High Petrine view in the early Church

[jmj1984]

Also, the first citation, brings it four:

Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3 Section 25, citations from the Relatio.

(43) Cfr. ecplicatio Gasscr in Conc. Vat. I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.
(44) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1214 A.
(45) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.
(46) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1213.

Good question. Lumen Gentium states:

And therefore 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. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*)

Quoting specific sections of a source does not imply approval of the entirity of that source no more than quoting Origen or Tertullian implies approval of his later heretical views. So even if Vatican II quoted the Relatio it proves nothing, unless it quotes the sections which Mardukm is using to support his views. If this then was proved you could say that the ordinary magisterium approved of it but you could not say that the ordinary and universal magisterium approved of it and therefore the view that would still remain not infallible.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jmj,

Where did I say it was unimportant?

You granted some kind of relevance to Denzinger’s lack of mention. That is not a reflection on Denzinger’s opinion, but yours.

I said that Denzinger considered it unimportant, the editors of which certainly know more than either you or me, so please read what I wrote before you reply.

And why should Denzinger’s opinion be considered of greater weight than the Fathers of Vatican 1? Please explain. What part of the Official Relatio do you contest?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Quoting specific sections of a source does not imply approval of the entirity of that source no more than quoting Origen or Tertullian implies approval of his later heretical views. So even if Vatican II quoted the Relatio it proves nothing, unless it quotes the sections which Mardukm is using to support his views. If this then was proved you could say that the ordinary magisterium approved of it but you could not say that the ordinary and universal magisterium approved of it and therefore the view that would still remain not infallible.

I’m not aware of an Ecumenical Council quoting Origen or Tertullian approvingly. Are you? Please let us know which ones. Otherwise, your comparison is invalid.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

Dear brother jmj,

You granted some kind of relevance to Denzinger’s lack of mention. That is not a reflection on Denzinger’s opinion, but yours.

And why should Denzinger’s opinion be considered of greater weight than the Fathers of Vatican 1? Please explain. What part of the Official Relatio do you contest?

Blessings,
Marduk

Have you even read Denzinger? As someone who acts as if he knows something about theology I would hope you have? You are at least aware of what it is right?

I did not grant relevance to denzingers lack of mention, Henry Denzingers ‘The sources of Catholic Dogma’ is exactly what it says, a book providing the sources of catholic dogma. For it to omit something that you rely so heavily on is telling, why? Because it tells us that the editors of Henry Denzinger, multiple editors for all the various editions, did not consider it a source of catholic dogma. You on the other hand believe that it is or you would not be using it as such.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m not aware of an Ecumenical Council quoting Origen or Tertullian approvingly. Are you? Please let us know which ones. Otherwise, your comparison is invalid.

Blessings,
Marduk

The comparision is entirely valid as both are used as sources of catholic dogma and their orthodox writings comprise part of the church fathers writings.

 

[Vico]

Where did I say it was unimportant? I said that Denzinger considered it unimportant, the editors of which certainly know more than either you or me, so please read what I wrote before you reply.

" If the document was so important I hardly think it would have been left out"

 

[Vico]

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI

“Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s on November 21, 1964.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[josethomas2005]

Well according to St Chrysostom the successor of St Peter is Ignatius

Quote:
Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved”

And in another place Chrysostom says this:
Quote:
: “Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor.

The great American Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons said, “Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?”

The formerMajor Arch bishop of Syro Malabar Catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, “What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Rome is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior?”

The Major Archbishop of Syro Malankara Catholic church Baselius Mar Cleemis says, “According to Antiochean tradition, Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of Apostle Peter and head of the Christian church. Archbishop Joseph Powathil presided over my election as Major Archbishop. Archbishop Powathil adviced me to be sincere and faithful to Antiochean tradition and Antiochean liturgy always”

The following are excerpts from the Seventh Joint Unofficial Dialogue between Churches of the Syriac Tradition in 2004. The topic was “Primacy in the Syriac Tradition.”

The Dialogue has members from the following Churches:
Assyrian Church of the East
Ancient Church of the East,
Chaldean Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Maronite Church
Syrian Orthodox Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Malankara Catholic Church.
There is also an observer from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

We have to be careful not to draw hasty conclusions according to our own traditions and sensitivities. Catholics should not apply immediately to the present position of the Bishop of Rome each reference to a preeminence of St. Peter, while the Orthodox should not minimize immediately such reference because of their non-acceptance of the Roman primacy in its present form.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jmj,

The comparision is entirely valid as both are used as sources of catholic dogma and their orthodox writings comprise part of the church fathers writings.

NIce try, but no cigar.

The insurmountable difference between Origen and Tertullian as sources, on the one hand, and the Official Relatio, on the other, is that the Official Relatio was produced by the Fathers of the first Vatican Council, which is the source of our dogmas on the papacy.

Perhaps you are not aware of who Bishop Gasser is. Bishop Gasser was the spokesman for the Committee De Fide at Vatican 1. The Committee De Fide was the group of bishops who formulated the Decrees on the papacy. Do you understand what that means? It means that the Official Relatio represents the PROPER AND CORRECT understanding of the Decrees of the Council as the Council Fathers themselves intended them to be understood.

You try to diminish the importance of the Official Relatio, and thereby show yourself to be at odds with Vatican 1. But Absolutist Petrine advocates do not really have a proper understanding of Vatican 1 anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Have you even read Denzinger? As someone who acts as if he knows something about theology I would hope you have? You are at least aware of what it is right?

I did not grant relevance to denzingers lack of mention, Henry Denzingers ‘The sources of Catholic Dogma’ is exactly what it says, a book providing the sources of catholic dogma. For it to omit something that you rely so heavily on is telling, why? Because it tells us that the editors of Henry Denzinger, multiple editors for all the various editions, did not consider it a source of catholic dogma. You on the other hand believe that it is or you would not be using it as such.

No, I haven’t read Denzinger. I am somewhat familiar with the title you profferred. But I couldn’t care less if Denzinger’s did not mention the Official Relatio.

You IMPROPERLY invest a dogmatic relevance to his work which it does not deserve.

At least I am appealing to the authority of a document produced by Fathers of Vatican 1 itself, who were sure to have a MUCH better understanding of what the Council intended than you or this Denzinger fellow you mention.

What are Denzinger’s qualifications? Did he sit on the Committee that was responsible for formulating the dogmas on the papacy at Vatican 1? Was he even a member of the First Vatican Council? Why should we place any relevance on his mere silence (i.e., your whole point is an argument from silence, which from any rhetorical perspective is an INVALID argument) when we have a positive statement from Vatican 1 on the actual meaning of the Decrees?

Check and mate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I too am wondering what is Denziger’s authority. I’ve heard a number of people reference his work, but merely as a reference, not in such a dogmatic fashion as I’ve seen here. I’ve also heard a number of people express dissatisfaction with his work because it is one-sidedly Roman and, therefore, does not express the full diversity of approach in the Catholic Church.

Was Denziger a bishop? Was he a member of one of the Roman Congregations or the Curia? Was he commissioned by his bishop, or the Pope to compile the work that he did? Was he anything more than a scholarly priest who was attempting to compile a reference book, albeit not exhaustive, that would point to a number of the sources of Catholic dogma? In other words, from whom do he and his book derive their authority?

Just curious.

 

[steve_b]

Also, the first citation, brings it four:

Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3 Section 25, citations from the Relatio.

(43) Cfr. ecplicatio Gasscr in Conc. Vat. I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.
(44) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1214 A.
(45) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.
(46) Gasser, ib.: Mansi 1213.

Good question. Lumen Gentium states:

And therefore 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. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43) *

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*)

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*)

Thanks for the response

There’s a dramatic distinction being discribed here between Footnote #43 vs #'s 44, 45, 46

Your thoughts on the distinction

 

[malphono]

Was Denziger a bishop? Was he a member of one of the Roman Congregations or the Curia?

FWIW, I’ve found no listing for a “Denziger” as bishop either on Vico’s favored GCatholic.com or on Catholic-Hierarchy.org. From that, it would seem to be safe to assume that he was none of the above.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

FWIW, I’ve found no listing for a “Denziger” as bishop either on Vico’s favored GCatholic.com or on Catholic-Hierarchy.org. From that, it would seem to be safe to assume that he was none of the above.

Thanks, Malphono. That’s all I was looking for.

 

[steve_b]

Well according to St Chrysostom the successor of St Peter is Ignatius

Quote:
Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved”

you cut the quote short. Here’s what’s missing

“But after we had him (Peter) for our own teacher we did not retain him but transfered him to imperial Rome.”
j:

And in another place Chrysostom says this:
Quote:
: “Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor.

I think you’re trying to get too much mileage out of that shortened quote…

“Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor. But after we had him for our teacher, we, did not retain him, but transferred him to imperial Rome.”

You’re leaving out an important part of the quote
j:

The great American Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons said, “Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there. What is the authority of Rome?”

Are you sure that is a real quote? Where’s the source?

Gibbons DID write the following

Peter occupied for a time the city of Antioch as his first See. But, in the mysterious providence of God, he abandoned Antioch and repaired to Rome; and now, little remains of the ancient Antioch of Peter’s day except colossal ruins.
Had the Popes remained in Antioch, Syria would now very probably be, instead of Europe, the centre of Christianity and civilization. The immortal Dome of St. Peter’s would, doubtless, overshadow the banks of the Orontes instead of the Tiber; and Antioch, not Rome, would be the focus of art, science, and sacred literature, and would be called today “The Eternal City.”

cathcorn.org/foof/12.html

please read that entire page.
j:

The formerMajor Arch bishop of Syro Malabar Catholic church Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil says, "What is the authority of Rome? On what basis Rome is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch who is head and superior?"

Just before he died he wrote this to P, Benedict
ernakulamarchdiocese.org/admin/cms/docs/n_high/83.pdf
j:

The Major Archbishop of Syro Malankara Catholic church Baselius Mar Cleemis says, “According to Antiochean tradition, Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of Apostle Peter and head of the Christian church. Archbishop Joseph Powathil presided over my election as Major Archbishop. Archbishop Powathil adviced me to be sincere and faithful to Antiochean tradition and Antiochean liturgy always”

The Syro Malankara Catholic church is in full communion with Rome. Are you saying the Archbishop is NOT
j:

The following are excerpts from the Seventh Joint Unofficial Dialogue between Churches of the Syriac Tradition in 2004. The topic was “Primacy in the Syriac Tradition.”

The Dialogue has members from the following Churches:
Assyrian Church of the East
Ancient Church of the East,
Chaldean Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Maronite Church
Syrian Orthodox Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Malankara Catholic Church.
There is also an observer from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

We have to be careful not to draw hasty conclusions according to our own traditions and sensitivities. Catholics should not apply immediately to the present position of the Bishop of Rome each reference to a preeminence of St. Peter, while the Orthodox should not minimize immediately such reference because of their non-acceptance of the Roman primacy in its present form.

And as you noted, it’s an unofficial dialogue.

 

[jmj1984]

Dear brother jmj,

NIce try, but no cigar.

The insurmountable difference between Origen and Tertullian as sources, on the one hand, and the Official Relatio, on the other, is that the Official Relatio was produced by the Fathers of the first Vatican Council, which is the source of our dogmas on the papacy.

Perhaps you are not aware of who Bishop Gasser is. Bishop Gasser was the spokesman for the Committee De Fide at Vatican 1. The Committee De Fide was the group of bishops who formulated the Decrees on the papacy. Do you understand what that means? It means that the Official Relatio represents the PROPER AND CORRECT understanding of the Decrees of the Council as the Council Fathers themselves intended them to be understood.

You try to diminish the importance of the Official Relatio, and thereby show yourself to be at odds with Vatican 1. But Absolutist Petrine advocates do not really have a proper understanding of Vatican 1 anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

I tell you what, produce this official relatio. You insist on referencing it so produce it. And while your at it produce someone of authority pronouncing authoritatively, or better several people, that it is an authoritative document and source of catholic dogma.

As for the rest of your statement it consists of the same ad hominem and presumptions that are apparently inherent in almost anything you write.

 

[jmj1984]

No, I haven’t read Denzinger. I am somewhat familiar with the title you profferred. But I couldn’t care less if Denzinger’s did not mention the Official Relatio.

You IMPROPERLY invest a dogmatic relevance to his work which it does not deserve.

At least I am appealing to the authority of a document produced by Fathers of Vatican 1 itself, who were sure to have a MUCH better understanding of what the Council intended than you or this Denzinger fellow you mention.

What are Denzinger’s qualifications? Did he sit on the Committee that was responsible for formulating the dogmas on the papacy at Vatican 1? Was he even a member of the First Vatican Council? Why should we place any relevance on his mere silence (i.e., your whole point is an argument from silence, which from any rhetorical perspective is an INVALID argument) when we have a positive statement from Vatican 1 on the actual meaning of the Decrees?

Check and mate.

Blessings,
Marduk

Really? Well then your no theologian and its not worth having a discussion with you, if you can’t even admit the importance of a standard theological textbook, a book that was written on the express instruction of Pope Pius IX, then you put yourself beyond the pale of any serious theological discussion.

 

[jmj1984]

I too am wondering what is Denziger’s authority. I’ve heard a number of people reference his work, but merely as a reference, not in such a dogmatic fashion as I’ve seen here. I’ve also heard a number of people express dissatisfaction with his work because it is one-sidedly Roman and, therefore, does not express the full diversity of approach in the Catholic Church.

Was Denziger a bishop? Was he a member of one of the Roman Congregations or the Curia? Was he commissioned by his bishop, or the Pope to compile the work that he did? Was he anything more than a scholarly priest who was attempting to compile a reference book, albeit not exhaustive, that would point to a number of the sources of Catholic dogma? In other words, from whom do he and his book derive their authority?

Just curious.

Actually yes he was commisioned by Pope Pius IX to create the book and it has remained the de facto official statement on the sources of Catholic Dogma ever since. And until all this changes what critics may or may not say doesn’t matter in the least.

 

[jmj1984]

Thanks, Malphono. That’s all I was looking for.

So because he wasnt a bishop we dont have to listen to him?
Sorry but no, the book was originally written by him, commisioned by Pope Pius IX, has been updated ever since (the original was published in the 1840’s, so for the last 160 odd years) and remains the standard theological textbook as regards catholic dogma. Simply put if you cannot accept it as a reliable source of catholic dogma you cannot claim to be an orthodox catholic theologian and if you are not or do not claim to be then you should not attempt to expound theological matters. Attacking Denzingers ‘Sources of Catholic Dogma’ is as silly as attacking St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, it is as invaluable as the latter when it comes to sources of catholic dogma.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Actually yes he was commisioned by Pope Pius IX to create the book and it has remained the de facto official statement on the sources of Catholic Dogma ever since. And until all this changes what critics may or may not say doesn’t matter in the least.

No need to get snippy, I was sincerely interested in whether or not Denziger had been commissioned or held any authority outside of that bestowed upon him by others.

Incidentally, to save Marduk the time, the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican I is available from Ignatius Press in the book “The Gift of Infallibility,” wherein the complete Relatio is contained, plus a commentary (not from one of the Council Fathers).

I must say that, as usual, I’m with Marduk on this one. The text voted on by the Council Fathers and its official explanation/clarification through Bishop Gasser’s Relatio is what bears authority here, not Denziger. A Council and its proceedings always bear more authority than an individual, no matter who commissioned said individual.