogmatic teaching on the matter in the Orthodox Tradition), souls in the afterlife are in a constant state of being perfected. Does that not reflect in some measure the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory?
Here, it’s just obvious (to a Catholic anyway) that this source misunderstands Purgatory to be a “second chance.” Don’t you see that what this EO source is rejecting is not actually the Catholic teaching on Purgatory, but a caricature of it? If EO are not actually rejecting the actual teaching (but a caricature of it), can you conscientiously claim that the EO reject Purgatory?
As stated earlier, there is no single, dogmatic Orthodox belief in the afterlife that one can point to by which one can say, “here is what Orthodoxy believes.” There are in fact certain segments of Orthodoxy who DO believe in cleansing pains after death (though definitely not by fire). So can you really and truly lump all of Orthodoxy as being in error on this matter?
I would say that the Orthodox understanding is not defined. I could even say it is confusing. But for those traits, how can one immediately say it is “faulty” or “contrary to Church teaching?” I don’t see how you’ve demonstrated this from your quotes.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TrentCath
Guest
**Whilst I accept that the background debates of a council may be helpful they are hardly necessary to properly understand its Decree’s, they are merely interesting and may or may not be helpful -depending on whether what was finally promulugated by the council was different to what debated and if so by how much-. Further to suggest that it is absolutely necessary to study the background debates of Vatican I in order to properly understand its decrees is contrary to Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman’s ideas regarding the development of doctrine 'Newman held that the human mind is such that an idea, which is necessarily attendant to both the heart and mind, requires time and polity to accommodate full comprehension. Before he was elected pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI once summed this up by stating, “the individual knows little, but together we know all that is necessary” (from the short treatise, To Look on Christ). Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was drawing upon this notion of polity and time. The nobler the idea, the more time and polity are naturally required.
The deposit of Christian faith is the most noble, most perfect “idea” presented to the human mind and heart, and thus requires the most time and polity for the human mind to fully comprehend given aspects of it. However, the deposit of faith remains, in and of itself, unchanged. What changes is man’s mental relationship to it. Man comes to know it more clearly. Blessed John Henry Newman uses the term “full elucidation” to explain the process of the development of doctrine (Introduction, n. 21*). Thus, we can conclude that authentic development moves in a definite direction, from less-clear to more-clear to fully-clear, or, dare we say, toward the univocal!’ The full text of the article from which I quote can be seen here Councils can hardly be so ambigous as to require reading the lengthy background debates that occured within them, this appears contrary to the ‘full elucidiation’ of doctrines.**
**Thank you for the clarification. However that definition of the Popes powers faces a further problem, even if it is accepted that the meaning you have given of ‘Immediate’ and ‘Episcopal’ is the correct one, the First Vatican Council did not stop there when describing the Pope’s powers. Rather it goes on to say 'So, then,
Code:
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema. ' The term used in this last sentence is the same as that used previously in the document stating that the Popes power does not affect the 'ordinary and immediate' jursidiction of each bishop. This is significant in that the words used to describe individual bishops and the Pope's powers are no different.
Code:
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
Code:
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.'**
T
TrentCath
Guest
Pre-eminance is defined by the dictionary as ‘Superior to or notable above all others; outstanding, high status importance owing to marked superiority’ I hardly see how that undermines anything I have said
I really really don’t understand the argument here whatsoever, I cannot see how any reasonable person could think that the wording means the oppostite, that appears totally illogical to me
So we can see that rather than an attempt to oppose the idea that the pope had ‘absolute’ authority over the whole church it was intended to battle the ridicalous idea that Bishops were nothing more than vicars of the Pope. Clearly as successors of the apostles they have rights and authority by virtue of this succession not because the Pope gives it to them though the Pope does have to give them in jurisdiction so that as the Sacred Council says ‘In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd’ I thus don’t see the adding of the word pre-eminence or the speech given as in anyway undermining the fact that the pope has absolute power over the whole Church. ****
T
TrentCath
Guest
Yeah sorry about thatOh boy! You disappear for a few days and your thread blows up.
I have some serious reading to do.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother TrenCath,
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Secondly, I cannot agree with your expression, “Bishops therefore are subordinate in the hierarchy to the Bishop of Rome.” That’s not what the Decree states. All it says is that the principle of hierarchical subordination is the reason for the obedience of the clergy. That does not mean that the bishops are, as a principle, generally and always subordinate in the hierarchy to the Bishop of Rome (the general principle according to the consitution of the Church is that the office of bishop is the HIGHEST office in the Church). It means that on those particular occasions when the unique Petrine ministry is necessitated, then and only in those times is this hierarchical subordination necessary. But it is a fact, as evinced in the history of the Church, that even the Pope will be the one who needs correction. In those instances, it is the Pope who must submit himself to his brother bishops in humility. And as already mentioned earlier, even bishops can dispense from papal directives for the good of their flock. A head bishop (no matter what level) is ALWAYS acknowledged to be the head bishop. But this does not mean that his brother bishops are ALWAYS subordinate to him as a general rule. Rather, they are subordinate only in those instances when the good of the Church necessitates it. As always, it is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH that is the overarching consideration.
I would appreciate your comments. I am interested to see if we can come to an agreement based on what I have stated above.
Blessings,
Marduk
I think I know what you are getting at, but I disagree with how you are expressing it. First of all I disagree with your expression “bound to submit to the power of the Pope in ALL matters” because that is not what the Decree states. The Decree simply states that all are bound to submit on matters of faith, morals, discipline and government. But there is an underlying premise to that statement - namely, that the Petrine office was established for “the perpetual safety and everlasting good of the Church” (Chap 2, Pastor Aeternus). Absolutely NO ONE is bound to follow the Pope if he is not performing this duty. It is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH that is the whole purpose of the Primacy. In fact, our canons (both the Latin and Eastern Codes) state that for the good of their flock, bishops can dispense even from papal directives. If you had stated “bound to submit to the power of the Pope on matters that are for the good of the Church,” I would have immediately agreed. As it is, your statement makes the Primacy itself, not the good of the Church, the focus, with which I cannot agree.
Secondly, I cannot agree with your expression, “Bishops therefore are subordinate in the hierarchy to the Bishop of Rome.” That’s not what the Decree states. All it says is that the principle of hierarchical subordination is the reason for the obedience of the clergy. That does not mean that the bishops are, as a principle, generally and always subordinate in the hierarchy to the Bishop of Rome (the general principle according to the consitution of the Church is that the office of bishop is the HIGHEST office in the Church). It means that on those particular occasions when the unique Petrine ministry is necessitated, then and only in those times is this hierarchical subordination necessary. But it is a fact, as evinced in the history of the Church, that even the Pope will be the one who needs correction. In those instances, it is the Pope who must submit himself to his brother bishops in humility. And as already mentioned earlier, even bishops can dispense from papal directives for the good of their flock. A head bishop (no matter what level) is ALWAYS acknowledged to be the head bishop. But this does not mean that his brother bishops are ALWAYS subordinate to him as a general rule. Rather, they are subordinate only in those instances when the good of the Church necessitates it. As always, it is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH that is the overarching consideration.
I would appreciate your comments. I am interested to see if we can come to an agreement based on what I have stated above.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t give an explanation of this statement from the decree because of something you said.
Did you read and understand the explanation I gave on the difference between the terms "bishop of the universal Church" and “head bishop of the universal Church”? Did you read and comprehend the entire quote I gave from Archbishop Rauscher?
Ummm… you missed a whole portion of the quote I gave from Archbishop Rauscher. That’s why I asked if you read and comprehended the entire quote, because the little snippet you cited indicates otherwise. The Council accepted Archbishop Rauscher’s modification (adding the word “pre-eminence”) based on his explanation. His main point was not about the bishops being mere vicars of Christ. His main point (which you obviously missed) was that the Pope cannot normatively intervene in the affairs of a local Church, but only in extraodinary circumstances.
The statement that the Pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is “ordinary” is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, “extraordinary.” I propose that in place of the opening words…
This is the EXACT distinction that I explained between the terms “bishop of the universal Church” and “head bishop of the universal Church.”
As stated, Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors misinterpret the clause “pre-eminence of ordinary power” to mean that the Pope has absolute power and can normatively intervene in the affairs of local Churches. But the intention of adding it was to insist that the Pope in fact does not have a normative authority to intervene in the affairs of the local Churches. The use of the term “pre-eminence of ordinary power” as opposed to “ordinary power” was an acknowledgement that the Pope was the HEAD bishop of the universal Church, not the bishop of the universal Church. As head bishop (like all head bishops), he does not have a normative authority to intervene in the affairs of local Churches, but can only do so under extraodinary circumstances.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TrentCath
Guest
**I state that this passage states that the Pope’s authority is absolute inasmuch as the Pope ‘religiously guard’s and faithfully expound’s the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles’ In actions where the pope acted contrary to this duty or failed to do so it is clear that he would be acting ‘Ultra Vires’. This is what I mean when I disagree with the ‘revision’ of the Roman Missal and the Liturgy in general, in principle the Pope can do so but if in so doing he was to ‘make known some new doctrine’ or fail in his duties to ‘religiously guard and faithfully expound the …deposit of faith’ his absolute powers would be temporarily suspended in this matter so to speak. **
mardukm;8151883If it cannot be interpreted thus said:**I would say it can best be summed up as an overemphasis on the idea that the Pope forms part of the college of bishops, that he exercises his authority and/or that his authority derives from being head of this college and that he cannot exercise it seperately from the college and that he cannot ‘over ride’ the college so to speak. In an ‘Orthodox’ sense it can best be summed up as the idea that all bishops are equal. It stands in contrast to the clear teaching of Vatica I.
**
If it is indeed true that the word used is reus rather than culpa, that may well be the case
” This is exactly the teaching of Trent, for this condition, which is the consequence of the first sin, is what reus actually is. **Actually I am afraid you are mistaken here, the Council of Trent teaches that there are two elements to Original sin
*]The first is Guilt
*]The second is concupiscence
Now guilt is not given a definition by the council BUT if it as you say ‘reus’ and you interpret this to mean ‘You yourself are not to blame for your father’s act , but it had certain consequences which you inherited by inheriting your fathers’ estate. In other words, you did not inherit your father’s culpa, but you inherited his reus**.’ I have an issue with it. Now you say that these consequences are ‘the pre-disposition to sin, but also death, both spiritual (i.e, spiritual separation from God) and physical, and corruptibility.’
Now whilst it is clear that Baptism brings us to new life and thus annuls our spiritual death it does not take away our pre-disposition to sin, physical death or corruptability. How then can the council say that ‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema’ ? We still die, have a pre-disposition to sin and are corruptible, therefore if that be the definition of Guilt the guilt would NOT have been remitted. But we know this cannot be true as the council declares anathema those who believe this.
Further the council says ‘For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death;…’ Now if it was just a matter of us inheriting the consequences of sin why would be condemned? It is unjust to be condemned for inheriting something which you had no choice about, however it is clearly perfectly just to be condemned for participating in that original sin that is to say ‘Through Adam all mankind participated in Original Sin’
Lastly the Council of Trent does not speak of Original Sin as a ‘disease’ rather it states regarding the pre-disposition to sin ‘But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.’
“Illogical” seems to be an awfully critical word for a Catholic to assign to the Fathers of the Church.
The early Church Fathers also disagreed about the canon of scriptures with St Jerome’s rejecting of virtually the whole Deutrocanon being the most famous example, now that in retrospect may well be called illogical while in no way intending to insult the Church Fathers
mardukm:
Self-govering implicitly means to have full authority over onself, that in turn implies an exclusion of all other authorities. To be governed according to ones own laws means being governed over but according to ones own laws.
T
TrentCath
Guest
”**Now this website (Orthodox Catholic Faith) states ‘Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to the abode of the dead (Hades). There are exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly into heaven. As for the rest, we must remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of the glory to come and others foretaste their suffering, the state of waiting is called “Particular Judgment.”’ I trust that will suffice to show that in fact my citations do show that they allege there is a ‘state of waiting’ **
T
TrentCath
Guest
I disagree, the councils were required to develop NOT clarify the teachings of the earlier councils and combat new heresies that sprung up
If you read the idea as put forward by Newman, the point is made that De Fide teachings must needs be ‘fully elucidiated’, as ecumenical councils teach De Fide teachings they must be 'fully elucidiated’
Because the argument has been repeatedly made that a bishops powers over his diocese are different to those of The Pope over the whole church and yet the Council does not appear to distinguish between them
Ah but I agree with ‘mere will and discretion’ what I was taking issue with was ‘whim’ clearly he does not do it on a whim
If it indeed true that they exaggerated the papal prerogatives then clearly what they are doing is wrong though they may not know HOWEVER if what they are doing is simply defending the fact that one cannot be united unless we agree on the truth and doctrines then what they are doing is not wrong. Rather they are following the teaching of Pope Pius XI in MORTALIUM ANIMOS which says ‘Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?’ and again later on '“If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith’
T
TrentCath
Guest
I’m pretty sure thats just about everything
**I agree with this completely as surprisingly does the ‘Arch Traditionalist’ group, the SSPX. The only caveat I would add is that one must absolutely sure that what the pope is doing is contrary to the ‘perpetual safety and good of the church’ and this can only be determined by looking at the previous teaching of the church (most especially its infallible teaching) and the teaching of the fathers. Only if it is absolutely impossible to re-concile the two and after proper discussions with The Pope would it possibly be right to disobey. **It is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH that is the whole purpose of the Primacy. In fact, our canons (both the Latin and Eastern Codes) state that for the good of their flock, bishops can dispense even from papal directives. If you had stated “bound to submit to the power of the Pope on matters that are for the good of the Church,” I would have immediately agreed. As it is, your statement makes the Primacy itself, not the good of the Church, the focus, with which I cannot agree.
This is contrary to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. All clearly preserve the right of the clergy and faithful to appeal to the Pope and state that his judgement is final in all cases. I also believe its contrary to the teachings of the Council of Florence and The First Vatican Council and for that matter the second Vatican Council
- Status