The Vatican Dogma

[Abu]

JohnVIII
All Ecumenical Councils, it is said, must be accepted by the faithful

The faithful must assent to all dogma and doctrine defined by an Ecumenical Council when approved by the Pope.

In the final analysis the teachings of Vatican I, in a practical way, really can’t be dogmatic. But because many see it as dogmatic there can never be peace and agreement.

Vatican I issued a dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility – any contrary view is anathema. There has always been dissent, and the obedience of faith (assent) as St Paul emphasises (Rom 1:5; 16.26) is the path to truth from which all else flows.
Vatican I declared that “Those who have accepted the faith under the Magisterium of the Church can never have any just reason for changing that faith or calling it into doubt.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, 3).

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms the Vatican I dogma: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
“Lumen Gentium 22: “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

 

[Abu]

JohnVIII
If everything that comes from Rome is optional, then Rome itself is optional.

Since the primacy and infallibility have been conferred on the Pope by Jesus Himself, there is nothing “optional” about assent – St Paul’s obedience of faith – to dogma and doctrine from the Pope or an Ecumenical Council confirmed by him.

The teaching of Jesus coming to us in the complementary sources of Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, is the heritage of each Christian. Each has a strict right in justice to receive this teaching: “The right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected” (Pope John Paul II, encyclical The Splendor of Truth, Veritatis Splendor, 113).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

At the Ecumenical Council of Constance, Pope Martin V excluded a decree from his confirmation of approval which stated that “all persons of whatever dignity, even the Pope himself, are bound to obey the council in all that regards the faith.”

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… “ (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki)

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

Since the primacy and infallibility have been conferred on the Pope by Jesus Himself, there is nothing “optional” about assent – St Paul’s obedience of faith – to dogma and doctrine from the Pope or an Ecumenical Council

Well said.

confirmed by him.

An unnecessary addition to your statement, as an Ecumenical Council cannot exist without its head bishop, who is inherently PART OF the Council, not an entity outside of it. Your consistent attempts at separating the head from the body and vice-versa is something we will never agree on.

The teaching of Jesus coming to us in the complementary sources of Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, is the heritage of each Christian. Each has a strict right in justice to receive this teaching: “The right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected” (Pope John Paul II, encyclical The Splendor of Truth, Veritatis Splendor, 113).

Great quote. But have you and brother Steve been presenting Catholic doctrine “in its purity and integrity?”

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

An authority, it should be pointed out, that was exercised WITH his fellow Apostles (i.e., COLLEGIALLY), not be himself (St. Peter did not make a selection on his own).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

A letter that again demonstrates collegiality. If you look at the Epistle, it is made in the first person PLURAL. It was a letter from the CHURCH of Rome, not from Pope St. Clement by himself. And in case you are wondering, the “royal We” was not employed by the papacy during the Church’s primordial days, but only later in medieval times.

At the Ecumenical Council of Constance, Pope Martin V excluded a decree from his confirmation of approval which stated that “all persons of whatever dignity, even the Pope himself, are bound to obey the council in all that regards the faith.”

It was excluded only because of the extant debate about the Gallican idea that an Ecumenical Council can act apart from and above its head bishop. The Gallican principle sought to separate the body from the head. You and brother Steve B seek to do the same, by claiming that the head can act apart from and above the body. Don’t combat one extreme by proposing another extreme - don’t combat one error by proposing another error.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… “ (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki)

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Harnack highlights what I stated earlier in this thread about potestas and auctoritas. The bishop of Rome may have authority by divine right (potestas), but it is of no effect without the auctoritas admitted by the Church. Indeed, though Pope St. Victor had the authority to excommunicate the Churches of Asia, he was opposed by almost the rest of the bishops, and accordingly corrected himself. His authority was personal, but its exercise was collegial.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

I’ve got several hours of unexpected free time to kill, so…

In the context of an Ecumenical Council or the College of bishops:
(1) Is the Pope ALONE infallible?
(2) Is the authority of the Ecumenical Council or College of bishops dependent on the agreement of the Pope ALONE, or is it ALSO dependent on the agreement of the rest of the bishops?

Given your question,

“A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

That last part is a HUGE statement.
M:

As already explained, the executive and judicial elements of a definition ex cathedra belong to the Pope alone, but the legislative element does not, and rather belongs to the WHOLE MAGISTERIUM. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?

That has ZERO to do with what I said. I said

“you’re denying the pope on his own, can define matters of faith and morals infallibly”?

And you WERE denying it.
M:

Here’s a perfect example of your utter ignorance of the concept of collegiality. I focus on the collegial nature of the term “concur” (agreement between parties). You, on the other hand, focus on the concept of “a single viewpoint.” It excuses your mind from grasping the reality of collegiality in the Church.

No here’s a perfect example of YOUR utter ignorance of primacy and supremacy of the pope even over collegiality.

Here’s what I’ve already said.

concur in a single viewpoint, means no matter how many viewpoints were there in the beginning, in the end, they concur in a single viewpoint to be held conclusively.

Conclusively = putting an end to debate especially by reason of irrefutability

single viewpoint AND conclusively. But even at that, does their viewpoint bind the Church without the popes confirmation? No.
M:

Yet not a single one of those quotes indicates that the Pope ALONE is the authority in an Ecumenical Council or College of bishops, and not a single one of those quotes indicates that the Pope ALONE is infallible in the same context, NOR in the context of the papal exercise of the infallible Magisterium. Nice try, but no cigar.

Kindly stay with what is said, don’t manufacture stuff.

Re: a council

From Lumen Gentium #22
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157)

Therefore,

• The pope has primacy and universal power over the entire Church, over all pastors i.e. bishops also, & faithful… and therefore, yes over councils, and he can exercise that primacy and power freely.
• The bishops can’t exercise THEIR authority over the entire Church without the pope. Their “power can be exercised ONLY with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”

Re: infallibility of the council, refer to the opening quote

 

[Abu]

mardukm
confirmed by him….An unnecessary addition to your statement, as an Ecumenical Council cannot exist without its head bishop, who is inherently PART OF the Council, not an entity outside of it.

Into the trap again – the Canons and Vatican II’s teaching are real – against the fantasy of denial:

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
“And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convene such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.
“Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.”

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/DISSIDEN.TXT
“The Council of Constance, 1415-18, followed a difficult time of schism. Fearing to reignite the schism, Martin V ratified the work of the council regarding heresy, but withheld approval of Frequens and Sacrosancta, which declared the council superior to the pope.

The Code of Canon Law is also quite clear.
“Can. 338 ß1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.
“ß2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff.”
“Can. 341 ß1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.”
“ß2 If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff.”

A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*)” [Vatican II, *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) #22].

The theme (in Ut Unum Sint, 1995) of the Holy Father was to present and encourage dialogue on the exercise of papal primacy (jurisdiction), leading to full communion of the Orthodox Churches, and the separated ecclesial communities, with the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

I think you have made a valid point here [user]steve b[/user].

The only part that I am unhappy with is making any one specific view of the papacy dogmatic.

I’m beginning to see pattern. I’d like to compare the Vatican Dogma to the issue of the addition of the filioque.

1a) The majority of people who confess “…the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father & the Son…” understands that to mean double-procession.

The problem comes from the differences on how proceed is understood and used

JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
JV:

1b) The majority of people who read, “If anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: Let him be anathema”,

understands that to mean the Absolutist Petrine view is the correct view.

I would agree with your assessment about how people would read that document.

(quote from) **Chapter 3. **On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

At the end of the doc, are the references to support the positions taken in the document…
JV:

• 2a) According to official sources, such as the Counsel of Florence and others, double-procession is not the correct understanding, rather the correct view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. No effort is made to correct Protestants who hold double-procession’s views when they wish to become Roman Catholics.

• As you might know, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost
• Father through the Son just might be that compromise that gets us together.

I’ll try and get to the rest of your comments later.

 

[mardukm]

Given your question,

“A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation.”

Your quote and the quote I gave are given under the heading of “THEORY.” The ACTUAL TEACHING of the Church is given a little bit later under the heading of “PAPAL AND CONCILIAR INFALLIBILITY.” Here is what it states:

That last part is a HUGE statement.

