Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There is no “view”. Those flakey theories of perception exist here at CAF and no where else. If one asked him the Pope would likely give a funny look like what is that supposed to mean!? And then it would have to be explained to him.

This is simply not true, Hesychios. The terms we use may or may not be unique to this forum, but the ideas behind them - in all their specificity - are certainly dealt with by the pope, other bishops, and theologians, and if one were to present the content of these different “views,” they would not be news to the pope, who would know exactly where he stands.

As one of many bits of hard evidence that these competing ideologies are very concrete and real theories in the Catholic Church today, consider what happened at the second period (1963) of Vatican II with the schema for the document that would eventually be promulgated as Lumen Gentium:

There was some controversy over what the basic claims and focus of this document should be, controversy that needed to be resolved in order for a workable schema to be written. The bishops were asked to vote on such proposals as these:

Should the schema assert that the so-called Body or College of Bishops in its evangelizing, sanctifying, and governing task is successor to the original College of the Apostles and, always in communion with the Roman Pontiff, enjoys full and supreme power over the universal Church?
2,148 affirmative, 336 negative

Should the schema assert that the aforementioned power of the College of Bishops, united with their head, belongs to it by divine ordinance [and therefore not by papal delegation]?
2,138 affirmative, 408 negative

(SOURCE: What Happened at Vatican II by John W. O’Malley, p. 184)

As you can see, Hesychios, the two possible answers to these questions essentially divided the bishops yet again into the majority at the council (who espoused what Marduk calls the High Petrine view) and a statistically tiny minority (most of whom no doubt held what this forum calls the Absolutist Petrine view).

The terms we use here may be our terms. But the difference between the ideas they represent is a clear, distinct, and unmistakably visible reality in the Catholic world today.

And yes, you’re right: JPII did indeed put the legal/jurisdictional expression of papal primacy on the table for our Orthodox brethren. The ball is in your court, brother.

 

[Mickey]

Mardukm’s terminology is useful

The adjectives I would use are bizarre and confusing.

 

[NinjaSnark]

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.

Marduk-

I realize that this is from pages ago, but I was hoping you could address a few concerns of mine. I am not at all uneasy with papal infallibility from an appellate standpoint (someone has to have the final word, after all)- but in light of the quoted section above, could you address:

1. Pope Honorius. I understand that one could interpret his words to be orthodox, but it seems that since he was labeled a heretic- the people nearest to him in time did not interpret him in that way. Further, I fear that if you start with papal infallibility as your premise, then you are in the awkward position of doing all kinds of apologetic contortions to explain how a pope said X, but couldn’t actually mean X because X is heresy, and the Bishop of Rome can’t teach heresy. It’s begging the question. I hope that makes sense.
2. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption doctrines- these are examples of ex cathedra pronouncements, correct? What was the purpose in defining them? Was there some sort of conflict between bishops that I’m unaware of that required the Pope’s involvement? Neither of these doctrines could possibly have been a part of the original deposit of faith once and for all delivered to the saints. I don’t have an issue with them being held or universally believed (and I’m not interested in arguing whether or not they are true), but why dogmatically define them?

Are my perceptions way off base? Thanks in advance, by the way!

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios, that was me, and I apologize if I have given offense. I did not mean to imply that “this is what you do” but rather that, in this particular instance, that was what you did. I assure you - and I hope you’ll believe me - that in charity I would not and did not assume that that is your modus operandi.

No need to apologize, we all make mistakes, No one man is infallible. All fine and good .

But the Immaculate Conception was dogmatized in the nineteenth century, far removed from medieval disputes. St. Thomas disagreed with the Immaculate Conception …

I have different look, based on history. But my point was to show that there was an instance where one needs not to ask one’s opinion concerning certain issue and I gave the I.C. as an example to illustrate that such thing did in fact happened in the RCC so it is not a hypothetical example that Beng gave.

The medieval dispute over the matter becomes irrelevant when one has the blessing of modern science (genetics and all that) to reveal that human life does in fact begin at conception. Unless I’m greatly mistaken, the idea of the Immaculate Conception was not as controversial by the mid-nineteenth century.

okay, again all of the above is irrelevant to what I was conveying this is not the subject at hand, but I used it, again, to illustrate that such division existed for centuries etc…

I’m honestly not sure how you can say this… here are my reasons for being as confident that Marduk is correct on this matter as I am that our Lord is risen:

(A) The catechesis concerning the Church that I received throughout childhood and young adulthood as a Latin Catholic here in the United States was conspicuously High Petrine.

High, Medium, low, absolute, all this is are no more than point of views, that one is able to only find on the CAF and it is Immaterial, you have the Teaching of the RCC in which it doesn’t agree with. Listen, if there is High, Low and absolute then there is no consistency in the RCC teaching, if not, then where those terms come from

(B) All recent popes, if you look at what they say on matters such as these, clearly hold the High Petrine view. Do you think you know the Roman Catholic faith better than the bishop of Rome?

I only know what the RCC teaches as recorded, and it is definitely not what you along with Marduk are suggesting.
Recent Popes? what about the previous Popes that are prior to the recent ones? Are you suggesting that the teachings changed? besides I am not interested in how the Pope may wish to govern his church, I go by what the official teaching of the RCC is, that is the written text of the RCC not someone’s opinion or how he likes to govern his See/church, if he wanted to govern his church by conducting a council with the Orthodox Church would that mean that this became a Canon that the office of the Papacy is must do in order to govern his church? Of course not and I think you agree with me.

(C) It’s precisely Marduk’s replies which explicitly synthesize all the relevant documents… I guess I can’t prove this here in just this one reply, but I think any open-minded inquirer - like gregdaly and NinjaShark - sees this…

Since you share the same opinions as Marduk, then it is natural that you use the same scope as Marduk’s. besides Marduk hasn’t presented us with anything accept the fantasized RCC that he sees in his own mind.
I think any open minded would consider the whole text of the RCC concerning the Pope’s power issue, it exists not only in one canon nor it is just one line of teaching but it is repeatedly mentioned whether in the CCC or/and the Councils or/and the Canons.

(D) The facts of Church history are completely alien to the Absolutist Petrine view.

Amen to that, there was the pre-eminent sees and the whole Church was governed through through an E. Council.

Pope Benedict XVI (just to take an actual Catholic as an example ) is a highly intelligent and learned man. Do you really think he could with any honesty maintain an Absolutist Petrine view in light of Constance, High Petrine first millennium ecclesiology, the conditions under which the council fathers at Ephesus received the Tome of Pope St. Leo, etc.?

Irrelevant how Pope Benedict would like to govern his church, the subject that I am contending is what the Pope power is, call it absolute, high or low or whatever you wish, Does the Pope has enough power to install Bishops or retire Bishops, is he able to terminate, resolve or dissolve E. Councils, call them and put the terms under which they will meet and the matters to be discussed, can he make an infallible decision without needing the Bishops consent, is his decision reversible etc…etc…etc…

…As far as I’m concerned, history alone is enough to prove Marduk’s interpretation right: neither neo-ultramontanist/absolutist distortions nor Low Petrine innovations of the kind that exist within eastern Orthodoxy can possibly stand up to historical scrutiny.

Your claim about the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD is something you cannot bear, simply because you cannot provide a valid evidence of such innovation of yours.
History is your worst enemy in your endeavor of the Roman Petrine Supremacy over the whole Church whether you like to name it low, medium, high or absolute, and under the shear truth of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD neither you nor anyone else can, did or will stand, and history indeed did show on who’s side the “innovation” took place, however in the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD we live today and every day the whole history that it took place from 2000 years ago up until now and we will GOD willing, unto the ages of ages, AMEN, it is simply called the Life of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Greg and Fonebone2001,

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.

I can think of three instances when a Pope’s decision for the universal Church was submitted to an Ecumenical Council for review: (1) Pope St. Leo’s Tome against Eutychianism (i.e., classic monophysitism) to the 4th Ecum, and (2) Pope St. Agatho’s Epistle against Monothelitism to the 6th Ecum. In my own opinion, (3) the decree of Pope St. Stephen on accepting the Baptism of certain heretics/schismatics should be counted (this was reviewed by the 1st Ecum). In all these instances, the teaching of the bishop of Rome was reviewed and accepted as the standard for the Church.

Non-Catholics usually interpret (1) and (2) as examples that supposedly contradict the Catholic dogmatic teaching on “papal infallibility,” since they apparently violate the particular assertion that an ex cathedra decree is “irreformable by its nature not by the consent of the Church.” This claim is based on one of the many misunderstandings about the Church’s teaching. The phrase “irreformable by its nature, not by the consent of the Church” is understood by both non-Catholics and many Catholics alike as appositive of the distinction between the Pope and the Church. THAT IS AN ERROR. Rather, the phrase is appositive of the distinction between God and the Church (which includes the Pope). V2 explains more clearly the sense in which the passage is to be taken: “For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature, not by reason of the consent of the Church, INASMUCH AS THEY WERE MADE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT…”

The key is the clause “by its nature” The clause has nothing to do with how an ex cathedra decision comes about. With this misunderstanding, Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors both presume that “by its nature” basically means “because the Pope said so” (i.e., the phrase in their minds becomes “irreformible because the Pope said so, not by the consent of the Church”). It is impossible that the clause “by its nature” can be interpreted to mean “because the Pope said so” because, according to the Official Relatio, “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.” (as quoted earlier in greater context in my post #138). So, to repeat, the clause “by its nature,” has nothing to do with how an ex cathedra decision comes about. Rather, it cuts to the chase about the very nature of an ex cathedra decree as God’s Truth. As consistently affirmed throughout all my years in CAF, Truth is never determined by consensus. The idea that truth is determined by consensus is nothing more than a modernist error (actually, heresy).

NOTE: In light of the above, one can hopefully see that the phrase at issue really has nothing to do with Apostolic Canon 34. The Apostolic Canon merely affirms that the purpose of consensus between the head bishop and his brother bishops is to ensure the unity of the Church. In distinction, V1’s Definition is affirming that God’s Truth is not determined by consensus. Of course, there are other places in the Official Relatio directly related to the Apostolic Canon, not least of which are its statements that AC 34 is the RULE OF FAITH even for definitions by the Pope.

Both Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors, misinterpreting the phrase at issue to refer to the relationship between the Pope and the Church during the Pope’s exercise of the Church’s infallibility, mistakenly conclude that the CC teaching that the Pope is separated from the Church when he makes an ex cathedra decree on Faith/morals. That is an absolutely false conclusion. And I pray this entire discussion (including the debate with brother Beng) has demonstrated that to be the case for you, brother Greg.

Given the foregoing primer, we now address the matter of the 4th and 6th Ecums. At this point, please recall the axioms in my previous post to you. I’ll repeat it here for your benefit.

quote=Mardukm The Church has no authority to create new doctrine. She can only recognize/affirm what is infallibly true.
(2) What the Church recognizes/affirms as infallibly true was the Truth even before the Church recognized/affirmed it to be infallibly true, because it is the eternal Truth from God Himself.
[/quote]

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

As stated, non-Catholics normally use the examples of the 4th Ecum in relation to Pope St. Leo’s Tome, and the 6th Ecum in relation to Pope St. Agatho’s Epistle, as supposed “proof” against V1’s Definition on “papal infallibility” (particularly, the phrase “irreformable by its very nature not from the consent of the Church”). The argument goes, “Wasn’t the Church as a whole through the Ecum Councils required to establish the infallibility of Pope Leo’s Tome and Pope Agatho’s Epistle?”

Let’s approach this through a dialectic. Please answer for yourself the following questions:

1. Did the Ecum Councils agree that the teachings in Pope St. Leo’s Tome and Pope St. Agatho’s Epistle were indeed God’s Truth?
2. If they were God’s Truth, then were they not ETERNAL Truths?
3. If they were God’s eternal Truth, then were they not true/infallible/irreformable even before the consensus given by the Ecum Councils?
4. If they were true/infallible/irreformable even before the consensus given by the Ecum Councils, then were they not irreformable apart from that consensus?
   For sister NinjaSnark, as a Protestant, I would like to present an additional question for her consideration from the Bible.
5. When St. Peter, our first Pope, pronounced the first dogma of the Church in Acts 11 (i.e., that the Gentiles should be included in the People of God), was that teaching true/infallible/irreformible by its very nature, or because the Church consented that it was true?

So do the examples of the 4th and 6th Ecums (and, if you agree, the 1st Ecum in relation to Pope St. Stephen’s teaching) contradict the V1 Definition that the truth/infallibility/irreformability of an ex cathedra teaching is not by the consensus of the Church? Remember that the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 does not claim that consensus is necessary to determine the truth/infallibility/irreformability of a teaching, but rather is necessary to ensure the unity of the Church.

There has never been an instance in Church history when the truth/infallibility/irreformability of an ex cathedra teaching of the Pope on Faith/morals has been contradicted by an Ecum Council. It is altogether impossible, theoretically, for this to occur, since, as explained by the Official Relatio, the Church and the Pope both have the same founts of Truth, neither have the authority to contradict those founts of Truth, and the Holy Spirit is active in both equally for the preservation of Truth (whether for transmission or judgment). As the Official Relatio concisely put it, “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.”

No doubt, it will cross your mind – “Marduk, you’ve given examples of Ecum Councils affirming the Truth pronounced ex cathedra by the Pope. Has the Pope never been corrected by an Ecum Council?” Yes, he has. I can think of two instances.
(1) In the 5th Ecum Council, Pope Vigilius at first refused to condemn the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius, while wholly orthodox in doctrine against Nestorianism, would not condemn these three, because the 4th Ecum had explicitly exonerated them of any charge of heresy. To Pope Vigilius, and a good number of Western bishops, along with a few Eastern bishops, to condemn these persons would be to overthrow the authority of the 4th Ecum. The Pope eventually conceded to the will of the Council, whereby it came to have Ecumenical status. NOTE: The issue here was not doctrinal, but disciplinary – the condemnation of persons. Throughout the episode, the Council Fathers consistently admitted the orthodoxy of Pope Vigilius.

(2) Believe it or not, Vatican 1 is another example. Pio Nono was not a classical ultramontanist (i.e. High Petrine), but of the neo-ultramontanist camp (i.e., Absolutist Petrine). He demonstrated some definite Absolutist Petrine leanings towards the end of the Council (e,g, his personal comments to other bishops; his solid opposition to the separation of Church and State; etc.). But even he confirmed the moderate High Petrine position of his brother bishops. NOTE: The issue here was about a doctrinal matter that had not yet been settled by the Church.

To recap, as already stated a few times, “papal infallibility” as defined by V1 is not an active principle during the Church’s infallible exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium in an Ecumenical Council – nor is “papal infallibility” as defined by V1 an active principle in the Church’s infallible exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium. So it is possible that the Pope can err in the context of these distinct organs of infallibility – what counts when we consider an Ecumenical Council, or the College of Bishops even when spread throughout the world, is a COLLEGIAL infallibility – it is ALWAYS the body in union with its head, NEVER the body apart from the head (against the Low Petrine error), nor the head apart from the body (against the Absolutist Petrine error). The claim that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council is simply false.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Brothers Tyler, Aramis, and FoneBone,

Thank you for the documentary support!

:bowdown2:

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I have different look, based on history. But my point was to show that there was an instance where one needs not to ask one’s opinion concerning certain issue and I gave the I.C. as an example to illustrate that such thing did in fact happened in the RCC so it is not a hypothetical example that Beng gave.

Can you please clarify what the example of the I.C. proves as far as brother Beng’s errors are concerned?

okay, again all of the above is irrelevant to what I was conveying this is not the subject at hand, but I used it, again, to illustrate that such division existed for centuries etc…

What division?

High, Medium, low, absolute, all this is are no more than point of views, that one is able to only find on the CAF and it is Immaterial, you have the Teaching of the RCC in which it doesn’t agree with. Listen, if there is High, Low and absolute then there is no consistency in the RCC teaching, if not, then where those terms come from

The High Petrine view has been the consistent teaching and practice of the Catholic Church since Christ established the Church through His Apostles. There have been times when both the Eastern and Western portions of Christendom violated this constant teaching. But the teaching itself has been constant, and was enshrined in the Decrees of the Vatican Councils.

I only know what the RCC teaches as recorded, and it is definitely not what you along with Marduk are suggesting.

No. All you know are the little snippets that your polemic sources feed you. You will notice that I and others have not only addressed every single one of your quotes through rational explanation, but have offered quotes for our position as well, demonstrating that your interpretations of the quotes you provide are wrong. You have not been able to do likewise to the quotes that I and others have given, except to deny them, without explanation. At the end of the day, all you have are baseless denials, with nothing to back up your claims from Catholic Magisterial sources.

Recent Popes? what about the previous Popes that are prior to the recent ones? Are you suggesting that the teachings changed?

The High Petrine ideal has been taught and lived by the Catholic Church from the very beginning (notwithstanding the few instances when both West and East violated this principle). We appeal to recent Popes because their teaching is more easily accessible.

besides I am not interested in how the Pope may wish to govern his church, I go by what the official teaching of the RCC is, that is the written text of the RCC

As noted, all you have are little snippets of Catholic teachings and create caricatures out of them. Absolutely no context. Our Popes, who know the teachings of the Catholic Church much better than your anti-Catholic sources, are the most capable of presenting to us the correct interpretation of the Decrees of the Vatican Councils and the teachings of our Church.

I think any open minded would consider the whole text of the RCC concerning the Pope’s power issue, it exists not only in one canon nor it is just one line of teaching but it is repeatedly mentioned whether in the CCC or/and the Councils or/and the Canons.

As noted, we have addressed your misinterpretations of Catholic sources, as well as provided other quotes from those same sources to demonstrate your misinterpretation. But you have no idea how to refute those other quotes we give from those same sources, because - face it - your arguments against the papacy are merely the standard one-dimensional one-liners used by anti-Catholics. There is neither depth nor reason to your arguments, which is why after giving the initial snippet from a Catholic source to “support” your position against the papacy, after your use of that snippet is refuted, you have nothing left but baseless denials. Your post right now is a vivid validation of that reality. You haven’t offered a single counter-argument against what Catholics have stated here in this thread except “that’s not how I see it.”

Irrelevant how Pope Benedict would like to govern his church, the subject that I am contending is what the Pope power is, call it absolute, high or low or whatever you wish, Does the Pope has enough power to install Bishops or retire Bishops, is he able to terminate, resolve or dissolve E. Councils, call them and put the terms under which they will meet and the matters to be discussed, can he make an infallible decision without needing the Bishops consent, is his decision reversible etc…etc…etc…

ALL of these have been addressed in past threads, your claims/accusations refuted, and you have never been able to offer any response to the Catholic defense of our Faith. If these are of any concern to our inquirers here (sister NinjaSnark and brother Greg), I’m sure they’ll bring them up.

Your claim about the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD is something you cannot bear, simply because you cannot provide a valid evidence of such innovation of yours.

I didn’t see brother FoneBone’s statement as a blanket statement about Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole. But your Low Petrine innovation needs to be rejected just as much as the Absolutist Petrine innovation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Andrea,

Excellent questions.

1. Pope Honorius. I understand that one could interpret his words to be orthodox, but it seems that since he was labeled a heretic- the people nearest to him in time did not interpret him in that way. Further, I fear that if you start with papal infallibility as your premise, then you are in the awkward position of doing all kinds of apologetic contortions to explain how a pope said X, but couldn’t actually mean X because X is heresy, and the Bishop of Rome can’t teach heresy. It’s begging the question. I hope that makes sense.

I understand where you are coming from, for I used to hold that exact same opinion. The reason I had held that opinion was because I did not understand as a non-Catholic what the purpose of infallibility actually is (having learned everything about Catholicism for most of my life from non-Catholic sources). I eventually learned (from Catholic sources) that the purpose of infallibility is nothing more nor less than to protect the public Faith of the Church, not the private belief of individuals. Permit me to quote once again the Official Relatio of Vatican 1:

The infallibility [of the Pope] is personal insofar as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of the Roman See. But it is not personal as belonging to the Pope as a private person or private doctor…not as an individual person, but as a public person, the Head of the Church in his relation to the universal Church…Therefore the sentence, “The Roman Pontiff is infallible,” is not to be blamed as false…but only as incomplete, as the Pope is infallible only when by his solemn judgment he defines matters of faith or morals for the universal Church…We do not thereby separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church. For he is infallible only when as doctor of all Christians, that is, as representing the universal Church.

In light of the foregoing, I can respond in 3 ways:
(1) Infallibility only protects the public Faith of the Church, not individual belief, so it does not protect a Pope from being a heretic (i.e., his private belief). The charism of infallibility would only prevent the heretic Pope from preaching or teaching his personal heresy as the public Faith of the Church. Consider the dogma of the infallibility of the Church. Does this mean that there will never be individual heretics in the Church?

(2) When the case of Pope Honorius is considered, we don’t assume he is infallible at all. Rather, we apply the conditions for infallibility as defined by Vatican 1 to see if he met those conditions. We find that he never met those conditions. Therefore, Pope Honorius did not exercise the charism of infallibility.

(3) There are several problems with your syllogism. Your proposition, outlined, is:
(a) The Pope is infallible.
(b) The Pope said X
(c) An Ecumenical Council judged the Pope to be a heretic
(d) Since the Pope is infallible, X must be reinterpreted to mean it is not heresy.
(e) Since X is not heresy, the Pope is infallible.

Please consider the following responses for each point of your syllogism:
(a) In order to successfully utilize your syllogism, you must assume more than just “the Pope is infallible” You must assume that EVERY SINGLE THING the Pope says is infallible, not only things he formally teaches publicly to the whole Church ex cathedra, but also things that don’t meet those conditions. It is a fact that Pope Honorius’ private letter to Sergius does not satisfy the conditions for an infallible ex catehdra Decree. Since this premise must assume more than what the Catholic Church actually teaches about “papal infallibility,” then it cannot be a valid premise.
(b) In order to successfully utilize your syllogism, you must assume much more than merely “the Pope said X.” You have to assume that the Pope actually publicly taught X to the Church. Since the Pope never did this, then this premise is also invalid.
(c) This premise is true.
(d) Since (a) and (b) are actually invalid, you cannot logically make this statement, which depends on the validity of (a). But even if (a) was valid, the actual Catholic teaching does not necessitate a reinterpretation of X. In fact, there are many Catholics who plainly admit that Pope Honorius was a heretic. A reinterpretation would only be necessary if the Pope actually publicly taught his heresy as the dogmatic Faith of the Church. Since Pope Honorius never did this, a reinterpretation is both unnecessary and useless.
(e) Since (a), (b) and (d) are actually invalid statements, this is not a logical conclusion.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

1. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption doctrines- these are examples of ex cathedra pronouncements, correct? What was the purpose in defining them? Was there some sort of conflict between bishops that I’m unaware of that required the Pope’s involvement?

Both dogmas were pronounced at the request of bishops around the world. Requests for the dogmatization of the IC have existed since the 15th century, and until the 17th century, the IC was a greater source of conflict within the Church than in later times. In 1661, Pope Alexander VI formally condemned several errors about IC, which effectively settled the conflicts in the CC, but he never positively defined it. There was a dramatic increase in requests during the reign of Pope Gregory XVI (Pius IX’s predecessor), but the conflict was no longer between members of the Church, but with those outside of her. Many non-Catholic writers of the period, particularly Blessed John Henry Newman, are solid witnesses to the conflict between the Church and the Protestants in the 19th century over the IC. The other target for the dogma were the secularists. In the face of atheistic communism, rationalism, naturalism and liberalism, the dogma was hailed as a triumph of the supernatural over the merely material/secular. So the Church at the time felt the dogmatization responded to a very pressing need for the Church (if not in the Church), a need fulfilled by Pope Pius IX.

Requests for the dogmatization of the Assumption existed since the time of the First Vatican Council, at which about 200 bishops signed a postulation for a definition during the Council. A petition for dogmatization from 260 bishops was presented to the Pope in 1920; in 1934, another petition from 600 bishops. I am not sure how many bishops petitioned for a definition in the 1940’s, but according to the Apostolic Constitution on the Dogma: “since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined,” we can assume it was a lot. The point of conflict was, this time, within the Church herself, and it came from two related sources:
(1) The rise of the historical-critical method within the Church; and
(2) The belief that the Assumption was a merely spiritual phenomenon.

However, the conflict was not between bishops, but between the Magisterium, on the one hand, and the professional theologians, on the other. Supporters of the historical-critical method tended to deny the miraculous (though, to be sure, that method also has its positive contributions). Bishops saw in this paradigm a connection with the popular theological theory that the Assumption of Mary was merely spiritual (a physical Assumption was too “miraculous” a concept for the sensibilities of the modernists). The dogmatization of the doctrine of the Assumption was intended as a “put your foot down” response to that theory, and simultaneously, to reinforce and confirm the Church’s constant belief in the truly miraculous (in opposition to the excesses of the historical-critical method). To give you an idea of just how serious the problem of the historical-critical method was in the eyes of the Church’s Magisterium, in 1954 – just 4 years after the promulgation of the dogma on the Assumption – the Pope demoted the status of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Prior to 1954, that Commission had juridical and legislative faculties on matters related to the interpretation of Scripture. But its theologians had become so mired in the excesses of the historical-critical method that the Pope revoked their authoritative status. IIRC, to this day, it remains a merely consultative body.

Neither of these doctrines could possibly have been a part of the original deposit of faith once and for all delivered to the saints.

To be sure, the Assumption is believed by all apostolic Christians as part of the Deposit of Faith, whether it was dogmatized or not. If you are searching for a home with either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I should humbly inform you that your position would not be considered acceptable by either group (magisterially speaking, that is).

As far as the IC not being part of the Deposit of Faith, perhaps you can address your concerns in the Apologetics Forum if and when you feel inclined to discuss the matter.

I don’t have an issue with them being held or universally believed, but why dogmatically define them?

I hope I have explained the matter of why they were dogmatically defined to your satisfaction. However, I suspect your current question has a different focus. Would it be correct to assume that you actual intent is, “why did the CC make these doctrines necessary for salvation?” If so, let me know, and we can proceed with the discussion from there.

Are my perceptions way off base?

As stated, you present excellent questions that can be expected from an inquirer into Catholicism. I do have a favor to ask. I hope you offer an affirmation or, lacking that, more questions based on my responses. The questions you have posed have been presented by non-Catholic polemicists as arguments against the Catholicism several times in the past, and when a response has been given, they answer with silence. Annoyingly, those same persons will repeat the same arguments at a later time in another thread. I don’t know why they do that. If they cannot offer a proper rejoinder, they should admit that their arguments are invalid. I pray we can discuss these specific matters to a proper conclusion, for the sake of your own faith journey.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The adjectives I would use are bizarre and confusing.

Do you really, truly think so? Theology can often get quite technical. Despite this, Marduk’s explanations do indeed achieve a remarkable degree of specificity, clarity, and to a degree even simplicity. In any case, it’s self-evident that his explanations and terminology are no more confusing - and are probably significantly less so - than the complex theological aspects of the debates in Christology of the first several ecumenical councils, the ones the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both accept…

High, Medium, low, absolute, all this is are no more than point of views, that one is able to only find on the CAF and it is Immaterial, you have the Teaching of the RCC in which it doesn’t agree with.

(a) The notion that these distinctions exist only on the Internet or on this forum has been disproved at least twice on this very page… did you see Aramis’ quote, and mine from the debate over the schema on the Church from Vatican II?

(b) You claim that what we here call the High Petrine view “doesn’t agree with the Teaching of the RCC.” That is a mere assertion which is simply incompatible with the thoroughness and context of all the relevant documents from the Catholic Church’s own Vatican I and Vatican II councils.

I only know what the RCC teaches as recorded, and it is definitely not what you along with Marduk are suggesting.

No offense, but I don’t believe you. If I have to weigh mere assertions - the assertions of a non-Catholic - against the explanations of a Catholic - explanations with exhaustive catalogues of various official and authoritative Church documents, all laid out in a responsible and contextually supported manner - why in heaven or on earth would I side with the ominous and generic assertions of the non-Catholic?

The Catholic Church does teach what most Catholics on this thread have been asserting: the pope’s supreme authority, whether in defining a matter of faith and morals, addressing some matter of discipline, or in any other way, must be exercised in a collegial manner. Even the pope’s infallibility - when he makes a judgment binding on the faithful - is itself an extraordinary participation in the infallibility of the Church, not a separate institution which divorces the pope from his brother bishops and gives him power to impose his will or ideas on them as he pleases.

Recent Popes? what about the previous Popes that are prior to the recent ones?

I merely used recent popes as an example, since I’m more consistently familiar with their teachings, encyclicals, etc. Based on how even the Latin Church has functioned throughout history, I’m confident that most popes have held the High Petrine view as well.

besides I am not interested in how the Pope may wish to govern his church, I go by what the official teaching of the RCC is

Good - I agree, that’s how we should look at it.

Still, by that standard, your suspicions about the papacy really have no leg to stand on. See, I’ve heard plenty of eastern Catholics express the view that, though a High Petrine ecclesiology was the standard in the first millennium, the Catholic Church doesn’t live up to it or live by it today. You could perhaps make a decent argument with that.

