Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[Ignatius1979]

To say that Apostolic sucession is legalistic is insane. You do recite the Creed right? You remeber thst last article? One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostoic Church… its a mark of the church, essential to be the Church, its not a mere legal term. And a valid sacrament unites me to Christ as stated, I understand form in matter, I was referring to the end result thereof. Faith is in play because previous Papal statement have said that the Orthodox Church does follow the faith of the Apostles. Now since we recognize the first seven councils and the Pope has said thats the faith of the Apostles and the difference arises between the two distictivley after the first seven councils, then what happened?

 

[TrentCath]

To say that Apostolic sucession is legalistic is insane. You do recite the Creed right? You remeber thst last article? One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostoic Church… its a mark of the church, essential to be the Church, its not a mere legal term. And a valid sacrament unites me to Christ as stated, I understand form in matter, I was referring to the end result thereof. Faith is in play because previous Papal statement have said that the Orthodox Church does follow the faith of the Apostles. Now since we recognize the first seven councils and the Pope has said thats the faith of the Apostles and the difference arises between the two distictivley after the first seven councils, then what happened?

The term ‘Apostolic’ in the creed refers to a lot more than apostolic succession, the definition of Apostolic Succession I gave is the one in common parlance used by all theologians, enycyclopeadias, official documents etc… Apostolic succession means nothing more or less than having an unbroken line of succession to the apostles themselves.

The faith of the Apostles, the other part of the meaning of ‘Apostolic’ is another matter altogether.

What happened is that as the pope said the Holy Spirit did not abandon the church in the first millenium, doctrinal development and the more faithful expounding of the deposit of faith continued. All of this must be accepted by anyone seeking reunion with the catholic church, the seven ecumenical councils are not the ‘bare essentials’, there is no such thing as the ‘bare essentials’ when it comes to the faith, there is merely the Catholic faith whole and entire.

 

[Cecilianus]

No, I’ve referred to the Catechism of The Council of Trent (probably the most thorough catechism the church has ever produced), the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of St Pius X. To call the latter a childs catechism is well frankly one of the most ridicalous and amusing things I’ve ever heard.

I referred to the Baltimore Catechism as a children’s catechism. Which it is.

 

[TrentCath]

I referred to the Baltimore Catechism as a children’s catechism. Which it is.

You’ll notice it was one of THREE catechisms I refer to, the first being the universally lauded Catechism of the Council of Trent and the other being the Catechism of St Pius X.

Firstly referring to it as a ‘childrens catechism’ is an oversimplification of matters. It is based on Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s Catechism of 1597, a widely praised catechism and was widely used throughout catholic education. Further there are editions for younger students, older students, teachers and a main edition. It is not therefore merely a catechism for children.

Second the catechism was designed to ‘expound the truths of christian doctrine’ as can be seen from the text of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore, it may not do so with complicated theology but nevertheless that is what it does. It suffices therefore as one of several sources to show what the church believed its doctrines to be and how it interpreted the doctrines of Papal Supremacy, Infallibility and so on.

 

[Cecilianus]

You’ll notice it was one of THREE catechisms I refer to, the first being the universally lauded Catechism of the Council of Trent and the other being the Catechism of St Pius X.

Firstly referring to it as a ‘childrens catechism’ is an oversimplification of matters. It is based on Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s Catechism of 1597, a widely praised catechism and was widely used throughout catholic education. Further there are editions for younger students, older students, teachers and a main edition. It is not therefore merely a catechism for children.

Second the catechism was designed to ‘expound the truths of christian doctrine’ as can be seen from the text of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore, it may not do so with complicated theology but nevertheless that is what it does. It suffices therefore as one of several sources to show what the church believed its doctrines to be and how it interpreted the doctrines of Papal Supremacy, Infallibility and so on.

I was referring to the main edition.

 

[Ignatius1979]

TrentCath, if the Holy Spirit didnt abondon the Orthodox Church in the first 1000 years and that is what we still follow then how are we abandoned now? God does not change, what was true then is also true now! So if there are changes to the Roman side that go contrary to the the decision of the first seven just who changed? And before you say its not, it most certainly is, the third coincil forbidied the changing of the Symbol of Faith. Which the Roman Church in fact did change. You are correct when you say those articles mean more than one thing. Correct it does mean unbroken succession of the Apostles, however, that also means that you still must keep that daith or you break it. Otherwise every heretic could lay claim that they could trace back. Each of those first seven councils in thier official documents say to the effect it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit… God does not change so to contradict those statement latter and call it growth is absurd.

 

[TrentCath]

I was referring to the main edition.

I believe I’ve answered your criticism satisfactorily.

 

[TrentCath]

TrentCath, if the Holy Spirit didnt abondon the Orthodox Church in the first 1000 years and that is what we still follow then how are we abandoned now? God does not change, what was true then is also true now! So if there are changes to the Roman side that go contrary to the the decision of the first seven just who changed? And before you say its not, it most certainly is, the third coincil forbidied the changing of the Symbol of Faith. Which the Roman Church in fact did change. You are correct when you say those articles mean more than one thing. Correct it does mean unbroken succession of the Apostles, however, that also means that you still must keep that daith or you break it. Otherwise every heretic could lay claim that they could trace back. Each of those first seven councils in thier official documents say to the effect it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit… God does not change so to contradict those statement latter and call it growth is absurd.

I fail to see how this is getting us any closer? Firstly in the first thousand years there was no ‘Orthodox church’, simply the One Church of Christ with no divisions. It is not the holy spirit that abandoned you it is you who left the unity of the true church thereby abandoning the truth.

Secondly, the later councils do not contradict the earlier ones, indeed they go to great pains to state that these are the councils that they uphold. As for the council banning additions to the creed it also if read literally banned other creeds from being formulated and yet we know that the Council of Chalcedon formulated a creed. It cannot therefore be read as an absolute ban, rather it is intended to prevent distortion of the creed.

Third No it is not necessary to hold the faith of the apostles in order to have apostolic succession, it is sufficient to have an unbroken line of succession back to the apostles and continue this succession by means of a vald ordination ceremony. This is the opinion of the catholic church.

 

[mardukm]

I fail to see how this is getting us any closer? Firstly in the first thousand years there was no ‘Orthodox church’, simply the One Church of Christ with no divisions. It is not the holy spirit that abandoned you it is you who left the unity of the true church thereby abandoning the truth.

The Catholic Church was Orthodox then as it is now. So there was an Orthodox Church in the first Millenium. We are divided through misunderstanding and pride, not the essence of the Faith.

Secondly, the later councils do not contradict the earlier ones, indeed they go to great pains to state that these are the councils that they uphold. As for the council banning additions to the creed it also if read literally banned other creeds from being formulated and yet we know that the Council of Chalcedon formulated a creed. It cannot therefore be read as an absolute ban, rather it is intended to prevent distortion of the creed.

Just about the only sensible thing I’ve seen you write.

Third No it is not necessary to hold the faith of the apostles in order to have apostolic succession, it is sufficient to have an unbroken line of succession back to the apostles and continue this succession by means of a vald ordination ceremony. This is the opinion of the catholic church.

I’m glad you made “catholic church” lowercase, because what you write does not accurately represent the teaching of the big-C Catholic Church (as in other things). And I’m glad you specify that you are merely expressing an opinion, for what you claim is false (as in other things). The Catholic Church does NOT say it is sufficient to have an unbroken line of succession. That is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. For example, most Old Catholic Churches have an unbroken line of succesion, but because of their departure on certain points of doctrinal teaching, the Catholic Church accepts only the PNCC “among” them as having valid Sacraments.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Yes because the word ‘churches’ undermines the Dogma that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, True, Church of Christ and the doctrine of ‘outside the church there is no salvation’. Sister would also imply ‘equal to’ which again can hardly be true if one accepts that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ it has no equal.

