High Petrine view in the early Church

[Phillip_Rolfes]

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.

Neither Aquinas’ Summan nor Denziger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” are above criticism and correction. Aquinas himself would’ve been the first to admit that his own writings were not above criticism or correction; I presume Denziger would’ve felt the same way about his own writings.

Would you mind producing a Papal statement declaring Denziger’s work to be the “standard theological textbook?” If this is possible I will retract my statements (and possibly join Orthodoxy). As has been pointed out, Gasser has been referenced in an official Council of the Church. Where does Denziger fit in?

Incidentally, Aquinas himself is not an authority for Eastern Christianity, either Catholic or Orthodox. While theologians in the East may greatly respect Aquinas, he does not fit into the patrimony of the East, only that of the West. Denziger falls into the same category.

 

[Ruprecht]

Although Wikipedia should come with a grain of salt, there are some ref’s concerning Denzinger and his Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum. His article is found at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Joseph_Dominicus_Denzinger (cut & paste to your browser)
There is also an on-line copy of the book noted at the end of the article, but it is difficult to follow. Amazon.com has hard-copy texts available, although the site does not contain any inside shots of the book. Can’t tell if it is any better than the on-line version!
Hope that helps…

 

[Vico]

…In other words, from whom do he and his book derive their authority?

Just curious.

Heinrich Denzinger lived from 1819 to 1883 and was a catholic priest with a PhD and degree in theology, and he was a professor of theology at Wurzburg. He wrote the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (a handbook of decrees and defintions, 1854 first edition) and other works.

Read it here for free:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

When reading the many Vatican documents you will encounter DS or D, they stand for:

D Denzinger
DS (for “Denzinger-Schönmetzer”) Adolf Schönmetzer, S.J. also added more after Denzinger death.

 

[jmj1984]

Neither Aquinas’ Summan nor Denziger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” are above criticism and correction. Aquinas himself would’ve been the first to admit that his own writings were not above criticism or correction; I presume Denziger would’ve felt the same way about his own writings.

Would you mind producing a Papal statement declaring Denziger’s work to be the “standard theological textbook?” If this is possible I will retract my statements (and possibly join Orthodoxy). As has been pointed out, Gasser has been referenced in an official Council of the Church. Where does Denziger fit in?

Incidentally, Aquinas himself is not an authority for Eastern Christianity, either Catholic or Orthodox. While theologians in the East may greatly respect Aquinas, he does not fit into the patrimony of the East, only that of the West. Denziger falls into the same category.

Denzinger is the de facto official textbook, by which I mean it was commisioned by a pope, has no rival and is used by all theologians and the workhouse theological textbook of catholic theologians, this isnt something that has to be proven its self-evident. You can ask any catholic theologian and they’ll tell you

 

[jmj1984]

Neither Aquinas’ Summan nor Denziger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” are above criticism and correction. Aquinas himself would’ve been the first to admit that his own writings were not above criticism or correction; I presume Denziger would’ve felt the same way about his own writings.

Would you mind producing a Papal statement declaring Denziger’s work to be the “standard theological textbook?” If this is possible I will retract my statements (and possibly join Orthodoxy). As has been pointed out, Gasser has been referenced in an official Council of the Church. Where does Denziger fit in?

Incidentally, Aquinas himself is not an authority for Eastern Christianity, either Catholic or Orthodox. While theologians in the East may greatly respect Aquinas, he does not fit into the patrimony of the East, only that of the West. Denziger falls into the same category.

As for aquinas not belonging to the west I’m not even going to get into that discussion, Denzinger does however mention ALL sources of catholic dogma east and West.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Denzinger is the de facto official textbook, by which I mean it was commisioned by a pope, has no rival and is used by all theologians and the workhouse theological textbook of catholic theologians, this isnt something that has to be proven its self-evident. You can ask any catholic theologian and they’ll tell you

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As for aquinas not belonging to the west I’m not even going to get into that discussion, Denzinger does however mention ALL sources of catholic dogma east and West.

