Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[beng]

"gregdaly:

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

Catholic Encyclopedia: Infallibility

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

Thus, even if the official relatio of +Gasser confirmed mardukm’s theory (which I don’t think it is) it wouldn’t be infallible and definitive. Those who hold contrary to it are not heretic.

 

[beng]

Ahem Ahem…

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

aye…

Blame mardukm.

 

[mardukm]

Blame mardukm.

Yes, as usual, your pride and arrogance that can never admit fault.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

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.

But it does away your entire argument.

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].

I cited it in the OP. But because you mistakenly believed the source to the Official Relatio you linked to was the entire document (instead of its admission that it was only giving excerpts), you had previously dismissed it. As usual, it is because you can’t admit your error that you have blinded yourself to the fact that I had already previously cited it. That’s all on you.

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

There is none.

mardukm is being dishonest.

I think more sensible people will realize that “present magisterium” is identical to “present preaching of the Magisterium.” But since you have consistently shown that you can’t see the forest for the trees, such an equivalence will be lost on you.

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

I did in the OP. You seem to have purposefully blinded yourself to it, that’s all.

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.
Did you already forget your pet theory that a situation can arise when the ONLY orthodox person left in the whole Church is the Pope? Backtracking again? You are absolutely correct. The quote you give above does not support your error.

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.”

That’s not what you said earlier (backtracking again). You stated “the Church is not the present Church.” You flat out refused to admit that the present Church could indeed help the Pope. The quote you give above flatly contradicts your error, for the quote affirms that the present Church CAN help the Pope.

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?

That’s what you were saying, so I’m glad you admit that you were not making any sense.

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?

You were the one who erroneously tried to separate the present preaching of the whole Magisterium from the sensus fidei of the Church of the past. The more sensible Catholic would understand that the “PRESENT preaching of the whole Magisterium” includes the sensus fidei of past AND present. But since you have introduced the error of separating the sensus fidei of the past Church from the sensus fidei of the present Church (remember your “the Church is not the present Church” comment?), I am now forced to specify, for the sake of our readers who you may have confused with your convoluted logic, “past AND PRESENT”.

And I’m suppose to be delusional.

You’re right. “Self-delusional” was the wrong term to use. “Delusional” is more appropriate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Catholic Encyclopedia: Infallibility

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

Thus, even if the official relatio of +Gasser confirmed mardukm’s theory (which I don’t think it is) it wouldn’t be infallible and definitive. Those who hold contrary to it are not heretic.

Well, I’ve never called you a heretic, but you have proposed a LOT of errors about the papacy. So I don’t know why this is relevant.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

As I was reading through the thread, I noticed that you admitted the error of believing that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

:bowdown:

Thank you.

I hope we can come to a similar resolution on the rest of the points under discussion, so that there will no longer be occasion or excuse for non-Catholics like brother Ignatios to demean the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

Dear brother Beng,

But it does away your entire argument.

How so? Even if there are bishops who are orthodox it won’t help the pope because there are also bishops who are heterodox. He wouldn’t know which is which. That is way, as +Gasser pointed out, he needs to check with the consent of the antiquity.

I cited it in the OP. But because you mistakenly believed the source to the Official Relatio you linked to was the entire document (instead of its admission that it was only giving excerpts), you had previously dismissed it. As usual, it is because you can’t admit your error that you have blinded yourself to the fact that I had already previously cited it. That’s all on you.

There is none in any cite you’ve given with support your theory.

You only gave your erroneous interpretation whereas your own cite does not support your theory.

Your argument from your sources is not much difference from an indifferentist who argues from Vatican II documents that the Church does not teach EENS anymore.

I think more sensible people will realize that “present magisterium” is identical to “present preaching of the Magisterium.” But since you have consistently shown that you can’t see the forest for the trees, such an equivalence will be lost on you.

If I were you I would immediately scream BACKTRACKING BACKTRACKING.BACKTRACKING

That is the difference between us.

I did in the OP. You seem to have purposefully blinded yourself to it, that’s all.

Where is it? WHERE is it? WHERE IS IT?

There’s none!!

Which is the one you actually had in mind?

Let all see.

Let it be shown that you’re talking out of your … in other word (your ever so favourite phrase) you said thing without any foundation.

Did you already forget your pet theory that a situation can arise when the ONLY orthodox person left in the whole Church is the Pope? Backtracking again? You are absolutely correct. The quote you give above does not support your error.

And you have no decree contradicting my theory, have you? At the very least I have Luk 22:32.

Plus, as I have said previously, even if there always will be some orthodox bishops, it doesn’t do away with your error.

That’s not what you said earlier (backtracking again). You stated “the Church is not the present Church.” You flat out refused to admit that the present Church could indeed help the Pope. The quote you give above flatly contradicts your error, for the quote affirms that the present Church CAN help the Pope.

Ahh, the word “backtracking” again.

When I said “the Church is not the present Church” I was using “Church” as herself from her foundation. To believe that the Church is the present Church only would be the error of the modernist. Are you one? Should I report that to the “Traditional Catholicism” forum?

So again, that paragraph proves your error that the pope MUST learn the consensus of the present preaching before exercising papal infallibility. Such present consensus might fail, so making it a requirement of papal infallibility would mean that there would be a time when the pope is unable to define ex cathedra.

That’s what you were saying, so I’m glad you admit that you were not making any sense.

That’s a logical consequence of your own theory. I’m glad you didn’t deny it.

You were the one who erroneously tried to separate the present preaching of the whole Magisterium from the sensus fidei of the Church of the past. The more sensible Catholic would understand that the “PRESENT preaching of the whole Magisterium” includes the sensus fidei of past AND present. But since you have introduced the error of separating the sensus fidei of the past Church from the sensus fidei of the present Church (remember your “the Church is not the present Church” comment?), I am now forced to specify, for the sake of our readers who you may have confused with your convoluted logic, “past AND PRESENT”.

+Gasser separates the present preaching from the consent of antiquity. Why don’t you have a go with him.

But if you understand that in learning the sense of faith the Pope must learn the consensus of the past and present magisterium, then you are not in error. I might welcome you in communion (pending your other errors).

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

 

[beng]

Dear brother Beng,

As I was reading through the thread, I noticed that you admitted the error of believing that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

:bowdown:

Thank you.

I hope we can come to a similar resolution on the rest of the points under discussion, so that there will no longer be occasion or excuse for non-Catholics like brother Ignatios to demean the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

That I did because I’m much more cooler and badass than you.

 

[beng]

Well, I’ve never called you a heretic, but you have proposed a LOT of errors about the papacy. So I don’t know why this is relevant.

Blessings,
Marduk

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

 

[gregdaly]

Marduk, thank you for taking the time to answer my question in this and your next post. I know I said that if you answer my questions, then I would regard you the winner of this debate. But I just thought of another question. You have proven to me that an Ecumenical Council is equal to the Pope, and that the Pope is not above the Ecumenical Council. For me to really, really, really accept that you are the hands down winner of this debate with Beng, here’s the last thing I need from you.

I challenge you to show instances in the history of the Church when a Pope made a decision and his decision was submitted to an Ecumenical Council for review. Your claim is that someone can appeal to an Ecumenical Council from the decision of the Pope if one considers the Ecumenical Council as EQUAL TO the Pope (that is, not ABOVE him). What I appreciate about the Catholic and Orthodox religions is that they both claim to follow Sacred Tradition. So I am assuming there must be proof in Catholic Tradition where your claim is proven to be true. I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say, “For all I know, you could just be saying this to attract someone into your Church.” For I indeed find your presentation very, very attractive. But I want some actual proof from your Tradition that what you say is true IN PRACTICE.

If you can do that, you have won the debate HANDS DOWN, as far as I’m concerned.

In Christ,
Greg

These are great questions. Thank you for asking them.

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

 

[gregdaly]

There is none in any cite you’ve given with support your theory.

You only gave your erroneous interpretation whereas your own cite does not support your theory.

Where is it? WHERE is it? WHERE IS IT?

There’s none!!

He did cite it. Why can’t you see it?

Let it be shown that you’re talking out of your … in other word (your ever so favourite phrase) you said thing without any foundation.

You just blew all credibility with me for this utterly rude comment.

Mardukm refuted you a long time ago with his OP, as far as I’m concerned.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

Sounds good to me. Papal infallibility cannot be exercised in isolation; it is an extraordinary exercise of and participation in the infallibility of the Church, right?

I think poster **twf **is right: the notion that “the pope doesn’t need to learn the consensus of the present preaching of the current bishops to exercise infallibility” is true only in the sense that he doesn’t need to, say, take a poll or something as heavy-handed as that. Beng seems to think that you’re claiming that the validity of a pope’s *judgment *in an exercise of papal infallibility is dependent upon the consent of the other bishops. That is clearly not so, but I do not see how it follows in any way from the clearly true position that the pope is bound to exercise his infallibility in accordance with the consensus of the faith of the Church.

Have I misrepresented the position you’ve undertaken to explain, Marduk?

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.

I do not think this is Marduk’s position. See above.

To learn the faith of the Church the pope does not have to rely on the current magisterium solely (mardukm’s position)

Is that Marduk’s position? I don’t think so… certainly the pope needn’t rely “solely” on the current magisterium, but neither can he simply disregard it entirely…

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

Just so you know, Marduk is the only one I’ve seen in these discussion who both engages in a great deal of specificity and never seems to be caught off guard.

I don’t trust the sound-byte slingshot approach to ecclesiology… that is the first reason I as a Latin Catholic am totally with Marduk on this matter.

The second reason is that even before seriously studying my faith, I was taught ever since childhood that everything Marduk now calls “Absolutist Petrine” positions are not actually the teaching of the Catholic Church, whose teachings occupy a considerably more nuanced position.

To put it plainly, I was catechized into the High Petrine view, and I didn’t really discover Absolutist distortions until I entered the fray of cutthroat Internet apologetics.

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.

Excellent. Distinctions are our friend. Or at least they ought to be.

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.

Whether or not it’s an assumption, I’m confident it is the truth because of the fifteenth century Council of Constance. If an ecumenical council weren’t equal to the pope, how could what that council - recognized by the Church today - did possibly have been valid?

It took a council to end the Western Schism, and that worked. As a Catholic, the precedent that sets is good enough for me.

And if one applies Marduk’s positions, what Constance did doesn’t even lead to the condemned notion of conciliarism, so for me, the ideas Marduk lays out really are the only way for a Catholic who chooses not to ignore history.

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

That I did because I’m much more cooler and badass than you.

Oooookay… :ehh:

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If you simply asked “can you give me any examples of when papal infallibility has worked this way” I am happy to oblige.

The Tome of Pope St. Leo in the 5th century.
The Decree of Pope St. Agatho regarding the Monothelite controversy in the 7th century.
Pope Benedict XII’s Decree on the Beatific Vision in the 14th century.

You will find different lists of ex cathedra decrees by the Pope from Catholics, but those three are common to all the lists of which I am aware. Those three were brought to the Pope for his judgment after much controversy between bishops in the Church at large.

This surprised me, because I had always thought that the shortest/most conservative lists included only the papal definitions of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). Have I been looking at simplistic or out-of-date lists?

Also, I may totally misunderstand the history, so please correct any historical errors I inadvertently make, but could the Tome of Pope St. Leo really be an instance of ex cathedra papal infallibility when (a) a council was going on at the time, and he simply sent his tome to the council for it to use, and (b) the bishops themselves didn’t accept it until they verified its orthodoxy according to the position of St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Perhaps the Tome of St. Leo is the answer our friend Greg is looking for in the selection I quote below?

Marduk, thank you for taking the time to answer my question in this and your next post. I know I said that if you answer my questions, then I would regard you the winner of this debate. But I just thought of another question. You have proven to me that an Ecumenical Council is equal to the Pope, and that the Pope is not above the Ecumenical Council. For me to really, really, really accept that you are the hands down winner of this debate with Beng, here’s the last thing I need from you.

I challenge you to show instances in the history of the Church when a Pope made a decision and his decision was submitted to an Ecumenical Council for review. Your claim is that someone can appeal to an Ecumenical Council from the decision of the Pope if one considers the Ecumenical Council as EQUAL TO the Pope (that is, not ABOVE him). What I appreciate about the Catholic and Orthodox religions is that they both claim to follow Sacred Tradition. So I am assuming there must be proof in Catholic Tradition where your claim is proven to be true. I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say, “For all I know, you could just be saying this to attract someone into your Church.” For I indeed find your presentation very, very attractive. But I want some actual proof from your Tradition that what you say is true IN PRACTICE.

If you can do that, you have won the debate HANDS DOWN, as far as I’m concerned.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[jlhargus]

JL: Mark for future remarks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother FoneBone,

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

This surprised me, because I had always thought that the shortest/most conservative lists included only the papal definitions of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). Have I been looking at simplistic or out-of-date lists?

Sister Andrea’s (NinjaSnark) original question had to do with examples wherein there was a conflict over a certain matter and bishops could not settle the issue, and thus submitted it to the Pope for his decision. This was on the heels of her agreement that such a role for the Pope makes sense.

A great many understand the Marian dogmas not to have come about in that way. Many see the Marian dogmas as a mere affirmation of doctrine, not the settlement of a conflict (and hence, the concern of many non-Latins that the Pope is just going to go around dogmatizing matters that don’t need dogmatizing). However, if you reread my response, I did, nevertheless, mention the Marian dogmas as a response to sister Andrea’s question in passing, because there are also those who view the dogmatization of the Marian doctrines as a response to the conflict with the Protestants (not merely an affirmation).

The three I gave are the most common examples cited by Catholic apologists wherein the Pope exercised the infallibility of the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium to settle a conflict that the bishops submitted to the Pope to settle.

Also, I may totally misunderstand the history, so please correct any historical errors I inadvertently make, but could the Tome of Pope St. Leo really be an instance of ex cathedra papal infallibility when (a) a council was going on at the time, and he simply sent his tome to the council for it to use, and (b) the bishops themselves didn’t accept it until they verified its orthodoxy according to the position of St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Perhaps the Tome of St. Leo is the answer our friend Greg is looking for in the selection I quote below?

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Sounds good to me. Papal infallibility cannot be exercised in isolation; it is an extraordinary exercise of and participation in the infallibility of the Church, right?

Absolutely! That’s exactly what all the sources say - that the Pope participates in the infallibility of the Church.

I think poster **twf **is right: the notion that “the pope doesn’t need to learn the consensus of the present preaching of the current bishops to exercise infallibility” is true only in the sense that he doesn’t need to, say, take a poll or something as heavy-handed as that. Beng seems to think that you’re claiming that the validity of a pope’s *judgment *in an exercise of papal infallibility is dependent upon the consent of the other bishops.

Yes. I don’t know where Beng comes up with these ideas. I have repeatedly informed him of the difference between the role of bishops as fellow judges with the Pope (in an Ecumenical Council), and the role of bishops as witnesses to the Faith (when the Pope makes an ex cathedra decree on faith and morals).

That is clearly not so, but I do not see how it follows in any way from the clearly true position that the pope is bound to exercise his infallibility in accordance with the consensus of the faith of the Church.

A much appreciated statement from a Latin Catholic, my brother!

Have I misrepresented the position you’ve undertaken to explain, Marduk?

You’ve understood my position perfectly.

Is that Marduk’s position? I don’t think so… certainly the pope needn’t rely “solely” on the current magisterium, but neither can he simply disregard it entirely…

True. He accused me of stating that the Pope can only obtain the consensus of the Church from the bishops, but when brother Greg called him on the straw man, he couldn’t even produce where I made such a statement.

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

When I said “the Church is not the present Church” I was using “Church” as herself from her foundation. To believe that the Church is the present Church only would be the error of the modernist. Are you one?

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

Should I report that to the “Traditional Catholicism” forum?

Go right ahead.

So again, that paragraph proves your error that the pope MUST learn the consensus of the present preaching before exercising papal infallibility. Such present consensus might fail, so making it a requirement of papal infallibility would mean that there would be a time when the pope is unable to define ex cathedra.

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

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

That’s a logical consequence of your own theory. I’m glad you didn’t deny it.

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

+Gasser separates the present preaching from the consent of antiquity. Why don’t you have a go with him.

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

But if you understand that in learning the sense of faith the Pope must learn the consensus of the past and present magisterium, then you are not in error. I might welcome you in communion (pending your other errors).

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

He did cite it. Why can’t you see it?

I really don’t see it. Do you? Where?

You just blew all credibility with me for this utterly rude comment.

Rude? What do you think the ellipses suppose to be?

Mardukm refuted you a long time ago with his OP, as far as I’m concerned.

In Christ,
Greg

Great. If you think so and it makes you sleep well at night, then more power to you.

 

[beng]

I think poster **twf **is right: the notion that “the pope doesn’t need to learn the consensus of the present preaching of the current bishops to exercise infallibility” is true only in the sense that he doesn’t need to, say, take a poll or something as heavy-handed as that. Beng seems to think that you’re claiming that the validity of a pope’s *judgment *in an exercise of papal infallibility is dependent upon the consent of the other bishops. That is clearly not so, but I do not see how it follows in any way from the clearly true position that the pope is bound to exercise his infallibility in accordance with the consensus of the faith of the Church.

Have I misrepresented the position you’ve undertaken to explain, Marduk?

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

With regard to “consent” vs “consensus,” as I have noted in support of his “consensus” understanding mardukm cited paragraph which says “consent.” So why he insists that the two is different is beyond me.

I do not think this is Marduk’s position. See above.

Is that Marduk’s position? I don’t think so… certainly the pope needn’t rely “solely” on the current magisterium, but neither can he simply disregard it entirely…

Hopefully not. Because that is an error.

Just so you know, Marduk is the only one I’ve seen in these discussion who both engages in a great deal of specificity and never seems to be caught off guard.

That is because in points where he’s caught of guard he simply bypassed it, never to mention them again. As a bonus point, could you find them?

I don’t trust the sound-byte slingshot approach to ecclesiology… that is the first reason I as a Latin Catholic am totally with Marduk on this matter.

Since I don’t know what in the world is a “sound-byte slingshot approach to ecclesiology” maybe I am also with mardukm on that matter. who knows.

 

[beng]

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, …

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

Ahh, only found this after Fone Bone 2001 mentions it.

It’s kind of weird to take a compliment which might be made because of an agenda. Nevertheless to be charitable I must assume good will and take the compliment .