On the other hand, the Faith of the early Church is riddled with statements such as “the Church of Antioch” or “the Church of Rome” or “the Church of Alexandria.” We true Catholics take it in that proper orthodox sense. Plain and simply - you are ignorant of the history of the Catholic Church and of the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has never been merely “Roman.”

Also sadly the word ‘ecumenicism’ has become detached from ‘conversion’ and without conversion as its purpose it can never yield good fruit, it is absurd to suggest that the church of Christ can learn anything from those that are at the very least outside its visible boundaries and so ecumenicism that does not have conversion at its heart serves no purpose at all.

According to St. Paul, disunity can come about because of “arguments over words.” In this case, conversion is not required, but rather the spiritual fruit of understanding between brothers and sisters in Christ. The Catholic Church officially understands this to be the case with our Orthodox brethren. True enough, many Orthodox do not see this, but many other Orthodox are also of the same mind as their Catholic brethren, and work at unity through dialogue.

No, because ecumencism properly interpreted simply means preaching a return to the church of christ for those who have unhappily left it.

You mean like your schismatic group? Brother, please take that huge log out of your eye.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No Marduk is rather insistent that he always exercises this authority collegially, as much can be seen from an even cursory glance over this vast discussion.

Well, to be more concise, my position (as I’ve very often expressed) is that the Pope can exercise his authority personally, but always in a collegial manner. This is distinct from exercising his authority collegially. Your error, common to the Absolutist Petrine view, with which I thoroughly disagree, is that you interpret “personally” to mean “unilaterally apart from the rest of the Church.”

As for the pope ‘sometimes’ exercising his supreme authority personally, this is the wrong way, the ordinary course of things is for the pope to exercise his supreme authority personally, through the various diacestries of the Holy See and the Apostolic Courts, the extraordinary course of things is for the Pope to exercise his supreme authority collegially through an ecumenical council.

Yet the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 explicitly asserted, “THE MOST SOLEMN JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH IN FAITH AND MORALS IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE JUDGMENT OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.” But it has already been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread that you do not adhere to the true teaching of the Vatican Councils.

As for the pope being able to ‘impede’ other bishops, all I have to say on that subject is what the Catechism of St Pius X says 'Who are the bishops? The Bishops are the pastors of the faithful; placed there by the Holy Ghost to rule the church of God in the sees entrusted to them, in dependence on the Roman Pontiff’

As I suspected. You can’t actually cite anything explicltly to defend your error that the Pope has the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox Catholic bishop in his local jurisdiction. Your opinions depend utterly on imposing your Absolutist Petrine errors on otherwise orthodox statements from Catholic sources. All the catechism is saying, IN LIGHT OF THE DECREE ON THE PRIMACY OF VATICAN 1, is that the bishops can depend on the Pope to “assert, confirm, and vindicate” their own authority. The dependance exists because the only purpose of the papacy is to build up, not impede. As mentioned in an earlier post, it is only your erroneous misinterpretations that causes your Catholic sources to contradict the teaching of the Vatican Councils.

I have already clarified the argument regarding my adherence to the SSPX and this argument and for brevitys sake I will not do so again’

Yes, you have consistently clarified for us that your group is not a formal part of the Catholic Church, and thus your views cannot properly be taken to represent the true Faith of the Catholic Church.

Marduks position is a novelty, it can only be subscribed to if one is completely ignorant of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Baltimore Catechism and/or The Catechism of St Pius X.

I gladly confess ignorance of the errors that you impose on Catholic sources.

Furthermore it can only be justifed by absurd interpretations of councils and even clarification notes that go against the most obvious meaning of the text.

RIIIIIIGHT. “Obvious meaning” as in “I haven’t been able to cite a single source that explicitly states that the Pope has absolute power, is able to impede the local authority of orthodox Catholic bishops, that the Pope can exceed the authority for which Christ Himself created the primatial office, etc. etc., but I can force my erroneous views on these texts and make it obvious to myself” Gotcha!

It in short has no true historical grounding at least not in the Catholic Church though it may well in the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church in its full splendor.

The Popes powers and the way in which he exercises them have developed since the first millenium, it is not possible to return to a first millenium ‘standard’ because the church has more faithfully expounded and developed the deposit of faith since then. Therefore even if the Orthodox were to go back to a supposed first millenium standard it would still not be enough, the church is not fossilised, its doctrines develop as they are more faithfully expounded. To go back to the way things were therefore is an impossibility.

The Church existed just fine without your Absolutist Petrine errors in the first millenium. We’ll stick with that and you can go on being schismatic over the matter.

I’m sorry but as the point of view I espouse is the churches and he is uncomfortable with it, he is self evidently uncomfortable with the Popes supreme authority

As consistently affirmed and proven, it is only your monstrous mischaracterizations of Catholic teaching that I am uncomfortable with. I am very comfortable with the supreme authority of the Pope. It is obvious you are the one who has a problem with the teaching of the Vatican Councils because for you to accept it, you have to twist its teaching. Don’t even pretend that you believe in the supreme authority of the Pope. What you believe in, instead, AS YOU HAVE SEVERAL TIMES EXPLICITLY STATED, is the absolute authority of the Pope. “Supreme” is not equivalent to “absolute” even in the common parlance of the English language. Your statements have no credibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

So I take it you condemn your church’s ecumenical dialogues with the Orthodox which see us as sister churches?

Perhaps you are not aware, but our brother in Christ is not Catholic. He adheres to a group known as the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) that is in schism from the Catholic Church. Please take any and all his comments with a grain of salt. He is not speaking as a member of the Catholic Church, though he is probably accurately reflecting the opinions of his group.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrentCath]

The Catholic Church was Orthodox then as it is now. So there was an Orthodox Church in the first Millenium. We are divided through misunderstanding and pride, not the essence of the Faith.

I’m afraid here I and most Catholics pre-1960’s will have to disagree with you.

I’m glad you made “catholic church” lowercase, because what you write does not accurately represent the teaching of the big-C Catholic Church (as in other things). And I’m glad you specify that you are merely expressing an opinion, for what you claim is false (as in other things). The Catholic Church does NOT say it is sufficient to have an unbroken line of succession. That is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. For example, most Old Catholic Churches have an unbroken line of succesion, but because of their departure on certain points of doctrinal teaching, the Catholic Church accepts only the PNCC “among” them as having valid Sacraments.

Really it was my understanding that ALL old catholics had valid succession? The only other reason I’ve ever seen for ‘Holy orders’ being found to be defective is the infamous case of the Anglican Church. Here the Apostolic succession was found to be broken due to changes in the ceremony during the 16th century and inherent flaws in the ordinal, not changes in the faith…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I fail to see how this is getting us any closer? Firstly in the first thousand years there was no ‘Orthodox church’, simply the One Church of Christ with no divisions. It is not the holy spirit that abandoned you it is you who left the unity of the true church thereby abandoning the truth.

Secondly, the later councils do not contradict the earlier ones, indeed they go to great pains to state that these are the councils that they uphold. As for the council banning additions to the creed it also if read literally banned other creeds from being formulated and yet we know that the Council of Chalcedon formulated a creed. It cannot therefore be read as an absolute ban, rather it is intended to prevent distortion of the creed.

Third No it is not necessary to hold the faith of the apostles in order to have apostolic succession, it is sufficient to have an unbroken line of succession back to the apostles and continue this succession by means of a vald ordination ceremony. This is the opinion of the catholic church.

Actually, the term “Orthodox” was already in use in 325 AD and referred to the “Orthodox Faith.” St John of Damascus also used this term in his “De Fide Orthodoxa.” I believe the Roman Rite also uses it liturgically to refer to the “Orthodox Faith.”