But what we all admit is that the standard by which the Catholic Church should function is indeed enshrined in the Magisterium’s authoritative teaching…

So as far as I’m concerned, you have an argument only if you look at how the Catholic Church actually does function… stick to the teachings/principles themselves, and you’ll find an ecclesiology more faithul to the first millennium model than that of any other apostolic church in existence today.

besides Marduk hasn’t presented us with anything accept the fantasized RCC that he sees in his own mind.

On many threads in this forum and in others (like the ByzCath forums), Marduk has exhaustively and thoroughly documented exactly what constitutes Catholic teaching on the constitution of Christ’s Church.

Honestly, if someone wants to even begin to convince me that Marduk’s view is not by far the most faithful and consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, they’re going to have to back it up with at least his level of specificity and thoroughness. Most of what I see from Orthodox posters on *this *forum is ominous generality, which is often commendably witty but rarely as substantive or as thorough as the kind of presentations Marduk makes…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Amen to that, there was the pre-eminent sees and the whole Church was governed through through an E. Council.

Indeed. Of course, the ancient canons also make it clear that a patriarch has supreme authority throughout his patriarchate. What all sides admit is that at the very least, the bishop of Rome in the first few centuries of Christianity certainly had more practical authority over Christians outside his See than the Orthodox Church’s current first among equals, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, has today…

Who wields/wielded his authority more directly and more often - the pope of Rome today over the Catholic Church, or the pope of Alexandria in the first millennium over his patriarchate? Honestly, I do not know enough history to be sure of the answer to that…

Irrelevant how Pope Benedict would like to govern his church

Ignatios, it’s Christ’s Church; Pope Benedict is merely called to be her servant - but the servant of the whole Church, not simply of his diocese in Rome. That’s why one of his official titles is “Servant of the Servants of God.”

Yes, Pope Benedict has ordinary and immediate authority over every part of the Catholic Church, just as the ancient patriarchs possessed this authority over every part of their patriarchates. But let me ask again: do you really think that Pope Benedict thinks he has the authority to lead unilaterally, and to usurp the proper authority of any bishop of the Catholic Church? I guarantee you, he does not.

Your claim about the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD is something you cannot bear, simply because you cannot provide a valid evidence of such innovation of yours.

It was not my intention to attack the Holy Orthodox Church, Ignatios. Your church houses many with the High Petrine view (minus Petrine supremacy) as well as many with the Low Petrine view.

That said, the notion that no bishop has any substantive authority over any other bishop - which you may or may not hold; as I said, views within the Orthodox Church vary - is indeed a post-schism, second millennium innovation. If the pope converted to the Orthodox Church tomorrow and we acquiesced completely to Orthodox conditions, the authority the pope would then hold as “first among equals” would be considerably, conspicuously less than the authority his first millennium predecessors possessed.

History is your worst enemy in your endeavor of the Roman Petrine Supremacy over the whole Church whether you like to name it low, medium, high or absolute,

Now that’s just silly. There’s no such thing as Low Petrine papal supremacy. The Low Petrine ecclesiology consistently insists that no bishop has any meaningful authority over any other.

and under the shear truth of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD neither you nor anyone else can, did or will stand, and history indeed did show on who’s side the “innovation” took place

Both east and west have changed in some ways since we parted ways a millennium ago. The responsibility lies on both sides. Our schism from each other remains a sad state of affairs, and I hope and pray that you, I, and all Catholics and Orthodox may look at ourselves with honesty and humility, so that we may be one as our Lord prayed.

No doubt, it will cross your mind – “Marduk, you’ve given examples of Ecum Councils affirming the Truth pronounced ex cathedra by the Pope. Has the Pope never been corrected by an Ecum Council?”

Believe it or not, Vatican 1 is an example. Pio Nono was not a classical ultramontanist (i.e. High Petrine), but of the neo-ultramontanist camp (i.e., Absolutist Petrine). He demonstrated some definite Absolutist Petrine leanings towards the end of the Council (e,g, his personal comments to other bishops; his solid opposition to the separation of Church and State; etc.). But even he confirmed the moderate High Petrine position of his brother bishops. NOTE: The issue here was about a doctrinal matter that had not yet been settled by the Church.

I really hope our Orthodox brethren see this example you’ve given, Marduk. Even a pope who did have Absolutist Petrine leanings respected and confirmed an ecumenical council whose ecclesiological teachings contradicted neo-Ultramontanism.

Brothers Tyler, Aramis, and FoneBone,

Thank you for the documentary support!

:bowdown2:

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

You’re most welcome! And thank you for the explanations above. It really is amazing how most objections to papal infallibility - whether ecclesiological or logical - just dissolve when the collegial reality of the doctrine is made clear, when one understands that papal infallibility is simply an extraordinary participation in the infallibility of the Church and is subject to the deposit of faith that the Church has been given.

 

[twf]

Brothers Tyler, Aramis, and FoneBone,

Thank you for the documentary support!

:bowdown2:

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

My pleasure, brother Marduk. I was particularly interested by the fact that the late Holy Father, of blessed memory, explicitly states in that general audience that the Pope of Rome does not have the power nor right to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local churches. Blessed John Paul made it abudnantly clear that his “supreme authority” is that of service to his brothers bishops, intended to preserve unity and orthodoxy throughout the Church universal.

I find that when debating with non-Catholics, on virtually any controversial theological topic, many non-Catholics find it extremely difficult to accept the nuances of the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is the mystery of Christ (and yes we Latins use the word ‘mystery’ in the liturgy time and time again…it isn’t only an Eastern word ) and contains many rich layers of truth. As far as Blessed John Paul was concerned there is no contradiction between these two statements:

1. The Pope of Rome exercises supreme authority over the entire Catholic Church
2. The Pope of Rome has no power to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local churches
   Anyone who reads the general audience I posted earlier could not deny this to be the case.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

In addition to the awesome quote you gave from the German Episcopate after Vatican 1 (contained in HH JP2’s Address), why don’t we hear from Pope Pius IX himself? Here is an excerpt from his Address to the Fathers of the Vatican Council immediately after the voting:
“The supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, venerable Brothers, does not oppress but helps, does not destroy but builds up, confirms in dignity, unites in charity, and strengthens and protects the rights of his Brethren the Bishops.”

