The Vatican Dogma

[Vico]

Dear brother militantsparrow,

It’s not really a matter of “proving,” but a matter of understanding.

Many EO (especially polemicists) as well as Absolutist Petrine polemicists misconstrue the necessity of papal confirmation of an Ecumenical Council to mean that the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility. But that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. An Ecumenical Council is infallible in and of itself (read as: an Ecumenical Council exercises the infallible Magisterium of God). It is the whole body of bishops acting in concert that exercises the infallible Magisterium in the setting of an Ecumenical Council, not the Pope alone.

So trying to “prove” that the Pope’s ratification is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to be infallible is a fruitless endeavor because its premise is flawed in the first place.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

All infallibility is rooted in the gift that God give his Church.

The book The Gift of Infallibility by Fr. James T. O’Connor that I have is very good. It is the translation of the relatio of Bishop Gasser from Vatican I, which shows the draft and comments on proposed changes, and the final statement. Also an additional section is included on Vatican II called “The Infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium”. As you know, ex cathedra was the topic of the definition of Vatican I, and Vatican II Lumen Gentium 25, addressed the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. There is no infallibility of the bishops of the world without the assent of the Supreme Pontiff. Half of the notes in Lumen Gentium 25 refer to the relatio of Bishop Gasser.

 

[Abu]

mardukm
It is the whole body of bishops acting in concert that exercises the infallible Magisterium in the setting of an Ecumenical Council, not the Pope alone.
So trying to “prove” that the Pope’s ratification is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to be infallible is a fruitless endeavor because its premise is flawed in the first place.

The feeling that an Ecumenical Council might be able to issue an infallible teaching without papal approval is incorrect.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
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.

“The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. . . .The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops, when together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium” (CCC 884, 891). Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor, CD].

“And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convene such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.” [Code of Canon Law #337].

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

The feeling that an Ecumenical Council might be able to issue an infallible teaching without papal approval is incorrect.

Your response is a bit of an oxymoron. It seems you have a different definition of “Ecumenical Council” than I do. To me, an Ecumenical Council is a body of bishops with a head bishop. I don’t and can’t conceive of an Ecumenical Council without a body, on the one hand, or without a head, on the other.

Yet, by your response, you indicate that you think an Ecumenical Council can exist as a separate entity from the Pope. I absolutely reject such a concept, so I don’t agree with what you are saying here.

The Pope does not confirm (ratify) the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. The Pope acts, rather, as a member of the Council. An Ecumenical Council is not an infallible exercise of the Pope with a bunch of bishops who do not exercise the charism of infallibility. Rather, an Ecumenical Council is an infallible exercise of the WHOLE BODY of bishops in concert.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

mardukm
an Ecumenical Council is a body of bishops with a head bishop. I don’t and can’t conceive of an Ecumenical Council without a body, on the one hand, or without a head, on the other.

Correct – under the presidency of the pope or his legates.

The Pope does not confirm (ratify) the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

As we can see this is false (CCC #884, 891). [See Code of Canon Law #337, 338].

Further,.
“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……The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. 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].

*Note:
29 Cf. Jn. 10:11-15.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

As we can see this is false (CCC #884, 891). [See Code of Canon Law #337, 338].

Further,.
“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……The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. 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].

*Note:
29 Cf. Jn. 10:11-15.
As your quote specifically states, a council is not even Ecumenical unless the Pope confirms it. So I ask you - how can the Pope be said to confirm an Ecumenical Council? Are you saying that the Pope has to confirm the proceedings of the Council twice - first as a member of it, and then as a separate entity apart from the Council?

I suspect we are trying to say the same thing, but your terminology is rather incorrect. The devil is in the details, and I know that many Catholics think that “the Pope confirms an Ecumenical Council.” But such language perpetuates the gross misconception of both the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates that the Pope is a separate entity from the Ecumenical Council. This leads to such errors as believing that it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility, or that only the Pope’s confirmation is necessary for a Council to be considered Ecumenical, or that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

But the excerpt you quote highlights another common misunderstanding. There is a difference between the infallibility of a Council, on the one hand, and the Ecumenicity of a Council, on the other. Ecumenicity does not determine infallibility. To say so is equivalent to the modernist error that Truth is determined by consensus. Ecumenicity is not a gauge of whether a Council is teaching God’s Truth. Rather, Ecumenicity is simply a gauge of the unity of the Church on the Council’s teaching. Unity is important because it is an indicator to the world of Truth, as Jesus specifically taught in John 17 (i.e., through unity, the world will know that Jesus was sent by God). But Truth does not flow from unity, as if Truth is determined by consensus. Rather unity flows from adherence to the Truth.

As your excerpt asserts, the Pope’s confirmation determines whether a Council becomes Ecumenical. But it does not say that this confirmation determines whether the Council is infallible. The Pope’s confirmation does not give a Council its infallibility - rather, the Pope’s confirmation simply establishes the unity (i.e., oneness in universality) of the Church on the Council’s teachings.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Local or general councils are ratified (accepted) by the Supreme Pontiff and are then called ecumenical by the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Pontiff ratified (accepted) a now called Ecumenical Council, when at the time is was a local council. This happened with the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) which was not accepted by a Supreme Pontiff until Pope Vigilus, shortly after the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) in February 554. There was a delay due to the “Three Chapters” controversy that lead to the Aquileia schism. Constantinople II re-affirmed Nicea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Pope Gregory the Great also accepted the first four councils Nicea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, likening them to the four gospels.

 

[Abu]

mardukm
I know that many Catholics think that “the Pope confirms an Ecumenical Council.” But such language perpetuates the gross misconception of both the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates that the Pope is a separate entity from the Ecumenical Council….This leads to such errors as believing that…This leads to such errors as believing that it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility….or that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

No Ecumenical Council nor any document, papal or otherwise, enjoys “infallibility”. Infallibility is expressed by a Pope in a definitive statement on faith or morals, within a document, to the whole Church, as Supreme Pastor. In an Ecumenical Council, infallibility is expressed in a solemn definition on faith or morals which has to be approved by the Pope – such as the dogma on papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I.

Pastor Aeternus (Ecumenical Council Vatican I)
“Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. [My emphasis].

1. So, then, 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.”

The “language” to which you appear to take exception is that of the Ecumenical Councils Vatican I above, and Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 22, confirmed by Pope Paul VI, as quoted in post #24. No one has any authority to demean the teaching of a Council or a Pope.

Canon 341, #1, states: “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.” [My emphasis].

Despite all attempts at misrepresentation, the exercise of papal infallibility in doctrine, defined through a dogma in Vatican I, and reiterated by Vatican II, is quite clear; the exercise of papal primacy and apostolic collegiality (so well developed in Vatican II which defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council, LG #25 – a turning point in doctrinal history) will continue to be a fruitful source of dialogue to facilitate true communion with other Christian groups, even as more Anglican and Evangelical groups are presently seeking to come home.

Catholics endeavour to explain and discuss their faith based on the teaching of Christ’s Church, rather than on feelings.

 

[militantsparrow]

Dear brother Abu,

As your quote specifically states, a council is not even Ecumenical unless the Pope confirms it. So I ask you - how can the Pope be said to confirm an Ecumenical Council? Are you saying that the Pope has to confirm the proceedings of the Council twice - first as a member of it, and then as a separate entity apart from the Council?

I suspect we are trying to say the same thing, but your terminology is rather incorrect. The devil is in the details, and I know that many Catholics think that “the Pope confirms an Ecumenical Council.” But such language perpetuates the gross misconception of both the Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates that the Pope is a separate entity from the Ecumenical Council. This leads to such errors as believing that it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility, or that only the Pope’s confirmation is necessary for a Council to be considered Ecumenical, or that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

But the excerpt you quote highlights another common misunderstanding. There is a difference between the infallibility of a Council, on the one hand, and the Ecumenicity of a Council, on the other. Ecumenicity does not determine infallibility. To say so is equivalent to the modernist error that Truth is determined by consensus. Ecumenicity is not a gauge of whether a Council is teaching God’s Truth. Rather, Ecumenicity is simply a gauge of the unity of the Church on the Council’s teaching. Unity is important because it is an indicator to the world of Truth, as Jesus specifically taught in John 17 (i.e., through unity, the world will know that Jesus was sent by God). But Truth does not flow from unity, as if Truth is determined by consensus. Rather unity flows from adherence to the Truth.

