Filioque??

[Ignatios]

…Continued

If you read the History of the Melkite Church you will find out wether you were required to recite it or not, But the Byzantine Catholic in particular the Melkite are not like the rest, The Melkite, every time the Papacy tried to pressure them with anything they said “…ok, we are going back to the Orthodox Church if you dont accept us as we are”.
the Creed, was changed, and everyone who didnt follow it was condemned, BUT the Melkite and the all the Byzantine rejected it. you must read your history good Ghosty.

No, you give uncited quotes from T.R. Valentine. That’s not history, it’s plagiarism of poor scholarship.

Please go back and trace what had been said here, you going all over the place. you mixing a couple things together, and then you are not responding to the appropriate issue.I was speaking about the addition to the filioque and not the theology of it, How in the world you winded up talking about Valentine or the “strawmen” is alive and well?

I have no reason to believe that St. Maximos read anything other than the Latin writings we have today, such as St. Hilary, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, St. Gregory the Great, and many others, all of whom taught the filioque. It is you who claimed that the documents he saw may have been falsified. If you can prove that, show us, otherwise we must assume that he read the same documents we have today.

Ok, then. your theory is based on assumptions according to your words. so therefore it is not auhtentic , thats all i was saying.

The Melkite Church embraces the dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox, not the senseless polemics against Latin understandings. There is nothing codified in Orthodox teaching that we reject, but there is plenty of opinion that we roundly reject. For example, we don’t believe the Latin tradition is heretical, and this includes the filioque; I’ve personally asked our Bishop Cyril Bustros (good friend and key cooperator with Sayedna Zoghby) about this very issue.

the Filioque is a senseless polemic in its core, and thats what we reject so does the Melkites, but instead of they say we reject it they say we our own tradition, in oreder to keep the peace, but teaching other than the filioque is a sign that they reject it otherwise they would have submit to it.
Sure you do as a RC, you reject that the Holy Spirit procced from the FATHER alone. just to mention one.
No the melkite dont say it if there is no need to, but if you try to push them, you will find out
I was with Bishop Cyrill Bustros a week ago, if it is true what you are saying then you are from the same parish that my relatives go to.
hhhmmm??? you should have included the word “was” since Bishop Zoghby had passed away about nine months ago or less than a year, and as all the melkite you should have at least say the late Bishop Zoghby. Bishop Bustros however aint going to tell you other then peace words, remeber he is a bishop and in union “with” Rome NOT “Under” Rome.

 

[Ignatios]

The Orthodox Churches are true Churches in that they maintain Apostolic Succession and therefore true sacraments. That certainly doesn’t make them infallible according to our understanding, as valid sacraments are not all that is required.

Accirdung to your church understanding, your statement is correct, however I was hoping that buffbob would have gave ne this answer, because he mentioned something about that the church is infallible, according to your church understanding it is the pope who is infallabile and “IF” the church is infallible it is through the pope. But thank you for the reply.

 

[Ignatios]

Not to take this thread in another direction, but while looking over the Syriac Catholic Divine Liturgy as posted on the website for Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese, I noticed that they include the Filioque in their Creed. Is this common throughout the Syriac Catholic Church, or is this just an isolated occurrence?

syriac-catholic.org/Anaphora.htm

My knowledge concerning this, I know that few eatern Catholic churches include the filioque in their Creed, and one of them is the Maronite, but that was after a Rome requested it.

 

[Ignatios]

buffgbob:

… I admite the terminology may not have been technically correct, so I apologize for the confusion. I’m not trying to convince you here; I’m just trying to explain the Eastern Catholic churchs’ relationship to the Holy See.

Now this is much better, thank you.
trust me I know the E.Catholic churches first hand, as i mentioned before I have my uncle and my cousints and one of my brother-in-law whom are Melkites( the most Orthodox out of all the E. Catholics) and I know a couple of their bishops, Also my other brother-in-law is Maronite ( the most latinized E. Catholic, to a point that some reffer to it as the RCC of the Middle East).

