Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

I’m not the one equating them, the Catholic Church is. There are varying degrees of “not in full Communion”, but the same term is used for all three groups. Therefore it doesn’t suffice for you to say that the SSPX isn’t in schism, but merely “not in full Communion”, because that is the very same status as the Eastern Orthodox, according to the relevant Church documents.

I’ve already gone over this

The Orthodox not only celebrate valid Sacraments, but in some cases there is open and official sharing of Sacraments. The Syriac Catholic and the Syriac Orthodox have open agreements for the pastoral care of eachother’s faithful, and the Sacraments are shared openly between them, including Confession. I myself have received Communion from a Syriac Orthodox priest at a Divine Liturgy celebrated by our Bishop. My point is this: don’t be so sure that the Orthodox are as removed from the Catholic Church as you seem to think. The Church holds them in the same basic status as the SSPX, and your disagreement with this fact only highlights your differences with the Catholic Church Herself.

And the sharing of communion is approved by The Church? Somehow I very much doubt it, even if it was it never would have been prior to the new code of canon ‘law’. Rather than seeing that as an idea of how close the Eastern non-catholic churches are, (not that i deny that they are close), I see it as a faulty understanding of ecumenicism combined with a faulty understanding of the churches ‘catholicity’.

When it comes to Vatican II, you do not accept all of its teachings despite them being promulgated by the Pope

**As I’ve said before and I’ve said again I do not have to accept ALL of its teachings, at least not in the sense they have been interpreted by those on the church. The council openly declared that not all its teachings were binding on the church ‘Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." (Lumen Gentium)’ **

and yet you complain that Eastern Catholics either do the same, or that we interpret Council documents in a manner consistent with our ancient traditions.

The differences is simple, whereas some Eastern Catholics patently go against the teaching of numerous unambigous and dogmatic councils, I merely express reservations about one which is universally accepted as being ‘ambigous’, and openly declared itself as pastoral and not dogmatic

The Catholic Church has supported us in doing this, so who are you to tell us otherwise, especially when your own group does the same but in defiance of the Church, rather than with Her support?

**You will nowhere find The Pope saying ‘Vatican I actually means I’m not allowed to interfere in bishops dioceses unless they appeal to me’ or ‘The authority of the papacy is equal to that of an ecumenical council’ or ‘The pope is only supreme if he acts for the good of the whole church’ or ‘Actually there are no cleansing pains in purgatory…’ and so on. I can on the other hand find numerous enyclicals that directly contradict and condemn in very strong language if not the councils teachings then at least the way they have been interpreted. **

I have repeatedly stated that I did NOT want to get drawn into a discussion about the SSPX or otherwise because it is not relevant. It is merely an attempt to make an Ad Hominem argument and discredit me for being an adherent of the SSPX, sadly my view is shared by numerous theologians, papal enycyclicals and council documents spanning over hundreds if not thousands of years. Therefore discrediting me does little to help your cause.

 

[TrentCath]

What’s with the scare quotes you use around the term ‘Orthodox Christians’? Do you see the Orthodox posters referring to the Roman Catholics as Roman ‘Catholic’ Christians?

I can’t confess I spend much time searching through threads to see how I should and shouldn’t refer to other christians, what would do you mean to do say ‘Eastern seperated brethren’ instead?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I can’t confess I spend much time searching through threads to see how I should and shouldn’t refer to other christians, what would do you mean to do say ‘Eastern seperated brethren’ instead?

Perhaps you can just call a spade a spade and just say ‘Orthodox Christians’ without disingenuously using scare quotes to imply that Orthodox Christians are not actually Orthodox, just like we call the Roman Catholic Church the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ without disingenuously using scare quotes in order to imply that the Roman Catholic Church is not Catholic.

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

The OP is about the Ecumenical Council. This particular issue you bring up was already thoroughly discussed in a previous thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569290). I don’t want to discuss this here aside from making the following comments in response to the highlighted portion of your statement above:

What do you make of the following statement from the Official Relatio of Vatican 1?
It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church united with its head is the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope.

The Official Relatio is the official interpretation of the Vatican Decree on Infallibility as expressed by Bishop Gasser. It was distributed to the Council Fathers two days before the final voting, and whatever it was the Fathers voted for, they voted for it with the interpretation of the Official Relatio in mind. It appears the Fathers of Vatican 1 did not understand the consensus of the Church as a mere option that was simply “generally better” to obtain. The Official Relatio says that this consensus is the Rule of Faith. To be sure, the Official Relatio did not necessitate direct consultation with the bishops in order to obtain this consensus (i.e., the consensus could be determined by means other than direct consultation with the bishops), but calling the consensus the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope would indicate that the consensus - in the mind of the V1 Fathers - was a necessity. I would appreciate your comments (let’s discuss it in this thread for a little bit, and if it turns out the discussion becomes extensive, we might think about transferring the discussion to the other thread that I mentioned earlier).

The statement from the Canon of the Decree on Infallibility (i.e., “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable by their very nature, not because of the consensus of the Church”), in case it crosses your mind, was thoroughly discussed in the thread mentioned earlier. Here is a recap of the matter from that thread:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8055140&postcount=279. The discussion begins on page 16 of that thread, post#235, if you are willing to read through it (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8042522#post8042522).

Blessings,
Marduk

If the Pope defines a doctrine motu proprio, then he does so speaking in the name of the entire Church, with their voice, and expressing the consensus of the Church. My point was just that it more clearly shows the collegiality of such decrees if the whole college of bishops actually physically join him in making a statement rather than just letting him do it for them - the tactical problem of course is convening all the bishops in one place, getting documents written by committees and voted on by thousands of bishops, and other practical and financial considerations that could lead a Pope to simply issue a document on his own when the issue is not in dispute.

This sound right to you?

 

[TrentCath]

Perhaps you can just call a spade a spade and just say ‘Orthodox Christians’ without disingenuously using scare quotes to imply that Orthodox Christians are not actually Orthodox, just like we call the Roman Catholic Church the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ without disingenuously using scare quotes in order to imply that the Roman Catholic Church is not Catholic.

I’m not using ‘scare quotes’ merely conforming to the truth, if others wish to call the Catholic church Catholic despite not actually believing it, that is their concern not mine.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Pope is not the “Bishop of the Catholic Church” - he is the Bishop of Rome, one with universal and plenary jurisdiction blah blah blah. Other bishops are not mere middle-management positions, or the Pope’s lieutenants. They have proper jurisdiction over their sees. The author is misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s teachings, as most non-Catholics do when discussing Catholicism.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said “there are few people if any who reject what the Catholic Church teaches - but many who reject what they think She teaches.” I am disappointed that you join with the opponents of Catholicism by following their misrepresentation of her doctrine.

 

[TrentCath]

The Pope is not the “Bishop of the Catholic Church” - he is the Bishop of Rome, one with universal and plenary jurisdiction blah blah blah. Other bishops are not mere middle-management positions, or the Pope’s lieutenants. They have proper jurisdiction over their sees. The author is misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s teachings, as most non-Catholics do when discussing Catholicism.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said “there are few people if any who reject what the Catholic Church teaches - but many who reject what they think She teaches.” I am disappointed that you join with the opponents of Catholicism by following their misrepresentation of her doctrine.

I could well say the same thing about you

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not using ‘scare quotes’ merely conforming to the truth, if others wish to call the Catholic church Catholic despite not actually believing it, that is their concern not mine.