A HUGE statement GROSSLY taken out of context. This is so absolutely typical of your cut-and-paste method of “proof” for your errors. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a lot more information on the matter, info that refutes your “Pope alone” error. Let me give the actual CONTEXT of your myopic quote above. The CE also gives the following:

"**A unanimous conciliary decision, as distinct from a simple majority decision, may under certain circumstances, be, in a way, binding on the pope and compel his approbation — by the compelling power, not of a superior authority, but of the Catholic truth shining forth in the witnessing of the whole Church. To exert such power the council’s decision must be clearly and unmistakably the reflex of the faith of all the absent bishops and of the faithful.

The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions.**"

Please just give up and concede your error. Your own authorities consistently contradict your erroneous opinion!

That has ZERO to do with what I said. I said.

“you’re denying the pope on his own, can define matters of faith and morals infallibly”?

And you WERE denying it.

How, given my statement which you claim “has ZERO to do” with what you said? First, please explain how my statement “has ZERO to do” with what you said.

Do I deny that the Pope has a personal prerogative to possess the infallibility of the Church? No.

Do I deny that he does not need the help of the Church to make a definition ex cathedra? Yes, indeed, for no Magisterial teaching makes such a claim.

No here’s a perfect example of YOUR utter ignorance of primacy and supremacy of the pope even over collegiality.

Here’s what I’ve already said.

concur in a single viewpoint, means no matter how many viewpoints were there in the beginning, in the end, they concur in a single viewpoint to be held conclusively.

Conclusively = putting an end to debate especially by reason of irrefutability

single viewpoint AND conclusively. But even at that, does their viewpoint bind the Church without the popes confirmation? No.

First, it was proven conclusively above that your (mis)quotation of the CE was just another one of your cut-and-paste hack jobs. If you have feel emboldened to make this statement because of what you thought was support for your posiition, please get a hold of yourself.

Second, the Pope’s confirmation is required for the Council to have UNIVERSAL authority. The Council can still have binding authority on the LOCAL Churches whose bishops approve the Council. This occurred for the Second Ecum Council, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Synod of Trullo.

Kindly stay with what is said, don’t manufacture stuff.

The only one trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat is you and brother Abu. That was made painfully clear above, after I exposed your cut-and-paste hack job of the CE to try to “prove” your error that the Infallibility of an Ecumenical Council is given to it by the Pope.

Btw, this also proves that when you denied to brother AmbroseSJ that you did not “say” that the Pope “grants” an Ecumenical Council its infallibility, you were deliberately trying to play at sophism. I’ve lost a bit of respect for you, I must admit. I’ll revoke that statement once you admit your error on the matter of conciliar infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

The problem comes from the differences on how proceed is understood and used

JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

I don’t think brother Adrian requires this explanation, as he has already admitted to this over at the Eastern Catholicism Forum in the past. His concern is that Catholics utilize the term “Double Procession” and that many still understand that term in its heretical sense as the Spirit having TWO origins. It is the same concern I have as a non-Latin Catholic, which I have expressed over two years ago: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=299765

I would agree with your assessment about how people would read that document.

Hardly. Your statement would be more correct if you stated “I would agree with your assessment about how people would read the definition and not the entire Decree.”

The fact is, a myopic focus on the definition alone without reading the ENTIRE Decree would lead people to believe that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of a local Church at any time by his own will and fancy. But a reading of the ENTIRE Decree would reveal that the Pope in fact has no authority to impede the authority of local bishops in their own diocese (short of the bishop falling into heresy or public scandal). Even then, for Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches, the proper authority (i.e., jurisdiction) to depose a bishop of a non-Latin Church sui juris rests with the head bishop in Synod of that local Church, not the Pope, whether the bishop is resident within or outside the Traditional territory of the Patriarch or Major archbishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear Brother Marduk,

I wonder if I should continue here on this thread. You are far more read up on Latin teachings then I will probably ever be. You’re more informed opinion is superior to mine. Yet at the same time I have read every post on this thread and I truly would prefer to be in agreement with you. But I can’t even agree with my own opinions because I can’t see that what I have come to believe about Papal authority matches up with what official Latin teaches SEEMS TO ME to say. And I hope you can forgive me but I also don’t understand how it matches up with what you say either. As I said I’m not as informed as you are so my lack of understanding must be my fault, not yours.

I will try to dialog a little further, as you want me to understand.

