Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[beng]

And I feel the need (cause I missed it) to comment on mardukm’s reply to Ignatos:
"mardukm:

Secondly, as is typical of your and brother Beng’s tactics, you only rely on little snippets to create your caricatures of the papacy.

Because… THE “LITTLE SNIPPETS” IS ALL I HAVE!!! Why don’t you send your book (James T. O’Connor’s book) to me then?

Like brother Beng, you are confusing consent/consensus as WITNESS from consent/consensus as JUDGMENT. Bishop Gasser specifically explains what he meant (which would be lost on people like you and brother Beng, since you always rely on little snippets for your caricatures and can’t see the forest for the trees):
“It is true that in his definitions ex cathedra, the Pope has the same founts as the Church.”

The Church cannot contradict these founts, and neither can the Pope. THAT is why the consent of the Church is always implied. It is not because the Pope can create new doctrine, and the Church has to kowtow to that new doctrine. It is because the Church has the same founts of doctrine as the Pope has when exercising his Extraordinary Magisterium, and the Pope has absolutely no authority to deviate from the standard of the Faith from these identical founts.

CONTINUED

If I were mardukm, this is the time when I would say “backtracking.”

Previously he said that there’s a difference between “consent” and “consensus.”

Now, it appears that the difference is between “confusing consent/consensus as WITNESS” and “consent/consensus as JUDGMENT.”

What happens to the difference between “consent” and “consensus?”

CONTINUED

Oh yes, this is something even the early Church recognized. The only thing that the Pope actually does individually in the process of making an ex cathedra decree is the judgment itself (a judgment that must never contradict the consensus of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium or - in other words- the sensus fidei). In the same way, the Council of Sardica recognized that the judgment of whether an aggrieved bishop has a case worthy to be retried belonged singularly to the bishop of Rome and no one else. Similarly, the Third Ecumenical Council (and most other Ecum Councils) explicitly recognized that it was the Pope’s prerogative to confirm its acts, and no one else’s.

So yes, what you say is true - that the Pope can act without the bishops. But that act is limited to the actual instance of judging (which is a volitional, free and personal act of the Pope), while ALL ELSE IS COLLEGIAL. Please don’t try to exaggerate, extrapolate, or generalize that statement from Bishop Gasser as a reference to EVERY SINGLE ACT of the Pope. The context (a concept which very likely is impossible concept for you to grasp) indicates that Gasser was only referring to the unique exercise of “papal infallibility.”

This is confusing.

At first mardukm clarified that it’s “past AND PRESENT” but now it’s “PRESENT” only. Which is it?

Btw, +Gasser himself stated that in determining the faith of the Church the PRESENT magisterium could fail. This seems not about the act of judging, but of learning what is exactly the deposit of faith really says on the matter (in other word learning the faith of the Church).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, if the Ukrainian Catholic Church relied only on Rome for the protection of our rights as a Particular Church - we would be in a sad situation indeed.

Rome is so eager to placate and please Moscow . . . unfortunately, Rome doesn’t feel itself bound to all this theological/ecclesiological mumbo-jumbo, as if it makes a difference to Rome’s geopolitics.

Happily, our Patriarchal Synod is in place and, yes, bring on the Ecumenical Council!

Alex

 

[beng]

Dear brother Beng,

If you can show where I wrote “the present Church only,” then I’m guilty as charged. But since you can’t, then you have again presented another of your many, many straw men.

You know I’m not like you. If someone made a slip I would simply say, “ok fine, that’s not what you meant, what did you mean than?” Instead of you who would cry “BACKTRACKING.”

As I said, I’m much more cooler and badass than you that way.

So, did you or did you not wrote"present Church only?"

However without a doubt you’ve continually said “present Church” without alluring to a “past Church.”

Go right ahead.

Maybe later.

The consensus of the Church will never fail. You make this statement based on your error that there will ever be a time when the Pope will be the ONLY orthodox person left on earth. The CCC, quoting Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, reflecting the infallibility of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, teaches us, contrary to your error:

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the Apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in His own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith,” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this Faith."

First of all, which “consensus of the Church” that supposedly “never fail?” Are you talking about the present, the past, or both?

Second of all, that quote doesn’t do away with my theory (ie. there could be a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishops). How’s so? Because if so happens that the pope is the only orthodox bishop on earth then it’s still true that the People of God will be unfailingly adheres to the true faith because there’s a guidance from the living magisterium, that is the Pope (is he not the head of the magisterium?).

Another “in other word (sic)” argument. When you have the time, maybe you can actually give a direct quote from me for all these straw men accusations you make.

If you can draw inference from other’s word why can’t other do it? Because you will always be misunderstood?

Gasser did not separate the present preaching from the consent of antiquity. And neither did I. It is all in your mind. Earlier, you accused those who separate the present preaching from the consent of antiquity of being modernists, and now claim that Gasser did this very thing.:tsktsk: I suppose we’ll expect another incident of backtracking from you.

Ahh backtracking… But that’s not the word in my mind when reading this. The word in my mind is “straw man.”

That’s right, if I were mardukm I would not be hesitate to cried, “STRAW MAN.”

The word modernist," if you recall, which I don’t think you do, was made for a person who believe that the Church is present only. NOT concerning someone who said that there’s a present Church and a past Church.

Brother, I am already in the Catholic communion. If you wish to willfully separate from the Church on my account… well, no one will stop you.

That is what you think. Since you’re not infallible, you might err.

I already responded to this in my post #132: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8006385&postcount=132

Consulting the bishops would never be in vain because, as intimated in post #132, a portion of the bishops will always be orthodox. In fact, consulting the bishops (at the very least a portion of them) would probabaly be practically unavoidable, because it is the bishops themselves who bring the case to the Pope to be judged, according to the Proem of the Decree on Infallibility. Oh wait ---- that probably has no relevance to you because you’re the one who believes the Pope can just wake up one morning and decide to make an ex cathedra decree out of the blue. The more I think about it, the more I realize how ridiculous your whole paradigm about the papacy actually is!

It would be in vain exactly because THE POPE DOESN’T KNOW WHICH PORTION IS ORTHODOX. That is +Gasser’s point.

And an exercise of ex cathedra DOESN’T HAVE TO BE TRIGGERED by the appeal from the bishops. It could be triggered by anything or anyone (say, the Pope’s mom). In fact, the Pope himself could feel the need to exercise his personal charism (if some bishops could observe a particular situation and feel the need to request the Pope to make an ex cathedra statement why can’t the pope by himself, who is also a bishop, observes a particular situation and feels the need to make an ex cathedra statement?)

I suspect you are not a very conscientious reader, but only try to nitpick at items that you imagine you can use for your straw men arguments. May I suggest you read through this thread once over very carefully. You keep asking for things that have already been covered or given.

Blessings,
Marduk

Maybe because you are not being straightforward.

 

[beng]

Well, if the Ukrainian Catholic Church relied only on Rome for the protection of our rights as a Particular Church - we would be in a sad situation indeed.

Rome is so eager to placate and please Moscow . . . unfortunately, Rome doesn’t feel itself bound to all this theological/ecclesiological mumbo-jumbo, as if it makes a difference to Rome’s geopolitics.

Happily, our Patriarchal Synod is in place and, yes, bring on the Ecumenical Council!

Alex

Do you forget that the same thing happen with the Latin-West Catholic Church?

Why do you think we are in this sad state?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

Well, if the Ukrainian Catholic Church relied only on Rome for the protection of our rights as a Particular Church - we would be in a sad situation indeed.

Rome is so eager to placate and please Moscow . . . unfortunately, Rome doesn’t feel itself bound to all this theological/ecclesiological mumbo-jumbo, as if it makes a difference to Rome’s geopolitics.

Happily, our Patriarchal Synod is in place and, yes, bring on the Ecumenical Council!

Alex

I can somewhat sympathize with your concerns about the Pope’s geopoliticking (I say “somewhat” because I cannot say for certain that he is actually doing that).

As mentioned recently, the Pope re-established (during V2) the Synod of bishops that was replaced by the College of Cardinal consultors in the Middle Ages.

I suspect that if the Pope is aware of just how pressing the matter is, he would convene an extraordinary Synod for the matter, since that is one of the purposes of such a Synod - to resolve matters in a collegial manner that particular Churches appeal to the Pope to resolve.

Whatever the Pope’s motives are, I believe he would have to and could only grant the Patriarchal status collegially in Synod.

As I had suggested in a past thread, perhaps the UGCC can start a grass-roots campaign so patriarchs and other head bishops from other Churches will give support for it. In that way, a truly collegial decision on the matter can be secured. I don’t think you ever responded to that suggestion. Don’t you think that route would be the most sensible one to take?

Are there any possible drawbacks to such a method of approaching/resolving the matter from your POV?

Forgive my boldness for anticipating a possible response from you: It’s possible you feel that the matter should be between the Pope and the UGCC alone, and no other Church.

If that is so, I humbly suggest you consider the fact that Rome is not the mother Church of the Ukrainians. If she was, then I could accept that perspective. But as Rome is not your mother Church, then this becomes an inter-Church matter (not merely intra-Church), and thus requries a collegial resolution (IMO).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Brother Marduk,

Your approach has much merit indeed. I sometimes sound off about Rome (and I don’t intend to mean the Pope necessarily since I think the Pope sometimes can’t do what he would like to do in our situation).

If I come across as negative, (it probably is my actual intent) I apologise to you and to our brother Beng.

In the end, I’m sure it will all work out for the best for all concerned.

Then there’s always that beautiful liturgical piece “Agpeya” which I just love and use! It always puts a smile on my face!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

If I come across as negative, (it probably is my actual intent) I apologise to you and to our brother Beng.

Absolutely no apologies necessary. You, and any Catholic, has every right to express concerns about the welfare and needs of your/our own Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gregdaly]

I just said it, “even if the official relatio of +Gasser confirmed mardukm’s theory (which I don’t think it is) it wouldn’t be infallible and definitive”

Mardukm, can you offer a response to this?

P.S. I look forward to your response to my other question – whenever you have the time.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

And I feel the need (cause I missed it) to comment on mardukm’s reply to Ignatos:

Mardukm has been very kind and helpful to this inquirer, so I also feel a need to defend him.

Because… THE “LITTLE SNIPPETS” IS ALL I HAVE!!! Why don’t you send your book (James T. O’Connor’s book) to me then?

Then don’t go around boasting that you’re going to win any awards - especially as you already admitted you were wrong on one issue that has been debated between you and Mardukm. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will convict you of your other errors, too.

Previously he said that there’s a difference between “consent” and “consensus.”

Now, it appears that the difference is between “confusing consent/consensus as WITNESS” and “consent/consensus as JUDGMENT.”

What happens to the difference between “consent” and “consensus?”

Mardukm already explained this. He said he did it for your benefit to make a distinction between bishops as witnesses and bishops as judges. Why do you keep beating a dead horse?

At first mardukm clarified that it’s “past AND PRESENT” but now it’s “PRESENT” only. Which is it?

Actually, as he already explained, Mardukm used the word “PRESENT” from the beginning, which is always understood to include the past. In fact, if you were reading carefully, he even gave a quote from your Catholic Encyclopedia that says that exact same thing. It was the post he addressed to me wherein he gave several quotes from solid Catholic sources to prove that the Pope and Ecumenical Council are equal (which proved you wrong hands down).

It wasn’t until you started to split the two that he was forced to use “past AND PRESENT” because you most likely confused the readers. Why do you keep beating a dead horse?

This seems not about the act of judging, but of learning what is exactly the deposit of faith really says on the matter (in other word learning the faith of the Church).

I think Mardukm is correct that you are not a conscienscious reader, and that all you do is try to nitpick at little points to try to win an argument. I see that Mardukm has from the very beginning been careful to differentiate between bishops as judges and bishops as witnesses. So you actually agree with him. So stop beating a dead horse and just admit you have been wrong all along for criticizing him.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[beng]

Mardukm has been very kind and helpful to this inquirer, so I also feel a need to defend him.

By all means…

Then don’t go around boasting that you’re going to win any awards - especially as you already admitted you were wrong on one issue that has been debated between you and Mardukm. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will convict you of your other errors, too.

If having book means that I can’t win, then should I boast my win over at the filioque thread because it doesn’t seem that mardukm own Fr. Joseph Gill’s Council of Florence?

And mardukm also admitted to error several times (here and i the filioque thread), should I collect my trophy?

Mardukm already explained this. He said he did it for your benefit to make a distinction between bishops as witnesses and bishops as judges. Why do you keep beating a dead horse?

Because it’s confusing. And it’s not berating on a dead horse.

Was it “consensus” = “bishop as witness” while “consent” = “bishop as judges?”

If you want to defend him give a better explanation.

Actually, as he already explained, Mardukm used the word “PRESENT” from the beginning, which is always understood to include the past. In fact, if you were reading carefully, he even gave a quote from your Catholic Encyclopedia that says that exact same thing. It was the post he addressed to me wherein he gave several quotes from solid Catholic sources to prove that the Pope and Ecumenical Council are equal (which proved you wrong hands down).

It wasn’t until you started to split the two that he was forced to use “past AND PRESENT” because you most likely confused the readers. Why do you keep beating a dead horse?

Because he continuously wrote “present” without alluding to “past.”

If you’re clear on that, then more power to you. I was/am not.

And the matter concerning “present/past” has nothing to do with the “equality” between the Pope and ecumenical council.

I think Mardukm is correct that you are not a conscienscious reader, and that all you do is try to nitpick at little points to try to win an argument. I see that Mardukm has from the very beginning been careful to differentiate between bishops as judges and bishops as witnesses. So you actually agree with him. So stop beating a dead horse and just admit you have been wrong all along for criticizing him.

In Christ,
Greg

Little points is what makes the difference in a complex matter (remember the term homoousios). It’s what separate the heretic from the Catholic.

And no. I never agree with him because most of the time he’s holding back and not being straightforward because of the animosity.

If you understand mardukm so well, feel free to clear up things and answer my questions to him, especially:

beng:
But, just to be sure, try to answer this problem: The bishops of the Catholic Church are divided over a certain faith question. This division threatens the live of the Church. No bishop is neutral. The pope is about to use his personal charism to save the Church. Because consulting his bishops would be in vain he decides to go straight to the fathers, canons, in other word consent of antiquity. Would he be able to pronounce ex cathedra from his finding?

 

[beng]

Mardukm, can you offer a response to this?

P.S. I look forward to your response to my other question – whenever you have the time.

In Christ,
Greg

Why don’t you read the quote from Catholic Encyclopedia before it?

 

[beng]

Dear Brother Marduk,

Your approach has much merit indeed. I sometimes sound off about Rome (and I don’t intend to mean the Pope necessarily since I think the Pope sometimes can’t do what he would like to do in our situation).

If I come across as negative, (it probably is my actual intent) I apologise to you and to our brother Beng.

In the end, I’m sure it will all work out for the best for all concerned.

Then there’s always that beautiful liturgical piece “Agpeya” which I just love and use! It always puts a smile on my face!

Cheers,

Alex

No need for apology.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear brother FoneBone,

Thank you so much for your support. I consider your support, as a Latin Catholic, very inspiring.

You’re welcome.

The Tome of Pope St. Leo is indeed a good example as a response to brother Greg’s query. I have a few other examples in mind, along with an explanation/refutation of one of the most common misconceptions of the purpose of infallibility. I will do that soon when I have more time, hopefully by tomorrow.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ll look forward to it!

Thank you once again for your statements of support for the High Petrine view. As a Latin Catholic yourself, your testimony is more valuable than mine.

Blessings,
Marduk

I admit that may be true for practical purposes, but it’s still a shame. I really hope that as more and more decades go by, people truly understand and accept that Latins are no more Catholic than eastern and oriental Catholics of various churches and rites.

I don’t think that’s twf you’re quoting, but me.

Yes, the clause in quotes was your words. I simply meant that twf’s response to that assertion was correct: what you said is true if you mean that the validity of a pope’s judgment in an exercise of papal infallibility is not dependent upon the consent of contemporary bishops, but Marduk doesn’t disagree with that: he’s simply trying to make it clear with all due specificity that papal infallibility is a participation in the infallibility of the Church, and that an exercise of it must reflect and remain consistent with the sensus fidei.

Maybe I’m missing something everyone else is seeing, but I honestly feel that for the most part - with the exception of perhaps a few specifics - you guys have mostly been talking past each other. Marduk definitely doesn’t think that the pope’s hands are necessarily tied by the opinions of his contemporary bishops, and I’m sure you’re not claiming that the pope can add to revelation, change the deposit of faith, or contradict the Church’s founts of truth.

I see that Mardukm has from the very beginning been careful to differentiate between bishops as judges and bishops as witnesses. So you actually agree with him.

I too don’t think that Beng actually disagrees with Marduk’s position. I think he is persisting stubbornly in a misunderstanding of Marduk’s position. I wish he could and would see and accept that papal prerogatives are not under attack here.

If you understand mardukm so well, feel free to clear up things and answer my questions to him, especially:

beng:
But, just to be sure, try to answer this problem: The bishops of the Catholic Church are divided over a certain faith question. This division threatens the live of the Church. No bishop is neutral. The pope is about to use his personal charism to save the Church. Because consulting his bishops would be in vain he decides to go straight to the fathers, canons, in other word consent of antiquity. Would he be able to pronounce ex cathedra from his finding?

Well, consulting the bishops in that situation wouldn’t be in vain, since doing so would probably help clarify their positions quite a bit. (And by the way, they’re not “his bishops” unless by “his” you mean “Christ’s” )

That said, if the pope were to exercise his infallibility with a judgment on the matter in this situation, wouldn’t he have to investigate the fathers, canons, etc.?

Do you think Marduk disagrees with that? Of course, in that situation the pope could call an ecumenical council, but if he were to go the other route, do you think Marduk disagrees with you on that?

He can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the only thing about your hypothetical he would disagree with is the notion that consulting the bishops would be “in vain.” Certainly the pope could - and should - investigate the consent of the Church in other ways if the division were so widespread…

 

[beng]

Yes, the clause in quotes was your words. I simply meant that twf’s response to that assertion was correct: what you said is true if you mean that the validity of a pope’s judgment in an exercise of papal infallibility is not dependent upon the consent of contemporary bishops, but Marduk doesn’t disagree with that: he’s simply trying to make it clear with all due specificity that papal infallibility is a participation in the infallibility of the Church, and that an exercise of it must reflect and remain consistent with the sensus fidei.

But then, is sensus fidei depends on the current bishops? That is why I gave the problem that you answered below (let me get to that).

Maybe I’m missing something everyone else is seeing, but I honestly feel that for the most part - with the exception of perhaps a few specifics - you guys have mostly been talking past each other. Marduk definitely doesn’t think that the pope’s hands are necessarily tied by the opinions of his contemporary bishops, and I’m sure you’re not claiming that the pope can add to revelation, change the deposit of faith, or contradict the Church’s founts of truth.

Well, you’re right about what I hold [ie. not claiming that the pope can add to revelation, change the deposit of faith, or contradict the Church’s founts of truth]. But I don’t think you are right about mardukm’s [ie. doesn’t think that the pope’s hands are necessarily tied by the opinions of his contemporary bishops].

I too don’t think that Beng actually disagrees with Marduk’s position. I think he is persisting stubbornly in a misunderstanding of Marduk’s position. I wish he could and would see and accept that papal prerogatives are not under attack here.

Well, let him answer the problem in a straight forward way.

If you recall the heretics and schismatics always try to show how they agree to the formula of faith, but with their own understanding. That is why the careful Latin fathers at Florence rejected the Greek proposal of using “through the son” in the creed. That is why Nicea I fathers use the word homoousion.

I think mardukm is trying to slip his error. He’s elusive. I’m trying the best I can to nail him, so to speak.

Well, consulting the bishops in that situation wouldn’t be in vain, since doing so would probably help clarify their positions quite a bit. (And by the way, they’re not “his bishops” unless by “his” you mean “Christ’s” )

Say that he knows their exact position. Just for the sake of the argument, consulting them is in vain because everything needs to be known about their position is known by the pope. Does the Pope need to consult them?

That said, if the pope were to exercise his infallibility with a judgment on the matter in this situation, wouldn’t he have to investigate the fathers, canons, etc.?

Do you think Marduk disagrees with that? Of course, in that situation the pope could call an ecumenical council, but if he were to go the other route, do you think Marduk disagrees with you on that?

He can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me the only thing about your hypothetical he would disagree with is the notion that consulting the bishops would be “in vain.” Certainly the pope could - and should - investigate the consent of the Church in other ways if the division were so widespread…

To my understanding mardukm will disagree that the Pope does not need to consult the current bishops. It’s a “must” to him. Although Pastor Aeternus stated that there are so many ways in which the Pope could learn the faith of the Church.

1. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

It could so happen that when a pope about to consult the bishops or go to the library to study the fathers [ie. consent of antiquity], there appeared St. Thomas [as afforded by divine providence]. He learned from him the faith of the Church and exercise his personal infallibility. Or maybe it wasn’t St. Thomas, but he met Vatican gardener who sang some Psalm and get his inspiration from there. Who knows what is afforded by divine providence?

There’s also another thing… but I must leave now.

 

[beng]

What I wanted to add is this charism also protects the Church. It protects her from being perverse by error.

So, if a pope, in all his good will and effort, comes to the wrong conclusion and he’s about to promulgate it, then the Holy Spirit will make sure that the promulgation does not happen. It could be done in many ways. He strikes down the pope to death, He sends barbarians to invade Rome and seize the pope, He makes the pope have a sudden amnesia etc.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What I wanted to add is this charism also protects the Church. It protects her from being perverse by error.

So, if a pope, in all his good will and effort, comes to the wrong conclusion and he’s about to promulgate it, then the Holy Spirit will make sure that the promulgation does not happen. It could be done in many ways. He strikes down the pope to death, He sends barbarians to invade Rome and seize the pope, He makes the pope have a sudden amnesia etc.

Perhaps aliens in space ships with papal flags will come to earth and invite Fr. Corapi, dressed in black wool, to a boxing match with such a pope so he could knock him out before he says anything heretical.

I’d certainly buy a ticket to see that match!

Alex

 

[gregdaly]

Well, let him answer the problem in a straight forward way.

IMO, Mardukm has been very straightforward. The problem is that you have created some artificial discrepancies, accusing him of things that he never stated. So you have confused yourself, and you want to blame someone else for that.

I think mardukm is trying to slip his error. He’s elusive. I’m trying the best I can to nail him, so to speak.

Rather, you really seem like a person who is so full of himself that he can’t admit that he has wrongly accused another.

To my understanding mardukm will disagree that the Pope does not need to consult the current bishops. It’s a “must” to him.

Show us where he stated this. Please. Why are you being evasive? I asked you this before, and you could not produce a single statement from Mardukm to corroborate your accusation against him. Why do you feel Mardukm has to answer for something he never stated, that your own imagination created - for what purpose? You accuse Mardukm of being vague (which is not true, IMO), but you yourself can’t even p(name removed by moderator)oint where Mardukm stated any of things of which you accuse him. Work on that log in the eye.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Perhaps aliens in space ships with papal flags will come to earth and invite Fr. Corapi, dressed in black wool, to a boxing match with such a pope so he could knock him out before he says anything heretical.

I’d certainly buy a ticket to see that match!

Alex, who is Father Corapi? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[NinjaSnark]

Say that he knows their exact position. Just for the sake of the argument, consulting them is in vain because everything needs to be known about their position is known by the pope. Does the Pope need to consult them?

With all due respect… What?!

The purpose of consulting someone is to ascertain their position. So, I read your statement thusly:

“Say the pope already knows the exact position of the bishops. For the sake of argument, asking them their position is in vain because he already knows their position. Does the Pope need to ask them their position?”

It’s a frustrating exercise in redundancy. If the Pope already knows their “exact position” in your hypothetical- it can only mean that he already has consulted them. Does he need to do it again? Has anyone changed their minds?

Your hypothetical is totally circular.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex, who is Father Corapi? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

Dear Greg,

Fr. Corapi is a priest-evangelist who had quite an extensive Catholic outreach ministry, especially on TV (I watched him all the time on EWTN). He had quite an interesting life and conversion story.

However, he has recently got into some trouble and his ministry is no longer carried by EWTN. He has left the active priestly ministry and is leaving his Order, I believe.

His statement released on Father’s Day was somewhat bitter and he called himself the “Black Sheep Dog.” That is why I made the tongue-in-cheek about him boxing with a potentially heretical pope dressed in black wool (boxer shorts).

He always did “pack a punch . . .”

I’m sorry to have heard about this, I hope things can be fixed and it would be a shame if “another priest bites the dust.” Some didn’t like his preaching - I thought he was actually quite good.

And I don’t believe any pope would/could make an heretical pronouncement. Especially if his exercise of infallibility/indefectibility would be that of confirming the decisions of an Ecumenical Council . . . oops, sorry!

Alex