Only an Ecumenical Council

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Deacon Ed:

It simply isn’t true that Eastern bishops did not participate in the last 14 Councils. Not only were there several reunion Councils, at which even schismatic Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) participated (and came into union with Rome), but I know for a fact that there were several Eastern Catholic bishops present at Vatican I.

And even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t make it any less Ecumenical. To be an ecumenical, a representative number of bishops from the world need to be there, and the Pope needs to consider the Coulcil Ecumenical.

An Ecumenical Council, be definition is not “of the West” or “of the East.” It’s Ecumenical. Period.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Deacon Ed:

It simply isn’t true that Eastern bishops did not participate in the last 14 Councils. Not only were there several reunion Councils, at which even schismatic Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) participated (and came into union with Rome), but I know for a fact that there were several Eastern Catholic bishops present at Vatican I.

And even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t make it any less Ecumenical. To be an ecumenical, a representative number of bishops from the world need to be there, and the Pope needs to consider the Coulcil Ecumenical.

An Ecumenical Council, be definition is not “of the West” or “of the East.” It’s Ecumenical. Period.

Again, your argument is not with Father Deacon Ed or with me, it is with the hiearchs of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

 

[albert_cipriani]

deogratias:

Even though it was not considered “dogmatic” we are still bound to all the decrees of the council.

How can we be bound to believe decrees that we know may be fallible? Isn’t that like saying children must obey their parents even when their parent’s morality is suspect? Isn’t such a binding the sin of servile obedience? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[albert_cipriani]

Br. Rich SFO:

It always makes me smile when people say Vatican II was only a Pastoral Council, not a Dogmatic Council.

Yes, That is why it issued the DOGMATIC Constitution on Divine Revelation, and the DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church! All of the Constitutions, Decrees, and Declarations all contain Dogmatic or Doctrinal teachings of the magisterium.

So if the word “dogmatic” is in the title of a document, we can be assured that the substance of said document is dogmatic? If so, must we then likewise surmise that the Papal Bull “Quo Primum” is full of bull? – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[Brian_Crane]

Br. Rich SFO:

It always makes me smile when people say Vatican II was only a Pastoral Council, not a Dogmatic Council.

I sense you are taking a shot at such people, but Cardinal Ratzinger says exactly that which makes you smile. Are you taking a shot at the good Cardinal as well?

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” J. Cardinal Ratzinger, “Address to Chilean Bishops -Santiago, Chile” (July 13, 1988)

Pope Paul essentially says the same thing:

“…differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral” Paul VI, “Weekly General Audience” (8/6/1975)

There are a few other quotes as well in post #7.

 

[deogratias]

"…differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral

" Paul VI, “Weekly General Audience” (8/6/1975)

Could someone who really knows, explain exactly how doctrine differs from dogma?*

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Brian Crane:

I sense you are taking a shot at such people, but Cardinal Ratzinger says exactly that which makes you smile. Are you taking a shot at the good Cardinal as well?

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council." J. Cardinal Ratzinger, “Address to Chilean Bishops -Santiago, Chile” (July 13, 1988)

Pope Paul essentially says the same thing:

"…differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral" Paul VI, “Weekly General Audience” (8/6/1975)

There are a few other quotes as well in post #7.

You are missing my point. Many people who use this phrase seem to want to imply that Vatican II said nothing Doctrinal or Dogmatic and had nothing to do with Doctrine or Dogma. The Council said many things concerning Doctrine and Dogma, It just didn’t define anything not already defined and understood in the Church. There are so many references to Trent and many other past Councils that it surprises people who think that Vatican II replaced or somehow undid all the other Councils.

 

[Brian_Crane]

Perhaps I did miss your point. Sorry. I agree completely with what you just said.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

How can we be bound to believe decrees that we know may be fallible? Isn’t that like saying children must obey their parents even when their parent’s morality is suspect? Isn’t such a binding the sin of servile obedience? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
[groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/](Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos)

Albert,

I think you’ve missed the point entirely. Not all decrees of all councils are infallible. However, Vatican I answered your question. Let me cite:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

I think that makes it pretty clear – we are to accept whatever the Chuch teaches with regard to faith, morals and discipline. But, perhaps I misunderstood you. Clearly, a traditional Catholic would clearly know this and happily submit to the Church’s teaching, even if he or she disagreed with it!

Deacon Ed

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Again, your argument is not with Father Deacon Ed or with me, it is with the hiearchs of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

You’ve yet to produce a single quotation from a Catholic source to support your claim. You claim this is in the Byzantine Catholic Catechism; would you produce the exact quote for us, when you have the time?

So, you’ve got nothing to say about the fact that several of the last 14 Councils had Eastern Catholic, even Eastern Orthodox participation?

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

Albert, Vatican I answered your question. Let me cite:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

I think that makes it pretty clear – we are to accept whatever the Chuch teaches with regard to faith, morals and discipline.

Dear Deacon Ed,
Your VCI citation refers to “true obedience,” not automatic obedience. Has not the Church always condemned servile obedience as a kind of automatic and therefore false obedience? Why else would VCI qualify the obedience we are called to submit to if not to distinguish it from the automatic i.e., false, obedience which is required of Catholics today to attend the Novus Ordo rite?

If, for the sake of argument, the Novus Ordo rite is inferior (both in truth and in spirit) to the Tridentine rite, what virtue is there in Catholics obeying bishops who insist that we attend it? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani The Traditional Catholic

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Dear Deacon Ed,
Your VCI citation refers to “true obedience,” not automatic obedience. Has not the Church always condemned servile obedience as a kind of automatic and therefore false obedience? Why else would VCI qualify the obedience we are called to submit to if not to distinguish it from the automatic i.e., false, obedience which is required of Catholics today to attend the Novus Ordo rite?

If, for the sake of argument, the Novus Ordo rite is inferior (both in truth and in spirit) to the Tridentine rite, what virtue is there in Catholics obeying bishops who insist that we attend it? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani The Traditional Catholic

Hmmm…Your question presupposes an answer.

My citation from Vatican I asserts that, as Catholics, we *must *submit to the teachings of the Church. There is no question of “servile obedience” verses some mistaken notion of “true obedience.” We are bound to submit, and this is more than a religious assent of the mind, it is a true submission of will to that of the Church.

And, to address your question, what if the Mass of Paul VI (there is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo”) is every bit as valid and as fruitful as was the Mass of Pius V (the so-called Tridentine Mass) or as the Divine Liturgy. Are we, becuase of form, to reject it? Are we to disobey our bishops who, as the successors of the Apostles gave it to us? Since making such a determination would be to reject the authority of the Magisterium to teach and to govern I think that is false pride and not true obedience.

Deacon Ed

 

[Agomemnon]

Deacon Ed:

Hmmm…Your question presupposes an answer.

My citation from Vatican I asserts that, as Catholics, we *must *submit to the teachings of the Church. There is no question of “servile obedience” verses some mistaken notion of “true obedience.” We are bound to submit, and this is more than a religious assent of the mind, it is a true submission of will to that of the Church.

And, to address your question, what if the Mass of Paul VI (there is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo”) is every bit as valid and as fruitful as was the Mass of Pius V (the so-called Tridentine Mass) or as the Divine Liturgy. Are we, becuase of form, to reject it? Are we to disobey our bishops who, as the successors of the Apostles gave it to us? Since making such a determination would be to reject the authority of the Magisterium to teach and to govern I think that is false pride and not true obedience.

Deacon Ed

The Mass of Paul VI is not a VATICAN II liturgy.

Vatican II ended 5 years before the introduction the NO and if we were even following Pope Paul VI’s intentions the priest would be Ad Orientum, Communion in hand would be retracted where loss of faith exists (like in America), and the Creed, The Consecration, would be in Latin.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

DominvsVobiscvm:

You’ve yet to produce a single quotation from a Catholic source to support your claim. You claim this is in the Byzantine Catholic Catechism; would you produce the exact quote for us, when you have the time?

Eric,

The quote is in David’s original post

I get this, for us Byzantine Catholics, from our catechical work, the Light for Life series.

Specifically, Part One, The Mystery Believed, this book is a catechetical work put out by the Byzantine Catholic Churches in North America, it states (in short) on page 81 and 82…

The Catholic and (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches together recognize seven such councils as ecumenical…

The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenicals, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when ist is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought.

Many years,

Neil

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Irish Melkite:

Thank you for calling that to my attention. As you an see, its a far, far cry from ByzCath’s remark that “the Byzantine Catholic Chruches, only recognize the first seven councils as Ecumenical Councils, the rest are viewed as general councils of the West.”

The Byzantine Catechism does not say this. It simply says that, of the 21 Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Catholic Church, seven are also recognized by the Orthodox. The phrase “Roman Catholic” here designates the entire Catholic communion, in the same sense as the phrase is used in both secular dictionaries and even in many official capacities by the Vatican. (Do a word search on the phrase “Roman Catholic” on the vatican’s website, where the results show usages where the phrase is used to encapsulate the entire Catholic communion, united as it is with, and uner the primacy of, Rome.)

Usually, when only the Western Church is meant, Church documents will use the phrase “Latin Church,” not “Roman Catholic.”

The last 14 are not “general councils of the West,” and only someone ignorant of Eastern Christian history would make such a remark.

A Council is Ecumenical or it is not. It’s impossible that different bodies within the Church can pick-and-choose which ones are Ecumenical, based on their ethnicity.

 

[prodromos]

Goodness, look at all those councils. It seems like chaos ensued once Rome broke off from the rest of the church

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

I thought that Vat.II was a binding, OEcumenical council, but it differed in not declaring any anathemas. That is, it never proposed any new development or codification of doctrine that was binding on all Catholics under pain of damnation. So it is possible to argue that Vat. II altered nothing of what a Catholic had to believe; nothing added, nothing taken away. Therefore some people argue that what was considered binding Catholic teaching before Vat. II (e.g. no salvation outside the Church) must still be exactly the same becuase we have not been infallibly taught otherwise.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Agomemnon:

The Mass of Paul VI is not a VATICAN II liturgy.

Vatican II ended 5 years before the introduction the NO and if we were even following Pope Paul VI’s intentions the priest would be Ad Orientum, Communion in hand would be retracted where loss of faith exists (like in America), and the Creed, The Consecration, would be in Latin.

Your first assertion is without merit. The Mass of Paul VI is the result of the directives from Vatican II. Thaty it is entirely in the vernacular is a result of the requests of the bishops. Latin remains the language of the Mass, and all translations must come from the Latin (although there are exceptions – and they must come from the English and be approved by Rome).

There were never any directives about which way the priest should face in the Mass of Paul VI, so that isn’t terribly relevant here.

BTW, the Mass of Pius V was issued in 1570 and the Council of Trent ended in 1563. Does that mean that this Mass was not the Mass of Trent?

Deacon Ed

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Irish Melkite:

Thank you for calling that to my attention. As you an see, its a far, far cry from ByzCath’s remark that “the Byzantine Catholic Chruches, only recognize the first seven councils as Ecumenical Councils, the rest are viewed as general councils of the West.”

The Byzantine Catechism does not say this. It simply says that, of the 21 Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Catholic Church, seven are also recognized by the Orthodox. The phrase “Roman Catholic” here designates the entire Catholic communion, in the same sense as the phrase is used in both secular dictionaries and even in many official capacities by the Vatican. (Do a word search on the phrase “Roman Catholic” on the vatican’s website, where the results show usages where the phrase is used to encapsulate the entire Catholic communion, united as it is with, and uner the primacy of, Rome.)

Usually, when only the Western Church is meant, Church documents will use the phrase “Latin Church,” not “Roman Catholic.”

The last 14 are not “general councils of the West,” and only someone ignorant of Eastern Christian history would make such a remark.

A Council is Ecumenical or it is not. It’s impossible that different bodies within the Church can pick-and-choose which ones are Ecumenical, based on their ethnicity.

So now your are the expert on what our catechical material says.

I will post the quote again.

The Catholic and (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches together recognize seven such councils as ecumenical…

The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenicals, stipulating that a council is ecumenical when ist is so called by the pope. Although none of the early Councils were convened by the pope, his confirmation of their decrees was to be sought.

I am sorry to tell you but Roman Catholic Church denotes just that, the Roman Catholic Church.

No where in our works do we call the (universal) Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church.

I think Father Deacon Ed answered you well enough.

This is just another case of you using your Latin Church yard stick (not to mention your own opinion) to measure our fidelity.

 

[albert_cipriani]

Dear Deacon Ed,
You wrote:
Deacon Ed:

My citation from Vatican I asserts that, as Catholics, we *must *submit to the teachings of the Church.

Of course we must submit to the teachings of the Church. That is not on the table. The question on the table is what are the teachings of the Church?

You seem to be asserting that the true teachings of the Church are the latest teachings of the Church. Traditionalists assert that the true teachings of the Church are the constant teachings of the Church.

Traditionalists know, as the Church Herself teaches, that all Church teachings must have been always taught, that there can be no innovations, that the deposit of faith is just that, a body of teachings deposited by the Apostles that cannot be added to nor subtracted from. This means that for Catholics, true obedience means that they obey their Churchmen in all things that do not contradict the Church’s constant teaching.

There is no question of “servile obedience” verses some mistaken notion of “true obedience.”

Sure there is. Thus, your gratuituous assertion is checkmated by mine. Do you honestly deny the Church’s moral teaching in regard to servile obedience? Must I quote St. Thomas?

We are bound to submit, and this is more than a religious assent of the mind, it is a true submission of will to that of the Church.

An unqualified willingness to submit is the very definition of servile obedience. Surely you do not mean to assert that the Church commands us to sin in this way, do you?

What if the Mass of Paul VI (there is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo”) is every bit as valid and as fruitful as was the Mass of Pius V (the so-called Tridentine Mass).

If you feel that the new mass is every bit as good as the old mass, attend it. But don’t hypocritically deny those of us recourse to the old Mass who believe the exact opposite of you.

Are we, because of form, to reject it [the New Mass]?

Of course. Any defect in the form of a sacrament renders said sacrament sinful. St. Thomas teaches this. Do you really think that for the sake of obedience we ought not to reject a sacrament whose form is deficient or doubtful?

Are we to disobey our bishops who, as the successors of the Apostles gave it to us?

Of course. St. Thomas teaches that we are to disobey our prelates whenever they command us to do that which is displeasing to God.

Making such a determination would be to reject the authority of the Magisterium to teach and to govern I think that is false pride and not true obedience.

To be able to determine that which is pleasing and unpleasing to God is the heart and soul of piety, not false pride nor disobedience. When evil bishops, contrary to the will of the pope, deny us our patrimony and ban the Mass of the ages, we are under no obligation to obey them, but are free – if not obliged – to exercise our piety in celebrating the Traditional Mass.

I’m used to being accused of “rejecting the authority of the Magisterium.” That’s called the sin of calumny. Do you wish to take it back or document your case?

If my determination to reject the authority of bishops in this pastoral matter is synonymous with my rejecting the authority of the Magisterium, surely you can point to the Church dogmas that support your case. If not, will you, as a fellow Catholic, withdraw your calumnious spear from my side? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic