Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

CONTINUED

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.

As I’ve said time and time again, an ecumenical council needs a pope, a pope does not need an ecumenical council. Thats a textbook defintion of superior.

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

’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 .
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.’ He doesn’t need the councils consent, so what exactly could limit him? Especially as he is described to have the ‘full power’. So please find me a document that says the Pope can only do things or only has full authority when it is ‘for the good of the church’? Just one official document, even a respected theologian would do…

.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.

** Even going by your somewhat novel defintion of an ecumenical council (which have never been referred to by any council or theoligan, excepting perhaps V II it is clear that the pope is superior to an EC. even if an entire council was to say one thing, the pope could still reject it. And whilst the Pope can exercise his supreme authority without the bishops, the bishops cannot. That clear things up? **

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.

**I’m sorry The First Vatican Council isn’t relevant to discussions about the Popes relationship with EC’s because it doesnt mention them? Thats the most ridicalous statement I’ve read in some time, clearly any council defining and expounding a Popes authority will affect the popes relationship with not only other bishops but also ecumenical councils, laity and clergy. As the First Vatican Council clearly and repeatedly states that the Pope is superior to all bishops both individually and collectively and states that they are bound to submit to him in all matters the Council is clearly relevant to this discussion. **

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.
What I said quite clearly was that if the entire council of bishops voted for one thing, the pope could still reject it.

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.

**And now we are entering fantasy land, to state that the popes autority is fundamentally collegial and not individual, not as a result of his being the succesor of st peter and that it is not independent of the power of the other bishops is not reconciliable with either Vatican I or the past 900 years of explicit church teaching on the matter. I will not bother quoting any more evidence for it because it is clear to me that you are incapable of recognising the truth. **

…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.

I have to admit I laughed a little when I read this, I’ve read the entire council of trent several times as well as the Catechism it authorised, I find nothing in it that contradicts the teaching of the council of florence, this is of course the only possible outcome as truth cannot contradict truth

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.

**Nope, I have merely given up trying to prove that All orthodox think this way because the church is so nebolous and vague on these matters it would simply not be possible to do so

What is clear to me throughout this is that you have no understanding or appreciation whatsoever for the ‘Western Tradition’ of the church, you probably have not read either the Catechism of St Pius X or the Catechism of the council of trent, maybe you haven’t even read the Summa. I say this because it is only possible for you to make these absurd statements regarding why ecumenical councils are ecumenical, purgatory and most obviously the popes authority due to ignorance.**

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrentCath,

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’

I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you saying that something proclaimed De Fide by a Pope or an EC can never be clarified/developed?

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’

You misunderstand what the Canon states. Look closely. It does not assign the term “proper” to the term “jurisdiction.” Rather, it assigns it to the term “primacy.” That’s exactly what I stated in my post. The Pope has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the ENTIRE Church (i.e., he has proper primacy). Nevertheless, he does NOT have proper jurisdiction in matters that pertain to a particular local Church. ONLY the LOCAL bishop has proper jurisdiction in that local Church.

Now clearly the popes ‘inherit’ so to speak ALL of Peter’s powers, so the pope does thereby have ‘ordinary’ jurisdiction.

Yes, that’s what I said. Please read what I wrote again. EVERY head bishop (whether Metropolitan, Major Archbishop, Catholicos, Primate, Patriarhc, or Pope) has ORDINARY jurisdiction in the dioceses within their plenary territorial jurisdiction. But NO head bishop has PROPER jurisdiction in any local diocese except his own.

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.

I never stated or implied that it was “bad.” What I stated specifically is that “mere will and discretion” is NOT the sure standard of papal decisions. Rather, it is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH. The Pope’s mere will and discretion might not always be for the good of the Church, which you have conceded. Therefore, it is illogical to make the Pope’s mere will and discretion the general standard for his decisions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tdgesq]

Thats true but frankly I’ve yet to see one poster especially Melkite whose willing to subscribe to the dogma’s of say the First Vatican Council, without attempting to interpret them in a sense that doesnt fit with the source text.

You mean that you disagree with their interpretation of the infallibility criterion of Vatican I. That’s hardly a rejection of the dogma from the 14 councils that occurred after Nicaea II. It’s not even a rejection of Session 4, Chapter 4 of Vatican I. It appears to me that the topic has changed (for you at least) from “why don’t ECs hold to 21 ecumenical councils instead of 7” to “why don’t ECs interpret Session 4, Chapter 4 of Vatican I the same way I do?”

Part of the reason they might take exception is because of Session 4, Ch. 3 as follows:

1. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”

This is of course how we see episcopal jurisdiction exercised regularly, in both the east and the west. In fact, it is a rarity when the Roman Pontiff interferes directly in the affairs of a bishop or metropolitan. When it does happen it normally takes the form of an excommunication, like when Blessed JPII excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

[Cecilianus]

You mean that you disagree with their interpretation of the infallibility criterion of Vatican I. That’s hardly a rejection of the dogma from the 14 councils that occurred after Nicaea II. It’s not even a rejection of Session 4, Chapter 4 of Vatican I. It appears to me that the topic has changed (for you at least) from “why don’t ECs hold to 21 ecumenical councils instead of 7” to “why don’t ECs interpret Session 4, Chapter 4 of Vatican I the same way I do?”

Part of the reason they might take exception is because of Session 4, Ch. 3 as follows:

1. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”

This is of course how we see episcopal jurisdiction exercised regularly, in both the east and the west. In fact, it is a rarity when the Roman Pontiff interferes directly in the affairs of a bishop or metropolitan. When it does happen it normally takes the form of an excommunication, like when Blessed JPII excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.

A minor bit of nitpicking - Lefebvre excommunicated himself; the decree from the CDF in the name of Blessed John Paul II only confirmed the fact of his state, rather than putting that state into effect.

 

[Cecilianus]

As I’ve said time and time again, an ecumenical council needs a pope, a pope does not need an ecumenical council. Thats a textbook defintion of superior.

Actually, no it’s not.

To take an example that shows why this argument is unsound, a biological cell needs the nucleus in order to be a cell and not just a lump of tissue, but the nucleus is the nucleus regardless of whether it’s in a cell or not. But what is the functioning unit - the nucleus, or the cell? Likewise, what is the Church - the Pope, or the Church?

An ecumenical council needs the Pope because he is the presiding part of the Council. The fact that he is himself in his own right (though speaking in the name of and on behalf of the rest of the Church) a pontiff with authority does not mean that he’s superior to the Church. All due respect to antiquated physics aside, an atom or a cell inside your brain is a substance in its own right - but does that make it “superior” to your brain?

 

[Vico]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123
Bishop Gasser (Vatican I) noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.
262
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7583935&postcount=262
In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered the very question before the people here, in this way:

“It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”

Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

 

[TrentCath]

Dear brother TrentCath,

I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you saying that something proclaimed De Fide by a Pope or an EC can never be clarified/developed?

A Doctrine proclaimed De Fide will when declared so contain all that needs to be believed on the subject without need for any further clarification, it may be developed but reference doesn’t need to be made to external sources to understand what it means which is what you were saying as regards the First Vatican Council

You misunderstand what the Canon states. Look closely. It does not assign the term “proper” to the term “jurisdiction.” Rather, it assigns it to the term “primacy.” That’s exactly what I stated in my post. The Pope has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the ENTIRE Church (i.e., he has proper primacy). Nevertheless, he does NOT have proper jurisdiction in matters that pertain to a particular local Church. ONLY the LOCAL bishop has proper jurisdiction in that local Church.

What it says is ‘true and proper primacy of jurisidiction’, the words ‘true and proper’ cannot therefore be seperated from ‘primacy’. Frankly I see this as significantly undermining your argument that the pope does not have ‘true and proper jurisdiction’. Again you say that he only has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the entire church but this is lacking from any De Fide statement on the Pope’s powers. Thus we read Vatican II saying '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.’ (Lumen Gentium)

Yes, that’s what I said. Please read what I wrote again. EVERY head bishop (whether Metropolitan, Major Archbishop, Catholicos, Primate, Patriarhc, or Pope) has ORDINARY jurisdiction in the dioceses within their plenary territorial jurisdiction. But NO head bishop has PROPER jurisdiction in any local diocese except his own.

I never stated or implied that it was “bad.” What I stated specifically is that “mere will and discretion” is NOT the sure standard of papal decisions. Rather, it is the GOOD OF THE CHURCH. The Pope’s mere will and discretion might not always be for the good of the Church, which you have conceded. Therefore, it is illogical to make the Pope’s mere will and discretion the general standard for his decisions.

I didn’t say you did rather you changed the requirements from a passive requirement that something not clearly endanger souls to an active requirement that something be shown to be good. Unless it is explicitly clear that the reality is otherwise (and in cases of doubt one presumes) acts of the Pope should always be considered to be for the good of the church and the salvation of souls.

 

[TrentCath]

Actually, no it’s not.

To take an example that shows why this argument is unsound, a biological cell needs the nucleus in order to be a cell and not just a lump of tissue, but the nucleus is the nucleus regardless of whether it’s in a cell or not. But what is the functioning unit - the nucleus, or the cell? Likewise, what is the Church - the Pope, or the Church?

An ecumenical council needs the Pope because he is the presiding part of the Council. The fact that he is himself in his own right (though speaking in the name of and on behalf of the rest of the Church) a pontiff with authority does not mean that he’s superior to the Church. All due respect to antiquated physics aside, an atom or a cell inside your brain is a substance in its own right - but does that make it “superior” to your brain?

**I frankly don’t see the point of this, the Pope can exercise his full authority as an exercise of personal authority does not have to do collegially and does not have to do so as ‘head of the college’. That is my point in saying textbook case of superior, whereas the college is dependant on the Pope, the Pope is not dependant on the bishops.

Vatican II states on these matters ‘For the same reason, the words "Ordo" or “Corpus” are used throughout with reference to the College of bishops…nor does it imply, as is obvious, equality between the head of the College and its members, but only a pro- portionality between the first relationship (Peter-Apostles) and the second (Pope-bishops). Thus the Commission decided to write "pari ratione, " not “eadem ratione,” in n. 22. Cf. Modus 57.’ and again '**3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. **Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

1. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. ’

From the above it is clear that The Pope can either exercise his supreme and universal authority together with the college of bishops OR seperate from it whereas the college of bishops can only exercise its supreme and universal authority with the Pope and only when asked to do so.

**

 

[TrentCath]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123
Bishop Gasser (Vatican I) noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.
262
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7583935&postcount=262
In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered the very question before the people here, in this way:

“It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”

Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

For that I merely give reference to what I have said before and what I have said below. Also I emphasise again that my point of view is explicitly endorsed by the catechism of St Pius X and that of The Council of Trent.

 

[mardukm]

I’m afraid your quote merely demonstrates your usual inconsistency.

This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops.

This very portion which you take great care to highlight completely refutes your position. It states plainly that when the supreme authority of the College is considered, it is inherently the Pope + the collective body of bishops. You can’t separate the two. For you to claim that the Pope is above the College, or that the Pope is above the Ecumenical Council (which is the solemn form of the College) is pure hogwash, because you can’t, according to your quote, separate them - “For the college, always and of necessity, includes its head.” What you CAN say is that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme authority in relation to individual bishops or the bishops taken collectively. But you CANNOT say that the Roman Pontiff is superior to the College (which includes an Ecumenical Council), because a College by the very definition given in your quote is not merely the collective body of bishops, but the [collective body of bishops + the head bishop].

Your inconsistency is even more stunning given the fact that when I earlier informed you that the Ecumenical Council does not equate merely to the body of bishops, but to [the body of bishops + the Pope] - hence exposing the utter silliness of your claim that [the Pope] is superior to [Pope + body of bishops] - you stated that I gave a “novel definition.” Now, you cite a source, pretending to support your errors, that in fact exactly details my very statement you claimed was a “novel definition.”

Brother, you are simply running around in circles with your inconsistencies.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrenCath

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

In other words, you have no response. Gotcha.

As I’ve said time and time again, an ecumenical council needs a pope, a pope does not need an ecumenical council. That’s a textbook defintion of superior.

Sure. He’s superior to the body of bishops, but he is not superior to an Ecumenical Council, because an Ecumenical Council is by definition [the Pope + the body of bishops].

He doesn’t need the councils consent, so what exactly could limit him? Especially as he is described to have the ‘full power’.

Sacred Tradition, Divine Law, the constitution of the Church. Here is the pastoral of the Swiss bishops to their flock after V1:
It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church.

Here is Pio Nono’s response: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

The Decree on the primacy also states that the papal Primacy does not impede the local authority of his brother bishops, but instead is intended to support, validate and strengthen it. So consideration for the local authority of his brother bishops is an inherent limitation to the exercise of the papal Primacy.

So please find me a document that says the Pope can only do things or only has full authority when it is ‘for the good of the church’? Just one official document, even a respected theologian would do…

As stated earlier, I don’t need to. You do that job just fine. Your quote from V2 in response to brother Cecilianus stated exactly that.

Even going by your somewhat novel defintion of an ecumenical council (which have never been referred to by any council or theoligan, excepting perhaps V II it is clear that the pope is superior to an EC. even if an entire council was to say one thing, the pope could still reject it. And whilst the Pope can exercise his supreme authority without the bishops, the bishops cannot. That clear things up?

