B
beng
Guest
Heh? Wasn’t it you who’s preoccupied when I said “separate” TO GREG and then clarified by using “different” TO GREG.
It’s not about you, you know.
- Status
It’s not about you, you know.
G
gregdaly
Guest
That’s a good point, and I can understand it. The Catholic Church is without a doubt the largest organization in the world. It’s almost to be expected that some sort of miscommunication can occur from level to level on the hierarchy.
In Christ,
Greg
G
gregdaly
Guest
Beng and Mardukm,
Thank you for the dialogue. Logically speaking, I’m leaning towards Mardukm.
Mardukm, can you please explain what your concerns are about “separate” infallibility? I’m just wondering if they are the same as my own.
Beng, after Mardukm gives his explanation, can you please identify the difference you perceive between his explanation and my own concern, to which you responded that “different” would describe the reality better than “separate.” Thanks.
Beng, also, I was looking through the thread, and I don’t see where mardukm says that the Pope can only depend on the bishops. Maybe there is just a miscommunication?
In Christ,
Greg
Thank you for the dialogue. Logically speaking, I’m leaning towards Mardukm.
Mardukm, can you please explain what your concerns are about “separate” infallibility? I’m just wondering if they are the same as my own.
Beng, after Mardukm gives his explanation, can you please identify the difference you perceive between his explanation and my own concern, to which you responded that “different” would describe the reality better than “separate.” Thanks.
Beng, also, I was looking through the thread, and I don’t see where mardukm says that the Pope can only depend on the bishops. Maybe there is just a miscommunication?
In Christ,
Greg
B
beng
Guest
“Logically” speaking. Why not.
Separate is not a taboo-ed word. +Gasser, which mardukm relies on, use that word to speak about infallibility
In what sense can the infallibility of the Pope be said to be “separate”? It is able to be called “separate,” or rather distinct because it rests on a special promise of Christ and therefore on a special assistance of the Holy Spirit, which assistance is not one and the same with that which the whole body of the teaching Church enjoys when united with its head. +Gasser
This is what I said that the mechanism of both infallibilities are separate.
And actually on this point I collaborated with mardukm, in the old thread, to correct a fellow Catholic’s error who mix the two infallibilities. Unfortunately in his overzealous effort mardukm failed to remember it and accused me of being in error when I use the word “separate.”
If you recall, after saying that both infallibilities are separate you followed it up by asking “If the infallibility of the Church consists of ‘papal infallibility’ and ‘college of bishops infallibility,’ how can they be ‘separate?’” At this point I realized that using the word “separate” lead you to the wrong direction (you did not understand the “separate” means that the mechanism is separate, as +Gasser point out). That is why I said to use the word “different.”
Well, it’s not on this thread at least not specifically. But he did say on this thread about an “active ordinary magisterium.” This is based on his error. In his understanding of papal infallibility in order for the pope to speak infallibly he must study the deposit of faith (aka the regula fidei aka Scripture+Tradition). Which is fine with me since we know that infallibility is a negative charism. Unfortunately he restricts how the deposit of faith is extracted by the pope. He suggests that to learn the deposit of faith the pope must consult the present magisterium to get a “consensus.” He could not do it by studying, say scripture, writing of the fathers, summa theologica etc. This makes papal infallibility depends upon the bishops (while we have learn that during the peak of Arian crisis, 97-99& of Church bishops are Arian, according to father William F. Jurgen the writer of several patristic books [google him]).
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Greg,
Thank you for the questions.
Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that “papal infallibility” is merely the HS permitting the Pope to possess the infallibility of the Church (“the Roman Pontiff possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to have”). So it is and can not in any way be separated from the infallibility of the Church.
After the snippet quoted by brother Beng from the Official Relatio (that “separate” is taken only in the sense of “distinct”), it goes on: “We do not thereby separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church. For he is infallible only when as doctor of all Christians, that is, as representing the universal Church. He can no more be separated from the Church than the foundation can be separated from the building it bears. Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and agreement of the Church.”
Our brother has an intense Absolutist Petrine outlook. His statement “in order for the pope to speak infallibly he must study the deposit of faith (aka the regula fidei aka Scripture+Tradition). Which is fine with me since we know that infallibility is a negative charism” should be taken with a grain of salt. Here are excerpts from a past debate we had:
**Marduk:**You claimed that the Pope can just wake up one morning and decide to make an ex cathedra decree. Can you please cite any Magisterial source for this statement, or are you simply expressing your opinion?
**Beng:**Have you ever wake up one day and just feel like doing something [e.g. going to the swimming pool]? Now, that impulsive thought does not have to be inspire by the Holy Spirit nor cause by previous preponderance (for example, the night before you watch Micheal Phelps). It’s a spontaneous thought. This is what I meant. The pope could just wake up and have a spontaneous thought that he want to pronounce infallible. And if that thought is genuinely part of the deposit of faith, it will be infallible and the whole church is bound to it.
**Marduk:**I can’t believe what I’m reading. So anything the Pope spontaneously thinks of, if he decides to pronounce it ex cathedra, will become Truth?
**Beng:**Yes. If he finalized it by promulgating it it will be the truth
**Marduk:**You have claimed the Pope does not need the aid of the present Church.
**Beng:**Yes. He does not absolutely need it. But it would be better to have the help.
He believes the Pope does not need the help of the Church AT ALL. The Pope can just proclaim spontaneously. Whereas the Official Relatio states that the Pope is "BOUND BY HIS OFFICE" to seek the aid of the Church, brother Beng thinks it is merely helpful. You decide if the High Petrine view or the Absolutist Petrine view is being faithful to the teaching of V1 and the Catholic Church.
It should be noted that when I appealed to the Official Relatio to refute his errors in our past debate, his response was: "On my part I will make it simple by passing all arguments base on it."
Btw, he maintains another Absolutist Petrine error in a currently active thread - namely, that the Pope is above an Ecum Council. There is no truth to this, and various sources - from V1, to the old Catholic Encylopedia, to our current Canons - evince the error of that claim.
A fundamental issue between brother Beng (who represents probably a rather extreme form of the Absolutist Petrine view) and me is that he believes that not only can there be a time when the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop left on earth, but he actually opines that the Pope will be the ONLY orthodox PERSON left on earth. Here is another excerpt from that past debate:
**Marduk:**The “Church” by definition is a body of believers. It is not one person. If we take that self-evident Truth, then it is obvious that the statement “the Church is infallible” CANNOT be fulfilled by the idea that ONLY ONE MAN is infallible.
**Beng:**The Pope is a member of the Church. He is incorporated in the mystical body of the Church. I’m sure you won’t deny this. A single person can constitute a Church, theoretically. And you’re statement is not a self-evident truth at all…I don’t think that I ever said that one person CAN NOT be the Church. But I would say this, for Mat 16:18 to be true, the one person left must at least be a bishop. Because if that one person is a laity the sacrament of order would be perish with him and the Church would disappear.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for the questions.
My understanding is directly based on Pastor Aeternus and the Official Relatio of Vatican 1.
Pastor Aeternus explicitly states that “papal infallibility” is merely the HS permitting the Pope to possess the infallibility of the Church (“the Roman Pontiff possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to have”). So it is and can not in any way be separated from the infallibility of the Church.
After the snippet quoted by brother Beng from the Official Relatio (that “separate” is taken only in the sense of “distinct”), it goes on: “We do not thereby separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church. For he is infallible only when as doctor of all Christians, that is, as representing the universal Church. He can no more be separated from the Church than the foundation can be separated from the building it bears. Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and agreement of the Church.”
Our brother has an intense Absolutist Petrine outlook. His statement “in order for the pope to speak infallibly he must study the deposit of faith (aka the regula fidei aka Scripture+Tradition). Which is fine with me since we know that infallibility is a negative charism” should be taken with a grain of salt. Here are excerpts from a past debate we had:
**Marduk:**You claimed that the Pope can just wake up one morning and decide to make an ex cathedra decree. Can you please cite any Magisterial source for this statement, or are you simply expressing your opinion?
**Beng:**Have you ever wake up one day and just feel like doing something [e.g. going to the swimming pool]? Now, that impulsive thought does not have to be inspire by the Holy Spirit nor cause by previous preponderance (for example, the night before you watch Micheal Phelps). It’s a spontaneous thought. This is what I meant. The pope could just wake up and have a spontaneous thought that he want to pronounce infallible. And if that thought is genuinely part of the deposit of faith, it will be infallible and the whole church is bound to it.
**Marduk:**I can’t believe what I’m reading. So anything the Pope spontaneously thinks of, if he decides to pronounce it ex cathedra, will become Truth?
**Beng:**Yes. If he finalized it by promulgating it it will be the truth
**Marduk:**You have claimed the Pope does not need the aid of the present Church.
**Beng:**Yes. He does not absolutely need it. But it would be better to have the help.
He believes the Pope does not need the help of the Church AT ALL. The Pope can just proclaim spontaneously. Whereas the Official Relatio states that the Pope is "BOUND BY HIS OFFICE" to seek the aid of the Church, brother Beng thinks it is merely helpful. You decide if the High Petrine view or the Absolutist Petrine view is being faithful to the teaching of V1 and the Catholic Church.
It should be noted that when I appealed to the Official Relatio to refute his errors in our past debate, his response was: "On my part I will make it simple by passing all arguments base on it."
Btw, he maintains another Absolutist Petrine error in a currently active thread - namely, that the Pope is above an Ecum Council. There is no truth to this, and various sources - from V1, to the old Catholic Encylopedia, to our current Canons - evince the error of that claim.
Thanks for the support. Please permit me to explain further. If you recall, the Official Relatio asserted that the consensus of the present preaching of the Magisterium with its head is the RULE OF FAITH even for definitions by the Pope. Would you agree that the “Magisterium” refers to the Pope’s brother bishops? Whether this consensus is gotten by directly consulting with his brother bishops or by other means, it will indeed be the consensus of his brother bishops (at least those who are orthodox).
A fundamental issue between brother Beng (who represents probably a rather extreme form of the Absolutist Petrine view) and me is that he believes that not only can there be a time when the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop left on earth, but he actually opines that the Pope will be the ONLY orthodox PERSON left on earth. Here is another excerpt from that past debate:
**Marduk:**The “Church” by definition is a body of believers. It is not one person. If we take that self-evident Truth, then it is obvious that the statement “the Church is infallible” CANNOT be fulfilled by the idea that ONLY ONE MAN is infallible.
**Beng:**The Pope is a member of the Church. He is incorporated in the mystical body of the Church. I’m sure you won’t deny this. A single person can constitute a Church, theoretically. And you’re statement is not a self-evident truth at all…I don’t think that I ever said that one person CAN NOT be the Church. But I would say this, for Mat 16:18 to be true, the one person left must at least be a bishop. Because if that one person is a laity the sacrament of order would be perish with him and the Church would disappear.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Beng,
Blessings,
Marduk
Yes. The infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium is living and active when the Pope exercises the infallibility of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium for an ex cathedra decree. It is hard for you to understand this because because you pretend that there will ever be a time when the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop left on earth.
I suspect you won’t convince brother Greg with this rhetoric.
Blessings,
Marduk
B
beng
Guest
Papal infallibility is an act of extraordinary magisterium, not of ordinary magisterium.
It’s theoretically possible for the pope to be the only orthodox bishop left on earth. There’s no definition which says the contrary.
Might wanna check the word “rhetoric” on dictionary.