Dear brother JohnVIII,

All orthodox Catholics agree that the agreement of the head bishop is necessary, a dogmatic principle established by Apostolic Canon 34.

QUESTION - do you doubt that the agreement of the head bishop is necessary according to Apostolic Canon 34?

I agree

If you agree with this ancient Rule of Faith, then you are within the pale of orthodox Catholicism (the Low Petrine view which claims that the agreement of the head bishop is not necessary is not Catholic).

Well there is also the teaching in Orthodoxy that a synod can depose their 1st hierarch. But, apart from open heresy, I don’t understand how they can do this. I tend to think that although this does happen, it shouldn’t. When it does happen I feel far more comfortable siding with the 1st hierarch as he is the one chosen to bring about unity for the whole.

What is NOT dogmatic is the Absolutist Petrine principle that the agreement of the head bishop is the ONLY thing that is necessary.

Perhaps the question should be whether or not there is any difference when the 1st hierarch of a synod is the Pope. If there is no other bishop in the world that is the successor to St Peter, then maybe the dynamic of such synod might be different. You have said that the Pope is just a bishop. Is it possible that he is an apostle? Being the successor to St Peter, maybe he is the only apostle, and that would put him above all bishops, right?

I pointed out in the very quotes given by brothers Steve and Abu by underscoring those portions of the quotes they gave that they deliberately neglected, portions that demonstrate the collegial nature of the Church’s ecclesiology.

QUESTION - Do you agree that brothers Steve and Abu were only utilizing selective portions of the quotes they gave to defend their position (you can see this by the selective portions they underlined)?

I honestly don’t know. It hadn’t occurred to me that they were doing this, but if you see that they are, you know what you’re talking about.

…Continued…

 

[JohnVIII]

…Continued…

Ex. - In Canon 341 of the Latin Code, brothers Steve and Abu focused on portions that indicated the necessity of the Pope’s agreement and confirmation in an Ecum Council to prove their erroneous opinion that ONLY the Pope’s actions are necessary for the validity, authority, and infallibility of an Ecumenical Council (or College of Bishops). In response, I pointed out that the very same Canon affirms that the agreement of the rest of the bishops is ALSO necessary for the validity, authority, and infallibility of an Ecumenical Council (or College of Bishops). Just from the canonical, textual perspective, who is correct? Does Canon 341 state that ONLY the Pope’s actions are necessary for the validity of an Ecumenical Council? Or does the text itself indicate the necessity of the agreement of the rest of the bishops AS WELL? Please respond, even if only for the sake of putting your mind at ease on this particular part of the debate.

What it appears to me to be is that Rome has re-written Sacred Tradition to place it in a new context as an authority that is at a level lower than that of the Pope. If the Pope is the only apostle then doing this is the correct thing to do. If he is just a bishop, even if he is the 1st hierarch of an Ecumenical Council, then this is not the right thing to do. I understand that you say this is not the canon says. I am unable to see it.

I understand your concern. What we have here are two positions: One that takes Sacred Tradition into account, and another that denies Sacred Traditino. I would only ask you - WHICH POSITION DO YOU HOLD. Do you personally, according to your conscience, accept the position that takes Sacred Tradition into account, or do you accept the position that denies it?

I have not yet tried to explain my opinions about Papal authority, simply because they do not correspond to Vatican I. But I formed them in an effort to harmonize both Papal authority and Sacred Tradition. Now I see that this is not possible. If I must take sides, I will side with Sacred Tradition against Papal authority. (In so doing it would only be proper that I no longer remain Roman Catholic.)

Is it really true that just because someone may have a different interpretation, then dogma no longer exists? Did the existence of Judaizers in Scripture mean that the Gospel message was not dogma? Did the existence of the Pneumatomachi mean that the Nicene Creed was not dogmatic? There are numerous examples. Are the V1 Decrees not dogmatic just because there are different understandings?

The dogma might exist! But if no one knows what that dogma is, it is as good as being non-existent. You have to at least be able apprehend it to accept it. If apprehension is not possible, neither is acceptance possible.

(a) All orthodox Catholics believe that the head bishop is necessary…

Agree

…That is dogmatic.

Don’t agree

(b) The necessity of the other bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, for the validity of the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the College of Bishops is at least canonical

Agree, but I don’t agree that this is a Latin teaching

(c) That the Pope cannot contradict the sensus fidei of the Church even for definitions ex cathedra is dogmatic.

Tend to disagree, don’t really know

Two things:
(1) “Peace and agreement” in the East is a bit of a red herring. The Pneumatomachi persisted for a while even after the Second Ecum Council. The Arians also persisted despite the First Ecum Council. Are you going to deny the dogmatic nature of the Decrees of the First Ecum because of that? Please respond.

Heresy’s like Arianism slowly died away because of the Churches effectual use of economia, not because of dogma coming from a Church council.

---

I pray that with what you are going through right now, that the Lord will be with you granting you the strength you need to go through with it.

God Bless!

 

[Vico]

Previously posted from the relatio were:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7583935&postcount=262

Important points made by Bishop Gasser:

• Papal authority is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
• the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions.
• there is not a strict and absolute necessity of seeking consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops, because consent of the Church may be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I wonder if I should continue here on this thread…Yet at the same time I have read every post on this thread and I truly would prefer to be in agreement with you. But I can’t even agree with my own opinions because I can’t see that what I have come to believe about Papal authority matches up with what official Latin teaches SEEMS TO ME to say. And I hope you can forgive me but I also don’t understand how it matches up with what you say either. As I said I’m not as informed as you are so my lack of understanding must be my fault, not yours.

I will try to dialog a little further, as you want me to understand.

I sincerely hope you remain in the dialog. I am indeed concerned about your understanding of the matter, so I hope you will take my comments in that light, not as a means to berate you. I fully understand and appreciate exactly where you are coming from, for I was in the same period of doubt before I joined the Catholic communion.

Well there is also the teaching in Orthodoxy that a synod can depose their 1st hierarch. But, apart from open heresy, I don’t understand how they can do this. I tend to think that although this does happen, it shouldn’t. When it does happen I feel far more comfortable siding with the 1st hierarch as he is the one chosen to bring about unity for the whole.

Thank you for bringing this up. The old Catholic Encyclopedia itself (a great source of at least the Latin understanding of things) states this:
"**This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

•ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
•ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).
In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: “If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome” (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).**"

So even the EO teaching you propose is not outside the pale of the Catholic understanding. I guess the only difference would be that it is more difficult in the Catholic paradigm to depose the head bishop than among the EO. If you agree that heresy is the only grounds for deposition, you are more Catholic than you think.

Perhaps the question should be whether or not there is any difference when the 1st hierarch of a synod is the Pope. If there is no other bishop in the world that is the successor to St Peter, then maybe the dynamic of such synod might be different. You have said that the Pope is just a bishop. Is it possible that he is an apostle? Being the successor to St Peter, maybe he is the only apostle, and that would put him above all bishops, right?

The last Apostle died with John. That is a sure Catholic principle, if not dogmatic. Rest assured that the Pope is not regarded as “the only Apostle” in the Catholic Church. The Pope has greater responsibilties and prerogatives than any other bishop (just like any head bishop has greater responsibilities and prerogatives than the other bishops within his jurisdiction), but he is still just a bishop nonetheless.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

What it appears to me to be is that Rome has re-written Sacred Tradition to place it in a new context as an authority that is at a level lower than that of the Pope. If the Pope is the only apostle then doing this is the correct thing to do. If he is just a bishop, even if he is the 1st hierarch of an Ecumenical Council, then this is not the right thing to do.

However, the Decree on Infallibility specifically states: “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by his revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles.” This is not contained in the definition itself, but is contained in the Decree nonetheless. This is why I keep insisting that people who focus just on the definition are going to get a very incorrect understanding of the intentions of the V1 Fathers. Please answer this question: What part of that quote I just gave from the Decree could cause you to think that the Decree on the Infallibility intends to make Sacred Tradition of lesser value than the Pope himself?

You have to understand that the definition on papal infallibility was given to clarify the matter to the Church. Please don’t think that just because something is not contained as a definition, that it somehow has less authority in the Church. More often than not, a teaching is not defined because there is no need to define it. That means that no one in the Church doubts the Truth of that teaching. The teaching that the Pope must be faithful to Sacred Tradition (not the other way around) is contained in the Decree. What more do you need?

I understand that you say this is not the canon says. I am unable to see it.

The Canon says: “The Decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council…” Please answer this question: What does the phrase “as well as” mean to you?

The dogma might exist! But if no one knows what that dogma is, it is as good as being non-existent. You have to at least be able apprehend it to accept it. If apprehension is not possible, neither is acceptance possible.

Please answer this: Can you distinguish between a dogma, and possible interpretations of a dogma? The Nicene Creed was used by the Pneumatomachi to defend their heresy that the Holy Spirit was not divine because the Nicene Creed did not make it explicit. It took a later Ecumenical Council to affirm that the interpretation of the Pneumatomachi was a heresy. Does this mean that the belief that the Holy Spirit is divine did not exist before the 2nd Ecum? Of course not. Were the arguments of the Fathers after the 1st Ecum to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which depended on sources outside the definition of Nicea, valid? Please answer this question: Can you see the parallel with the current debate?

Don’t agree

Just to clarify: So you don’t agree that Apostolic Canon 34 is a RULE OF FAITH to which all Churches must adhere?

Agree, but I don’t agree that this is a Latin teaching.

Well, this would depend on your answer to my question above regarding Canon 341 of the Latin Code.

Tend to disagree, don’t really know.

Do you say this because you personally believe the Pope can contradict Sacred Tradition, or because you think that Vatican 1 teaches that the Pope can contradict Sacred Tradition? If the latter, please refer back to my quotation of the Decree on Infallibility above regarding the divine responsibility of the Pope to remain faithful to Sacred Tradition.

Heresy’s like Arianism slowly died away because of the Churches effectual use of economia, not because of dogma coming from a Church council.

I would apply the same to the Absolutist Petrine view. It exists in certain circles of Catholicism, probably because it has not really threatened the unity of the Catholic Church. I suspect (and pray, actually) that as the matter becomes more focused in ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox, the Magisterium will see fit to finally do away with it.

I am looking forward to reading your responses, though I suspect I will not be able to return to our roundtable until 3 or 4 days from now.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thank you for your prayers.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear Brother Marduk,

I wonder if I should continue here on this thread. You are far more read up on Latin teachings then I will probably ever be. You’re more informed opinion is superior to mine. Yet at the same time I have read every post on this thread and I truly would prefer to be in agreement with you. But I can’t even agree with my own opinions because I can’t see that what I have come to believe about Papal authority matches up with what official Latin teaches SEEMS TO ME to say. And I hope you can forgive me but I also don’t understand how it matches up with what you say either. As I said I’m not as informed as you are so my lack of understanding must be my fault, not yours.

My dear friend don’t feel bad. If your typical Catholics on internet discussion forums are representative of the Church at large, then Mardukm’s views represent a very small minority of Catholics. Quite frankly, even if his understanding is the correct one, I’d be very hesitant to put my faith in a Church that can’t even communicate such a basic teaching.

Well there is also the teaching in Orthodoxy that a synod can depose their 1st hierarch. But, apart from open heresy, I don’t understand how they can do this. I tend to think that although this does happen, it shouldn’t. When it does happen I feel far more comfortable siding with the 1st hierarch as he is the one chosen to bring about unity for the whole.

Any hierarch, no matter how elevated his position, is still human and liable to err.The history of the Church is rife with examples of heretical bishops, popes, patriarchs and even councils.

Perhaps the question should be whether or not there is any difference when the 1st hierarch of a synod is the Pope. If there is no other bishop in the world that is the successor to St Peter, then maybe the dynamic of such synod might be different. You have said that the Pope is just a bishop. Is it possible that he is an apostle? Being the successor to St Peter, maybe he is the only apostle, and that would put him above all bishops, right?

Is it possible he is an Apostle? I’ve had Catholics on this very forum contend that the authority of Pope St Clement was greater than that of St John the Theologian, who was still alive during his reign.

In Christ
Joe

 

[JohnVIII]

The last Apostle died with John. That is a sure Catholic principle, if not dogmatic. Rest assured that the Pope is not regarded as “the only Apostle” in the Catholic Church. The Pope has greater responsibilties and prerogatives than any other bishop (just like any head bishop has greater responsibilities and prerogatives than the other bishops within his jurisdiction), but he is still just a bishop nonetheless.

