The Vatican Dogma

[Abu]

A summary of problems1)

1. mardukm’s first problem was to state: *“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.” *(Post #19)
   This was corrected by Vico: “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.” (Post # 21)
2. mardukm’s second problem was to state “The Pope does not confirm (ratify) the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.” (Post #23).
   This was corrected by Abu in post #24: “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].”
3) The second problem was repeated in Post #27: "I know that many Catholics think that “the Pope confirms an Ecumenical Council.” But such language perpetuates the gross misconception…” and again in post #55.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/DISSIDEN.TXT
Dr. Warren Carroll of Christendom College explains: “The Church and popes, subsequent to the Council of Trent, have all upheld the doctrine that the pope is superior over councils, and must approve the decrees of a council to make them binding. This position is firmly maintained by the great nineteenth-century German historian of the councils, Karl Joseph Hefele, and the great Austrian historian of the papacy, Ludwig von Pastor. It is denied by many twentieth-century scholars. The general case for the supreme authority of the pope over the last two thousand years is exceedingly strong beginning all the way back with the letter of Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthians in approximately 95 A.D.”
“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 Catechism of the Catholic Church is similarly definitive in this regard. Citing *Lumen Gentium *22, which traces the unhindered and universal teaching authority of the Roman pontiff through the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius back to apostolic times as relayed in Matthew’s Gospel, “there is never an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

But as Matthew Bunson points out on April-03-2009 (EWTN):
“the Orthodox consider the power of the ecumenical council far greater than any pope” which shows why Vatican II and the canons need to be understood and accepted, and the misconceptions of mardukm revealed that: “such Absolutist Petrine excesses contradict the Vatican Council decrees as well as the efforts of our present and last Pope to come to an agreement with our Orthodox brethren on the role of the papacy in the Church.”

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Reflections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998, page 5-6
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfprima.htm
"15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry ‘in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith’.46 The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly ‘that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is – in God’s plan – an essential requisite of full and visible communion’ ".

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

A summary of problems1)

1. mardukm’s first problem was to state: *“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.” *(Post #19)

This was corrected by Vico: “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.” (Post # 21)

The real problem is your misinterpretation of Bishop Gasser. Bishop Gasser did not say that the Pope gives a Council its infallibility. Rather, he was simply asserting that the Pope is consitutive of a Council’s infallibility. It’s like saying that a car is not a car without a steering wheel. But do you suppose that the steering wheel is the only thing that makes up a car?

You also misinterpreted brother Vico’s intent. He stated that infallibility is a gift from God. This would agree more with my statement that the infallibility of the Council is directly from God, not from the Pope.

1. mardukm’s second problem was to state “The Pope does not confirm (ratify) the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.” (Post #23).
   This was corrected by Abu in post #24: “As we can see this is false (CCC #884, 891). [See Code of Canon Law #337, 338].

As already explained, Canon Law is only explaining what is constitutive of the authority of an Ecumenical Council - that the Pope forms a necessary part of the authority of an EC, but is not the only part of it (the Canons specifically state - which you consistently ignore - that the approval of the bishops is also constitutive of the authority of an EC). The canons don’t support your opinion at all.

As already stated, you have proven nothing except that the Papacy is necessary for the sake of both the Church’s authority and it’s infallibility. But you have not proven in the least that the Pope is the only source of such authority and infallibility for the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

As already stated, you have proven nothing except that the Papacy is necessary for the sake of both the Church’s authority and it’s infallibility. But you have not proven in the least that the Pope is the only source of such authority and infallibility for the Church.

Just to dwell on this thought a bit more; It is the Church that is infallible. The Pope participates in this infallibility in a special way. In a way not given (by God) to any other INDIVIDUAL within the Church. Ecumenical councils (which must by definition include the Pope) also share in this infallibility. Even to a certain extent the Faithful themselves participate in the Church’s infallibility through the Sensus Fidelium. IOW, it the Church’s infallibility that we are always discussing. The Pope merely shares in this in a special way, by the charism of his being a successor to St. Peter. I think some people are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[mardukm]

Wonderfully put, brother AmbroseSJ!!!

Just to dwell on this thought a bit more; It is the Church that is infallible. The Pope participates in this infallibility in a special way. In a way not given (by God) to any other INDIVIDUAL within the Church. Ecumenical councils (which must by definition include the Pope) also share in this infallibility. Even to a certain extent the Faithful themselves participate in the Church’s infallibility through the Sensus Fidelium. IOW, it the Church’s infallibility that we are always discussing. The Pope merely shares in this in a special way, by the charism of his being a successor to St. Peter. I think some people are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[steve_b]

Good point.

I don’t have a friend with whom I’m debating. It’s more a group of Eastern Orthodox that have used these backroom discussions to illustrate that Papal Supremecy is not some organic growth of the early Church but is in fact a deliberate grab for power. It’s this power grab that they also site as the cause of the schism.

So the gist or the argument is, decisions were originally made by a council. The Pope manipulated a council to give him authority even over councils.

Here’s some points you can discuss with the EO

• After 2000 years, The Catholic Church is still one Church under the pope. EO isn’t one Church. It’s fractured. According to Cardinal Kasper, head of ecumenical talks between the E Orthodox and the Catholic Church, There is no OC. zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
• The EO DO recognize Peter was head apostle. They just want to reduce that understanding of head, to the term 1st among equals re: the pope. Well, if all are equal, how can one be 1st? If one is 1st then all aren’t equal. So It’s a nonsense term. But that’s their way of trying to neutralize ergo grab power away from the pope, reducing his position to a figurehead with no universal power. That’s not an historical position, but it’s one way for them to maintain schism

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Abu,

You haven’t proven your position. All you’ve shown with all your quotes is that the agreement/confirmation of the Pope is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have authority.

But you have not proven in the slightest, least of all from magisterial sources, that:
1) only the Pope’s agreement/confirmation is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have authority;

If this has been answered already just ignore.

Of course a council has authority whenever it meets. To make the council universally binding, (ecumenical) on the entire Church, the pope’s approval is necessary, Otherwise the council is NOT ecumenical, therefore not universally binding on the Church.

 

[militantsparrow]

Good points. Thank you, steve b. There is something to be said about the Catholic Church’s unity and longevity. It’s supernatural really.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

If this has been answered already just ignore.

Of course a council has authority whenever it meets. To make the council universally binding, (ecumenical) on the entire Church, the pope’s approval is necessary, Otherwise the council is NOT ecumenical, therefore not universally binding on the Church.

The debate here is not whether the Pope’s approval is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority. We all agree on that. The debate is about whether the Pope’s approval is the only thing that is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

Some here believe that the Pope’s approval is the only thing that is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

Others (including myself) believe that the approval of the Pope and his brother bishops are both necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

I hope that explains it more. Which position would you hold? I hope you take the time to read through the entire thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hadrianus]

Mardukm,

             Your view seems to be akin to the old Gallican opinion that it was the reception of a doctrine by the bishops of the world which made it certain, and thus infallibly proposed.  The First and Second Vatican Councils taught however that the solemn definition of a dogma concerning faith or morals was infallible when made by the Pope alone, even before the subsequent reception of such by the universal episcopate. 

             Even by the standards of the Gallican position the dogma taught by Vatican I was infallible because it was accepted by the universal episcopate; though the bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas did take his time in the matter.

              With regard to both Popes and Councils it is the infallibility of the Church which is actually the decisive factor, the definition of Vatican I is very precise on this point and it uses very tightly constructed language. The doctrine must be of faith or morals and must be proposed as divinely revealed and to be held as such by all the faithful. 

            Starting with Nicea councils have often been contentious affairs, but its the actual definitions which count.

 

[Hadrianus]

PS It must be right to say that in order for a council to be Ecumenical it must have the participation of the bishops in communion with Rome, or at least their tacit approval. it is hard to imagine a Pope calling a council to which no one came or gave their consent.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hadrianus,

Your view seems to be akin to the old Gallican opinion that it was the reception of a doctrine by the bishops of the world which made it certain, and thus infallibly proposed. The First and Second Vatican Councils taught however that the solemn definition of a dogma concerning faith or morals was infallible when made by the Pope alone, even before the subsequent reception of such by the universal episcopate.

Your two posts have great comments, and we seem to be on the same page – except for this comment you gave. But I think your comment is simply a misunderstanding of the issue. We are not talking about the infallibility of the papal Magisterium, but the infallibility of the Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hadrianus]

Mardukm,

     Thanks for your nice comments. I didn't explain my meaning very well. I believe the infallibility of the magisterium of an Ecumenical Council is governed by the same conditions as that of a papal definition. In both cases it is the infallibility of the Church which guarantees the doctrine. Historically, councils have been the usual means through which the Church's infallibility has been exercised, though the ordinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff by virtue of continuous teaching  is  probably infallible in the sense that the Roman Church cannot actually fall into error in a matter of faith or morals which is has consistently taught even without a solemn definition. The latter was Bossuet's opinion and I think it must be right, though it is not of faith.
     Also the universal and ordinary magisterium which is the bishops of the world in communion with the Pope are infallible when proposing a doctrine of faith or morals as divinely revealed even without a council. This also derives from the nature of the Church.

 

[militantsparrow]

Dear brother Steve,
…
The debate here is not whether the Pope’s approval is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

I think Steve was simply answering my OP. I don’t believe he intended to engage in the debate.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Hadrianus:

Also the universal and ordinary magisterium which is the bishops of the world in communion with the Pope are infallible when proposing a doctrine of faith or morals as divinely revealed even without a council. This also derives from the nature of the Church.

Please cite an example of this.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Hadrianus,

Your two posts have great comments, and we seem to be on the same page – except for this comment you gave. But I think your comment is simply a misunderstanding of the issue. We are not talking about the infallibility of the papal Magisterium, but the infallibility of the Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t know if this will help you and Hadrianus come to an understanding or not. In the appendix to Lumen Gentium, item 4, we read:

“It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

I don’t know if this will help you and Hadrianus come to an understanding or not. In the appendix to Lumen Gentium, item 4, we read:

“It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Thank you for this. It think it could serve as a springboard for agreement.

I have been claiming that it is not the Pope’s agreement alone that determines the universal authority of an Ecumenical Council, but also the agreement of his brother bishops.

This is evident from Canon 341: “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…”

Apparently, this translates in the mind of some to mean “Gallicanism.” Your citation, brother Vico, indicates that the teaching contained in Canon 341 is not tantamount to Gallicanism. IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Gallicanism proposes the Low Petrine position that the body is above its head (i.e., the body judges its head). Absolutist Petrine advocates propose the polar opposite view that the head is above the body. The teaching of the Vatican Councils, as reflected in our Canons, is different from these. It is the High Petrine position that indicates that the head and body act as one authority. The authority of an Ecumenical Council is, as your quote indicates, “the bishops acting in conjunction with their head.” It is not about the body acting apart from the head, nor is it about the head imposing himself on the body. It is about the head and body acting in agreement and in unison for the sake of both the Truth and the unity of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

Thank you for this. It think it could serve as a springboard for agreement.

I have been claiming that it is not the Pope’s agreement alone that determines the universal authority of an Ecumenical Council, but also the agreement of his brother bishops.

This is evident from Canon 341: “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…”

Apparently, this translates in the mind of some to mean “Gallicanism.” Your citation, brother Vico, indicates that the teaching contained in Canon 341 is not tantamount to Gallicanism. IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Gallicanism proposes the Low Petrine position that the body is above its head (i.e., the body judges its head). Absolutist Petrine advocates propose the polar opposite view that the head is above the body. The teaching of the Vatican Councils, as reflected in our Canons, is different from these. It is the High Petrine position that indicates that the head and body act as one authority. The authority of an Ecumenical Council is, as your quote indicates, “the bishops acting in conjunction with their head.” It is not about the body acting apart from the head, nor is it about the head imposing himself on the body. It is about the head and body acting in agreement and in unison for the sake of both the Truth and the unity of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

I believe some are merging the Vatican I definition of ex cathedra with the other cases of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium as elaborated at Vatican II. The ex cathedra proclamation may be seen as something foisted upon the Church, but this is an uncharitible view, as there are specific limits to the Supreme Pontiff’s exercise of this power. Also if bishops and the faithful do not agree with an ex cathedra proclamation, the theory is that it would eventually be accepted, because it is the action of the Holy Spirit.

Gallicanism is a broad topic, but Conciliarism is more narrowly defined and appropriate term for what the Vatican I definition denounced.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

The debate here is not whether the Pope’s approval is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority. We all agree on that. The debate is about whether the Pope’s approval is the only thing that is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

Marduk,

Since

• the pope is required for making a council ecumenical,
• and the pope’s approval is required for a council to have universal authority.
• and Bishops must be in union with the pope
• the pope is the one person who fills that “universal” requirement. Therefore he is the only one seperating universal authority from local authority.

M:

Some here believe that the Pope’s approval is the only thing that is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

Isn’t it definitional?
M:

Others (including myself) believe that the approval of the Pope and his brother bishops are both necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have universal authority.

I hope that explains it more. Which position would you hold? I hope you take the time to read through the entire thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

I would hope what I wrote, is voicing the Church’s position, not my own. The subject of councils (universal and local), papal primacy, authority (local and universal), infallibility etc, covers a large area so condensing it in as few a words as possible, is difficult.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papab3.htm

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[Abu]

Vico
“It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.”

Thank you, Vico; and steve b for your clarity in post #78

Also from Vatican II:
“The following was published as an appendix to the official Latin version of the Constitution on the Church.
“Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81
“The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
“In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.”

To my statement:
Further, no decree of a council has effect unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope in the form that he confirms it.

Vince1022 replied:
That is a later development and interpretation by the Church. The earliest councils were neither convened by, attended by, nor approved by the Bishop of Rome.

In fact, Bishop Ossius of Cordoba signed as presider at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), the first since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, and two priests signed as the Pope’s legates.
At the Council of Ephesus (431), Bishop Cyril of Alexandria convened the Council as the Pope Celestine’s representative and signed as presider. Pope Celestine’s legates brought a letter from the Pope explicitly asserting his primacy over the Church on the basis of Christ’s commission to Peter and reiterating his condemnation of the error taught by Nestorius. They confirmed all the actions of the Council on June 22.
[See *A History of Christendom Vol 1 – The Founding of Christendom, Dr Warren H Carroll, Christendom Publications, 1985].

 

[Vico]

Thank you, Vico; and steve b for your clarity in post #78

…

To my statement:
Further, no decree of a council has effect unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope in the form that he confirms it.

In fact, Bishop Ossius of Cordoba signed as presider at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), the first since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, and two priests signed as the Pope’s legates.

At the Council of Ephesus (431), Bishop Cyril of Alexandria convened the Council as the Pope Celestine’s representative and signed as presider. Pope Celestine’s legates brought a letter from the Pope explicitly asserting his primacy over the Church on the basis of Christ’s commission to Peter and reiterating his condemnation of the error taught by Nestorius. They confirmed all the actions of the Council on June 22.
[See *A History of Christendom

Vol 1 – The Founding of Christendom, Dr Warren H Carroll, Christendom Publications, 1985].

I posted this list of ratifications of the early councils (from the infallibility thread):

1. Council of Nicaea (325)
   ratified by Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335 pontificate)
2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
   It was a local council of the east.
3. Council of Ephesus (431)
   ratified by Pope Celestine I (421-432 pontificate)
4. Council of Chalcedon (451)
   ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 pontificate)
5. Council of Constantinople II (553)
   reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)

“Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith.”

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) declared the first four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.

catholic-resources.org/Church…alCouncils.htm

And there was Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085 pontificate) that referred to the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as ecumenical, by reference to canon 22.