Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[mardukm]

Dear Jinc,

Marduk,
I don’t disagree with your final assertion, but you are incorrect about the Syllabus of Errors. It clearly teaches, in several locations, that it is an “error” worthy of an anathema to teach that citizens should have the freedom to worship freely in society (No. 77, No. 78, No. 55). The Pope was quite clear on this issue in 1864, well after the founding of America and the end of the issues you present from the Middle Ages.

Have you read this part of the Syllabus?
The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation… The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights…

As noted earlier, the doctrine of “no separation of Church and State” is not that the Church must control the State, but that the State is bound to follow God’s laws as proposed by the Church. Here are some questions that perhaps you need to resolve for yourself:
Did God give a definite revelation of Himself and is this revelation given through the Church?

Is the State bound by God’s laws?

As far as Errors 77 and 78, this must be understood in the context of what the Syllabus intended to do. Liberalism proposed that there was no such thing as a definite revelation from God (most prominently promoted by the Masons and masonic sects). Thus, it relativized God to whatever people wanted to believe. This is the purpose of Errors 77 and 78. It does not seek to condemn free association of worship per se, but to condemn the heresy of relativism. This is also explained in the Syllabus:

Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging… Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength.

In any case, though there are some Catholics who claim the Syllabus was an ex cathedra definition, no Magisterial documents make that claim. It is a theologoumenon which should not be an issue in your decision to become Catholic or not.

Blessings

 

[Deconi]

Collegiality is not a “development” but is the way the Church has been operating from the very beginning.

It is your Absolutist Petrine sola papa error that does not even count as a development, but is an UTTER NOVELTY. That is why many in the 19th century called your position “NEO-ultramontantism.” Vatican 1 tried to get rid of it, but those such as yourself try your best to overturn what the Fathers at V1 actually intended. :sad_yes:

Deconi
“Viewpoints” instead of obedience are what cause the errors of dissent.

On the genuine doctrinal development of collegiality, Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church), 25, teaches clearly: “But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”

……“collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

There is no room for the selfist prejudices which try to conform the reality into their own mold.

I’ve got news for you both and those who hold to either views; YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT!!

Thus far, no Pope has acted in a vacuumn and decided on his own what is to be held by the faithful. However, no amount of bishops in multiple councils can decide what is to be taught to be held by the faithful of The Universal Church UNLESS the Roman Pontiff agrees to what that is and APPROVES of it.

Moreover, if / when the bishops as a college or singular is aware of an error a Pope proposes or LEANING towards, they / he is in accord with the magisterium of The Church to argue, nay say, pray and convince the Pope to reconsider! This scenario must have been ‘common’ during the scandalous reigns of ‘erected’ Popes by various emperors or monarchs. Note, I said reigns!

Most historians and Protestants see the superflous obvious of scandals of Popes to ‘disprove’ the Papacy lineage and seemingly always miss the BLINDING question of truth: Why didn’t the Collegiate of bishops simply look to ANOTHER Apostolic See as the ‘new’ head of The Church and call him ‘Peter’ you are now Pope! (!?) The answer has been flogged to death (again) here.

Another example is Augustine v Honorius.

You see brothers, both of you (views) are in the same fold but insist to push the other outside the fence whilst levelling accussations of ‘Absolutism / High / Low Petrine’ or '‘Dissention’ and ‘Erroneous deliberation’ as though to distance your brother from you! The fact is, you / us are all trying to understand the developing illumination of the DOGMA! Moreover, these terms are recent inventions to differentiate understandings rather than concede

The councils are not at odds with Christ, just as NO Pope has taught at odds with Him! That’s a historical fact! But the councils and ECFs are at pains to explain what should be OBVIOUS from Our Lord’s Holy Lips; *"…for it is not flesh and blood *(brainwork) *that revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven…" *(God in your thoughts? INFALLIBILITY demonstrated!)
Build The Church on you = cornerstone / lead / head / primacy / vicar
Gates of hades shall not prevail = it will be here when I return!
Keys of Heaven to you = God’s authority!? = Authority
Bind and loose = God’s business!? = evidence of infallibility

Other Apostles can bind and loose = the ‘ability’ can pass to others = priesthood

Be with you always = Life cover Guarantee for The Church!

Also…*i’m tired…Laters!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Deconi:

BROTHERS Mardukm, Ambrose, Abu, Catholico and others…
It often seems to be that you are arguing past each other, perhaps due to your different viewpoints or vantages of the same ‘college.’

FRONT, REAR and SIDE views! (You may argue as to who is at the ‘rear view’ but in the end it does not matter)

Just an observation but perhaps looking from the East, Mardukm can ‘see’ the collegiate of bishops with the Pope behind them. Contrast with Abu, looking from the West, sees the Pope in front with the collegiate behind him.

That’s an interesting comparison Deconi, and it is not without merit.

However, I think there is more to this than “oh, everyone’s right in their own way.”

First, I would argue that mardukm is NOT viewing the issue “from the East.” He is viewing the issue clearly and deeply, from the Roman Catholic view.

Second, I would not be too hasty to have Abu representing the view from the West. I see Abu’s view as being shallow and murky. (Sorry Abu) My experience has been that he sees only certain key words in a post and in knee jerk fashion, replies with an irrelevant papal document, which on the surface appears to be relevant.

You see brothers, both of you (views) are in the same fold but insist to push the other outside the fence whilst levelling accussations of ‘Absolutism / High / Low Petrine’ or '‘Dissention’ and ‘Erroneous deliberation’ as though to distance your brother from you! The fact is, you / us are all trying to understand the developing illumination of the DOGMA! Moreover, these terms are recent inventions to differentiate understandings rather than concede

There may be an element of truth here, but again, there’s a bit more going on.

When Abu levels his charges it is because he is not grasping the orthodoxy of mardukm’s explanation. This is VERY important. mardukm has articulated over and over again, in his OWN words what exactly he means. OTOH, Abu virtually NEVER articulates his own thoughts, but hurls accusations and fires off quotes. When he DOES articulate a thought of his own, it is so muddled, that even with frequent requests to explain his meaning, they remain ignored.

The fear here, is that BECAUSE Abu has posted all sorts of tendentious/irrelevant quotes from assorted authorities, he will be UNDOING the good work that mardukm is doing in explaining THESE VERY COMPLEX AND SUBTLE doctrines of infallibility and supremacy.

What is the work Abu is doing? Tearing down as much as possible everything mardukm posts. For once, I would like to see Abu post his own thoughts on the subject IN EXPLANATION for his disagreements.

IOW, let’s see Abu PROVE that he even understands mardukm, in the first place, and THEN, let’s see a cogent, coherent rebuttal from Abu in his OWN words.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Deconi,

I’ve got news for you both and those who hold to either views; YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT!!

If Abu can make most of his statements without the word “ALONE” there will most likely be an objective agreement. Until then, his statements misrepresent Church teaching to non-Catholics, preventing them from accepting the Church’s true teaching on the papacy. Hence, instead of supporting the papacy, Absolutist Petrine advocates are actually undermining the very purpose for which Christ instituted the primacy - as a means to ensure the unity of the Church.

The importance of a proper witness is evident from the OP’s comments. The OP correctly perceives a definite difference between what High Petrine advocates are stating, compared to what Abu states. Whereas the non-Catholic OP priorly felt he could find no common ground with the Catholic teaching on the papacy, now he does – and.it has certainly not been because of Abu’s excesses that the OP now feels better able to assess the Catholic teaching.

Blessings

 

[jinc1019]

They never were not in communion with Peter – you cannot show us where they clamed to be separate because they didn’t have the prerogatives so clearly given by Christ Himself to Peter which you have been quite unable to refute. They never even tried to establish any Church separate from Peter’s authority.

You cannot ever show any instance when Jesus gave any powers to the Apostles separate from Peter.

Face reality.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled.

At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter **settled the heated discussion **over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8). Peter finalised the decision and there was no further discussion.

You appear to have great difficulty in understanding and in accepting the Gospel itself.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Face the reality.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321).

Abu, you are totally off-base here. No one is claiming Peter was ever separate from the Apostles EXCEPT YOU. You are arguing that Peter is above and beyond the Apostles and we are arguing he cannot be separated from them and that his office is bound to their offices. You are the one arguing he is totally separate.

Further, again, you have failed to show any proof of your claim. You say Peter exercised his authority in the Upper Room by replacing Judas’ seat. Really? Is that what happened? The Book of Acts explains quite clearly that they drew lots to determine who would replace Judas. Peter DID NOT just pick one of the two qualified men. Why? If Peter had the authority you say, why didn’t he just pick one himself? Why draw lots? You really need to reconsider your position.

 

[jinc1019]

Dear Jinc,

Have you read this part of the Syllabus?
The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation… The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights…

As noted earlier, the doctrine of “no separation of Church and State” is not that the Church must control the State, but that the State is bound to follow God’s laws as proposed by the Church. Here are some questions that perhaps you need to resolve for yourself:
Did God give a definite revelation of Himself and is this revelation given through the Church?

Is the State bound by God’s laws?

As far as Errors 77 and 78, this must be understood in the context of what the Syllabus intended to do. Liberalism proposed that there was no such thing as a definite revelation from God (most prominently promoted by the Masons and masonic sects). Thus, it relativized God to whatever people wanted to believe. This is the purpose of Errors 77 and 78. It does not seek to condemn free association of worship per se, but to condemn the heresy of relativism. This is also explained in the Syllabus:

Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging… Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength.

In any case, though there are some Catholics who claim the Syllabus was an ex cathedra definition, no Magisterial documents make that claim. It is a theologoumenon which should not be an issue in your decision to become Catholic or not.

Blessings

I don’t agree with your points on the Syllabus, but I can agree that it was NOT an ex cathedra decree and not a teaching of the Magisterium. So in that sense, it is not binding.

 

[jinc1019]

I’ll have a go!

Circumcision = Peter
Calendar = Greg
Books of Scriptures = listed = Innocent
Holy Writ ‘library books’ - Closed!! = Trent (a case FOR Councilor concensus?)
Immaculate Conception

…just some of the matters NOT previously taught or revealed.

BROTHERS Mardukm, Ambrose, Abu, Catholico and others…
It often seems to be that you are arguing past each other, perhaps due to your different viewpoints or vantages of the same ‘college.’

FRONT, REAR and SIDE views! (You may argue as to who is at the ‘rear view’ but in the end it does not matter)

Just an observation but perhaps looking from the East, Mardukm can ‘see’ the collegiate of bishops with the Pope behind them. Contrast with Abu, looking from the West, sees the Pope in front with the collegiate behind him.

So from the rear vantage, you may see the collegiate move left and the Pope moves with them…is your style of argument!
The other vantage sees the Pope move right and the collegiate moves with him…is your style of argument.
The crux of your arguments though seem to be about which moved FIRST!..or which one moves the other! (Of course, I may be wrong but it is an observation)

Jincs - though sees the Pope ALONGSIDE the collegiate (Sideview) and is confused why he (Pope) should be leader as they all look even and alike! Therefore, if any disagreements arise, surely if the collegiate splits left and right, the majority should have the day!

Every (Roman) Catholic knows - whether devout or nominal - that our local bishop is EQUAL in every way to the Bishop of Rome!!..otherwise we wouldn’t heed him on matters we don’t like! But we also know - matter of factly - that the Founder of The Church commissioned Pete to be steward with The Keys, so we have somewhere to look to when things don’t seem to allign with other bishops either around us or abroad, or our local bishop confound our Christian senses! This ‘comparison’ is more readily available with modern technology, of course.

So perhaps the proper view for a Catholic is the bird’s eyeview!..where they all look the same except one is wearing the Ten Gallon White Hat!..

We stick with the White Hat because the Ranch Owner gave him that hat! We always pray that he never takes it off or it falls off his head…otherwise we’d lose him among the many bishops and NOT have our referrence point to get our bearings…and we become like the Protesters or the East!

Deconi,
I appreciate your positions and I found your analysis of the situation here largely correct (although not perfectly!)

While I won’t address much of your post (since many already have), I would like to point out that NONE of the examples you gave are of NEW teachings on faith and morals. The issue of circumcision and gentiles was “new,” but it WAS apostolic! That was my whole point. The standard is whether any teaching is apostolic or not…that’s the standard. Thus, the teaching about circumcision WAS, by definition, apostolic since it was handed down by the apostles themselves.

The list of books in scripture was absolutely one where the Church claimed their selections were ALWAYS considered to be true.

The calendar was certainly new…but that’s not really an issue because it’s not truly an issue of apostolic “faith and morals.”

The immaculate conception, as far as I know, was also claimed to be an apostolic teaching. I could be wrong about that…but I believe that was the claim (whether that’s true or not). So I suppose this is the only one I am uncertain about.

With all that said though, I really liked how you explained the “bird’s eye view” understanding of Church authority. I would like to say though that many Catholics DO NOT agree with you that “every bishop is equal to Rome.” In fact, many American Catholics would categorically deny that claim (certainly Abu would).

Thanks for contributing and adding a new perspective!

 

[mardukm]

Abu, you are totally off-base here. No one is claiming Peter was ever separate from the Apostles EXCEPT YOU. You are arguing that Peter is above and beyond the Apostles and we are arguing he cannot be separated from them and that his office is bound to their offices. You are the one arguing he is totally separate.

Further, again, you have failed to show any proof of your claim. You say Peter exercised his authority in the Upper Room by replacing Judas’ seat. Really? Is that what happened? The Book of Acts explains quite clearly that they drew lots to determine who would replace Judas. Peter DID NOT just pick one of the two qualified men. Why? If Peter had the authority you say, why didn’t he just pick one himself? Why draw lots? You really need to reconsider your position.

Again, well said, Jinc1019.

As far as the issue you brought up with the “small group+the pope of Rome” versus the “larger group.” Could you please answer the following:

If we just base it on the history of the undivided Church (viz, the Arian controversy), would you agree that the proper option is “small group+the Pope of Rome?”

If even the Orthodox claim that we should go back to the example of the undivided Church, would you agree that they should - on principle - accept the “small group+the Pope of Rome” option - I mean based SOLELY on the standard of the undivided Church.

I do understand that the complexity of the matter rests in your consideration of the Great Schism (by which the Church is no longer, practically speaking, “undivided”), and this is the crux of the matter. Would this be correct?

I need to go, so I will have to address this again next time. Though I do feel that a reconsideration of my post#246 would be appropriate at this point and would address some of the subsequent follow-up points, I will bring up other things for you to consider next time.

Blessings

P.S., I need to be off for several days. Keep up the solid defense of the Traditional teaching of the Church. I do hope you join the Catholic Church, because we need more people like you to combat the Absolutist Petrine excesses. You will be more effective combatting it from within the Catholic Church, than from without.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t agree with your points on the Syllabus, but I can agree that it was NOT an ex cathedra decree and not a teaching of the Magisterium. So in that sense, it is not binding.

A lot of people misunderstand the syllabus. It is intended to be used ONLY with respect to the text it cites. For a good Catholic explanation see Newman’s here.

Newman:

But to return:—the Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions and the like,) to which it pointedly refers. Moreover, when we turn to those documents, which are authoritative, we find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo of the Apostolic Voice; for, in matters in which wording is so important,*** it is not an exact transcript of the words of the Pope***, in its account of the errors condemned,—just as is natural in what is professedly an index for reference.

 

[jinc1019]

That’s an interesting comparison Deconi, and it is not without merit.

However, I think there is more to this than “oh, everyone’s right in their own way.”

First, I would argue that mardukm is NOT viewing the issue “from the East.” He is viewing the issue clearly and deeply, from the Roman Catholic view.

Second, I would not be too hasty to have Abu representing the view from the West. I see Abu’s view as being shallow and murky. (Sorry Abu) My experience has been that he sees only certain key words in a post and in knee jerk fashion, replies with an irrelevant papal document, which on the surface appears to be relevant.

There may be an element of truth here, but again, there’s a bit more going on.

When Abu levels his charges it is because he is not grasping the orthodoxy of mardukm’s explanation. This is VERY important. mardukm has articulated over and over again, in his OWN words what exactly he means. OTOH, Abu virtually NEVER articulates his own thoughts, but hurls accusations and fires off quotes. When he DOES articulate a thought of his own, it is so muddled, that even with frequent requests to explain his meaning, they remain ignored.

The fear here, is that BECAUSE Abu has posted all sorts of tendentious/irrelevant quotes from assorted authorities, he will be UNDOING the good work that mardukm is doing in explaining THESE VERY COMPLEX AND SUBTLE doctrines of infallibility and supremacy.

What is the work Abu is doing? Tearing down as much as possible everything mardukm posts. For once, I would like to see Abu post his own thoughts on the subject IN EXPLANATION for his disagreements.

IOW, let’s see Abu PROVE that he even understands mardukm, in the first place, and THEN, let’s see a cogent, coherent rebuttal from Abu in his OWN words.

I have no intention of offending Abu, but I agree with everything stated here. I wish I had spoken with Ambrose and Mardukm three years ago.

 

[jinc1019]

Again, well said, Jinc1019.

As far as the issue you brought up with the “small group+the pope of Rome” versus the “larger group.” Could you please answer the following:

If we just base it on the history of the undivided Church (viz, the Arian controversy), would you agree that the proper option is “small group+the Pope of Rome?”

If even the Orthodox claim that we should go back to the example of the undivided Church, would you agree that they should - on principle - accept the “small group+the Pope of Rome” option - I mean based SOLELY on the standard of the undivided Church.

I do understand that the complexity of the matter rests in your consideration of the Great Schism (by which the Church is no longer, practically speaking, “undivided”), and this is the crux of the matter. Would this be correct?

I need to go, so I will have to address this again next time. Though I do feel that a reconsideration of my post#246 would be appropriate at this point and would address some of the subsequent follow-up points, I will bring up other things for you to consider next time.

Blessings

P.S., I need to be off for several days. Keep up the solid defense of the Traditional teaching of the Church. I do hope you join the Catholic Church, because we need more people like you to combat the Absolutist Petrine excesses. You will be more effective combatting it from within the Catholic Church, than from without.

Mardukm,

As always I appreciate your guidance on this matter. I cannot tell you how clarifying the sources you have pointed me towards have been. It has made a significant difference.

To answer your questions:

1.) Yes, I am willing to submit that in the UNDIVIDED Church, that is the way it was done. However, I would preface this by saying that in the case of disputes like the Arian controversy, the rest of the Church did eventually accept the teaching of the minority of bishops and the Pope but not necessarily initially. It’s difficult to tell whether the acceptance was a result of the authority of the Pope and bishops or the persuasiveness of their arguments, or if there was some other reason for accepting it. With that said, I can accept your argument on this point.

2.) You are correct that for me, the DIVIDED Church is a huge roadblock for me. I don’t understand how so many Roman Catholics can simply ignore the Eastern Orthodox bishops as if they are not apart of the historic church. I realize that this is NOT the official view of the Roman Magisterium, but it is definitely a widespread belief in the Roman Church, as I am sure you will admit. For me, when the Church divided, it became very unclear who should be followed and who should not. The Church was essentially split (nearly in half) and historic Apostolic Sees basically proclaimed that Peter’s See had left the historic faith. I am just completely unsure how to view this. Not to mention, the issue is complicated because I tend to agree with the EO on numerous theological differences (like their view of the Eucharist, their understanding of Original Sin, the authority of the local bishop, etc.).

3.) I will re-examine Post 246 and deal with that when I do.

Enjoy your break!

Justin

 

[steve_b]

Steve…Show me where Jesus promises infallibility to Peter and NOT also to the other apostles? I am sure you will admit Jesus did promise infallibility to the Apostles…So show me WHERE Jesus conditions that infallibility on being in communion with Peter? Where does he say that? He never does.

Let me ask you, is the bible infallible or inerrant, or both? Why? Please explain your answer

 

[Abu]

mardukm #337
Collegiality is not a “development” but is the way the Church has been operating from the very beginning.

Your misunderstanding is simply in not realising that the DOCTRINE of collegiality was “formalized under John XXIII and Paul VI” (Fr Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 221).

Thus Vatican II “distinguished the three powers inherent in the episcopacy”, and of the two powers of the “teaching authority” and “pastoral government”, Vatican II in *Lumen Gentium *21 teaches **“of their nature, however, they can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.” **

Thus, as Fr Hardon so eloquently points out, “Apart from such communion, any episcopal action has no assurance of divine approval, no matter how many prelates may agree among themselves.” (Op. cit. p 223).

Thus is the mooted conundrum:
If the Pope and a small minority of bishops say one thing is true, and the overwhelming majority of all other bishops say another thing is true (including all other traditional patriarchs)…Who has authority?
Easily disposed of.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #343
You say Peter exercised his authority in the Upper Room by replacing Judas’ seat. Really? Is that what happened? The Book of Acts explains quite clearly that they drew lots to determine who would replace Judas. Peter DID NOT just pick one of the two qualified men. Why? If Peter had the authority you say, why didn’t he just pick one himself? Why draw lots? You really need to reconsider your position.

The obvious is simply that just as today, the first Pope (St Peter) encourages the other Apostles, but it is no longer strange that you cannot, or will not, face the reality that Peter:

1. “Stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and tent persons in the one place).” [Acts 1:15].
2. He addressed them, and mandated: “Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time that the Lord Jesus came and went, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up from us, become with us a witness to His resurrection.” [Acts 1:21-22].
3. Thus, as Peter required, they proposed two men and prayed, and having cast lots Matthias was chosen and joined the other Apostles.

Thus from the mandate of supremacy to Peter from the Lord, and to no one else, does Peter and his successor popes to today lead His Church with the Apostles in communion with and under Peter’s authority as the Rock, the Keeper of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven

You are the one arguing he is totally separate.

False, once again, for this is what I have quoted from Vatican I, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25, that the Popes, customarily consulting the faithful and the episcopacy are not limited by them:
“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.”

What is being impugned are the Ecumenical Council doctrinal statements which cannot be legitimately challenged, which condemn the endless stupidities such as " infallibility defined by V1 only refers to the “defined dogmas.” [Your misguided and misinformed mardukm, #299, to whom you have fallen prey].

Such a monstrosity denies the truth that the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility expressly affirmed that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) which covers both dogmas and the secondary related truths. Pastor Aeternus mandates the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be held (tenendum), not only what must be believed (credendam).

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. Many people here (correctly) see the sensus fidelium (sensus fidei) as transcending time. They see this correctly not only as the faithful TODAY, but the faithful for all time.

They can see the sensus fidei (which includes the Bishop etc.) transcend time, but they cannot seem to see that the Pope speaks with authority that ALSO transcends time (“promised to him in blessed Peter”).

They only see the Pope’s authority exercised with a college of current Bishops (which is only part of the Papal authority paradigm).

That’s WHY when the Pope declares something he says, “WE declare, proclaim, and define . . . .” or some such language. Because the pope is united to St. Peter. “Peter has spoken through Leo!”

So I asked about the 15% (and the Pope) vrs. 85% (here in post 327).

I asked: “WHICH group made up the Magisterium?”

I have heard a lot of prevaricating around the issue, jinc1019.

But there is no reason to hem and haw. It is the Magisterium. It is the Pope and the 15% of the Bishops in union with the Pope. The correct answer was “A”.

It is 100% of the Magisterium.

Mardukm told me he already answered the question (where?).

He said this:

Quote:
If even the Orthodox claim that we should go back to the example of the undivided Church, would you agree that they should - on principle - accept the “small group+the Pope of Rome” option - I mean based SOLELY on the standard of the undivided Church.

I do understand that the complexity of the matter rests in your consideration of the Great Schism (by which the Church is no longer, practically speaking, “undivided”), and this is the crux of the matter. Would this be correct?

Mardukm. What does this mean? (I know you are gone now but as you said, you will be back).

Does it mean 15% isn’t high enough of a “consensus” for you? Or does it mean it is enough of a “consensus” for you? I don’t understand what you mean.

Can anyone else here answer that? Does anyone here know “what percentage” of Bishops makes up the “consensus”?

Earlier Mardukm you said this:

Quote:
I did address the issue. I gave you the correct definition of “democratic process.” . . . . Read through the thread as I suggested earlier. You will have your questions answered. Better yet, there is a search function. You can do a search with my name and pull up all my posts within a certain time period.

jinc1019. On post 346, you seem to think Mardukm may have addressed the question in post 246 (am I wrong on this?).

I looked over many posts including #246 and I see NOWHERE, where this issue has been concretely addressed.

The answer was “A”. The answer is15% of the Bishops in UNION with the Pope—just like the Catechism tells us the Magisterium is.

And do you know what the answer would be if it were the Pope and 100 Bishops were against him?

The answer is the same. The Magisterium is right. The Magisterium is preserved. The POPE . . . .and the Bishops in union with the Pope. Not because he is/isn’t in union with “the Bishop vote” but because he is in union with St. Peter.

And you need to look beyond the mere Bishops college of today.

Someone will say: “Well the Pope can’t teach against Apostolic doctrine”.

That’s right he can’t! That’s why the Pope is right, not why the Pope is wrong.

Ask some of these guys what “consensus” is. Hold their feet to the fire.

Make them give you a direct answer. Is it 80/20? Is it 70/30? Is it 51/49? Then ask them to show you their definition of “consensus” in the Church documents. They won’t be there!

Do you want to know what “consensus” is? It is the Pope and the Bishops in union with him (speaking officially, etc.). The Pope is united to St. Peter in such a way, that he CANNOT (infallibly) teach error (in official capacity).

CCC 100. The POPE . . . and the Bishops in union with the Pope (very easy to remember “CCC 100”).

This protection is NOT given to all the Bishops (just proverbially ask Bishop Nestorius or Bishop Bonosus).

There are a lot of authority issues that have not been explored on this thread like Church governance. Nor do I think we should go there with this thread as getting past the fact that the Pope is one solely entrusted with the keys (plenipotential authority within the sphere of preserving Apostolic teaching) has been an insurmountable obstacle thus far.

I’ll try to answer your Galatians argument (about St. Paul opposing St. Peter to his face) and why that is a non-issue for the authority paradigm of the Church soon.

Stick with the Magisterium.

Stick with the POPE . . . . . and the Bishops in UNION with the Pope.

The doctrinal confusion we see in Orthodoxies today is the logical conclusion of “consensus” if merely defined as a majority vote of Bishops or some such thing.

But in all fairness, we have never been told on this thread that “consensus” is a mere “majority of bishops”.

And that’s the problem.

We have never been concretely told anything specific in that regard. WHAT is “consensus”?

A lot of electrons have been launched here without telling you that.

But the Church tells you without dithering. It is the Pope and the Bishops in UNION with the Pope. That is the Magisterium. That is the office that is protected. That is where is found Apostolic truth protected for those that desire it.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Cathoholic:

But the Church tells you without dithering. It is the Pope and the Bishops in UNION with the Pope. That is the Magisterium. That is the office that is protected. That is where is found Apostolic truth protected for those that desire it.

Keep in mind that the Magisterium is “the Teaching Authority” of the Church. It is a what not a who. The Authentic Magisterium of the Church is vested in the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

Cathoholic:

He [mardukm] said this:

Quote:

If even the Orthodox claim that we should go back to the example of the undivided Church, would you agree that they should - on principle - accept the "small group+the Pope of Rome" option - I mean based SOLELY on the standard of the undivided Church.

I do understand that the complexity of the matter rests in your consideration of the Great Schism (by which the Church is no longer, practically speaking, "undivided"), and this is the crux of the matter. Would this be correct?

Mardukm. What does this mean? (I know you are gone now but as you said, you will be back).

Does it mean 15% isn’t high enough of a “consensus” for you? Or does it mean it is enough of a “consensus” for you? I don’t understand what you mean.

He was saying that IF the Orthodox believe we should go back to the example of the undivided Church, THEN, they SHOULD accept the “small group + the Pope of Rome” option.

So he was speaking of the Orthodox not himself. HOWEVER, he is agreeing that the Magisterium is vested in the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope, no matter HOW SMALL their number.

But this was a reply to Jinc1019 regarding the difficulty of the divided church with respect to the Magisterium.

Cathoholic:

But in all fairness, we have never been told on this thread that “consensus” is a mere “majority of bishops”.

And that’s the problem.

We have never been concretely told anything specific in that regard. WHAT is “consensus”?

Thanks for stating that NO ONE said consensus is a “majority of bishops.”

Consensus is just the latin form of consent. It’s not related to numbers or proportions.

 

[jinc1019]

A lot of people misunderstand the syllabus. It is intended to be used ONLY with respect to the text it cites. For a good Catholic explanation see Newman’s here.

I realize that it is not dogmatic per se, but the threat of anathema is quite serious even still. This isn’t surprising, Pope Pius was known to be quite a tyrant (not in a violent way) when it came to papal authority.

 

[jinc1019]

Let me ask you, is the bible infallible or inerrant, or both? Why? Please explain your answer

Steve,
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I am NOT a sola scriptura guy anyway, so it really has no relevance at all.

 

[jinc1019]

Your misunderstanding is simply in not realising that the DOCTRINE of collegiality was “formalized under John XXIII and Paul VI” (Fr Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 221).

Thus Vatican II “distinguished the three powers inherent in the episcopacy”, and of the two powers of the “teaching authority” and “pastoral government”, Vatican II in *Lumen Gentium *21 teaches **“of their nature, however, they can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.” **

Thus, as Fr Hardon so eloquently points out, “Apart from such communion, any episcopal action has no assurance of divine approval, no matter how many prelates may agree among themselves.” (Op. cit. p 223).

Thus is the mooted conundrum:
If the Pope and a small minority of bishops say one thing is true, and the overwhelming majority of all other bishops say another thing is true (including all other traditional patriarchs)…Who has authority?
Easily disposed of.

Abu,
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. You can’t seriously be telling everyone here that “collegiality” didn’t exist as a doctrine until John XXII?

 

[jinc1019]

The obvious is simply that just as today, the first Pope (St Peter) encourages the other Apostles, but it is no longer strange that you cannot, or will not, face the reality that Peter:

1. “Stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and tent persons in the one place).” [Acts 1:15].
2. He addressed them, and mandated: “Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time that the Lord Jesus came and went, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up from us, become with us a witness to His resurrection.” [Acts 1:21-22].
3. Thus, as Peter required, they proposed two men and prayed, and having cast lots Matthias was chosen and joined the other Apostles.

Thus from the mandate of supremacy to Peter from the Lord, and to no one else, does Peter and his successor popes to today lead His Church with the Apostles in communion with and under Peter’s authority as the Rock, the Keeper of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven
False, once again, for this is what I have quoted from Vatican I, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25, that the Popes, customarily consulting the faithful and the episcopacy are not limited by them:
“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.”

What is being impugned are the Ecumenical Council doctrinal statements which cannot be legitimately challenged, which condemn the endless stupidities such as " infallibility defined by V1 only refers to the “defined dogmas.” [Your misguided and misinformed mardukm, #299, to whom you have fallen prey].

Such a monstrosity denies the truth that the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility expressly affirmed that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) which covers both dogmas and the secondary related truths. Pastor Aeternus mandates the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be held (tenendum), not only what must be believed (credendam).

Once again Abu,

1. Peter was not the only one who stood up and spoke, nor is he the only one that caused the entire room to go silent.
2. Stating that it was necessary that a candidate be chosen with certain conditions in no way means that he alone made that decision, nor does it mean that anyone disagreed with him, nor does it really prove or disprove your argument at all! It’s a terrible argument on your part.
3. If Peter had all the authority you claim he had, it still makes NO SENSE that he would draw lots, which was an ancient way of letting God decide, when he could have just made the choice himself unilaterally. The fact that lots were cast undermines your position (albeit not necessarily completely), and it certainly does NOT support it.

Further, ONCE AGAIN, no one is arguing here that the Pope as the successor to Peter doesn’t have a place of primacy of some kind…No one is even suggesting that the Pope shouldn’t be considered the “head of the church” in some capacity. The issue is…Does he have absolute tyrannical authority as you suggest. History is STAUNCHLY against you. A fair reading of the Early Fathers clearly shows that your position was not that of the Early Church. Read St. Cyprian, read Augustine’s final commentary on “The Rock,” read the history of Pope Vigilius, who defended the so-called “Three Chapters” and then reversed his position later on when he was essentially forced to do so by the Eastern churches and the emperor.

You offer absolutely no evidence at all other than 2-3 quotes taken out of context.