Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

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.

**False, whereas you will find no support whatsoever in the churches teachings for the idea that an ecumenical council is equal in authority to the Pope (even in Vatican II!) this passage clearly condemns the idea '**And so,

supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
    the Roman pontiffs and of
    general councils, 
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
    the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
    the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
        the prince of the apostles,
        true vicar of Christ,
        head of the whole church and
        father and teacher of all christian people. 
    To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
        tend,
        rule and govern
        the universal church.

…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' ** An ecumenical council is nothing more than a body of bishops in a specific place whos decrees are ratified by the Pope and whose authority is recognised by the pope. And yet this passage states that 'Both clergy...of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively are bound to submit to this power', therefore no body of bishops ecumenical or not may oppose the pope as they are bound to submit to his power. To read a passage that so explicitly rejects the idea that the body of bishops is equal to the Pope and yet persist in this idea is nothing more than wilful blindness of the most explicit kind.

Even Vatican II ambigously worded as it is does not accept the view that you are proposing it states 'But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power…The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college (of bishops) enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*)

If the pope is always free to exericise his supreme power then logically an ecumenical council must be below him and similarly if it is up to him to confirm their decrees, he can refuse to do so and this again means that he is superior to an ecumenical council.

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.

This rather than being something affirming the Orthodoxy of the ‘Orthodox’ is a damning criticsm of their nebolous nature and the inability to pin down many specific doctrines because different Orthodox believe different things…

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).

I will not waste my breath pointing out that Rome has time and time again said that the SSPX is not in schism because this has already been thrased out probably hundreds of times by people on this forum and because it is a distraction from what we are discussing

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.

This demonstrates an ignorance of how the Magisterium works and we dont need a ‘better solution’ because there is no contradiction, no magisterial document denies ‘Cleansing pains’ some merely do not mention it whilst others do. Ergo those that omit it must be read in the light of those that do.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Whatever else may be said, the Pope’s confirmation and promulgation ALONE is NOT sufficient for the authority and infallibility of an Ecumenical Council.

ALL FOUR CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY:
(1) approval by the head bishop;
(2) approval by the rest of the bishops;
(3) confirmation by the head bishop;
(4) promulgation by the head bishop.

I’m sure you agree with that, so nothing more needs to be said.

Blessings,
Marduk

nor withold approval partially or wholly, what has not been approved by them. All that stands to reason.

And as I also said,
approval by the other fathers ≠ confirm and promulgate.
It’s the pope alone who does the latter.

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.

 

[TrentCath]

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”

That may seem like what I am saying but its not

 

[TrentCath]

If you are in schism from the Catholic Church (I’m not sure)
I’ll prefer to refer to you as SSPX. I’ll accept your designation of small-c catholic. I believe several EO members here in CAF are actually more big-C Catholic than some of the SSPX I’ve met.

Blessings,
Marduk

You’re entitled to your opinion, I frankly find it highly amusing that you think they’re not catholic and in turn I am not, despite the lack of any document saying so but its not surprising

 

[malphono]

If the pope is always free to exericise his supreme power then logically an ecumenical council must be below him and similarly if it is up to him to confirm their decrees, he can refuse to do so and this again means that he is superior to an ecumenical council.

I have avoided entering this thread for a variety of reasons, and for a similar variety of reasons will not engage in debate herein, but I just can’t stand it and have to ask: If the Pope is “superior” to an Oecumenical Council, please explain why any Oecumenical Council has ever been called.

 

[TrentCath]

I have avoided entering this thread for a variety of reasons, and for a similar variety of reasons will not engage in debate herein, but I just can’t stand it and have to ask: If the Pope is “superior” to an Oecumenical Council, please explain why any Oecumenical Council has ever been called.

Fair enough Thats really the subject of another thread so I wont answer that

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrentCath,

To read a passage that so explicitly rejects the idea that the body of bishops is equal to the Pope and yet persist in this idea is nothing more than wilful blindness of the most explicit kind.

And for you to read INTO the passage the idea that the formal body of bishops in union with its head (an Ecumenical Council) is NOT equal to the Pope is nothing more than the willful blindess AND hubris of the most explict kind. Again, here is where a study of the background comments of the bishops at V1 are necessary. The first Vatican Council did not make any dogmatic statement on the nature of an Ecumenical Council. That was not its purpose, and you would know that if you bothered to make that study. For you to haphazardly impose its definitions on a matter that it did not address is ignorant. You are unwilling to grant the necessity of such a study; you are unwilling to have your knowledge and conscience be informed by the Fathers of the Council, but are content with your Absolutist Petrine misinterpretations of that Council. That is hubris.