M
mardukm
Guest
Ummm. I did not say the Pope execises the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. I said all the other orthodox bishops who represent the consensus of the Church upon which the ex cathedra Decree will be based exercises the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Not all teachings that are de fide have been defined (a principle which Oriental and Eastern Catholics understand and believe to the nth degree). Those things that have never been challenged or doubted in the Church need no formal definition. That the Pope will never be the ONLY orthodox bishop left on earth is of the nature of such truths that need no formal definition because it has never been doubted by the Church. You can search the documents of Vatican 2 for this Truth.
Yes. That might be an incorrect word. The term “rhetoric” is only used of rational argumentation. Your arguments are not rational.
(though you may not believe it, I write that very lightheartedly)Blessings,
Marduk
B
beng
Guest
There’s none in Pastor Aeternus stating that when a Pope speaks ex cathedra he is permitted by the Holy Spirit to posses the infallibility of the Church (as if the infallibility of the Church can be given at a time to the pope, and at a time to the college of bishops in union with the pope).
My point simply that “separate” is not taboo. It can be use if understood correctly. But you were making mountain out of mole hill.
Here mardukm was making “inspiration” identical with “impulsive thought” and thereby accused me of implying that infallibility is a POSITIVE charism (which I have never ever held).
Secondly, it is indeed true that if a Pope speaks ex cathedra (all the pre-requisites for it are meet) then what he said is the truth. That is the point of infallibility. If I’m the pope and I fulfill all the conditions for an ex cathedra definition, then what I said would be the truth.
An illustration, to be a kungfu master one must break 5 inches of brick, a baseball bat and a ripe coconut. If I break 5 inches of brick, a baseball bat and a ripe coconut, then I’m a kungfu master according to the rule. Thus, if the pope fulfill all the requirement for an ex cathedra statement, then he would be speaking ex cathedra, which is the truth.
mardukm is somewhat incorrect. The pope would need the help of the Church. Yet “the Church” is not “the current Church.” Meaning the pope does not have to consult the present bishops in his effort to learn the faith of the Church. There are scriptures, patristic writings, council decrees, past canons etc.
The error of mardukm is saying that the Pope would need the help of the CURRENT CHURCH, that is the current bishops. I put no such restriction as to the mode how the Pope could learn the faith of the Church.
- 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. - Chapter 4, Pastor Aeternus, First Ecumenical Council of Vatican
The restriction suggested by mardukm would make infallibility depends upon the bishops say so.
Continue below
B
beng
Guest
Continue from above
Catholic Encyclopedia: Apostolic Canons
In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. … Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions.
As for the source of official relatio, all I have is this. I don’t even know if it’s complete or not. While mardukm has [or has read] The Gift of Infllibility - Rev. James T. O’Connor in his arsenal.
The Pope is above ecumenical council as shown by chapter 3 paragraph 8 of Pastor Aeternus.
mardukm’s memory failed him yet again. It was not about the official relatio but about the not-genuine Apostolic Canons
Catholic Encyclopedia: Apostolic Canons
In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. … Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions.
As for the source of official relatio, all I have is this. I don’t even know if it’s complete or not. While mardukm has [or has read] The Gift of Infllibility - Rev. James T. O’Connor in his arsenal.
Then let mardukm label Pastor Aeternus as Petrine absolutist document then. I’m fine with any label because what matter is adherence to the teaching of the Church.
The Pope is above ecumenical council as shown by chapter 3 paragraph 8 of Pastor Aeternus.
I don’t have Fr. James T. O’Connor’s book. All I have is Vatican I documents and +Gasser’s speech, both say no such thing [ie. that consensus of the present bishops is a pre-requisite of papal infallibility]
Yes. It is theoretically possible. mardukm has no decrees saying that its impossible.
B
beng
Guest
Then you are mixing Ordinary magisterium with Extraordinary magisterium. In other word, when there’s an occurrence of extraordinary magisterium, the Ordinary magisterium is “switch on” because it’s always “switch on.” Another speculation.
That’s hardly a convincing argument to anyone.
M
mardukm
Guest
Wow! I give the direct quote from Pastor Aeternus (in bold), and brother Beng flat out denies it! Oh well. That just goes to show how false his claims are that he is presenting the Catholic teaching faithfully. Heresy from Beng.
Well, that’s what the Church teaches.
“**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…The Roman Pontiff enjoys this infallibility * in virtue of his office…The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in his body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium.*” CCC 889-891. Heresy from Beng.
Rather, it’s just that you can’t admit you were wrong.
Where did I mention “inspiration?” It’s your idea that “impulsive thought” has anything to do with the charism of infallibility that is the error. Straw man from Beng.
But the exercise of infallibility does not arise from “impulsive thought.” Pastor Aeternus tells us how it comes about - "Therefore, the bishops of the world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith…The Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the conditions of the times and the circumstances dictated…"
Not sure if this should be called error or heresy from Beng.
And according to the Official Relatio, it is necessary for the Pope to ascertain the consensus (i.e., witness) of the Church before he can even make the Decree.
The Official Relatio states the PRESENT PREACHING of the WHOLE Magisterium.
It is not necessary for him to consult the bishops to determine that present consensus, but determine it he must BEFORE he can declare ex cathedra.So the Fathers of V1 are in error according to the Absolutist Petrine advocate.:tsktsk:
Indeed. You stated he could spontaneously do it once he got out of bed.
bishops is only one way how the Pope learn the faith of the Church. He could, as written, take advantage of other useful means.
Inconsistency from Beng. Please stop embarrassing yourself already. You just explicitly denied in your previous sentences the very thing highlighted in red above. You just said “The Church is not the current Church.”
CONTINUED**
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Read CCC 889 to convict yourself of your error.
Blessings,
Marduk
[/quote]
Mea culpa. At least I forgot something from a few months ago. Your memory failed you within a few minutes.
That’s even worse. The Official Relatio called Apostolic Canon a RULE OF FAITH. So - another error from Beng.
That would be most Western scholars. The Oriental and Eastern Traditions have always held that the Apostolic Canons came at least from Apostolic men in the early second century. Btw, if you read your own source carefully, the later dates are referring to only 20 of the canons for certain - out of 85. Obviously, you have never read the contents of the canons of the 341 Council of Antioch. One of its canons actually and specifically refers to Apostolic Canon 34 as already “ancient.”
My source is The Vatican Council: 1869 - 1870 by Dom Cuthbert Butler, 1930.
But nowhere in Pastor Aeternus does it say that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council in matters of Faith or morals. So it is not Absolutist Petrine. Only you and your ilk who impose such exaggerations on its statements.
You mean where it states that you can’t appeal to an Ecumenical Council after a Pope gives his judgment? That proves nothing, because it has the conditional clause “as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.” This indicates that an appeal to an Ecumenical Council as equal to the Pope in Supreme authority is altogether possible.
The link you gave explicitly states it is only giving EXCERPTS. In any case, you seem to not have read it fully, for even your source gives: “everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense.” So you can’t pretend you did not know that the Church regards the consensus as a Rule of the Church.
And you have a decree that ways it is possible?
Read CCC 889 to convict yourself of your error.Blessings,
Marduk
[/quote]
M
mardukm
Guest
Do you even know what they mean? Define, please.
What is it with the “in other word”? If you can’t give a direct quote from me, don’t bother trying to put words in my mouth.
What is it you are trying to say anyway?And you did a poll? Can you show us the results?
Blessings,
Marduk
B
beng
Guest
The phrase “the HS permitting the Pope to possess the infallibility of the Church” is from you, not Pastor Aeternus. That phrase makes infallibility like a baton to be passed on.
If you want to say that I’m wrong, then +Gasser is wrong.
from Beng.
Maybe you said “revelation” instead of “inspiration,” can’t recall. So simply exchange “revelation” for “inspiration.”
My idea was that having an impulsive thought doesn’t necessarily means having revelation or having inspiration or the likes which suggests that infallibility is a positive charism.
