Not circular logic. Historyical evidence shows that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus. SO, if the Church says its an ecumenical council, then it is one.Circular logic.
The term pseudo-Council is from a Melkite Catholic bishop. I just happen to agree with him and I think the term he chose for it fits. You are entitled to your opinion as well.
Michael
We didn’t have a supreme pontiff before then either.
I pointed out your first post answered your own question.
I don’t think it much to ask the bare minium-going to someplace hot if you don’t believe list:After all, the Declaration of the IC mentions dire consequences for not believing it. What else is so dire?
Pray for Honorius.
And the pope is infallible because he says so.
On EWTN I’ve heard the priest say the pope has 51% of the Church’s infallibility.
ah, the Crusades…
Latin theological statements.
Reminds me of how the Roman emperors all had to ritually feign not to want the crown, when they were being coronated.
All those canons emphasize as well the concilar nature of the Church.The other side of the coin is that the EO must divest itself of the innovation that the primacy of a head bishop is one of mere honor, but rather admit that it is one of actual jurisdiction (just check out the canons of the Ecumenical Councils). It must also clean up house and not let some (many? most?) of her members keep thinking that there is no such thing as a head bishop in the Church. They must also admit to the universal appellate authority of the Bishop of Rome. This is, after all, the way it was in the first millenium. Regarding ecclesiology, that’s just for starters.
Blessings,
Marduk
His views of the papacy aren’t that of the modern Latin church either.
You mean the Orthodox Catholic One, you know, the one which still says the Original Creed of the Fathers.
And what are the teachings that “satisfy the conditions set out at the Vatican Council”?
That’s what I thought. You don’t want to answer the question because you know that there is no answer. The infallibility dogma is so broadly defined that people argue endlessly about which teachings are infallible. So the infallibility dogma amounts to nothing because nobody can agree on which teachings “satisfy” Vatican I. It’s a political tool used by the Vatican to combat dissent not an ancient christian belief. That’s why half the Vatican Council bailed out early with their tails tucked between their legs. Pius gave em a political whipping.
When I say that the Pope’s Infallibility is “separate” from the the Church’s, I mean that he may speak both without the Church’s approval and without a council to back him. That is specified in the Vatican I declaration.Dear brother Alexius
The Pope’s infallibility is NOT separate from the infallibility of the Church. In fact, it is one and the same infallibility shared by the Church - the infallibility of God. This is one of the many misconceptions I had to let go of before I became Catholic. The fact is that the Pope has never failed to act collegially, even in the few ex cathedra pronouncements he has made… The Council is NOT the only vehicle of infallibility the Church possesses. There is also the episcopate speaking with one voice on a particular matter of the Faith even when dispersed throughout the world; and of course, there is also the Pope speaking ex cathedra with the advice and (name removed by moderator)ut of his brother bishops. The error of EO and Protestant polemicists is their inability to understand all this. I would love to hear your comments. Why do you think that the Pope’s infallibilty is “separate” and what do you mean by “separate?”
Why do you think the Church can only teach infallibly in Council? You don’t think the Church can act infallibly in a merely collegial context? In any context, the head bishop must give his confirmation, we can’t escape that, if we are to remain faithful to the apostolic practice (the other option is to go the EO way:knight2: ).
BTW, what makes you think the Pope acts “over” an ecumenical council, and is not simply its head bishop?
There are pages upon pages upon pages upon pages, etc, etc, etc, of speeches by the Minority party given at the Council as recorded in Mansi. Why don’t you read or read about these before repeating such a statement? THAT is how I was able to prove to MYSELF that the statement you repeated here is just a blatant lie given by opponents of the Council. And BTW, and this is really important for you to keep in mind. BEFORE THE VOTING SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL, ALL THE SPEECHES MADE BY THE BISHOPS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE VOTING BODY. These are the selfsame speeches contained in Mansi, and it definitely proves not only that the minority bishops had their say (and then some). but also that the polemicsts are simply liars.
- Did you know that the Pope was not even certain that the Council should be held at all?
- Did you know that DURING the Council, the rush to define infallibility was brought on NOT by the Pope, but was forced because of the possibility of impending war in Europe. There was debate about which should take precedence - definitions regarding the episcopate (topics which were completed at Vatican 2, or the definitions regarding the papacy. AT THIS POINT, the Pope made a push to go forward with the definitions regarding the papacy.
- You have read a lot, I’m sure, about how the Pope was for the definition. Polemicists like to argue that the Pope unfairly used his influence on the Council. But let me ask you this - i) why is not the Pope as bishop allowed to give his opinion on the matter? ii) Since about three fourths of the Catholic bishops of the world were proponents of the definition already when the Council commenced, can we really say that the Pope’s personal opinion would have mattered in the long run anyway?
As I stated, check out Mansi. Further, it might interest you to know that the minority party had great representation in the theological commissions.
I don’t understand this. Are you talking about the WORD “infallible?” For certainly, there are MANY quotes from the Fathers that indicate that Rome/its bishop was the source of doctrine for the Church (not in those exact words, but you know what I mean), and other such quotes from which one can readily deduce belief in papal infallibility. Would you like those quotes? I gave two of them in the Honorius thread - do you want the link?
Please respond to everything I’ve stated here so we can continue this discussion. Don’t leave a stone unturned.Thank you brother.
Blessings,
Marduk
I have never seen this in the Vatican decrees. I assume you refer to the much maligned decree that the Pope does not need the consent of the Church for his statements made ex cathedra. This is true (no pun intended, in light of what I am about to explain). The TRUTH does not need the consent of ANYONE to be the Truth. Did St. Peter need the consent of anyone when he taught that the Gentiles should be accepted into the Church? Who would dare say that what he taught the Church on his own authority (which is the authority of God in those matters) in that instance needed the consent of the rest of the Church for the rest of the Church to accept what he taught to be a teaching that the Church NEEDED to accept as de fide? THAT is the intent of the Vatican decree. It was not meant to demean the agreement of the rest of the Church (for that is INDEED NECESSARY for the UNITY of the Church), but simply to assert the nature of the Truth as Truth, not needing the consent of anyone for it to be the Truth.
The bishops of the world may declare something with a united voice as infallible teaching even without the Council. Does that mean that the Church does not need Councils? Just because the Pope may declare something infallible outside a Council does demean the Ecumenical Council in any way. Why? Because both methods (all three, actually) seek to uphold WHAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN. All three organs of infallibility have the same Source of infallibility, have the same purpose in the exercise of that infallibility, and use the same sources (ie. Scripture and Sacred Tradition) to determine their infallible teachings. Further, all three organs of infallibility are utilized by the Church according to the needs of the times. It is not that bishops cannot teach infallibly when dispersed throughout the world because an organ of infallibility exists called an Ecumenical Council. It is not that an Ecumenical Council is superfluous because the bishops of the world can teach infallibly with one united voice. Likewise, the existence of papal infallibility does not demean the utility and necessity of the other organs of infallibility when the times require it. Doesn’t your argument violate St. Paul’s principle in I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12? It is not the Catholic Church who is arguing that the head does not need the body, after all. It is rather only the non-Catholic polemic that is arguing it.
Can you offer an example in the history of the Church? On what basis do you make this statement?
Then it should not be hard for you to assert that because the bishops dispersed can speak infallibly when teaching with a united voice on a matter, then the Ecumenical Council is not necessary. Are there things we believe that have not been addressed or defined by an Ecumenical Council? If so, tell me what need is there for an Ecumenical Council? As already stated, the existence of one organ of infallibility does not negate the existence or necessity of another orgaon of infallibility.
I see here that the basis of your concerns are really fears, not based on any real evidence. What evidence do you have that a Pope would or could do any of the things you claim? Show me from the teachings of the Church that they are even possible. As far as I know, the Pope when teaching ex cathedra is bound by Sacred Tradition.
I believe you are confusing some biblical facts here. St. Peter’s doctrinal position was the one accepted by the Jerusalem Council. Reread Acts 15 again, please. St. Peter was indeed speaking ex cathedra. In fact, he even claimed that God spoke through him specifically!
Brother, protestantism is borne of the Roman Catholic Church.
No, because the Church of Jesus Christ says so.
What a silly conclusion. Eastern Orthodoxy is really more akin to protestantism with its lack of central authority or really any way for determining what is a council and what is not a council, or, furthermore, it lack of ability to define dogma.