Even Vatican II ambigously worded as it is does not accept the view that you are proposing it states 'But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power…The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college (of bishops) enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*)

V2 did not ambiguously word anything. It states right there in the quote you gave that an Ecumenical Council has SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church. The Pope exercising his unique Petrine office as confirmer of the brethren is ALSO the SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church. SUPREME AUTHORITY = SUPREME AUTHORITY. Get it?

If the pope is always free to exericise his supreme power then logically an ecumenical council must be below him and similarly if it is up to him to confirm their decrees, he can refuse to do so and this again means that he is superior to an ecumenical council.

In the fantasy world where 1 does not equal 1, I’m sure your “logic” holds merit. But we here in the ECF live in the REAL world.

This rather than being something affirming the Orthodoxy of the ‘Orthodox’ is a damning criticsm of their nebolous nature and the inability to pin down many specific doctrines because different Orthodox believe different things…

No, it just means that you were mistaken to generalize your criticism to the WHOLE of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I will not waste my breath pointing out that Rome has time and time again said that the SSPX is not in schism because this has already been thrased out probably hundreds of times by people on this forum and because it is a distraction from what we are discussing

If you are in schism, your Absolutist Petrine position is utterly illogical and without merit. EO who adhere to a High Petrine view have at least a logical premise for not being in the Catholic communion.

This demonstrates an ignorance of how the Magisterium works and we dont need a ‘better solution’ because there is no contradiction, no magisterial document denies ‘Cleansing pains’ some merely do not mention it whilst others do. Ergo those that omit it must be read in the light of those that do.

You can interpret it with your Latin bias, OR, one can say that the true, basic, universal dogma is expressed by Benedictus Deus and the Council of Trent, which do not insist on the concept of “pain” in Purgatory. Eastern and Orientals (and many Latins) are
generally very conscious of the fact that dogmas need to be expressed in theological language. Several dogmas have been expressed according to the theological language and premises of the Latins (e.g., the Immaculate Conception). Non-Latins will accept the basic Faith of those dogmas, though not necessarily the theological language/premise in which it is expressed. The same can be said here. In the face of other dogmatic statements that do not demand pain to be an inherent feature of Purgatory, those that do can be seen to be the dogma expressed merely according to a peculiarly Latin theological expression/premise. Latins cannot conceive of purification without pain. But the main point of the dogma is not the pain, but the purification, the “pain” part merely being the peculiar Latin expression of it.

Btw, as an Oriental, I accept that pain is part of the process of purification, but I also understand that it need not be.

This is the better solution. It is YOUR “solution” which causes an unacceptable contradiction to the magisterial statements on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

That may seem like what I am saying but its not

You said yourself (in post #232) that we are suspect in our beliefs and adherence to the Catholic Church. Yet you adhere to a group that is fundamentally not part of the Catholic Church, while we do belong to the Catholic Church.

If you are not saying that we are suspect, then please clarify what you meant in post #232. What suspicions do you have of us, or do you recant that statement?

Peace and God bless!

P.S. Rome has definitely said that the SSPX and its adherents are not in Communion with the Catholic Church, in the motu propio Ecclesiae Unitatem. The excommunications of the Bishops were lifted, but SSPX is still not part of the Catholic Church, and that is schism by definition. I will also say that I’m not bringing this up to put you down, but merely to highlight the fact that your group’s views are doctrinally different than the Catholic Church’s on some matters, and has been declared to not be in full Communion as a result. Our Eastern Churches have not been put into the same category, and our views are fully accepted by the Pope. That should give you pause about who’s views accurately reflect the stance of the Magisterium.

 

[TrentCath]

Dear brother TrentCath,

And for you to read INTO the passage the idea that the formal body of bishops in union with its head (an Ecumenical Council) is NOT equal to the Pope is nothing more than the willful blindess AND hubris of the most explict kind. Again, here is where a study of the background comments of the bishops at V1 are necessary. The first Vatican Council did not make any dogmatic statement on the nature of an Ecumenical Council. That was not its purpose, and you would know that if you bothered to make that study. For you to haphazardly impose its definitions on a matter that it did not address is ignorant. You are unwilling to grant the necessity of such a study; you are unwilling to have your knowledge and conscience be informed by the Fathers of the Council, but are content with your Absolutist Petrine misinterpretations of that Council. That is hubris.

**I confess that I do not see the point of continuing this discussion, your position is illogical and clearly contrary to the teaching of the Church. You look at documents that clearly state that the Pope is the supreme authority in the church, that no appeals can be made from him to an ecumenical council, that all bishops of whatever rite of dignity and in whatever number are bound to submit to him and yet you still believe that an ecumenical council is equal in authority to the Pope! How can an ecumenical council be equal to the pope when its decrees must be confirmed by the pope? When it can be convoked, moved or dissolved whenever the Pope so wishes? When all bishops whether individually or together must submit to his authority? **

V2 did not ambiguously word anything. It states right there in the quote you gave that an Ecumenical Council has SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church. The Pope exercising his unique Petrine office as confirmer of the brethren is ALSO the SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church. SUPREME AUTHORITY = SUPREME AUTHORITY. Get it?

What I get is that if a pope MUST approve a councils decrees for it to be ecumenical he can also reject them. And what does this mean? Simply put that he is SUPERIOR to an ecumenical council, whereas I can marshal numerous sources that testify to this you cannot a single one that states that an ecumenical council is equal to the authority of the pope. Further if the pope is always free to exercise his supreme authority he is not limited by ecumenical councils nor is he limited to only exercising his supreme authority when councils exist.

In the fantasy world where 1 does not equal 1, I’m sure your “logic” holds merit. But we here in the ECF live in the REAL world.

**Perhaps rathr than making amusing but ultimately pointless statements you should demonstrate why the logic is flawed if you can in fact do so? **

No, it just means that you were mistaken to generalize your criticism to the WHOLE of Eastern Orthodoxy.

False

If you are in schism, your Absolutist Petrine position is utterly illogical and without merit. EO who adhere to a High Petrine view have at least a logical premise for not being in the Catholic communion.

I have explained this time and time and time again, if you cannot be bothered to read the reasons as to why it is not illogical than that is really your problem

Latins cannot conceive of purification without pain. But the main point of the dogma is not the pain, but the purification, the “pain” part merely being the peculiar Latin expression of it

False, the ENTIRITY of the Dogma is De Fide not the 'main point’

This is the better solution. It is YOUR “solution” which causes an unacceptable contradiction to the magisterial statements on the matter.

**I trust that you have some command of the english language in which case you would know that in order to ‘contradict’, two things must say the OPPOSITE, if one source says ‘Purgatory exists…’ and another says ‘Purgatory exists and involves cleansing pains’ the two do not contradict, rather they complement each other. **

What is clear in the matter is that your obstinate refusal to accept that at least some parts of the Eastern Orthodox church have strayed into heresy and that some parts of its tradition are irreconcialble with the teachings of the Church have led you into ever more absurd and convoluted readings of clear infallible texts.

 

[Cecilianus]

**
‘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?’

I do not deny holding this view, and I hold it still. It isn’t conciliarism to affirm the historical fact that an ecumenical council excommunicated Pope Honorius, nor to affirm that they had the authority to do so.

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.

 

[Ghosty]

TrentCath: The Pope, in confirming the decisions of a council of Bishops, is part of the Ecumenical Council, and therefore you can’t say that the Ecumenical Council has less authority than the Pope. One can’t appeal to an Ecumenical Council above the Pope because the Pope is part of the Ecumenical Council by definition.

The point of such decrees is not that the Ecumenical Council has less authority than the Pope, which is non-sensical as Mardukm points out since both wield the Supreme Authority, but rather that the Ecumenical Council is not separate from the Pope.

Peace and God bless!

 

[TrentCath]

You said yourself (in post #232) that we are suspect in our beliefs and adherence to the Catholic Church. Yet you adhere to a group that is fundamentally not part of the Catholic Church, while we do belong to the Catholic Church.

This forum has rather strict rules on what can and can’t be said regarding the SSPX, therefore I will say nothing more than if you wish to discover the true position of the SSPX you could do no better than read Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre

If you are not saying that we are suspect, then please clarify what you meant in post #232. What suspicions do you have of us, or do you recant that statement?

**Please note my post says ‘That is not true I’m afraid, the way some eastern catholics present themselves and the way they are presented as well as the structure of the church arouses my suspicion.’ I clearly therefore do not think ALL Easter Catholics are suspect or that the Eastern churches per see are, however what I suspect and I have had my suspicions confirmed is that regards ecclesiology and several dogmas of the Catholic church which conflict with those of the Orthodox church some Eastern Catholics hold the Eastern Orthodox faith NOT The Catholic one. This despite their strenous protestations and denials has been demonstrated both by their words and actions. Before anyone has a tanturm I should point out that many ‘western rite’ Catholics have similar problems, for example refusing to accept the ban on contraception, the indissoluability of marriage, church teaching on homosexuality, the fundmental difference between clergy and laity, purgatory, indulgences, the real presence, the inability of women to be priests, the churches ban on married clergy (in the ‘west’) and its preference for chastity. **

P.S. Rome has definitely said that the SSPX and its adherents are not in Communion with the Catholic Church, in the motu propio Ecclesiae Unitatem. The excommunications of the Bishops were lifted, but SSPX is still not part of the Catholic Church, and that is schism by definition. I will also say that I’m not bringing this up to put you down, but merely to highlight the fact that your group’s views are doctrinally different than the Catholic Church’s on some matters, and has been declared to not be in full Communion as a result. Our Eastern Churches have not been put into the same category, and our views are fully accepted by the Pope. That should give you pause about who’s views accurately reflect the stance of the Magisterium.

The ‘church’ has said that the SSPX are not in ‘full’ communion that is a rather different animal from not in communion at all or in schism and whether they are right or not is another matter altogether. As for the Pope accepting the point of view of some so called Eastern Catholics on here thats pure fantasy I’m afraid, at most all that can be said is that the Eastern Churches are in communion with Rome. Similarly Rome is in communion with bishops that believe in the ordination of women priests, openly gay clergy, deny purgatory, the real presence and the Popes authority, I hardly think anyone would be so foolis as to suggest that that means the Pope agrees with their views!

 

[TrentCath]

I do not deny holding this view, and I hold it still. It isn’t conciliarism to affirm the historical fact that an ecumenical council excommunicated Pope Honorius, nor to affirm that they had the authority to do so.

Thats a rather contentious opinion I’m afraid and as others have said Pope Honorius needs a whole other thread

The actual words I used were “answerable to”, not “superior to”. You’re simplifying things into a straw man.

The pope is neither answerable to nor superior to an ecumenical council, end of.

This statement is correct. All bishops are equal by nature; there are only three major orders in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and nothing ontologically distinguishing an associate bishop from the Pope. There are different ranks of bishop and these differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the ontological seal or mark (the “nature”) given by the sacrament of Holy Orders. We have never ordained a Pope; we have only ordained bishops.

’All bishops are equal by nature’ and ‘All bishops are equal’ are not the same statement. All bishops are equal is clearly untrue as they do not all have equal authority

Regarding conciliarism, I would only like to point out that the term refers a heresy that arose in the Latin West during the decline of the Middle Ages and is irrelevant (again!) to discussions concerning the Christian East.

I see that rather than looking at the four sources that indicate that Orthodoxy believed in this, you’ve chosen to make the assertion that its not relevant to the Orthodox church. Such an assertion in the light of the fact that you clearly profess conciliarism and as do four Orthodox sources including two highly authoritative ones can only be said to be totally absurd and illogical

 

[TrentCath]

TrentCath: The Pope, in confirming the decisions of a council of Bishops, is part of the Ecumenical Council, and therefore you can’t say that the Ecumenical Council has less authority than the Pope. One can’t appeal to an Ecumenical Council above the Pope because the Pope is part of the Ecumenical Council by definition.

The point of such decrees is not that the Ecumenical Council has less authority than the Pope, which is non-sensical as Mardukm points out since both wield the Supreme Authority, but rather that the Ecumenical Council is not separate from the Pope.

Peace and God bless!

I say nothing more than that I have already refuted similar views on this thread

 

[malphono]

Holding to my earlier [post=8156835]disclaimer[/post], I’m going to venture another comment.

This discussion seems to have gone into irreconcilable corners. That said, and for the benefit (or detriment, as the case may be) of those who don’t already know, I’ve argued with mardukm many times on the joint – as far as I’m concerned, inseperable – matters of primacy & infallibility, but for quite different reasons.

If anything, he tries to reconcile Vatican I (and therefore Vatican II) with First Millennium reality. That’s where we inevitably disagree. Insofar as the principles are concerned, I generally agree with him, and will go so far as to say yes, there’s some favorable “wiggle room” even in the Vatican I pronouncements. But, that doesn’t change the “situation on the ground” so-to-speak, which clearly (at least clearly to me, and I’ve been around the block (and the theological classroom) a good many times, so I’m not the average 'armchair observer) speaks otherwise.

As I see it, no matter how one slices or dices it, Rome adheres (in fact if not in principle) to an “Absolutist” position. That’s fine and dandy within the purview of the Latin Church, but at the same time is something that is an alien concept to the East and Orient.

 

[mardukm]

I see that rather than looking at the four sources that indicate that Orthodoxy believed in this, you’ve chosen to make the assertion that its not relevant to the Orthodox church. Such an assertion in the light of the fact that you clearly profess conciliarism and as do four Orthodox sources including two highly authoritative ones can only be said to be totally absurd and illogical

And the fact that the group to which you adhere is not part of the Catholic Church proper means that your views do not represent the Catholic Church. Brothers Cecilianus and Ghosty, and others, have expressed the teaching of the Catholic Church correctly. The fact that you cannot distinguish between collegiality and conciliarism is itself highly telling that you have not imbibed the true teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

TrentCath, you have used the word “illogical” dozens of times, but never pointed out the logical fallacy you are criticized. Using the word “illogical” to state disagreement or to declare a position unreasonable is a misuse of the word, fyi.

 

[Cecilianus]

’All bishops are equal by nature’ and ‘All bishops are equal’ are not the same statement. All bishops are equal is clearly untrue as they do not all have equal authority

Which is exactly my point. You had quoted an article by Fr. Azkoul saying all bishops are equal by nature, and calling that heresy.

I see that rather than looking at the four sources that indicate that Orthodoxy believed in this, you’ve chosen to make the assertion that its not relevant to the Orthodox church. Such an assertion in the light of the fact that you clearly profess conciliarism and as do four Orthodox sources including two highly authoritative ones can only be said to be totally absurd and illogical

You’re misusing the word “illogical” again. I do not profess conciliarism; end of story.

 

[Cecilianus]

I have avoided entering this thread for a variety of reasons, and for a similar variety of reasons will not engage in debate herein, but I just can’t stand it and have to ask: If the Pope is “superior” to an Oecumenical Council, please explain why any Oecumenical Council has ever been called.

I’m going to disagree with you here. That’s like saying if a bishop is superior to a synod of priests in his see, why has any synod ever been called?

The Pope is superior to Ecumenical Councils in the sense that he ratifies and seals their decisions, and when they are held in the West (if we are to call them ecumenical councils) he calls them and guides the debate. This does not make the council unnecessary or detract from collegiality any more than the bishop’s authority over his see makes other priests unnecessary.

 

[mardukm]

Daer brother TrentCath,

And the fact that the group to which you adhere is not part of the Catholic Church proper means that your views do not represent the Catholic Church. Brothers Cecilianus and Ghosty, and others, have expressed the teaching of the Catholic Church correctly. The fact that you cannot distinguish between collegiality and conciliarism is itself highly telling that you have not imbibed the true teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.

Forgive my harshness, but I’m just concerned since the OP is an inquirer into the Catholic Faith. The group to which you adhere is not even a formal part of the Catholic Church, and I hope sister Andrea realizes that.

I am assuming that the OP presented her question here in the ECF so she could see what the Eastern/Oriental Catholic position is. Your understanding of the teaching of the Catholic Church is noted, and presents a good sounding board against which we non-Latins can express our own belief.

Sister Andrea (NinjaSnark) if you are reading this, please understand that, despite brother TrentCath’s Absolutist position (which seems to be the position of the schismatic group to which he adheres), and notwithstanding the matter of how perfectly the Catholic Church has lived up to the ideal, Eastern and Oriental Catholics generally adhere to the collegial understanding of the Church, and the very great majority of us (along with many Latin Catholics) believe this collegial understanding is perfectly consistent with, if not the actual teaching of, the Vatican Councils, as well as all prior authorities in the whole history of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk