C
Cecilianus
Guest
However, the very fact of the incident refutes TrentCath’s assertion a while back that a pope is not answerable to a general council.
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
nor withold approval partially or wholly, what has not been approved by them. All that stands to reason.
M:
And as I also said,
approval by the other fathers ≠ confirm and promulgate.
It’s the pope alone who does the latter.
M:
while the brother bishops approve also, (afterall they have to at least approve of their proposals) THEIR approval to be binding ecumenically, requires the approval, confirmation, & promulgation of the Roman Pontiff. Without that action by the pope, the council has no ecumenical authority.
I’m speaking of the CC alone here, staying in the context of an ecumenical council.
In a sense, given the following, one could say an ecumenical council is the pope’s council
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.
T
TrentCath
Guest
**I’ll leave it to steve B to deal with the rest of your statement but I will remind that the idea that a pope is answerable to a general council is a heresy called conciliarism, it has been repeatedly condemned by The Church. The Fifth Lateran Council says on this matter '… For it is clearly established that only the contemporary Roman pontiff, as holding authority over all councils, has the full right and power to summon, transfer and dissolve councils. This we know not only from the witness of holy scripture, the statements of holy fathers and our predecessors as Roman pontiffs, and the decisions of the sacred canons, but also from the declarations of the same councils. Some of this evidence we have decided to repeat, and some to pass over in silence as being sufficiently well known .
Thus we read that the synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, wrote to Felix, bishop of Rome, that the council of Nicaea had decided that councils ought not to be celebrated without the authority of the Roman pontiff . Pope Leo I transferred the second council of Ephesus to Chalcedon. Pope Martin V authorised his presidents at the council of Siena to transfer the council with no mention being made of the council’s consent. The greatest respect was shown to our predecessors as Roman pontiffs: to Celestine by the first synod of Ephesus; to the said Leo by the synod of Chalcedon; to Agatho by the sixth synod; to Hadrian by the seventh synod; and to Nicholas and Hadrian by the eighth synod, of Constantinople. These councils submitted with reverence and humility to the instructions and commands of the same pontiffs which had been composed and issued by them in the sacred councils. Moreover, pope Damasus and the other bishops assembled at Rome, writing to the bishops at Illyricum about the council at Rimini, pointed out that the number of bishops assembled at Rimini counted for nothing since it was known that the Roman pontiff, whose decrees were to be preferred before all others, had not given his consent to their meeting. It appears that pope Leo I said the same when writing to all the bishops of Sicily. It was customary for the fathers of the ancient councils humbly to ask for and obtain a warrant and approbation from the Roman pontiff in order to corroborate the matters dealt with in their councils . This is clear from the synods and their acts held at Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, the sixth synod at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea, the Roman synod under Symmachus and the synods in Haimar’s book. We would certainly be without these recent troubles if the fathers at Bourges and Basel had followed this laudable custom, which it is known that the fathers at Constance also finally adopted .’
This quote shows two things:
*]Firstly the Pope is superior to ecumenical councils as only he has the right to summon, transfer or dissolve them with OR without the councils consent
*]and Second that a council is ecumenical in as far as the Pope ratifies it’s decree’s 'Moreover, pope Damasus and the other bishops assembled at Rome, writing to the bishops at Illyricum about the council at Rimini, pointed out that the number of bishops assembled at Rimini counted for nothing since it was known that the Roman pontiff, whose decrees were to be preferred before all others, had not given his consent to their meeting.'
The First Vatican Council also says on the subject '**Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
Code:he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff**. ' There cannot be a more explicit rejection of the idea that The Pope is subject to an ecumenical council than this.**
T
TrentCath
Guest
There is no reason why purgatory cannot be both a state of purification and a place of purification
S
steve_b
Guest
- I didn’t see his post so I can’t comment.
- popes can be disciplined, but as far as the office is concerned, he has to either quit, retire, or die, but can’t be fired. Even by an ecumenical council. Don’t bring up anti-popes, they aren’t popes.
- Re: Honorius, which Alex brought up, as I said, that should be for another thread.
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.
V
Vico
Guest
OK, yet Bl. Pope John Paul II: “The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999_en.html
I am relating what I was taught, and continues to be taught.
T
TrentCath
Guest
Which was his private opinion and thus fallible
C
Cecilianus
Guest
But an acceptable position, one which we were all taught as children and one believed by the Pope, not a heresy!
T
TrentCath
Guest
I didn’t say it was…
T
TrentCath
Guest
What is a heresy however is conciliarism
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Which Eastern Catholics do not hold, and neither do Eastern Orthodox.