As your excerpt asserts, the Pope’s confirmation determines whether a Council becomes Ecumenical. But it does not say that this confirmation determines whether the Council is infallible. The Pope’s confirmation does not give a Council its infallibility - rather, the Pope’s confirmation simply establishes the unity (i.e., oneness in universality) of the Church on the Council’s teachings.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
This is a great explanation. In my (close to two year long) struggle to determine whether to become Eastern or Oriental Orthodox (I hadn’t made up my mind) I eventually came to the conclusion that the chief charism of the papacy, and exactly why I need to remain Catholic, is unity–it’s catholicity.

 

[militantsparrow]

Dear brother Lawrence,

Please read the first two pages of the following thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494568

I presented some facts regarding Vatican 1 which refutes the idea that Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council for the express purpose of defining Papal infallibility.

Let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
I actually just found this thread the other day trying to research Papal Infalability. It’s excellent. I’ve recommended it to someone else already. Thank you very much.

 

[militantsparrow]

Dear brother Abu…
I suspect we are trying to say the same thing, but your terminology is rather incorrect.

I think you are correct, Marduk, but I think maybe it’s not that Abu’s terminology is incorrect. I believe it might be that he is expressing himself in more Western terminology. But I must admit, I prefer (and understand) the Eastern expression better.

 

[Abu]

militantsparrow
I believe it might be that he is expressing himself in more Western terminology. But I must admit, I prefer (and understand) the Eastern expression better.

When anyone confuses, and contrasts, an actual teaching of Christ’s Church with an “expression” of anyone, then attention to truth is in doubt.

A misinterpretation of dogma or doctrine is not compatible with fidelity

 

[militantsparrow]

When anyone confuses, and contrasts, an actual teaching of Christ’s Church with an “expression” of anyone, then attention to truth is in doubt.

A misinterpretation of dogma or doctrine is not compatible with fidelity

Abu,
I’m not sure I follow. I’ve read the paragraphs from the CCC you quoted. I’ve read yours and Marduk’s responses. I don’t see disagreement.

 

[Abu]

militantsparrow
I don’t see disagreement

How strange.
mardukm’s: *such errors as believing that it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility….or that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council *are incompatible with the teaching of Vatican I that “they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff,” and with:
“9. So, then, 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.” (*Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I).

But further from mardukm: I know that many Catholics think that “the Pope confirms an Ecumenical Council.” But such language perpetuates the gross misconception…
When we know from Canon 341, #1, which states: “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.” [My emphasis].

“The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. 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].

*Note:
29 Cf. Jn. 10:11-15.

How very strange that such authoritative clarity that the Pope has the absolute fullness of supreme power of jurisdiction on faith, morals, discipline and government over the whole Church, to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them, should be treated as though it is some fantasy and unable to be offered as truth on this DB, to be muddled as pretentious.​

 

[Vince1022]

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture

No it’s not.

Scripture supports the doctrine of infallibility, but such doctrine is not explicit in Scripture.

 

[Vince1022]

The feeling that an Ecumenical Council might be able to issue an infallible teaching without papal approval is incorrect.

The first 7 ecumenical councils were neither convened by nor attended by the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome did not always agree with everything taught by these councils. And nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that everything taught by these (nor any) ecumenical councils were taught infallibly.

 

[Vince1022]

No Ecumenical Council nor any document, papal or otherwise, enjoys “infallibility”. Infallibility is expressed by a Pope in a definitive statement on faith or morals, within a document, to the whole Church, as Supreme Pastor. In an Ecumenical Council, infallibility is expressed in a solemn definition on faith or morals which has to be approved by the Pope – such as the dogma on papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I.

This is not what the Church teaches (see the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

How strange.
mardukm’s: *such errors as believing that it is the Pope that grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility….or that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council *are incompatible with the teaching of Vatican I that “they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff,” and with:
“9. So, then, 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.” (*Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I).

Can you please point out exactly where in this excerpt you find the idea that a Council obtains its infallibility from the Pope or that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council?

But further from mardukm: I know that many Catholics think that “the Pope confirms an Ecumenical Council.” But such language perpetuates the gross misconception…
When we know from Canon 341, #1, which states: “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.” [My emphasis].

I think you have myopically neglected the highlighted portion above. This Canon is obviously expressing a tautology. It is describing what goes on WITHIN the Council for the Council to have binding force. It is silly to think that Canon is asserting that after the Ecumenical Council has taken place, the Pope and the Fathers of the Council must approve the decrees of the Ecumenical Council again, or that after the Council has taken place, the Pope must confirm its decrees again. FYI, in case you are wondering, the promulgation of a Council’s decrees takes place WITHIN the Council, not outside of it. As stated, the Canon is simply intimating what goes on WITHIN a Council - it is not making any statement about what goes on AFTER the Council occurs.

“The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. 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].
Correct, which is why it is an oxymoron to say that the Pope needs to confirm apart from the Council something that he already confirmed within the Council as a member of it.

How very strange that such authoritative clarity that the Pope has the absolute fullness of supreme power of jurisdiction on faith, morals, discipline and government over the whole Church, to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them, should be treated as though it is some fantasy and unable to be offered as truth on this DB, to be muddled as pretentious.

Nobody is denying these things. What I deny and reject is the idea that the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility, or that the Pope acts apart from and above an Ecumenical Council. Nothing you’ve written supports these notions I reject.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

Vince1022
Originally Posted by Abu
*The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture *

No it’s not. Scripture supports the doctrine of infallibility, but such doctrine is not explicit in Scripture.

No one said that it was “explicit” – it is conveyed by Jesus who founded His Church on Peter – it is part of the teaching of Christ and His Apostles.

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

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 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?”

Popes CANNOT teach error when they teach as the Supreme Pastors of Christ’s Church on faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, and ONLY then.

 

[Abu]

Originally Posted by Abu
No Ecumenical Council nor any document, papal or otherwise, enjoys “infallibility”. Infallibility is expressed by a Pope in a definitive statement on faith or morals, within a document, to the whole Church, as Supreme Pastor. In an Ecumenical Council, infallibility is expressed in a solemn definition on faith or morals which has to be approved by the Pope – such as the dogma on papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I.

This is not what the Church teaches (see the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II).

So why can you not show any basis for your challenge to the teaching of Vatican I and II?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

Pastor Aeternus (Ecumenical Council Vatican I)
“Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. [My emphasis].

This states - specifically - that an Ecumenical Council is not above the Pope. How in the world do you get the idea from this that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council? As you stated, please endeavour to explain and discuss your Faith based on the teaching of the Church, not on your feelings.

1. So, then, 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.”

I don’t even know why you are imposing this canon from the Decree on the Primacy in a discussion on the Infallibility.

The “language” to which you appear to take exception is that of the Ecumenical Councils Vatican I above, and Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 22, confirmed by Pope Paul VI, as quoted in post #24. No one has any authority to demean the teaching of a Council or a Pope.

I believe excesses in interpretation of the Vatican decrees is just as demeaning to the spirit of the Vatican Councils as rejection of its decrees.

Canon 341, #1, states: “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.” [My emphasis].

Addressed in my prior post.

Despite all attempts at misrepresentation, the exercise of papal infallibility in doctrine, defined through a dogma in Vatican I, and reiterated by Vatican II, is quite clear; the exercise of papal primacy and apostolic collegiality (so well developed in Vatican II which defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council, LG #25 – a turning point in doctrinal history) will continue to be a fruitful source of dialogue to facilitate true communion with other Christian groups, even as more Anglican and Evangelical groups are presently seeking to come home.

You are misrepresenting the Vatican Councils if you are supporting the notions that:
(1) the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council;
(2) the Pope’s confirmation is the only thing necessary for an Ecumenical Council to be valid;
(3) the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk