Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[Mickey]

Mileage varies.

Indeed.

An understanding of the mind of the church is very helpful for discerning meaning.

But when that mind seems to say conflicting concepts…well…then…

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, what do you think “supremacy” means? It means “highest” or “above all others.”

Yep.

The fact that it means “highest” makes it quite clear that at the very least, the word “supremacy” is quite consistent with the way in which the early church functioned,

Nope.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yep.
Nope.

You’ve agreed that “supreme” means “highest.” Gee, a physical metaphor of height. Must be analogical language. Wonder what the term in this context is meant to symbolize? How about we look at the rest of the Catholic Church’s teachings on ecclesiology and the papacy to determine that?

Or we could just freak out and pretend for no reason that “supreme” means “wielding absolute power.”

And anyway, what I said was true: the word itself - in light of its actual meaning in the language in which we’re conversing - certainly applies to the very early papacy, which functioned if necessary as a sort of “court of final appeal.”

I’m not pretending, Mickey, that that is the extent of the Roman Pontiff’s authority on a practical level today. Please understand, I am not claiming that. I’m only pointing out that on a strictly verbal, linguistic level, “papal supremacy” is in some context a patristic norm.

 

[Mickey]

Or we could just freak out and pretend for no reason that “supreme” means “wielding absolute power.”

I do not think that it is so much of a stretch that you would need to pretend.

context a patristic norm. I have never seen such a patristic understanding.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrenCath

I’m not sure theres anything even worth replying to on here,as for my views being laughable frankly I find yours of the First Vatican Council laughable

In other words, you have no response. Gotcha.

As I’ve said time and time again, an ecumenical council needs a pope, a pope does not need an ecumenical council. That’s a textbook defintion of superior.

Sure. He’s superior to the body of bishops, but he is not superior to an Ecumenical Council, because an Ecumenical Council is by definition [the Pope + the body of bishops].

He doesn’t need the councils consent, so what exactly could limit him? Especially as he is described to have the ‘full power’.

Sacred Tradition, Divine Law, the constitution of the Church. Here is the pastoral of the Swiss bishops to their flock after V1:
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.

Here is Pio Nono’s response: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

The Decree on the primacy also states that the papal Primacy does not impede the local authority of his brother bishops, but instead is intended to support, validate and strengthen it. So consideration for the local authority of his brother bishops is an inherent limitation to the exercise of the papal Primacy.

So please find me a document that says the Pope can only do things or only has full authority when it is ‘for the good of the church’? Just one official document, even a respected theologian would do…

As stated earlier, I don’t need to. You do that job just fine. Your quote from V2 in response to brother Cecilianus stated exactly that.

Even going by your somewhat novel defintion of an ecumenical council (which have never been referred to by any council or theoligan, excepting perhaps V II it is clear that the pope is superior to an EC. even if an entire council was to say one thing, the pope could still reject it. And whilst the Pope can exercise his supreme authority without the bishops, the bishops cannot. That clear things up?

Your quote from V2 in response to brother Cecilianus refutes your position. Is the statement of an Ecum Council clear enough for you? A Pope is not superior to an EC because he is an inherent member of an EC.

I’m sorry The First Vatican Council isn’t relevant to discussions about the Popes relationship with EC’s because it doesnt mention them? Thats the most ridicalous statement I’ve read in some time, clearly any council defining and expounding a Popes authority will affect the popes relationship with not only other bishops but also ecumenical councils, laity and clergy. As the First Vatican Council clearly and repeatedly states that the Pope is superior to all bishops both individually and collectively and states that they are bound to submit to him in all matters the Council is clearly relevant to this discussion.

But as all of us here have repeatedly tried to hammer into you, though the Pope can be said to be superior to the bishops individually and collectively, he cannot be said to be superior to an EC because an EC is not merely the bishops collectively, but is [the bishops collectively + the head bishop]. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and read the quotes you yourself provide that you pretend support your errors.

Oh. Now you claim that the Pope can contradict the prior rulings that the Church recognizes to have Ecumenical authority. Your claims are getting progressively more fantastic.

What I said quite clearly was that if the entire council of bishops voted for one thing, the pope could still reject it.

No, what you clearly stated to which I gave my response above is “he is not limited by ecumenical councils.” That is an error, even heterodox (though I can’t securely claim it is heretical). See the previous quote I gave from the Swiss bishops’ Pastoral, and Pio Nono’s response.

And now we are entering fantasy land, to state that the popes autority is fundamentally collegial and not individual, not as a result of his being the succesor of st peter and that it is not independent of the power of the other bishops is not reconciliable with either Vatican I or the past 900 years of explicit church teaching on the matter. I will not bother quoting any more evidence for it because it is clear to me that you are incapable of recognising the truth.

First of all, I never stated any of the extrapolated straw men you claim above. Secondly, all the quotes you have give so far have only been self-refuting.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I have to admit I laughed a little when I read this, I’ve read the entire council of trent several times as well as the Catechism it authorised, I find nothing in it that contradicts the teaching of the council of florence, this is of course the only possible outcome as truth cannot contradict truth

Where did I say they contradict each other? I just wanted to point out that you were wrong to claim that all Trent (and Benedictus Deus) stated was that “Purgatory exists….” It’s a plain fact that your claim is wrong, which you should admit if you have read Trent fully (or so you claim).

Nope, I have merely given up trying to prove that All orthodox think this way because the church is so nebolous and vague on these matters it would simply not be possible to do so.

In other words, you were wrong in your generalizations.

What is clear to me throughout this is that you have no understanding or appreciation whatsoever for the ‘Western Tradition’ of the church, you probably have not read either the Catechism of St Pius X or the Catechism of the council of trent, maybe you haven’t even read the Summa. I say this because it is only possible for you to make these absurd statements regarding why ecumenical councils are ecumenical, purgatory and most obviously the popes authority due to ignorance.

Ahhh! So you admit you don’t really have much knowledge of V1, aside from the usual snippets Absolutist Petrine advocates utilize to support their errors. That’s what I suspected.

A Doctrine proclaimed De Fide will when declared so contain all that needs to be believed on the subject without need for any further clarification, it may be developed but reference doesn’t need to be made to external sources to understand what it means which is what you were saying as regards the First Vatican Council.

HUH? It doesn’t need clarification, but it can be developed? That’s a classic case of sophism. I guess you do what you need to rationalize your inconsistencies.

What it says is ‘true and proper primacy of jurisidiction’, the words ‘true and proper’ cannot therefore be seperated from ‘primacy’.

Yup. That’s what I said – that the term “proper” is directly attached to the term “primacy.”

Frankly I see this as significantly undermining your argument that the pope does not have ‘true and proper jurisdiction’.

In your fantasy world where you claim to refute something I never said, I’m sure that is the case.

Again you say that he only has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the entire church but this is lacking from any De Fide statement on the Pope’s powers.

That’s not what I said.

Now you may well disagree with my opinion but you cannot condemn it as heretical or wrong unless you also believe that that catechism is also wrong, as are those that wrote it and Pope St Pius X.

Your citation from that Catechism – a local catechism to be sure – does not make any claim that the Pope has absolute power. So I am secure that your opinion that the Pope has absolute power is wrong, and even heterodox (though I can’t say it is heretical).

I didn’t say you did rather you changed the requirements from a passive requirement that something not clearly endanger souls to an active requirement that something be shown to be good. Unless it is explicitly clear that the reality is otherwise (and in cases of doubt one presumes) acts of the Pope should always be considered to be for the good of the church and the salvation of souls.

Nope. That’s why even the commentary from V2 that you quoted (pretending it supports your position) necessarily specified this condition: It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity. To repeat, it is altogether improper and erroneous for Absolutist Petrine advocates to constantly present papal decisions as flowing from the Pope’s whim, or fancy, will or discretion ALONE. The good of the Church is the greater, if not only, consideration in papal decisions. As a general principle, the Pope’s will or discretion (much less his whim or fancy) does not and cannot by itself ever be considered a general basis for his decisions as supreme shepherd of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk