The Papal Claims

[mardukm]

CONTINUED
"Mardukm:

A final point for you to consider is the level of unity among the apostolic churches that has in modern times been achieved between the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic Church

Could you expand on this?

With the CotE, the Catholic Church has made HUGE strides in reconciliation and understanding, to the point that I think 10% of the membership of the CotE joined the Catholic Communion.

With regards to the Orientals, it was the CC - WAAAY before the EO - who came to Christological agreements with the Orientals.

Here, the office of the Pope has helped tremendously. Through the mouthpiece of the Petrine office, the ENTIRE Catholic Church (all 22 Sui juris Churches) was able to come to Christological agreements with the CotE and the OO rather easily. As it stands, not all the individual EOC’s have Christological agreements with all the OOC’s. Unity is more difficult without the focal point of authority.

It seems that the idea of infallibility of the pope is based on a western approach to theology. It seems that its purpose is specifically to further define the faith.

That is not my perception of it (understandably). To me, infallibility (in its varied forms in the Church - the three ways I mentioned earlier) is meant not to further define the Faith, but to PROTECT the Faith. I believe that is the reason God permits the Church to share in His infallibility (would you agree or not?). As in all things from the Spirit, it is for the edification of the Church. If this results in a further definition of the Faith (such as occurred in the Ecumenical Councils), that is only a side-effect (perhaps even a necessary side-effect); but it is not the primary reason for it. As stated, the primary reason God allows the Church to share in his infallibility is for the PROTECTION of the Faith.

Knowledge of truth is percieved as strictly intellectual. You know God through your intellect.

I know that concept is difficult for you to accept because of your Palamite spirituality, but it is not a purely Latin concept. That study is a means to know God is part of Coptic Orthodox spirituality as well. The mind is only one aspect of our relationship with God, and it is indeed an important aspect. But knowledge, in both the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Churches, is not the be-all and end-all of experiencing the divine. Don’t you think such a caricature would be unkind? Think of the many and varied sacramentals of the Latin Catholic Church (never mind the Coptic Orthodox Church since we are not discussing her) that she proposes to her members as means to come closer to God.

I think what you have done is take ONE aspect (an important aspect indeed) of the Catholic Church - doctrinal guardianship - and concluded that THAT is the ONLY thing that motivates the Catholic Church. Do you know how unbelievably unjust and unfair that is? You are condemning EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC, all her doctors, all her saints, all her Popes, of having a shallow, merely intellectual relationship with God. Brother, what gives you the right to do that? I hope I have struck a chord in your conscience.

Therefore development of the doctrine is necessary.

Development of doctrine is necessary NOT to satisfy some intellectual urge. It is necessary ONLY when it is necessary in order to defend the Faith. Ask any of our resident Newman devotees. They will assure you that what I have stated is true.

And in fact, a lack of development would mean the Church is dead.

I would agree with that, with a mitigation. I would say that if the Church faces a situation where legitimate development is needed and she does not rise to the occasion, then the Church is dead. For instance, during the Christological controversies, and especially during the Pneumatological controversies, the Church would have been stymied if she depended ONLY on Scripture to defend herself. Actually, she had to deal with a lot of Catholics who actually placed such a restriction on the Church. But thanks be to God that the Church did develop her theology beyond the confines of Scripture (though always in agreement with it). The Church had to borrow from Greek philososphy at times to address the heresies that were popping up. THAT is certainly a development. The Church develops only when it is necessary for the protection of the faith, not to satisfy an urge to develop.

Consequently the infallibility of the pope is a necessary aspect of the Church.

This does not follow. The dogmatization of the infallibility of the Pope did not come about to satisfy some artificial urge to CAUSE development of doctrine to occur. Can you explain why you think it did? I have read many documents on Vatican I. I’ve not found a single one say that it occurred by virtue of that reason. What is your source for your claim?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

To all, to sum up my problems in these discussions. It all seems to come down to the idea that I sense that the faith is being fosilized by western Christianity. All mystery and paradox is removed. It seems to come down to definitions. It seems that it is being removed from life and is simply an aspect of textbooks. The spiritual life almost becomes one of the doctrines of the Church.

Have you ever given any thought to the idea that you feel this way BECAUSE you are constantly engaging yourself in discussion which NECESSARILY is PRIMARILY an INTELLECTUAL endeavor? Perhaps someone on the outside might look at you and say, “Wow. This guy has no spiritual side. He’s just about discussion and debate, trying to prove this or that.”

Jimmy, would that be an unfair characterization of you?

And isn’t it about time you stop being unfair to Latin Catholics, judging them as dry, spiritless intellectuals?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I would say that since you are highly educated, this is more of a spiritual exercise than a intellectual one.

Dear Chaldean,

If I may ask, do you believe the Bishop of Rome is superior to an Ecumenical Council and above it in authority, and if so, why?

Michael

 

[jimmy]

mardukm, could you please refrain from making character judgements of me? I have made no character judgements of the popes. I have simply stated how I see his authority to be. I have said nothing regarding the character of individual popes.

And isn’t it about time you stop being unfair to Latin Catholics, judging them as dry, spiritless intellectuals?

I have made no judgements of any specific people. I have simply said that the approach of the west is intellectual. The west has seperated the intellect from the heart and they claim knowledge of God is through the intellect. I see the theology of the west as dry and spiritless to use your words.

It is not strictly a palamite thing to say that you know God through your heart. This is a Syriac thing as well. St. Ephrem for example believed that there was a great divide between God and man and that the only way we could speak of God is if He reveals Himself to us.

This does not follow. The dogmatization of the infallibility of the Pope did not come about to satisfy some artificial urge to CAUSE development of doctrine to occur. Can you explain why you think it did? I have read many documents on Vatican I. I’ve not found a single one say that it occurred by virtue of that reason. What is your source for your claim?

It is my explanation of the western approach to theology. It is not some conscious decision they have made.

This has already been addressed above. The process of your rationale is not a true analysis of the canon, but rather an unjust character judgment on a person. The “if he desires” clause has absolutely no warrant from the canons or teaching of the Church. Once again, I welcome any texts you can provide to prove your claim that a Pope can do this “if he desires.” If you cannot, are you willing to let go of this caricature of Catholic ecclesiology?

The popes motives don’t matter. You are dwelling too much on ‘if he desires’. Canon 337 says he can dissolve the synod.

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.
It does not specify that he must have certain motives in order to dissolve it. It is certainly possible that a pope could have poor motives in dissolving a council.

 

[jimmy]

This does not follow. The dogmatization of the infallibility of the Pope did not come about to satisfy some artificial urge to CAUSE development of doctrine to occur. Can you explain why you think it did? I have read many documents on Vatican I. I’ve not found a single one say that it occurred by virtue of that reason. What is your source for your claim?

The west it seems to me finds the idea of dogma to be a good and desirable one and they pray that God will grant them many more dogmas. It seems that they are always looking for a new dogma and in every statement of a saint they see a dogmatic statement. Take for example the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilus Deus. What was the purpose? To defend against error? That does not seem to be the case. How about the group who is currently petitiioning the pope to define a new Marian dogma, the mediatrix of all graces? Do you see what I am saying? They are not defending against error, they are simply seeking new dogmas.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Dear Chaldean,

If I may ask, do you believe the Bishop of Rome is superior to an Ecumenical Council and above it in authority, and if so, why?

Michael

What does superior mean?

Here are some attributes of the Holy Father’s position:

**882 **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

**883 **“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

**884 **“The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Take for example the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilus Deus. What was the purpose?

One of the purposes is to learn what God has done for His Mother, our Sovereign Queen. The Holy Spirit will guide the Church “into all truth” and since this is, objectively, from Heavens perspective, a truth, we are better off knowing it and believing it than to ignore/reject it. Not to mention, our great Father’s St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas both got it wrong about Mary sinlessness.

 

[Hesychios]

What does superior mean?

Here are some attributes of the Holy Father’s position:

**882 **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

**883 **“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

**884 **“The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

To me that sounds like a definition of the claim that a Bishop of Rome is superior to the entire church, and from whom there is no recourse.

Does it to you? Does it to anyone else here?

Dear Marduk,
Are you in agreement with the above? Rather, do you now agree with the assertion that a Pope is superior to an Ecumenical Council? Just wondering.
*
Michael*

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

To me that sounds like a definition of the claim that a Bishop of Rome is superior to the entire church, and from whom there is no recourse.

Does it to you? Does it to anyone else here?

Dear Marduk,
Are you in agreement with the above? Rather, do you now agree with the assertion that a Pope is superior to an Ecumenical Council? Just wondering.
*
Michael*

So what does superior mean to you again?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

So what does superior mean to you again?

**883 **“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."

 

[tdgesq]

To me that sounds like a definition of the claim that a Bishop of Rome is superior to the entire church, and from whom there is no recourse.

Does it to you? Does it to anyone else here?

I second Chaldean Rite’s request that you explain what you mean by the Bishop of Rome being superior to the entire Church. What has been provided to you is the claim that the decrees of a council cannot be ecumenical without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. Can you name a single ecumenical council that wasn’t approved by the Bishop of Rome?

Even under certain Eastern views of the Pentarchy, the affirmation of the Bishop of Rome is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council. Maybe you can explain how there can be such a council without the approval of Rome. Then again, maybe you can’t.

 

[tdgesq]

The west it seems to me finds the idea of dogma to be a good and desirable one and they pray that God will grant them many more dogmas. It seems that they are always looking for a new dogma and in every statement of a saint they see a dogmatic statement. Take for example the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilus Deus. What was the purpose? To defend against error?

Here it is from Ineffabilis Deus:

Hoped-For Results

Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin – in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign “from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth,” and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

I suppose we could also wonder about the necessity of the Service of Glorification of Saints in the East.

 

[Hesychios]

**883 **
“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

It looks to me like the Supreme Pontiff has a veto which cannot be overridden. His vote is equal to all of the other participants, plus one.

**882 **
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Does everyone here agree with canon 882 and 883?

This is why the curia can codify the canons of the church. They do it in the Popes name, effectively overriding conciliar work and drafting updated canons without fear.

This is why a Supreme Pontiff can issue a Motu Propio for instance. He does not answer to anyone, including past councils. He can do it because he has “a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

He does not require synodal approval, nor conciliar approval for any decision he may wish to make (on those matters that are proper to the operation of a Christian church), he can just do it.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

This is why a Supreme Pontiff can issue a Motu Propio for instance. He does not answer to anyone, including past councils. He can do it because he has “a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

He does not require synodal approval, nor conciliar approval for any decision he may wish to make (on those matters that are proper to the operation of a Christian church), he can just do it.

Of course, you must implicitly mean pastoral issues, which change and adapt over time, as opposed to theological truths that Heaven has revealed to us through the Spirit.

one principle: The Church cannot contradict herself on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Hesychios]

I second Chaldean Rite’s request that you explain what you mean by the Bishop of Rome being superior to the entire Church.

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

:hypno:

What has been provided to you is the claim that the decrees of a council cannot be ecumenical without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. Can you name a single ecumenical council that wasn’t approved by the Bishop of Rome?

Even under certain Eastern views of the Pentarchy, the affirmation of the Bishop of Rome is a necessary condition for an ecumenical council. Maybe you can explain how there can be such a council without the approval of Rome. Then again, maybe you can’t.

This is incorrect and I believe we have been through this before.

The Seven Councils were in full force and effect before the approval of the bishops of Rome. Canons the Popes are noted to disapprove of were in place anyway in the east. At least one Council (I forget which one) was held over the objections of a bishop of Rome.

They did not require his approval to be implemented in the East, the church did not wait for him.

If anything, the bishop of Rome as Primate of Italy needed to agree to implement those conciliar decisions within his own Metropolitanate, that is the extent of it.

After the Seven Councils, well, you guys made a whole new set of rules and held another bunch of General Councils of the West, which in the Catholic East are thought by some as pseudo-Councils, of a second class in other words. Orthodox do not recognize them at all.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

:hypno:

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give :hypno:to thee:hypno: the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And :hypno:whatsoever:hypno: thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and :hypno:whatsoever:hypno: thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

:hypno:****!!!!

 

[Hesychios]

Of course, you must implicitly mean pastoral issues,

I am not implying anything.

I am reading straight out of the Canons provided here. If they don’t make a distinction I cannot make one.

as opposed to theological truths that Heaven has revealed to us through the Spirit.

I believe in absolute Truth.

Sin is sin and human nature does not change. We don’t need new interpretations of our theology, and we don’t need to dip into philosophy for help developing our theology.

What we need is accurate translations of what came before.

one principle: The Church cannot contradict herself on matters of faith and morals.

The sure way of keeping to that promise is to quit changing theology.

You don’t really need to develop anything, it was all laid out in the beginning. The seven Councils covered all the important stuff.

 

[Hesychios]

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give :hypno:to thee:hypno: the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And :hypno:whatsoever:hypno: thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and :hypno:whatsoever:hypno: thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Whatever

You are changing the subject.

Everyone should know by now that all bishops share in this charism.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I believe in absolute Truth.

Sin is sin and human nature does not change. We don’t need new interpretations of our theology, and we don’t need to dip into philosophy for help developing our theology.

What we need is accurate translations of what came before.

The sure way of keeping to that promise is to quit changing theology.

You don’t really need to develop anything, it was all laid out in the beginning. The seven Councils covered all the important stuff.

The first 300 years of Christology delt with who Jesus Christ was and it was the Church who basically developed the concept of PERSONHOOD in Jesus. So what you are saying is basically incorrect, somehow implies that they all understood the hypostatic union perfecectly. blah!

 

[tdgesq]

It looks to me like the Supreme Pontiff has a veto which cannot be overridden. His vote is equal to all of the other participants, plus one.

Haven’t other Patriarchates claimed the same thing? The Council of Florence being a prime example. Or the recent ecumenical dialog at Raveena where the ROC walked out at the end and on that basis questioned the ecumenical character of the agreement. How there could ever be an ecumenical council without the approval of Rome is difficult to imagine. A little bit of hypocrisy is being show here by our EO brother.

Does everyone here agree with canon 882 and 883?

They aren’t canons. They are paragraphs contained in the Catechism. Yes, I agree with them.

This is why the curia can codify the canons of the church. They do it in the Popes name, effectively overriding conciliar work and drafting updated canons without fear.

They aren’t canons. Show me how such statements override conciliar work.

He does not require synodal approval, nor conciliar approval for any decision he may wish to make (on those matters that are proper to the operation of a Christian church), he can just do it.

Correct. He has such authority. Just as was exercised by Pope Leo at Chalcedon, Pope Pelagius with John the Faster and his synod at Constantinople, and Pope Gregory I on multiple occasions. All of these instances occurred prior to the Great Schism. Perhaps your position is that these Popes were exercising illegitimate authority.