High Petrine view in the early Church

[jmj1984]

Yes, this is what I explained earlier - the issue between the Majority and Minority party was not the consensus, but the necessity of obtaining the consultation of all the bishops. Note that the Official Relatio (OR) presents the axiom “do nothing without the advice and consent of his brothers.” But in his response, he does not challenge the “consent” part, only the “advice” part. Again, take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses so you can see what these documents are actually saying.

Perhaps you should let the documents speak for yourselves rather than force your erroneous interpretation onto them

The relatio states that neither consultation nor consent is required and it does explicitly, one can therefore only assume that you are not reading the documents presented to but instead simply continuing to argue ab absurdam. The relatio does not distinguish between the two but simply states ‘As such, this type of necessity cannot have a place in the definition of a dogmatic constitution.’

Again, what do you pretend that your underlining proves? As previously explained, only the Pope acts as JUDGE (i.e., exercises the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium) during the specific instance when he is exercising infallibility as defined by V1. But this does not challenge the fact that the bishops themselves exercise the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium as WITNESSES, exactly as this excerpt states. This section is merely saying that the Pope indeed acts as the teacher of the whole Church, even of bishops, IN THE PARTICULARLY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE when he is DEFINING. It does NOT say, according to your Absolutist Petrine error, that the Pope is ALWAYS the be-all and end-all of doctrine in the Church.

The relatio states ‘For this is what the words of Christ and the words “supreme judge,” “universal doctor,” and “pastor of the whole flock of Christ” signify. So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls’. There is no mention of the need for the bishops consent or for them to act as witnesses once again you are reading things into a text that are simply not present in it. On top of that you appear to mixing up the extraordinary and infallible magisterium and the ordinary and merely binding or ordinary and universal (infallible magisterium). Its an understanble mix up but is nevertheless a serious mistake.

A worthy statement of the High Petrine position that has been the standard of the Catholic Church from the beginning. Followers of these debates between the Absolutist and High Petrine views will recognize that this contradicts the Absolutist Petrine error that it is ONLY the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility/authority.

And yet the relatio states ‘Therefore the bishops are not able to do anything in this regard without the Pope. But is the other case true, viz., that the Pope is not able to do anything in this regard without the bishops? This other part has no value, since Christ said to Peter alone: “You are Peter (Mt. 16:18) … I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32).’ Again you prove that you are simply quoting snippets, out of context and on top of this forcing your errors onto the text.

 

[jmj1984]

CONTINUED

As the subsequent section explains (which I also explained in a past post, to which you typically did not respond), this “do anything without the bishops” ONLY refers to the Pope’s singular role AS JUDGE during his PERSONAL exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (i.e., no other bishop is judge, unlike in an Ecumenical Council where ALL the bishops are judges). But this in no way devalues the NECESSARY ROLE OF ORTHODOX BISHOPS AS WITNESSES TO THE FAITH, AN ORTHODOX WITNESS THAT THE POPE CANNOT CONTRADICT WHEN HE DEFINES.

You love making this claim and yet you fail to produce any evidence to support it, perhaps you think that if you repeat a claim enough times it will suddenly become true? Your view is concilarist and also had a tingie of gallicianism, no matter how you try to disguie it or with how many sophisms you explain it your view has long been condemned by the church.

Again, as already explained earlier, it is not the consensus of the Church that is being debated, but merely the EXPLICIT CONSULTATION OF ALL THE BISHOPS.

Again, please take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses (blinders?), so you can being to understand the documents of the Church for what they are ACTUALLY teaching.

Really? No, Marduk it is you who simply cannot accept the documents presented to you. Your view has gone from simply being unreasonable into being absurd, you claim that documents that say ‘condemned’ actually say ‘not condemned’ and documents that say ‘yes’ actually say ‘no’ and vice-versa. You then try to hide this under endless ad hominem and ad absurdam attacks. Sadly its not working.

 

[jmj1984]

A COMMENDABLE PARRY, brother Louis!!! You are learning quickly! :bowdown2:

When one reads Pastor Aeternus IN CONTEXT, the Absolutist Petrine arguments melt to so much useless rhetoric. As stated in a previous post, CONTEXT is the bane of both the Absolutist and Low Petrine misinterpretations of the Decrees of V1.