Straight from wikipedia’s definition of scare quotes: scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Firstly it is absurd to equate ‘Orthodox’ christians who do not accept Papal supremacy, infallibility and so on with those who clearly do, it may well be true that the SSPX rejects some of the doctrines of VII, but so do the ‘Orthodox’ so they’re not going to be in the same position. As for protestants they dont have an apostolic succssion or sacraments so they’re not even in the same league as the SSPX or ‘Orthodox’

You use the word ‘Orthodox’ three times in that paragraph and surround the term with quotation marks each time, despite the fact that there is no reason to do so in the context of what you are writing. It is quite apparent, therefore, that you are using “quotation marks placed around [the word Orthodox] to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning,” hence, you are using scare quotes.

 

[TrentCath]

Straight from wikipedia’s definition of scare quotes: scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

You use the word ‘Orthodox’ three times in that paragraph and surround the term with quotation marks each time, despite the fact that there is no reason to do so in the context of what you are writing. It is quite apparent, therefore, that you are using “quotation marks placed around [the word Orthodox] to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning,” hence, you are using scare quotes.

Really? You’re going to use wikpedia to… oh never mind. I don’t intend to scare, merely that I do not agree with the phrase but finding no better term will use it.

 

[dzheremi]

What a “wonderful”, “not obnoxious” way to approach this “discussion”. I’ll remember it for next time I have to deal with “Catholics” and all their claims about “Papal” “supremacy”.

 

[TrentCath]

What a “wonderful”, “not obnoxious” way to approach this “discussion”. I’ll remember it for next time I have to deal with “Catholics” and all their claims about “Papal” “supremacy”.

As I read an Orthodox saying ‘I’m sorry if I come across as Obnoxious but you’ve got to realise that we truly do believe ourselves to be the One True Church of Christ…’

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thanks for the clarification on what council you refered to. It would have been better that you gave that name upfront

You mentioned apostolic canon 69 and the issue of fasting… you made a big deal about that. I can also see why when checking for a canon #69 on fasting which you made such a point on, nothing came up. Go to canon 69 in the 1st link attached. Fast/Fasting is mentioned ~25 times, in many canons, but NOT canon 69.

The second link gives the background of this council for the West. Therefore, I don’t think this council is one we’re going to get much traction on for purposes of this conversation



2nd source for the canons fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.html

So why did you make the following accusation?

As you can see, from the links provided, the reality of this issue, is NOT how you state it…true?

All it means is that Trullo is a local council for Eastern churches. Don’t read more into this than there is.

You brought this up not me. I never said Eastern councils can’t make rules and regulations for themselves sans the pope. And I never said the pope had to ratify them for applicability in the East. As far as Honorius, I’ll just say, He didn’t teach heresy, he was condemned NOT for teaching heresy, but for NOT stopping heresy. He asked Surgius not to talk about what they were discussing. Surgius didn’t comply. No body even knew what Honorius thought because he kept it between he and Surgius. 50 years after Honorius died, we find out what he and Surgius were talking about via correspondence between the 2. But all that is for another thread,.

Perhaps I’ve not said things as well as I should have, five hours of sleep for several days in a row might have something to do with it.

As for “reading into” things, thank you for your warning! But the Council of Trullo wasn’t intended to be for the Eastern Churches, but was intended to be a compendium and part and parcel of the Fifth and Sixth Ec. Councils, thus, the council was called “Quinisext.”

It only became a “local council” when the pope wouldn’t ratify it. The point is that despite the lack papal ratification, that council’s decisions stood as valid for the entire East - thus, it became more than a “local council” for the East and it is not a council at all for the West. This is different, one might suppose, from an Eastern council called to settle matters involving local issues. One could “read into” Trullo that decisions of ecumenical councils become “ecumenical” not because of papal ratification understood to be an exercisce of the “charism of infallibility” but because of ratification by the patriarch of the West, the pope of Rome, who headed, and still heads, the only Apostolic See in the West (as opposed to several in the East).

Trullo is not a “local council” for the East, but an integral part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils in terms of disciplinary canons. Lack of papal validation didn’t invalidate its canons. And so, “local council” is based only on how the West sees it, not how the East sees it.

My canon 69 of the Apostles does indeed talk about fasting rules (I find your insistence on seeing these and other disciplinary rules as not being a “big deal” rather annoying - would you not agree that the lax fasting rules in the Western Church are part and parcel of a weakening of asceticism and spirituality in your ecclesial neck of the woods? Right?).

As for Pope Honorius, there is NO doubt that he did not teach heresy. One can be condemned for less, and he was. What is more, his successors renewed that condemnation when taking the Chair of Peter until, as I understand it, well into the 12th century. And yes, I did raise that to show that a pope can be condemned (just as Pope Liberius, a saint in the East, was refused the honours of the altar by his own Roman Church).

These are issues that are simply fodder for possible discussion (I’m actually waiting for you to perhaps do me the honour of engaging in a discussion rather than paternalistically contradict some of my positions so as to preclude any discussion).

Cheers, but I know when anything I have to say is rejected outrightly for whatever reason,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

But such a view of the role of the pope developed AFTER the schism between East and West. Papal ratification of the Seven Ecumenical Councils has NOT been established as an exercise of the charism of papal infallibility but as the necessary ratification to ensure the West (and therefore the entire Church) is included in the Ecumenical Council’s decisions/decision-making process. Thus, the first Seven Councils expressed the charism of the infallibility of the ENTIRE Church.

And while the Sixth Ec. Council praised the papacy highly, that did not prevent it from condemning Pope Honorius and, at Trullo - intended to be an integral part of the canons of the fifth and sixth councils - condemning certain practices of the Roman Church.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrentCath,

I disagree, the councils were required to develop NOT clarify the teachings of the earlier councils and combat new heresies that sprung up.

Development IS the process of clarification.

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’

True, but you are misunderstanding what he means. He does not say De Fide teachings ARE fully elucidated. He says that, as a general principle, De Fide teachings NEED to be “fully elucidated.” THAT is why there is development. So for you to claim that a dogma is so absolutely clear that it may NEVER require future clarification (or “development,” which is the same thing) actually opposes Newman’s principles.

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

Yes, they are different, in both extent, and manner of exercise. The canonical terms “ordinary” and “immediate” have absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised. Those terms merely describe the nature of the jurisdiction, not its manner of use. The canonical term that you need to watch out for as far as manner of use is concerned is the word “proper.” A bishop has proper authority (i.e., that authority that is exercised in a day-to-day manner) only in what pertains to his own diocese (i.e., proper, local jurisdiction). While a Pope has proper authority in what pertains to the whole Church (i.e. proper, universal jurisdiction), he does NOT have proper local jurisdiction in a diocese outside his own local diocese. In other words, though the Pope has the regular use of his prerogatives on a matter that involves the entire Church, he does NOT have the regular use of those prerogatives in local jurisdictions outside his own. Outside his own local jurisdiction, any head bishop’s authority is not proper (i.e., cannot be exercised on a regular day-to-day basis), but can only be exercised in an EXTRAordinary manner. Look it up in our canons. You will find that though a Pope’s jurisdiction in any local diocese can be considered “immediate” and “ordinary,” it is NEVER described as “proper.” In distinction, you will discover that a local bishop’s jurisdiction in his own local diocese is described not only as “immediate” and “ordinary,” but ALSO “proper.”

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.

You are being inconsistent. I don’t know how you can sit there and agree that “mere will and discretion” is a proper standard for papal decisions when you yourself concede that the Pope cannot change the Liturgy by “mere will and discretion.” You already admitted that the preponderating factor in papal decisions is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH. This standard excludes “mere will and discretion” – unless you claim that the Pope’s mere will and discretion is ALWAYS for the good of the Church. But you obviously don’t believe that - otherwise the group to which you adhere would not be in schism. To repeat, for a group to claim that the Pope has absolute power while simultaneously being in schism from the Catholic communion is UTTERLY ILLOGICAL.

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’

Sorry. I personally agree with those statements, but it is not credible coming from you, who adheres to a group that illogically believes in papal absolutism, while simultaneously contemning several doctrinal principles of an Ecumenical Council (V2).

mardukm:

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.

I’m pretty sure thats just about everything

Inconsistency, once again. If you really believed this, your group would not be in schism from the Catholic communion. Obviously, you do not believe that one needs to submit to the power of the Pope in ALL matters, but only in matters in which the Pope is acting for the GOOD OF THE CHURCH…

I agree with this completely as surprisingly does the ‘Arch Traditionalist’ group, the SSPX.

Though your agreement is commendable, it sadly demonstrates your inconsistency.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED
"Mardukm:

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.

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

Inconsistency, once again. You adhere to a group whose first bishop felt he was “more Catholic than the Pope” and did not humble himself to the authority of his head bishop.

I suppose that I would side more towards ‘Bishop of the Universal Church’ than ‘Head Bishop of The Universal Church’

I understand that. On the other hand, Popes St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great both rejected the designation “Bishop of the Universal Church.” It’s rather telling that you, an advocate of the Absolutist Petrine view, accept it. It merely demonstrates that the Absolutist Petrine view is not faithful to the constant teaching of the Church.

Ummm… you missed a whole portion of the quote I gave from Abp 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 Abp 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…

I can see why you want to seperate his statement in two but I’m afraid that the statement must be taken as a whole.

Umm…it was actually you who separated the two statements. All I did was give the rest of the statement that you unceremoniously excised in an attempt to support an erroneous opinion.

If the pope were to ordinarily intervene in the affairs of other bishops and dioceses, if he were to micromanage, then Bishops would be nothing more than vicars of the Pope, that is the point the Archbishop is trying to make. By the use of the word of the word ‘extrordinary’ he means nothing more than that the Popes interference in such a way is likely to be extraordinary i.e uncommon, for that is what the word means in common parlance, not that it is ‘extrordinary’ and he needs a special reason for doing so

Your interpretation might make sense to someone who never studied the background debates of V1. But someone who has would be aware that Abp Rauscher was one of the LEADERS of the MINORITY PARTY at V1. Your misinterpretation really has no basis in reality. How in the world does one pretend to impose an Absolutist Petrine interpretation on the statements of one of the LEADERS of the MINORITY PARTY? That’s just — ILLOGICAL.

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

I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree here.

I gave Abp Rauscher’s exact words as to why the term “pre-eminence” was added to the text. How does someone disagree with a fact?

mardukm:

Well, no. You stated that there were disagreements on the issue of the canon. But there were none. Your citation from St. Jerome proves my point, since St. Jerome was simply pointing out that his detractors misunderstood him - that he was never intending to deny the Deuteros. In fact he calls the one who misrespresented him “a fool and a slanderer.” So there was no actual disagreement over the Canon as far as St. Jerome is concerned.

No, I pointed out that there wasnt a decided canon and disagreement over what was and wasn’t canonical

Huh? You first claimed the Church Fathers disagreed about the Canon, and that St. Jerome denied the Deuteros. I responded that you are wrong on both counts – first, because though there were different canons, no one ever argued with anyone else about whose canon was correct – hence there was NO disagreement, only differences in canons; second, because St. Jerome never actually denied the Deuteros. Then you responded (strangely) that this was exactly your point. I responded that this was not your point because you said there was disagreement, when in fact there was none, only differences in canon. And NOW, you respond by saying, “NO, I pointed out that there was disagreement.” Is it any wonder that people are finding your statements illogical (and by now, perhaps only laughable?)? In any case, you are wrong. Not a single early Church Father made the differences in canon a point of disagreement in the Church (at least I’m not aware of any – though I am willing to be corrected).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

You look at documents that clearly state that the Pope is the supreme authority in the church

You mean V2 and our Canons that state ALSO that the College of Bishops in union with its head has SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church? Sure. But I like to take things in context, instead of taking only little snippets.

that no appeals can be made from him to an ecumenical council

Actually you’ve managed to excise a good part of that statement (like with my quote from Abp Rauscher). That statement contains the clause “as if to an authority above the Roman Pontiff.” An EC that is equal to the Pope is another matter altogether. There are instances in the Church history when a Pope, within the context of a Council, was moved by his brother bishops to change his prior decision. I only write this to oppose the Absolutist Petrine pretensions that the Pope is above an EC. I myself do accept that in the judicial process, the Pope is the highest court of appeal. That is the proper context of the statement from V1. The problem is that you Absolutist Petrine advocates (as well as Low Petrine detractors) wrench that statement from its context, and pretend that it refers to every little decision that the Pope makes.

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!

Sure. Because the Pope is a member of an EC.

How can an ecumenical council be equal to the pope when its decrees must be confirmed by the pope?

Because the Pope is a member of an EC.

When it can be convoked, moved or dissolved whenever the Pope so wishes?

I must have missed it, but where do the magisterial documents state, “whenever the Pope so wishes?”

When all bishops whether individually or together must submit to his authority?

Sure. But only if he is building up the body of Christ for the GOOD OF THE CHURCH. Otherwise – no.

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

Inconsistency, once again. An EC is not an “Ecum Council” w/o the Pope. An EC = [Pope + the rest of the bishops]. The equation is NOT Ecum Council = rest of the bishops. So if an EC is by definition [Pope + rest of the bishops], how do you pretend that the Pope is above an EC? How can the [Pope] be above [Pope + rest of bishops]? We who live in the real world would like an explanation.

whereas I can marshal numerous sources that testify to this

You haven’t been able to so far. All you’ve cited are statements about the relationship of the Pope to individuals and to particular groupings. You have cited absolutely nothing about the Pope’s relationship to an EC. All you’ve managed to do is exaggerate certain statements that have nothing to do with the relationship between the Pope and an EC & impose it into that context where it does not in fact belong.

you cannot a single one that states that an ecumenical council is equal to the authority of the pope.

I don’t have to. You did just fine with the quote you gave that stated that the College of bishops in union with its head has SUPREME AUTHORITY in the Church.

Further if the pope is always free to exercise his supreme authority he is not limited by ecumenical councils

Oh. Now you claim that the Pope can contradict the prior rulings that the Church recognizes to have Ecumenical authority. Your claims are getting progressively more fantastic.

nor is he limited to only exercising his supreme authority when councils exist.

Of course not. An EC is simply the most formal and solemn expression of the College of bishops in union with its head bishop. That collegial authority of Pope + rest of the bishops exists even outside the setting of an EC.

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

I did. SUPREME AUTHORITY**=**SUPREME AUTHORITY. What about that don’t you understand?

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.

If you think that the only thing that the sources I cited in relation to purification is an affirmation that “Purgatory exists,” then — well, let’s just say that for someone with a handle such as “TrentCath,” it’s ironically pretty obvious you have never read Trent’s Decree on Purgatory – nor Benedictus Deus, for that matter.

What is clear in the matter is that your obstinate refusal to accept that at least some parts of the EOC 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.

What is clear is that you are finally conceding that you were wrong to assign errors to the EOC as a whole. Now you have thankfully mitigated your opinion with the term “some parts.” That’s commendable.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Wonderful post, brother Alex.

Perhaps I’ve not said things as well as I should have, five hours of sleep for several days in a row might have something to do with it.

As for “reading into” things, thank you for your warning! But the Council of Trullo wasn’t intended to be for the Eastern Churches, but was intended to be a compendium and part and parcel of the Fifth and Sixth Ec. Councils, thus, the council was called “Quinisext.”

It only became a “local council” when the pope wouldn’t ratify it. The point is that despite the lack papal ratification, that council’s decisions stood as valid for the entire East - thus, it became more than a “local council” for the East and it is not a council at all for the West. This is different, one might suppose, from an Eastern council called to settle matters involving local issues. One could “read into” Trullo that decisions of ecumenical councils become “ecumenical” not because of papal ratification understood to be an exercisce of the “charism of infallibility” but because of ratification by the patriarch of the West, the pope of Rome, who headed, and still heads, the only Apostolic See in the West (as opposed to several in the East).

Trullo is not a “local council” for the East, but an integral part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils in terms of disciplinary canons. Lack of papal validation didn’t invalidate its canons. And so, “local council” is based only on how the West sees it, not how the East sees it.

My canon 69 of the Apostles does indeed talk about fasting rules (I find your insistence on seeing these and other disciplinary rules as not being a “big deal” rather annoying - would you not agree that the lax fasting rules in the Western Church are part and parcel of a weakening of asceticism and spirituality in your ecclesial neck of the woods? Right?).

As for Pope Honorius, there is NO doubt that he did not teach heresy. One can be condemned for less, and he was. What is more, his successors renewed that condemnation when taking the Chair of Peter until, as I understand it, well into the 12th century. And yes, I did raise that to show that a pope can be condemned (just as Pope Liberius, a saint in the East, was refused the honours of the altar by his own Roman Church).

These are issues that are simply fodder for possible discussion (I’m actually waiting for you to perhaps do me the honour of engaging in a discussion rather than paternalistically contradict some of my positions so as to preclude any discussion).

Cheers, but I know when anything I have to say is rejected outrightly for whatever reason,

 

[mardukm]

Sounds good, brother.

If the Pope defines a doctrine motu proprio, then he does so speaking in the name of the entire Church, with their voice, and expressing the consensus of the Church. My point was just that it more clearly shows the collegiality of such decrees if the whole college of bishops actually physically join him in making a statement rather than just letting him do it for them - the tactical problem of course is convening all the bishops in one place, getting documents written by committees and voted on by thousands of bishops, and other practical and financial considerations that could lead a Pope to simply issue a document on his own when the issue is not in dispute.

This sound right to you?

 

[TrentCath]

Dear brother TrentCath,

Development IS the process of clarification.

True, but you are misunderstanding what he means. He does not say De Fide teachings ARE fully elucidated. He says that, as a general principle, De Fide teachings NEED to be “fully elucidated.” THAT is why there is development. So for you to claim that a dogma is so absolutely clear that it may NEVER require future clarification (or “development,” which is the same thing) actually opposes Newman’s principles.

No I’m afraid if you read Newmans theology you can see quite clearly that when a doctrine is proclaimed De Fide by a pope or ecumenical council it is 'fully elucidated’

Yes, they are different, in both extent, and manner of exercise. The canonical terms “ordinary” and “immediate” have absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised. Those terms merely describe the nature of the jurisdiction, not its manner of use. The canonical term that you need to watch out for as far as manner of use is concerned is the word “proper.” A bishop has proper authority (i.e., that authority that is exercised in a day-to-day manner) only in what pertains to his own diocese (i.e., proper, local jurisdiction). While a Pope has proper authority in what pertains to the whole Church (i.e. proper, universal jurisdiction), he does NOT have proper local jurisdiction in a diocese outside his own local diocese. You will find that though a Pope’s jurisdiction in any local diocese can be considered “immediate” and “ordinary,” it is NEVER described as “proper.”…’

**I’m afraid I completely disagree here and in actual fact the First Vatican Council uses the word ‘proper’ in relation to St Peter not once but twice 'To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction and again ‘herefore,
if anyone says that
it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema’ Now clearly the popes ‘inherit’ so to speak ALL of Peter’s powers, so the pope does thereby have ‘ordinary’ jurisdiction.

Further in relation to what I said earlier about the Roman Church being the universal church the Catechism of St Pius X says ‘20 Q: And why is the true Church called Roman?
A: The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.’ ** and as regards The Pope '50 Q: Who is the Pope?
A: The Pope, who is also called the Sovereign Pontiff, or the Roman Pontiff, is the Successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and the visible Head of the Church.
51 Q: Why is the Roman Pontiff the Successor of St. Peter?
A: The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of St. Peter because St. Peter united in his own person the dignity of Bishop of Rome and that of Head of the Church; by divine disposition he established his Seat at Rome, and there died; hence, whosoever is elected Bishop of Rome is also heir to all his authority.
53 Q: Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A: The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.
54 Q: What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A: The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful’ and as regards the relationship between the Bishops and The Pope ‘64 Q: Who are the Bishops?
A: The Bishops are the pastors of the faithful; placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God in the Sees entrusted to them, in dependence on the Roman Pontiff’ Now you may well disagree with my opinion but you cannot condemn it as heretical or wrong unless you also believe that that catechism is also wrong, as are those that wrote it and Pope St Pius X.

You are being inconsistent. I don’t know how you can sit there and agree that “mere will and discretion” is a proper standard for papal decisions when you yourself concede that the Pope cannot change the Liturgy by “mere will and discretion.” You already admitted that the preponderating factor in papal decisions is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH.

If the pope acts against what is for the good of the church to the extent that he endangers soul contravening the prime law which is ‘the salvaton of souls’ then it may be legitimate to oppose his will. But one can hardly say that the pope interfering with a bishop by his mere will and disgression is ‘bad’, it is dangerous to start accepting the Popes orders only when we believe them to be for the good of the church. Any disobedience must be absolutely exceptional and absolutely necessary, anything else is madness and leads to schism.

Sorry. I personally agree with those statements, but it is not credible coming from you, who adheres to a group that illogically believes in papal absolutism, while simultaneously contemning several doctrinal principles of an Ecumenical Council (V2).
As I said before I am not getting into this

 

[TrentCath]

CONTINUED

Inconsistency, once again. You adhere to a group whose first bishop felt he was “more Catholic than the Pope” and did not humble himself to the authority of his head bishop.

I understand that. On the other hand, Popes St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great both rejected the designation “Bishop of the Universal Church.” It’s rather telling that you, an advocate of the Absolutist Petrine view, accept it. It merely demonstrates that the Absolutist Petrine view is not faithful to the constant teaching of the Church.

Umm…it was actually you who separated the two statements. All I did was give the rest of the statement that you unceremoniously excised in an attempt to support an erroneous opinion.

Your interpretation might make sense to someone who never studied the background debates of V1. But someone who has would be aware that Abp Rauscher was one of the LEADERS of the MINORITY PARTY at V1. Your misinterpretation really has no basis in reality. How in the world does one pretend to impose an Absolutist Petrine interpretation on the statements of one of the LEADERS of the MINORITY PARTY? That’s just — ILLOGICAL.

I gave Abp Rauscher’s exact words as to why the term “pre-eminence” was added to the text. How does someone disagree with a fact?

Huh? You first claimed the Church Fathers disagreed about the Canon, and that St. Jerome denied the Deuteros. I responded that you are wrong on both counts – first, because though there were different canons, no one ever argued with anyone else about whose canon was correct – hence there was NO disagreement, only differences in canons; second, because St. Jerome never actually denied the Deuteros. Then you responded (strangely) that this was exactly your point. I responded that this was not your point because you said there was disagreement, when in fact there was none, only differences in canon. And NOW, you respond by saying, “NO, I pointed out that there was disagreement.” Is it any wonder that people are finding your statements illogical (and by now, perhaps only laughable?)? In any case, you are wrong. Not a single early Church Father made the differences in canon a point of disagreement in the Church (at least I’m not aware of any – though I am willing to be corrected).

CONTINUED

I’m not sure theres anything even worth replying to on here,as for my views being laughable frankly I find yours of the First Vatican Council laughable