Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[beng]

Ahh another “In other word sic]” argument. You put words i my mouth to pretend to refute it.
Straw man.

That was your word, not Pastor Aeternus. Maybe you should revisit dictionary for the meaning of “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.

The infallibility of the Church is not a baton to be pass on. Pastor Aeternus and CCC don’t say anything like that. And it runs contrary to your thesis of an active ordinary magisterium (for if the ordinary magisterium are active when the extraordinary magisterium pronounce infallibility, then who has the baton?)

More empty claims with no documentary proof.

Huh? The quote from +Gasser when he said “separate” was already given.

Another “in other word” argument. Straw man.

I’ve checked, and not only that you wrote “inspiration” you also wrote “revelation.”

Another “in other word” argument. Straw man.. Show me where I stated that infallibiltiy is a positive charism.

The term “positive charism” is used NOT because you have used it. It is used to designate your accusation that the pope could get inspiration or revelation for infallibility.

Another “in other word” argument. Straw man..

Well, did you or didn’t you? As simple as that.

Another “in other word” argument. Straw man..

You said “inspiration” and “revelation.”

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.

And I’m suppose to appeal to a complete text which I have never see? You want me to lie?

I don’t see it in Pastor Aeternus and the excerpt from +Gasser because it isn’t there. If it were there you’d simply quote it to prove me wrong, but you can’t.

Yes, if he does not ascertain the consensus of the orthodox bishops as witnesses to the faith, he cannot exercise it.

And that is your error. Pastor Aeternus puts no such restriction, either +Gasser’s excerpt.

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.

And now we have another distinction between “bishop as witnesses” vs “bishops as judges.” Does it make any difference? No. it doesn’t. Because you still make infallibility depends upon CURRENT bishops.

And for no.2 you have no decree saying that a pope can not be the only orthodox bishops. Christ’s promise (Luk 22:32) is for Peter only.

Another error: You presume to separate the consensus of the PRESENT preaching of the Magisterium from the consensus of antiquity.

They are separate. The first is PRESENT, the later is PAST. You have no argument.

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.

This is not about the Pope being the only orthodox bishop on earth. This is about how the PRESENT magisterium could not help the pope in determining the faith of the Church. If we were to say that the exercise of infallibility depends upon the present magisterium, then when the present magisterium is incapable to aid the pope, the pope would never be able to exercise infallibility. That’s absurd.

It’s not about choosing side or whatever.

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.

Ahh the accusation of pride and ignorance.

Did you forget that it’s you who appeal to that particular quotation from +Gasser in the first place? Later I simply showed that the quotation really runs counter to your theory.

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.

Explaining what one really means is unacceptable for you. It seems that you enjoy caricature just because only with that you could accuse me of… anything.

Continue below …

 

[beng]

Continue from above

CONTINUED

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.

It’s as much rule of faith as is any other patristic writings. In a sense that there are hints of Tradition in them [ie. patristic writings, including apostolic canons] which the Church could extract. Not every iota of them [ie. patristic writing, including apostolic canons] are rule of faith, like the holy scripture.

It’s not apostolic.

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?”

It seems that it is you who don’t understand how the “rule of faith” works.

The rule of faith for Christian is scripture and Tradition. But these are silent and need to be interpreted or extracted, thus the need for magisterium. Now Tradition is unwritten, so how do we learn what is Tradition? The magisterium gathers it from many sources but especially from the teaching of the fathers as written in their writings (DV 8 § 3). Is their writings the rule of faith just like how the books in the holy scripture is the rule of faith? No. From learning patristics writing we extract Tradition because in these writings we see how the unwritten Tradition is lived upon the Church. For example the infallible doctrine that the consecrated host continues to be the body of Christ even after the mass ended (as oppose to Lutheran’s error saying that after the Eucharistic service the bread and wine cease to be the body and blood of the Lord) is shown in patristic writings how the host are revered and treated most carefully even after mass. From such practices (and other indication) we gather that even after the mass the bread and wine does not cease to be the Body and blood of Our Lord.

So only in that sense the Apostolic Canons can be consider the rule of faith. It is, as I have said, as much of a rule of faith as any patristic writings (eg. Didache, Pastor of Hermas, Augustine’s confession).

This statement is so full of ignorance, it does not deserve a response.

Ditto.

The Creed is just “a matter of discipline?” :tsktsk:

Yes, it subjects to changes and it has changed (from Nicea I to Constantinople I).

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.[/qote]

And I was talking about matter of faith and moral in the filioque thread?

Maybe writing straw man too much makes you forget the meaning of the word.

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.

After further reading from Catholic Encyclopedia: Ecumenical Council I submit that saying that a pope is above ecumenical council is an error

Catholic Encyclopedia: Ecumenical Council

The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent the Church; the pope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the Church. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the pope is neither above nor below the Church, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as intellect and will are in the soul. By taking our stand on the Scriptural doctrine that the Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the pope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a “rump parliament”, no matter how well attended it be.

Because I didn’t agree with the conclusions, you presume I never read it?

Because you kept on “not getting it.”

What did you prove? It was just more of your backtracking without admitting your error.

You saying that infallibility depends on the present bishops has been proven to be an error from +Gasser’s speech.

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.

Is the Pope not one of “the people of God?”

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.

Did you or did you not say that the Ordinary Magisterium is always active?

 

[beng]

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.

He can’t prove it from the Catechism. Luk 22:32 is for Peter only.

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.

But it’s not over. I might [and will] win. Just get the trophy ready with “beng” inscript on it.

They really are not straw man.

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.

Read the excerpt from Catholic Encyclopedia Ecumenical Council I quoted.

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

Also keep in mind of his error about the present bishops becoming the requirement for an exercise of papal infakllibility.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I confess that the Pope is where the “buck stops” and he has ultimate authority.

At the same time, he is there to defend the faith of the Apostles and maintain the Church’s unbroken Tradition.

An Ecumenical Council has always been the most regular way of the Church ascertaining clarity on matters of the Orthodox faith of the Catholic Church when they come under attack by heretics.

Such councils have always been ratified by the highest authorities of the Church, with the Pope of Rome at the head.

The Pope working in tandem with an Ecumenical Council has always been the ideal way by which the Church reflects upon and defines dogma. Recent popes have moved away from an absolutist manner of governance toward a more pastoral aproach, especiallyy Pope Benedict. Absolutism as a style of papal governance, while possible and valid, has gone the way of the dinosaur.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Absolutism as a style of papal governance, while possible and valid, has gone the way of the dinosaur.

I respectfully disagree with the highlighted portion. Contrary to a popular misconception, absolutism has never even existed in the Latin Catholic Church. After the Great Schism, the Pope always acted within Synod (even the much-vaunted Unam Sanctam was promulgated in a Synod of 80 bishops). After the Avignon Schism, the College of Cardinals replaced the role of the Synod, since the interference of secular powers made it increasingly difficult for the Synod to be convened by the Pope. The Pope could not do anything without first obtaining their advice. In fact, from the 14th through the very end of the 17th century, the Pope was required to adhere to a pre-nup of sorts with the College of Cardinals before he could even take his office. (Again, contrary to popular misconception, the First Vatican Council was probabaly 90% in the hands of the Commissions, not the Pope). Down to the 20th century, the consultation of the College of Cardinals was required before the Pope could do anything of universal import. In history books, we often read that “the Pope did this, the Pope did that, the Pope condemned this, the Pope condemned that” but probably only a very few know that these were NOT in fact unilateral actions by the Pope. During Vatican 2, the Pope reestablished the Synod of bishops that the College of Cardinal consultors had replaced during the Middle Ages.

I don’t think we as Catholics can defend papal absolutism in theory or in practice at all. No doubt some - or many - view some actions by the Pope in the past as a sign of absolutism. Some will use those “instances” to demean the papacy (Low Petrine detractors), while others will use them to justify papal absolutism (Absolutist Petrine exaggerators), but I believe a careful study of such instances will reveal that was not actually the case.

