Only an Ecumenical Council

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Neil:

Your interpretation of your Catechisms’s text makes absolutely no sense and is completely inconsistent with the Catholic faith.

An Ecumenical Council only accepted as such by the Latin Church would not be, be definition, “Ecumenical.” It would simply be one of many synods, like the Synod of Bishops which meets at Rome every so often, which if I’m not mistaken only includes Latin Bishops.

Also, the Church never, ever, refers to the Latin Church as “Roman Catholic.” On the contrary, this phrase, when used, denotes the entire Catholic communion; this phrase emphasizes the unity with and under the Roman Pontiff. It does not, and never had, meant “Latin.”

I challenge you to show otherwise.

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, universal and binding on all Catholics, not just Latins, refers to the last 14 Councils as Ecumenical.

Several of the last 14 Coucnils have likewise had Eastern participants in them, contributing to the decrees, some of them even Orthodox. What part of this don’t you understand? Do you need me to document this for you?

Here’s Melkite Catholic Bishop John Elya’s own take on this issue:

What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father. In some instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.

Funny; his reply states the exact same things I noted in my very first post above.

Again, Neil, if you need me to I can document Eastern Catholic participation in several (all?) of the last 14 Councils. Obviously, these were outnumbered by Latin bishops, but this is because for the last few centuries the majority of Eastern Christianity has been in schism. The fact that Latin bishops were greatly outnumbered by their Eastern brethren in the first several Councils does not negate their Ecumenicity, though by your interpretation it would!

Whether or not a Council is Ecumenical is not determined by the ethnic makeup of the participants. It’s determined by whether or not the Pope of Rome says its Ecumenical. That’s what the quote from the Byzantine Catechism is saying. Could you produce, say, another quotation from another approved/official Catholic source (Eastern or Western, I don’t care) that even suggests that there is such a thing as a “General Council of the West” or that the last 14 Ecumenical Councils are not Ecumenical in the truest sense of the term? Anything at all to show how your exegesis of the Light for Life Byzantine Catechism is consistent with what every single other Catholic source says about this issue, even the universal Catechism?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Eric,

I do not think Neil has said what you are saying.

As Father Deacon said earlier. While the Byzantine Catholic Churches may not call the following councils Ecumenical, we do not say that we are not bound by the decrees that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

As Father Deacon said earlier. While the Byzantine Catholic Churches may not call the following councils Ecumenical, we do not say that we are not bound by the decrees that have been promulgated by the Holy Father.

Show me proof that they do not call them “Ecumenical,” and justify this distinction for me, please. By your logic, or lack thereof, Rome shouldn’t consider any of the first seven councils to be Ecumenical, just “General Councils of the East.”

BTW, the Eigth Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople. The Orthodox today do not accept it as Ecumenical, but the Pope of Rome does, and so all Catholics need to accept it as such.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We have answered this.

Seems you just wish to fight on what they are called. You are ignoring the fact that we still teach they are binding on all Catholics.

I do not see anything wrong here.

Just another case of two different teachings that really say the same thing.

If you wish to learn more get the book I referenced.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The reference you named does not say, “Byzantine Catholics only recognize the first seven Councils as Ecumenical.”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Dear Deacon Ed,
You wrote:
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.

The teachings of the Church include the teachings of all 21 Ecumenical Councils, and that would include the Second Vatican Council. As Catholics we must accept all the teachings, not just those that we think are important. There is no “pick-and-choose” aspect to Catholicism. Everything taught by the Church is what we must accept – even if we disagree with it.

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.

That statement is true for dogma, false for everything else. Both doctrines and discipline may be formulated at a later date, and discipline may change as time goes by or as the Church sees fit to change it. For example, the mystery of the Liturgy/Mass must always remain constant. Pope John Paul II summarizes it beautifully in his newest Apostolic Letter Mane Nobiscum Domine where he writes:

…it must not be forgotten that the Eucharistic meal also has a profoundly and primarily *sacrificial *meaning. In the Eucharist, Christ makes present to us anew *the sacrifice offered once for all on Golgotha. *Present in the Eucharist as the Risen Lord, he nonetheless bears the marks of his passion, of which every Mass is a “memorial”, as the Liturgy reminds us in the acclamation following the consecration: “We announce your death, Lord, we prcoclaim yoiur resurrection…” At the same time, while the Eucharist makes present what occurred in the past, it also *impels us towards the future, when Christ will come again *at the end of history. This “eschatalogical” aspect makes the Sacrament of the Eucharist an event which draws us into itself and fills our Christian journey with hope.

However, the format or stucture of the Mass is a discipline which can and has changed over time.

continued in next post…

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

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?

You mean:

Among the moral virtues, the greater the thing which a man contemns that he may adhere to God, the greater the virtue. Now there are three kinds of human goods that man may contemn for God’s sake. The lowest of these are external goods, the goods of the body take the middle place, and the highest are the goods of the soul; and among these the chief, in a way, is the will, in so far as, by his will, man makes use of all other goods. Therefore, properly speaking, the virtue of obedience, whereby we contemn our own will for God’s sake, is more praiseworthy than the other moral virtues, which contemn other goods for the sake of God.

Hence Gregory says (Moralium xxxv) that “obedience is rightly preferred to sacrifices, because by sacrifices another’s body is slain whereas by obedience we slay our own will.” Wherefore even any other acts of virtue are meritorious before God through being performed out of obedience to God’s will. For were one to suffer even martyrdom, or to give all one’s goods to the poor, unless one directed these things to the fulfillment of the divine will, which pertains directly to obedience, they could not be meritorious: as neither would they be if they were done without charity, which cannot exist apart from obedience. For it is written (1 John 2:4,5): “He who saith that he knoweth God, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar. . . but he that keepeth His word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected”: and this because friends have the same likes and dislikes. (Q101, A3)

Or maybe it might be better to look at St.Ignatius of Antioch who writes:

It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality. For it is not the being called so, but the being really so, that renders a man blessed. To those who indeed talk of the bishop, but do all things without him, will He who is the true and first Bishop, and the only High Priest by nature, declare, “Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I say ?”(1) For such persons seem to me not possessed of a good conscience, but to be simply dissemblers and hypocrites.

Epistle to the Magnesians

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?

And in what do you think the Church has commanded you to sin?

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.

It appears that you are projecting a little since it was your comments on the Mass that led to this discussion. The Church has made the MAss of Pius V available to those for whom it is a spiritual benefit – provided they do not use that to impugn the Mass of Paul VI.

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 yuo now saying the Church has promulgated a Mass that is invalid? Or, perhaps, is doubtfully valid? That would mean that the Church is not indefectible and, therefore, that the Church is not the True Church. Also, who make the determination of doubful validity? Individuals or the Church herself? I submit that such a determination can only be made by the Church and not by individuals.

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

Actually, he doesn’t. That, again, is a private interpretation that takes St. Thomas out of context.
continued…

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

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?

I believe you have adequately proven my case for me.

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

I have given you the citation from the First Vatican Council which denies you the right to reject any teaching or discipline. What more do you need?

Deacon Ed

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

DominvsVobiscvm:

The reference you named does not say, “Byzantine Catholics only recognize the first seven Councils as Ecumenical.”

True, that is so.

The difference is how we define what an Ecumenical Council is as has been pointed out to you.

As we have different traditions and theology our definitions at times are different. That doesn’t change the fact that in the end we teach the same things.

 

[Gray_Mouser]

prodromos:

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

Heh, heh. Perhaps it’s just that the Catholic Church takes episcopal collegiality seriously and so has the bishops gather in union with the head of their college to deal with problems and the governance of the Church.

Gray Mouser

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

How can we be bound to believe decrees that we know may be fallible?

St. Thomas Aquinas answers that we are bound to obey our superiors in all things lawful. This includes the lawful precepts of our fallible parents, our fallible civil leaders, and our fallible priests, deacons, and bishops.

It is only when higher authority would be contradicted that we are no longer obliged to obey our superior, either civil or religious.

Yet, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, in regard to obedience to the law, he states, “it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful.” (ST, II, 96, 6). Instead, he asserts “those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.” Dispensation is certainly appropriate in times where it would be perilous to obey the law: “If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” Nevertheless, “if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.”

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman summarizes the Catholic teaching on this matter quite nicely:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and **therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. **
[John Henry Newman, “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

]

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

albert cipriani:

How can we be bound to believe decrees that we know may be fallible?

St. Thomas Aquinas answers that we are bound to obey our superiors in all things lawful. This includes the lawful precepts of our fallible parents, our fallible civil leaders, and our fallible priests, deacons, and bishops.

Correct, we are bound to obey, but not necessarily believe.

For example. The speed limit on a road I travel on is 30 mph. I do not believe that it should be that slow, I think it should be 45 mph, but I must obey it and travel 30 mph.

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

The teachings of the Church include the teachings of all 21 Ecumenical Councils, and that would include the Second Vatican Council. As Catholics we must accept all the teachings, not just those that we think are important. There is no “pick-and-choose” aspect to Catholicism. …

Fair enough. I’ll take you at your word when you take out needle and thread and start sewing yellow stars of David on Jews. That’s the pastoral teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council. Remember, your words, no picking and choosing.

If for any reason you wish to decline to follow the fallible pastoral teachings of even one other Ecumenical Council, then why do you object to Traditionalists declining the fallible pastoral teachings of this last Ecumenical Council? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

You said:

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?

According to St. Thomas Aquinas…

in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; (ST, IIb, 104, 5)

St. Thomas continues…

Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation**. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful. **

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful. (ibid)

What you seem to be calling “false obedience” St. Thomas describes as “indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.”

Can canon law be unlawful? In particular cases, certainly. That’s why the Catholic Church uses it’s authority to dispense from law in particular cases. All laws other than Divine Law are framed for the community, not the individual. (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST, IIa, 96, 1). Nonetheless, as stated earlier, St. Thomas asserts “If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law. …if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.”

In individual circumstances, therefore, any law other than Divine Law can be dispensed from or even abrogated altogether by the law-maker. For example, the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum was abrogated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum issued by Pope Paul VI on April 3, 1969 which promulgated the Pauline Rite of Mass. So, upon its taking effect (November 30, 1969), Quo Primum became defunct.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Fair enough. I’ll take you at your word when you take out needle and thread and start sewing yellow stars of David on Jews. That’s the pastoral teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council. Remember, your words, no picking and choosing.

If for any reason you wish to decline to follow the fallible pastoral teachings of even one other Ecumenical Council, then why do you object to Traditionalists declining the fallible pastoral teachings of this last Ecumenical Council? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

As I said – the Church establishes and dispenses disciplines. The one you cite related only to Poland, even in its original incarnation. I don’t live in Poland. Sorry, no yellow stars.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath:

Correct, we are bound to obey, but not necessarily believe.

I agree. We are only bound to obey canon law and are not bound to agree with canon law.

However, although “assent of faith” is owed only for formal infallible dogmas, we are bound by obedience to law to the following: “a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” (Eastern canon 599). You can still disagree with canon 599, but the only way to obey it is to “avoid whatever does not accord with” Catholic doctrine.

In other words, laws can be disagreed with (yet must be obeyed), while doctrines of the authentic magisterium cannot be dissented with.

Quoting from Deacon Ed: “My citation from Vatican I asserts that, as Catholics, we *must *submit to the teachings of the Church. … 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.”

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

To me it seems simple enough.

We have to obey our lawful superiors in all things, save sin. Even if we consider something to be imprudent, we must still obey it, provided it is not manifestly evil.

And as always, the benefit of the doubt must be given to superiors.

This is “Obedience 101,” which anyone who’s ever entered an orthodox religious order learns on his first day of postulancy!

This, so far as I know, is** traditional Catholic ** teaching on the subject. Which goes a long way in exposing the Lefebvrists and other radical traditionalists for what they really are: just one more variation of Modernism.

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

I have given you the citation from the First Vatican Council which denies you the right to reject any teaching or discipline. What more do you need?

Correction. The VCII citation binds us to “submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and TRUE obedience.” Those are the actual words. I didn’t paraphrase them, so why do you paraphrase them?

VCII bound us to “TRUE obedience.” That’s not my qualification. That’s the Church’s qualification that is predicated upon its perennial teaching of false obedience otherwise known as servile obedience. I’ve already explicated the distinction for you which you refuse to acknowledge. You want to insist on unqualified obedience.

Obey, no matter what. That seems to be your position. That’s the mantra of a cult, not a Catholic. The Catholic religion is rational, not cultish. The Jehovah Witnesses require blind obedience. Protestants require blind faith. Catholicism alone calls for us to have an informed rational understanding of what is required so that we can form our will and freely obey, not slavishly and blindly obey. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Al:

While “true” is an adjective qualifying the word “obedience,” it must be understood in the light of the Church’s traditional teaching regarding obedience.

True obedience is doing whatever your lawful superiors tell you and willing it, so long as it is not intrinsically or manifestly evil, always giving them the benefit of the doubt. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with how you personally feel about a given subject. (Read: Modernism!)

Absolute obedience (in all things save sin) is not blind, for you are practicing it for a rational reason: these are the authorities God has set over you. You trust God, and so you obey even when you don’t understand. The theological virtue of faith plays a role here.

Trust is not blind, as any truly traditional Catholic knows.

Again, you’ve yet to document a sinlge iota from a Catholic authority justifying your own novel definition of “true obedience.” Take a sit and stop embarrasing yourself, alright?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Correction. The VCII citation binds us to “submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and TRUE obedience.” Those are the actual words. I didn’t paraphrase them, so why do you paraphrase them?

VCII bound us to “TRUE obedience.” That’s not my qualification. That’s the Church’s qualification that is predicated upon its perennial teaching of false obedience otherwise known as servile obedience. I’ve already explicated the distinction for you which you refuse to acknowledge. You want to insist on unqualified obedience.

Obey, no matter what. That seems to be your position. That’s the mantra of a cult, not a Catholic. The Catholic religion is rational, not cultish. The Jehovah Witnesses require blind obedience. Protestants require blind faith. Catholicism alone calls for us to have an informed rational understanding of what is required so that we can form our will and freely obey, not slavishly and blindly obey. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

Actually, that’s the First Vatican Council, not the second. And here’s the full citation:

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.

Let’s see, “hierarchical subordination” – I believe that Dave has already explained this using Aquinas as his source. It means to obey one’s superiors. Clearly, bishops are one’s superiors. So, I guess we get down to the expression “true obedience.” This is, of course, in opposition to “false obedience” in which one pays lip service to the teaching of the Church while doing whatever one wishes.

Nope, no room to weasle out here. Full and true obedience means submitting oneself to God thorugh the Church He established. We don’t get to judge the Church, to decide what we will follow or what we will reject. We submit ourselves to the Church. Is this “slavery”? Not hardly. We do it freely and with full consent to be governed.

Deacon Ed