My Dear freind buffgbob, No need to apologize, we all make mistakes, and sometimes we mispeak or misword things, But I must thank you for your meekness and humbleness and please forgive me if I had offended you or caused you any greives. May GOD Bless you and keep you brother. In CHRIST.†††

 

[buffgbob]

Accirdung to your church understanding, your statement is correct, however I was hoping that buffbob would have gave ne this answer, because he mentioned something about that the church is infallible, according to your church understanding it is the pope who is infallabile and “IF” the church is infallible it is through the pope. But thank you for the reply.

That is close to our understanding. However, it is not a question of “IF” the Church is infallible. Catholics hold the Church to be infallible. There are (to plagarize from the encyclopedia) organs of infallibility. Those would be: the communion of bishops in union with the Holy See, Ecunemical Councils, and the pope. These three organs clearly have a relationship with one another; however, the councils’ infallibility is not owed to papal infallibility (even though the relationship of the pope to these councils is a necessary condition.) They are distinct realities.

That Orthodox Churches are true Churches is clear. So are Old Catholics, Old Believers, and the like. Noone would say their individual pronouncements are infallible, because clearly they don’t hold the relationship to the infallible organs. This is in contrast to Protestants who aren’t really Churches inherently in the traditional sense. That is why in seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox we seek reconciliation with a Church; in seeking reconciliation with Protestants we seek reconciliation with groups of individuals.

 

[Ghosty]

Ignatios: T.R. Valentine can’t be relied upon because he insists on the notion that there were eight, and possibly nine, Ecumenical Councils. That is a position that is not shared by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and is full of holes to begin with. He’s also consistantly been shown on these forums to misrepresent Latin teachings in particular, and Catholic beliefs in general, and can’t be relied upon to properly represent theological questions.

As for St. Maximos’ letter, you’ve still not proven that it was the false one, you’ve simply cited other authors who argue from silence that it must be the false one. The only possible reason it could be considered the false letter is that it supposedly mentions six Councils, but if St. Maximos was complaining about a forged letter in his lifetime, then the forged letter should ALSO only mention five Councils (if your assumption that the numbers were so rigidly set in stone, which is an assumption I simply can’t accept given how many Council called themselves Ecumenical which ultimately weren’t). Your citation of the Sixth Council also doesn’t support your assumption, since it was not in the time of St. Maximos, and even if it were it would simply show that the Sixth Council determined the previous number of Councils to be five.

Just as a demonstration of my point, the Council of Ephesus only regard one previous Council as Ecumenical, namely the Council of Nicaea; it wasn’t until Chalcedon that the First Council of Constantinople became universally regarded as an Ecumenical Council. Prior to that time it was not considered as such in the West, and wasn’t even largely known about. So until the Fourth Ecumenical Council you had some who said that there were only two prior Ecumenical Councils, and some who said that there were three. Such things continued throughout history, such as at Florence when the Latins refered to the Eight previous Ecumenical Councils that were shared between East and West, and the Greeks responded that they only knew of Seven.

As for the rest of what you’ve said, I honestly can’t follow you, not because of the arguments, but because of the choppy English. Perhaps if you take your time and type a bit more carefully I can understand you better. As I said, though, I’m more interested in discussing the theology of the filioque, not trading citations about supposed historical cover-ups.

Also, please stop with the personal attacks. They’re not conducive to discussion at all. And don’t call me “dear Ghosty” anymore, either. I’m a grown man and deserve a bit more respect than that, I’m sure.

Furthermore, although I’m in the process of becoming a Melkite, I’m quite familiar with the Melkite history and approach; if I wasn’t I wouldn’t be joining the Church. If your relatives live in Seattle, and attend the local Melkite mission, then I’m sure I know them and they know me. It’s a small community, and I’m very active in the helping with the Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

That is close to our understanding. However, it is not a question of “IF” the Church is infallible. Catholics hold the Church to be infallible. There are (to plagarize from the encyclopedia) organs of infallibility. Those would be: the communion of bishops in union with the Holy See, Ecunemical Councils, and the pope. These three organs clearly have a relationship with one another; however, the councils’ infallibility is not owed to papal infallibility (even though the relationship of the pope to these councils is a necessary condition.) They are distinct realities.

Yes there is many places in your CCC that speaks that the Church is infallible also the E.C. and the Bishops but none without the Pope, Lets say that a bishop was infallible but not in communion with the Pope, could that be? according to your church’s understnading ,NO, the Pope is the Pivot in your church, it is clear read the following from your CCC:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402( *Here I ask who is the church without the ones listed in this sentence?) *"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church ( this is the key to what I am talking about >>>)]has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but*** this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”/***COLOR]404
Now what is that tell you ? the Pope in your church he is all and everything, I really cant put it any better than it is worded here.

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406
Again the pope is all in all, in your church, this is what the text shows in the CCC .

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Lets say that a bishop was infallible but not in communion with the Pope, could that be?

lol can you qualify this statement and give some sort of realistic, historical examples before assuming we are all on the same page?

 

[Harpazo]

I haven’t used the Filioque when I say the Creed for over a year now, even when I went to a Tridentine Latin Mass. Irony of ironies.

Didn’t HH Pope Benedict omit it when he said the Creed with HH Patriarch Bartholomew in June? I don’t think it would be a bad idea for the Latin Church to return to the practice of having it excluded from the Creed, or at least producing an explanation that it is NOT meant as a double procession.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[buffgbob]

Yes there is many places in your CCC that speaks that the Church is infallible also the E.C. and the Bishops but none without the Pope, Lets say that a bishop was infallible but not in communion with the Pope, could that be? according to your church’s understnading ,NO, the Pope is the Pivot in your church, it is clear read the following from your CCC:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402( *Here I ask who is the church without the ones listed in this sentence?) *“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church ( this is the key to what I am talking about >>>)]has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but*** this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”/***COLOR]404
Now what is that tell you ? the Pope in your church he is all and everything, I really cant put it any better than it is worded here.

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406
Again the pope is all in all, in your church, this is what the text shows in the CCC .Didn’t I say there were relationships between the organs of infallibility? Could there be a council or group of bishops seperate from the pope that was infallible? No. Because the pope is a necessary part of that council or group; inserperable from its whole. My point was that the organs itself do not consider themselves infallible because the pope decrees through them. As such, the pope is a part of these groups and councils as a brother and a visible head. He is a neccesary participant. His infallibility is distinct from this; but it also enjoys the relationship to these other organs.

To imply that the pope and the RCC considers the pope the only organ of infallibily is erroneous and at least a mischaracterization of Catholic belief.

It is my belief, a theologuem if you will, that it makes sense that Christ would appoint a chief bishop, a head if you willl, to represent and fulfill the unity of his Church. Because we are not all called to involve ourselves in the polemics of the Churches but to adore and worship the one true God in true Faith. That we may know Truth and worship God all the more in loving and knowing Him.

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios: T.R. Valentine can’t be relied upon because he insists on the notion that there were eight, and possibly nine, Ecumenical Councils. That is a position that is not shared by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, …

Only when someone read Valentine within context then one can see what he is saying, and I found most of his statement to be correct( you know there is hardly any, but few Scholars that are 100% right on everything they say).
As for the nine and eighth councils, wehther the Orthodox share this or not, is irrelevant to the sibject at hand, since those 2 councils are AFTER St. Maximos.The councils at St. Maximos time were "set and locked " and the Sixth Council only affirmed the previous councils. the Sixth did not speak of the previous ones as if they didnt exist or there were disagreement on them, except among the heretics and St. Maximos knew better about those Councils when we read his arguemnet concerning the councils.

…and is full of holes to begin with…

Holes No, but i put it this way that is not all 100% of his statement are complete, but I will only give my judgement on those issues when he elaborate all the way to the end on those issues, Untill then I wouldnt throw them out nor do I go by them.

…He’s also consistantly been shown on these forums to misrepresent Latin teachings in particular, and Catholic beliefs in general, and can’t be relied upon to properly represent theological questions.

How he has been shown on this forum or any forum, this is not what I go by, just as every theologian has his own way, so does his readers has their own way on what bases they accepting their( Theologians) Ideas.

As for St. Maximos’ letter, you’ve still not proven that it was the false one, you’ve simply cited other authors who argue from silence that it must be the false one.

As I cited from the others what they have came forth with is, the least to say and for the sake of arguement, that those letters cannot be used as reffrences for anything untill are prooved that they are authentic, for what they have came forth with cannot be ignored and tossed to the side, because they do exist, In particulae that those letters are FRAGMENTS.

 The only possible reason it could be considered the false letter is that it supposedly mentions six Councils, but if St. Maximos was complaining about a forged letter in his lifetime, then the forged letter should ALSO only mention five Councils (if your assumption that the numbers were so rigidly set in stone, which is an assumption I simply can't accept given how many Council called themselves Ecumenical which ultimately weren't).

One of the reasons, why the letter has a great deal of doubt and it is most likely to be the forged one is, Because it mention six and not five council, if it mentioned five councils than this particular reason wouldnt be discussed.

Your citation of the Sixth Council also doesn't support your assumption, since it was not in the time of St. Maximos, and even if it were it would simply show that the Sixth Council determined the previous number of Councils to be five.

It was only about 15years or more, Now I dont think that the sixth council determined that there should be only Five instead of whatever, But the council simply affirmed the previous councils that they were already existed and beleived to be as such by the whole Church.
Besides, the Nine and eighth councils are the only ones that there is a dispute over them but not ove the seven councils.
You are right the sixth determined the previous councils and they said that they were five, so ther is your proove that they were set and locked and not as you (name removed by moderator)lied in your previous post, just about every council ratified the previous one(s). that how things happened.

Just as a demonstration of my point, the Council of Ephesus only regard one previous Council as Ecumenical, namely the Council of Nicaea; it wasn’t until Chalcedon that the First Council of Constantinople became universally regarded as an Ecumenical Council. Prior to that time it was not considered as such in the West,

Yes but, this was prior to St. Maximos, and there was no disapute about them, it was just werent regarded as Ecumenical, “In the WEST, But not the EAST, among the Chalcedonian Churches” and St. MAximos was an Eastern, and Chalcedonian also Orthodox, so ther is no reason here to doubt that he could have mixed up or make a mistake about the number of the ligitimate councils.

and wasn't even largely known about. So until the Fourth Ecumenical Council you had some who said that there were only two prior Ecumenical Councils, and some who said that there were three. Such things continued throughout history, such as at Florence when the Latins refered to the Eight previous Ecumenical Councils that were shared between East and West, and the Greeks responded that they only knew of Seven.

Again, it wasnt that some knew and some didnt, but lets put it clearer since full clearity here is a must so we do not assume something that it is not, As i explained above, it was the west who didnt take an action on concidering this council as ecumenical where in the east they did or at least for the Eastern Patriarchate again in which St. Maximos was a member of the Church at Constantinople ( Eastern) and actually thats where the council took place and by all means it was an Orthodox Council so there is no question or doubt that St.Maximos would have confused or disregarded any of those councils that took place is under the juridiction of his Church that he belongs to, as a matter of fact St. maximos made a mention of a heretical councils in one of his letters, so in order for him to do so he must have a good knowldge of the ligitimate councils.

As for the rest of what you've said, I honestly can't follow you, not because of the arguments, but because of the choppy English. Perhaps if you take your time and type a bit more carefully I can understand you better.

I undersatnd, I will try to do my best to improve my third language ( the English), HOW ABOUT THAT YOU FINALLY GOT ME TO ADMIT TO ONE WHERE YOU ARE RIGHT

As I said, though, I’m more interested in discussing the theology of the filioque, not trading citations about supposed historical cover-ups.

I understand

Also, please stop with the personal attacks. They’re not conducive to discussion at all.

I only responded with twice as the measure.

And don't call me "dear Ghosty" anymore, either.

That was an honest word, that we usually use iun the Middle east, if you are going to be member of the Melkite church, then you must start to adapt to the Middle Eastern mentality, the way we speak and what we mean when we say something etc…

I'm a grown man and deserve a bit more respect than that, I'm sure.

No disrespect was intended on the bases of female or male, I only respond to the text.

Furthermore, although I'm in the process of becoming a Melkite, I'm quite familiar with the Melkite history and approach; if I wasn't I wouldn't be joining the Church. If your relatives live in Seattle, and attend the local Melkite mission, then I'm sure I know them and they know me. It's a small community, and I'm very active in the helping with the Liturgy.

well then, the Melkites are our truly brothers and sisters although separated( not for too long GOD willing) we can still see in them the same forfathers of ours and wherever we get together we get along just fine, to a point that the Melkites in the town that I came from when our Patriarch come to visit us , the whole town with its clergy go out to meet him and they all see him as the Patriarch of all the Melkite Catholic and Orthodox, but get this my cousint got married in an Orthodox Church by Melkite Bishop, beleive it or not.
And as for the Bishop Boustros the week you mentioned him he was not in Seattle but in one of the New England states, thats when I met him and we talked together.
Well GOD Bless and Keep CHRIST above all and In all and everthing †††.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

Didn’t I say there were relationships between the organs of infallibility? Could there be a council or group of bishops seperate from the pope that was infallible? No. Because the pope is a necessary part of that council or group; inserperable from its whole. My point was that the organs itself do not consider themselves infallible because the pope decrees through them. As such, the pope is a part of these groups and councils as a brother and a visible head. He is a neccesary participant. His infallibility is distinct from this; but it also enjoys the relationship to these other organs.

To imply that the pope and the RCC considers the pope the only organ of infallibily is erroneous and at least a mischaracterization of Catholic belief.

It is my belief, a theologuem if you will, that it makes sense that Christ would appoint a chief bishop, a head if you willl, to represent and fulfill the unity of his Church. Because we are not all called to involve ourselves in the polemics of the Churches but to adore and worship the one true God in true Faith. That we may know Truth and worship God all the more in loving and knowing Him.

Ok, as I said before that the CCC consider the Bishops and the Councils to be Infallible, But, BUT, ONLY and Only if it is okayed by the Pope, let me ask you a question, Can a council or a bishop make a definition that it was not defined previously on his own, My understanding of this is, NO !!! they cannot !!! But if he does, it has to be okayed by the Pope, and if the Pope said NO, there is No one who can reverse that not a council nor a bishop, Therfore the bishop or the Council are dependent on the Pope for the infallability of that Teaching and as the CCC explain it clearly in # 883 and 884 that “…this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff” and in #884 "…“there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.” so what it has been said here that NOT only infallability but everything, and do not forget that the Pope does not need the councils nor the bishops to exercise whatever he sees fit, where the bishops needs the pope in any matter including the infallabilty of theirs, thus, their infallability is depebded on the Pope whether it is right or wrong. And all the above is according to the understanding and the rules of the RCC .
ChaldeanRite:

lol can you qualify this statement and give some sort of realistic, historical examples before assuming we are all on the same page?

The only time your statement would imply what you are trying hard to make it look like is for someone to do what you have done in the above and that is to leave out the rest of my statement in order to give it a twist here what I said within context "…Lets say that a bishop was infallible but not in communion with the Pope, could that be? according to your church’s understnading ,NO, the Pope is the Pivot in your church, it is clear read the following from your CCC.
The red is what you have left out

 

[Aramis]

It appears that, historically, the popes have accepted the council decisions even when the pope in question was not happy with them.

I can’t cite specifics without more research time than I have, but it implies that the Popes bind themselves to the council when they assent to it at the start, or, in the case of councils not held by Rome, when Rome approves the council’s results.

Which boils down to Apostolic Canon 34… without the head bishop, no synod may act; without the synod, no head bishop may act.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Ok, as I said before that the CCC consider the Bishops and the Councils to be Infallible, But, BUT, ONLY and Only if it is okayed by the Pope, let me ask you a question, Can a council or a bishop make a definition that it was not defined previously on his own, My understanding of this is, NO !!! they cannot !!! But if he does, it has to be okayed by the Pope, and if the Pope said NO, there is No one who can reverse that not a council nor a bishop, Therfore the bishop or the Council are dependent on the Pope for the infallability of that Teaching and as the CCC explain it clearly in # 883 and 884 that “…this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff” and in #884 "…“there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.” so what it has been said here that NOT only infallability but everything, and do not forget that the Pope does not need the councils nor the bishops to exercise whatever he sees fit, where the bishops needs the pope in any matter including the infallabilty of theirs, thus, their infallability is depebded on the Pope whether it is right or wrong. And all the above is according to the understanding and the rules of the RCC .

You are quite wrong that the infallibility of an Ecum Council depends on the infallibility of the Pope. I am 100% certain you cannot demonstrate your assumption from the official teachings of the Catholic Church. All you have done is extrapolate your conclusions from the texts, but have not actually given any direct proof of your assumptions. Within the next two days, I will be responding to brother ematouk in the “Intercommunion” thread where I will be addressing this very issue. I invite you to take a look and participate (if you want) when I have given my response in that thread.

Until then…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ron_Conte]

An Ecumenical Council by definition is a gathering of the body of bishops with and under the guidance and direction of the Pope as its head. If the Pope does not approve of any or all of the teachings and decisions of the body, then the teachings and decisions are not valid, for the body cannot act without the head.

As for the filioque, it is certainly taught by the universal Magisterium, so it is required belief.

In my understanding, the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. So the emphasis in the East on procession from the Father has a basis, but procession from the Son also occurs.

 

[Allyson]

In my understanding, **the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father **and secondarily from the Son. So the emphasis in the East on procession from the Father has a basis, but procession from the Son also occurs.

Hello Ron Conte,

Sounds like double procession to me. Is that what you want to say? This can be problematic, as you may have seen already.

Also, do you think that the Eastern Catholics must use the language of the filioque in describing the origination of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the over all theological expression beyond the simple use of it in the creed), or is it enough to have a mutual understanding about what is meant? Ideally, of course, we would all agree absolutely, but that will not happen easily in this life.

On a side note for everyone:
The Council of Florence, which uses the strongest language in favor of double precession, was not cited or referred to in the clarification on the filioque. It would be an understatement the to say that Florence was downplayed, she was left out entirely. Any thoughts on the implications of that?

God Bless,
R.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

You are quite wrong that the infallibility of an Ecum Council depends on the infallibility of the Pope.

Again I am reading from the Text of your CCC it is either there is a misprint in this Text or it is what it says>>>

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

This sounds like that guy who said that, He is the Boss in the house, and when he was asked what if your wife heard you saying this, he replied " she allowed me to say so ! " In another word his wife is the boss, since she is the one who permit and restrict.

I am 100% certain you cannot demonstrate your assumption from the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

I did about three times already. unless you consider the CCC not a ligitimate teaching of the RCC.

All you have done is extrapolate your conclusions from the texts,

And Again that was not my doing, here lets read again together:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” … "For the Roman Pontiff … as pastor of the **entire Church **… has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. "/

The above Paragraph from the CCC put you word “extrapolate” out of commission. Unless you have a LIGITIMATE Interpretation of the above that it would proove what I am saying is “extrapolate”.

but have not actually given any ***direct*** proof of your assumptions.

I didnt assume marduk, I went by what the Text in the CCC had said and using my example above, " If your wife allowed you to say that you are the Boss in the house wouldnt that means she is the boss ???."

I dont know how much more direct can it be, if it is from the CCC what more could there be? The most direct one is available is the CCC. so check the #882, 883 and 884. Unless there is an interpretation of that, then, please by all mean, provide me with it and correct me.

Within the next two days, I will be responding to brother ematouk in the “Intercommunion” thread where I will be addressing this very issue. I invite you to take a look and participate (if you want) when I have given my response in that thread.

Until then…

Blessings,
Marduk

As long as your response is not your own interpretation or opinion, in another word it has to be a ligitimate RCC intepretation universally recognized by Rome.
I will be checking on that, Marduk, untill then, May GOD the HIGHEST bless all.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The only time your statement would imply what you are trying hard to make it look like is for someone to do what you have done in the above and that is to leave out the rest of my statement in order to give it a twist here what I said within context "…Lets say that a bishop was infallible but not in communion with the Pope, could that be? according to your church’s understnading ,NO, the Pope is the Pivot in your church, it is clear read the following from your CCC.
The red is what you have left out

That’s a whole bunch of nothing and you are well aware of that.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Again I am reading from the Text of your CCC it is either there is a misprint in this Text or it is what it says>>>

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

This sounds like that guy who said that, He is the Boss in the house, and when he was asked what if your wife heard you saying this, he replied " she allowed me to say so ! " In another word his wife is the boss, since she is the one who permit and restrict.

I did about three times already. unless you consider the CCC not a ligitimate teaching of the RCC.

And Again that was not my doing, here lets read again together:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” … "For the Roman Pontiff … as pastor of the **entire Church **… has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. "/

The above Paragraph from the CCC put you word “extrapolate” out of commission. Unless you have a LIGITIMATE Interpretation of the above that it would proove what I am saying is “extrapolate”.

I didnt assume marduk, I went by what the Text in the CCC had said and using my example above, " If your wife allowed you to say that you are the Boss in the house wouldnt that means she is the boss ???."

I dont know how much more direct can it be, if it is from the CCC what more could there be? The most direct one is available is the CCC. so check the #882, 883 and 884. Unless there is an interpretation of that, then, please by all mean, provide me with it and correct me.

As long as your response is not your own interpretation or opinion, in another word it has to be a ligitimate RCC intepretation universally recognized by Rome.
I will be checking on that, Marduk, untill then, May GOD the HIGHEST bless all.

Sorry. But I didn’t see the word “infallibility” in any of the texts you quoted. Perhaps I missed it? If you don’t mind, can you point out again for us where exactly the Catholic Church teaches that the Church or the Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible? And, like you, I am expecting actual texts, and not interpretations from you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

That’s a whole bunch of nothing and you are well aware of that.

Is the above the best and all the arguement you were able to come up with ??? WOW, Now in the above you just gave the best demonstration what is the whole bunch of nothing is like. thank you much.

Dear brother Ignatios,

Sorry. But I didn’t see the word “infallibility” in any of the texts you quoted. Perhaps I missed it? If you don’t mind, can you point out again for us where exactly the Catholic Church teaches that the Church or the Council is infallible only because the Pope is infallible? And, like you, I am expecting actual texts, and not interpretations from you.

Blessings,
Marduk

Now you have added a new question to all the thing that I gave forth before, and that is, show me where it says that the council or the church is infallible apart from the Pope or without needing him for infallible declaration or anything ? As you been implying,

But to respond to your statement, There is nothing that the bishops or the E.C. in your church has, NOTHING that is, apart from the Pope.
Example, the Bishops or the E.C in your church need the Pope for whatever decission or decree they like to put out, and there is nothing that can be done without his approval, are we together on this? I assume so, if not please bring forth your proof and refute me.
On the other hand, the Pope can do whatever he may see fit and give a decree or anything, apart from them or apart from an E.C. and without any need of their consent.
What more would you like.?
And then finally, I asked you if I am mistaking as you said in your previous post PLEASE provide me with a ligit. interpretation of the CCC # 882, 883 and 884. amd then proove me wrong.

GOD Bless .