High Petrine view in the early Church

[jmj1984]

Okay, I’m going to leave the rest of your objections to Marduk, but I can’t let this one go. It has been pointed out, time and again, that making an argument from absence is no argument at all. The fact that Denziger ommits any reference to the Relatio says nothing about the Relatio itself. Your three points are pure speculation on your part. I could just as vailidly say, "Denziger ommits the Relatio, which means:

1. He was unfamiliar with it (which shows possible ignorance).
2. It did not support his conception of Papal infallibility.
3. He simply forgot about it when compiling his book.

Now if I were to follow your rhetoric I would have perfectly good grounds to say that Denziger was either ill-informed, or was alined to a theo-political view of the papacy that supported what we have come to call the “Absolutist Petrine” view, and that chose to forward that view even against the dictates of history and good theology. I’m not saying that this is the case, simply pointing out that such speculation is possible.

Finally, as you have pointed out, Denziger is a textbook. Scholars know that in any sort of research - theological, philosophical, historical, etc. - a textbook is only a point of reference and does not substitute for the primary sources. Any argument made from a textbook is automatically debunked by an argument from the sources. Primary sources, in any form of research, always take precedence over secondary and tertiary sources such as textbooks and source books.

If you insist that Denziger is not a textbook, but a source book, then, as I’ve pointed out many times, it is not an exhaustive source book. Any ommission made says nothing about the documents ommitted. It only says that the author himself, usually for the sake of space, felt that it was more important to include certain texts. Compilers of sources have to make these sort ommissions constantly. Some times they make them with great hesitation. But for the sake of space the ommission is made. It says nothing about the authority of the text ommitted.

Again, as has been pointed out several times, the Relatio is a primary source for understanding Pastor Aeternus. It was commissioned by the Committee that drafted all the drafts of Pastor Aeternus. Bishop Gasser was asked to give this address to the Vatican Fathers in order that they might understand exactly what it was they were voting on. It therefore represented the official understanding of Pastor Aeternus voted upon by the Fathers of the Council. History itself dictates that the Relatio is an important, if not the most important, document for understanding Pastor Aeternus. Any denial of this is simply bad history, which, in turn, has led to bad theology and misunderstanding. And if you think that bad history and certain ommissions for the sake of forwarding one’s own position does not go on in the Church, then simply do an honest and open study of the 1054 Schism.

However your three points would be invalid because Denzinger is neither a book with an agenda nor compiled by forgetful people nor ignorant. An argument from omission does work when the de facto work horse textbook on the subject does not include it and neither did the previous 10-15 editions.

Your assertion that it is one of the most important if not the most important document necessary in understanding the necessary Vatican 1 document would require the editors of every edition of Denzinger since the First Vatican Council until the 30th to have either been forgetful, ignorant or have an agenda. That is unlikely in the extreme considering the authority Denzinger wields.

Likewise it would require all those who believed in a position higher than that of the so called ‘High petrine position’ but lower than the ‘absolutist position’ to be likewise ill informed or dishonest, this would include so great a number of venerable people that it is again extremely unlikely.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

However your three points would be invalid because Denzinger is neither a book with an agenda nor compiled by forgetful people nor ignorant. An argument from omission does work when the de facto work horse textbook on the subject does not include it and neither did the previous 10-15 editions.

Your assertion that it is one of the most important if not the most important document necessary in understanding the necessary Vatican 1 document would require the editors of every edition of Denzinger since the First Vatican Council until the 30th to have either been forgetful, ignorant or have an agenda. That is unlikely in the extreme considering the authority Denzinger wields.

Likewise it would require all those who believed in a position higher than that of the so called ‘High petrine position’ but lower than the ‘absolutist position’ to be likewise ill informed or dishonest, this would include so great a number of venerable people that it is again extremely unlikely.

My point was that making an argument from ommission is pure speculation and therefore cannot hold any real weight. Another point is that Denziger is merely a textbook/sourcebook and, therefore, neither exhaustive nor the final authority. Claiming a book has no agenda is impossible. Everyone has some sort of agenda when writing or compiling a book. There is no such thing as an unbiased, purely objective book or opinion. So it would be perfectly valid to speculate on the agenda/bias of those who compiled the Denziger book. But it would have to be admitted that this is speculation, and not fact. I admitted that what I said was only speculation. Likewise your argument that Denziger’s ommission means that the Relatio has no authority is, again, pure speculation. AN ARGUMENT FROM OMMISSION IS NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.

The argument from ommission still does not work, even if Denziger’s is the “de facto workhorse textbook.” Why? Because it is just that, a textbook. Textbooks, as I said before, are merely points of reference. They give us basic guidelines and sources for studying whatever subject we are studying. They are not definitive, nor are they exhaustive. Primary sources always take precedence over a textbook. The Relatio is a primary source, therefore it takes precedence over Denziger. Also, as has been shown, Vatican II deemed the Relatio worthy of quoting/footnoting. Your argument that only the sections that were referenced are seen as important is just silly. Does Denziger quote everything that Aquinas wrote? If not, well then just what he quoted must be important.

My assertion that the Relatio is one of the most, if not the most important document for understanding Pastor Aeternus is based off of the principles of good academic research, particularly good historical and theological research. I did not assert that its ommission from Denziger meant the editors were ignorant or forgetful. I speculated that this could be the case for the sake of making an example.

For the last time, the reason the Relatio is so important is because it was the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus, given at Vatican I by a member of the Commission that drafted Pastor Aeternus at the request of that Commission. It was this understanding that the Fathers had in mind when they voted on the document. It de facto represents the official understanding of Pastor Aeternus.

 

[steve_b]

The Relatio also seems to be at odds with the very definition proposed by Gasser and the Deputation that was explained by the Relatio to the Council Fathers (hence the need to explanation by Gasser!):

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

The fact is the Relatio is not at odds with either Pastor Aeternus or Lumen Gentium. He, the Pope, is not acting separate from the Church, but as an integral part of the Church - hence the consent of the Church is not missing, and it is in fact an integral part of the the Pope’s actions.

the pope is not seperate from the Church, he doesn’t require the consent of the Church in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals. You’ll see that explained below.
j:

Yet it is not the Consent which makes it infallible, but the very assistance of God Almighty.

Yes, Just as the text states
“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 (43)”
j:

There is a nuance here that you are missing. The Pope and the Church are not separated as you would have us interpret Pastor Aeternus.

To say that the pope can’t make a decision irreformable without the consent of the Church is conciliarism. That was condemned at Vat I. Gasser even goes into an elaborate description of that error in the link we’ve all been directed to. I posted Gasser’s comment previously

Gasser’s comments

“Are not the laity, among whom there are very many who are outstanding in knowledge and piety, and, even more, are not the priests who exercise the duty of teaching their parishioners, are not they all members of the Church? Who would doubt it? Therefore, should these also help the Pope by their advice and aid when he makes dogmatic judgments? By no means. And why not? Is it not because they do not belong to the Church teaching? All right, but at the same time it is evident that the analogy about the head and members limps. 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. Such is the case. 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…”

“[W]hoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth.”

 

[johnnykins]

“[W]hoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others? The arbitrary character of this outlook is seen especially when one is dealing with subsequent assent, either tacit or expressed. History is a witness to what anxieties, commotions and scandals come forth. But, wait, there is more. This system or outlook is completely subversive of all papal infallibility if the consent of the whole Church is required by it. For then there would exist in reality only one infallibility, that which resides in the whole body of the teaching Church. But in that case, the decrees of the Roman Pontiff can and should be reformed by a general council inasmuch as, in the meantime, the assent of the Church would not be so manifest that it could not be denied. And lest we fall again into the infallibility of the Pontiff decreeing by himself alone, the Pope would not be able to confirm any but those decrees of a council which were pleasing to a majority of the bishops or rather to the unanimity of the bishops. But what if the bishops did not agree among themselves? It would be the end of judgment in the Church, it would be the death knell of the Church which, according to the Apostle, should be the column and foundation of truth.”

The consent is there - it’s the “manifest consent” that is not required. That’;s the point. Gasser even says in the same speech:
“Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. "

Unless you are suggesting a complete disconnect in the same speech, it is pretty clear, to me at least, that the distinction is unambiguous. It’s the Vote or “manifest” consent that is not required - and constitutes conciliarism.

 

[robfgard]

POPE ST. CLEMENT
Absolutist Petrine position – The episode demonstrates the absolute, universal jurisdiction of the Pope, since he made an authoritative judgment for another particular Church. It may or may not connote universal jurisdiction, but Absolutist Petrine advocates often don’t account for the fact that (1) this was an exercise of appellate authority, and (2) the letter was in the name of the Church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome himself, so the letter demonstrates neither absolute nor unilateral authority by the bishop of Rome.

