S
steve_b
Guest
That’s a gross distortion of what I’ve said and believe.
- Status
J
jinc1019
Guest
It’s not at all a distortion of what you said. I can’t judge what you believe.
I am not going to respond to your claims because we are clearly at an impasse. You will never, no matter how logical the argument is, see fault in the Pope. Honestly, I can admire your faith while at the same time being deathly afraid of the consequences of that faith.
I don’t understand how you can argue what you are suggesting. As I already showed, the Papal Bull of Pope Leo X clearly meets all the requirements you stated. And even if it didn’t, the Fourth Lateran Council certainly, at the very least, must be seen as authoritative based on YOUR own arguments about authority.
You are straddling the fence between “burning heretics is fine” and “none of this matters because it isn’t infallible.” It’s impossible to debate with such a position. It is CLEAR, as I hope you will be willing to admit…that at the very least, Pope Leo X REQUIRED that ALL Christians must accept his teaching that it is an error that it is against the Holy Spirit to burn heretics. I hope you will also agree that the Fourth Lateran Council clearly teaches that any ruler that refuses to “exterminate” all heretics in his domain will effectively lose his domain in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Church thus required the extermination of heretics of all secular rulers, at least at that particular moment in time. Can you at least agree to that? It’s the plain reading of the Council’s decree.
You suggest that this decree has something to do with the Crusades…It doesn’t. It clearly says “any ruler,” making it applicable to anyone, including Christian rulers, and you will notice in the quote that there are THREE PERIODS prior to that sentence regarding indulgences, which indicates that the sentence comes later in the paragraph. It’s not as if all of that is included in one section.
As I said…I just don’t think we can ever agree. You look at the papacy and its councils and you see no fault when I do. You are even willing to defend the murder of people for having false religious views. If I have that wrong, I apologize, but that is CERTAINLY how it sounds when you defend such actions by the Church. And by the way, the difference between the passages you cite and the Church’s teachings are clear: In one case, God does the punishing himself or directs Israel personally. In the case of the Church, they are promoting behavior which actually contradicts the teachings of Christ.
I sincerely admire your faith in the papacy…I am sure it is a nice feeling-certainty that is. But to me, the evidence is totally against the Roman Catholic Church on these issues. One must either constantly jump through mental hoops or one must accept teachings which clearly contradict the teachings of Jesus (such as the burning and “extermination” of heretics).
A
Abu
Guest
This shows interest in progress towards truth.
This from the CDF then clarifies the question of papal infallibility. There is no confusion here.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Primacy Of The Successor Of Peter
In The Mystery Of The Church
Held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996.
Excerpts:
‘These “Reflections” - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ’s great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities.
'Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”.42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.
‘The Roman Pontiff’s episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal magisterial office;38 it is an office that involves a charism: the Holy Spirit’s special assistance to the Successor of Peter, which also involves, in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility.39 Just as “all the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ”,40 in the same way the Bishops are witnesses of divine and Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff.41
‘The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly “that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is – in God’s plan – an essential requisite of full and visible communion”.47’
- Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
- Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
Note
- CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html
J
jinc1019
Guest
Hi Abu,
Wonderful quotes. I am not sure it disproves anything the High Petrine supporters in this thread are arguing for, however. In fact, if you are willing to agree with all of that, then I think you may have more in common with Mardukm and Ambrose than you realize.
It is quite clear from those statements by Ratizinger that the Pope “does not have absolute power,” and that:
For Ratzinger, the Pope is bound to “fraternal communion” and “tradition,” despite having supreme authority:
It’s very close to what so many of us have been saying all along. The Pope cannot act apart from the agreement of the Bishops (although he doesn’t need their confirmation or approval) because if he did, then the Church would essentially cease to exist. The Pope would either be rogue and a heretic or the rest of the Church’s bishops would have fallen in heresy. In either case, the Church has failed and Jesus’ promises in Matthew 16 and 18 have fallen.
Think of it this way:
- You believe the Pope can only teach the truth when officially teaching on doctrines related to faith and morals.
- The rest of the bishops of the Church have been given, through the passing of apostolic succession, the power, authority, and knowledge to safeguard these same doctrines.
