Please tell me, what is the seat of Moses and is it still in existence and who is filling that position? I think I know Joshua took Moses’ place but I never heard of a succession. Very interesting to me in an awesome kind of way… Was it the High Priest? Only one fellow at a time???From a Jewish point of view, everyone who sat on the seat of Moses had the power to bind or loose someone according to the law. Thus it would not be a problem for a group like the Jewish Courts or Religious Rulers of that day to bind and loose. I guess the main point would be whom is authorized to bind and loose. How does one know they are authorized, etc.,
The supreme authority given to St Peter was clearly enunciated in the following:JRKH #98
Even though Peter was given this extra authority (I prefer to call it a responsibility) the NT is pretty clear that none of the Apostles should act on their own, but in concert with each other.
All of this is true, but the Bishops must still act in concert.The supreme authority given to St Peter was clearly enunciated in the following:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of other, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”
That expresses finality with no possibility of a contrary supposition, which some try to limit to the approval of others. That’s their problem. The Holy Spirit protects His Pope, and thus His Church, from teaching error in doctrine.
Bishop Gasser at Vatican I, working from the citation of Bossuet precisely on the question of papal authority and finality on doctrine and dogma gave reality, as Fr James T. O’Connor cites:
“Bishop Gasser argues that it would be impossible for the successor of Peter to fulfill his task of confirming the other bishops in the faith if a permanent guarantee of inerrancy had not been given to those who would succeed Peter in his Chair. It is a gift that cannot be dependant on the consent of the other bishops since such a consent would ultimately nullify the special duty of the primate to strengthen the others when their own faith was weak.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius 2005, p 26].
You’re missing the point Abu. Antecedent or consequent consent isn’t a necessary condition of infallibility, but the Bishops must still act in concert. Nobody here is saying that consent is what makes declarations infallible. We all know that’s not the case. Nevertheless, the Bishops must act in concert.“Setting as a condition the antecedent or consequent consent of the bishops is something that has no historical precedent and one that would involve endless disputes concerning what number of the bishops would have to consent and what form their consent would have to take. Such an approach Gasser calls ‘arbitrary or subversive’ and attempts to show its difficulties by a reductio ad absurdum argument.”
The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 57].
Actually, you’re missing it by quoting Gasser. I don’t disagree with Gasser. Rather, I agree with him. Quoting him doesn’t contradict the fact that the Bishops must act in concert. We aren’t an “either, or” religion, but rather a “both, and.” Infallibility doesn’t depend on the consent of the bishops. Nevertheless they must act in unison.No. Gasser is making the point, not missing it.
“Whoever contends that the Pope, either for his information or for an infallible judgment about faith and morals, totally depends on the manifest consent of the bishops or on their aid has nothing left to do than to establish that false principle which says that all dogmatic judgments of the Roman Pontiff are weak and reformable in and of themselves unless the consent of the Church accrues to them. But such an outlook is either completely arbitrary or subversive of all papal infallibility. It is arbitrary if it requires the assent of a greater or lesser part of the bishops. Because, who will decide what number of them is sufficient? Who will make a choice since, in this respect, the bishops are completely equal among themselves and the assent of some cannot be prejudicial to the assent and judgment of others” [040]
Generally, yes. But unless the Pope requests their (name removed by moderator)ut before making a declaration on faith or morals, he has the authority to declare independently, with a Motu Proprio that needs no other support but his own, by virtue of his Office as Supreme Pontiff. An example is the S.P. of Pope Benedict.Actually, you’re missing it by quoting Gasser. I don’t disagree with Gasser. Rather, I agree with him. Quoting him doesn’t contradict the fact that the Bishops must act in concert. We aren’t an “either, or” religion, but rather a “both, and.” Infallibility doesn’t depend on the consent of the bishops. Nevertheless they must act in unison.