"
Not sure if this should be called error or heresy from Beng.
And who said that impulsive thought is one of the pre-requirement of infallibility?
I simply said that a Pope could one day have impulsive thought to define something infallibly (just like how one day I woke up and have an impulsive thought to eat bagel). And you, recalling that infallibility is a negative charism, misunderstood that. You think I’m proposing that infallibility is a positive charism.
, it is necessary for the Pope to ascertain the consensus (i.e., witness) of the Church before he can even make the Decree.
Would that be the current bishops? If so, then I don’t see it on Pastor Aeternus or +Gasser’s speech. And that makes papal infallibility depends upon the current bishops.
Continue below
B
beng
Guest
Continue from above
Here’s +Gasser:
Furthermore - and this is to be noted well - everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense. This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine]. But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith? Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved…
First of all, if we want to insist that papal infallibility depends upon the present bishops’ preaching (like mardukm), then +Gasser would not go on to tell us the need to “recur to the consent of antiquity.” In other word, the present preaching [of the present bishops] might be incapable of helping the pope.
Second of all, one would notice that the word +Gasser used is “consent” instead of “consensus.” I thought that mardukm with his “current bishops” aka “present bishops” aka “active magisterium” aka “present preaching” theory is talking about consensus, not consent. And he said that there’s a difference. …
The pope must learn the faith of THE CHURCH. I never deny it.
The error is saying that the pope must learn the faith of the CURRENT CHURCH. Now, the pope MAY learn the faith of the CURRENT CHURCH, but he DOESN’T HAVE TO. Your error is saying that the pope MUST LEARN the faith of the CURRENT CHURCH (aka current bishops aka present preaching aka present bishops).
Bottom line, it’s not apostolic (which is obvious since any apostolic writings would be part of holy scripture canon).
If we’re talking about matters of faith and moral then there’s no above nor below. Because a truth is not above other truth in term of truthfulness. 1+4 = 5 is as much truth as the square root of 4 is 2.
And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Since you deny this, that would be another error.
Continue below
No.The Official Relatio states the PRESENT PREACHING of the WHOLE Magisterium.
Here’s +Gasser:
Furthermore - and this is to be noted well - everyone knows that this rule about the consent of the Churches in their present preaching is valid only in its positive sense and, by no means, in its negative sense. This means that everything which the Universal Church, consenting to, receives and venerates in its present preaching as revealed is certainly true and Catholic [doctrine]. But, what happens if disagreements arise among the particular churches and are followed by controversies about the faith? Then, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity, that is, to Scripture and the holy Fathers; and, from the consent of antiquity, differences in present preaching are to be resolved…
First of all, if we want to insist that papal infallibility depends upon the present bishops’ preaching (like mardukm), then +Gasser would not go on to tell us the need to “recur to the consent of antiquity.” In other word, the present preaching [of the present bishops] might be incapable of helping the pope.
Second of all, one would notice that the word +Gasser used is “consent” instead of “consensus.” I thought that mardukm with his “current bishops” aka “present bishops” aka “active magisterium” aka “present preaching” theory is talking about consensus, not consent. And he said that there’s a difference. …
Not them. But you are.
Having the impulsive thought to pronounce a teaching is not the same as learning about it. If I have an impulsive thought to study Auditing, that doesn’t make me learn anything about auditing until I actually read the textbook.Indeed. You stated he could spontaneously do it once he got out of bed.
Eh?
The pope must learn the faith of THE CHURCH. I never deny it.
The error is saying that the pope must learn the faith of the CURRENT CHURCH. Now, the pope MAY learn the faith of the CURRENT CHURCH, but he DOESN’T HAVE TO. Your error is saying that the pope MUST LEARN the faith of the CURRENT CHURCH (aka current bishops aka present preaching aka present bishops).
It doesn’t actually.CONTINUED
Mea culpa. At least I forgot something from a few months ago. Your memory failed you within a few minutes.
Find any decree that says so. If you can’t that simply means that it’s as much as rule of faith as any fathers writings (like Didache, Pastor of Hermas, Augustine’s confession etc).
And why is Eastern scholars any more correct than western scholars?
Bottom line, it’s not apostolic (which is obvious since any apostolic writings would be part of holy scripture canon).
I see that you add “in matters of Faith or morals.” In the discussion you’re referring it’s about imposition of a universal creed. A matter of discipline.
If we’re talking about matters of faith and moral then there’s no above nor below. Because a truth is not above other truth in term of truthfulness. 1+4 = 5 is as much truth as the square root of 4 is 2.
No, it is not. It’s not lawful to appeal to an ecumenical council about a judgment by the Roman Pontiff. It’s in black and white:
And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Since you deny this, that would be another error.
Continue below
B
beng
Guest
Continue from above
And so… now you’ve quoted the relevant part from +Gasser. I have brought it up above and show the error of your understanding.
Unlike the time where you didn’t bother to read the excerpt from the Council of Florence from Fr. Joseph Gill, I actually took the time to read, re-read, read again, and re-read again +Gasser’s speech.
And so… now you’ve quoted the relevant part from +Gasser. I have brought it up above and show the error of your understanding.
No. But the possibility does not contradict reason or any teachings including CCC 889.And you have a decree that ways it is possible?
Ordinary is the usual activity of the teaching Church. Making catechism, pastoral letter, annual synod decrees etc. Extraordinary is non-usual activity, such as ex-cathedra pronouncement or ecumenical councils.
I meant to say that your understanding of Ordinary magisterium is that it’s always “switch on.” It never “switch off.” So when we have an occurence of extraordinary magisterium, we also have ordinary magisterium (because it’s always “switch on”).What is it with the “in other word”? If you can’t give a direct quote from me, don’t bother trying to put words in my mouth.
It’s a personal judgment. If you wanna do a poll, then maybe then you’ll learn that my personal judgment is correct.
M
mardukm
Guest
Ahh another “In other word sic]” argument. You put words i my mouth to pretend to refute it.
Straw man.
Straw man. I stated exactly what Pastor Aeternus and the CCC stated - the that Pope or the Ecumenical Council or the College of Bishops can possess the infallibility of the Church. But instead of admitting your error, you put words in my mouth and pretend to knock it down.
More empty claims with no documentary proof.
Another “in other word” argument. Straw man.
Another “in other word” argument. Straw man.. Show me where I stated that infallibiltiy is a positive charism.
Another “in other word” argument. Straw man..
I simply said that a Pope could one day have impulsive thought to define something infallibly (just like how one day I woke up and have an impulsive thought to eat bagel). And you, recalling that infallibility is a negative charism, misunderstood that. You think I’m proposing that infallibility is a positive charism.
Another “in other word” argument. Straw man..
Would that be the current bishops? If so, then I don’t see it on Pastor Aeternus or +Gasser’s speech.
Of course you don’t see it. It’s either because you refuse to see it, or because you appeal to a website that itself admits it does not give the full text, but only EXCERPTS. Instead of humbly admitting you could be wrong, you make your argument depend on a text that admits it is not complete.
Yes, if he does not ascertain the consensus of the orthodox bishops as witnesses to the faith, he cannot exercise it. You blithely make this statement because you (1) consistently fail to see the difference between the bishops as witnesses vs. the bishops as judges, and (2) you presume wrongly that the Pope can ever be the only orthodox bishop or person left in the Church.
Another error: You presume to separate the consensus of the PRESENT preaching of the Magisterium from the consensus of antiquity.
Your consistent error: You presume there will ever be a time when the Pope is the ONLY orthodox bishop left on earth. Gasser’s assumption is that there will be division in the Church and the Pope is called to judge between these two parties. This means there will be a group of bishops that is orthodox, and a group that is not. Whoever the Pope sides with will be the orthodox side. It is this group that represents the consensus of the Church. There is absolutely nothing in the Official Relatio that comes close to your fantasy that it will be the Pope vs. the Church or all the rest of the bishops.
Ahh. So you admit that you cannot appeal to Gasser to support your error that the consensus/consent of the Magisterium is not required. I made the differentiation only for your benefit in the hopse of seeing the difference between the role of bishops as witnesses from their role as judges. But you remain in pride and ignorance.
I just quoted exactly what you stated (unlike your straw man tactics). “The Church is not the current Church.” Now you backtrack again, as you have done several times. Now, after being shown your error, you backtrack to qualify your original statement, without admitting your error. That’s fine. I’m sure people can see right through your…umm…irrationality (I couldn’t use the word “rhetoric” since that only applies to rational argumentation
)CONTINUED.
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Wait for the backtracking qualifications, folks.
It was just more of your backtracking without admitting your error.
Blessings,
Marduk
The Official Relatio says so. It represented the official interpretation of the V1 Decrees, which the Fathers accepted along with the Decrees. When the V1 Fathers voted, they voted with the the official interpretation of the Official Relatio in mind. We already know you prefer your own misinterpretations over the teaching of the V1 Fathers.
You had better look up what “Rule of Faith” means. Can you give ANY source that claims these individual writings are a “Rule of Faith?”
This statement is so full of ignorance, it does not deserve a response.
The Creed is just “a matter of discipline?” :tsktsk:
So you admit your error. In a matter of Faith (which is what the Creed is about), the POpe is not above an Ecumenical Council.
Wait for the backtracking qualifications, folks.Another “in other word” argument. Straw man. I plainly admitted that one cannot appeal to an ecumenical council from a decision of the Pope as to an authority above the Pope. But one can indeed appeal to an Ecumenical Council as to an authority equal to the Pope. Indeed, our canons state that the Ecumenical Council is of equal, supreme authority as the Pope. No error on my end. Your own error is that you presume the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.
Because I didn’t agree with the conclusions, you presume I never read it?
What did you prove?
It was just more of your backtracking without admitting your error.It says the “people of God” share in the infallibility. You claim there might be a time when ONLY the Pope will be orthodox. Your fantastic “possibility” is an IMpossibility according to the CCC.
YET ANOTHER “in other word” argument. Straw man. I don’t know where the world “always” comes from, but it ain’t from me. Brother Beng is an imaginative character.
Blessings,
Marduk
G
gregdaly
Guest
Mardukm. If such a poll was done, I just want to let you know I would vote for you.
What clinched it for me was Beng’s idea that the Church as a whole and all her bishops could ever fall from the Faith, and that the Pope is the only one left who is orthodox. It’s apparent that is the whole basis for his opinions on the matter, and without that premise (which is an impossible scenario according to your Catechism), all his arguments fail.I also recognize that a lot of Beng’s arguments are straw men (you can’t pull one over this former athiest
).From this outsider’s perspective, you’ve won the debate between Beng and you.
However, I do have some lingering questions on this topic.
You stated that the statement from Vatican 1 regarding not being able to appeal to an Ecumenical Council from a Pope’s decision is balanced by the clause “as to an authority above the Pope.” From this, you stated that there can be an instance where once can appeal to the Ecumenical Council as equal in authority to the Pope. To be fair, that is just as an assumption, Mardukm. For someone to accept this, you have to prove that the Catholic Church does indeed teach that the Ecumenical Council is EQUAL to the Pope. I would challenge you to prove that. If you can demonstrate it, I will consider your position as far as this debate is concerned irrefutable.
Also, can you give more info on the Official Relatio? You said it is the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Decrees of Vatican 1? Can you please flesh out that claim a bit more? From the quotes you gave, it certainly does seem that what you call the “Absolute Petrine” interpretation of the Decrees of Vatican 1 is not the actual teaching of Vatican 1. But I need to be more sure that the Official Relatio actually has some sort of authoritative standing in the Catholic Church.
In Christ,
Greg
- Status