If the more level-headed Latin Catholics out there are reading this (such as FoneBone2001 or AmbroseSJ or others), I would appreciate a comment or correction on what I stated above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, Beng would doubtless disagree with you!

But I agree with your argument and I’m no fan of papal absolutism of any kind (and neither are current Popes).

Alex

 

[beng]

Well, Beng would doubtless disagree with you!

But I agree with your argument and I’m no fan of papal absolutism of any kind (and neither are current Popes).

Alex

Well, I don’t really know how he defines petrine absolutist. But if it means that to exercise infallibility the pope must learn the faith of the Church via the consensus of the “present preaching” (that is the current bishops, the current magisterium), then petrine absolutist is the Catholic position.

As a flash back, in support of his position [ie. in order to exercise infalliility the Pope must consult the current bishops to get a consensus] mardukm cited +Gasser:

mardukm:
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.

…

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.

The highlight in the second post is mine to show the citation from +Gasser. Notice that he supports his idea [that to exercise infallibility the pope must from the citation

Now, the full paragraph is:

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…

This is the only pargraph in +Gasser’s excerpt which contain the phrase “present preaching”

Before divulging into the paragraph it should be noted that when I pressed him, mardukm said that “consent” is not the same as “consensus.” He believes that it is the “consensus” of the present preaching that is needed to exercise papal infallibility, not “consent.” What’s odd is, he cited +Gasser word where the word used is “consent” not “consensus” to support his idea [ie. the need for a consensus of the present preaching of the present bishops to exercise papal infallibility]. It seems, as I have told him, that he is creating a false distinction between “consent” and “consensus.” Or maybe he just misunderstood.

Now, let’s say that +Gasser did say “consensus” instead of “consent.” Lets give that to mardukm for a minute. If you look at the paragraph it clearly says that such “consensus” might fail (and when it failed, according to Vincent of Lerins, one must recur to the consent of antiquity). Thus, if we followed mardukm’s model where to exercise papal infallibility the pope needs to learn the consensus of the present bishops, then there would be a time when the the pope would never be able to exercise papal infallibility. That is absurd since infallibility is personal and a prerogative of the pope.

Thus, absolutist petrine doctrine (if it’s define as the position that the pope doesnt need to learn the consensus of the present preaching of the current bishops to exercise infallibility) is the Catholic position. And mardukm’s insistent that absolutist petrine doctrine is not the Catholic position is a grave error.

 

[mardukm]

This is the only pargraph in +Gasser’s excerpt which contain the phrase “present preaching.”

:yawn:Yes, that’s the only place the phrase “present preaching” is utilized in the EXCERPT you quoted, but that is not the only place it is utilized in the Official Relatio. I think the more sensible readers will not fail to see that the link you gave admits that it is only giving EXCERPTS of the Official Relatio, not the full text.

So your utter dependence on it is laughable.

The rest of your post has already been responded to previously. I don’t know why you feel repeating it is going to do any good.

That is absurd since infallibility is personal and a prerogative of the pope.

What’s absurd is your misrepresentation of my position so you can pretend to “refute” it. Straw man.

At the end of the day, it’s more than obvious that your Absolutist Petrine position is very different from the High Petrine position of V1 and the CC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

:yawn:Yes, that’s the only place the phrase “present preaching” is utilized in the EXCERPT you quoted, but that is not the only place it is utilized in the Official Relatio. I think the more sensible readers will not fail to see that the link you gave admits that it is only giving EXCERPTS of the Official Relatio, not the full text.

So your utter dependence on it is laughable.

Then quote it, in full.

If it’s so obvious in the FULL text you’d have already use it. The fact that in your desperation you use that quote which use the word “consent” instead of “consensus” speaks volume. Not to mention the time when you use the quote with the word “unity.”

The rest of your post has already been responded to previously. I don’t know why you feel repeating it is going to do any good.

for Alexander Roman. So my “absolutist petrine doctrine” (whatever that is) might not be misunderstood.

What’s absurd is your misrepresentation of my position so you can pretend to “refute” it. Straw man.

Why, isn’t it your position that to exercise infallibility the pope must learn the present preaching of the current bishops?

At the end of the day, it’s more than obvious that your Absolutist Petrine position is very different from the High Petrine position of V1 and the CC.

Bottom line is, you make the exercise of papal infallibility depends upon the present preaching of the current bishops and that’s an error.

 

[twf]

Beng: It is the teaching of the Church that the Ordinary Magisterium, which is comprised of the consistent teaching of the episcopate, including but not limited to the pope, is infallible. For exame, when Blessed Pope John Paul condemned the notion that women could be ordained to the presbyterate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that this papal clarification was NOT an exercise of the pope’s extraordinary magisterium, but was infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium (constant teaching of the bishops). Could you perhaps accept Marduk’s position if the concensus of the bishops was understood to be implicit rather than explicit? That is, we trust as a matter of faith that the teaching of the bishops will, on the whole, consistently be that of the Church herself, regardless of whether the Pope conducts a formal ‘poll’ before reaching a decision? In my example, Blessed John Paul knew that the bishops and popes had consistently taught this truth down through the ages, and thus could conclude that it was an infallible truth by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[beng]

Beng: It is the teaching of the Church that the Ordinary Magisterium, which is comprised of the consistent teaching of the episcopate, including but not limited to the pope, is infallible. For exame, when Blessed Pope John Paul condemned the notion that women could be ordained to the presbyterate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that this papal clarification was NOT an exercise of the pope’s extraordinary magisterium, but was infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium (constant teaching of the bishops). Could you perhaps accept Marduk’s position if the concensus of the bishops was understood to be implicit rather than explicit? That is, we trust as a matter of faith that the teaching of the bishops will, on the whole, consistently be that of the Church herself, regardless of whether the Pope conducts a formal ‘poll’ before reaching a decision? In my example, Blessed John Paul knew that the bishops and popes had consistently taught this truth down through the ages, and thus could conclude that it was an infallible truth by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium.

mardukm’s position has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

It is about restriction puts on the exercise of papal infallibility. That restriction is that the Pope MUST learn the faith of the Church through consensus of the current magisterium.

As you explain yourselves, “blessed John Paul knew that the bishops and popes had consistently taught this truth down through the ages, and thus could conclude that it was an infallible truth by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium.” This is about the same thing said by +Gasser. To learn the faith of the Church the pope does not have to rely on the current magisterium solely (mardukm’s position). He could learn the faith of the Church through what the bishops through the ages have thought, or “the consent of antiquity” as +Gasser explained.

This unique and erroneous position of his is not found anywhere in any official decree of the Catholic Church. In my years of reading I have never found it. It is only found, as he claimed, in the full text of official relatio. Yet he failed to produce the relevant part. This theory is something he made up. It’s a product of his wishful thinking.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

You have expressed my position rather well. I doubt brother Beng and I will ever come to an agreement. The difference between the Church’s position, on the one hand, and brother Beng’s, on the other, is that he has some fantastic notion that there will ever come a time when the only orthodox person left on earth will be the Pope. He feels that there will come a time when ONLY the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope will exist, while the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium through the rest of her bishops will disappear. In his eyes, it is the Pope versus all the rest of the bishops, or the Pope versus all the rest of the Church. And he rationalizes his fantasy by saying to himself “the Pope is a member of the Church, so even if the Pope is the only one left who is orthodox, the Catholic dogma (that it is the Church as a whole that is infallible) is preserved.”

He admits that he can’t even cite any Magisterial source for his belief, but that it is a “possibility”. So it is his pet theory against the teaching of the Church, and he prefers to adhere to his error.

His error is evident when you read through the thread. First he boasts that the term “present Magisterium” does not exist in his source (the link he gave). I point out to him that his source itself admits it is not a complete citation, and simultaneously quote for him exactly where his own source uses the term “present Magisterium.” But he can’t even admit his error of boasting that “present Magisterium” does not exist in the texts. Instead, he tries to do a little sleight of hand (to avoid admitting his error) and appeals to the subsequent scenario given by his source that there might be conflict between the bishops, and the Pope is needed to settle it. In his fantasy-world, he interprets this to mean that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium has completely disappeared, and that the only recourse is the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope. He utterly fails to realize (because of his delusion that there will come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on the planet) that when the Pope exercises his Extraordinary Magisterium, the Pope is simply deciding between EXISTING views. The Pope is not creating new doctrine by exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium, but is simply confirming which EXISTING doctrine among the opposing parties is the true one. Obviously, in that scenario, one group of bishops will be understood to have exercised the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium during the whole time. This group is the one that reflects the sensus fidei, the consensus of the Church past AND PRESENT. When the Pope exercises his Extraordinary Magisterium, it is necessary for him to determine and concede to this consensus before he can make an ex cathedra decree.

Unless and until brother Beng rejects and recovers from his self-delusion, I doubt we will ever come to an agreement.

Thank you for trying to be the peacemaker.

Blessings,
Marduk

Beng: It is the teaching of the Church that the Ordinary Magisterium, which is comprised of the consistent teaching of the episcopate, including but not limited to the pope, is infallible. For exame, when Blessed Pope John Paul condemned the notion that women could be ordained to the presbyterate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that this papal clarification was NOT an exercise of the pope’s extraordinary magisterium, but was infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium (constant teaching of the bishops). Could you perhaps accept Marduk’s position if the concensus of the bishops was understood to be implicit rather than explicit? That is, we trust as a matter of faith that the teaching of the bishops will, on the whole, consistently be that of the Church herself, regardless of whether the Pope conducts a formal ‘poll’ before reaching a decision? In my example, Blessed John Paul knew that the bishops and popes had consistently taught this truth down through the ages, and thus could conclude that it was an infallible truth by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[Ignatios]

This unique and erroneous position of his is not found anywhere in any official decree of the Catholic Church. In my years of reading I have never found it. It is only found, as he claimed, in the full text of official relatio. Yet he failed to produce the relevant part. This theory is something he made up. It’s a product of his wishful thinking.

Well !!! what you know, Marduk finally found a way to get the EO and RCs (well most of the RCs) to come together, I Find beng’s position to be very consistent with the RCC and very orthodox according to his own church, and that based on my extensive reading and researching also according to the RCIA classes that I took ( when I almost became RC) that however much I disagree with beng respectfully concerning the issues that separate the EO and the RC, I find his position (generally) to be in line with the teaching of the RCC, and to add to the above here is a quote from Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen when the bishops in that council kind of pressed him when he was explaining “HIS RELATIO” ( actually all the documents that I read it states it as the Relatio of Gasser or "… , Bishop Gasser received the unenviable task of offering the
“official” interpretation of the proposed dogma of papal infallibility…Vatican Council II’s Lumen Gentium cited Gasser’s relatio no less than four times.
" he said the following:
**"…Gasser’s primary thesis:
namely, that “Christ the Lord granted to St. Peter the prerogative of infallibility in His Church at the same time as He granted him the primacy, and that this infallibility passed on to all the successors of St. Peter” along with the Petrine primacy (GR 20)." **

So according to Gasser words above the Infallibility in the church is passed to St. Peter and his successors he didn’t make no mention in the above of any body else collectively or personally… and yes later on he mentions other things such as the bishops being involved etc… but ties it always that the Pope is the one who has the first and the last word:
" Christ instituted Peter, not the apostles, as the bulwark of the faith, and the pope must therefore possess an infallible authority unique and independent from the bishops (GR 24).

And here where the Bishops of the V1 had him but to respond either way and nothing in between, he responded:

**"Gasser contends that such language does not separate the pope from the church, as the pope is only infallible when he is “exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church” (GR 43). 19 Likewise, an infallible statement always implies the “consent of the Church”, even if the pope does not have to obtain this consent either a priori or a posteriori. 20
**

And sorry Marduk to put “your interpretation” of the A. Canon 34/35 to rest by the mouth of your own best friend Bishop Gasser:

"Another proposed modification looked to make infallible statements dependent on
episcopal reception. In the words of its advocates, “just as the bishops cannot act without the Pope, the Pope cannot act without the bishops.” Gasser agrees with the first point (Christ’s Matthean commission granted infallibility to the apostles together with Peter), but he cannot sign off on the second. Once again, the Luke 22 passage is a crucial proof-text – Christ instructed Peter to strengthen his brothers, thereby implying that there will be times when the holder of Peter’s chair has to act individually for the good of the Church (GR 49-50)."

beng, don’t worry about all the negative remarks towards you my friend, among the learned you have won this debate long time ago, anything else from here on you will be teaching the unlearned that are willing to give ear to the truth that is taught according to the RCC. good job. and GOD bless you all especially you Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Well !!! what you know, Marduk finally found a way to get the EO and RCs (well most of the RCs) to come together, I Find beng’s position to be very consistent with the RCC and very orthodox according to his own church,

Welcome to the conversation!!! I was just waiting for one of your party to jump in. Thank you for proving a point that I have consistently made - namely, THAT THE ABSOLUTIST AND LOW PETRINE ADVOCATES ADHERE TO THE SAME MISINTERPRETION ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHING OF ABOUT THE PAPACY.

Good job, brother Ignatios!

**"…Gasser’s primary thesis:
namely, that “Christ the Lord granted to St. Peter the prerogative of infallibility in His Church at the same time as He granted him the primacy, and that this infallibility passed on to all the successors of St. Peter” along with the Petrine primacy (GR 20)." **

So according to Gasser words above the Infallibility in the church is passed to St. Peter and his successors he didn’t make no mention in the above of any body else collectively or personally… and yes later on he mentions other things such as the bishops being involved etc… but ties it always that the Pope is the one who has the first and the last word:
" Christ instituted Peter, not the apostles, as the bulwark of the faith, and the pope must therefore possess an infallible authority unique and independent from the bishops (GR 24).

First of all, yes, the Pope’s infallibility is “unique” and “independent” from the bishops, but it is not “separate.” (I quoted the relevant portions of the Official Relatio earlier in the thread that prove it is not “separate”). It is unique ONLY in its manifest origin and intention from Christ (for the sake of confirming the Church), but in all other regards, it is the same infallibility that the Church and the Magisterium possesses. It is independent of the bishops not because he does not work with and within the Magisterium, but because the bishops are not the ones who grant the Pope his infallibility, but rather God himself. In the same way, the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council and of the Magisterium is independent of the Pope - not because they do not work with the Pope, but because their infallibility is not given to them by the Pope, but comes from God himself. I already quoted the relevant text of the Official Relatio that proves this. It refutes your claims here.

Secondly, as is typical of your and brother Beng’s tactics, you only rely on little snippets to create your caricatures of the papacy. Your claim that Bishop Gaseer “didn’t make no mention in the above of any body else collectively” is false. He mentions the infallibility of the Magisterium as a whole everywhere in the Official Relatio. I quoted just one of those many instances in the OP, where Gasser specifically states that Christ granted infallibility to the entire Magisterium, not Peter alone.

"Gasser contends that such language does not separate the pope from the church, as the pope is only infallible when he is “exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church” (GR 43). 19 Likewise, an infallible statement always implies the “consent of the Church”, even if the pope does not have to obtain this consent either a priori or a posteriori. 20

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

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

And sorry Marduk to put “your interpretation” of the A. Canon 34/35 to rest by the mouth of your own best friend Bishop Gasser:

"Another proposed modification looked to make infallible statements dependent on
episcopal reception. In the words of its advocates, “just as the bishops cannot act without the Pope, the Pope cannot act without the bishops.” Gasser agrees with the first point (Christ’s Matthean commission granted infallibility to the apostles together with Peter), but he cannot sign off on the second. Once again, the Luke 22 passage is a crucial proof-text – Christ instructed Peter to strengthen his brothers, thereby implying that there will be times when the holder of Peter’s chair has to act individually for the good of the Church (GR 49-50)."

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.”

beng, don’t worry about all the negative remarks towards you my friend, among the learned you have won this debate long time ago, anything else from here on you will be teaching the unlearned that are willing to give ear to the truth that is taught according to the RCC.

Rather duplicitous of you to congratulate brother Beng, just so you can turn around and use his remarks to condemn the Catholic Church.:tsktsk:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ken_Taki]

Ahem Ahem…

All in favor of giving this post the “Most likely to give you a headache” award say AYE!

aye…

 

[mardukm]

Ahem Ahem…

All in favor of giving this post the “Most likely to give you a headache” award say AYE!

aye…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Greg,

These are great questions. Thank you for asking them.

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 one 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.

I will quote from 3 sources: The Official Relatio of V1, the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and the current Code of Canon Law.

THE OFFICIAL RELATIO:
“The most solemn judgment of the Church in faith and morals is, and always will be, the judgment of an Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishops of the world sitting and judging along with him…It is certain that the infallibility promised by God, be it in the whole universal teaching Church defining truths in Councils, or be it in the supreme Pontiff, reaches to absolutely the same range of truths…exactly the same has to be said of the infallibility of the Pope in defining truths, as of the infallibility of the Church defining them…It follows necessarily that that the decree of faith concerning the papal infallibility should be so worded as to define, concerning the object of infallibility in the definitions of the Roman Pontiff, that exactly the same is to be believed as is believed concerning the object of infallibility in the definitions of the Church. This is secured by the definition that the Roman Pontiff in defining ex cathedra is possessed of that infallibility with which Christ wished His Church to be endowed. Thus the object of the Pope’s infallibility extends neither more nor less widely than extends the infallibility of the Church in her definitions on faith and morals.”

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
”As regards Biblical interpretation properly so called the Church is infallible in the sense that, whether by authentic decision of pope or council, or by its current teaching that a given passage of Scripture has a certain meaning, this meaning must be regarded as the true sense of the passage in question. It claims this power of infallible interpretation only in matters of faith and morals.”

With regard to official documents, the expression of the infallible magisterium of the Church embodied in the decision of councils, or the solemn judgments of the popes, the Church never gainsays what she has once decided. She is then linked with her past because in this past her entire self is concerned and not any fallible organ of her thought. Hence she still finds her doctrine and rule of faith in these venerable monuments; the formulas may have grown old, but the truth which they express is always her present thought.

Theories of conciliar and of papal infallibility do not logically stand or fall together, since in the Catholic view the co-operation and confirmation of the pope in his purely primatial capacity are necessary, according to the Divine constitution of the Church, for the ecumenicity and infallibility of a council. This has, de facto, been the formal test of ecumenicity; and it would be necessary even in the hypothesis that the pope himself were fallible. An infallible organ may be constituted by the head and members of a corporate body acting jointly although NEITHER TAKEN SEPARATELY IS INFALLIBLE. Hence the pope teaching ex cathedra and an ecumenical council subject to the approbation of the pope as its head are distinct organs of infallibility.

CODE OF CANON LAW:
”The College of Bishops, in which the apostolic body abides in an unbroken manner, is, in union with its head and never without this head, also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church. The College of Bishops exercises its power over the universal Church in solemn form in an Ecumenical Council.”

“The Decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

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.

The Official Relatio was written by Bishop Gasser of Brixen. He was the spokesman for the Commission De Fide, which was responsible for formulating the Decrees on the papacy at Vatican 1 (among other Decrees). His speech which came to be known as the Official Relatio was the longest speech at V1, lasting almost 4 hours. It was presented to the V1 Fathers 2 days before the final voting sessions on the Decrees regarding the papacy. Whatever it was that the Fathers voted for in the final sessions was according to this official interpretation.

Someone much more worthy than myself to speak on the subject is Fr. James O’connor. From his book The Gift of Infallibility:

**Central to all the discussions on the meaning of papal infallibility as Vatican I defined it has been the official presentation, the July 11, 1870, relatio, made by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser to the general congregation of bishops of Vatican I.

Dom Cuthbert Butler, whose two-volume work The Vatican Council: The Story from Inside in Bishop Ullathorne’s Letters, although long out of print, remains the most complete history of the First Vatican Council in English, wrote:

“Msgr. Vincent Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen, Austrian Tyrol, stands out as the most prominent theologian of the Council.”

History has confirmed that judgment. So important is the relatio of Gasser that it has itself become a theological source; it is cited in innumerable manuals and theological treatments and serves even in our own times as a key element in the renewed theological discussions about infallibility. Indeed the Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, cites Gasser’s relatio four times in its important chapter on the Magisterium, or teaching office of Pope and bishops. That chapter (no. 25) has approximately only fifty-five lines of text and eight official footnotes. Thus, half of the citations in that key chapter of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium are to Gasser’s relatio.**

I can’t imagine a greater stamp on the authority of the Official Relatio than for an Ecumenical Council (i.e., Vatican 2) to use its contents as source material for its Decrees.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

The difference between the Church’s position, on the one hand, and brother Beng’s, on the other, is that he has some fantastic notion that there will ever come a time when the only orthodox person left on earth will be the Pope.

This is beside the point. Even if it’s infallibly defined that the pope will never be the only orthodox bishop left on earth, it doesn’t do away with mardukm’s error.

He admits that he can’t even cite any Magisterial source for his belief, but that it is a “possibility”. So it is his pet theory against the teaching of the Church, and he prefers to adhere to his error.

And mardukm can’t cite any credible source, including the official relatio, to prove his theory [ie. that to exercise infallibility the pope must learn the consensus of the present preaching of the current bishops].

His error is evident when you read through the thread. First he boasts that the term “present Magisterium” does not exist in his source (the link he gave). I point out to him that his source itself admits it is not a complete citation, and simultaneously quote for him exactly where his own source uses the term “present Magisterium.” But he can’t even admit his error of boasting that “present Magisterium” does not exist in the texts.

One might do a word search on the excerpt mardukm mentioned for the phrase “present magisterium.”

There is none.

mardukm is being dishonest.

If he found the phrase in the full text, let him provide it.

Instead, he tries to do a little sleight of hand (to avoid admitting his error) and appeals to the subsequent scenario given by his source that there might be conflict between the bishops, and the Pope is needed to settle it. In his fantasy-world, he interprets this to mean that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium has completely disappeared, and that the only recourse is the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope.

The relavant paragraph mardukm is talking about is already quoted several times. Here it is again for easy reference.

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…

Now, where does this say anything remotely from what mardukm acused me of [ie. he interprets this to mean that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium has completely disappeared, and that the only recourse is the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope? If I were him I would quickly wrote “straw man” in a big bold red letter.

The context of the discussion [between me and mardukm] is that I use the paragraph to prove to him that the present preaching of the current bishops might fail to help the pope to exercise his infallibility. So he must “recur to the consent of antiquity.”

And know his saying that in order to exercise his infallibility the only recourse for the pope is extraordinary magisterium? That doesn’t make any sense at all now, does it?

He utterly fails to realize (because of his delusion that there will come a time when the Pope is the only orthodox bishop left on the planet) that when the Pope exercises his Extraordinary Magisterium, the Pope is simply deciding between EXISTING views. The Pope is not creating new doctrine by exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium, but is simply confirming which EXISTING doctrine among the opposing parties is the true one. Obviously, in that scenario, one group of bishops will be understood to have exercised the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium during the whole time. This group is the one that reflects the sensus fidei, the consensus of the Church past AND PRESENT. When the Pope exercises his Extraordinary Magisterium, it is necessary for him to determine and concede to this consensus before he can make an ex cathedra decree.

Again, if I were mardukm then I would accuse him of “backtracking” just as how he accused me of.

At first, “present” but now “past AND PRESENT.” Which is it?

Unless and until brother Beng rejects and recovers from his self-delusion, I doubt we will ever come to an agreement.

Your silent to provide any definitive prove to your theory speaks volume.

And I’m suppose to be delusional.