If the Pope is just a bishop then any other bishop could head an Ecumenical Counsel. Why does it have to be the Roman bishop? If he is not the successor to St Peter in a unique way then there are two other Sees of St Peter that should be just as good. After all the Scriptures speak time and time again about how ‘Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established’. Perhaps for a counsel to be truly Ecumenical it needs to be confirmed by all three: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; not just Rome only.

Gregory of Rome to Eulogius of Alexandria:

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair.

"And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.

"For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

…continued…

 

[JohnVIII]

…continued…

Please answer this question: What part of that quote I just gave from the Decree could cause you to think that the Decree on the Infallibility intends to make Sacred Tradition of lesser value than the Pope himself?.. The teaching that the Pope must be faithful to Sacred Tradition (not the other way around) is contained in the Decree. What more do you need?

My reading of it is that the only role the bishops have is to go along with the Pope. If the Pope says “jump” the bishops only have the right to ask “how far”.

Please answer this question: What does the phrase “as well as” mean to you?

Canon 341 §1 “The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.”

It cannot be re-phased like this: “The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the the Fathers of the Council as well as by the Roman Pontiff, confirmed by the the Fathers of the Council and promulgated by their direction.” Therefore, the bishops are just along for the ride.

Please answer this: Can you distinguish between a dogma, and possible interpretations of a dogma? The Nicene Creed was used by the Pneumatomachi to defend their heresy that the Holy Spirit was not divine because the Nicene Creed did not make it explicit. It took a later Ecumenical Council to affirm that the interpretation of the Pneumatomachi was a heresy. Does this mean that the belief that the Holy Spirit is divine did not exist before the 2nd Ecum? Of course not. Were the arguments of the Fathers after the 1st Ecum to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which depended on sources outside the definition of Nicea, valid? Please answer this question: Can you see the parallel with the current debate?

Yes I see the parallel. One difference is that the 1st & 2nd Ecumenical Counsels did not deal with the authority of Rome or of an Ecumenical Counsel. In other words they weren’t twisted into themselves.

Just to clarify: So you don’t agree that Apostolic Canon 34 is a RULE OF FAITH to which all Churches must adhere?

I wouldn’t call it “a rule of faith”, but I believe the apostles laid it down as a pattern for local areas to follow so that there will be concord among those local bishops. I also see no reason that this pattern shouldn’t be followed at any level, even in an Ecumenical level.

Odd to me that you would call a procedure “a rule of faith”! If you want to talk about how things should be done in such a way that it is dogma, then I’m checking out of here. As I said before, this whole matter is leading me to insanity! I’m not going to cross myself in front of an icon of the canon laws and kiss it!

Do you say this because you personally believe the Pope can contradict Sacred Tradition, or because you think that Vatican 1 teaches that the Pope can contradict Sacred Tradition? If the latter, please refer back to my quotation of the Decree on Infallibility above regarding the divine responsibility of the Pope to remain faithful to Sacred Tradition.

This is it. I can’t go on with this any more. In the 18 different ways (all of which are the one true way) that you and others tie together Sacred Tradition to the Pope, there is no peace for me in this mess of contradictory dogma. For me, Sacred Tradition stands by itself. As Paul said, “though we [the Magisterium!], or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”

I suspect (and pray, actually) that as the matter becomes more focused in ecumenical dialog with the Orthodox, the Magisterium will see fit to finally do away with it.

If that day comes you can find me back on the Orthodox side this equation.

Please don’t take anything I said personally Brother Marduk, I have learned that I have made some errors, and I must return to what I know to be true. As for the CAF, I will stick with other threads, staying away from threads about the Pope and second marriages or anything that makes dogma out of people of practices, rather than faith. May God richly bless you in all that you do.

 

[Abu]

josephdaniel29
I’ve had Catholics on this very forum contend that the authority of Pope St Clement was greater than that of St John the Theologian, who was still alive during his reign.

Reality is in the fact of the commission given by Jesus to Peter and no one else, established by Peter and Pope St Clement and followed by Pope Victor I.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack (“too much of a liberal to have sympathy for even traditional Protestantism”) admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… “ (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki)
Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”