- If nearly all the bishops of the Church teach a doctrine that conflicts with the Pope’s teaching, then either the Pope or the entire church has fallen away from the faith. In either case, the Church now either exists without its “head” or the rest of the entirety of the Church has fallen away.
- In either case, the Church, as you understand it, no longer exists or has fallen into such disrepair that it’s clear Jesus’ promises to the Apostles in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are false.
The problem stems from the fact that you, Abu, seem to fixate on this idea that the Pope doesn’t need permission, approval, or confirmation from the bishops, and I don’t think Ambrose or Mardukm would argue with you on that count. The problem is that you are taking the terms “permission, approval, confirmation” and you are assuming the Pope can teach anything he wants without the AGREEMENT of the rest of the Church, and he can’t. So the Pope doesn’t need permission or confirmation to say something is infallibly true, BUT he DOES NEED the rest of the bishops to believe it as well. Why? Because if they don’t, then the Church has fallen away. The Pope is a heretic or the entirety of the Church except for the Pope is a heretic. In either case, the “gates of Hades” have prevailed and Jesus promises to the Apostles in Matthew 18 have been proven false.
I think, in a nutshell, that is the issue here. Can you accept that, or do you still disagree?
S
steve_b
Guest
The consequence of blind polemics is more dangerous by far to ones soul. For me, I don’t defend needlessly or condemn needlessly. I have always given you reasons with evidence for the positions I take. Keep reading
j:
Authority doesn’t have to be infallible to be authoritative.
j:
I gave you a chance to stop digging your way deeper into a hole. I gave you questions that should have given you the clue to read the actual canons rather than go by some anti Catholic polemic. But you kept pressing your polemic.
You see the word exterminate in the document, and you immediately think kill and murder heretics. It’s actually used to mean expel, remove the heretics from the territories. And by saying exterminate, it ups the notion of “complete” and yes “absolute”
expulsion and removal. And you can see that in the greater context of the canon in particular and other canons in context.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp there’s all 70 canons of the 4th Lateran council.
Scroll down to canon 3 where your quote came from. Look at what you said about the quote you gave.
- Compare it to the entire canon 3,
- then compare it to canon 18,
- and any other canon in the 70.
If extermination meant what you say, or should I say, whatever the anti Catholic site you got your polemic from said, then we’d see this described in very clear terms. We sure wouldn’t see prohibitions on killing right after it is said to kill heretics , assuming that killing heretics is what is meant by extermination, which is NOT how it is meant… Extermination in this case is a complete and thorough expelling, removing perfectly, (I think the word was scrupulous) the heretics from all the territories.
j:
Scroll down to the end of the link I gave you. It’s titled “Holy Land Decrees”
j:
If you put half the effort into studying from the pillar and foundation of truth (The Catholic Church) instead of all the time you do soaking up all that anti Catholic stuff, you’d be much more peaceful, and you’d find yourself on the right path.
A
Abu
Guest
The error of imagining that the Pope is restricted to not defining dogma or doctrine, of himself, is refuted through the testimony of Vatican I, *Pastor Aeternus *Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
Unlike the pope with his “universal apostolate,” later bishops were simply consecrated as “rulers of individual churches,” and episcopal infallibility applies only to the “bishops taken together and joined with their head, for it was said to all generally and not to each individually” – [Gasser’s *Relatio (GR 22)].
Holding to a strongly hierocratic view of the church, Gasser sees the pope as the unique “center of unity” in the Church. If he were to fall into error, the Church would “dissolve, deprived of the bond of its unity.” With this in mind, then, the pope must retain jurisdictional authority over his episcopal colleagues and cannot be limited to exercising authority only in communion with the other bishops.
He also underlines the indirect testimony of the Church Fathers, from Ireneaus’ positing of Rome’s “dignity of primacy” to Augustine’s contention that “no Donatist was ever bishop of Rome” (GR 28). Also mentioned are Leo’s Tome, which resolved an episcopal division without requiring episcopal assent, and the 6th century Hormisdas formula, in which Eastern bishops had to recognize the prerogative of the Roman See before rejoining the Church. Gasser concludes that “the holy Fathers held it as certain and obvious that Peter, who constituted the foundation of the Church, could not be separated from the Church itself and that the Church could not be separated from Christ and that Christ could not be separated from the truth” (GR 29).
The crucial “leap of faith” here is trusting divine providence to prevent errancy even should the pope fail in his “moral duty” to consult prior to enunciating an infallible dogma (GR 52).
Another proposed modification looked to make infallible statements dependent on episcopal reception. In the words of its advocates, “just as the bishops cannot act without the Pope, the Pope cannot act without the bishops.” Gasser agrees with the first point (Christ’s Matthean commission granted infallibility to the apostles together with Peter), but he cannot sign off on the second. Once again, the Luke 22 passage is a crucial proof-text – Christ instructed Peter to strengthen his brothers, thereby implying that there will be times when the holder of Peter’s chair has to act individually for the good of the Church (GR 49-50).
The “subject” of infallibility is the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff, a “public person in relation to the universal church” (GR 73). An “ex cathedra” statement is not a private decree issued by a local bishop, but rather a formal declaration by a pope “teaching in his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians” and possessing a “manifest intention of defining doctrine” for the universal Church (GR 73).
A
Abu
Guest
As stated ad infinitum, Popes do not have absolute power such as God possesses. There is no real issue but merely a paper tiger by those tilting at windmills.
Fourth Ecumenical Council – Chalcedon: 451
Though the council had approved the assertion that Constantinople should be ranked first after Rome ecclesiastically, Pope St. Leo did not.
Sixteenth Ecumenical Council – Constance: 1414 -1418
Pope Martin ratified the council …except the decrees which proposed conciliarismourladyswarriors.org/articles/ecumcncl.htm
So you have examples of Popes specifically refusing to act in agreement with declarations of the bishops at Ecumenical Councils – the speculation that is so rampant on this issue is false.
No. Even a majority who have “fallen away” cannot change the Church’s teaching, or a teaching faithfully on faith and morals by a validly elected Pope.
5th century**
West: **Pope St. Boniface I of Rome (September 4) says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A], “For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See.”
Note: disobedience of Rome is unacceptable; final doctrinal and canonical decisions rest with Rome; the pope has the special authority to teach the entire Christian world.
9th Century
East: Patriarch St. Ignatius of Constantinople (October 23) (qtd. in Likoudis 80) says in his letter read in the Third Session of the Eighth Council [Letter to Pope St. Nicholas I the Great of Rome in Mansi XVI:47E],
… saying to Peter, the greatest of the Apostles: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” And again, “I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be bound in Heaven.” For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince εξαρκος] of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him he transmitted them to all who, after him as his successors, were to be made chief pastors and divine and sacred pontiffs of elder Rome.
catholicpatristics.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/papal-primacy-infallibility.html
J
jinc1019
Guest
Steve,The consequence of blind polemics is more dangerous by far to ones soul. For me, I don’t defend needlessly or condemn needlessly. I have always given you reasons with evidence for the positions I take. Keep reading
Authority doesn’t have to be infallible to be authoritative.
I gave you a chance to stop digging your way deeper into a hole. I gave you questions that should have given you the clue to read the actual canons rather than go by some anti Catholic polemic. But you kept pressing your polemic.
You see the word exterminate in the document, and you immediately think kill and murder heretics. It’s actually used to mean expel, remove the heretics from the territories. And by saying exterminate, it ups the notion of “complete” and yes “absolute”
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp there’s all 70 canons of the 4th Lateran council.
Scroll down to canon 3 where your quote came from. Look at what you said about the quote you gave.
Your polemic doesn’t fit what’s going on. You have to ask, how is exterminate = kill and murder in canon 3, and later in canon 18, killing is definitely prohibited. Therefore, nobody is murdered in this list of canons. No call for murder is made. Do your own word searches on the entire 70 canons, on any term you want. Try kill. It appears 2 times. How is it used? Or try “simony” or “indulgences” or “burn” or “cleric” or “judge” or “condemn” or “excommunicate” or “torture” etc etc you name it.
- Compare it to the entire canon 3,
- then compare it to canon 18,
- and any other canon in the 70.
If extermination meant what you say, or should I say, whatever the anti Catholic site you got your polemic from said, then we’d see this described in very clear terms. We sure wouldn’t see prohibitions on killing right after it is said to kill heretics , assuming that killing heretics is what is meant by extermination, which is NOT how it is meant… Extermination in this case is a complete and thorough expelling, removing perfectly, (I think the word was scrupulous) the heretics from all the territories.
Scroll down to the end of the link I gave you. It’s titled “Holy Land Decrees”
If you put half the effort into studying from the pillar and foundation of truth (The Catholic Church) instead of all the time you do soaking up all that anti Catholic stuff, you’d be much more peaceful, and you’d find yourself on the right path.
I am not studying “anti-Catholic” websites.
And as you well know, in the Middle Ages, being excommunicated could mean the death sentence…many heretics will also burned at the stake. So the idea that the Church was condemning people as heretics but not responsible for the effects of that condemnation is really dishonest on your part. Again, in the Middle Ages, many who were excommunicated were also killed.
But let’s imagine for a minute that excommunication or “extermination” did not mean, either directly or indirectly, killing. Fine…What does it mean then? It clearly meant that the lives of the people who disagreed with the Church were completely destroyed. They were forced from their homes (in many cases), forced to leave their communities, lost their ability to earn an income and survive, ostracized from the only life they ever knew. And if the secular rule decided not to enforce this, he would lose his kingdom. Is this really any better?
If you want to live in a fantasy land where the Church has never committed any atrocities, that’s your business, but don’t try persuading others of clearly false assertions. These are all historical facts. That doesn’t mean the Church as a whole should be condemned OR that it hasn’t done amazing things for the world as well…but hiding from the truth is not going to help your case.
The reality is that documents like the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, the Papal Bull of 1520, various prohibitions against the Jews, etc. caused tremendous pain and suffering for many people who often did nothing more than think or believe differently (whether they were right or wrong, it doesn’t matter).
People like you, who defend such actions, is precisely why it is so darn hard for me to be a Catholic. Reason flies out the window in an instant, replaced by blind devotion to people who, at times, have made grave mistakes.
As I said before, I admire your faith (as well as Abu’s), but if the Church came out tomorrow and said the United States needs to expel all the Jews from the country, would you go along with it? If the Catholic Church tomorrow said that the United States must take the homes of all unbelievers and force them out of their communities and into ghettos where all the unbelievers must now live, would you support it? If not, why the heck not? Based on your own line of reasoning, you would have to. The Church has the authority, right? Not you.
You could argue, “The Church would never do that,” but THEY HAVE DONE THAT. I don’t think they will again (I hope not), but who the heck knows? You can’t say with any certainty that they won’t. And if they don’t, are you prepared to defy their authority?
J
jinc1019
Guest
(GR 22)].
Holding to a strongly hierocratic view of the church, Gasser sees the pope as the unique “center of unity” in the Church. If he were to fall into error, the Church would “dissolve, deprived of the bond of its unity.” With this in mind, then, the pope must retain jurisdictional authority over his episcopal colleagues and cannot be limited to exercising authority only in communion with the other bishops.
He also underlines the indirect testimony of the Church Fathers, from Ireneaus’ positing of Rome’s “dignity of primacy” to Augustine’s contention that “no Donatist was ever bishop of Rome” (GR 28). Also mentioned are Leo’s Tome, which resolved an episcopal division without requiring episcopal assent, and the 6th century Hormisdas formula, in which Eastern bishops had to recognize the prerogative of the Roman See before rejoining the Church. Gasser concludes that “the holy Fathers held it as certain and obvious that Peter, who constituted the foundation of the Church, could not be separated from the Church itself and that the Church could not be separated from Christ and that Christ could not be separated from the truth” (GR 29).
The crucial “leap of faith” here is trusting divine providence to prevent errancy even should the pope fail in his “moral duty” to consult prior to enunciating an infallible dogma (GR 52).
Another proposed modification looked to make infallible statements dependent on episcopal reception. In the words of its advocates, “just as the bishops cannot act without the Pope, the Pope cannot act without the bishops.” Gasser agrees with the first point (Christ’s Matthean commission granted infallibility to the apostles together with Peter), but he cannot sign off on the second. Once again, the Luke 22 passage is a crucial proof-text – Christ instructed Peter to strengthen his brothers, thereby implying that there will be times when the holder of Peter’s chair has to act individually for the good of the Church (GR 49-50).
The “subject” of infallibility is the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff, a “public person in relation to the universal church” (GR 73). An “ex cathedra” statement is not a private decree issued by a local bishop, but rather a formal declaration by a pope “teaching in his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians” and possessing a “manifest intention of defining doctrine” for the universal Church (GR 73).
Abu,
You are merely repeating yourself over and over again. Please read what I wrote before and tell me WHY you disagree with that line of reasoning. I am not saying the Pope alone cannot define doctrines. I am saying, logically, it’s impossible for the Pope to define a doctrine the Church doesn’t already hold, agree with, and support. Read what I said again, I beg you…and answer the questions I asked at the end.
A
Abu
Guest
Ignoring the answers is in contradiction with a request for answers.
Refer:
Abu #405 15/2/14 5:27 pm
1) As stated ad infinitum, Popes do not have absolute power such as God possesses. There is no real issue but merely a paper tiger by those tilting at windmills.
2) Facts given that at two Ecumenical Councils, Fourth and Sixteenth, Popes specifically contradicting the bishops’ conciliar affirmations.
- Refuted by Bishop Gasser at Vatican I (Abu #285):
As Fr O’Connor analyses Bishop Gasser’s relatio at Vatican I:
**“Setting as a condition the antecedent or consequent consent of the bishops is something that has no historical precedent and one that would involve endless disputes concerning what number of the bishops would have to consent and what form their consent would have to take. Such an approach Gasser calls ‘arbitrary or subversive’ and attempts to show its difficulties by a reduction ad absurdum argument.”**The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 57
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear jinc1019,
You are on the right track.
High Petrine advocates don’t have a horse in this race. It is the Absolutist Petrine advocates who insist that “papal” infallibility extends to things merely related to Revelation/the Deposit of Faith (i.e., its defense and support of it). High Petrine advocates don’t make that claim but, in adherence to the teaching of V1, believe infallibility only applies to what is contained in the Deposit of Faith… Keep whittling away at their excesses, my friend. Don’t let up. There are one or two things with which I disagree in your posts (which I will address soon - perhaps a matter of clarification instead of actual disagreement), but most of your points are right on the money.
I’ll be back soon to refute Abu’s citation of Ad Tuendam Fidem. Right now, I’m busy with my critique of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals about the papacy, which should be completed within 2 days.
Blessings,
Marduk
You are on the right track.
High Petrine advocates don’t have a horse in this race. It is the Absolutist Petrine advocates who insist that “papal” infallibility extends to things merely related to Revelation/the Deposit of Faith (i.e., its defense and support of it). High Petrine advocates don’t make that claim but, in adherence to the teaching of V1, believe infallibility only applies to what is contained in the Deposit of Faith… Keep whittling away at their excesses, my friend. Don’t let up. There are one or two things with which I disagree in your posts (which I will address soon - perhaps a matter of clarification instead of actual disagreement), but most of your points are right on the money.I’ll be back soon to refute Abu’s citation of Ad Tuendam Fidem. Right now, I’m busy with my critique of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals about the papacy, which should be completed within 2 days.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
You are not answering most of his points.
The Pope does not have absolute power PERIOD in ANY sense.
You must be joking. As far as the Fourth, the Pope had the support of the Western bishops, as well as some in the East. As far as the 16th, that Council is actually often understood as an emergency circumstance that had a Council running things in the absence of a legitimate Pope - very far from proving your point.
As explained several times, to which you have (typically) not responded, Bishop Gasser defined what “consent” meant in his Relatio, and it does not align with your own Absolutist Petrine exaggerated misunderstanding. As usual, you are simply wrenching quotes out of context. As suggested earlier, give it up. You will find no Magisterial document to support your Absolutist Petrine excesses.
M
mardukm
Guest
Abu has made the claim that infallibility applies not only to Revelation/the Deposit of Faith, but also those things necessary in order to uphold, defend, and explain it. This person has cited Ad Tuendam Fiden in support of his tendentious claim.
Abu claims that Canon 750-2 (via Ad Tuendam Fidem) supports his claim:
Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Abu fails to realize that there is a distinction between Canon 750-1 and 750-2 - namely, the clause “Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith…” This statement is the hallmark of belief in those things which are infallible. The usual term for this is “the assent of Faith” or “the obedience of Faith.” Such assent or obedience is given only to that which is infallible and irreformible.
The other type of obedience is normally termed “religious assent” or “obedience of intellect and will.” This applies to things proposed or asserted by our bishops that are not infallible nor irreformible - i.e., to the non-infallible teachings of Popes and bishops, to things merely canonical or disciplinary, etc. This is the type of obedience spoken of in Canon 750-2–. instead of asserting that the teachings definitively proposed must be “believed with divine and catholic faith” (as in 750-1), it states “only” that these teachings must be “firmly accepted and held.”
Ad Tuendam Fidem does not, contrary to the excesses of Abu and other Absolutist Petrine advocates, extend infallibility to matters that are only “related to” the Deposit of Faith. The latter idea is nothing more than a theologoumenon, and Abu has no right to misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. Fortunately, the non-Catholic OP has not fallen for Abu’s misrepresentations, and has rightly critiqued Abu’s opinion with a reduction ad absurdum argument to which Abu has so far refused to respond (perhaps he cannot).
Blessings
Abu claims that Canon 750-2 (via Ad Tuendam Fidem) supports his claim:
Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Abu fails to realize that there is a distinction between Canon 750-1 and 750-2 - namely, the clause “Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith…” This statement is the hallmark of belief in those things which are infallible. The usual term for this is “the assent of Faith” or “the obedience of Faith.” Such assent or obedience is given only to that which is infallible and irreformible.
The other type of obedience is normally termed “religious assent” or “obedience of intellect and will.” This applies to things proposed or asserted by our bishops that are not infallible nor irreformible - i.e., to the non-infallible teachings of Popes and bishops, to things merely canonical or disciplinary, etc. This is the type of obedience spoken of in Canon 750-2–. instead of asserting that the teachings definitively proposed must be “believed with divine and catholic faith” (as in 750-1), it states “only” that these teachings must be “firmly accepted and held.”
Ad Tuendam Fidem does not, contrary to the excesses of Abu and other Absolutist Petrine advocates, extend infallibility to matters that are only “related to” the Deposit of Faith. The latter idea is nothing more than a theologoumenon, and Abu has no right to misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter. Fortunately, the non-Catholic OP has not fallen for Abu’s misrepresentations, and has rightly critiqued Abu’s opinion with a reduction ad absurdum argument to which Abu has so far refused to respond (perhaps he cannot).
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
Oops! The bolded portion came out wrong.
I meant to say, “HP advocates, in adherence to the teaching of V1, don’t INSIST that infallibility MUST extend to matters merely related to Revelation/the Deposit of Faith.”I will quote what V1 had to say on the matter in a future thread I will start entitled “Errors of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals on the Papacy”
A
Abu
Guest
The phobia of “Absolutist Petrine” haunts those who have not relinquished the Greek Orthodox dissent, and cannot assent to the Church’s clear teaching.
As Gasser emphasises clearly:
“It has often been said but as far as I can see, never proved that, according to the mind of the holy Fathers…that the consent of the Church is a condition de jure without which the dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff could not be infallible.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 34]
The Magisterium: *Lumen Gentium *#25 is quoted by Fr James T O’Connor specifically to show the complementarity with Vatican I that for the Pope “Therefore his definitions are rightly called irreformable and not from the consent of the Church” [Op. cit. p 118].
Continued evidence of the continued dissent of mardukm.
#412
The studied ignorance is very clear:
In post #294 Bl John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidem teaches that:
Thus the CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (ATF), 1998, which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1).
A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.
Thus the CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem (ATF), 1998, which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1).
A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.
Thus the dissenter mardukm still tries to conceal this truth, despite the evidence shown clearly in post #294!
Thus, now he jumps to non-infallible doctrine which is the third category of Magisterial teaching, despite the evidence of Bl John Paul II’s doctrinal teaching in Ad Tuendam Fidem.
Thus to show the truth from post #145:
The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith*]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
C
Cathoholic
Guest
jinc1019.
Bringing up the Fourth Lateran Council would not make the point about the body of Bishops allegedly being able to over rule the Pope. Why? Because the Bishops were part of the Fourth Lateran Council.
Bringing up Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520 (Exsurge Domine - Bull of Pope Leo X - CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER) can lead us off track too and I see you wisely started another thread on that subject (a good alternative). I am already participating in that thread but since there are hypotheticals concerning the historical context, I probably won’t have much else to say.
You said that it will never be the Bishops ALONE verses the Pope. I agree. I was using that as a Reductio ad absurdum to show that following the Bishops (who are opposed to Papal authority on doctrinal preservation) would lead you into error.
Our Lord always preserves a remnant of the faithful, so how much more would He preserve many of the Bishops (to remain in union with St. Peter).
Still nobody (except the so-called “Papal absolutists”) here is addressing WHO has the ultimate authority to preserve doctrine. You have gotten a nebulous “the Bishops” answer. Look at “Orthodoxies” if you want to see where that gets you.
I am afraid that when “ultimate authority” gets bantered about loosely, it always comes down to the old: “me, myself, and I” routine.
I have maintained ultimate authority is with the Magisterium. I have maintained that the Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope (explicitly citing CCC 100).
I have agreed that the Pope does not have any power in the sense of changing doctrine; yet I have not seen anybody assert such mythology on this forum thread (so why the opposition to this point when nobody is trying to make it?).
I have also asserted the Pope cannot officially authoritatively (i.e. ex-cathedra) teach doctrinal error and he will always preserve Apostolic doctrine in such instances.
Do you think the Pope can possibly teach error in this capacity? If he can, WHO do you bank on for your authority? You? The Bishops? (then you have to answer “how many of them”)?
These are the unanswerable variables with such a position.
St. Peter was the only one given the Keys (yes of course Jesus holds the Keys in an ultimate sense). The other Bishops have a share in that (they would have to. That’s WHY they can elect a new Pope when a Pope dies). But as I quoted Pope St. Leo earlier, “ . . . although the keys are bestowed upon all, the keys are entrusted only to one.”
I’ll put a few more CCC salient quotes as some people will be reading this thread and want to copy and paste it for their files in this area.
CCC 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
CCC 552 a,c Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. . . . thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
CCC 553b . . Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
CCC 567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. “This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ” (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.
CCC 862 “Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.” Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”
CCC 1594b . . . As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.
None of this is to deny the authority of the Bishops. All of this is to assert the proper order of authority.
Bringing up the Fourth Lateran Council would not make the point about the body of Bishops allegedly being able to over rule the Pope. Why? Because the Bishops were part of the Fourth Lateran Council.
Bringing up Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520 (Exsurge Domine - Bull of Pope Leo X - CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER) can lead us off track too and I see you wisely started another thread on that subject (a good alternative). I am already participating in that thread but since there are hypotheticals concerning the historical context, I probably won’t have much else to say.
You said that it will never be the Bishops ALONE verses the Pope. I agree. I was using that as a Reductio ad absurdum to show that following the Bishops (who are opposed to Papal authority on doctrinal preservation) would lead you into error.
Our Lord always preserves a remnant of the faithful, so how much more would He preserve many of the Bishops (to remain in union with St. Peter).
Still nobody (except the so-called “Papal absolutists”) here is addressing WHO has the ultimate authority to preserve doctrine. You have gotten a nebulous “the Bishops” answer. Look at “Orthodoxies” if you want to see where that gets you.
I am afraid that when “ultimate authority” gets bantered about loosely, it always comes down to the old: “me, myself, and I” routine.
I have maintained ultimate authority is with the Magisterium. I have maintained that the Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope (explicitly citing CCC 100).
I have agreed that the Pope does not have any power in the sense of changing doctrine; yet I have not seen anybody assert such mythology on this forum thread (so why the opposition to this point when nobody is trying to make it?).
I have also asserted the Pope cannot officially authoritatively (i.e. ex-cathedra) teach doctrinal error and he will always preserve Apostolic doctrine in such instances.
Do you think the Pope can possibly teach error in this capacity? If he can, WHO do you bank on for your authority? You? The Bishops? (then you have to answer “how many of them”)?
These are the unanswerable variables with such a position.
St. Peter was the only one given the Keys (yes of course Jesus holds the Keys in an ultimate sense). The other Bishops have a share in that (they would have to. That’s WHY they can elect a new Pope when a Pope dies). But as I quoted Pope St. Leo earlier, “ . . . although the keys are bestowed upon all, the keys are entrusted only to one.”
I’ll put a few more CCC salient quotes as some people will be reading this thread and want to copy and paste it for their files in this area.
CCC 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
CCC 552 a,c Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. . . . thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
CCC 553b . . Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
CCC 567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. “This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ” (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.
CCC 862 “Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.” Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”
CCC 1594b . . . As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.
None of this is to deny the authority of the Bishops. All of this is to assert the proper order of authority.
M
mardukm
Guest
As your quote directly states it is the infallibility (or irreformibility) that is not from the consent, because Truth is not true because of consensus. You are still confused about the irreformibility of a decree, on the one hand, with the content of a decree, on the other (which does require consensus - both for the formulation and for the sake of unity). This is just another example of you giving quotes that you do not understand.:nope:
I actually stated the same thing in post #299, but you subsequently claimed that what I stated in post #299 was wrong.
However, I went a bit overboard in correcting your error. I was intending the level three (which are related to Faith and Morals, but not infallible), when I was writing about level two teaching. So you are right on that point.You are, however, still in error with your statement to brother Coptsoldier that “the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth.” (which is what started this particular train of discussion). The doctrinal commentary on Ad Teundam Fidem exposes your error, since it states, as brother Coptsoldier had correctly asserted, that ex cathedra decrees refer only to dogmatic definitions (which are few and far between). The affirmations by the Pope of the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium are NOT ex cathedra decrees.
S
steve_b
Guest
C’mon…where then are you getting all the stuff you’re posting?
j:
I gave you the canon where that wasn’t allowed. Do people go rogue? Yeah. But they go against the canon I showed you
j:
You saw the canons of the Church that prohibit Church people from doing such actions.
Let’s take for example during approx the same time period of 4th Lateran council, crusaders sacking Constantinople. They were not authorized to do that. They did THAT on their own. They chose to get caught up in the political intrigue of Constantionople at the time. Their mission was to go to Jerusalem and liberate the city from Moslem persecuters. Instead, Sergius a deposed emperor offered to pay the crusaders (took advantage of a large army at his door step) to restore him to power for a price. So they restored Sergius but he refused to pay, so the Crusaders took their payment out on the city. When the pope was informed of this, he excommunicated all the crusaders involved. Let’s say there were 40,000 men in that crusade, (I don’t know how many there actually were) but they were all excommunicated for their action by pope Innocent. #481 gives some details. So when they were excommunicated to you they must have all been murdered as a result?
j:
You do FAR too much imagining.
How about if we use a modern term like deport. Have you been reading the news, Justin Beber might be deported back to Canada for his actions down in Florida. Would you accept deport as a good term to use back in 1215?
j:
previously you accused the Church of murdering them. Now deport is just as bad.
let’s not forget, the reason we’re on this subject is because you said the Church murders people, remember? You asked me Post #393 “are you prepared to argue that murdering heretics is infallible? “
I answered that. But you just hop from one accusation to another to another to another.
j:
Accuse accuse accuse. And as for false assertions, you have a PHd in that…
j:
Don’t blame me for you not being Catholic. Take responsibility for your own actions.
You took little bits of information here and there, and crafted your own false story line. When I brought fact alonside your accusations that disproved your storyline, you just hop to another accusation and another storyline. And I’m to blame?
When you attacked Exsurge Domine for the statement “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” which is a statement that came from Luther, and my question back to you was, are the following cases then against the will of the Spirit? Genesis 19:24-25 , (Exodus 22:18-20 , Deuteronomy 13:5-15 , Deuteronomy 18:20 ). You didn’t answer me. btw, Luther didn’t take his own statement seriously
A
Abu
Guest
False.
1) Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4.
“….we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **he defines a doctrine **concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
An “ex cathedra” statement is not a private decree issued by a local bishop, but rather a formal declaration by a pope “teaching in his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians” and possessing a “manifest intention of defining doctrine” for the universal Church (Gassers Relatio 73).
As Bishop Gasser clearly explains in his relatio re Vatican I:
"With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of faith, fall within the extension of infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 82].
The clarity of Ad Tuendam Fidem by Bl John Paul II is expressed in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *which apparently also is not known to mardukm – hence his continued errors.
Catechism Of The Catholic Church
Second Edition
“CCC 88: The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm
- Status