Your quote from V2 in response to brother Cecilianus refutes your position. Is the statement of an Ecum Council clear enough for you? A Pope is not superior to an EC because he is an inherent member of an EC.

I’m sorry The First Vatican Council isn’t relevant to discussions about the Popes relationship with EC’s because it doesnt mention them? Thats the most ridicalous statement I’ve read in some time, clearly any council defining and expounding a Popes authority will affect the popes relationship with not only other bishops but also ecumenical councils, laity and clergy. As the First Vatican Council clearly and repeatedly states that the Pope is superior to all bishops both individually and collectively and states that they are bound to submit to him in all matters the Council is clearly relevant to this discussion.

But as all of us here have repeatedly tried to hammer into you, though the Pope can be said to be superior to the bishops individually and collectively, he cannot be said to be superior to an EC because an EC is not merely the bishops collectively, but is [the bishops collectively + the head bishop]. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and read the quotes you yourself provide that you pretend support your errors.

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.

What I said quite clearly was that if the entire council of bishops voted for one thing, the pope could still reject it.

No, what you clearly stated to which I gave my response above is “he is not limited by ecumenical councils.” That is an error, even heterodox (though I can’t securely claim it is heretical). See the previous quote I gave from the Swiss bishops’ Pastoral, and Pio Nono’s response.

And now we are entering fantasy land, to state that the popes autority is fundamentally collegial and not individual, not as a result of his being the succesor of st peter and that it is not independent of the power of the other bishops is not reconciliable with either Vatican I or the past 900 years of explicit church teaching on the matter. I will not bother quoting any more evidence for it because it is clear to me that you are incapable of recognising the truth.

First of all, I never stated any of the extrapolated straw men you claim above. Secondly, all the quotes you have give so far have only been self-refuting.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I have to admit I laughed a little when I read this, I’ve read the entire council of trent several times as well as the Catechism it authorised, I find nothing in it that contradicts the teaching of the council of florence, this is of course the only possible outcome as truth cannot contradict truth

Where did I say they contradict each other? I just wanted to point out that you were wrong to claim that all Trent (and Benedictus Deus) stated was that “Purgatory exists….” It’s a plain fact that your claim is wrong, which you should admit if you have read Trent fully (or so you claim).

Nope, I have merely given up trying to prove that All orthodox think this way because the church is so nebolous and vague on these matters it would simply not be possible to do so.

In other words, you were wrong in your generalizations.

What is clear to me throughout this is that you have no understanding or appreciation whatsoever for the ‘Western Tradition’ of the church, you probably have not read either the Catechism of St Pius X or the Catechism of the council of trent, maybe you haven’t even read the Summa. I say this because it is only possible for you to make these absurd statements regarding why ecumenical councils are ecumenical, purgatory and most obviously the popes authority due to ignorance.

Ahhh! So you admit you don’t really have much knowledge of V1, aside from the usual snippets Absolutist Petrine advocates utilize to support their errors. That’s what I suspected.

A Doctrine proclaimed De Fide will when declared so contain all that needs to be believed on the subject without need for any further clarification, it may be developed but reference doesn’t need to be made to external sources to understand what it means which is what you were saying as regards the First Vatican Council.

HUH? It doesn’t need clarification, but it can be developed? That’s a classic case of sophism. I guess you do what you need to rationalize your inconsistencies.

What it says is ‘true and proper primacy of jurisidiction’, the words ‘true and proper’ cannot therefore be seperated from ‘primacy’.

Yup. That’s what I said – that the term “proper” is directly attached to the term “primacy.”

Frankly I see this as significantly undermining your argument that the pope does not have ‘true and proper jurisdiction’.

In a fantasy world where you can claim to refute something I never said, I’m sure that is the case.

Again you say that he only has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the entire church but this is lacking from any De Fide statement on the Pope’s powers.

That’s not what I said.

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.

Your citation from that Catechism – a local catechism to be sure – does not make any claim that the Pope has absolute power. So I am secure that your opinion that the Pope has absolute power is wrong, and even heterodox (though I can’t say it is heretical).

I didn’t say you did rather you changed the requirements from a passive requirement that something not clearly endanger souls to an active requirement that something be shown to be good. Unless it is explicitly clear that the reality is otherwise (and in cases of doubt one presumes) acts of the Pope should always be considered to be for the good of the church and the salvation of souls.

Nope. That’s why even the commentary from V2 that you quoted (pretending it supports your position) necessarily specified this condition: It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity. To repeat, it is altogether improper and erroneous for Absolutist Petrine advocates to constantly present papal decisions as flowing from the Pope’s whim, or fancy, will or discretion ALONE. The good of the Church is the greater, if not only, consideration in papal decisions. As a general principle, the Pope’s will or discretion (much less his whim or fancy) does not and cannot by itself ever be considered a general basis for his decisions as supreme shepherd of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrentCath]

I frankly see no point in continuing this discussion, as much as you want to say otherwise you have not shown anywhere that the pope exercises supreme and universal power only when it is for the good of the church.

The quotes I have shown merely demonstrate that a pope does not have to exercise his authority collegially but can do so personally, if you wish to play semantics over what does and doesn’t constitute an ecumenical council that is your concern.

Further I have shown that two authoritarive catechisms of the church espouse a view equivalent to mine both that of the council of Trent and that of st pius x. My view is thus demonstrated to be an acceptable one and unless you are going to accuse st pius x and the authors of the catechism of ignorance and heresy you cannot accuse me.

 

[Hesychios]

I frankly see no point in continuing this discussion, as much as you want to say otherwise you have not shown anywhere that the pope exercises supreme and universal power only when it is for the good of the church.

The quotes I have shown merely demonstrate that a pope does not have to exercise his authority collegially but can do so personally, if you wish to play semantics over what does and doesn’t constitute an ecumenical council that is your concern.

Further I have shown that two authoritarive catechisms of the church espouse a view equivalent to mine both that of the council of Trent and that of st pius x. … .

I think you are correct.

Not that I think it should be that way, but it most certainly is.

 

[mardukm]

I frankly see no point in continuing this discussion, as much as you want to say otherwise you have not shown anywhere that the pope exercises supreme and universal power only when it is for the good of the church.

I see you are still persistent with your inconsistency. Did you or did you not, AFTER I QUOTED EXACTLY WHERE PASTOR AETERNUS ITSELF SAID THIS, agree with me that the Pope cannot exercise his superme and universal power EXCEPT for the good of the Church? IS OR IS NOT the existence of your group’s schism from the Catholic Church itself a sure testimony that it is your belief that the Pope in fact cannot exercsie his superme and universal power EXCEPT for the good of the Church? DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT appeal to a quote from Vatican 2 itself that in fact asserted that the good of the Church is what necessarily informs the decisions of the Pope?

The quotes I have shown merely demonstrate that a pope does not have to exercise his authority collegially but can do so personally, if you wish to play semantics over what does and doesn’t constitute an ecumenical council that is your concern.

That he can do so personally in no way negates the facts stated in my previous paragraph above. Your “logic” only holds true in a fantasy world where 1 does not equal 1.

Further I have shown that two authoritarive catechisms of the church espouse a view equivalent to mine both that of the council of Trent and that of st pius x. My view is thus demonstrated to be an acceptable one and unless you are going to accuse st pius x and the authors of the catechism of ignorance and heresy you cannot accuse me.

Show us where your catechisms claimed the Pope has absolute authority, and your statements can begin to gain some measure of credibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

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.

Without the pope’s approval, no council, Trullo included, has authority outside of those who were represented by that council.
A:

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.

As I said, because it’s not an ecumenical council, this is NOT a good council to use for our discussion…true?
A:

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).

Ecumenical status, is also the charism of the pope being successor to Peter, head of the Church.
A:

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?).

Are we getting snippy?
.
A:

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).

I never denied a pope can be disciplined.
A:

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

• Trullo isn’t an ecumenical council and therefore, didn’t apply to the West, AND isn’t going to help in this discussion of ecumenical councils, the topic of the thread, so I questioned bringing it up.
• IMO, I thought Honorius would be best handled on another thread.
• Where have I shown that I outright reject what you say?

 

[mardukm]

I think you are correct.

Not that I think it should be that way, but it most certainly is.

Well, then maybe you can help out our SSPX brother in his “logic,” because he has not been very successful at convincing anyone in the thread so far. It’s rather telling that the only one so far in this thread who supports brother TrentCath’s opinion is himself not a formal member of the Catholic Church (that would be referring to you, brother Michael ).

Besides, as noted several times in this thread, Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine advocates do in fact have an identical misinterpretaion of the Catholic teaching on the papacy. The only difference is that the former group utilizes the misinterpretation in pretended support of the papacy (though it is actually destructive of it), while the latter group utilizes that same misinterpretation to demean the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Without the pope’s approval, no council, Trullo included, has authority outside of those who were represented by that council.

In other words, you agree with brother Alex. Right?

As I said, because it’s not an ecumenical council, this is NOT a good council to use for our discussion…true?

Not true, because, as stated, it was INTENDED to be Ecumenical.

Perhaps a better example would be the Council of Sardica. It was INTENDED by all its participants to be an Ecumenical Council (including the Pope of Rome, the Emperor, and Pope St. Athanasius), but it never did gain Ecumenical status even within that same century. Would both you and brother Alex agree to that?

Ecumenical status, is also the charism of the pope being successor to Peter, head of the Church.

I can only partly agree with this. The Pope’s participation is certainly a NECESSARY factor for the Ecumenicity of a Council, but it is not the ONLY factor.

Are we getting snippy?

You might interpret it that way. I don’t agree with his statement on spirituality, but his statement on ascetism is IMO generally true. The standard of ascetism seems to have become restricted to a “specialized” group of people in the Latin Church, whereas in the East and Orient, it is regarded as a charism in which the laity is regularly enjoined to participate.
.
Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I frankly see no point in continuing this discussion, as much as you want to say otherwise you have not shown anywhere that the pope exercises supreme and universal power only when it is for the good of the church.

IS OR IS NOT the existence of your group’s schism from the Catholic Church itself a sure testimony that it is your belief that the Pope in fact cannot exercise his superme and universal power EXCEPT for the good of the Church?

That point is, as far as I’m concerned, our nail in the coffin here. I don’t think even TrentCath disagrees with us as much as he thinks he does, for the very reason you point out: his membership in the SSPX clearly reveals that he does indeed agree that the pope cannot exercise his supreme authority except for the good of the Church.

As noted several times in this thread, Absolutist Petrine advocates and Low Petrine advocates do in fact have an identical misinterpretaion of the Catholic teaching on the papacy. The only difference is that the former group utilizes the misinterpretation in pretended support of the papacy (though it is actually destructive of it), while the latter group utilizes that same misinterpretation to demean the papacy.

Indeed. Through many threads I have now had the opportunity to observe this phenomenon for myself: the unlikely alliance of Low Petrine advocates and Absolutist Petrine advocates against the most consistent interpretation of Catholic teaching and Church history.

 

[TrentCath]

I see you are still persistent with your inconsistency. Did you or did you not, AFTER I QUOTED EXACTLY WHERE PASTOR AETERNUS ITSELF SAID THIS, agree with me that the Pope cannot exercise his superme and universal power EXCEPT for the good of the Church? IS OR IS NOT the existence of your group’s schism from the Catholic Church itself a sure testimony that it is your belief that the Pope in fact cannot exercsie his superme and universal power EXCEPT for the good of the Church? DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT appeal to a quote from Vatican 2 itself that in fact asserted that the good of the Church is what necessarily informs the decisions of the Pope?

**Mardukm, I have tried to be respectful but frankly you are trying my patience. You accuse me of living in a fantasy world and then try to state that ‘Pastor Aeternus’ states that the pope cannot exercise his supreme authority except for the good of the church and yet in looking through the entire council this phrase never occurs once. Nor does it occur in the second Vatican Council, nor does it occur in any code of canon law or any legitimate catechism. It appears that it is you therefore not I that is living in a fantasy world…

As for quoting where the Catechism supports my view I have already done so, if you wish you can go back on my posts and see it. Not only does it express my view it goes further saying that bishops are dependant on the Pope. The Catechism of the Council of trent says likewise.

And yes It does say much of the church when non-catholics can recognise the churches true teaching and catholics cannot.

We have deviated from the true point of this discussion completely, I stated back at the point that I entered into this discussion and I still do that there are 21 ecumenical councils not 7. You will never find any official authoritative document of the church or catechism that refers to them stating otherwise.

Then we went on to showing that there was a difference between Orthodox Doctrine and Catholic doctrine, you think there isn’t, the Church thinks otherwise, you’re never going to get a catechism or canon law or official document stating the Orthodox and Catholics believe the exact same things. Orthodox do not accept Papal primacy and Supremacy, there are also unacceptable definitions of purgatory and original sin amongst them.

Lastly we argued over what exactly the doctrines regarding Papal Primacy and Supremacy, All I have seen from you are ridicalous intepretations against the meaning of the text that cannot be read from the text but must be read in the light of other documents that are not conciliar documents. It’s telling that the catechism which was approved by the pope after the council as part of its vision for a widely read and easily accesible catechism does not agree with your interpretation either.

Simply put our views are irreconciliable.

**