If this were true, then his work would be voluminous, not just one handy little 200 - 300 page volume. He remains a Roman theologian, working within the confines of the Roman tradition, and therefore he has no bearing on the East. As to the sources for Papal infallibility, Gasser’s Relatio is a de facto source (possibly the most important source) for understanding the dogma because he was assigned by the commission that formulated the final draft of Pastor Aeternus to stand before the Fathers of Vatican I and explain the contents of the final draft, specifically the dogma of infallibility, in order that the Fathers would fully understand what they were voting for or against. It took him four hours to deliver his address to the Council Fathers, despite the fact that the Relatio itself is very logical and he did not go off on any tangents. If you want to read about this, check out the book “The Gift of Infallibility” from Ignatius Press. Denziger’s silence with regards to the Relatio does not make the Relatio any less important.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Heinrich Denzinger lived from 1819 to 1883 and was a catholic priest with a PhD and degree in theology, and he was a professor of theology at Wurzburg. He wrote the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (a handbook of decrees and defintions, 1854 first edition) and other works.

Read it here for free:
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

When reading the many Vatican documents you will encounter DS or D, they stand for:

D Denzinger
DS (for “Denzinger-Schönmetzer”) Adolf Schönmetzer, S.J. also added more after Denzinger death.

Thank you for this background, Vico. It’s exactly what I was looking for. Had jmj1984 provided this I would’ve been more willing to take his argument seriously.

 

[malphono]

Denziger’s silence with regards to the Relatio does not make the Relatio any less important.

That gives rise to at least one interesting possibility: could it be that the “silence” is purposeful? The document was a “compromise” in any case, and the ultramontanist faction (including the very patron of that Council who also, apparently, commissioned Denizger), was less than satisfied with it (although it was accepted). Without considering the Relatio, it is very easy to read that document as being the be-all and end-all embodiment of the ultramontanist position. Just food for thought.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That gives rise to at least one interesting possibility: could it be that the “silence” is purposeful? The document was a “compromise” in any case, and the ultramontanist faction (including the very patron of that Council who also, apparently, commissioned Denizger), was less than satisfied with it (although it was accepted). Without considering the Relatio, it is very easy to read that document as being the be-all and end-all embodiment of the ultramontanist position. Just food for thought.

Interesting! Are you saying that, if indeed Denziger’s silence was deliberate, it says more about him and Pius IX than it does about understanding infallibility? As in, Denziger’s silence could’ve been one of Pius IX’s ways around the “High Petrine” understanding in favor of a more “Absolutist Petrine” view? Given what I’ve been taught and read about Pius IX, I wouldn’t put that past him.

 

[malphono]

Interesting! Are you saying that, if indeed Denziger’s silence was deliberate, it says more about him and Pius IX than it does about understanding infallibility? As in, Denziger’s silence could’ve been one of Pius IX’s ways around the “High Petrine” understanding in favor of a more “Absolutist Petrine” view? Given what I’ve been taught and read about Pius IX, I wouldn’t put that past him.

Looks like we have a similar understanding of Pio Nono.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Looks like we have a similar understanding of Pio Nono.

Strange forces must be at work here… I smell skullduggery afoot!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ThatOneGuy,

Thank you for this succinct explanation. In my opinion, this seems to summarize all your other arguments for the reality of the High Petrine position quite nicely

I do have a question though: how does the High Petrine position relate to the issue of the Pope declaring dogma ex cathedra? If you’ve already discussed this elsewhere, please link me to the thread and point me to the page number.

Again, thank you for your wonderful explanations

Yes, it’s been explained several times, but I don’t mind explaining it again.

As far as the Vatican dogma on papal infallibility, there are several major differences between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view.

The Absolutist Petrine view holds the following, judging from my debates with its proponents here in CAF:

(1) There is no such thing as collegial infallibility. They believe that all infallibility flows from the Pope. A college (and by extension an Ecumenical Council) is infallible only because the Pope grants it its infallibility.

(2) The infallibility of the Church as a body is nonexistent. Only the infallibility of the Pope is guaranteed by Christ. Absolutist Petrine advocates rationalize their heterodox (perhaps heretical?) denial of the infallibility of the Church by claiming that as long as the Pope retains infallibility, then the infallibility of the Church is not being denied, since the Pope is a member of the Church.

(3) During an Ecumenical Council, the Pope does not act as a member of the Council, but apart from and above it.

(4) When exercising the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium, the Pope acts apart from the Church and/or the rest of the bishops.

Needless to say, the High Petrine camp, together with the Low Petrine camp, repudiates these opinions (though there are certainly also some differences between the High Petrine and Low Petrine views on the matter of the infallibility). In opposition to these errors by Absolutist Petrine advocates, the High Petrine view proposes the following:

(1) Infallibility does not flow from the Pope, but comes directly from God. For the sake of preserving His Truth, God grants to the college of bishops (the head + body) His infallibility, not to the Pope alone.

(2) The Church as the mystical body of Christ, as a whole, is infallible. It is doctrinally impossible that there will ever be a time when only the Pope is infallible.

(3) When an Ecumenical Council is active, the Pope does not and cannot act apart from it. He is a member of the Council, its head. The infallibility of an Ecumenical Council is a collegial infallibility, which means that it is as a whole, body and head TOGETHER, that the Council is infallible, not the body apart from the head, and neither the head apart from the body.

(4) When exercising the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium, the Pope cannot act apart from the Church and/or his brother bishops.

Point #4 is the actual matter of your question – for it is here where the term ex cathedra is relevant - so it requires a more thorough explanation.

Before continuing, it should first be noted that the term “ex cathedra” is used in two ways in the Catholic Church. The most common understanding is that the term refers to the papal exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, as defined by V1. Keep in mind that unless otherwise indicated, the discussion below follows the foregoing usage. Less common, but equally valid however, is to apply the term “ex cathedra” even to the papal exercise of the ordinary Magisterium. Failure to understand this distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium is a source of perhaps the greatest misunderstanding on the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility by both Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates. Namely, that when the Pope exercises the infallibility, he and he alone is invested with infallibility in the Church. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

One must understand that the charism of infallibility – which comes DIRECTLY from God and God alone, not mediated by the Pope nor the Church, nor any other created body, and given by God to the Church for the purpose of preserving HIS Divine Doctrine - is exercised in two ways and present in three distinct living organs of the Church:

• Infallibility is exercised in an ordinary manner and an EXTRAordinary manner (in common parlance, we say that infallibility is exercised by the ordinary Magisterium and the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, respectively).
• Infallibility is present in the 3 distinct living organs of the Ecumenical Council, the Pope teaching ex cathedra, and the College of Bishops (NOTE: it is not uncommon to state that Sacred Tradition itself, which is also said to be “living” within and through the Magisterium, is also an organ of infallibility).

The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium is utilized to preserve and hand down the day-to-day teaching of the Church that is for the most part never disputed (iow, this is the ordinary manner of exercising infallibility), while the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium is utilized for the very specific purpose of making a formal and definitive judgment on a matter of doctrine that is questioned, in conflict, or requires clarification (iow, the EXTRAordinary manner of exercising infallibility). When infallibility is exercised in an ordinary manner (iow, an exercise of infallibility by the ordinary Magiesterium), the Magisterium act as WITNESSES to the Truth contained in Sacred Tradition; when infallibility is exercised in an EXTRAordinary manner (iow, an exercise of infallibility by the EXTRAordinary Magisterium), the Magisterium act as JUDGES to matters contained in Sacred Tradition.

The EXTRAordinary Magisterium can be exercised by the Ecumenical Council collegially (all the bishops are JUDGES) or the Pope personally (the Pope alone is the JUDGE on a matter that is in dispute among his brother bishops). The ordinary Magisterium can only be exercised collegially, that is, by the College of Bishops (whether dispersed throughout the world or in the formal setting of the Ecumenical Council).

It would be well to memorize the information in the last 4 paragraphs, for it is a very concise primer for the Catholic teaching on infallibility. Knowledge of it will lay the groundwork for a refutation of perhaps all the misinformed errors of both the Absolutist and Low Petrine views.

Now on to your specific question of how the V1 definition of ex cathedra relates to or is understood according to the High Petrine, collegial view of the Church.

Though the term “ex cathedra” is most commonly used in relation to the V1 dogma of “papal infallibility,” which defined the Pope’s PERSONAL exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium, recall that the term “ex cathedra” is sometimes also utilized by Catholic commentators to refer to the Pope’s exercise of the ordinary Magisterium. But remember that the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium is ALWAYS a COLLEGIAL infallibility. So when the Pope makes a decree ex cathedra utilizing the ordinary Magisterium, it is not a personal exercise of infallibility, but always a COLLEGIAL exercise of infallibility. He does this as a member of the College of Bishops, its head. He is, in effect, acting not as judge, but as spokesman for the College, who collectively act as witnesses to the Truth contained in Sacred Tradition. As far as this uncommon, yet valid, usage of the term “ex cathedra,” there is certainly no conflict with the High Petrine view.

But what about the regular usage of “ex cathedra” – i.e., according to the V1 definition on “papal infallibility?” Does not the V1 dogma contradict the collegial principles of the High Petrine view?

To answer the question, we must address three particular issues with which I am very familiar – because prior to gaining true Catholic knowledge about the papacy from Catholic sources rather than non- and anti-Catholic pundits, they were my very own misgivings about the Vatican dogma on the papacy:
(1) Does God invest infallibility in just one man?
(2) Does the Pope, in making an ex cathedra decree according to the V1 definition, act without his brother bishops?
(3) Does the Pope, in making an ex cathedra decree according to the V1 definition, act apart or separate from the Church?

A positive response to any or all of these questions means that the V1 dogma violates the collegial principles of the High Petrine view, and, therefore, contradicts the Faith of the early Church. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the answer to every one of these questions is a resounding “NO.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Before explaining the negative response to the 3 questions above, permit me to address the erroneous premise I have encountered from Absolutist Petrine advocates, which causes them to give a positive response to some or all of the same 3 questions. In my debates with the latter, there is a consistent, underlying premise of the possibility that there will come a time when EVERY bishop EXCEPT the Pope will fall into doctrinal heresy. I even met two Catholic members here in CAF (Absolutist Petrine advocates, of course) who proposed the possibility that the ENTIRE Church will fall into heresy EXCEPT the Pope.

I don’t know about you, but these ideas are so absolutely foreign to the Catholic Faith that I cannot even imagine that they can properly be entertained by any faithful Catholic. It is a fact that the Catholic Church teaches:
(a) The charism of infallibility was given not just to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles. On the doctrinal principle of Apostolic Succession, infallibility must have been promised to more than just the successor of St. Peter. So it is a doctrinal impossibility that there will ever come a time when ONLY the Pope is possessed of God-given infallibility whereby he is the ONLY one who will not teach heresy, while all the rest of the bishops have fallen into heresy.
(b) The Church as a whole is infallible, which is enshrined in the Church’s de fide teaching on the sensus fidelium. Christ Himself taught us that where two or three are gathered, there He will be in their midst. So it is, once again, a doctrinal impossibility that the Pope will be the ONLY ONE in the whole Church who will be preserved from heresy.

On to the explanations:
(1) Probably most everyone thinks that the V1 dogma teaches that there is a time when the Pope and the Pope ALONE possesses infallibility in the Church. This misunderstanding is the result of ignorance of the fact that infallibility is exercised by the Magisterium of the Church in an ordinary manner (as WITNESS) and an EXTRAordinary manner (as JUDGE). What V1 defined is simply and only the Pope’s personal exercise of the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (i.e., as judge). V1 in no way claimed or implied that the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium as witness, nor, for that matter, the infallibility of the Church as a whole known as the sensus fidelium, has somehow been or will be cancelled during the Pope’s exercise of the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium.

So contrary to the pretensions of many Absolutist Petrine advocates, and the misgivings of many Low Petrine advocates, the V1 dogma does not teach that God gives to the Pope ALONE the charism of infallibility at any point in time. In fact, the papal exercise of the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium is, according to both the Official Relatio and the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus’ chapter on the infallibility, very much related to, if not dependent on, the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium. The Official Relatio asserts that the consensus of the PRESENT preaching of the Magisterium is the RULE OF FAITH, even for ex cathedra definitions of the Roman Pontiff (students of Church history will immediately recognize the latter as a restatement of the ancient Apostolic Canon 34). The historic Proem asserts that the Pope cannot contradict Sacred Tradition and is helped by the Church in various ways to arrive at his definition. The Official Relatio plainly explains that the help of the Church is a necessity because the charism of infallibility is not the same as the charism of inspiration, so the Pope depends on ordinary means to arrive at his decree. Hence, the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium exercised by the College of Bishops as WITNESS to the Faith is intimately bound to the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium exercised by the Pope as JUDGE on the matter of Faith. Therein lies the essence of collegiality.

(2) Another common misconception is that the Pope’s exercise of “papal infallibility” does not involve any of his brother bishops. This was already partly refuted in answering the first question – his brother bishops are involved in the exercise of “papal infallibility,” not as judges, but as necessary witnesses to the Faith.

To be perfectly concise, when an Ecumenical Council exercises the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium collegially, ALL the bishops are judges on the matter of Faith at issue. In distinction, when the Pope exercises the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium personally, he alone is judge on the matter of Faith, while the rest of the bishops (or at least some portion of them) exercise the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium as witnesses to the Faith, the infallibility of the sensus fidelium always remaining intact.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

At this point, it would be well to address a particular portion of the Official Relatio that gives rise to some misunderstanding. I have debated Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates who claim that the Offical Relatio asserts that the Pope does not need the agreement of bishops. Rest assured that opinion is false. Far from denying that the Pope needs the agreement of the bishops, the Official Relatio explicitly and specifically asserts that the agreement of the PRESENT preaching of the whole Magisterium is the RULE OF FAITH, even for definitions by the Roman Pontiff. The point of debate between the Majority and Minority Parties at V1 was not whether consensus was necessary (ALL were of one mind on that point), but whether the Pope needs to directly consult all the bishops of the world in order to exercise infallibility. What the Official Relatio does say is that what the Pope does not need from the bishops is their direct consultation. Even a 5th grader can understand that consultation and agreement/consensus are two different things. To most of the Majority party and some of the Minority party (e.g., Bishop Hefele of Rotterdam) at V1, placing the direct consultation of bishops as a condition for the exercise of infallibility was both unnecessary and a practical impossibility, because (among other reasons) the Pope can obtain the necessary consensus by consulting other sources aside from the bishops, and some or many bishops could be impeded for whatever reason from communicating with the Pope.

The point is really moot, for according to the historic Proem of Pastor Aeternus, it is the solicitude of the bishops themselves which activates the EXTRAordinary exercise of infallibility by the Pope. The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and decide to make a dogma. He does so only in response to the appeal of his brother bishops. As the Archbishop of Baltimore explained to his flock after returning from V1, history is the guarantee that the Pope cannot make dogma willy-nilly. He was, of course, referring to the historic Proem, which explains that the Tradition of the Church has been for the bishops to approach the Roman Pontiff on questions of Faith. From the get-go, the bishops are involved in the papal exercise of infallibility! NOTE: The historic Proem was added to the text of Pastor Aeternus literally at the last moment – two days before the final voting (IIRC). Everyone understood that the historic Proem was intended as a limitation/condition on the exercise of “papal infallibility.” The addition of the historic Proem caused most placet juxta modum and several non placet votes to convert to placet at the final voting, simultaneously causing several NEO-ultramontanists (the bishops who held an Absolutist Petrine view) to leave the Council in disgust. Just from that incident alone, we know that the Absolutist Petrine view had no place in V1’s teaching on the papacy.

(3) The answer to whether the Pope exercises infallibility apart or separated from the Church is rather plainly obvious from the answer to the previous question – NO!!! The sensus fidelium, which reflects the infallibility of the Church as a whole, is perpetual. As noted earlier, the Official Relatio explains that the Pope in general always needs the aid of the Church since the knowledge the Pope requires to exercise his Petrine responsibility can only be acquired by ordinary means. The topic deserves special consideration, since while the previous issue was focused more on the practical dimension of infallibility, the present issue involves a primarily doctrinal matter.

The V1 decree plainly teaches that “papal infallibility” is the selfsame infallibility that God grants to his Church. So from whence comes the Absolutist Petrine pretension (and concurrent Low Petrine misapprehension) that the Pope is separated from the Church during an exercise of infallibility? It is based on a misunderstanding of the V1 statement that the irreformibility of an ex cathedra decree does not depend on the consensus of the Church. When Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates read that statement, they wrongly interpret the exercise of infallibility itself as the subject of the clause “not from the consent of the Church.” But a careful and DIRECT reading of the statement reveals that the subject of the clause is, rather, the irreformibility of the dogma proposed. IOW, the exercise of infallibility has already occurred, and, as explained in the answers to the two previous questions, the Church was already involved in the exercise of infallibility. What the statement at issue is saying is nothing more nor less than this - though the consensus of the Church is necessary in the exercise of infallibility, and the Church is thus involved in the Pope’s exercise of infallibility, that consensus/involvement is NOT what guarantees the Truth or irreformibility of the dogma. Rather, what guarantees its Truth or irreformibility is the fact of the Holy Spirit’s help based on the promise of Christ to St. Peter. You need to study the background debates/discussions of V1 in order to understand this. The following posts from other threads has dome further info:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7719984&postcount=4
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8035936&postcount=204

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Absolutist Petrine advocates have a strong misunderstanding about the Catholic teaching on “papal infallibility” according to V1 (a misunderstanding shared by Low Petrine advocates as a basis for their opposition to the papacy). The Official Relatio of V1 is key to correct their common errors. Unfortunately, a typical response of Absolutist Petrine advocates (and their Low Petrine cohorts) is to demean the relevance of the Official Relatio. All I can say is that error has strange bedfellows.

At this time, I would like to offer something which I don’t think I’ve ever presented – an explanation of why I felt compelled to create the distinctions between the Absolutist, High, and Low Petrine views. As already stated many times before, I had a gross misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on the papacy, imbibed from years of indoctrination while in the Coptic Orthodox Church. I was only able to accept the doctrinal basis for the papacy by getting the actual teaching from the horse’s mouth. But my journey to the Catholic Church did not consist of reading apologetics works or other popular Catholic material. The very great majority of my studies involved reading only primary, patristic and Magisterial sources. This led to my discovery of the Official Relatio of V1, which cured my doctrinal ills regarding the papacy. It was a pleasant surprise to learn I was wrong. For about two years after I joined the Catholic communion (and about a year before that), I was supporting the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy against the misrepresentations of my Orthodox brethren. But imagine my pointedly UNpleasant surprise when I eventually came upon Catholics, or those who claimed to be Catholic, defend the very errors that I was attempting to correct among my Orthodox brethren!!! I knew for a fact that these errors were not Catholic teachings, and I could not align myself with the beliefs of these Catholics (or others who called themselves “Catholic”). That was the birth in my mind’s eye of the ideological differences and terminology of “Absolutist Petrine” and “High Petrine.” The terminology of “Low Petrine” came at the same time, but the ideological differences between the High Petrine and Low Petrine views I had already formulated long before I became Catholic. For many years in the Coptic Orthodox Church, I had already noticed, and sometimes debated, the ideological differences between Coptic/Oriental Orthodox ecclesiology and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Sometimes, I came upon EO who had what I considered to be a very Oriental Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology. Other times, I came upon EO who supported something akin to a Protestant, democratic ecclesiology, who denied the existence of head bishops, who felt the laity could depose their bishops or judge the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, etc., etc., ideas which were foreign to me (and repeated by some EO members here in CAF).

So that’s the story.

This issue, btw, was also thoroughly discussed in the following thread, if you care to look. I am in the Philippines right now, and I don’t have ANY of my usual resources with me. The added benefit of the other thread is that it gives direct quotes from Catholic Magisterial sources for the High Petrine position: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569290&highlight=irreformible+FoneBone2001

I hope this has helped.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

If this were true, then his work would be voluminous, not just one handy little 200 - 300 page volume. He remains a Roman theologian, working within the confines of the Roman tradition, and therefore he has no bearing on the East. As to the sources for Papal infallibility, Gasser’s Relatio is a de facto source (possibly the most important source) for understanding the dogma because he was assigned by the commission that formulated the final draft of Pastor Aeternus to stand before the Fathers of Vatican I and explain the contents of the final draft, specifically the dogma of infallibility, in order that the Fathers would fully understand what they were voting for or against. It took him four hours to deliver his address to the Council Fathers, despite the fact that the Relatio itself is very logical and he did not go off on any tangents. If you want to read about this, check out the book “The Gift of Infallibility” from Ignatius Press. Denziger’s silence with regards to the Relatio does not make the Relatio any less important.

Its hardly handy or little, regardless whether you like it or not and whether you believe it or not Denzinger IS the point of reference for any theologian looking for the sources of catholic dogma and catholic laymen as well for that matter. Why else would the Vatican itself use the book? vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19950318_penitenzieria_it.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19880316it.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224it.html
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria_it.html
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria_po.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19881118_chiesa-salvezza_ge.html

The above is but a small selection of the enormous number of documents that reference denzinger, it would seem foolish therefore to question the authority of the book.

Later statements as regards why the document was or wasnt left out is mere supposition and heresay it proves nothing unlike the fact the document was left out. Its ommision either means that its not considered a catholic source of dogma or not an important one, hardly something that would be true if the way Mardukm is using it is correct.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Marduk-

Thank your for taking time to explain things again. I really do appreciate it. It gives me something to chew on and ponder.

I hope everything is well for you and yours in the Philippines. Do take care.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Phillip,

Interesting! Are you saying that, if indeed Denziger’s silence was deliberate, it says more about him and Pius IX than it does about understanding infallibility? As in, Denziger’s silence could’ve been one of Pius IX’s ways around the “High Petrine” understanding in favor of a more “Absolutist Petrine” view? Given what I’ve been taught and read about Pius IX, I wouldn’t put that past him.

I just caught this portion of the conversation. That’s a fascinating theory. There was definitely a solid neo-ultramontanist element in Europe. Neo-ultramontanism came in two flavors - theological and political. Pio Nono was very certainly, at the very least, a political neo-ultramontanist. His choice of Denzinger could very well be a reflection of that.

Blessings,
Marduk