Low Petrine position – Low Petrine advocates don’t have a leg to stand on as far as Pope Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians is concerned. The example utterly refutes their error that a head bishop has no juridical authority in dioceses outside his own local diocese. The best they can do is mitigate the matter by claiming that the Church of Corinth was within the proper ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome because it was within the political jurisdiction of the civil power (in other words, his juridical authority did not extend universally, but only as far as the jurisdiction of the Roman civil power extended). There are several errors in that thinking. First of all, the marriage of Church and State did not occur until the time of Constantine. To think that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was tied to or bounded by civil jurisdiction at the time of this letter is a gross anachronism (and they pretend Catholics are the ones who try to read things back into history! Oh, the hypocrisy!). Secondly, even if Corinth was within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome, it was nevertheless outside the boundaries of the local Roman Church. Whatever else may be said of the extent of the Roman bishop’s juridical authority, it is certain that from the beginning, it was recognized to extend beyond his local diocese, and beyond the suburbican centers of Rome (contrary to non-Catholic interpreters of the Nicene Canons).

The High Petrine position – A head bishop’s intervention into and juridical authority in the affairs of a local Church is normatively exercised only by appeal, as the situation of this Letter proves. Though it is merely appellate juridical authority (in opposition to the Absolutist Petrine view), it is juridical authority nonetheless (in opposition to the Low Petrine view). Unlike the Absolutist Petrine view, the High Petrine position would focus more on the fact that another “particular Church” appealed to the bishop of Rome, rather than the fact of his intervention. Further, that the letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome, instead of the bishop himself, demonstrates the collegial nature of formal acts of the bishop of Rome in the early Church.

Dear Brother Mardukm,

I make bold to say that by assigning any Petrine authority to this letter you are involved in anachronisms. The church, at this point, assigned the primacy to Rome based upon it being the place where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred (it might be too early yet to consider also the fact that it was the imperial city and known for being very conservative). Indeed, the letter from St. Clement makes no mention of Peter, his chair, or any such claim. What we have is a Pauline community (as scripture makes plain) answering the concerns of another one of his communities. Why do you assume this has anything to do with later papal claims?

In Christ,
Bob

 

[steve_b]

The consent is there - it’s the “manifest consent” that is not required.

manifest = easily understood

I don’t think you understand what Gasser is saying in that long quote.
j:

“Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. "

consent is with him and not lacking to him, but that consent of the Church is NOT a condition required for efficacy of his dicision either prior to, or after the decision. That’s why the following quote says

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

That’s why when someone says* , *that the pope can’t make a decision irreformable without the consent of the Church, that is a mixture of conciliarism and gallicanism. And it was condemned at Vat I.

 

[robfgard]

That’s why when someone says* , *that the pope can’t make a decision irreformable without the consent of the Church, that is a mixture of conciliarism and gallicanism. And it was condemned at Vat I.

I agree with you that it is irreconcilible with Vatican I, but why should we consider Vatican I to be “ecumenical” in the first place? According to the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341814?eng=y

1. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
   – it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
   – the pope of Rome has to be a “co-operator” or “fellow worker” (synergos) with the council;
   –** the patriarchs of the East have to be “in agreement” (symphronountes);**– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
   – the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole.
   Though the role of the pope does receive specific mention here, there are different interpretations of the terms, symphonia, synergos and symphronountes. This matter needs further study.

And

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
39…This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which** rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term**, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose.

So while Vatican I makes some pretty big claims it is noteoworthy to consider that it doesn’t fit the definition of an ecumenical council. At this point it is a general council of the west as those claims have not been accepted by the other patriarchs, most noteably the Orthodox.

Yours,
Bob

 

[jmj1984]

My point was that making an argument from ommission is pure speculation and therefore cannot hold any real weight. Another point is that Denziger is merely a textbook/sourcebook and, therefore, neither exhaustive nor the final authority. Claiming a book has no agenda is impossible. Everyone has some sort of agenda when writing or compiling a book. There is no such thing as an unbiased, purely objective book or opinion. So it would be perfectly valid to speculate on the agenda/bias of those who compiled the Denziger book. But it would have to be admitted that this is speculation, and not fact. I admitted that what I said was only speculation. Likewise your argument that Denziger’s ommission means that the Relatio has no authority is, again, pure speculation. AN ARGUMENT FROM OMMISSION IS NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.

The argument from ommission still does not work, even if Denziger’s is the “de facto workhorse textbook.” Why? Because it is just that, a textbook. Textbooks, as I said before, are merely points of reference. They give us basic guidelines and sources for studying whatever subject we are studying. They are not definitive, nor are they exhaustive. Primary sources always take precedence over a textbook. The Relatio is a primary source, therefore it takes precedence over Denziger. Also, as has been shown, Vatican II deemed the Relatio worthy of quoting/footnoting. Your argument that only the sections that were referenced are seen as important is just silly. Does Denziger quote everything that Aquinas wrote? If not, well then just what he quoted must be important.

My assertion that the Relatio is one of the most, if not the most important document for understanding Pastor Aeternus is based off of the principles of good academic research, particularly good historical and theological research. I did not assert that its ommission from Denziger meant the editors were ignorant or forgetful. I speculated that this could be the case for the sake of making an example.

For the last time, the reason the Relatio is so important is because it was the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus, given at Vatican I by a member of the Commission that drafted Pastor Aeternus at the request of that Commission. It was this understanding that the Fathers had in mind when they voted on the document. It de facto represents the official understanding of Pastor Aeternus.

St Thomas Aquinas is not a source of Catholic Dogma, St Thomas Aquinas is the pre-eminent theologian of the church and his writings carry the weight of a doctor of the church they are not however sources of Catholic Dogma.

If you are not actually asserting anything, then your speculations are pointless. My point was and still is that it is bizzare considering the importance and particular interpretation being given to the relatio that Denzinger omits it. That is an entirely reasonable observation to make given that Denzinger will be the first point of reference for catholic theologians when it comes to sources of Catholic Dogma.

I’m not entirely sure where St Thomas Aquinas came into this discussion to be honest? You cannot state that because a council quotes a document the entire document is therefore approved, you can only state that the particular sections quoted in the way the council understands them are part of the ordinary magisterium. That is all.

Nor do I understand why you are setting Denzinger against the relatio, Denzinger is by its very nature a collection of primary sources, the fact it omits the relatio is entirely relevant therefore.

It is also quite a leap to state that the relatio is the official understanding or what the council fathers had in mind, we have no idea what the council fathers had in mind. What we do know is the infallible statements of the council are De Fide, it is perhaps better to stick to them than speeches made by bishops. Especially when that speech would have to be seen in the light of tradition and when we have no idea whether the bishops and the holy father agreed or disagreed with part or all of the relatio or if they understood it the same way you or Marduk does.

Lastly that understanding of the relatio does not appear to be backed up by contemporary catholic writers and collections of Dogma such as books authored by priests i.e ‘On the threshold of the catholic church’ or The Baltimore Catechism or Catechism of St Pius X who advocated a position similar to that of the absolutist position.

 

[steve_b]

I agree with you that it is irreconcilible with Vatican I, but why should we consider Vatican I to be “ecumenical” in the first place? According to the *Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church *

Hi Bob :tiphat:

The article you reference, the Ravenna Document
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

has the following note at the top of the document. (emphasis mine)

“The following is the original English text of the ‘Ravenna Document’ which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has provided translations of the text in Italian, French and German.”

iow, it’s a discussion. It’s not official, it is not part of Church teaching. It is not binding on anyone.

rob:

And

So while Vatican I makes some pretty big claims it is noteoworthy to consider that it doesn’t fit the definition of an ecumenical council. At this point it is a general council of the west as those claims have not been accepted by the other patriarchs, most noteably the Orthodox.

Yours,
Bob

Keep in mind, what was said previously, statements from the Ravenna Document aren’t meant to be considered Church teaching. It was just a discussion. Much like we’re having.

Re: ecumenical status, or definition of, these are Catholic Church councils.(all rites).
Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees

Therefore, the decrees that are approved by the pope, from a council that was called as an ecumenical council, qualifies as binding universally. In an ecumenical council all the Catholic Church meets East (all rites) and West. That doesn’t mean that if every single Catholic bishop East or West doesn’t show up, it is not ecumenical. (just a clarification)

Re: The E Orthodox. They are always invited to the council… However, It is not a condition they show up or participate to make a Catholic Church council ecumenical. Especially considering they are not in union with the chair of Peter.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

St Thomas Aquinas is not a source of Catholic Dogma, St Thomas Aquinas is the pre-eminent theologian of the church and his writings carry the weight of a doctor of the church they are not however sources of Catholic Dogma.

If you are not actually asserting anything, then your speculations are pointless. My point was and still is that it is bizzare considering the importance and particular interpretation being given to the relatio that Denzinger omits it. That is an entirely reasonable observation to make given that Denzinger will be the first point of reference for catholic theologians when it comes to sources of Catholic Dogma.

I’m not entirely sure where St Thomas Aquinas came into this discussion to be honest? You cannot state that because a council quotes a document the entire document is therefore approved, you can only state that the particular sections quoted in the way the council understands them are part of the ordinary magisterium. That is all.

Nor do I understand why you are setting Denzinger against the relatio, Denzinger is by its very nature a collection of primary sources, the fact it omits the relatio is entirely relevant therefore.

It is also quite a leap to state that the relatio is the official understanding or what the council fathers had in mind, we have no idea what the council fathers had in mind. What we do know is the infallible statements of the council are De Fide, it is perhaps better to stick to them than speeches made by bishops. Especially when that speech would have to be seen in the light of tradition and when we have no idea whether the bishops and the holy father agreed or disagreed with part or all of the relatio or if they understood it the same way you or Marduk does.

Lastly that understanding of the relatio does not appear to be backed up by contemporary catholic writers and collections of Dogma such as books authored by priests i.e ‘On the threshold of the catholic church’ or The Baltimore Catechism or Catechism of St Pius X who advocated a position similar to that of the absolutist position.

Okay, I’m done. This discussion is going nowhere.

 

[robfgard]

Hi Bob :tiphat:

The article you reference, the Ravenna Document
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

has the following note at the top of the document. (emphasis mine)

“The following is the original English text of the ‘Ravenna Document’ which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has provided translations of the text in Italian, French and German.”

iow, it’s a discussion. It’s not official, it is not part of Church teaching. It is not binding on anyone.

Keep in mind, what was said previously, statements from the Ravenna Document aren’t meant to be considered Church teaching. It was just a discussion. Much like we’re having.

Re: ecumenical status, or definition of, these are Catholic Church councils.(all rites).
Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees

Therefore, the decrees that are approved by the pope, from a council that was called as an ecumenical council, qualifies as binding universally. In an ecumenical council all the Catholic Church meets East (all rites) and West. That doesn’t mean that if every single Catholic bishop East or West doesn’t show up, it is not ecumenical. (just a clarification)

Re: The E Orthodox. They are always invited to the council… However, It is not a condition they show up or participate to make a Catholic Church council ecumenical. Especially considering they are not in union with the chair of Peter.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply. I guess I don’t worry so much about what is “binding” as much as “what is the underlying truth?” I think that it is good that the commission is discussing these matters. One of the big problem with the post-schism councils is they had no eastern (name removed by moderator)ut, so I am glad that we are starting to truly discuss things rather than unilaterally attempting to make one church’s theologumen into dogmatic definitions. I do believe that Vatican I is going to continually be relegated to the background until what is being debated here (consent vs. no consent) is forgotten and the Pope acts more like a spokesperson.
Either way the days of “ex cathedra” statements are over as the ecumenical cost of another definition would prove too costly.

 

[ciero]

hi steve,

thanks for the reply. I guess i don’t worry so much about what is “binding” as much as “what is the underlying truth?” i think that it is good that the commission is discussing these matters. One of the big problem with the post-schism councils is they had no eastern (name removed by moderator)ut, so i am glad that we are starting to truly discuss things rather than unilaterally attempting to make one church’s theologumen into dogmatic definitions. I do believe that vatican i is going to continually be relegated to the background until what is being debated here (consent vs. No consent) is forgotten and the pope acts more like a spokesperson.
either way the days of “ex cathedra” statements are over as the ecumenical cost of another definition would prove too costly.

amen!!!

 

[Vico]

FYI:

Bishop Gassers speech (relatio) lasted four hours and takes up some 26 columns of Mansi, Collectio Conciliorum Recentiorum, Vol. 52, Arnhem 1927, 1204-1230. Mansi is often cited in Vatican documents.

 

[mardukm]

If one wants to study the sources of Catholic Dogma, the standard reference is denzinger. The number of theologians that reference it and the number of Vatican documents that use it are in the hundreds. Its authority isnt up for question for anyone who has proper orthodox theological training.

The only authority that Denizinger has is purely academic, as a reference manual. It has absolutely no doctrinal authority to determine what belongs in Sacred Tradition. You don’t seem to have a good grasp of the difference. No one with any theological acumen would go around claiming “Denzinger’s says…” as if it had any sort of authority to determine the doctrines of the Church. What a true theologian would do is appeal to ACTUAL Magisterial sources, such as the Bible, a Council, a Pope, or another bishop - “the Bible says…,” “the Council says…,” “the Pope says…,” “Bishop A says…,” NEVER “Denzinger says…”. When someone cites Denzinger, they are merely referring the reader to an easily accessible form of the text. You are obviously no theologian, and your word that a textbook produced by a priest has more authority than a document produced by a Committee of bishops with papal approval in the context of an Ecumenical Council has absolutely no logical merit.

Mansi and Denzinger aim to do two different things, Mansi collects all the documents relevant to councils, I presume all the speeches made and so forth, without making any claim on their authority or otherwise.

They are both mere records of authoritative sources.

Denzinger on the other hand collects the most important sources of Catholic dogma and thereby makes a claim that it contains all the important sources of catholic dogma.

Where does it make this claim? Was Denzinger a bishop? If not, how can he make any such claim? I ask once again, something you never answered — what doctrinal authority does a textbook have to determine what is or is not the belief of the Church?

Setting Mansi against Denzinger is therefore entirely pointless as they do two entirely different things.

You said that the Official Relatio is not contained in any standard text used by the Vatican. You were (and are) wrong - plain and simple.

As this thread and others have proved there is no agreement on what the relatio actually states, so it is not ultimately a trump card.

Absolutist Petrine advocates are confused about a lot of things regarding the papacy, so it is little wonder that you claim there is contradiction in the Official Relatio where there is none. Your personal confusion has no rhetorical value.

You would first have to show that it reflects the ordinary Magisterium of the church in order to back up your claim, this is not something you have done.

It was produced by the Committee responsible for formulating the papal dogmas, a Committee convened with papal approval. The bishops who voted for the papal dogmas all voted for it with that understanding in mind.

Again setting Mansi against Denzinger is pointless, a diligent student of theology would know better than to do this.

No one is setting Mansi against Denzinger. They are both merely reference works. You’re the only one here granting to a mere reference work an authority it does not possess. If mere inclusion or lack of it in a reference work indicates any sort of doctrinal relevance, it is only you who are setting Mansi against Denzinger. But you are no diligent student of theology, if you think that Denizinger holds some kind of doctrinal authority.

I think this was dealt with before, Vatican II itself does not explicitly state things in favour of your position

V2 enshrined collegiality as the ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Church. Collegiality was the teaching enshrined by the Official Relatio. Neither the Fathers of V1 nor V2 intended the head to be separated from the body in any way. V2 is very much EXPLICITLY in favor of “my position.”

You reply on your pre-formed opinion in order to interpret what it says as favourable to your position.

And you are not? We all have our pre-formed opinions. What is relevant is whose opinions find support from the Magisterial documents. The Absolutist Petrine view has no support from any Magisterial documents - the only way your camp is able to pretend that it does is to take little snippets of the documents, while neglecting the full context, as has repeatedly been demonstrated in these threads.

The quoting of it by Vatican II proves only that the ordinary magisterium approves of those sections as the council understood them, it is not a carte blanche acceptance of everything the document states or the way you are interpreting it.

I don’t see Vatican 2 trying to separate the head from the body in any way. That’s perfectly in the spirit of the Official Relatio. Vatican 2 does not support any of your Absolutist Petrine errors.

Perhaps if you could supply a quote from his works to support this claim? That would constitute prima facie evidence whereas at the moment you are merely representing your opinion.

I am not a student of Newman, and neither are you. I referred you to a member in CAF who is. I have discussed the matter with him, and he assured me that Bl. John Henry Newman adhered to the High Petrine view. Do yourself a favor and discuss it with him.

I merely pointed out that Denzinger ommited it which means…

NOTHING

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

I make bold to say that by assigning any Petrine authority to this letter you are involved in anachronisms. The church, at this point, assigned the primacy to Rome based upon it being the place where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred (it might be too early yet to consider also the fact that it was the imperial city and known for being very conservative). Indeed, the letter from St. Clement makes no mention of Peter, his chair, or any such claim. What we have is a Pauline community (as scripture makes plain) answering the concerns of another one of his communities. Why do you assume this has anything to do with later papal claims?

I’m not sure I understand your concern. The authority of any head bishop (at ANY level - metropolitan, patriarchal, universal) is Petrine because it is based on the model of the apostolic college, who had St. Peter as their coryphaeus (which is a universal teaching of the Fathers).

The issue is whether this Petrine authority is always exercised collegially (the High Petrine view), or if it can be exercised by the head separated from the body (the Absolutist Petrine view).

As far as St. Paul is concerned, while it is true that his martyrdom in Rome was one of the reasons for the pre-eminence of the See of Rome, not a single See in the ancient Church seems to have claimed succession from him. Though the Church of Rome owes part of its pre-eminence to the presence of St. Paul, its succession comes from St. Peter. St. Paul in the book of Romans alludes to the fact that someone else had already established the Church of Rome before him. It’s very possible that this was a reference to St. Peter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That’s why when someone says* , *that the pope can’t make a decision irreformable without the consent of the Church, that is a mixture of conciliarism and gallicanism. And it was condemned at Vat I.

And that’s where you’re wrong. The POPE IS NOT THE ONE WHO MAKES HIS DECREE IRREFORMIBLE. THE VATICAN DOGMA IS EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT MAKES IT IRREFORMIBLE. The irreformibility of the dogma - that is, its nature as God’s Truth - has nothing to do with the process of making the dogma. It has NOTHING to do with the Pope or the Church, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the actual SOURCE and nature of a dogma, ANY dogma, as GOD’S TRUTH (i.e., irreformible).

I often refute Low Petrine advocates with the following - Do you suppose that the first dogma of the Church that the Gentiles should become members of the Church was irreformible because the Church consented to it? Of course not!!! It was God’s Truth (i.e., irreformible) for one reason and one reason alone - IT CAME FROM GOD.

The same rhetoric refutes the Absolutist Petrine error - Do you suppose that the first dogma of the Church that the Gentiles should become members of the Church was irreformible because St. Peter was the one who promulgated it? OF COURSE NOT!!! Was St. Peter the source of the dogma? OF COURSE NOT!!! It was God’s Truth (i.e., irreformible) for one reason and one reason alone - IT CAME FROM GOD. In the words of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, a dogma is irreformible for nothing else except the fact that it was made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise to St. Peter.

To repeat, a dogma is irreformible not because the Pope said so nor because of the Church’s consent. It’s nature and status as Truth (i.e., irreformible) is guaranteed not by the Pope nor by the Church, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

I agree with you that it is irreconcilible with Vatican I

Well, according to the interperation of Absolutist Petrine advocates. It makes perfect sense from the High Petrine perspective.

but why should we consider Vatican I to be “ecumenical” in the first place?

I personally believe it to have Ecumenical status, but I also believe that after the first seven, people should have freedom on which Councils they call “Ecumenical.” I believe what is more important than the status of a Council as “Ecumenical” is whether or not its teachings are consonant with Sacred Tradition.

According to the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church

The Ravenna colloquy was awesome! It reflected a truly High Petrine understanding of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

I think that it is good that the commission is discussing these matters*.*

Agreed

rob:

One of the big problem with the post-schism councils is they had no eastern (name removed by moderator)ut, so I am glad that we are starting to truly discuss things rather than unilaterally attempting to make one church’s theologumen into dogmatic definitions.

Keep in mind, the first 7 E councils were ALL Eastern councils. Some had no Western attendance to speak of but WERE approved by the pope…making them ecumenical. Should the West grumble over the fact those councils were all in the East?

then we had schism take place. Post schism the chair of Peter is still there as are those in union with him. The Catholic Church with Peter at the helm, continues as Jesus promised.

rob:

I do believe that Vatican I is going to continually be relegated to the background until what is being debated here (consent vs. no consent) is forgotten and the Pope acts more like a spokesperson.
Either way the days of “ex cathedra” statements are over as the ecumenical cost of another definition would prove too costly.

Papal primacy is not going away. Those seperated from Peter wish this would go away and people would forget. It won’t happen. The pope will not be relegated to mere spokesman. THAT’S not in line with what Jesus established.

btw, ex cathedra statements won’t go away either.

 

[Hesychios]

Papal primacy is not going away.

I think what is being suggested is that Papal Supremacy will go away, not Papal Primacy.

It’s not that I disagree with your stated position (although I do not believe in it), I don’t think Papal Supremacy within Roman Catholicism will go away, ever. The Roman Catholic church is wedded to Ultramontanism permanently and irrevocably.

 

[mardukm]

If you are not actually asserting anything, then your speculations are pointless.

Really, it is your speculation that Denzinger’s has doctrinal authority that is pointless.

My point was and still is that it is bizzare considering the importance and particular interpretation being given to the relatio that Denzinger omits it. That is an entirely reasonable observation to make given that Denzinger will be the first point of reference for catholic theologians when it comes to sources of Catholic Dogma.

Funny, I thought it would be the Catechism. I guess Denzinger has more doctrinal authority (at least in your eyes) than the universal Catechism. The idea that Denzinger would have authority even above the Catechism convinces me that you know not of what you speak. Even an amateur theologian would look first to the Catechism, and only to Denzinger’s if he/she wants an easy reference for the text. I can’t believe any person (other than you) would look first to Denzinger’s to find out what it is the Church believes,

I’m not entirely sure where St Thomas Aquinas came into this discussion to be honest? You cannot state that because a council quotes a document the entire document is therefore approved, you can only state that the particular sections quoted in the way the council understands them are part of the ordinary magisterium. That is all.

Brother Philip did not mention Aquinas in his post to which your responded. You are just rambling.

Nor do I understand why you are setting Denzinger against the relatio, Denzinger is by its very nature a collection of primary sources, the fact it omits the relatio is entirely relevant therefore.

This is the second time you have made this silly claim. You claimed I was setting Mansi against Denzinger. Now you claim that brother Philip is setting Denzinger against the Relatio. Please look to the log in your own eye. You are the only one setting Denzinger against everything else because you are the only one granting it an authority it does not possess! :banghead:

It is also quite a leap to state that the relatio is the official understanding or what the council fathers had in mind,

The Relatio itself claims to be the proper understanding of the Vatican Decrees. It says it in the opening paragraphs. Bishop Gasser was asked by the Committee to be their spokesperson to explain the Decree as formulated by the Committee.

we have no idea what the council fathers had in mind. What we do know is the infallible statements of the council are De Fide, it is perhaps better to stick to them than speeches made by bishops. Especially when that speech would have to be seen in the light of tradition and when we have no idea whether the bishops and the holy father agreed or disagreed with part or all of the relatio or if they understood it the same way you or Marduk does.

We have much more than the Decrees themselves. The Official Relatio explains it. And Mansi contains all the debates, so we know the why’s of the contents of Pastor Aeternus. For example, you are most likely ignorant of the fact that the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus was intended by the Fathers to be a limitation to the exercise of “papal infallibility” (you probably read it and think that it is simply a nice history lesson). That is why several neo-ultramontanists (those who share your Absolutist Petrine view of the papacy) left the Council when it was added to the text of the Decree two days (IIRC) before the final voting. And you probably did not know that the original title of the chapter on the infallibility was “THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.” It was EXPLICITLY changed to “THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE” to ensure that it could not be misunderstood that infallibility was some sort of singular, private charism that only the Pope could possess. Unfortunately, Absolutist Petrine advocates wholly ignorant of these facts misinterpret the Vatican 1 Decrees in the exact manner that the Fathers of Vatican 1 DID NOT INTEND. There are many other things about the V1 Dogmas on the papacy that you cannot know unless you study the background debates and the Official Relatio.

But it must be rather uncomfortable (to say the least) for Absolutist Petrine advocates to realize that they have actually misinterpreted the intentions of the Fathers of V1. So it is almost understandable that you work so hard to defend your opinion by trying to diminish the importance of statements made by the Fathers of V1.

Lastly that understanding of the relatio does not appear to be backed up by contemporary catholic writers and collections of Dogma such as books authored by priests i.e ‘On the threshold of the catholic church’ or The Baltimore Catechism or Catechism of St Pius X who advocated a position similar to that of the absolutist position.

You mean in your parochial (not universal) context of the Latin Church? I would agree. But the Latin Catholic Church is by no means the only standard by which the Church universal lives. Btw, the Catechism of St. Pius X was by no means universally received.

Blessings,
Marduk