Regarding the infallibility, I would like to add the following from the Swiss bishops’ Pastoral issued in June, 1871, regarding the infallibility:

“**It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church **[NOTE: this final factor refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our present discussion].”

POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

It does away with brother Beng’s pretense (shared by Low Petrine detractors) that the Pope can decide to make an ex cathedra Decree merely after waking up one morning and having some urge to do so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

My pleasure, brother Marduk. I was particularly interested by the fact that the late Holy Father, of blessed memory, explicitly states in that general audience that the Pope of Rome does not have the power nor right to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local churches. Blessed John Paul made it abudnantly clear that his “supreme authority” is that of service to his brothers bishops, intended to preserve unity and orthodoxy throughout the Church universal.

I find that when debating with non-Catholics, on virtually any controversial theological topic, many non-Catholics find it extremely difficult to accept the nuances of the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is the mystery of Christ (and yes we Latins use the word ‘mystery’ in the liturgy time and time again…it isn’t only an Eastern word ) and contains many rich layers of truth. As far as Blessed John Paul was concerned there is no contradiction between these two statements:

1. The Pope of Rome exercises supreme authority over the entire Catholic Church
2. The Pope of Rome has no power to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local churches
   Anyone who reads the general audience I posted earlier could not deny this to be the case.

Well said!

 

[gregdaly]

I find that when debating with non-Catholics, on virtually any controversial theological topic, many non-Catholics find it extremely difficult to accept the nuances of the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is the mystery of Christ (and yes we Latins use the word ‘mystery’ in the liturgy time and time again…it isn’t only an Eastern word ) and contains many rich layers of truth. As far as Blessed John Paul was concerned there is no contradiction between these two statements:

1. The Pope of Rome exercises supreme authority over the entire Catholic Church
2. The Pope of Rome has no power to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local churches
   Anyone who reads the general audience I posted earlier could not deny this to be the case.

Twf, thanks for bringing this up.

On the infallibility, Mardukm has me pretty convinced. Everything he, and others here such as yourself, have explained makes sense to me about the Pope’s infallibility. I must confess that I am not really aware of the Eastern Orthodox arguments against it. As I have time, I will ask at an Eastern Orthodox site what their objections are to see if they make sense, comparing them to what I have learned here from you wonderful and knowledgeable Catholics.

I guess my next topic of discovery will be the issue of the Primacy. On another thread (last week), Mardukm offered to explain how your points #1 and #2 above are related and cohere with each other. I will be starting a new thread on that issue soon. On the face, they seem to contradict, but, as I said in that other thread, I am willing to hear the Catholic side first before making a judgment.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Mardukm. All I’ve got to say is WOW!!! Your answer was a lot more than I had expected. I think you approached it from every angle that I can think of. Your explanation is clear and to the point. My hat’s off to you.

Thank you. You have me convinced that what you have been saying is indeed to be regarded as the official teaching of the Catholic Church, even though it has not been “defined.”

I’m not ready to make the “leap of faith” yet, but you are helping me out A LOT!!!

In Christ,
Greg

Dear brother Greg,

Thank you for all your incisive questions.

Dogmatization only occurs when conflict arises to such an extent that it must be settled once and for all. In such cases, the Church’s infallibility is used in an extraordinary manner – i.e., to JUDGE on Faith/morals. But the infallibility of the Church is also utilized in another way – to faithfully transmit the day to day teaching of the Church on Faith/morals. In the latter, the Church’s infallibility is utilized in its ordinary manner.

Brother Beng seems to think he can ignore the evidence form the Official Relatio or Pastor Aeternus’s historic Proem, because they are not “infallible and definitive.” That’s another one of his errors. The CCC teaches:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So is a faithful Catholic bound to accept by religious assent the teachings contained in the Official Relatio and the rest of Pastor Aeternus apart from the definitions? YES, INDEED!!! The very excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia given by Beng proves it, for though what is not in the definition are not considered “infallible and definitive,” they are nevertheless “true and authoritative.” That Absolutist Petrine advocates constantly ignore the non-definitive portions of V1 indicate that they are not faithful to the Ordinary Magisterium of the CC.

You might wonder: What’s the difference between “religious assent” and “assent of faith.” The difference lies in three interrelated particulars:
(a) The object of assent. The only things requiring an “assent of faith” are matters that are infallibly defined. “Religious assent” is given to things not infallibly defined. NOTE: One cannot presume that matters requiring “religious assent” are not infallible teachings, since they might, at some future date, obtain a formal definition if some conflict requires it. Recall that infallibility protects not only the Church’s judgment on disputed matters, but also the Church’s transmission of undisputed matters since the time of Christ. In such cases, it is a matter of the degree of certainty, which is discussed in (c) below.
(b) The acknowledged source of the teaching. Things requiring an “assent of faith” are understood to come from God Himself. Those requiring merely “religious assent” are considered to come from the Church. For example, theological expressions and disciplinary matters are regulated by, and thus have their source in, the Church, while Faith and morals are said to come from God Himself. It is the task of the theologian (lay or religious, amateur or professional) to properly distinguish the two. Failure to do so can lead to division in the Body of Christ.
(c) The degree of certainty. The Ordinary Magisterium is just as much the subject of infallibility as the Extraordinary Magisterium. The primary difference is that infallible teaching per the Extraordinary Magisterium is more easily and readily identified. Through the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Church can determine what IS infallible teaching with all certainty. The important thing to remember is that this determination in no way presumes to claim what is not infallible – except, of course, the opposite of the matter that has been infallibly judged. The most concise explanation I have ever read is from a Latin Catholic here on CAF - using terms from jurisprudence, “religious assent” can be considered belief due to a “preponderance of the evidence,” while “assent of faith” can be considered belief “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

In truth, when the CC asserts “this teaching is infallible” (or similar statements), she is more often than not referring to the Church’s certainty of a teaching’s objective infallibility. The Church has absolutely no authority to impose objective infallibility on a teaching – she can only ever formally recognize what is objectively infallible. Two other ways to express this are:
(1) The Church has no authority to create new doctrine. She can only recognize/affirm what is infallibly true.
(2) What the Church recognizes/affirms as infallibly true was the Truth even before the Church recognized/affirmed it to be infallibly true, because it is the eternal Truth from God Himself.

Please, please, please. Keep this in mind when I address the “other question” to which you refer below.

Coming soon (also, per brother FoneBone’s request).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gregdaly]

The key is the clause “by its nature” The clause has nothing to do with how an ex cathedra decision comes about. With this misunderstanding, Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors both presume that “by its nature” basically means “because the Pope said so” (i.e., the phrase in their minds becomes “irreformible because the Pope said so, not by the consent of the Church”). It is impossible that the clause “by its nature” can be interpreted to mean “because the Pope said so” because, according to the Official Relatio, “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.” (as quoted earlier in greater context in my post #138). So, to repeat, the clause “by its nature,” has nothing to do with how an ex cathedra decision comes about. Rather, it cuts to the chase about the very nature of an ex cathedra decree as God’s Truth. As consistently affirmed throughout all my years in CAF, Truth is never determined by consensus. The idea that truth is determined by consensus is nothing more than a modernist error (actually, heresy).

Marduk, I just want to let you know that, coming from an atheist, rationalist background, what you have said in this paragraph has struck a very deep chord in me. It is wonderful, and a sign of her Truth, that the Catholic Church has a dogma against that modernist error (an error I once clung to!!!).

I need to ask the Eastern Orthodox if their Church has made any similar dogmatic assertions against the modernist errors.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Let’s approach this through a dialectic. Please answer for yourself the following questions:

1. Did the Ecum Councils agree that the teachings in Pope St. Leo’s Tome and Pope St. Agatho’s Epistle were indeed God’s Truth?
2. If they were God’s Truth, then were they not ETERNAL Truths?
3. If they were God’s eternal Truth, then were they not true/infallible/irreformable even before the consensus given by the Ecum Councils?
4. If they were true/infallible/irreformable even before the consensus given by the Ecum Councils, then were they not irreformable apart from that consensus?
   For sister NinjaSnark, as a Protestant, I would like to present an additional question for her consideration from the Bible.
5. When St. Peter, our first Pope, pronounced the first dogma of the Church in Acts 11 (i.e., that the Gentiles should be included in the People of God), was that teaching true/infallible/irreformible by its very nature, or because the Church consented that it was true?

You got my vote. The dialectic method is very effective for me, a former rationalist athiest.

(2) Believe it or not, Vatican 1 is another example. Pio Nono was not a classical ultramontanist (i.e. High Petrine), but of the neo-ultramontanist camp (i.e., Absolutist Petrine). He demonstrated some definite Absolutist Petrine leanings towards the end of the Council (e,g, his personal comments to other bishops; his solid opposition to the separation of Church and State; etc.). But even he confirmed the moderate High Petrine position of his brother bishops.

Can you please be more specific? Can you give an example of an Absolutist/neo-ultramontanist belief held by Pius IX that the Council did not agree with?

Thanks, again.

Greg

 

[NinjaSnark]

Dear Marduk- thanks for your response! A couple of things:

(2) When the case of Pope Honorius is considered, we don’t assume he is infallible at all. Rather, we apply the conditions for infallibility as defined by Vatican 1 to see if he met those conditions. We find that he never met those conditions. Therefore, Pope Honorius did not exercise the charism of infallibility.

It is a fact that Pope Honorius’ private letter to Sergius does not satisfy the conditions for an infallible ex catehdra Decree. Since this premise must assume more than what the Catholic Church actually teaches about “papal infallibility,” then it cannot be a valid premise

(Emphasis mine)

A reinterpretation would only be necessary if the Pope actually publicly taught his heresy as the dogmatic Faith of the Church. Since Pope Honorius never did this, a reinterpretation is both unnecessary and useless.

But was this a private letter? As I understand it- the Patriarch of Constantinople- Sergius- petitioned Pope Honorius to settle the matter due to the situation in Alexandria? Does this sort of appeal not fall under the Pope’s umbrella of infallibility since it required his judgment? It may not have been an official Papal Bull- but how was he not operating as supreme pastor of the faithful?

To be sure, the Assumption is believed by all apostolic Christians as part of the Deposit of Faith, whether it was dogmatized or not. If you are searching for a home with either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I should humbly inform you that your position would not be considered acceptable by either group (magisterially speaking, that is).

I don’t think I explained myself very well, haha. I don’t have any problem believing in the truth of the Assumption- I am questioning whether it should have been dogmatically defined on principle.

I hope I have explained the matter of why they were dogmatically defined to your satisfaction. However, I suspect your current question has a different focus. Would it be correct to assume that you actual intent is, “why did the CC make these doctrines necessary for salvation?” If so, let me know, and we can proceed with the discussion from there.

Yes! That.

As stated, you present excellent questions that can be expected from an inquirer into Catholicism. I do have a favor to ask.** I hope you offer an affirmation or, lacking that, more questions based on my responses.** The questions you have posed have been presented by non-Catholic polemicists as arguments against the Catholicism several times in the past, and when a response has been given, they answer with silence. Annoyingly, those same persons will repeat the same arguments at a later time in another thread. I don’t know why they do that. If they cannot offer a proper rejoinder, they should admit that their arguments are invalid. I pray we can discuss these specific matters to a proper conclusion, for the sake of your own faith journey

Absolutely- that, I can do.

Thanks again!