I disagree. Where does the Catholic Church teach that the first Council of Constantinople was not ecumenical, or was only in part ecumenical? Which teachings of the Council did (and does) the Catholic Church reject? Thanks.Constantinople I (381 A.D.) was an eastern local council. Later some of the canons were accepted by the Supreme Pontiff and at it was ratified, so became ecumenical at that time.
Right. Again, another example of the Bishop of Rome’s (Pope’s) activity at an ecumenical council means sending legates. So again we understand and believe the authority of ecumenical councils regardless of the Pope being there, approving the teachings, and of course no mention of papal infallibility (again, back to the OP).Pope Celistine I did have a role at Ephesus (431 A.D.), he sent his legates, and the council reconvened with them and voted again. This is why the council is accepted by Rome.
Where in this letter is Clement referred to as Pope, or Supreme Pontiff? Where does the letter say to listen to “him”? Thanks.Well, read it again, maybe you will begin to understand. Pope Clement warns the Corinthians to listen to him because condemnation is inevitable for “us all” unless we “do those things which are good” and “worthy of Him.” Faith without works is dead James 2:26, and this must be done “with one mind,” in the unity of the Church.
He spoke, as Supreme Pontiff, with final teaching authority.
“Of course”? Yes, if one’s individual opinion is the criterion.Of course this is achieved through the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff with doctrinal finality.
Thanks. Again, key point in your post is IMHO. Of course anyone can read papal infallibility into the letter. My point is that the letter itself does not claim any such thing. That’s all.Clement wrote with final teaching authority and this implies papal infallibility IMHO.
I read this from another thread post by my friend Pneuma07 a couple of years ago.
God bless you.
Scalco
List of works of Gelasius of Cyzicus:A “writer” may or may not be of significance for the Catholic Church. Why are his works important to Catholics/Christians? Thanks. I’ve just never heard of him before.
I’ve heard of course of Pope Gelasius, but not Gelasius of Cyzicus.
Ok, so the role of the Bishop of Rome at the first ecumenical council was to send legates. Which, of course, happened before the council, and does not give any information about what the Bishop of Rome thought about what the ecumenical council taught. Agreed.
It was not initially called ecumenical. It is listed as a General Council of the 4th century by papal decrees of the 6th century, see: (p. 41, Murphy, Fr. John L., The General Councils of the Church , Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960.)I disagree. Where does the Catholic Church teach that the first Council of Constantinople was not ecumenical, or was only in part ecumenical? Which teachings of the Council did (and does) the Catholic Church reject? Thanks.
Thanks! Greatly appreciate the reference.List of works of Gelasius of Cyzicus:
tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gelasius_of_cyzicus.htm
Whether, and how, the Church “always maintained” such is open to speculation. I agree that Vatican I and II define the Church’s teaching on infallibility.We know from the definition at Vatican I and II what the Church teaches regarding the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, that the Church has always maintained it.
Do you mean Vatican I and II are examples? Or something else? Sorry, I am not clear on what you are saying.So these are examples of where faith and morals are presented with certainty, such as was quoted earlier in this thread:
Right, nothing about infallibility or papal infallibility there.1 Clem 63:2 – For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
There is no evidence that the Pope sending legates to the Council meant that anything decided by such council had the Pope’s approval. Unless you’re suggesting that the Council waited for the legate to communicate back and forth with the Pope prior to the Council making decisions? There is zero evidence for that.You posted: “Right. Again, another example of the Bishop of Rome’s (Pope’s) activity at an ecumenical council means sending legates. So again we understand and believe the authority of ecumenical councils regardless of the Pope being there, approving the teachings, and of course no mention of papal infallibility (again, back to the OP).”
The council voted with the legates, therefore with the assent of the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope never has to be personally present. The exercise of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff through his legates on issues of faith and morals determined at the council is papal infallibility, but of couse the terminology “infallibility” is not used, and was not claimed to be used either.
Of course. None of the early councils were, initially.It was not initially called ecumenical.
One Pope disagreeing with one canon of one ecumenical council does not mean that the teachings of that ecumenical council were not received and believed by the Church.Not every canon was accepted either. Pope Nicholas I (reigned 858-867) said about the sixth canon of Constantinople I (381) to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you’’.
True, this was prefaced with: “Not every canon was accepted either.”.…
One Pope disagreeing with one canon of one ecumenical council does not mean that the teachings of that ecumenical council were not received and believed by the Church.
On your question about examples, I posted “So these are examples of where faith and morals are presented with certainty, such as was quoted earlier in this thread:” and then I gave the Clement quote as one such example. The examples are what we began with in post # 193, but also whatever followed that I posted.…
Whether, and how, the Church “always maintained” such is open to speculation. I agree that Vatican I and II define the Church’s teaching on infallibility.
Do you mean Vatican I and II are examples? Or something else? Sorry, I am not clear on what you are saying.
Right, nothing about infallibility or papal infallibility there.
There is no evidence that the Pope sending legates to the Council meant that anything decided by such council had the Pope’s approval. Unless you’re suggesting that the Council waited for the legate to communicate back and forth with the Pope prior to the Council making decisions? There is zero evidence for that.
Then why does the letter of Clement say “us” if it’s the teaching of the (singular) Supreme Pontiff?Pope Saint Clement said: “…if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit…”. This is an example of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
If that’s true, can you please share any evidence for where (or how, or when) the Bishop of Rome ratified the teachings of the first four ecumenical councils (as defined by the Catholic Church)? Thanks!Statements of a council are also ratified or rejected by the Supreme Pontiff after the council; all conciliar statements are not always accepted as shown through history.
I have no problem with or question about what Vatican II taught. I accept and believe all its teachings, as I do all Catholic Church teachings.You posted “Whether, and how, the Church “always maintained” such is open to speculation.” Vatican I is clear on whether it was always maintained:
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This holy see has always maintained this, the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
B.Then why does the letter of Clement say “us” if it’s the teaching of the (singular) Supreme Pontiff?
C.If that’s true, can you please share any evidence for where (or how, or when) the Bishop of Rome ratified the teachings of the first four ecumenical councils (as defined by the Catholic Church)? Thanks!
A: The Supreme Pontiff has veto power, and he does not teach in isolation, as you say, the singular Supreme Pontiff. Papal infallibility means the Pope’s exercise of teaching authority on behalf of and in communion with the Church which is juridically irreformable, and limited to truths which form a part of the deposit of faith and that must be held as true.I have no problem with or question about what Vatican II taught. I accept and believe all its teachings, as I do all Catholic Church teachings.
But it didn’t specify** how** the Church “always maintained” such. That’s my question…where (and how) did the Church really, historically, always maintain that?
You rightly note I expressed my opinion. Honestly, I could be way off base. I could be reading more into the letter than what is there, maybe blurring the lines between authority and infallibility. Could you please give a checklist for what would constitute papal infallibility in such a letter?Thanks. Again, key point in your post is IMHO. Of course anyone can read papal infallibility into the letter. My point is that the letter itself does not claim any such thing. That’s all.
Has the wrong term of his papacy which should be:A.
…
ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (460-61)
…
Can you clarify where the Catholic Church teaches this? I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that gives “veto” power to the Pope. Thank you.A: The Supreme Pontiff has veto power,
Again, where does the Catholic Church teach this? Thank you.which is juridically irreformable,