Ahhhh! The “I just attend their Church and believe everything they do, including denying the authority of Vatican 2 on doctrinal matters, but really, I’m not an actual member of their Church.” You have no credibility, my SSPX brother in Christ.
I suggest you get back to retracting your statement that I have no authorities to support my view or go through my extensive list of authorities prior to questioning my credibility
I didn’t intend this as an uncharitable repetitive jab at you - just to clarify for honesty’s sake to Don since he asked.
mhmm
If this thread doesn’t rise from the depths of personal attacks, I can see it being closed.absolutely true.
I understand. Sometimes people say things that aren’t necessarily from the Absolutist Petrine view, but someone applies the label anyway.
Okay, but the Catholic Church used to include the Byzantine churches that are now out of communion with the bishop of Rome, so they do deserve consideration different from that given to Protestants, whose denominations didn’t even exist before the sixteenth century.
Thank you.
So you just dismiss as irrelevant the controversy that exploded over the Latin addition of “…and the Son” to the Creed?
You haven’t answered my question. The article does not say one way or the other if Pope St. Julius confirmed or did not confirm the Council. Let me repeat my question: “How do the Canons of the Council of Sardica make it into the OFFICIAL canonical records of the Roman Church if Pope Julius had not confirmed and promulgated them?” Your quotes and links are facile. They never prove your Absolutist Petrine errors. You depend on the injection of unfounded assumptions into historial facts to defend your errors.
Very little personal commentary? No, you are not merely quoting, but you place special focus on only certain texts with all your underlining and other highlights that explicitly neglects other portions in order to create your monstrous caricature of the papacy.
It’s only as OK as your uncharitable presumptions that non-Latin Catholics are less Catholic than Latin Catholics.
Sure. When brother Alexander Roman merely asked a question about whether or not the Pope could be seen to complete the makeup of an Ecumenical Council as Patriarch of the West (or the Latins) - which it was obvious was merely for the sake of discussion - you immediately called into question his faithfulness to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy. I think normal people would have seen his query merely as a possible topic for discussion since our brother Alex is often in contact with EO Christians. But you didn’t even answer his question. You just immediately presumed he was not being a faithful Catholic. That, to me,. displays a very prejudicial attitude, and I am positive I am not alone in this perception.To all on this thread, since Marduk thinks he speaks for all non Latin Catholics, then, only If you’re interested,and think Marduk is correct in his charge, I have a simple request.
- go back over any post on this thread. Please quote for me any post where I call into question that Catholics, who are not Latin, are not Catholic. One quote will do.
The facts are self-evident even without the labels.
RIIIIIGHT. Which is why in another thread in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum, I have constantly opposed the “mere primacy of honor” novelty of the Low Petrine view. The real reason our brother Steve disgrees with the High Petrine perspective is because the Absolutist Petrine view he advocates repudiates the constant teaching of the Catholic Church from the Apostles down to this day on the COLLEGIAL nature of the Church. It is true that collegiality is a common feature of the High and Low Petrine views. But what distinguishes the High and Low Petrine views is the apostolic teaching on the necessity of the head bishop (a necessity that at the very least all the Churches of the Syrian Tradition - both Catholic and non-Catholic - understand to be a DOCTRINAL necessity, not merely canonical). The Low Petrine view generally disregards the head. The Absolutist Petrine view generally disregards the body. Only the High Petrine view faithfully and properly reflects and defends the DIVINE constitution of the Church established by Christ.
I’ve never said the Absolutist Petrine view is heresy (I have no right to make that judgment call, but I sincerely hope the Pope or a future Ecumenical Council does repudiate it as such). All I’ve said is the truth. The Absolutist Petrine view is an error that is unpatristic, unfaithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and destructive of the papacy.
Oh don’t worry. I intend to respond to those quotes, as I have time. And I can’t retract my statements because the matter has a greater context than those quotes you give. Again, I’ll point out those greater contexts, hopefully before the following weekend. I’ll be doing so a little at a time for each of your quotes.I suggest you get back to retracting your statement that I have no authorities to support my view or go through my extensive list of authorities prior to questioning my credibility
They are not limbs, they are no part of the church at all the moment they left her. Yes it is different as the heresy of at least most of them (these days and all before) is not as severe but they are still ultimately all in schism and most in heresy or at least hold to dubious doctrines.
Well I’m glad you accept that, of course it is up to the pope to determine whether there is or isnt a need.
I’m going to take that as saying ‘we catholics’ meaning the ‘catholics that agree with me’, not we catholics and you not catholic.
These days yes.
No as the Council of Florence says ‘.…In the first place, then, we give them the holy creed issued by the hundred and fifty bishops in the ecumenical council of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, which for the sake of declaring the truth and from urgent necessity was licitly and reasonably added to that creed, which runs as follows: I believe . . . I We decree that this holy creed should be sung or read within the mass at least on Sundays and greater feasts, as is the Latin custom, in all Armenian churches’
I think what the council of Florence thinks 'For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. ’
I’m glad, it took some time to find those sources hence why I didn’t do it earlier. As for that context I’ll be interested to see what that is.
The problem is that it’s not always clear if or when a body “left” the Church - the schism in many places is ambiguous at best. For example, the two “Nestorian” monks that were accepted as Catholics when Kublai Khan sent them on a diplomatic mission to the Pope, who had one monk say Liturgy for him in St. Peter’s Basilica and sent the pallium to the other one who had been consecrated Catholicos of All the East.
Its a pleasure, contrary to popular belief people who hold higher views of you than the so called ‘High Petrine view’ do not do so out of ignorance of the eastern churches or out of obstinacy; they have reasons for doing so and can provide those reasons or sources if you ask them to, as you did me.Then I must at least commend you for your research.
Blessings,
Marduk
I’m not entirely sure I see your point?
The bishops who were left at the council were Western bishops. It’s NOT an ecumenical council because Julius didn’t confirm it and promulgate it as universal. Isn’t that obvious?
No charicature, just quotes.
I merely quote Church docs. That’s what I advocate. I let the docs do the talking. And that’s what I advocate you to do.
Because you make the charge everybody is supposed to believe it is true? Quote an example.
What post was that?
Church docs which I quoted, show the Catholic position on the authority of the papacy.
There’s the collegial part but there is also the Petrine part. I let canon law do the talking and make the distinctions.
The Church docs I quoted clearly show the balanced and Catholic view.
The docs I presented show the Catholic view.
YOU call it absolutist. And you have no right making that judgement, when the Church docs I presented make clear distinctions.
You read those docs I presented, and immediately insert your commentary which denies the clear meaning of what those docs say.
Unfortunately, church politics do play a role, however much we choose to ignore it. Church politics, more than canons and infallible decrees, illustrates the LATENT issues at work which never do become evident in their manifest form.
). ) has set a standard in this regard.As I have said before there is no need for a new synthesis nor could it achieve anything.Unfortunately, church politics do play a role, however much we choose to ignore it. Church politics, more than canons and infallible decrees, illustrates the LATENT issues at work which never do become evident in their manifest form.
I must have been on vacation when you went through your analysis of the Decree on the EC Churches (or else I must have read it at least once while unconscious censorship took over in my mind - I don’t know which
I don’t disagree with our points. Where I disagree with you is where you appear to be saying that nothing further can be added or subtracted or modified about the papal developments to date without doing irreparable damage to those developments.
That is the point at which we part company. But we do part company because it is your conviction that we must. I don’t see what you have been saying as being exclusive to a “new synthesis” nor does such a synthesis need to do damage to anything.
No I’m afraid he’s not, not by a long shot.In fact, Blessed Pope John Paul II (which I’m sure is one of your very favourite Successors of St Peter as he is mine!
Oh, so now you are claiming that the Canons that state that ANY bishop has the right of appeal to the Pope did not have universal scope? Gotcha! Inconsistency upon inconsistency. Where is your proof for this new claim of yours? Certainly not the CE article. As previously stated, and often proved, your quotes and links are facile for they never demonstrate what you claim.
You STILL haven’t answered my question. Nor the original question. You are just avoiding. Your Absolutist Petrine understanding of an Ecumenical Council is not supported by Sacred Tradition or the teaching of the Vatican Councils.Quotes that purposefully highlight only certain portions, and purposefully neglect the portions which demand a collegial context.
You say this because you simply ignore all the evidence that I give, just like you ignore the clearly collegial context of all the quotes you give. That’s not my fault.
I’ve shown consistenly how your quotes with your misleading highlights don’t demonstrate what you are claiming by pointing out OTHER poritions of the same document. And you rarely respond, but avoid (just like you are avoiding answering my 2 questions regarding the Council of Sardica).
Avoidance again. Typical.
Yes, but not your Absolutist Petrine pretenses.
And there’s your error, which all your facile document quoting does not support. You consistently separate the head from the body. There’s no “collegial part” and a “Petrine part.” There is a College of bishops with a head bishop who is a member of that College. Whether he acts formally with collegial (i.e., through a Synod) or personal authority, he is ALWAYS part of a college of bishops. This college does not always FORMALLY exercise collegial authority, but it ALWAYS exists, and the Pope is ALWAYS a member of it and CANNOT be separated from it, and none of your erroneous opinions can change that.
“Balance” is a word foreign to the Absolutist Petrine paradigm.
Yes, but not your Absolutist Petrine novelties. All the documents demonstrate the collegial nature of the Church, beyond your myopic highlights and underlining of only specific portions in total neglect of the context.
I have every right to contest your Absolutist Petrine novelty that undermines both the teaching of the Catholic Church, and all propects of fulfilling Christ’s command for unity.
Yes, they make distinctions, but not separation, which is your error.
I deny your misinterpretations based on your myopic highlights, since it contradicts the FULL context of the very same documents you give.
