High Petrine view in the early Church

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

And yet Pope Leo XIII makes it quite clear that the pope has the exact same powers a bishop has in his diocese over each and every member of the faithful and the clergy as well his unique power as successor of St Peter. So your argument flatly contradicts Pope Leo XIII

:banghead: As stated before, EVERY head bishop has ORDINARY authority in any local diocese - iow, EVERY head bishop has THE SAME powers as any local bishop has in that local diocese. The issue is the EXERCISE of those powers. This is the distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction (I gave an explanation earlier to which you have typically and selectively failed to respond) A head bishop exercises those SAME powers in a local diocese in the EXTRAordinary circumstance when the local bishop is impeded. But a head bishop does NOT HIMSELF have the authority to impede the authority of the local bishop. As applied to the Pope, this is the clear teaching of V1 (remember the section you quoted, where you tried to pawn off the sophism of trying to differentiate between “detract” and “impede”?)

I didn’t respond to the claim because its a completely absurd and unsubstantiated claim. You have not produced any evidence whatsoever of any document that states this. Until you do this statement remains your personal opinion. As for avoidance you’ve failed to address half of the sources that flatly contradict your position and completely misread or misquoted the rest.

The Magisterial support has been quoted several times in past posts, so High Petrine advocates know this to be true. As I informed others in a different post, I am in the Phlippines right now and do not have access to ANY of my regular textual resources (I’m not at liberty to do research on the I-net). But, off the top of my head, I know that Pastor Aeternus opens up with a statement of the purpose for which Christ established the Petrine ministry, which states what I claimed. I know V2 definitely states it. I know that the Official Relatio states it. I know that the Canons explicitly state that the Pope exercises his Petrine ministry ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS of the Church. Do yourself a favor and read the sources I mentioned fully, instead of the myopic little snippets that your Absolutist Petrine apologists like to offer you from those same sources.

Your statements here were condemned by Pope Pius VI, perhaps if you had bothered to read the sources I provided you would have noticed this.

The quotes you’ve given have already been refuted.

Pope Pius VI in ’ Auctoerm Fidei ’ condemned the following assertions ‘Likewise in this, that it encourages a bishop to ‘pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline’ and this ‘against all contrary customers, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful’; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgement and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power… Likewise in that it says it is convinced that ‘the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the church cannot be altered nor hindered, and when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of the church demands it’ in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church…’ DS 1507

Addressed and refuted in an earlier post.

This of course is not the first time that your view has been flatly contradicted by a Papal encyclical, as has been made abundantly clear throughout this discussion.

It has been made abundantly clear that it is only your personal MISinterpretations of the quotes you cited that contradicts the patristic, High Petrine standard.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Actually Marduk the positions and powers of Patriarchs have been clearly defined in the church for some considerable period of time.

No, it hasn’t. The early Ecumenical Councils gave Canons of the relationship of the Patriarch to his LOCAL Church, and each local Church has through the Ages developed their own internal LOCAL canons of the roles of Patriarchs. For example, in the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Pope selects the candidates for bishop, the Synod chooses the appropriate bishop, and then confirmed by the Pope, whereas in most other Churches, the Synod selects the candidates, and the head bishop confirms. There are other internal distinctions between the Churches, I’m sure. V2 was the first Council that has attempted to define the relationship of the Patriarch to the CHURCH AS A WHOLE, and our Eastern Code is the first to attempt to make a STANDARD Canon for ALL non-Latin Churches. Your comment also demonstrates an ignorance of what went on behind the scenes at V1. Many bishops (Western, Eastern, and Oriental) wanted V1 to “define” the role of Patriarchs more in relation to the Pope (i.e., to the universal Church). If what you say is true, the bishops would not have been asking for that. There is much more to the ecclesiology of the Church than your parochial Absolutist Petrine sources pretend.

Your obsession in misquoting VII, which is in itself only a part of the ordinary magisterium and therefore not infallible,

You are flat out wrong, brother. The Ordinary Magisterium IS ALWAYS infallible. The Magisterium is defined as the TEACHING AUTHORITY OF GOD, which is ALWAYS INFALLIBLE. This infallibility is exercised by the Ordinary Magisterium ALWAYS in its day-to-day teaching that for the most part is not disputed. When the infallibility is exercised in an EXTRAordinary manner, then we say it is exercised by the EXTRAordinary Magisterium.
Your Absolutist Petrine error, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, is that you seem to think that the Church is only infallible when it exercises the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (i.e., by an Ecumenical Council or by the Pope personally). This causes you to accept the error that the Pope can ever exercise infallibility SEPARATELY from the Church and/or his orthodox brother bishops.

Your error is that you think that ONLY what has been defined is infallible. So you pretend that the teachings on collegiality contained in the Official Relatio (reflected by V2, and the consistent standard of Sacred Tradition) does not possess infallibility, but this is only because it does not match your personal MISinterpretations of Vatican 1, or your MISInterpretations of the other texts you have quoted in this thread. But the formal process of dogmatization never MAKES a teaching infallible. It can only ever RECOGNIZE that a teaching is infallible.

another document that may or may not be part of the ordinary magisterium but is probably not to the exclusion of the abundance of Papal Encyclicals and ecumenical councils.

Are you referring to the texts upon which you imposed your misinterpretations?

Amusingly you quote the Code of Canons of the eastern churches which flatly contradicts your position anyway and then state you believe its wrong.

How?

I also believe Heyschios is more than capable of reading the documents for himself and making his own mind up based on facts and not opinions whether they be mine or yours.

If you believe that, then please keep silent. Your comments are unnecessary.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Phillip,

In the section on the structure of the Church, the Catechism states that whenever the Pope acts he does so in charity in order to confirm his brother bishops in the Faith. I wish I could remember the paragraph references off the top of my head, but my CCC is upstairs (on the 7th floor), and thus not very handy. But it’s in the Profession of Faith section towards the end.

The Canons specifically and explicitly state that the Pope exercises his prerogatives IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH. He can respond collegially or personally. As you might have noticed, Absolutist Petrine advocates completely MISinterpret the canon to say that it is the POPE who determines the needs of the Church, when it is ONLY saying that the Pope determines HOW he will respond (whether collegially or personally). Of course, the other Absolutist Petrine error is that they MISintepret the term “personally” to mean “separately” or “unilaterally.”

My own interpretation of this would be that, in confirming the Faith of his brother bishops, the Pope only interferes when the Faith itself is threatened, or when issues arise within the local diocese/metropolitanate/patriarchate that cannot be settled internally.

This opinion would seem to be confirmed by the Relatio of Bishop Gasser. There he states that the Pope only defines an infallible dogma in response to a heresy that has arisen within the Church and when his brother bishops have turned to him to intervene and settle the matter.

Forgive me, but I must offer some correction. This was not merely the “opinion” of Bishop Gasser. The idea that the Pope only defines IN RESPONSE to the Church, when his brother bishops have turned to him - not according to his own say-so - )is contained IN PASTOR AETERNUS ITSELF. It is in the Section commonly referred to as the “historic Proem.” As pointed out many times before, the Proem was added to the text of Pastor Aeternus literally at the last moment, and managed to convert almost all the placet juxta modum and some non-placet votes to placet in the final voting. It is a shame that many of the Minority party had left the Council before the Proem was introduced into the text. Then we might have had a greater number of placet votes for the sake of historic posterity. But we do know that NOT A SINGLE BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PARTICIPATED IN A SCHISM AFTER VATICAN 1. That speaks volumes. The other thing that speaks volumes is the fact that after the historic Proem was introduced, several NEO-ultramontanists (the group that adhered to the Absolutist Petrine view) left the Council in disgust! One of the more historically popular Neo-ultramontanists was a certain Bishop Lecourtier who is reported to have thrown his copy of the V1 Decrees into the river when he left the Council. Low Petrine dectractors of the Council often cite this incident in support of their recriminations against V1, but they fail to realize that Bishop Lecourtier held the COMPLETELY POLAR OPPOSITE position that Low Petrine advocates propose. Judging from the comments of all the Absolutist Petrine advocates we have been debating now (and myself in the past), I surmise that if they were at the Council and they knew what the Committee De Fide ACTUALLY INTENDED by the wording of its decrees, they would have done exactly what Bishop Lecourtier did and left the Council in disgust.

Marduk,
I would be very interested in seeing the Canons and other sources to which you refer. Do you have them posted in another thread so I can look them up? Or would you be willing to post them here?

Yes, I have posted them in at least 2 past threads here in CAF (not necessarily in the ECF) before. I am not at liberty to do extensive RESEARCH on the I-net at this time. I will do so as time permits. To help, can you please note which statements I have made for which you are asking canonical or Magisterial support (if you don’t mind)?

Regardless of how one interprets the role of the Papacy (Absolutist, High, Low), the Church herself interprets his role/function as one of charity. Any action, therefore, outside the realm of charity is an action outside the function of the Papacy. It would, therefore, be nothing more than a sinful man acting on his own will and not the will of God. It seems to me that this lens of charity is the lens through which the Church today is interpreting the Pope’s role. I think our questions, therefore, should be directed at asking what the Pope’s supreme and universal jurisdiction mean in the light of charity.

I think “charity” does not properly capture the moral, canonical, and divine necessity of the principle of collegiality in the ecclesiastical life of the Church, as reflected in Sacred Tradition, the Official Relatio, Vatican 2, or our Canons. But I say this not to challenge the authority of the catechism, but only because Absolutist Petrine advocates do not view the principle of charity to have any kind of moral, canonical, or divine imperative, as brother jmj’s response to you very sadly proves. They interpret it as merely “being nice,” whereas we, who adhere to the Fathers and Scripture, understand charity to be the most important, divinely mandated principle by which the Church acts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You certainly won’t catch me defending the document.

Brother Louis was quoting Pastor Aeternus itself to refute your MISinterpretation of the Official Relatio. No need for you to give this comment. We already know that the Absolutist Petrine errors do not actually support Pastor Aeternus, but actually work to destroy its true intentions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And?

One needs to look at the entire tradition of the church, not the opinion of a single pope.

Aaaah, yes. The typical statement of the SSPX. I think you have betrayed your true “Religion” status here in CAF.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

033. First axiom: the members should be joined to the head and the head to the members. From this axiom they deduce that it is necessary for the Pope, in defining dogmas of faith, to do nothing without the advice and consent of his brothers. Before I reply to this objection, it will be helpful to remember that, in this opinion of the adversaries, we are dealing with a strict and absolute necessity of episcopal advice and help in every dogmatic judgment of the Roman Pontiff, so much so that it must have its place in the very definition of our dogmatic constitution. It is in this strict and absolute necessity that the whole difference between us consists. The difference does not consist in the opportuneness or some relative necessity which must be completely left to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff as he determines according to the circumstances. As such, this type of necessity cannot have a place in the definition of a dogmatic constitution.
Yes, this is what I explained earlier - the issue between the Majority and Minority party was not the consensus, but the necessity of obtaining the consultation of all the bishops. Note that the Official Relatio (OR) presents the axiom “do nothing without the advice and consent of his brothers.” But in his response, he does not challenge the “consent” part, only the “advice” part. Again, take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses so you can see what these documents are actually saying.

1. That said, I return to the axiom about head and members and make my response.  A figure of speech is not an argument, or, as is commonly said, every analogy limps.  And that this comparison, applied in this way, really limps, can be shown by the following reason.  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.

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Therefore the bishops are not able to do anything in this regard without the Pope. But is the other case true, viz., that the Pope is not able to do anything in this regard without the bishops? This other part has no value, since Christ said to Peter alone: “You are Peter (Mt. 16:18) … I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22:32).

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

1. But the issue is pressed by saying (and this is the third axiom): the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches.  I reply.  The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port.  It is true that the Pope in his definitions "ex cathedra" has the same sources ("fontes") which the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition.  It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifical definitions.  But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops.  I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church's consent.

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

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jmj1984]

Dear brother jmj,

My only reply has been to ask for the texts, which you have consistently failed to produce.

You haven’t produced any. I notice you pretend you did below in this same post. It was already addressed, but you did not answer my response. I will respond again below.

Your misinterpretations don’t match the text, however.

The witness of Sacred Tradition supports the High Petrine position. I notice you backtrack, stating that I can’t provide an authority, and then state “pre-V2.” That says it all. I suspect you are one of those who supports the SSPX, and don’t accept the authority of V2, except when it suits your own opinions.

No facts and texts have been given. Why should we believe that the standard of Sacred Tradition has been demolished? If you believe that, that is just another of your errors.

. Really, brother, you have got to take off those Absolutist Petrine glasses. The text you gave states quite clearly that it is UNLAWFUL FOR YOU to MISinterpret the prerogatives of the St. Peter in a DIFFERENT sense from what was given to the ENTIRE COLLEGE (the Apostles conjointly with St. Peter). Obviously, you missed the “Apostles conjointly with St. Peter” part. So the only thing the quote you gave is saying is that the power of the Pope is THE SAME as the power of the College (the Pope with his brother bishops). It does not say that the Pope’s power is ABOVE the College, but THE SAME. WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES THE QUOTE SAY THAT THE POPE IS ABOVE THE COLLEGE (THE BISHOPS IN UNION WITH THE POPE)? LIKE I SAID, ONCE YOU PRODUCE TEXTS THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT YOUR ERRORS, THEN I WILL ADDRESS THOSE TEXTS. All that’s been happening here is that I am responding to your erroneous MISinterpretations.

No marduk I’m sorry I have consistenly replied and provided the texts you requested and will continue to do so. Your consistent misquoting and misrepresenting of sources is not going to convince anyone, nor is your pride and obstinacy. Simply being stubborn doesnt prove your point.

 

[mardukm]

No marduk I’m sorry I have consistenly replied and provided the texts you requested and will continue to do so. Your consistent misquoting and misrepresenting of sources is not going to convince anyone, nor is your pride and obstinacy. Simply being stubborn doesnt prove your point.

Typically, you did not address my last paragraph. Avoiding the Truth. That is what Absolutist Petrine advocates do when they are faced with the obvious errors of their MISinterpretations.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I must be off for a couple of days.

 

[jmj1984]

CONTINUED

I see. Have you looked up the word “detract” in the dictionary lately? It means to take away or divert from. So the Pope’s authority “BY NO MEANS detracts from the authority of the local bishop.” I think a level-headed person would take this to mean that the Pope’s authority cannot be used in such a way that would take away the authority of the bishop in his local diocese. But, your claim is that the Pope can act in such a way that can IMPEDE, or stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local diocese. RIIIIIIIIGHT! That makes perfect sense. NOT!!! Once you think about it, you’ll see that your denial of my statement is nonsense. You are just playing at empty sophism now.

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

You only claim this because you are ignorant of, and choose to remain ignorant of, the canonical distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction — in other words, the canonical distinction between HAVING the power and EXERCISING the power.

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

P.S. I notice you are very selective about which portions of my answers you respond to. In the beginning, you responded to every statement with a comment. You are progressively only able to respond to fewer and fewer portions of the contents of my posts. But that’s OK.

Because your posts are becoming less and less logical and more and more unreasonable. For your part I notice you have failed to address any of the texts that clearly contradict your position.

 

[jmj1984]

Oh!! I forgot to respond to this fascinating bit of rhetoric.

YES, he is. What you have done is cut and pasted TWO SEPARATE condemnations (#34 and #38), and magically created a completely different Canon out of it. I’ve noticed that this is quite typical for you Absolutist Petrine advocates (evident in your fantastically imaginative misinterpretations of the current Catholic Canons).

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

The Pope condemned the idea that the Roman Pontiff is a free prince (#34), that the Pope can act or does act on just his say-so without any regard for the laws of the Church. The term “free prince,” during the Middle Ages, was the standard proposed by Machiavelli, who envisioned a supreme monarch who was not bound by any laws aside from his own personal say-so.

Marduk I have no idea where you are getting this from

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

THEN, there is a SEPARATE condemnation (#38) of the idea that the Pope’s actions in the Middle Ages contributed too much to the division of the Church. This idea is condemned on the premise that the Pope has always acted (or at least tried to act) for the good of the Church and her unity.

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

Nope. You just cut and pasted myopic little snippets (typical), creating a whole new Canon that pretends to support your errors.

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

If #34 was truly trying to condemn the idea that the notion of “free prince” was RESTRICTED to the Middle Ages, then it would have said so. Your mind is the only place where your misintpretation exists. It is NOT contained in the texts you have cited.

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

Brother, you are confusing the misinterpretation you imposed on it with the actual text. WHERE DOES THE TEXT SAY THAT IT IS CONDEMNING “THE IDEA THAT IT IS OUT OF DATE”?

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

Again, please take off your Absolutist Petrine glasses. This only condemns the idea that there is no higher authority that can judge a local bishop. The High Petrine view accepts this with the understanding that in EXTRAordinary circumstances, a local bishop can be judged by his head bishop in Synod (or at least in a collegial context). This is the standard of the early Fathers, enshrined in the Canons of Sardica. What this statement from Pope Pius VI does NOT support is your Absolutist Petrine error that the Pope can REGULARLY interfere in the affairs of a local Church.

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

Anything else? Feel free to give more quotes. We can’t leave any stone unturned, any of your erroneous MISInterpretations refuted. In CAF, we aim to inform and to learn about the TRUTH, not let errors such as yours run rampant.

The only one with errors is you Marduk, your inability to accept clear facts or understanding basic english language as well your insistence on insulting everyone who disagrees with you borders on fanaticism.

 

[jmj1984]

CONTINUED

:banghead: As stated before, EVERY head bishop has ORDINARY authority in any local diocese - iow, EVERY head bishop has THE SAME powers as any local bishop has in that local diocese. The issue is the EXERCISE of those powers. This is the distinction between ORDINARY jurisdiction and PROPER jurisdiction (I gave an explanation earlier to which you have typically and selectively failed to respond) A head bishop exercises those SAME powers in a local diocese in the EXTRAordinary circumstance when the local bishop is impeded. But a head bishop does NOT HIMSELF have the authority to impede the authority of the local bishop. As applied to the Pope, this is the clear teaching of V1 (remember the section you quoted, where you tried to pawn off the sophism of trying to differentiate between “detract” and “impede”?)

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

The Magisterial support has been quoted several times in past posts, so High Petrine advocates know this to be true. As I informed others in a different post, I am in the Phlippines right now and do not have access to ANY of my regular textual resources (I’m not at liberty to do research on the I-net). But, off the top of my head, I know that Pastor Aeternus opens up with a statement of the purpose for which Christ established the Petrine ministry, which states what I claimed. I know V2 definitely states it. I know that the Official Relatio states it. I know that the Canons explicitly state that the Pope exercises his Petrine ministry ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS of the Church. Do yourself a favor and read the sources I mentioned fully, instead of the myopic little snippets that your Absolutist Petrine apologists like to offer you from those same sources.

I have read all of the councils of the church several times Marduk, your attempts are myopic you attempt to impose limitations on papal power which have never been accepted by any council or Pope. You then misinterpret or simply ignore every source which contradicts you. Perhaps if you spent a little more time understanding the magisterium of the church and a little less time engaging in ad hominem your position would be more tenable.

The quotes you’ve given have already been refuted.

Addressed and refuted in an earlier post.

Only if refuted means completely misinterpreted or ignored. You have refuted nothing, because you cannot. All you can do is ignore the clear meaning of a text and then claim that any other interpretation is myopic or wrong .

It has been made abundantly clear that it is only your personal MISinterpretations of the quotes you cited that contradicts the patristic, High Petrine standard.

The only thing made clear is your inability to deal with sources or engage in argument without misinterpreting every document presented to you and insult the other person.

 

[jmj1984]

No, it hasn’t. The early Ecumenical Councils gave Canons of the relationship of the Patriarch to his LOCAL Church, and each local Church has through the Ages developed their own internal LOCAL canons of the roles of Patriarchs. For example, in the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Pope selects the candidates for bishop, the Synod chooses the appropriate bishop, and then confirmed by the Pope, whereas in most other Churches, the Synod selects the candidates, and the head bishop confirms. There are other internal distinctions between the Churches, I’m sure. V2 was the first Council that has attempted to define the relationship of the Patriarch to the CHURCH AS A WHOLE, and our Eastern Code is the first to attempt to make a STANDARD Canon for ALL non-Latin Churches. Your comment also demonstrates an ignorance of what went on behind the scenes at V1. Many bishops (Western, Eastern, and Oriental) wanted V1 to “define” the role of Patriarchs more in relation to the Pope (i.e., to the universal Church). If what you say is true, the bishops would not have been asking for that. There is much more to the ecclesiology of the Church than your parochial Absolutist Petrine sources pretend.

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

You are flat out wrong, brother. The Ordinary Magisterium IS ALWAYS infallible. The Magisterium is defined as the TEACHING AUTHORITY OF GOD, which is ALWAYS INFALLIBLE. This infallibility is exercised by the Ordinary Magisterium ALWAYS in its day-to-day teaching that for the most part is not disputed. When the infallibility is exercised in an EXTRAordinary manner, then we say it is exercised by the EXTRAordinary Magisterium.

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

Your Absolutist Petrine error, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, is that you seem to think that the Church is only infallible when it exercises the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (i.e., by an Ecumenical Council or by the Pope personally).

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

This causes you to accept the error that the Pope can ever exercise infallibility SEPARATELY from the Church and/or his orthodox brother bishops.

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

Your error is that you think that ONLY what has been defined is infallible. So you pretend that the teachings on collegiality contained in the Official Relatio (reflected by V2, and the consistent standard of Sacred Tradition) does not possess infallibility, but this is only because it does not match your personal MISinterpretations of Vatican 1, or your MISInterpretations of the other texts you have quoted in this thread. But the formal process of dogmatization never MAKES a teaching infallible. It can only ever RECOGNIZE that a teaching is infallible.

Actually no. Infallibility can come either from the extraordinary magisterium or the ordinary and universal magisterium, you cannot show that either the official relatio or the whole of Vatican II met either of these requirements. Seeing as ‘Apologetics and Catholic Dogma’ clearly states it does not, perhaps you should inform them that they are in error? You can google Baronius Press, I’m sure theres a contact form there

Are you referring to the texts upon which you imposed your misinterpretations?

I let the sources speak for themselves, you do not.

How?

I will deal with that in a later post.

If you believe that, then please keep silent. Your comments are unnecessary.

How about no? Not so long as you keep posting your erroneous and frankly dangerously unorthodox documents on Papal power.

 

[jmj1984]

Brother Louis was quoting Pastor Aeternus itself to refute your MISinterpretation of the Official Relatio. No need for you to give this comment. We already know that the Absolutist Petrine errors do not actually support Pastor Aeternus, but actually work to destroy its true intentions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Absolutists petrine people are bad blah blah blah… Marduk I think you need a time out from this thread. All you seem capable of doing is insulting anyone who doesnt agree with you

 

[jmj1984]

Typically, you did not address my last paragraph. Avoiding the Truth. That is what Absolutist Petrine advocates do when they are faced with the obvious errors of their MISinterpretations.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I must be off for a couple of days.

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

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

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Marduk,

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

 

[steve_b]

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

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

I maybe reading you incorrectly in your response.

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

 

[jmj1984]

Aaaah, yes. The typical statement of the SSPX. I think you have betrayed your true “Religion” status here in CAF.

Blessings,
Marduk

Looking at things in context is a statement of the SSPX who knew? Honestly Marduk your inability to deal with facts or basic theology is becoming more and more obvious as this argument goes on.

 

[jmj1984]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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