C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How about producing something to back up your claims? You keep bringing stuff up but never have any references to prove your claims.
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
No, the Official Relatio states exactly what I stated.
The consent of the bishops is necessary, but it is not dogmatically required that the consent of the bishops need to be obtained from the bishops directly. For example, suppose a local Church puts out a catechism, and the Pope consults the catechism instead of speaking to the bishop directly. Suppose the local bishop has a trusted theologian, and the Pope consults him because the bishop was unavailable at the time.
I’ve underlined the specific portion of your citation which directly supports what I stated:
37. But the issue is pressed by saying (and this is the third axiom): the consent of the Churches is a rule of faith which even the Pope ought to follow, and therefore he should consult those who rule the Churches before he makes a definition in order that he may be certain about the consent of the Churches. I reply. The matter has come to its extreme point and we must accurately distinguish between true and false lest we suffer shipwreck in port. It is true that the Pope in his definitions “ex cathedra” has the same sources (“fontes”) which the Church has, viz., Scripture and tradition. * It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is a rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. * But from all that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because this consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the consent of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full information about the fact of the Church’s consent.
038. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the Tradition of the Church of Rome, that is, of that Church to which faithlessness has no access and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree. Therefore that strict necessity , such as is required for a dogmatic constitution, can in no way be demonstrated. It can happen that there be so difficult a case that the Pope thinks it necessary, for his own information, to ask the bishops, as an ordinary means, what the sense of the Churches is, as he did, for example, in the case of the Immaculate Conception. Such a case, however, is not able to be established as a rule.
Blessings,
Marduk**
M
mardukm
Guest
I have amply defended my statements so many times, it’s a wonder that you can make this statement. What happened is that in the past, I;ve responded to your misrepresentations, you don’t respond, because you can’t, and then you appear in another thread at another time repeating the same unfounded misrepresentations.
Do you really want me to repeat what I’ve defended so many times before? Will it not result in the same silence from you, and the same subsequent and continued misrepresentations? Let me know if you are willing and able to address my responses this time and I will take the time to repeat them.Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Typical cafeteria-style polemics to neglect the rest of Pastor Aeternus. I will respond if you promise to stay on the thread and admit your error after I have provided the proofs. In the past, all you have done is not respond when you have been refuted, and then repeat the misrepresentations elsewhere at another time. Give us your word that you won’t do the same this time, and I’ll take the time to provide the proofs again.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Or by consulting the Scriptures and the Tradition, both of which can demonstrate the consent of the Church without needing ever to consult with the bishops.
M
mardukm
Guest
I suggest the difference in our perspectives is one of semantics. You understand “consent of the bishops” to mean the direct consultation of the bishops. I understand “consent of the bishops” as the “consent of the magisterium” that the Official Relatio clearly states is the rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope. In short, you understand “consent” as “direct consultation,” while I understand “consent” as “agreement.” The Relatio does not say (contrary to your claim) that the consent (i.e., agreement) of the bishops is not a rule that can be established, but rather that the direct consultation of the bishops is not a rule that can be established.
Please don’t waste our time with these maudlin comments.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Practice what you preach, brother.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How about giving a good refutation based on facts on the subject matter rather than just attacking ad hominem and then claiming victory? Every discussion of ours is just that. You berate me and never substantiate anything, then say you were right all along.
I stop replying because your personal attacks only brings me to sin against charity. But I have still yet to hear anything sound from you. I guess that is just your style, **** the other guy off so he’ll leave and you’ll claim victory. I guess that is when you are just after the “win” rather than the truth.
M
mardukm
Guest
So you purposefully misrepresent the Catholic Faith, and when someone points it out and refutes you, you pretend insult and leave, so you can be justified in repeating your misrepresentations elsewhere at another time?How about giving a good refutation based on facts on the subject matter rather than just attacking ad hominem and then claiming victory? Every discussion of ours is just that. You berate me and never substantiate anything, then say you were right all along.
If I re-present the proofs here, will you promise to respond? I asked this in an earlier post. Simply respond yes or no. Spare us the drama.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Again, accusation with no proof. Until you substantiate any of your claims, you have proven nothing, you have won nothing.So you purposefully misrepresent the Catholic Faith, and when someone points it out and refutes you, you pretend insult and leave, so you can be justified in repeating your misrepresentations elsewhere at another time?
If I re-present the proofs here, will you promise to respond? I asked this in an earlier post. Simply respond yes or no. Spare us the drama.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jinc1019
Guest
So then, do Orthodox believe the Pope by himnelf can declare something infallibly but also that he doesn’t NEED to be involved? That is what is indicated by your statement above, but I was under the impression Orthodox didn’t believe the Pope can ever declare something infallibly no matter what, that no one can.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Don’t you know, on the internet the first one to claim victory and accuse their opponent of hurt feelings has the best argument.How about giving a good refutation based on facts on the subject matter rather than just attacking ad hominem and then claiming victory? Every discussion of ours is just that. You berate me and never substantiate anything, then say you were right all along.
I call it Mardukm’s Law.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The Church as a whole can act in such a matter, with or without the agreement of the Pope.
M
mardukm
Guest
Actually, brother CTG’s misrepresentations have been refuted a few times. What happens is that he feigns insult when his error is pointed out, and then apparently never reads the rest of the post because he can’t get past the supposed insult. I’ll give you an example. In a recent thread, I stated to him, “This argument is inconsistent because…” A normal reply in an apologetics forum would be, “It is not inconsistent because…” But brother CTG, unique person that he is, instead complains that I called his argument inconsistent. Boo hoo. That’s what’s happening. He did attempt a response, but I replied, and as yet there is no rejoinder in that thread. It’s especially annoying because in that thread, he made some comment about the IC on a point in which he has been corrected before. But, typically, in that old thread where he was corrected, he did not respond, and simply repeats his misrepresentation in a newer thread.Don’t you know, on the internet the first one to claim victory and accuse their opponent of hurt feelings has the best argument.
I call it Mardukm’s Law.
As I’ve already asked twice, all he has to do is answer “yes” or “no” to my request that he promises to stay on the thread and respond to my refutation of his claims. But, of course, unique person that he is, he won’t (or maybe can’t) do that.
Initially, I thought your comment here was strange. But then it dawned on me that in a very recent thread, you accused me of claiming you attacked me when I did no such thing. Oh well. No harm on my end.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Btw, are you claiming that the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations are what the Catholic Church teaches about the papacy? Do you want me to present the proofs to you that refutes that position?
That’s what CTG normally does - accuse me of hurting his feelings. It doesn’t really help his argument any.
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Mardukm, you’re in the habit of declaring yourself the winner of arguments (as already pointed out), of declaring your opponents guilty of polemics (I suggest you read Cicero’s Phillippics to find out what a polemic actually is), and of late you’ve taken to calling everyone’s arguments maudlin (Self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness).
Your method of argumentation is nothing new, in fact you seemed to have adopted it around the same time you posted a thread (about a year ago) claiming there was a conspiracy among non-Catholics to misrepresent the Catholic faith (now that’s maudlin - I assure you that everything I don’t understand about the Catholic Church is real, I’ve even defended it on occasion).
It’s tiresome. You can’t answer arguments so you attack the person making them with petty accusations.
As for that recent thread, you can’t even back peddle without insulting people. I asked a simple question and you jumped on me for daring to question the Great Catholic Faith (incidentally, in the apologetics forum, people overwhelmingly agreed that the post which sparked the question was the one that was misled), when you’re called on it you claim that you never questioned anyone’s motives and that really everyone else is evil for questioning your motives (I also find it quite vindictive of you to bring that up to question my motives here, while fearing to answer me there).
For the record, this post might actually qualify as a polemic, if only because you have given me nothing but a poor ethos to attack.
M
mardukm
Guest
Where have I declared myself the winner except in your own fantasy? When someone offers a refutation, they will refer to their argument as a refutation. There’s no claim of “being a winner” there. You excuse your diatribe with your usual presumptions about my motives like you did in that other recent thread where you accused me of something I never did. Get off your high horse, sir.
When someone purposefully misrepresents a position after being corrected already, that is polemics. Do you have a different understanding?
I’ve never called someone’s argument “maudlin.” What I consider maudlin are the comments about my motives that don’t even exist and don’t even address the topic at hand.Try reading my posts so you’ll have a better excuse to offer your senseless diatribe.
Please search the threads and produce this statement I supposedly made that there was some sort of conspiracy. If I made such a statement, it would have been directed to specific individuals, because I’m very careful not to make generalizations.
And when someone doesn’t understand and asks a question, I offer an answer with all due respect. Someone who has already been corrected, and continues to spout their misrepresentations, there’s nothing maudlin about accusing such a person of polemics.
I (and others here) have already experienced CTG"s various misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith and have called him on it. Maybe you have not read those threads. If not, then this otherwise senseless post from you is forgiven.
I said “Is this really the issue?” Presented as a question in a most germane manner. And then you fantasized that I was being defensive, and claimed that I assumed you attacked me or the Catholic Faith, or whatever it is your mind pretended happened. Your statement here is pathetic, sir.
Yes it is polemic. And there’s no reason for it.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jinc1019
Guest
Right, but two questions:
- Do they claim to act infallibly? Or just act to the best of their ability and traditions?
- Why do the Orthodox Churches believe they have the authority to do this? Do they believe other churches can form based on those principles so long as they have validly ordained bishops? Like if a bunch of bishops in the Catholic Church decided they wanted to form their own church and break off, could they do that under Orthodox theology?
M
mardukm
Guest
Wouldn’t that contradict Apostolic Canon 34, and the ancient Tradition of the Church. What Ecumenical Council did not have the agreement of the Pope for you to be able to make this claim? I mean, what Tradition in the first millenium undivided Church justifies this statement?
Blessings,
Marduk
R
Rawb
Guest
The Orthodox question whether there are any “validly” (as you say) bishops outside The Orthodox Church. For us apostolic succession only remains while you are in Communion with and maintaining the faith of The Orthodox Church. So the answer to your question is no. We are only certain there is one Church.
- Status