Let's talk about primacy of honour

[rad]

According to the commentaries of the Council Fathers, the Pope is obligated to obtain the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops for his ex cathedra decrees EXCEPT in a case when the matter is SUFFICIENTLY clear from Sacred Tradition. So far, there has been no instance when the Pope has NOT required the (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. So collegiality (if not conciliarity) has always been involved.

Thanks Mardukm, this question becomes more clear,

I think that most of us, Cathiolic and not Catholic, have interpreted the definition of infallibility incorrectly.

When it proclaims that the Pope is able to proclaim infallible and binding statements on faith and morals most have misunderstood the crucial phrase “non ex consensu ecclesiae.” This phrase has been taken to mean that an infallible proclamation may be “without the consent of the Church.”

But after reading your notes I see that it probably means in effect “non ex consensu fidelium” - the faithful of the Church do not have to consent but obviously the bishops of the Church** do **have to consent.

It seems from what you write that if the bishops do not consent then the petrine charism of infallibility may not be operative and the Pope could make a doctrinal error.

So, the petrine infalliblity attached to the papal office operates without the consent of the faithful but not without the consent of the bishops.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

Here is a patristic AND conciliar viewpoint -from Saint Basil the Great. Please know that these Canons of Saint Basil were validated by an Ecumenical Council. The baptisms of heretics are rejected. Pope Saint Stephen’s teaching is NOT upheld.

It does not seem like you read my response sufficiently. Just to test you, tell me what condition St. Stephen placed on accepting a heretical baptism?"

Saint Basil also states very clearly that for the sake of the good of the Church “economy” may be used if it is thought necessary in the case of Baptism.

Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the “First Canon” of Saint Basil is a shorter version)

---- "It seemed best to the ancients -I refer to Cyprian and our own
Firmilian- to subject all of these -Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae- to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arose through schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting of it failed because of the severance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church…

“But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted.”

Note the word “economy” used here by Saint Basil with reference to situations when baptism is not insisted upon. Saint Athanasius also uses the word economy with reference to the reception of the heterodox. I wanted to point this out since there are modern theologians who mistakenly say that the concept of “economy” was something created by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain in the 19th century. Not so!

Now I think that all the Orthodox are doing is preserving the principles which were enunciated by the Church Fathers and which were operative in the early Church, principles which have faded from the mind of most Western Churches. However, the East has had no Reformation or Counter-Reformation. It has not had any codification of canon law such as The Catholic Church
had after Trent; so all the Orthodox can turn to is the teaching and canons of the first millennium to provide guidelines and insights with regard to modern questions which crop up today, including the matter of “one Baptism.”

Sorry, but St. Basil’s use of the word “economy” is completely at odds with the EO use of “economy” to permit the baptisms of those whose baptisms are invalid.

If you read St. Basil’s canon 1, the word “economy” is completely absent, but is replaced by the phrase “I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved.” If St. Basil used the term “economy” in his letter, it was according to the Traditional use of the term - a relaxation of an otherwise strict rule for the sake of the SAVED (i.e., those who have been baptized). It was NOT according to the modern EO use of “economy” which accepts baptisms that they would normally claim confer NO grace.

In other words, St. Basil knew that there were those in Asia who accepted the baptism of CERTAIN heretics as valid (because they practiced Trinitarian baptism). DESPITE the custom in St. Basil’s own territory, he deemed out of economy (since indeed these baptisms have been considered valid by other churches) that these baptisms should also be recognized as valid in his region. He applied economy to accept valid baptisms from other Churches which his region normally did not accept. He did NOT apply economy to make invalid baptisms valid, nor to divest his church of the obligation to baptise those who really did need baptism (which is the peculiar belief of the EOC).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

Dear brother rad,

I notice you fully ignore the crux of it…

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church…

 

[rad]

If you read St. Basil’s canon 1, the word “economy” is completely absent, but is replaced by the phrase “I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved.” If St. Basil used the term “economy” in his letter

The Canon and the canonical letter are one and the same thing.

The circumlocution which you give “I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved” was probably an amplified Latin translation because the concept of the Greek “ekonomia” was difficult for them to grasp.

 

[rad]

I hope you will be interested to read the following two threads, which I initiated to inform others of my discoveries on the issue during my swim across the Tiber:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259973

Pay special attention to page 16, posts #231-236, of the first link, which details the canons that limit the Pope’s supposed license within the Church.

I have had a look at this material and you have given me a large assignment of reading for the weekend!

Don’t worry. I’m not looking to convert you. I just want you to know where I am coming from.

My first impression is that you are starddling a middle way which is neither Catholic nor Orthodox. But I need to read more intensively (and hope I understand). But one question - if your position is not the Catholic one would you consider swimming back across the Tibur?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

I notice you fully ignore the crux of it…

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church…

Not at all. St. Basil was simply documenting the reasons that Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian gave for not accepting the baptism of heretics. But he immediately recognizes afterwards that the baptism of some heretics are to be accepted based on economy. Once again, it is “economy” according to the early Church’s understanding of a relaxation of a certain rule for the sake of the SAVED (i.e., those who have been validly baptized). It is NOT “economy” according to the modern EO understanding that divests the Church of the obligation to baptize when she believes there was none.

I’m sure you have access to Basil’s Canon 1. If you read it, you will notice that he makes a distinction between those who are completely cut off (“because they baptize into the name of Father, Son and Montanus, or Priscilla”), and those who have been separated only by reason of schism, among which he includes groups that St. Cyprian had branded as heretics. He proceeds to explain why St. Cyprian included even these among the heretics, but nevertheless acceptes their baptism based on the ancient understanding of economy (not the modern EO understanding of it). Economy can only be applied to the SAVED (i.e., validly baptized). It cannot be applied to the NON-saved (those who have NOT been validly baptized).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I have had a look at this material and you have given me a large assignment of reading for the weekend!

My first impression is that you are starddling a middle way which is neither Catholic nor Orthodox. But I need to read more intensively (and hope I understand). But one question - if your position is not the Catholic one would you consider swimming back across the Tibur?

If it is not the Catholic one, I do not know where else I could go. I am thoroughly convinced that the Lord provided the Church universal a Petrine office. No other apostolic Church has that teaching. My swim was an exhaustive effort of three years. I feel well rested as a Catholic.

Nevertheless, I look forward to your comments. Perhaps you can revive those threads, if you so choose.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Yes. Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Notice what you have done above. … So, indeed, as I suspected, and stated earlier, your position is not based on any facts, but only assumptions.

I have shown the documents that state clearly that the pope does not need to speak with the bishops. Whether the pope has actually exercised his charism on his own or not is irrelevant to whether he has the capacity to do so. The Second Vatican Council states clearly that he does have this capcity. The authority does not proceed from his communion with the other bishops, it proceeds from his being the successor of Peter.

I don’t know what the difference is between “true” and “infallibly true.” Since we are talking about the epistemological reality of the Church’s DIVINE doctrine, whatever is “true” must necessarily be “infallibly true.”

We are talking about infallibility of the pope not whether Leo’s Tome was true.

Namely: Demonstrate to us that the Catholic Church defines religious obedience as BLIND obedience; demonstrate to us that conscience is NOT an indispensable element in the Church’s call to obedience.

What does it matter whether the bishops had to convince themselves of the truth of Pope St. Leo’s teaching? Answer this question: Was Pope St. Leo’s teaching infallibly true or not?

Whether the document was true or not is not the question, the question is whether the infallibility of the pope preceeds the truth of the document. It is about whether the document is true because it was written by the pope or whether it was true simply because of the words which it incorporates. The doctrine of infallibility says that it was true because it was written by the pope who has a charism of infallibility. It could not err because the pope intended to teach the whole Church.

By the structure of your first sentence it seems that you have already assumed that it was established prior to the reading of the Tome that it was orthodox. So consequently you have made it a question of conscience. So now the bishops of Chalcedon are simply reading the Tome to inform their own consciences and so the Pope is the teacher of the whole council who simply accepts the popes teaching. This assumption which it seems you have is throwing a big cog into our discussion. You have transferred the statement that the pope does not need the consent of the college to define truths from a question of a charism to that of the conscience of the bishops.

It is about whether the orthodoxy of the Tome was established prior to their reading it or whether they accepted it because they found Leo’s way of speaking to be orthodox. The way you phrase this question it sounds like Leo wrote an infallibile Tome and the bishops at Chalcedon had to convince themselves of the truth of the two natures of Christ. Is this how the council viewed Leo’s Tome or is it that they had to be convinced of whether Leo’s Tome was actually orthodox or not?

The only way it becomes about conscience is if the bishops of Chalcedon were simply informing their consciences about the truth by reading the Tome of Leo. This comes with the assumption that the pope has a charism of infallibility. But if the answer to the quesiton regarding the Tome is that they read the Tome and declared it to be true because of what it said then conscience has no play in the discussion.

Can you give more information on this? Let me ask you: was the rejection of collegial action based on a rejection of the value of consensus for UNITY, or was it based on a rejection of the value of consensus for the establishment of TRUTH

You are making this about whether the popes statements are true or not. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the pope has authority to define new dogmas. That is what infallibility is about. It says that the pope is personally protected from error when defining a dogma. This is about the charism. Does the pope have a charism that protects him from error or not? The councils say he does. And to apply this to Leo’s Tome, was the Tome true because Leo had a charism which protected him from error or was it true only because the explanation he gave is true?

Unity is determined by communion with the pope not by consensus. As Lumen Gentium says the pope is the visible sign of unity. Consensus seems to be a meaningless concept for this discussion. The document says that the consensus of the bishops is not necessary.And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.[LG25]You can read about it in The Rhine Flows into The Tiber which is a history of Vatican II.

According to the commentaries of the Council Fathers,has always been involved.

I have been quoting Vatican II not Vatican I. Probably the most influential man on the council was Karl Rahner due to the fact that he was the theologian of the German conference of bishops and the documents he wrote to guide the German conferences actions at the council largely determined the outcome of the council. He says clearly in his commentary on Lumen Gentium that there are no restrictions on the pope to seek the views of the other bishops.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rad,

Thanks Mardukm, this question becomes more clear,

I think that most of us, Cathiolic and not Catholic, have interpreted the definition of infallibility incorrectly.

When it proclaims that the Pope is able to proclaim infallible and binding statements on faith and morals most have misunderstood the crucial phrase “non ex consensu ecclesiae.” This phrase has been taken to mean that an infallible proclamation may be “without the consent of the Church.”

But after reading your notes I see that it probably means in effect “non ex consensu fidelium” - the faithful of the Church do not have to consent but obviously the bishops of the Church** do **have to consent.

I can accept the foregoing interpretation. Your comments afterwards I could not conscionably accept.

It seems from what you write that if the bishops do not consent then the petrine charism of infallibility may not be operative and the Pope could make a doctrinal error.

So, the petrine infalliblity attached to the papal office operates without the consent of the faithful but not without the consent of the bishops.

The charism of infallibility is not dependent on consensus. It is a direct gift from God. The Catholic teaching is that it is impossible for the Pope to teach doctrinal error ex cathedra because of the special protection of God.

For the sake of understanding, permit the following explanation by way of comparison:

Let’s compare an ex cathedra decree with a decree of an ecumenical council in terms of its (1) formulation; (2) promulgation; (3) execution.

For an ex cathedra decree, the formulation is effectively collegial, the promulgation is singular, and its execution is collegial (for the sake of unity). In all instances, the Pope is protected by infallibility, while the other bishops are not.

For a decree of an ecumenical council. the formulation is collegial, the promulgation is collegial, and the execution is collegial (for the sake of unity). In all instances, the entire Council as such is protected by infallibility. The Council is infallible in and of itself, and does not depend on the Pope’s singular infallibility. However, a bishop within the council does not possess singular infallibility, but only as a member of the infallible body of bishops.

As an aside, permit me to explain also another instance recognized within the Catholic Church when an infallible doctrine may be known. It is when the bishops around the world in union with their head, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE DISPERSED, teaches in unison on a matter of faith or morals. In this occasion, the infallibility is vested in the teaching itself. The infallibility of the teaching is not based on the singular infallibility of the Pope, nor on an infallibility of the body of bishops, but rather on the action of the infallible Holy Spirit who makes the infallible teaching of God known throughout the universal Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

As an aside, permit me to explain also another instance recognized within the Catholic Church when an infallible doctrine may be known. It is when the bishops around the world in union with their head, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE DISPERSED, teaches in unison on a matter of faith or morals. In this occasion, the infallibility is vested in the teaching itself. The infallibility of the teaching is not based on the singular infallibility of the Pope, nor on an infallibility of the body of bishops, but rather on the action of the infallible Holy Spirit who makes the infallible teaching of God known throughout the universal Church.

It still seems to be all just pipes and whistles though since none of it has any validity or force for doctrine unless the Pope agrees with the bishops. Even if thousands of them disagree with him (as with the matter of contraception and Pope Paul VI) it all counts for nothing and only the Pope’s opinion is promulgated as Catholic teaching in the newspapers. When matters get down to ultimate authority only the Pope is of any importance.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I have shown the documents that state clearly that the pope does not need to speak with the bishops.

The necessity is not canonical. The necessity is moral and it is practical. It is a necessity nonetheless, and a necessity that is just as relevant (if not moreso) as a canonical necessity.

Whether the pope has actually exercised his charism on his own or not is irrelevant to whether he has the capacity to do so. The Second Vatican Council states clearly that he does have this capcity.

So do the episcopal commentaries say he has the capacity to exercise his charism singularly ON A WHIM, or only if Sacred Tradition is sufficiently clear that he would not need to consult his brother bishops.

The authority does not proceed from his communion with the other bishops, it proceeds from his being the successor of Peter.

First of all, so what? Did St. Peter need consensus to instruct the Church that the Gentiles were to be permitted into the Church?
Secondly, the consensus of his brother bishops is not required for his authority, but only for the sake of unity. Why should consensus be required to possess divinely-established authority? Do you mean that my bishop has no authority to act in his diocese without the agreement of all the other bishops? Your position does not make sense.

We are talking about infallibility of the pope not whether Leo’s Tome was true.

If Pope St. Leo did not possess infallibility, it would not have been true.

Whether the document was true or not is not the question, the question is whether the infallibility of the pope preceeds the truth of the document.

Yes, it did precede the document. The truth of the document, however, is coterminus with his infallibility.

It is about whether the document is true because it was written by the pope or whether it was true simply because of the words which it incorporates.

I’m not certain what you mean by “the words which it incorporates.” The document is true not because it was written by the Pope per se, but because it was written by the Pope who investigated the sources and thereby wrote in accord with those sources. The whole process, according to the dogma of infallibility, was protected by God.

The doctrine of infallibility says that it was true because it was written by the pope who has a charism of infallibility. It could not err because the pope intended to teach the whole Church.

Yes.

By the structure of your first sentence it seems that you have already assumed that it was established prior to the reading of the Tome that it was orthodox.

Yes

So consequently you have made it a question of conscience. So now the bishops of Chalcedon are simply reading the Tome to inform their own consciences and so the Pope is the teacher of the whole council who simply accepts the popes teaching.

No. My point is that the truth of the Tome was not dependent on the approbation of the bishops. Their deliberations had absolutely no effect on the truth of the Tome (Are you arguing otherwise? ). They agreed with the truth of the Tome not out of obligation to the Pope, but because of the invisible movement of the Holy Spirit. Is there a problem with that?

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

This assumption which it seems you have is throwing a big cog into our discussion. You have transferred the statement that the pope does not need the consent of the college to define truths from a question of a charism to that of the conscience of the bishops.

I don’t know what you mean, but I hope my explanations above and below help.

It is about whether the orthodoxy of the Tome was established prior to their reading it or whether they accepted it because they found Leo’s way of speaking to be orthodox.

Yes. The OBJECTIVE orthodoxy of Leo’s Tome was a reality even before the bishops’ deliberation (do you doubt that? ). What the bishops’ consensus recognized was merely a SUBJECTIVE orthodoxy. The consensus was never objectively necessary to establish the Tome’s objective orthodoxy, but it was nevertheless necessary to establish a subjective understanding of its orthodoxy for the sake of UNITY.

The way you phrase this question it sounds like Leo wrote an infallibile Tome and the bishops at Chalcedon had to convince themselves of the truth of the two natures of Christ. Is this how the council viewed Leo’s Tome or is it that they had to be convinced of whether Leo’s Tome was actually orthodox or not?

Yes, they had to be convinced for themselves. But their being convinced did not affect the objective reality of the Tome’s orthodoxy. Their being convinced was necessary for the objective necessity of UNITY.

You are making this about whether the popes statements are true or not.

Truth, infallibility, orthodoxy - it’s all the same thing.

And to apply this to Leo’s Tome, was the Tome true because Leo had a charism which protected him from error or was it true only because the explanation he gave is true?

Both. The Tome is true because the explanation he gave which is protected from error is true.

Unity is determined by communion with the pope not by consensus.

No. Unity is determined by consensus. Communion with the Pope is a guarantee of orthodoxy (as the Fathers have asserted). If we are orthodox, we will naturally be united to the Pope, and also united to each other because of our consensus in orthodoxy.

As Lumen Gentium says the pope is the visible sign of unity.

Yes. Only because the Pope represents Christ to the world. If the Pope were a satanist, he would not be such a visible sign.

Consensus seems to be a meaningless concept for this discussion.

Only to those who do not understand what consensus is for.

The document says that the consensus of the bishops is not necessary.

Yes, it is not necessary to determine truth. It is, however, necessary to establish unity (as the apostolic canon states).

I have been quoting Vatican II not Vatican I.

So Vatican II was even MORE papal-centered than Vatican I? Now THAT’s a novel idea!

Probably the most influential man on the council was Karl Rahner due to the fact that he was the theologian of the German conference of bishops and the documents he wrote to guide the German conferences actions at the council largely determined the outcome of the council. He says clearly in his commentary on Lumen Gentium that there are no restrictions on the pope to seek the views of the other bishops.

Karl Rahner’s a THEOLOGIAN whose specialty was theology, NOT ECCLESIOLOGY. I would rather heed the commentaries of the bishops of the First Vatican Council regarding the papacy (did you read the link I gave you?).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It still seems to be all just pipes and whistles though since none of it has any validity or force for doctrine unless the Pope agrees with the bishops. Even if thousands of them disagree with him (as with the matter of contraception and Pope Paul VI) it all counts for nothing and only the Pope’s opinion is promulgated as Catholic teaching in the newspapers.

Actually, I am not aware of any bishop who disagrees with Humanae Vitae.

Even if we are referring to the time that it was promulgated, the objections were few compared to the entire body of bishops. Even the EP at the time praised the Pope for the document.

When matters get down to ultimate authority only the Pope is of any importance.

Actually, the ultimate authority is Sacred Tradition. We are thankful that the Pope, despite the objections, maintained the Faith handed down once and for all to the Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Canon and the canonical letter are one and the same thing.

The circumlocution which you give “I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved” was probably an amplified Latin translation because the concept of the Greek “ekonomia” was difficult for them to grasp.

No. They are not at all identical. The Canon is rather a VERY abridged form of the Letter.

If you had read the ENTIRE letter, you would discover the following statement from St. Basil:

“So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they belonged to the Church.”

He notes later (the part which you have quoted) that St. Cyprian included even schismatics among the heretics and rejected ALL their baptisms, irrespective of whether they were outright heretics or merely schismatics.

There are many other juicy statements in the letter which contradicts your conclusions based on the small extracts you have provided.

In any case, to be more exact, the Ecumenical Councils accepted St. Basil’s CANON, NOT St. Basil’s letter, as a rule of faith. In either case, both the canon and his letter support Pope St. Stephen’s position, not St. Cyprian’s.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

I almost missed responding to this post!

The early Church did not have the extreme universalized view that there is now.

The Church has ALWAYS been universal. Perhaps you meant “centralized.” I believe centralization is good as long as it does not detract from the prerogatives of the bishops. So far, you have offered no REAL evidence that this is not the case in the Catholic Church. You have offered theoretical assumptions, but no hard evidence.

If it were as you say it would be much more acceptable.

Thank you. Read on, please.

According to modern conceptions of the authority of the Roman Pontiff the ecumenical council has NO authority without the popes consent. Its declarations are void. Canon 54 emphasizes this.

Canon 54 says nothing of the sort. It merely states that without the confirmation of the head bishop, its decrees lack the OBLIGATORY FORCE of an ecumenical council. This simply means that Christians can freely choose to follow the decrees as their conscience dictates. There is NO moral/religious obligation to follow them. Hence, it stands to reason that it would be perfectly permissible if a whole group of churches chooses to follow a canon not approved by the Pope. In any case, there is absolutely NOTHING in the canon about VOIDING the decrees of the Council altogether.

The west has defined collegiality in a way that there is none without the Roman Pontiff.

You can blame the apostolic canon for that (which REQUIRES the consent of the head bishop), not the west.

The only reason why the eastern synods have the authority to govern themselves is because it has not been revoked by the supreme authority of the Church.
The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized be that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office[LG24].

It’s a stretch of the imagination to use this excerpt from LG to support your unfounded statement. Synods may certainly be revoked by an Ecumenical Council. But show us where an Eastern Synod may be cancelled by the Pope. The excerpt you gave only refers to individual bishops, at best. And even then, it only refers to their canonical mission, not the inherent function of their office (do you understand the difference?). I’m sure you’ll make a big deal about the fact that if the Pope refuses communion, the bishop cannot assume any office, but did you also know that the Pope is canonically and divinely obligated to do this ONLY if the bishop is heterodox or there was some irregularity with his election/ordination that requires some investigation first? The Pope CANNOT willy-nilly deny communion on his whim and fancy.

A council can not be valid in one place but not another.

Yes it can. What a council cannot be is Ecumenical in one place, and not ecumenical in another.

If the Roman Poniff voids the decrees of a council they are voided for the whole Church.The authority of the college is not viewed as the addition of the authority of various Churches. It is a universal action of the bishops in communion with the pope so the rejection by the pope is a rejection for the whole.

As already explained, that is not so. The notion of “voiding” is an exaggerated addition by YOU, and not contained in the canons themselves.

Even actions of the individual synods of the eastern churches are required to recieve the approval of the pope on issues of the patriarchate.

Show us where the canons state that please. I have not seen it myself, but I am always open to correction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Just wanted to let you know that I will not have time to respond to your posts until Tuesday next week.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

If it is not the Catholic one, I do not know where else I could go. I am thoroughly convinced that the Lord provided the Church universal a Petrine office. No other apostolic Church has that teaching. My swim was an exhaustive effort of three years. I feel well rested as a Catholic.

Nevertheless, I look forward to your comments. Perhaps you can revive those threads, if you so choose.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Assyrian Church of the East, in early theology, considers the relationship between the see of Peter and their patriarchal see to be analogous to that of the patriarch to the bishops.

Therefore, this church, which broke with the rest of the church at the time of Nestor, retains a teaching that the petrine role exists, and is patriarch to patriarchs. This bit of ancient theology was used to bring about dialog for reunion; it resulted in the common christology declaration, and the catholics ceasing to consider them nestorians and thus heretics.

 

[rad]

I hope you will be interested to read the following two threads, which I initiated to inform others of my discoveries on the issue during my swim across the Tiber:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185817&highlight=papal+prerogatives

and

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259973

Pay special attention to page 16, posts #231-236, of the first link, which details the canons that limit the Pope’s supposed license within the Church.

Dear Marduk,

I spent almost 90 minutes reading. I wrote a lengthy summation of my response but then I discarded it because I feared to hurt you. It is obvious that these matters of papal authority are not simply theological matters for you but you have a great deal of yourself invested in them.

So may I just say that I found the whole extremely complex argumentation unconvincing. Far too idiosyncratic.

The most telling point against your theories is that the Catholics who participated in the threads - and they are no intellectual or theological sluggards - found your theology and ecclesiology and theories of papal authority as something innovative and unacceptable.

In other words, you seem to be at odds with your brother Catholics, both of the West and of the East. There seems little point in conducting a discussion with the Orthodox while your own Church brothers do not agree with you.

It was kind of alarming that you say you base your conversion to Catholicism in large part on these particular interpretations of your own. It suggests that you have not converted to Catholicism in reality but to a construct of it in your own mind which does not correspond to Catholic reality.

But these matters are better left to you and your Catholic brothers. Your very idiosyncratic ideas of the restrictions on papal authority should be discussed with them “in house” before undertaking any discussion with the Orthodox.

 

[rad]

If you had read the ENTIRE letter, you would discover the following statement from St. Basil:

“So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they belonged to the Church.”

I am aware of this and this is the position of the Orthodox Church.

There is only ONE baptism and it is the baptism of the Church. It may NEVER be repeated.

Therefore those who have been baptized in the Church, then departed into schism, may NOT be baptized again when they return to the Church.

Nor for that matter may heretics who were once baptized in the Church, then departed into heresy, be baptized again when they return to the Church.

 

[rad]

In In either case, both the canon and his letter support Pope St. Stephen’s position, not St. Cyprian’s.

This is where one begins to worry about our hope for unity. Catholics and Orthodox can look at one small paragraph and they see diametrically opposed doctrine.