J
jmj1984
Guest
Steve B has done so several times, I believe I also have done so. If he wants to put them up again he may, I will not be repeating myself.
- Status
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I suppose. I meant legitimate papal decisions. Not even the pope can violate Catholic teaching - and it is indeed the Catholic position that papal decisions must not manifestly usurp the *proper *authority of a local bishop. I know you guys have been debating on these matters with great specificity, but I guess I just don’t understand how disagreement is possible when I’ve seen that position explicitly asserted by the papacy’s official interpretation of the First Vatican Council…
Yes, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned - although that’s not really how it’s supposed to work. An ex cathedra papal pronouncement cannot (even on a practical, historical level) ever be overturned.
Judging by the rest of your reply, I don’t think we actually disagree, Steve. Our disagreement seems to be semantics only.
Of course; I was assuming that. Papal confirmation is a necessary ingredient for a conciliar teaching to be universally binding.
I’m not claiming that there are no examples of this, but it’s certainly conspicuous that the most famous examples do not meet this criterion. The infallible pronouncement as dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950, for instance, was pretty much the result of many, many Catholic bishops around the world petitioning the papacy to declare that belief a dogma of the Catholic faith.
J
jmj1984
Guest
If I may it appears to be that a common misconception has arisen on this thread which I will attempt to address. This misconception is that one only has to obey the Pope when he is infallible or that it is legitmate to disobey him when speaking fallibly as he may be wrong. This misconception is totally false.
Regardless of whether the Pope is speaking infallibly or fallibly one must obey him as he is exercising the authority given to him by Christ as Supreme Pontiff, father and teacher of all the faithful, the vicar of Jesus Christ and God’s representative on earth.
This is clearly stated by the First Vatican Council.
The First Vatican Council states on the matter '**And so,
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
Wherefore we teach and declare that,
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. **’ In other words whether one likes it or not, one must obey the Holy Father in matters of faith morals and the discipline and government of the church even when he is not speaking infallibly, furthermore to deny this one endangers ones faith and salvation.
The teaching can also be found in the Papal Brief 'Super Soliditate’ by Pope Pius VI, and the encyclical 'Auctorem Fidei’ by the same Pope as well as Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical 'Satis Cognitum’, Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors’, Pope Clement VI in 'Super Quibusdam’ and in the Second council of Lyons and The Council of florence.
The only circumstance in which a Person is permitted to disagree with a popes definitive teaching is when:
1)It contradicts infallible teaching
2)It contradicts natural or divine law
3)It contradicts holy scripture
4)It is aimed at the destruction of souls
5)It denies the truth of the sacraments
6)It goes against the articles of faith
Aside from this a person must for the good of their soul and in order to safeguard their eternal salvation submit to the Pope’s teaching.
Taking all this into account, a bishop or even all the bishops in the world, cannot without endangering their salvation refuse to obey papal teaching even if it is not infallible, simply because they don’t like it or believe it is not for the good of their dioceses. Indeed this view was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius VI. They can only refuse to do this if one of the above reasons definitely and undeniably exists.
In light of this therefore the question of whether and how many times a pope has acted infallibly without the consultation of the bishops is completely irrelevant.
However there are circumstances where the Pope has done so and four of these are:
1)Benedictus Deus an edict in which Pope Benedict XII defined the beatific vision and last judgement, stating inter alia that the saints receive the beatific vision immediately after death and prior to the resurrection of the body and the general judgement. He corrected the erroneous view of his predecessor in these matters and declared several matters infallibly, which I am sure you can find online. There is no mention of consultation in the edict and given the time in which it was issued there is no reason to suppose that there was any consultation.
2)Unam Sanctam where it is stated 'Furthermore, we declare, say, defines, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman pontiff’. There is no consensus on whether the statement is infallible or not but seeing as it meets the definition of the First Vatican Council I cannot see how it would not be.
3)The tome of Leo to Flavian.
4)Letter of Pope Agatho on the two wills of Christ to the third council of constantinople
In both the latter cases, though they were requested they did not rely on the assent of the bishops for their authority nor consultation, indeed there would have no point in consultation as the documents were written to councils.
Regardless of whether the Pope is speaking infallibly or fallibly one must obey him as he is exercising the authority given to him by Christ as Supreme Pontiff, father and teacher of all the faithful, the vicar of Jesus Christ and God’s representative on earth.
This is clearly stated by the First Vatican Council.
The First Vatican Council states on the matter '**And so,
Code:
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.Wherefore we teach and declare that,
Code:
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. **’ In other words whether one likes it or not, one must obey the Holy Father in matters of faith morals and the discipline and government of the church even when he is not speaking infallibly, furthermore to deny this one endangers ones faith and salvation.
The teaching can also be found in the Papal Brief 'Super Soliditate’ by Pope Pius VI, and the encyclical 'Auctorem Fidei’ by the same Pope as well as Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical 'Satis Cognitum’, Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors’, Pope Clement VI in 'Super Quibusdam’ and in the Second council of Lyons and The Council of florence.
The only circumstance in which a Person is permitted to disagree with a popes definitive teaching is when:
1)It contradicts infallible teaching
2)It contradicts natural or divine law
3)It contradicts holy scripture
4)It is aimed at the destruction of souls
5)It denies the truth of the sacraments
6)It goes against the articles of faith
Aside from this a person must for the good of their soul and in order to safeguard their eternal salvation submit to the Pope’s teaching.
Taking all this into account, a bishop or even all the bishops in the world, cannot without endangering their salvation refuse to obey papal teaching even if it is not infallible, simply because they don’t like it or believe it is not for the good of their dioceses. Indeed this view was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius VI. They can only refuse to do this if one of the above reasons definitely and undeniably exists.
In light of this therefore the question of whether and how many times a pope has acted infallibly without the consultation of the bishops is completely irrelevant.
However there are circumstances where the Pope has done so and four of these are:
1)Benedictus Deus an edict in which Pope Benedict XII defined the beatific vision and last judgement, stating inter alia that the saints receive the beatific vision immediately after death and prior to the resurrection of the body and the general judgement. He corrected the erroneous view of his predecessor in these matters and declared several matters infallibly, which I am sure you can find online. There is no mention of consultation in the edict and given the time in which it was issued there is no reason to suppose that there was any consultation.
2)Unam Sanctam where it is stated 'Furthermore, we declare, say, defines, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman pontiff’. There is no consensus on whether the statement is infallible or not but seeing as it meets the definition of the First Vatican Council I cannot see how it would not be.
3)The tome of Leo to Flavian.
4)Letter of Pope Agatho on the two wills of Christ to the third council of constantinople
In both the latter cases, though they were requested they did not rely on the assent of the bishops for their authority nor consultation, indeed there would have no point in consultation as the documents were written to councils.
J
jmj1984
Guest
References to the Relatio arent going to get you any points, seeing as this is very much disputed. Further I see how you say ‘this is the catholic teaching’ and dont prove it…
J
johnnykins
Guest
I have stayed out of the fray for some time aware of the adamantine illogic and errors you propound - not worth getting into it on a forum. However, a few comments you make deserve some response:
“Being a learned theologian, he was as bishop, cardinal, and pope, keenly interested in scholastic discussions. He terminated the controversy on the vexed question as to whether the Beatific Vision was enjoyed before or only after the General Judgment. John XXII had advocated the latter view and stirred up vigorous discussion. Eager to solve the question, Benedict heard the opinions of those maintaining the theory of deferred vision, and, with a commission of theologians, gave four months to patristic research.” (emphasis added)
newadvent.org/cathen/02430a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
“The chief event of Agatho’s pontificate is, however the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 680, at which the papal legates presided and which practically ended the Monothelite heresy. Before the decrees of the council arrived in Rome for the approval of the pope, Agatho had died.”
newadvent.org/cathen/01204c.htm
and
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.asp
"THE LETTER OF AGATHO, POPE OF OLD ROME, TO THE EMPEROR, AND THE LETTER OF AGATHO AND OF BISHOPS OF THE ROMAN SYNOD, ADDRESSED TO THE SIXTH COUNCIL.
(Read at the Fourth Session, November 15, at the request of George, Patriarch of Constantinople and his Suffragans.)
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
(Bossuet, Defensio Cler. Gal. Lib. VII., cap. xxiv.)
All the fathers spoke one by one, and only after examination were the letters of St. Agatho and the whole Western Council approved.** Agatho, indeed, and the Western Bishops put forth their decrees thus** 'We have directed persons from our humility to your valour protected of God, which shall offer to you the report of us all, that is, of all the Bishops in the Northern or Western Regions, in which too we have summed up the confession of our Apostolic Faith,…"
And from the letter itself:
…and taking advice with my fellow-servant bishops, as well concerning the approaching synod of this Apostolic See, as concerning our own clergy, the lovers of the Christian Empire, and, afterwards concerning the religious servants of God, that I might exhort them to follow in haste the footsteps of your most pious Tranquillity…
IMHO - You really have a distorted view of the Petrine office that unfortunately blinds you and colors your reading.
Actually, there is reason to suppose there was consultation based on the entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( I know you will discount it, but it certainly references “heard opinions” and “four months” of study):
“Being a learned theologian, he was as bishop, cardinal, and pope, keenly interested in scholastic discussions. He terminated the controversy on the vexed question as to whether the Beatific Vision was enjoyed before or only after the General Judgment. John XXII had advocated the latter view and stirred up vigorous discussion. Eager to solve the question, Benedict heard the opinions of those maintaining the theory of deferred vision, and, with a commission of theologians, gave four months to patristic research.” (emphasis added)
newadvent.org/cathen/02430a.htm
I guess we simply chalk you up to one side of the non-consensus.
Again, hardly a lock, but the Catholic Encyclopedia sure indicates an investigation: “Eutyches appealed to the pope after he had been excommunicated by Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, on account of his Monophysite views. The pope, after investigating the disputed question, sent his sublime dogmatic letter to Flavian (ep. xxviii), concisely setting forth and confirming the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the union of the Divine and human natures in the one Person of Christ.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
Oddly, it’s part of a COUNCIL - and he clearly seems to have consulted others:
“The chief event of Agatho’s pontificate is, however the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 680, at which the papal legates presided and which practically ended the Monothelite heresy. Before the decrees of the council arrived in Rome for the approval of the pope, Agatho had died.”
newadvent.org/cathen/01204c.htm
and
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.asp
"THE LETTER OF AGATHO, POPE OF OLD ROME, TO THE EMPEROR, AND THE LETTER OF AGATHO AND OF BISHOPS OF THE ROMAN SYNOD, ADDRESSED TO THE SIXTH COUNCIL.
(Read at the Fourth Session, November 15, at the request of George, Patriarch of Constantinople and his Suffragans.)
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
(Bossuet, Defensio Cler. Gal. Lib. VII., cap. xxiv.)
All the fathers spoke one by one, and only after examination were the letters of St. Agatho and the whole Western Council approved.** Agatho, indeed, and the Western Bishops put forth their decrees thus** 'We have directed persons from our humility to your valour protected of God, which shall offer to you the report of us all, that is, of all the Bishops in the Northern or Western Regions, in which too we have summed up the confession of our Apostolic Faith,…"
And from the letter itself:
…and taking advice with my fellow-servant bishops, as well concerning the approaching synod of this Apostolic See, as concerning our own clergy, the lovers of the Christian Empire, and, afterwards concerning the religious servants of God, that I might exhort them to follow in haste the footsteps of your most pious Tranquillity…
The point is in each case the Pope did consult with the Church though that is not the source of his authority - the inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes the statements authoritative.
IMHO - You really have a distorted view of the Petrine office that unfortunately blinds you and colors your reading.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Not looking for any points. Just indicating the positions that I see no way around. If I believed that Catholic teaching were on your side on this matter, I couldn’t in good conscience remain Catholic. The Catholic Church would not have the credibility of continuity in that case.
J
jmj1984
Guest
And yet I believe these things and am still catholic.
J
jmj1984
Guest
An excellent ad hominem attack, but utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.
And did he consult all the bishops? No one claims a pope doesnt consult theologians or do theological research, it would be very odd for him not to. But he doesn’t have to consult and poll the worlds bishops or agree with their opinions. In this case he clearly did not go around consulting the worlds bishops.
And the point of this is what exactly?I guess we simply chalk you up to one side of the non-consensus.
And this is supposed to prove what? No one believes that he simply decided out of the blue, but neither did he go around consulting all the bishops and doing a straw poll.
So in this case the Pope did in fact consult, that still does not mean he had to.
Again no one claims the pope doesnt seek the opinions of theologians or even fellow bishops, but he does not go around seeking the approval or conducting straw polls and in some cases he does not even consult.
And your contribution to this thread is… another ad hominem attack
J
jmj1984
Guest
There are in fact numerous cases of a Pope acting authoritatively and definitively settling some controversy without consultation:
1)The letter of St Clement I to the Corinthians DS 41
2)The second epistle of St Donysius against the Tritheists and Sabellians DS 48
3)The letter of St Julius to the Antiochenes DS 57a
4)The letter of St Anastasius on the Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius to Venerius DS 93
5)The epistle of St Hormisdas on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff DS 171
6)The anathema on heretics issued by Pope Gregory IX DS 444, The letter to Olaus bishop of Lyons on the Matter and Form of ordination, DS 445
7)The law ‘Gloriosam Ecclesiam’ which condmnes various errors and heresies by Pope John XXII, DS 484, the edict on the poverty of Christ by the same Pope DS 494, The Errors of Padua and John of Jandun DS 495 and the Errors of Eckart DS 501
8)The Errors of the Armenians by Pope Boniface XII at DS 532
The list is frankly endless but in more modern times we have also:
9) The errors of the Synod of Pistoia by Pope Pius VI, DS 1501ff
10)The Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX, DS 1700ff
11)The encyclical condemning Americanism by Pope Leo XIII DS 1967ff
12)The encyclical on the false doctrines of the modernists by Pope St Pius X DS 2071
To claim that the pope must consult or even has a duty to consult is simply false as the Pope has not done so on hundreds of occasions and as everyone must submit to this legitimate authority it is manifestly absurd to maintain the claim that he must do so.
1)The letter of St Clement I to the Corinthians DS 41
2)The second epistle of St Donysius against the Tritheists and Sabellians DS 48
3)The letter of St Julius to the Antiochenes DS 57a
4)The letter of St Anastasius on the Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius to Venerius DS 93
5)The epistle of St Hormisdas on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff DS 171
6)The anathema on heretics issued by Pope Gregory IX DS 444, The letter to Olaus bishop of Lyons on the Matter and Form of ordination, DS 445
7)The law ‘Gloriosam Ecclesiam’ which condmnes various errors and heresies by Pope John XXII, DS 484, the edict on the poverty of Christ by the same Pope DS 494, The Errors of Padua and John of Jandun DS 495 and the Errors of Eckart DS 501
8)The Errors of the Armenians by Pope Boniface XII at DS 532
The list is frankly endless but in more modern times we have also:
9) The errors of the Synod of Pistoia by Pope Pius VI, DS 1501ff
10)The Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX, DS 1700ff
11)The encyclical condemning Americanism by Pope Leo XIII DS 1967ff
12)The encyclical on the false doctrines of the modernists by Pope St Pius X DS 2071
To claim that the pope must consult or even has a duty to consult is simply false as the Pope has not done so on hundreds of occasions and as everyone must submit to this legitimate authority it is manifestly absurd to maintain the claim that he must do so.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Well, of course you are. I haven’t meant to imply that you’re a heretic or anything like that, nor do I believe you are. Even Marduk (last I checked, that is) acknowledges that Catholic teaching is still a little ambiguous: it can be interpreted in a more Absolutist Petrine way, although such an interpretation requires a great deal of counterintuitive and ahistorical intellectual gymnastics.
J
jmj1984
Guest
From where I’m standing its Marduks position that requires the gymastics and reading against the clear meanings of texts.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Of course the clearest example of where a Pope consulted with theologians and I believe bishops and then simply decided most of them were simply wrong is the encyclical humanae vitae by Pope Paul VI.
The Pope clearly decided to legislate against the majority view and against most of the consultation he had received.
The Pope clearly decided to legislate against the majority view and against most of the consultation he had received.
S
steve_b
Guest
No one is saying the pope doesn’t seek council from others.
k:
Consult is not the issue.
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]
k:
Here’s one.
The Assumption of Mary is an infallible belief. It will never change. It is irreversable. It can’t be overtruned by another pope or any other authority and Catholics are required to believe it…
S
steve_b
Guest
Key words according to Jimmy Akins, of Catholic Answers, tell us which teachings are infallible.
"We declare and define" are tip off words, particularly “define”.
jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html (increase the size of the link for easier reading)
L
louis91766
Guest
But can it be developed using the teaching on development of doctrine?
J
johnnykins
Guest
Precisely! It’s not a vote! Majority rule is not the touchstone. Revealed truth is the touchstone. That is exactly Gasser’s point about the consent of the Church not being needed. That does not mean, contrary to your gyrations, that the Pope is separate from the Church or that he acts without the consent of the Church - it means Truth is not subject to a vote, either before or after. That is the nuance that you keep missing and messing up.
BTW asserting in an argument that someone is illogical or propounding error is not an ad hominem attack. It is a disagreement with the purported logic and conclusions of the individual. You may not like it - and may well disagree - but it is a risk of any dispute. If I had asserted your illogic were due to some personal foible or condition, say physical attractiveness or being a Yankees fan, that would be an ad hominem argument. You toss out “facts” (e.g., Letter of P. Agatho, above) that are not facts and throw in claims of ad hominem attacks that are not ad hominem attacks. The proper response to someone asserting you are illogical is to assert the logic of your position. To hide behind improper assertions of ad hominem attacks is a serious sign of weakness, especially when caught red-handed making a false “factual” assertion.
BTW, too, my contribution, above, was that your 4 examples are all erroneous.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I don’t think anyone is saying that the pope has to overtly consult other bishops and then act in agreement with them when defining something. There are other ways to consult the consensus of the Church.
In the case of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI very much acted in accord with what Chesterton calls “the democracy of the dead” - with the living witness of the Catholic Church throughout her history. So yes, he went against the opinions of the bishops advising him, and we all agree that that was his prerogative. It doesn’t mean he acted independently of the Church, of Tradition, or even of the episcopate.
J
johnnykins
Guest
Exactly! Take out the prepositional clauses and you have the unremarkable statement:
It is the assistance of the Holy Spirit at work that makes them “irreformable”!! It is not the consent of the Church that makes them irreformable. That does not mean, however, that the Pope is: (i) separated from, (ii) lacking the consent of, or (iii) acting apart from, the Church. The Pope is never separated from, lacking the consent of or acting apart from the Church. That is the point! That is what Gasser makes clear. It is the absolutist position that Gasser sought to gainsay, because some Council Fathers thought the definition was absolutist. That the spokesman for the Deputation says, in effect, that the absolutist interpretation is erroneous and NOT what the formula means, is, IMHO, dispositive once the formula with Gasser’s explanation was approved by Pio Nono.
Pio IX made the formula “his definition” and “his definition” came with Gasser’s explanation - hence it’s irreformable and binding on all.
That’s the argument, in any case.
T
twf
Guest
Exactly! JMJ and the other Absolutists seem to miss the implications of the fact that the Church teaches that the ordinary magisterium of the Church shares in the Church’s infallibility. The bishops in union with the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium and share in its infallibility - not individually, but collectively. Marduk has never once implied that the Pope must explicitly consult or “take a vote” each and every time he makes a decision…but rather that the Pope always acts with the Church and not apart from it. Pope Paul of blessed memory was very much aware that the consistent witness of the ordinary magisterium, including the majority of bishops down through the ages, testified to the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception. The Church is clear, from the Patristic witness down to Vatican II (and in the current Catechism) that the bishops are not mere deputies of the Pope. Ideally the Pope works with his brother bishops, as the Church clearly teaches that the supreme governing authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him - but even in extraordinary cases when he must, in the literal sense, “act alone”, such as in the above example regarding contraception (in which case many bishops had fallen into heresy on this particular issue), the Pope still acts in union with the collective testimony of the ordinary magisterium, which includes all bishops, down through the ages…
Like with so many other controversial issues, it is the beautiful, yet sometimes confusing, nuance of Catholic doctrine that can lead to disagreement…
J
jmj1984
Guest
Sorry what exactly are you stating here? Did anyone state that the Pope was seperate from the church? No Did I even hint in a state anywhere that I believed the Pope was seperate from the church? No So where you got this idea from is beyond me
You are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the views of others as supporters of the ‘High petrine View’ are want to do.I stated that the Pope could act separately and without the consultation of the bishops and even in opposition to them. That is all. If you are going to engage others in a discussion please understand their position properly first otherwise you merely engage in strawman attacks and misrepresent the other persons views.
You appear to be a little too pleased with yourself, I don’t see that you have any reason to be.BTW asserting in an argument that someone is illogical or propounding error is not an ad hominem attack. It is a disagreement with the purported logic and conclusions of the individual. You may not like it - and may well disagree - but it is a risk of any dispute. If I had asserted your illogic were due to some personal foible or condition, say physical attractiveness or being a Yankees fan, that would be an ad hominem argument. You toss out “facts” (e.g., Letter of P. Agatho, above) that are not facts and throw in claims of ad hominem attacks that are not ad hominem attacks. The proper response to someone asserting you are illogical is to assert the logic of your position. To hide behind improper assertions of ad hominem attacks is a serious sign of weakness, especially when caught red-handed making a false “factual” assertion.
To claim that something is illogical or wrong and then add a descriptive in front of the word ‘illogical’ without making any attempt to claim why or substantiate you claim, is essentially an ad hominem attack. 'This is wrong because your logic is…’ is essentially what you did, without substantiating your claim.I don’t see why nor do I see any proof that they are. It is becoming somewhat clear to me that you are attacking strawmen and failing to adequately understand the views expressed in this discussion. Until you do so your statements and replies will be utterly pointless as they will not be relevant to the discussion.
- Status