Pastor Aeternus ITSELF, as you have ably pointed out, affirms that the Pope cannot contradict the consensus of the Faith held by the whole Church. The Official Relatio affirmed the same thing when it stated that the consensus of the PRESENT preaching of the WHOLE MAGISTERIUM is the RULE OF FAITH even for definitions by the Roman Pontiff. Brother JMJ, and other Absolutist Petrine advocates, have consistently challenged this Rule of Faith by which the Church has lived from its earliest days (to no avail, I might add ).

I had explained the SEEMING inconsistency in the Official Relatio in an earlier post. I hope you remember it. It had to do with the distinction between the bishops as NECESSARY WITNESSES (exercising the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium) versus the bishops as JUDGES (exercising the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium).

Oh what a surprise another insult and ad hominem attack, honestly Marduk you really could do with meditating on the virtues and seeing as the only people who recognise your rule of faith are
a)Liberal catholics who want justification to disobey the church and live according to the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II, and
b)Some eastern catholics, normally those who claim they are ‘orthodox in communion with rome’ in order that they can continue under the illusion that the only difference between them and the orthodox is that the latter are not in communion with rome.

It appears that it is you not I who is challenging the Church’s doctrine to no avail.

Your claims are not recognised in law or the magisterium of the church and are simply your opinion, an opinion you cannor substantiate with fact or authority but merely with insults, ad hominem attacks and mindless repetition

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t think that this part is true, at least according to what I have read elsewhere. I thought that the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra”
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4).
   So according to 5, this has to be held by the whole Church and it is a required condition.

I fail to see where you got part 5 from

It does not say anywhere that the view has to be held by the whole church, **what it states is that 'we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    that is, when,
        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
he possesses,
    by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. '**

 

[jmj1984]

'**Canon 92 - §1. The patriarch is to manifest hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, successor of Saint Peter, through the loyalty, veneration and obedience which are due to the supreme pastor of the entire Church.
§2. The patriarch must make a commemoration of the Roman Pontiff as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine Liturgy and divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books and to see that it is done faithfully by all the bishops and other clerics of the Church over which he presides.
§3. It is to be the custom for the patriarch to visit the Roman Pontiff and, according to the norms established especially for this, to send to him a report concerning the state of the Church over which he presides. Within a year of his election and then often during his tenure in office, he is to make a visit to Rome to venerate the tombs of apostles Peter and Paul and present himself to the successor of Saint Peter in primacy over the entire Church…Canon 76 - §1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches.
§2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

Canon 77 - §1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law.
§2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

Chapter II. The Rights and Obligations of Patriarchs

Canon 78 - §1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.
§2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise…Canon 98 - With the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the prior assent of the Roman Pontiff, the patriarch can enter into agreements with a civil authority which are not contrary to the law established by the Apostolic See; the patriarch cannot put these same agreements into effect without having obtained the approval of the Roman Pontiff…Canon 128 - The administrator of the patriarchal Church is:
1° immediately to inform the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops of the patriarchal Church of the vacancy of the patriarchal see;
2° to carry out accurately and to see that others carry out the special norms prescribed by common or particular law, or by an instruction of the Roman Pontiff, if one is given, for the various circumstances which occur during the vacancy of the patriarchal see;…Canon 163 - It should be the custom for the metropolitan to visit the Roman Pontiff frequently; he must make this visit every five years according to the norm of can. 208, §2, inasmuch as it is possible, he should do it together with all the bishops of the metropolitan Church over which he presides…Canon 182 - §1. Candidates suitable for the episcopate can be proposed only by members of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church who can, according to the norm of particular law, collect information and documents which are necessary to establish the suitability of the candidates, hearing, if they think it appropriate, secretly and individually, certain presbyters or also other Christian faithful outstanding in prudence and Christian life.
§2. The bishops are to report their findings to the patriarch at a suitable time prior to the convocation of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church. The patriarch, if the case warrants it, adding his own additional information, transmits the matter to all the members of the synod.
§3. Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
§4. The assent of the Roman Pontiff once given for an individual candidate is valid until it has been explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candidate is to be removed from the list…Canon 187 - §1. Canonical provision is necessary for anyone to be promoted to the episcopate, by which the person is constituted the eparchial bishop of a determined eparchy or by which another determined function in the Church is committed to him.
§2. Prior to episcopal ordination the candidate is to make a profession of faith and a promise of obedience to the Roman Pontiff and, in patriarchal Churches, also a promise of obedience to the patriarch in those matters in which he is subject to the patriarch according to the norm of law.
’ **

 

[jmj1984]

**…
Canon 209 - §1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine Liturgy and the divine praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done by the other clergy of the eparchy…Canon 322 - §1. When it seems opportune in the judgment of the Apostolic See, patriarchs, metropolitans of metropolitan Churches sui iuris, eparchial bishops, and, if the statutes so establish, other local hierarchs of various Churches sui iuris, even the Latin, exercising their authority in the same nation or region, are to be assembled at stated times for periodic assemblies by the patriarch or another authority designated by the Apostolic See in order that communicating the insights of prudence and experience, taking counsel together, the hierarchs work in accord as much as possible for the common good of the Churches, through which unity of action is fostered, common endeavors are facilitated, the good of religion is expeditiously promoted and ecclesiastical discipline is efficaciously preserved.
§2. The decisions of this assembly do not have juridically binding force unless they deal with things which in no way can be prejudicial to the rite of each and every Church sui iuris or to the authority of the patriarchs, synods, metropolitans and councils of hierarchs, and at the same time are passed by at least two-thirds of those members enjoying deliberative vote as well as approved by the Apostolic See.
§3. A decision, even if passed by unanimous vote, which in any way whatever exceeds the competence of the assembly lacks all force until it has been approved by the Roman Pontiff himself.
§4. Each and every assembly of hierarchs of several Churches sui iuris is to draw up its own statutes in which is fostered, insofar as possible, even participation of hierarchs of Churches which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. The statutes, to be valid, must be approved by the Apostolic See…Canon 396 - Except for the case in which the invalidity of sacred ordination has been declared, loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which is granted only by the Roman Pontiff…Canon 412 - §1. All religious are subject to the Roman Pontiff as their supreme superior, being bound by the obligation to obey him also in virtue of the vow of obedience.
§2. In order to provide better for the welfare of institutes and for the needs of the apostolate, the Roman Pontiff can by reason of his primacy over the universal Church, contemplating the common welfare, exempt institutes of consecrated life from the rule of the eparchial bishop and subject them to him alone or to another ecclesiastical authority.
** Code of Canons of the eastern churches

Again and again and again, the superiority and supreme power of the Pope is emphasised throughout the code.

 

[louis91766]

I fail to see where you got part 5 from

It does not say anywhere that the view has to be held by the whole church, **what it states is that 'we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    that is, when,
        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
he possesses,
    by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. **'

According to Father Sullivan: ‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.
“The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be “manifestly established.” What must be “manifestly established,” when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact.”
and in ‘Guideposts from Catholic tradition. Infallibility doctrine invoked in statement against ordination by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, by Francis A. Sullivan, The Tablet 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646.
“CANON 749 of the Code of Canon Law declares that no doctrine is understood to have been defined infallibly unless this fact is clearly established.”
“What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held. How can this be demonstrated? In his encyclical Evangelium vitae (March 1995) Pope John Paul II indicated one way this can be done–namely, by consulting all the bishops.”
"Another criterion was suggested by Pope Pius IX, who said that the response of faith must be given to “those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith” (Tuas libenter, 1863).
A third criterion is proposed in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that when a doctrine is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, this is “manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful.”
Official documents, then, have proposed three ways of establishing that a doctrine is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium: consultation with all the bishops, the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians and the common adherence of the faithful. "

 

[jmj1984]

According to Father Sullivan: ‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.
“The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be “manifestly established.” What must be “manifestly established,” when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact.”
and in ‘Guideposts from Catholic tradition. Infallibility doctrine invoked in statement against ordination by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, by Francis A. Sullivan, The Tablet 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646.
“CANON 749 of the Code of Canon Law declares that no doctrine is understood to have been defined infallibly unless this fact is clearly established.”
“What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held. How can this be demonstrated? In his encyclical Evangelium vitae (March 1995) Pope John Paul II indicated one way this can be done–namely, by consulting all the bishops.”
"Another criterion was suggested by Pope Pius IX, who said that the response of faith must be given to “those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith” (Tuas libenter, 1863).
A third criterion is proposed in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that when a doctrine is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, this is “manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful.”
Official documents, then, have proposed three ways of establishing that a doctrine is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium: consultation with all the bishops, the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians and the common adherence of the faithful. "

Quoting articles published in well known liberal catholic newspapers or liberal theologians or even modern theologians is not evidence nor is it going to convince anyone. Whereas papal encyclicals and statements from doctors of the church and saints are.

 

[ciero]

Around and around we go!!!

Another train wreck.

 

[Hesychios]

http://www.chandlerphotoimages.com/images/rails_and_trains/abandoned_train_wreck_2_l.jpg

 

[steve_b]

According Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515."The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be “manifestly established.” What must be “manifestly established,” when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way.

the pope does NOT need the consent of the Church, (i.e. bishops too) for a papal decree to be irreformable or obligatory for the Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8410296&postcount=106
the quote is from Vat I: Pastor aeternus
l:

I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact."

From Vat II Lumen Gentium (25)
his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment *footnote(*43) from Pastor aeternus Vat 1]
l:

and in ‘Guideposts from Catholic tradition. Infallibility doctrine invoked in statement against ordination by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, by Francis A. Sullivan, The Tablet 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646.
“CANON 749 of the Code of Canon Law declares that no doctrine is understood to have been defined infallibly unless this fact is clearly established.”

“What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held. How can this be demonstrated? In his encyclical Evangelium vitae (March 1995) Pope John Paul II indicated one way this can be done–namely, by consulting all the bishops.”

consent of the Church, isn’t a condition to make a pope’s teaching irreversable.
l:

"Another criterion was suggested by Pope Pius IX, who said that the response of faith must be given to “those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith” (Tuas libenter, 1863).
A third criterion is proposed in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that when a doctrine is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, this is “manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful.”
Official documents, then, have proposed three ways of establishing that a doctrine is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium*:* consultation with all the bishops, the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians and the common adherence of the faithful. "

Here’s the context of those canons,

Can. 749

• §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
• §2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
• §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750

• §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
• §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Those canons can’t be understood properly without reading, these canons that precede them
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

 

[louis91766]

Quoting articles published in well known liberal catholic newspapers or liberal theologians or even modern theologians is not evidence nor is it going to convince anyone.

This does not touch upon the argument itself, but is a form of ad hominem argument which you have condemned above, but embrace here.

Perhaps I should have added, ‘Nor will more ad hominem nonsense’

Seriously Marduk your arguments on this thread are degenerating into ‘he’s wrong because he’s an absolutist petrine thingy and thats that’.

But Father Sullivan is wrong because his article is published in a liberal catholic newspaper and he is a liberal theologian and thats that???

Absolutists petrine people are bad blah blah blah…

It is worth mentioning that William Cardinal Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, received his doctorate under Sullivan in 1971. If Father Sullivan is such a liberal theologian, then why did the Pope choose his student Cardinal Levada to be the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith?

 

[mardukm]

I’m sorry Marduk but this is simply nonsense. Detract means take away from, what this means is that a bishop does not have to ring up the Vatican and ask for permission every time he wants to do something in his diocese he has the authority to do what it certainly does not do is limit the popes power, impede and detract are not synonyms no matter how hard you try to claim they are, you will never find a dictionary defining them as this. My argument is not therefore an empty sophism, it is extremely relevant as it shows that once again you are forcing your erroneous interpreations onto texts rather than letting the texts speak for themselves.

So, the Pope cannot take away a bishop’s prerogatives, but you say the Pope can act without respect for those prerogatives, as if the bishop did not have any. Not the same thing. RIIIIIIGHT!

Leo XIII does not make the distinction, so why should I? Leo XIII simply compares the powers of the two and states that the Pope has exactly the same powers in a diocese as the bishop does. It is you who are forcing a distinction onto the text, the text itself does not make any distinction

Well, we already know that your camp likes to take myopic little snippets of statements to twist the actual intent of the Church. All you are doing is wrenching Pope Leo’s XIII statement outside the context of the V1 teaching that the Pope DOES NOT have the authority to detract from/impede the authority of a bishop in his own local diocese.

Because your posts are becoming less and less logical and more and more unreasonable.

Hasn’t stopped you from responding to other things. So this is your excuse? Just man up and admit that you can’t respond. Did you respond when I called you on your MISinterpretations of Pope St, Leo’s statement on how power is SHARED by the bishops with the Pope? NOPE. Did you response when I called you on trying to add the word “ABOVE” to a quote from Pope Leo XIII that merely stated that the authority of the Pope and the College is THE SAME. NOPE. Did you respond when I called you on your ignorance of the distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction? NOPE. Did you respond when I called you on your hypcrisy of trying to accuse brother Phillip and me of trying to set the Official Relatio against Mansi or other textbooks, when you were the only one doing so? NOPE. Have you responded to ANY of the FACTS that I related of what occurred behind the scenes of V1? Double NOPE. Please don’t let your ignorance and pride do the talking.

For your part I notice you have failed to address any of the texts that clearly contradict your position.

I already addressed your MISinterpretations. The texts are fine. What else have you got?

Canons? I don’t see any canons
They are papal encyclicals there is a difference. **What I have done is interpret the tradition of the church in context, you see papal encyclicals when placed within tradition don’t magically go out of date. **

I didn’t say that the encylical mentioned the word “canon.” I said YOU (and you alone) are trying to make a novel canon by cutting and pasting little snippets to support your errors.

Marduk I have no idea where you are getting this from

Oh! I thought you had heard of Machiavelli. I did not realize your were ignorant of his rather popular opus called “The Prince.” My fault.

The statement reads 'The Doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages’.

It does not condemn the idea itself for then it would read 'The Doctrine of those who compare the Roman pontiff to a free prince acting in the universal church’ and the ‘is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages’ would be superfluous and utterly pointless. Besides which those additional words change the meaning of the text, Pope Pius IX is condemning the idea that this doctrine only prevailed in the middle ages or was invented then not the idea itself. That is clear to any reasonable person.
Ummm. The statement reads, “THE DOCTRINE of those…” That means it is condemning the IDEA.:banghead:

Lets read what the text actually says shall we? 'The excessive decisions of the Roman Pontiffs contributed too much to the division of the Church into east and west’ No mention there of east and west so stop reading your own erroneous ideas into the text.

:banghead: You JUST quoted the actual text that used the words “east and west” and THEN you claim “No mention there of east and west”?!!! Give it up, brother.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

More ad hominem nonsense. It appears you simply can’t debate with people who disagree with you without insulting other people.

I really don’t think you know what the term ad hominem means. Permit me to explain. When able rhetoricians use the term, they are referring to statements ABOUT the opponent THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. It is NOT an ad homimem to claim that someone has erred and thereafter provide reasons for it. Please stop trying to get people to feel sorry for you by claiming I am using ad homimem. It’s getting tiring. You can only cry “wolf!” so often.:tsktsk:

Which it did. If you cannot see that in the text then it is pretty clear that you have become utterly unable to distinguish between your personal opinion and the truth or facts.

No it didn’t. It would have said “The doctrine that the Pope was a free prince ONLY in the Middle Ages.” But the world ONLY is missing. Just like the word ONLY (as in “ONLY the Pope”) is missing from all the other texts that you cited, trying to pawn off the error that the Pope can act separated or apart from his brother bishops. Again, stop imposing your errors on the texts that you are citing. Take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses, and you will see what the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is.

The Absolutist Petrine errors are to be classed with the “sola” errors of Protestants. High Petrine Catholics reject sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola papa.

I have already pointed this out several times Marduk. 'The doctrine of those who compare the Roman Pontiff to a free prince in the Universal Church is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. It is clearly not condemning the doctrine itself or the last part of the sentence would be irrelevant, nor that that point of view existed and was common in the middle ages for it was, it must be condemning the idea that said doctrine only prevailed or was invented in the middle ages. Of course this is obvious from the text but seeing as you wanted it broken down…

The DOCTRINE (or IDEA) it is condemning is “the COMPARISON of the Pope to a free prince in the Middle Ages.” It is not condemning the idea that “the Pope was a free prince ONLY in the Middle Ages.” Please take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses to see more clearly. You admitted your ignorance of Machiavelli, which is why you are unfamiliar with what the term “free prince” actually means. Sir, the term “free prince” refers to a DICTATOR. It is very sad that you believe the Pope is a dictator and that you actually defend that idea.:tsktsk:

No Marduk I’m sorry that is an illogical and myopic interpretation. It condemns the idea that bishops rights cannot be altered or hindered and that bishops can refuse to follow the popes orders if they believe it is not for the good of their flock something you have repeatedly stated to be true. That is EXPLICIT within the text. Nor for that matter does Pope Pius VI make any mention of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ indeed he explicitly condemns the idea that the Pope can only interfere in extraordinary circumstances something I have repeatedly shown. Once again you are imposing your own interpretation onto a text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

Ummm. You forgot to quote the part that says, “whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power.” This means IN CONTEXT that a bishop CANNOT act separated from the College, which is a higher authority than any individual bishop. Your error is that you think this “higher hierarchic power” refers to the Pope ALONE. Take that myopic log out of your eye, brother. Please prove to us that the term “higher hierarchic power” refers to the Pope ALONE, that it cannot refer to (1) ANY head bishop (i.e. Metropolitan, Patriarch, Primate, Pope, etc.), (2) the local Synod to which the bishop belongs, or (3) the Ecumenical Council. We’ll be waiting. Your typical silence or avoidance will be answer enough.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You insist on going on and on and on about this point of view and yet produce no support of this view whatsoever None of the sources I have cited made this distinction nor even mentioned it. I therefore remain unconvinced that this is nothing but yet another one of your attempts to force your own interpretations onto the text. Oh and I see you are trying to compare the pope with other head bishops :tsktsk: The magisterium is clear that there is a difference not only in degree but also in type of power between the Pope and ALL other bishops

Our canons make a distinction between “Ordinary jurisdiction” and “proper jurisdiction,” a distinction that was contained even in the old Canon Law of 1917. Your ignorance of Canon Law is only a reflection on you, not on the High Petrine ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

Did anyone deny this

You did. You explicitly stated that the the positions and powers of the Patriarchs have been CLEARLY DEFINED. You were in error because the positions and powers of Patriarchs in relation to the UNIVERSAL Church have never been clearly defined. If you want to admit that you were unclear in your statement, say so. As it stands, your statement was wrong.

No, I merely pointed out the Popes legitimate rights, which you have been unable to refure or deny. As for your going on and on and on about V2 it seems you would like us to ignore the many many encyclicals of the pontiffs that dealt with this issue and repeatedly asserted the Popes rights

No one here is attempting to deny or refute the LEGITIMATE rights of the Popes, only your errors and MISinterpretations.

Would you care to prove this bizzare assertion? If you are right someone better to tell the author of ‘Apologetics and Catholic dogma’ which clearly states that the ordinary magisterium is NOT infallible, but the ordinary and universal magisterium is. Seeing as that book was revised and published by baronius press in 2008 I highly doubt its wrong but feel free to contact them

I couldn’t care less what a Latin apologist has to say. But I must ask forgiveness for presuming that we mean the same thing when we communicate. HIgh Petrine Catholics always think with a collegial mindset, whereas Absolutist Petrine advocates constantly try to separate the head from the body (while Low Petrine advocates separate the body from the head). When I say “ordinary Magisterium,” this means TO ME (as an adherent of the High Petrine view) the UNIVERSAL ordinary Magisterium, which is represented by the Pope in union with his brother bishops. In the same way, when I use the term “COLLEGE,” I already understand this to mean the Pope in union with his brother bishops. To me, saying “the College of bishops in union with the Pope” is redundant. Similarly, when High Petrine advocates, especially in the Orthodox Church, use the term “Council” or “Synod,” it is already ingrained in us that this means “the head bishop in union with his brother bishops.” It is redundant for High Petrine Orthodox (whether in communion with Rome or not) to say “the Council and the head bishop” or “the Synod and the head bishop,” for the head bishop is an INHERENT part of the definition of a “Synod” or “Council” (or, for High Petrine Catholics, the term “College”). So, I agree that my terminology was wrong, since I am talking to an Absolutist Petrine advocate. I will be more careful next time to explicitly state “Ordinary and UNIVERSAL Magisterium” (since that is what I meant) ESPECIALLY if I speak to a LATIN Catholic.

Actually I never mentioned this Once again you are misrepresenting the views of others in order to further your own agenda.

No, I didn’t. That is why I used the word “SEEMS,” my overreactionary brother.

An ‘error’ which every source I have cited supports, how curious.

You have yet to cite an EXPLICIT text, devoid of your imposed misinterpretations. All you’ve cited are documents that say that (1) the Pope has PERSONAL prerogatives, and (2) the Pope has UNIQUE prerogatives that other bishops don’t have. NOTHING you’ve quoted states that these prerogatives can be exercised apart or separated from his brother bishops.

Actually no. Infallibility can come either from the extraordinary magisterium or the ordinary and universal magisterium,

I’m glad you admit that the extraordinary Magisterium is not the only thing invested with infallibility.

you cannot show that either the official relatio

I already did. You typically failed to address it. It is a FACT that V1 was the first Council where a special Committee was invested with the AUTHORITY to formulate its Decrees FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. It is a FACT that this Committee chose an OFFICIAL spokesperson to EXPLAIN WHAT THE DECREE WAS INTENDED TO TEACH. Oppose its teachings at your own risk. I was willing to grant that you may be invincibly ignorant. But I’m beginning to suspect that brother Ciero is correct that you are just close-minded. Prove me wrong, brother, and divest yourself of your errors.

or the whole of Vatican II met either of these requirements.
Collegiality was a DOCTRINAL principle proposed by the UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM exercised by the Fathers of V2 - iow, INFALLIBLE.

Seeing as ‘Apologetics and Catholic Dogma’ clearly states it does not, perhaps you should inform them that they are in error? You can google Baronius Press, I’m sure theres a contact form there

I would suggest that you don’t come on here to the ECF and attempt to pawn off your Traditionalist sources as having any sort of doctrinal authority.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Marduk,

This thread is excellent, chock-full of highly useful summaries and explanations. Thank you for starting it - and especially for the information at the beginning of the thread! Those historical explanations were wonderfully helpful.

HELLO, brother Fonebone!!! I’m glad to see your handle on this thread. Thank you for your complement.

I just wanted to ask. What do you think of brother JMJ’s interpretation of the “free prince” issue?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I maybe reading you incorrectly in your response.

Just for clarification, according to point #5 that means the pope intends for the entire Church to believe the teaching he is proclaiming. It doesn’t mean under that rubric (ex-cathedra), that the entire Church has to approve (as a condition) what the pope teaches before it is infallible .

I think you are right. I thought he was making an allusion to:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Obviously, the deposit of faith was not transmitted to the Popes ALONE, but to the ENTIRE CHURCH, and according to this portion of Chapter 4, the Pope has no authority to contradict this Faith of the entire Church, especially as preached by the whole Magisterium. That’s how the Official Relatio explains it, and it is better to understand the Decrees of Vatican 1 according to the understanding proposed by the Fathers who formulated the Decrees, wouldn’t you say?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps you should let the documents speak for yourselves rather than force your erroneous interpretation onto them

The relatio states that neither consultation nor consent is required and it does explicitly, one can therefore only assume that you are not reading the documents presented to but instead simply continuing to argue ab absurdam. The relatio does not distinguish between the two but simply states ‘As such, this type of necessity cannot have a place in the definition of a dogmatic constitution.’

Ummm. What “necessity cannot have a place in the definition?” It says quite clearly:
“we are dealing with a strict and absolute necessity of episcopal advice and help in every dogmatic judgment of the Roman Pontiff.”:banghead:
And it does not say merely “necessity”; it says “strict and absolute necessity.” So the PRACTICAL necessity of approaching the bishops still stands. Whatever else, the Relatio does not challenge the necessity of the consensus of Faith. Try to read the entire context, instead of focusing on your little snippets.

The relatio states ‘For this is what the words of Christ and the words “supreme judge,” “universal doctor,” and “pastor of the whole flock of Christ” signify. So, on that point, too, the adduced comparison limps, and the consequence about the necessity of the advice of the bishops falls’. There is no mention of the need for the bishops consent or for them to act as witnesses once again you are reading things into a text that are simply not present in it. On top of that you appear to mixing up the extraordinary and infallible magisterium and the ordinary and merely binding or ordinary and universal (infallible magisterium). Its an understanble mix up but is nevertheless a serious mistake.

Ummm. You missed the part that states “But now it is asked whether the bishops also - although they are constituted by God as witnesses, teachers and judges of the Christian faith - do not relate to the Pope as disciples to teacher, when he is defining for the whole Church and exercising his duty as universal teacher.” The bishops ARE WITNESSES and GOD CONSTITUTED THEM AS SUCH, AND YOUR ABSOLUTIST PETRINE ERRORS CAN IN NO WAY REFUTE THIS FACT. Your error is that you presume that when the Pope takes on his adjudicatory and pedagogic role in the SPECIFIC (not “regular,” according to another one of your many errors) instance defined by V1, the GOD-CONSTITUTED role of bishops as witnesses suddenly disappears. WHERE DOES THE OFFICIAL RELATIO SAY THAT THIS GOD-CONSTITUTED ROLE OF THE BISHOPS DISAPPEARS? We’ll be waiting for your answer. We will consider your typical silence or avoidance as an appropriate response.

And yet the relatio states ‘Therefore the bishops are not able to do anything in this regard without the Pope. But is the other case true, viz., that the Pope is not able to do anything in this regard without the bishops? This other part has no value, since Christ said to Peter alone: “You are Peter (Mt. 16:18) … I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32).’ Again you prove that you are simply quoting snippets, out of context and on top of this forcing your errors onto the text.

Yes. The Pope performs the ROLE OF JUDGE (i.e., exercises the EXTRAordinary Magisterium) PERSONALLY in the unique (NOT “regular,” according to another of your errors) circumstances defined by V1, and no other bishop shares in this role during this unique circumstance. What his brother bishops do is perform their GOD-CONSTITUTED role as WITNESSES to the Faith. Now, it may be that the witness of one group of bishops contradicts the witness of another group of bishops. It is the Pope’s role to exercise the EXTRAordinary Magisterium and act as JUDGE to determine which witness is the orthodox witness. But - MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT - there WILL be a group of orthodox bishops in the Church, and the Pope has NO AUTHORITY to contradict the orthodox WITNESS of these orthodox bishops. Try to refute that claim, if you can. Your silence or avoidance will be accepted as the proper response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Well done, brother Louis.

Blessings,
Marduk

According to Father Sullivan: ‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.
“The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be “manifestly established.” What must be “manifestly established,” when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact.”
and in ‘Guideposts from Catholic tradition. Infallibility doctrine invoked in statement against ordination by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, by Francis A. Sullivan, The Tablet 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646.
“CANON 749 of the Code of Canon Law declares that no doctrine is understood to have been defined infallibly unless this fact is clearly established.”
“What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held. How can this be demonstrated? In his encyclical Evangelium vitae (March 1995) Pope John Paul II indicated one way this can be done–namely, by consulting all the bishops.”
"Another criterion was suggested by Pope Pius IX, who said that the response of faith must be given to “those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith” (Tuas libenter, 1863).
A third criterion is proposed in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that when a doctrine is proposed as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium, this is “manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful.”
Official documents, then, have proposed three ways of establishing that a doctrine is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium: consultation with all the bishops, the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians and the common adherence of the faithful. "

 

[mardukm]

the pope does NOT need the consent of the Church, (i.e. bishops too) for a papal decree to be irreformable or obligatory for the Church.

From Vat II Lumen Gentium (25)
his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment

consent of the Church, isn’t a condition to make a pope’s teaching irreversable.

Of course not. But neither is it irreformible or obligatory simply because the Pope says it is. It is regarded as irreformible because of God’s help and Christ’s promise, not because “the Pope said so” or because “the Church said so.” It is ONLY after the Pope has ensured that he does not or will not contradict the consensus of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium that he is authorized to exercise the infallibility of the Church in a personal way for an ex cathedra decree, That is the explanation of the Official Relatio. We will trust it, rather than your Absolutist Petrine misinterpretations.

]§1*. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

What part of the highlighted porition above supports the “Pope alone” error?

Blessings