Both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” were and still are used by both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches to define themselves. If we say there was no “Orthodox Church” in the first millennium, then we might also say there was no “Roman Catholic” Church either (in one sense, the term is mutually contradictory or could be seen as being so).

In fact, the Eastern Orthodox keep intact the traditional faith of the first millennium from the Apostolic age and the faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

We can debate about the situation involving the Schism of the 13th century and the history afterwards.

But there can be no doubt that the Eastern Churches have kept the “Orthodox Faith” of the first millennium intact. It was, I believe history will show, the later Roman popes who insisted on imposing the a priori’s of Latin theology on the East that originally caused the problems. Popes like St Leo IV were cognizant of the potentially damaging effect of such moves which is why they themselves left the received faith of the first millennium alone.

For the Eastern Churches, the fact that the popes of Rome did that meant they were true inheritors and descendants of the Petrine Primacy and so they were honoured as such by the East.

This approach differs not a wit from that of many of today’s traditionalist Roman Catholics who have likewise chosen to ignore any number of “new doctrines and liturgical practices” emanating from Rome while affirming they are loyal to Rome (meaning “the Rome before John XXIII”).

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

Well, to be more concise, my position (as I’ve very often expressed) is that the Pope can exercise his authority personally, but always in a collegial manner. This is distinct from exercising his authority collegially. Your error, common to the Absolutist Petrine view, with which I thoroughly disagree, is that you interpret “personally” to mean “unilaterally apart from the rest of the Church.”

To be honest this statement is so absurd I don’t even know what to say to it. The Pope can choose to exercise his authority personally AND in a Non-Collegial manner, lets re-read what Vatican II says on the matter '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.’

The text itself makes the distinction between exercising authority personally AND collegially, to read into this ‘personally but in a collegial manner’ is to read in something that is NOT in the text. The text is at pains to distinguish between the pope exercising his authority on his own to the EXCLUSION of the other bishops and the Pope exercising his power together with the other bishops.

Yet the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 explicitly asserted, “THE MOST SOLEMN JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH IN FAITH AND MORALS IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE JUDGMENT OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.” But it has already been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread that you do not adhere to the true teaching of the Vatican Councils.

And yet I can find this nowhere in the council documents

As I suspected. You can’t actually cite anything explicltly to defend your error that the Pope has the authority to impede the authority of an orthodox Catholic bishop in his local jurisdiction. Your opinions depend utterly on imposing your Absolutist Petrine errors on otherwise orthodox statements from Catholic sources.

Sadly I’m going to keep you rather busy with the very long list of citations that support my position that you wish to see…

Yes, you have consistently clarified for us that your group is not a formal part of the Catholic Church, and thus your views cannot properly be taken to represent the true Faith of the Catholic Church.

You do realise that the churches judgements on the SSPX apply ONLY to the clergy and not those that frequent its services? So your bandying around of accusations that I’m not catholic and so on are totally groundless

As consistently affirmed and proven, it is only your monstrous mischaracterizations of Catholic teaching that I am uncomfortable with. I am very comfortable with the supreme authority of the Pope. It is obvious you are the one who has a problem with the teaching of the Vatican Councils because for you to accept it, you have to twist its teaching. Don’t even pretend that you believe in the supreme authority of the Pope. What you believe in, instead, AS YOU HAVE SEVERAL TIMES EXPLICITLY STATED, is the absolute authority of the Pope. “Supreme” is not equivalent to “absolute” even in the common parlance of the English language. Your statements have no credibility.

I’m sorry but I do believe it was YOU who were so eager to place me as having ‘absolutist petrine’ views not me, I didn’t identify myself as an ‘absolutist petrine’ advocate. As usual your attempts at simplyfying rather complicated matters have led you to totally confuse the issue and spout nonsense.

 

[TrentCath]

As regards the Pope having authority over an ecumenical council, The Fifth Lateran Council says:

'**For it is clearly established that only the contemporary Roman pontiff, as holding authority over all councils, has the full right and power to summon, transfer and dissolve councils. This we know not only from the witness of holy scripture, the statements of holy fathers and our predecessors as Roman pontiffs, and the decisions of the sacred canons, but also from the declarations of the same councils. Some of this evidence we have decided to repeat, and some to pass over in silence as being sufficiently well known .

Thus we read that the synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, wrote to Felix, bishop of Rome, that the council of Nicaea had decided that councils ought not to be celebrated without the authority of the Roman pontiff . Pope Leo I transferred the second council of Ephesus to Chalcedon. Pope Martin V authorised his presidents at the council of Siena to transfer the council with no mention being made of the council’s consent. The greatest respect was shown to our predecessors as Roman pontiffs: to Celestine by the first synod of Ephesus; to the said Leo by the synod of Chalcedon; to Agatho by the sixth synod; to Hadrian by the seventh synod; and to Nicholas and Hadrian by the eighth synod, of Constantinople. These councils submitted with reverence and humility to the instructions and commands of the same pontiffs which had been composed and issued by them in the sacred councils. Moreover, pope Damasus and the other bishops assembled at Rome, writing to the bishops at Illyricum about the council at Rimini, pointed out that the number of bishops assembled at Rimini counted for nothing since it was known that the Roman pontiff, whose decrees were to be preferred before all others, had not given his consent to their meeting. It appears that pope Leo I said the same when writing to all the bishops of Sicily. It was customary for the fathers of the ancient councils humbly to ask for and obtain a warrant and approbation from the Roman pontiff in order to corroborate the matters dealt with in their councils . This is clear from the synods and their acts held at Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, the sixth synod at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea, the Roman synod under Symmachus and the synods in Haimar’s book. We would certainly be without these recent troubles if the fathers at Bourges and Basel had followed this laudable custom, which it is known that the fathers at Constance also finally adopted **. ’

The Council of Florence says on the same subject ‘**Following in the steps of our predecessors who, as Pope Nicholas of holy memory writes, were accustomed to annul councils which had been conducted improperly, even those of universal pontiffs, as occurred at the second universal synod at Ephesus, inasmuch as the blessed pope Leo summoned it but later established the council of Chalcedon. **’

The same Council also says regarding the Pope

'We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church…'

As regards the Popes superiority to all other bishops together or collectively, his supreme and universal authority and the obedience owed to him by all catholics The First Vatican Council says

'**And so,

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

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,

by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
    episcopal and
    immediate. 
Both clergy and faithful,
    of whatever rite and dignity,
    both singly and collectively, 
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
    not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
    but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd** [50] . ’

 

[TrentCath]

The Second Vatican Council says regarding The Pope and his power

‘But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) **’

And in a later clarifying note the same council says ‘. **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.
**
4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands.’

Moving onto sources that are not councils the most famous is probably the Papal Bull ‘Unam Sanctum’ which states ‘We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: “Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.” [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: “Feed my sheep” [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John "there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ and later most famously ‘Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’

 

[TrentCath]

Moving onto later papal encyclicals Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Amantissimus states '**2. To preserve forever in his Church the unity and doctrine of this faith, Christ chose one of his apostles, Peter, whom he appointed the Prince of his Apostles, his Vicar on earth, and impregnable foundation and head of his Church. Surpassing all others with every dignity of extraordinary authority, power and jurisdiction, he was to feed the Lord’s flock, strengthen his brothers, rule and govern the universal Church. Christ not only desired that his Church remain as one and immaculate to the end of the world, and that its unity in faith, doctrine and form of government remain inviolate. He also willed that the fullness of dignity, power and jurisdiction, integrity and stability of faith given to Peter be handed down in its entirety to the Roman Pontiffs, the successors of this same Peter, who have been placed on this Chair of Peter in Rome, and to whom has been divinely committed the supreme care of the Lord’s entire flock and the supreme rule of the Universal Church.

1. You above all, venerable brothers, have known how this dogma of our religion has been unanimously and unceasingly declared, defended and insisted upon in synods by the Fathers of the Church. Indeed, they have never stopped teaching that “God is one, Christ is one, the Church established upon Peter by the voice of the Lord is one;”[6] “the massive foundation of the great Christian state has been divinely built upon, as it were, this rock, this very firm stone;”[7] “this Chair, which is unique and the first of gifts, has always been designated and considered as the Chair of Peter;”[8] “shining forth throughout the world it maintains its primacy;”[9] "it is also the root and matrix whence sacerdotal unity has sprung;“10] it is not only the head but also the mother and teacher of all the Churches;”[11] “it is the mother city of piety in which is the complete and perfect stability of the Christian religion”[12] “and in which the preeminence of the Apostolic Chair has always been unimpaired;”[13] “it rests upon that rock which the haughty gates of hell shall never overcome;”[14] “for it the Apostles poured out their entire teaching with blood;”[15] “from it the rights of the venerable communion are extended to all;”[16] “all obedience and honor must be given to it.”[17] “He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church;”[18] “whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned;”[19] “Peter, who lives and presides in his own Chair, proffers the truth of faith to those seeking it;”[20] “Peter, who lives up to this time and always lives, exercises jurisdiction in his successors;”[21] “he himself has spoken through Leo;”[22] “the Roman Pontiff, who holds Primacy in the entire world, is the Successor of Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and is the visible Father and Teacher of all Christians.”[23] There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff. **’

Pope Pius XI says in his encyclical Mortalium Animos ‘11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.’

 

[TrentCath]

Pope Leo XIII in his excellent encyclical Satis Cognitum states '.**What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys. Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him. If the power of binding, loosening, and feeding confers upon each and every one of the Bishops the successors of the Apostles a real authority to rule the people committed to him, certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep has been assigned by God. “Christ constituted [Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; Peter therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form the whole of the Church” (S. Bruonis Episcopi Signiensis Comment. in Joan., part iii., cap. 21, n. 55). Hence those remarkable expressions of the ancients concerning St. Peter, which most clearly set forth the fact that he was placed n the highest degree of dignity and authority. They frequently call him “the Prince of the College of the Disciples; the Prince of the holy Apostles; the leader of that choir; the mouthpiece of all the Apostles; the head of that family; the ruler of the whole world; the first of the Apostles; the safeguard of the Church.” In this sense St. Bernard writes as follows to Pope Eugenius: “Who art thou? The great priest - the high priest. Thou art the Prince of Bishops and the heir of the Apostles… Thou art he to whom the keys were given. There are, it is true, other gatekeepers of heaven and to pastors of flocks, but thou are so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a different and more glorious name than all the rest. They have flocks consigned to them, one to each; to thee all the flocks are confided as one flock to one shepherd, and not alone the sheep, but the shepherds. You ask how I prove this? From the words of the Lord. To which - I do not say - of the Bishops, but even of the Apostles have all the sheep been so absolutely and unreservedly committed? If thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? Of this or that country, or kingdom? My sheep, He says: to whom therefore is it not evident that he does not designate some, but all? We can make no exception where no distinction is made” (De Consideratione, lib. ii., cap. 8).

… Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the Apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive therefrom strength and stability? Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively. And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority. Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life. Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority?

This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils. “We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him” (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: “there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See” (Nicholaus in Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.)* wherefore Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: “That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church” (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5). It has ever been un questionably the office of the Roman Pontiffs to ratify or to reject the decrees of Councils. Leo the great rescinded the acts of the Conciliabulum of Ephesus. Damasus rejected those of Rimini, and Hadrian 1. those of Constantinople. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless. Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).

…But the authority of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, independent; that of the bishops limited, and dependent. '** ’

 

[TrentCath]

Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quartus Supra states '**13. But the neo-schismatics have gone further, since “every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”[26] Indeed they have even accused this Apostolic See as well, as if We had exceeded the limits of Our power in commanding that certain points of discipline were to be observed in the Patriarchate of Armenia. Nor can the Eastern Churches preserve communion and unity of faith with Us without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline. Teaching of this kind is heretical, and not just since the definition of the power and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican Council: the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it. Thus the bishops at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon clearly declared the supreme authority of the Apostolic See in their proceedings; then they humbly requested from Our predecessor St. Leo confirmation and support for their decrees, even those which concerned discipline.

1. Indeed, “the successor of blessed Peter, by the very fact that he is such, has been assigned the whole flock of Christ, so that together with his bishopric he receives the power of universal rule. Then the other bishops must be assigned their portions of the flock so that they can rule over their flock.”[27] If the supreme authority of this assignment to blessed Peter and his successors is rejected, the very foundations and prerogatives of the patriarchal churches in particular would be shaken. “Even if Christ willed that Peter and the other leaders have something in common, the other leaders have this only through Peter.”[28] “And in fact Peter himself honored the See (of Alexandria) when he sent his disciple, the evangelist: he strengthened the See (of Antioch) which he occupied for seven years, even though he was going to leave it.”[29] And both Anatolius,[30] Bishop of Constantinople, and Marcian,[31] the emperor, openly acknowledged that the approval and confirmation of the Apostolic See was altogether necessary to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the see of Constantinople…28. However, some resent and bemoan both Our declaration that this Apostolic See has the right and power to elect a bishop either from the three names recommended or apart from them and Our prohibition against the enthronement of an elected Patriarch without Our prior confirmation. They call Our attention to the customs and canons of their churches as if We had abandoned the provisions of the sacred canons. We might respond to these men in the same way Our predecessor St. Gelasius did when the Acacian schismatics brought the same false accusation against him: “They cite the canons against Us without knowing what they are saying since they show that they are themselves in opposition to the canons by the very fact that they deny obedience to the first See although its advice is sound and correct.”[43] For these are the very canons which recognize the full, divine authority of blessed Peter over the whole Church. Indeed, they proclaim that he lives and exercises judgment in his successors to the present time and forever, as the Council of Ephesus affirmed.[44] Rightly then did Stephan, Bishop of Larissa, give this firm answer to those who considered that the privileges of the churches of Constantinople were somewhat diminished by the intervention of the Roman Pontiff: “the authority of the Apostolic See which was given by God and our Savior to the chief of the Apostles exceeds the privileges of all the holy churches. In acknowledging this, all the churches of the world should cease their opposition.”[45]
2. Certainly, if you recall the history of your districts, you will find examples of Roman Pontiffs who used this power when they judged it necessary for the safety of the Eastern Churches. This was why the Roman Pontiff Agapetus used his authority to eject Anthimus from the See of Constantinople and replace him with Mennas without calling a synod. Our predecessor Martin I entrusted his power for the East to John, Bishop of Philadelphia, in regard to the regions of the East. He instructed him “by the Apostolic authority given to Us by the Lord through the most holy Peter, prince of the Apostles,”[46] to appoint bishops, priests and deacons in every city subject to the sees of Jerusalem and Antioch. In more recent times, you will recall that the bishop of Mardin of the Armenians was elected and consecrated by the authority of this Apostolic See even though Our predecessors granted the care of this see to the patriarchs of Cilicia. This was granted when the administration of the district of Mesopotamia was assigned to them by the Holy See. All these actions agree with the supreme power of the Roman See; the church of the Armenians has always recognized, proclaimed, and respected this except during unhappy times of schism. This is not surprising since even among your people still separated from the Catholic faith, the ancient tradition remains strong that the great bishop and martyr whom you regard as the Enlightener of your race, received his power from the Apostolic See. He came to the See in person, undeterred by the length and great hardship of the journey. This was Gregory whom Chrysostom described as a sun rising in the eastern regions whose shining rays reached as far as the Greek people.[47] '**

That is as many encyclicals I wish to cite for the time being, though if you want me to cite anymore, you need only ask. As for catechisms I will dedicate only a single post or two to those as luckily the quotes are a lot shorter