If denying that Purgatory is a “place” is not a heresy, then the East’s view is orthodox.
T
TrentCath
Guest
**
‘You said and I quote ‘However, the very fact of the incident refutes TrentCath’s assertion a while back that a pope is not answerable to a general council.’ Do you deny that YOU hold this view then?’
’ A council is not “ecumenical” because of the exterior legality of its composition (since this factor does not oblige the Holy Spirit to speak through a council), but because of the purity of the Faith of the Gospels which it professes… There is no “pope,” superior to the Councils who must ratify them…’ This is quote from ‘I Believe…: A Short Exposition of Orthodox Doctrine’ which can be read in full here Logically if the pope is NOT superior to an ecumenical council then either the council is superior to or equal in authority to him both of which are forms of conciliarism.
We can see a similar view espoused here ‘The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).’ This comes from ‘WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM?
By Father Michael Azkoul’ which you can read here Logically again if all bishops are equal then an ecumenical council or even a mere council would have more authority than the pope, this again is conciliarism.
The view is espoused again in The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 which states 'But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Synods of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. ’
The encyclical in question can be read here
And again in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 which states ‘… Since however the pope, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Synod is not only above the pope but above any council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened.’ That encyclical can be read here
Frankly the list of sources I can give to demonstrate that they do in fact subscribe to this view is almost limitless, but I believe these four will suffice.
**
One would still have to contend with the necessity of ‘Cleansing pains’, of the exclusion of a ‘particular judgement’ in the sense it is interpreted by the Orthodox sources I referred to and the almost universal resistance to the doctrine of Purgatory by numerous Orthodox sources.
H
Hesychios
Guest
What is the definition of conciliarism?
T
TrentCath
Guest
Simply put the idea that the Pope is answerable to ecumenical councils OR that one may appeal from the pope to an ecumenical council as if it was above the pope, both of which contain the idea that an ecumenical council is above the Pope. It is closely followed by the idea that all bishops are equal which is in a way a pre-requisite for it, for if the Pope is superior to other bishops then how can it be said that he is accountable to an ecumenical council which is ultimately nothing more than a body of bishops gathered in one place?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Steve,
M
mardukm
Guest
Conciliarism seeks to separate the body from the head or make the authority of the head of no account in relation to the body.
Collegiality does neither of those, but the distinction is lost on our SSPX brother TrentCath.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TrentCath
Guest
No what Collegiately in the strict sense does is make the authority of the head reliant on the authority of the body, in that way it is similar to Conciliarism. Also though I may be an adherent of the SSPX, that it does not mean i am your ‘SSPX Brother’ I am merely a catholic nothing more and nothing less
M
mardukm
Guest
False. That the Council is separate from and superior to its head is what constitutes the heresy of conciliarism.
That the council is equal to the Pope is the teaching of Catholic Church, as is evident from the Offical Relatio of Vatican 1, Vatican 2, and our Canons.
The idea that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, or that the Pope is a separate. distinct entity from the Ecumenical Council is the consistent error of the Absolutist Petrine view (which seems to be the view you are espousing).
What you are describing is the Low Petrine view, which I agree is erroneous. But it would be a mistake for you to assign it to Eastern Orthodoxy in general. We have at least three EO members here in CAF who agree with the High Petrine view of the Catholic Church. The recent Ravenna Colloquy affirmed a High Petrine position. High Petrine advocates among the Eastern Orthodox accept the principle of the headship of the bishop of Rome. They nevertheless do not accept the Catholic communion because they currently perceive the bishop of Rome to be a heretic. It is similar (though not identical) to the position of the schismatic SSPX. It is only similar because schismatic SSPX generally adhere to an Absolutist Petrine paradigm (illogically, I might add).
No. As stated in a previous post. Those who don’t believe in “cleansing pains” can appeal to at least two infallible Magisterial Catholic sources to support their view, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Soon I will address that post of yours and offer perhaps a better solution to the apparent “contradiction” between such Magisterial decrees, one that does not depend on parochial bias.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother TrentCath,
G
Ghosty
Guest
This is what’s blowing my mind about this conversation, which I’ve intentionally avoided wading back into. We have an adherent of SSPX, a group that does not submit to Roman authority, arguing that Eastern Catholics are suspect for not “fully submitting to Rome”, despite the fact that we are in full Communion with Rome, unlike SSPX, and have consistently been defended by numerous Popes.
You would think that we, who are actually part of the Catholic Communion, would be the proper representatives of the Catholic Church and its beliefs.
I feel like I’m watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Peace and God bless!
- Status