Official Relatio: "Consent of the Church"

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

I didn’t think it was that confusing, i.e., for a council to be regarded as ecumenical or rather binding on the whole Church it needed the bishop of Rome to confirm it, not just because he was the only patriarch of the West, but because he was the visible head of the Church, i.e., without his approval/affirmation could a council still retain ecumenical status? Think of Trullo or the fifth ecumenical council.

The confusing part was the introduction of one word in your post. - “BUT…” That word indicates a negation of something. The original proposition was, “An Ecumenical Council can limit the authority of the Pope.” What is there about that statement that requires negation? What is the rationale for assuming that your statement contradicts the original proposition so as to merit the introduction of the term “But…?” As noted, as an Oriental, I cannot conceive of a synod or council without a head bishop. So it is very strange to me that in a single sentence, the term “Ecumenical Council” and “Pope” are used as if they are two separate entities. Like I said, it’s possible we are coming to the same conclusion, but your expression is foreign to the way I think as an Oriental.

Yes, I am aware that the Churches have different regional canons, however, in the case of canon 28 how was it possible that it was accepted even regionally without taking into consideration that the pope was against it because it relegated Alexandria and Antioch to a lower status and thus repudiated Nicea? I know this canon did not touch upon the primacy of Rome, but it leaves one thinking that if Nicea specified the order in which the sees were to be respected so to speak then why does canon 28 hold any sway at all since it never received ecumenical status? Can a canon that is regional usurp a canon which is ecumenical? How could those who accepted it justify this (even before Trullo which they claimed was ecumenical)? And as for the relations between the Eastern Churches how is it functional/practical that in one part of the Church, Alexandria and Antioch still have precedence over Constantinople, yet in another part of the Church, Constantinople is now above that of Alexandria and Antioch (notwithstanding Nicea). Wouldn’t this have strained relations? Do you think that it was helpful, i.e., canon 28?

This is a sensitive topic to me coming from the Oriental Orthodox communion. As you might know, the Second Ecum was not universally received as “Ecumenical” until Chalcedon, but the Oriental Orthodox did not accept Chalcedon as “Ecumenical.” The Third Ecum headed by Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria did not recognize it as such, and the tensions resulting from the ecclesiastical pretensions of Constantinople over Alexandria are obvious vis a vis Chalcedon… So I am not claiming, as an Oriental that it was right that the Eastern Churches under Constantinople adhere to Canon 28, only that they did, and that this can be justified on the traditional praxis that as far as disciplinary matters are concerned, different Patriarchates do not necessarily have to be uniform.

Btw, it is my belief as an Oriental Catholic that Canon 3 Constantinople/Canon 28 Chalcedon has never been accepted to have Ecumenical status by the Catholic Church. Canon 36 of Trullo is the one that can have that claim, but the content of that Canon is actually rather different from the other two Canons. The Trullan Canon is missing an important feature of the other two Canons - namely, the claim that Constantinople deserved its precedence by the mere fact of its socio-political status. By the time of the Trullan Synod, Constantinople had been claiming precedence based on apostolic succession from St. Andrew for over a century. Rome could never accept the claims of the first two Canons, because Rome denied the rationale behind it (i.e., socio-political status). But the Trullan Canon does not claim this, which I believe is the basis for Rome to finally be able to accept the Constantinopolitan claim at the “8th Ecumenical Council.” What importance this has for Oriental Orthodox-Catholic relations, I cannot say. Oriental Orthodox generally possess a paradigm that would accept the doctrinal teachings of the later Ecumenical Councils without having to admit their ecumenicity (which means acceptance of the doctrinal teachings, but not the non-doctrinal canons, such as Canon 28). Whether this paradigm will be acceptable to the CC or the EOC, I certainly cannot say, and really have no opinion.

NOTE: the original intention of this thread was the “consent of the Church” during an exercise of “papal” infallibility, so if you want to discuss matters regarding the primacy, we should probably start a new thread. This will be my final post on the matter of the primacy in this thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[glendab]

And thank you Ambrose for the tip off about the book. I’ll look into it.

In John Henry Newman’s lifetime, the Absolutist view would have been called the Ultramontane one. He also had a tough job trying to counter the vocal minority of Ultramontanes in England. His book “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk” (chapter 9) has more very helpful insights on what we are calling here the high Petrine view.

Thanks mardukm for the great posts!

Glenda

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ.

WOW! That was awesome! That’s a great piece to add to the repertoire of High Petrine sources. I especially liked how Newman started off from the premise of the Church’s infallibility in his explanation of “papal” infallibility. That is definitely a High Petrine way of thinking! He even cites the Pastoral of the Swiss bishops I recently mentioned in this thread (and in other past threads). I obtained my own citation from Dom Cuthbert Butler’s seminal work “The Vatican Council-1969-1870.” I was not aware of any source from the 19th century that cited that Pastoral until now. And there are other High Petrine gems in that link, so I hope members and lurkers take the time to read it!

In John Henry Newman’s lifetime, the Absolutist view would have been called the Ultramontane one. He also had a tough job trying to counter the vocal minority of Ultramontanes in England.

Very good point. As mentioned in the “Petrine Views” thread, William George Ward was the primary protagonist for the NEO-ultramontanist Absolutist Petrine view in Britain. It is of Ward and his vocal party to which Newman was no doubt referring in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk: “I have one difficulty to overcome in the present excitement of the public mind against our Religion, caused partly by the chronic extravagances of knots of Catholics here and there, partly by the vehement rhetoric which is the occasion and subject of this Letter.” It was first termed “NEO-ultramontanism” by Wilfrid Ward in 1893, to distinguish it from the traditional ultramontanism of the Catholic Church. All that non-Catholics could discern was that William Ward was a Catholic and so many non-Catholics believed his extreme views represented the ultramontanism of the Catholic Church. But V1 (whose primary objective as far as “papal” infallibility was concerned was to correct the excesses of the Absolutist Petrine neo-ultramontanists) made it evident that this neo-ultramontanism was not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[glendab]

Marduk, you should write a book! I’m not kidding.

Are you a history Prof.? I’m beginning to wonder.

Glenda

 

[mardukm]

Marduk, you should write a book! I’m not kidding.

Are you a history Prof.? I’m beginning to wonder.

Glenda

Thanks! But I don’t have the time! One of these days. Maybe it will be helpful. I sometimes get flack for creating these terms, even though as others have correctly noted, they are merely categorizations as quick reference points. The ideas behind them are certainly backed up by the facts. Maybe if I get published, the terms will get more respect.

And I’m not a history prof or anything like that. Just a very concerned Christian who needed to learn everything he could about the papacy - which imo is the primary point of contention between the Churches - before he could in good conscience translate to the Catholic Church (I was formerly in the Oriental Orthodox communion).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

The confusing part was the introduction of one word in your post. - “BUT…” That word indicates a negation of something. The original proposition was, “An Ecumenical Council can limit the authority of the Pope.” What is there about that statement that requires negation? What is the rationale for assuming that your statement contradicts the original proposition so as to merit the introduction of the term “But…?” As noted, as an Oriental, I cannot conceive of a synod or council without a head bishop. So it is very strange to me that in a single sentence, the term “Ecumenical Council” and “Pope” are used as if they are two separate entities. Like I said, it’s possible we are coming to the same conclusion, but your expression is foreign to the way I think as an Oriental.

Dear brother Marduk,

The word “but” was not meant to negate anything rather it was added to imply that something was missing, i.e., when we talk of consent within or of the Church, one has to ask (as a Catholic anyway), in what way is the pope’s consent viewed viz a viz an ecumenical council? Is it possible to call a council “ecumenical” without the pope’s consent? If I can explain using the words of Father Aidan Fortesque:

"Acceptance by the whole Church, then, become the final test of ecumenicity for a synod. It can supplement whatever was lacking before. This brings us to the Pope’s third right regarding general councils: he ratifies them. Without this, none are ecumenical; the Pope’s ratification can make up for any defect in the holding of the synod. The obvious parallel is the act by which a king can ratify anything done by Parliament without his consent hitherto, as Charles II did (to some extent) in 1660. Again it is difficult to see what objection an Anglican could make to the requirement of papal ratification of general councils. He, too, needs the consent of the whole Church, if a council is to be considered ecumenical. But the consent of the whole Church must include that of the chief bishop; where is the consent of all, if the first patriarch does not agree? The difference here is that we attach more importance to the consent of the Pope than would the Anglican. But, so far, we can all agree that no council is general unless the Pope agrees to it.

This is a sensitive topic to me coming from the Oriental Orthodox communion. As you might know, the Second Ecum was not universally received as “Ecumenical” until Chalcedon, but the Oriental Orthodox did not accept Chalcedon as “Ecumenical.” The Third Ecum headed by Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria did not recognize it as such, and the tensions resulting from the ecclesiastical pretensions of Constantinople over Alexandria are obvious vis a vis Chalcedon… So I am not claiming, as an Oriental that it was right that the Eastern Churches under Constantinople adhere to Canon 28, only that they did, and that this can be justified on the traditional praxis that as far as disciplinary matters are concerned, different Patriarchates do not necessarily have to be uniform.

How can it be justified, i.e., how does a regional canon usurp an ecumenical canon?

Btw, it is my belief as an Oriental Catholic that Canon 3 Constantinople/Canon 28 Chalcedon has never been accepted to have Ecumenical status by the Catholic Church.

Mine too, but is the reason for not viewing it as ecumencal because the pope rescinded/refused it?

Canon 36 of Trullo is the one that can have that claim, but the content of that Canon is actually rather different from the other two Canons. The Trullan Canon is missing an important feature of the other two Canons - namely, the claim that Constantinople deserved its precedence by the mere fact of its socio-political status. By the time of the Trullan Synod, Constantinople had been claiming precedence based on apostolic succession from St. Andrew for over a century. Rome could never accept the claims of the first two Canons, because Rome denied the rationale behind it (i.e., socio-political status). But the Trullan Canon does not claim this, which I believe is the basis for Rome to finally be able to accept the Constantinopolitan claim at the “8th Ecumenical Council.”

But the story is legend, St. Andrew did not bring Christianity to Constantinople, i.e., how did they come to believe this? It is not an apostolic see. Moreover, is Trullo considered ecumenical or not, i.e., as a Catholic we do not regard it as such (although some of its canon was accepted not the whole of it was), why is that so? This ties into the consent of the church that is why I ask.

NOTE: the original intention of this thread was the “consent of the Church” during an exercise of “papal” infallibility, so if you want to discuss matters regarding the primacy, we should probably start a new thread. This will be my final post on the matter of the primacy in this thread.

And I thank you for that, it was very elucidating, however, I felt that since you were speaking of the consent of the Church viz a viz an ecumenical council that I could bring up this matter of papal prerogatives as it deals with consent.

God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

The word “but” was not meant to negate anything rather it was added to imply that something was missing,

What is missing from the statement “An Ecumenical Council can limit the authority of the Pope?”

i.e., when we talk of consent within or of the Church, one has to ask (as a Catholic anyway), in what way is the pope’s consent viewed viz a viz an ecumenical council?

Why? When the term “Ecumenical Council” is used, do Latin Catholics generally think the Pope is not part of it? Do Latin Catholics generally think that the Pope is separate from an Ecumenical Council? If yes, that would explain why you have to ask. If not, why did you have to ask that question? That’s what I don’t understand.

How can it be justified, i.e., how does a regional canon usurp an ecumenical canon?

It can’t. Dispensations from the universal law can be given, but a local law cannot be set up against a universal law – unless of course those who uphold the contrary law believe the contrary law was also established by an Ecumenical Council. So the EO have subjectively valid reasons, though there are those who do not agree with those reasons.

Mine too, but is the reason for not viewing it as ecumencal because the pope rescinded/refused it?

The reason for not viewing it as ecumenical is not because the Pope rescinded/refused it, but because it is contrary to the Tradition of the Nicene Council.

But the story is legend, St. Andrew did not bring Christianity to Constantinople, i.e., how did they come to believe this? It is not an apostolic see.

According to hierarchical EO belief it is an Apostolic See, and the CC respects that (though why there are EO today who have renewed the socio-political status rationale is beyond me).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Hi Marduk: I want to thank you for the great information and explanation you gave. I have learned a lot that I was not sure of. I now have a better understanding of Consent of the Church.

Thanks for the word of support. It is my hope to convert every Catholic to the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church. I pray there will come a time when no non-Catholic has any justification to pretend that the Absolutist Petrine excesses are actually the position of the Catholic Church (i.e., that they can claim, "well THIS Catholic said the Pope can unilaterally get rid of the our Liturgies, etc.)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Wasn’t Rome’s objection to Constantinople’s claims not just a rejection of the political justifications, but also an assertion of Peter’s dignity? Pope Gregory says,

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.
newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

It seems that even if Constantinople were established by Andrew, it wouldn’t matter to Gregory because, unlike Alexandria and Antioch, it does not share in Petrine dignity. Otherwise, why not set up a patriarch of Ephesus and elevate him over Constantinople due to “Johannine prerogatives?”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

It was first termed “NEO-ultramontanism” by Wilfrid Ward in 1893, to distinguish it from the traditional ultramontanism of the Catholic Church. All that non-Catholics could discern was that William Ward was a Catholic and so many non-Catholics believed his extreme views represented the ultramontanism of the Catholic Church. But V1 (whose primary objective as far as “papal” infallibility was concerned was to correct the excesses of the Absolutist Petrine neo-ultramontanists) made it evident that this neo-ultramontanism was not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the correct term. It was William Ward’s party in England to which I was referring, and which prompted Newman to write.

 

[MilesVitae]

When the term “Ecumenical Council” is used, do Latin Catholics generally think the Pope is not part of it? Do Latin Catholics generally think that the Pope is separate from an Ecumenical Council?

Marduk, I have to admit I am still somewhat confused when you speak of the idea of a head bishop being “separate” from the council. You often deny that this is the case and cite evidence, but I am unclear as to what it actually, concretely, practically means for the Pope to be separate from a council as opposed to part of it?

 

[spina1953]

Thanks for the word of support. It is my hope to convert every Catholic to the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church. I pray there will come a time when no non-Catholic has any justification to pretend that the Absolutist Petrine excesses are actually the position of the Catholic Church (i.e., that they can claim, "well THIS Catholic said the Pope can unilaterally get rid of the our Liturgies, etc.)

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk: Your posts make a lot of sense to me as it seems clear from reading Matt. 16 that Jesus in conveying the keys to Peter and telling him to strengthen the other Apostles, and also in Acts Peter seems to me to be the leader who is listened to in any judgments made in which the other Apostles and as well as the disciples with them agreed with Peter, because Peter is the leader of all of the Apostles who not just spoke for the rest but that the rest of the Apostles looked to Peter for their leadership, which tells me if I get it correctly that Peter can make decisions in which the other Apostles followed suit.

 

[Genesis315]

I think Mardukm has pretty much the right idea with his posts. A lot of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that Vatican I got cut short as it planned another document that would have explained the role of bishops and their relationship to the Pope better–but Pasto Aeternus was left in a kind of vacuum. Vatican II pretty much filled in the rest. A lot of the opponents of “collegiality” fail to realize Vatican II on this issue pretty much just quotes from Bishop Zinelli’s relatio on Pastor Aeternus (the one dealing with the Pope’s jurisdiction) and the other preparatory documents from Vatican I.

This discussion concerning the relationship between papal infallibility and episcopal agreement really is a bit academic and somewhat of a moot point. As the Gasser relatio notes and as Lumen Gentium also taught more generally, the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope are the same and cannot be separated. Therefore you’ll never have a case where the Pope is defining against the agreemenent of orthodox bishops or that those bishops end up refusing assent to a papal definition.

 

[josie_L]

Thanks for the word of support. It is my hope to convert every Catholic to the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church. I pray there will come a time when no non-Catholic has any justification to pretend that the Absolutist Petrine excesses are actually the position of the Catholic Church (i.e., that they can claim, "well THIS Catholic said the Pope can unilaterally get rid of the our Liturgies, etc.)

Blessings,
Marduk

Just letting you know that I am not an Ultramontanist!

 

[glendab]

Hello Marduk.

Thanks! But I don’t have the time! One of these days. Maybe it will be helpful. I sometimes get flack for creating these terms, even though as others have correctly noted, they are merely categorizations as quick reference points. The ideas behind them are certainly backed up by the facts. Maybe if I get published, the terms will get more respect.

And I’m not a history prof or anything like that. Just a very concerned Christian who needed to learn everything he could about the papacy - which imo is the primary point of contention between the Churches - before he could in good conscience translate to the Catholic Church (I was formerly in the Oriental Orthodox communion).

Blessings,
Marduk

Well I for one am glad you came home to Rome! I think it is a better place for it. Thanks and write that book!

Glenda

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

What is missing from the statement “An Ecumenical Council can limit the authority of the Pope?”

This was missing:

"Acceptance by the whole Church, then, become the final test of ecumenicity for a synod. It can supplement whatever was lacking before. This brings us to the Pope’s third right regarding general councils: he ratifies them. Without this, none are ecumenical; the Pope’s ratification can make up for any defect in the holding of the synod. The obvious parallel is the act by which a king can ratify anything done by Parliament without his consent hitherto, as Charles II did (to some extent) in 1660. Again it is difficult to see what objection an Anglican could make to the requirement of papal ratification of general councils. He, too, needs the consent of the whole Church, if a council is to be considered ecumenical. But the consent of the whole Church must include that of the chief bishop; where is the consent of all, if the first patriarch does not agree? The difference here is that we attach more importance to the consent of the Pope than would the Anglican. But, so far, we can all agree that no council is general unless the Pope agrees to it.

Why? When the term “Ecumenical Council” is used, do Latin Catholics generally think the Pope is not part of it? Do Latin Catholics generally think that the Pope is separate from an Ecumenical Council? If yes, that would explain why you have to ask. If not, why did you have to ask that question? That’s what I don’t understand.

I am not saying he is not a part of an Ecumenical council, I am simply trying to delineate his particular role in an ecumenical council as head bishop, i.e., is his consent vital to an ecumenical council (I ask this in light of the Orthodox view of primacy, which varies but nevertheless is seen as low to medium according to your petrine categories)?

But the consent of the whole Church must include that of the chief bishop; where is the consent of all, if the first patriarch does not agree?

Now can you answer the question?

The reason for not viewing it as ecumenical is not because the Pope rescinded/refused it, but because it is contrary to the Tradition of the Nicene Council.

So being that it was contrary to the Tradition of the Nicene Council, why did the bishops still send a letter to the Pope asking for confirmation? And I’ve read that letter. Moreover, in light of papal prerogatives, i.e., that no council can be regarded as ecumenical without the consent of the Pope, then, does he have the right to “veto” a canon like canon 28 of Chalcedon?

According to hierarchical EO belief it is an Apostolic See, and the CC respects that (though why there are EO today who have renewed the socio-political status rationale is beyond me).

But factually it is incorrect.

p.s. With regards to everything else I agree with you but it is this one thing that I wish to clarify.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

I am not saying he is not a part of an Ecumenical council,

That’s confusing. You state this, but you just specifically admitted, that in the statement “An Ecumenical Council can limit the authority of the Pope,” the idea of the Pope’s confirmation “is missing” from the Ecumenical Council.

The only rationale I can think of to explain the apparent inconsistency in your explanation is that perhaps it is difficult for you to conceive that the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops. Is that the case? That is certainly not the belief nor praxis of the Catholic Church as demonstrated by our history - even Pope Pius IX himself eventually submitted to the correction of his brother bishops.

I am simply trying to delineate his particular role in an ecumenical council as head bishop, i.e., is his consent vital to an ecumenical council (I ask this in light of the Orthodox view of primacy, which varies but nevertheless is seen as low to medium according to your petrine categories)?

There is a difference between “clarifying” and claiming “it is missing.” Like I said, we are probably saying the same thing, but the expressions you use are strange to me.

Now can you answer the question?

If an Ecumenical Council corrects the Pope, it is because the Pope has submitted to the correction of his brother bishops in the Council. It appears the difficulty is that you (perhaps) cannot conceive of the Pope being able to be corrected(?).

So being that it was contrary to the Tradition of the Nicene Council, why did the bishops still send a letter to the Pope asking for confirmation?

Because that is part of the rule of faith - the head bishop’s consent is necessary for something that affects the Church in general (this is the case on every level of the hierarchy - metropolitan, patriarchal, and universal). A change such as Canon 28 affected the entire Church, so it needed the head bishop’s confirmation.

Moreover, in light of papal prerogatives, i.e., that no council can be regarded as ecumenical without the consent of the Pope, then, does he have the right to “veto” a canon like canon 28 of Chalcedon?

The Pope does not have a right of veto. A “veto” is a unilateral prerogative, and the Pope does not have any unilateral prerogatives according to the divine constitution of the Church. Whatever personal decision he makes must be in agreement with that of other bishops. HIs disapproval of Canon 28 was obviously made with the agreement of other bishops based on the Tradition.

But factually it is incorrect.

All we know is that the claim of apostolic succession from St. Andrew was rather late. We really can’t know for sure if it is factually incorrect.

p.s. With regards to everything else I agree with you but it is this one thing that I wish to clarify

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

Marduk, I have to admit I am still somewhat confused when you speak of the idea of a head bishop being “separate” from the council. You often deny that this is the case and cite evidence, but I am unclear as to what it actually, concretely, practically means for the Pope to be separate from a council as opposed to part of it?

The Pope can never be separated from the Council. He is an inherent member of it. When the term “Ecumenical Council” is used, that automatically means “the bishops in union with the head bishop.” It never means the bishops judging without the Pope, or the Pope judging without the bishops.

As the official Relatio of V1 affirmed: “The most solemn judgment of the Church in faith and morals is, and always will be, the judgment of an Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope pronounces judgment, the bishops of the Catholic world sitting and judging along with him.”

In terms of the Extraordinary Magisterium, during an Ecumenical Council, the Extraordinary Magisterium is exercised by ALL the bishops in the Council. In the case of an exercise of “papal” infallibility, it is the Pope who exercises the Extraordinary Magisterium because there is no apparent agreement among the other bishops. But among those bishops, there will be a group who has faithfully maintained the teaching of the Church and that group is faithfully exercising the infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium. During the course of an ex cathedra decree, the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium exercised by the Pope is working in concert, in communion, and in agreement with the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium exercised by the orthodox bishops. Contrary to the misapprehensions of detractors of the papacy, and the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates, “papal” infallibility never means the Pope alone is infallible, or is exercising some sort of unilateral prerogative.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother spina1953,

Hi Marduk: Your posts make a lot of sense to me as it seems clear from reading Matt. 16 that Jesus in conveying the keys to Peter and telling him to strengthen the other Apostles, and also in Acts Peter seems to me to be the leader who is listened to in any judgments made in which the other Apostles and as well as the disciples with them agreed with Peter, because Peter is the leader of all of the Apostles who not just spoke for the rest but that the rest of the Apostles looked to Peter for their leadership, which tells me if I get it correctly that Peter can make decisions in which the other Apostles followed suit.

I believe we must be careful on how far we can carry the analogy with St. Peter. We have to remember that the Apostles, and others of that generation, had charisms that the Church does not claim nor teach exists today - namely, revelation and inspiration.

We have an example of St. Peter basically establishing unilaterally the most important doctrine of the Church after Christ’s revelations - namely, that Gentiles should be received as the people of God (Acts 10-11). But he could do this because of the unique gift of revelation. Popes do not have this gift when they are exercising “papal” infallibility, so Popes do not have such or any unilateral prerogative to establish doctrine for the Church.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

Hi Mardukm: I think you may have misunderstood me and that would be my fault as I kinda thought that what I was saying was plain since what I said about Peter and the rest of the Apostles. However that being said, what I was trying to point out was that when Peter spoke the rest of the Apostles listened and agreed with Peter, I am sure that if by chance they might have thought differently and not have agreed with Peter, then after debating the issues some agreement would have been made and therefore Peter would have affirmed the decision. I agree that all of the Apostles had charisms and I doubt that they had to always have Peter to guide them in all that they were doing and preaching etc… I do tank you for your post as without you noticing what I wrote, it would have caused some misunderstanding. Thanks again and God Bless.