Yes, I do.
So you claim, but the quotes I gave, from the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Council’s Decrees confutes your position.
Ah, the beauty of the “your own opinion” phraseology. Does anyone realize that by saying “well, you have your opinion and I have mine” is actually meaningless? As brother mardkum just pointed out, it comes down to which opinion is in accord with the subject matter. Thanks for teaching the difference between an interpretation and misinterpretation.
That is your error. And it’s not the Catholic position.
Your position is an interpretation that contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Ahhhh! Now I see the source of your misinterpretation. You are equating “consensus” with “consent.”
Here is the text from the V1 Decree on Primacy:mardukm:
I was not aware of that- but that is infinitely reassuring, so thank you.
It is a blessing for me to read that from you. Naysayers, who are not aware of the history of the Council, and presume it was called just for the purpose of defining the papal dogmas hand-in-hand, often claim that the Decree on Infallibility was created merely to strengthen the claims of the Primacy. But as demonstrated from the actual history of the Council detailed earlier, the issue of infallibility was not even on the original agenda of the Council, while the issue of Primacy was. The REAL reason the issue of infallibility was added had nothing to do with the Primacy (though they are indeed connected).
OK, I’m not a Latin scholar but I know enough of it to realize there it (as does every language) has certain peculiarities. Nonetheless, there is still the choice of verbs. For the purpose at hand, let’s then call the “ought” and “should” constructions “weak” imperatives. We know, however, (as I said earlier), that when Rome wants to use a strict imperative, she does so. And further, there is the English translation, which is interesting in that it maintains the “weak” imperative. In any case, though, I’m not arguing a delicate point of language, and am letting it go at that.
Do you or do you not hold that a pope should determine consensus by asking the bishops ONLY (not priests nor laity) and not by any other means [ie. the Pope learns about the faith of the Church by his own study without consulting anyone but books]?
If you can find a place I stated such a thing, I will admit it. If you cannot, that will answer your question just as well.
Yes, if we existed in some reality where ABC was moral and did not violate Divine Law, that is my belief. Generally, no matter what imagined reality you propose, the Pope has absolutely no authority to contradict the consensus of the Faith as expressed through her bishops. In any case, there will never be a time when ONLY the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on earth, because (1) the episcopal office is of divine institution, (2) the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium is an active principle in the Church.
I understand what you are saying. Can you imagine a time when society was not so morally relativistic that the pluperfect subjunctive form of a verb (i.e., “should”) was always equivalent to “must?” Nowadays, it is so common to say “I should do this” when what one actually means is “I can do this, but I don’t need to.” We should (no pun intended) not be so quick to impose modern colloquialisms on terms that have been traditionally understood to denote duty and obligation.
I understand that many today think infallibility and primacy are so inextricably linked to the point of indistinguishability, in both theory and praxis. Brother Beng, who I’m currently debating on the matter, is a perfect example, and seems to believe that even in theory (and thus praxis), the Pope does not require the consensus of the Church in his unique exercise of the Church’s infallibility. I distinguish your position as one where the theory is good, but bad praxis might carry over into a perception of bad theory. In brother Beng’s case, the perception of bad theory is due to the theory itself being bad. Would that be accurate?
If it were possible to extricate the idea of infallibility from that of primacy, I’d say yes. But I think it’s clear from the history of when (and how) both both were defined that Rome itself has inextricably joined them. (Eng and Chang, anyone?
) I cannot think of a way to undo that other than what I suggested earlier: return it all to the status of the 1st millennium. That would level the playing field. Don’t forget Lumen Gentium. Why Ecumenical Councils at all if you have this to fall back on in the absence of infallibility?
In Christ,
That’s a confusing answer. That’s like saying, “if I ever say that snow is black, then I admit that I hold that snow is black. But if I never said it, then I hold that snow is not black.”
Then that is your error.
One might be fooled by quotations, the length of explanation and false distinction. But mardukm’s position is not a Catholic one.
This teaching is perfectly fine. The only problem is when people confuse the term “supreme” to be equivalent to “only” or “absolute.” In truth, “supreme” merely means “highest.”
Those who are unaware of the history of the Council or its original Agenda probably imagine some kind of special significance to this organization. In fact, it was only circumstantial, as it was the last item to be added to the agenda on the Constitution “De ecclesiae.”
“I don’t have a response” would have done just as well.I have yet to see how this is so. Mardukm has clearly shown the Catholic Teaching from the documents of Vatican I.