The Vatican Dogma

[steve_b]

Dear brother SteveB,

I recognize and understand your position quite well, and your expression here gives me more reason to reject it. It is simply an innovation that opposes the unity that our Lord commands his Church to have. That you understand the role of the papacy as being “OVER” his brother bishops is terribly destructive of the constitution of the Church established by Christ. Our Lord stated that he who is to be the greatest is the one who serves, not the one who sets himself up as “over” his brethren. Your conception of the papacy, as well as your (mis)interpretation of the Vatican Councils, deserve to be rejected, for it is neither patristic nor biblical.

Both those who hold your position (the Absolutist Petrine proponents) and those who propose the “first among equals” fallacy (the Low Petrine proponents) are guilty of the same thing. You are both more concerned about control (you, that the Pope must obviously have control over the whole Church, and the Low Petrine advocates, that each bishop has control over his own jurisdiction and no other), than about what is necessary for the good of the Church.

He has authority over the entire Church, but not “by Himself.” As Vatican 2 and our Canons make abundantly and explicitly clear, the COLLEGE of bishops is also the subject of supreme authority in the Church. A Pope who truly reflects the leadership that our Lord demanded will neither act nor think in the manner you wish him to act and think.

And don’t even entertain the idea that collegiality was a novel idea burgeoning at V2. Already at V1, we have the following Decree that was prepared by the theologians of that Council, but was unfortunately not voted upon due to the premature prorogation of the Council:

“There is a twofold power in the Church, one called the power of orders, and the other called the power of jurisdiction. We teach with regard to this latter power in particular that it is jurisdiction that is absolute and prefectly complete, legislative, judicition, and coercive, and that it pertains not only to the internal and sacramental forum, but also to the external and public. The subjects of this power are the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of any secular control, and, therefore, with all authority, they rule the Church of God with laws that are necessary and binding in conscience, etc.”
Draft of the Constitution on the Church of Christ

What you are quoting from is in the Catechism of Trent (link provided) under sacraments

After it explains the hierarchy of power, orders and jurisdiction, it comes to the pope.

The Pope

Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.

catecheticsonline.com/Trent-Index.php scroll down to sacrament of Holy Orders
M:

That authority in the Church is collegial was already in the sensus fidelium of the Church long before V2 dogmatized it.

You mean, half-truths. You expound on the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but miserably fail to properly account for the authority of the College.

Yes. I already explained this Decree in light of Sacred Tradition. Your interpretation is novel and devoid of any relation to Sacred Tradition.

A power that can only be exercised to serve others, as already explained. Your conception of the papacy is simply unbiblical.

Blessings,
Marduk

Your opinions are duely noted.

As for me, on matters like this, I quote directly from Church documents, not drafts, not what someone says about Church documents, I quote the actual documents themselves and give links to them, rather than give my opinions.

So far those documents quoted are Trent, Vat I, Vat II

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother SteveB,

If you reverse that statement

• The pope has no authority unless it is understood with the body of bishops.

Is that a true statement? NO

M:

False. And this is where I feel you misunderstand rather starkly what the term “College” means. A “College” is a body of bishops with a head, the head never apart from the body, the body never apart from the head. When collegial authority is exercised, it is the authority of the COLLEGE - head + body, NOT, head apart from body, nor body apart from head.

Quote the source that says the pope has no universal authority in the Church unless validated by some body or group of bodies
M:

I suppose you imagine a theoretical instance when the Pope is the only source of orthodoxy for the whole Church, and therefore all authority rests in him alone. Well, rest assured that such a theory is pure fantasy. Why? Because just as much as the papacy is of divine institution, so is the episcopacy. There will never be a time when the Pope alone will be the source of orthodoxy, and therefore, there will never be a time when the Pope alone is the source of authority for the universal Church.

I imagine nothing. And I’m not posing something theoretical. You’re failing to recognize that the pope HAS supreme authority to act alone even if he doesn’t use it. THAT’S the purpose of quoting all those passages from the constitution of the Church re: the supreme authority and jurisdiction of the pope.

I’m sorry you’re having trouble with this.
M:

Brother Steve, you have a very secular understanding of the ecclesiology of the Church. You cite the Vatican Decrees in supposed support of your position. But note that no matter how much authority is vested in the Pope by the first Vatican Council, it never states that it is his alone (especially given the draft Constitution on the Church that I quoted in an earlier post).

• did the passages I quoted name anyone else that was required to support, backup, confirm, approve, etc etc the pope, before the pope could act alone? No.
• I saw your reference. I gave you the Catechism of Trent as a response. The draft you posted refered to 2 powers. One of orders one of jurisdiction. When you scroll down to the pope in the link provided, it says the same things I’ve been quoting all along here.

M:

Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, I can tell you that the OO use the term “supreme” of the Patriarchal office rather freely. But “supreme” is never taken in the absolutist sense of “highest and only”; rather, it simply means “highest.” Though “highest” may imply “alone” according to the secular world - and according to Absolutist Petrine advocates such as yourself and brother Abu - it can never mean that in the context of the Body of Christ.

I would suggest you’re having problems because the Catholic Church doesn’t think and operate like the OO.
M:

Primacy in the universal Church belongs to the Pope alone. But does that mean that authority belongs to the Pope alone? No.

He has that ability to act alone if needed or he has no primacy.
M:

The Pope does have unique prerogatives that are his alone, but never have such prerogatives ever been exercised for the universal Church in a solitary manner.

If he NEVER acted alone, that doesn’t mean he can’t act alone.
M:

“Necessary” and “essential” mean the same thing. You’re resorting to sophisms.

Therefore as the constitution says

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."
M:

You can only say that because you conceive of authority in the Church as the “power to control,” instead of the “power to serve” (in the words of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory).

power to control is part of the power of the papacy. Jurisdiction without power is not even jurisdiction, it’s nothing.
M:

I do assert that he is not above correction.

Who said otherwise?
M:

To serve requires humility, and humility requires that one can accept correction.

Who said otherwise?
M:

It is the moral duty of bishops to correct the Pope if necessary, and it is the divine duty of the Pope to confirm the bishops, whether to correct his brother bishops, or after he himself has been corrected.

Of course
M:

Yes, I know many EO who accept the High Petrine position. I also know of EO who propose the Low Petrine position, which I oppose as much as I oppose your own position. Both you and the Low Petrine advocates have one thing in common - you both consistently seek to separate the head from the body, though with different ends in mind. Low Petrine advocates do it to demean the papacy, while you do it to support the papacy (though your position is actually just as damaging to the papacy as the Low Petrine position).

I consistantly show where the head really is the head.
You consistantly show where the head is just first among equals.

 

[Abu]

mardukm
The Church’s teaching on contraception was not an example of the Pope’s exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, but of the ordinary magisterium. Hence, it was not an “ex cathedra” decree.

Ex cathedra definitions are not limited to dogmas. You can rely on EWTN, answers generally – why stay confused? You can learn from their Summary of Categories of Belief.

Answer by David Gregson of EWTN to me on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

Both the Encyclicals *Casti Connubii *of Pius XI, 1930, and *Humanae Vitae *of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”.

**THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE **
by Brian W. Harrison, September-November 1992
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

“We have now carefully examined, word for word, the four characteristics of an ex cathedra definition specified in the dogmatic definition of 1870, in the light of Bishop Gasser’s authoritative explanation of the text and the subsequent teaching of Vatican Council II. We have also examined Humanae Vitae, presenting evidence that the definition in article 14 of the encyclical clearly manifests all four characteristics. We conclude, therefore, that this definition is indeed an ex cathedra proclamation - infallible and irreformable in itself.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

What you are quoting from is in the Catechism of Trent (link provided) under sacraments.

So even the Council of Trent recognized collegiality!
]

After it explains the hierarchy of power, orders and jurisdiction, it comes to the pope.

The Pope

Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.
Please point out where it says that the Pope is the only universal authority in the Church. I’ll be waiting.

As for me, on matters like this, I quote directly from Church documents, not drafts, not what someone says about Church documents, I quote the actual documents themselves and give links to them, rather than give my opinions.

I used your and brother Abu’s very quotes to refute your opinions.

Quote the source that says the pope has no universal authority in the Church unless validated by some body or group of bodies.

Why should I bother to defend something I never stated. As stated, we approach the issue with two different paradigms. You view authority as the power to control, whereas I view authority as the power teo serve. It is because of this difference in approach that you fall into the error of trying to put words in my mouth.

I imagine nothing. And I’m not posing something theoretical. You’re failing to recognize that the pope HAS supreme authority to act alone even if he doesn’t use it. THAT’S the purpose of quoting all those passages from the constitution of the Church re: the supreme authority and jurisdiction of the pope.

I’m sorry you’re having trouble with this.

Unlike some Easterns, I, as an Oriental, I have no problem with the notion of supreme authority, because I know that in the context of the Body of Christ, it is never a merely solitary authority. Perhaps in the secular realm, or in the imagination of Absolutist Petrine (and Low Petrine) advocates, it means something different.

did the passages I quoted name anyone else that was required to support, backup, confirm, approve, etc etc the pope, before the pope could act alone? No.

Neither do any of your quotes state that the Pope’s authority is a solitary authority. It goes back to our differing paradigms. Since you can only conceive of authority as a means of control, then you have to consistently express the matter in terms of the body VERSUS the head, and vice-versa. But in a paradigm which understands authority as a means of service, then it is always expressed in terms of the body working with the head, and vice-versa - exactly as the Vatican Decrees which you quoted assert. So don’t bother to attempt to sway us into believing that the Vatican Councils lend any support for your “Pope alone” innovative opinion.

I saw your reference. I gave you the Catechism of Trent as a response. The draft you posted refered to 2 powers. One of orders one of jurisdiction. When you scroll down to the pope in the link provided, it says the same things I’ve been quoting all along here.

It’s good that you distinguish between what you have “been quoting all along” from what you have been saying all along - because they are two very different things. Your quotes explicitly and consistently assert the collegiality of the Church (i.e., head + body), while your rhetoric (as well as brother Abu’s) has consistently been to assert the independence of the head from the body (i.e., head apart from the body).

I would suggest you’re having problems because the Catholic Church doesn’t think and operate like the OO.

I’ve been defending the Catholic teaching from your exaggerated caricatures. I don’t have a problem with the Catholic Church at all, because I know she shares the same basic ecclesiological principle as the OO - namely, the High Petrine view. The only difference between the CC and OO is that the CC has a universal level of authority/jurisdiction whereas the OO stop at the patriarchal level. But, to repeat, the basic principles are teh same.

CONTINUED

 

[steve_b]

s:

The Pope

Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.

M:

Please point out where it says that the Pope is the only universal authority in the Church. I’ll be waiting.

We see the description of the pope above. The pope has (and I quote)

• universal jurisdiction.*** Not from men or councils but from God***. Do you understand that Marduk? He doesn’t need man or councils to approve his exercising universal jurisdiction.
• he’s father and guide
• of all the faithful
• of all the bishops
• of all the prelates
• no matter how high their power and office
• as successor to Peter and vicar of Christ **he governs the universal Church

Marduk,

He has universal jurisdiction and governance over the universal Church. Name another person who has that jurisdiction.

Now let’s use the same section of the Catechism I used above for the entry of pope, to show the power of the bishop.

**BISHOPS **

The second is that of Bishops, who are placed over the various dioceses to govern not only the other ministers of the Church, but the faithful also, and to promote their salvation with supreme vigilance and care.* Hence it is that in Sacred Scripture they are often called pastors of the sheep. Their office and duty has been well described by St. Paul in his sermon to the Ephesians, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles;26 while St. Peter,27 the Prince of the Apostles, has also laid down a divine rule for the exercise of the episcopal office. And if Bishops strive to conform their actions according to this rule, there can be no doubt that they will be good pastors and will be also esteemed as such.

As I said before, a bishop’s authority is in his own diocese. Each bishop has no authority over another bishop’s diocese. In council, (ecumenical for example) the college needs the pope for the council to have universal authority.
M:

I’ve been defending the Catholic teaching from your exaggerated caricatures. I don’t have a problem with the Catholic Church at all, because I know she shares the same basic ecclesiological principle as the OO - namely, the High Petrine view. The only difference between the CC and OO is that the CC has a universal level of authority/jurisdiction whereas the OO stop at the patriarchal level. But, to repeat, the basic principles are teh same.

CONTINUED

I think you’re defending 1st among equals which is a rather low Petrine view.

 

[Abu]

While it is good to see some progress over the confusion which Fr John A Hardon, S.J. exposed through his knowledge and experience, the denigration of the truth offered by a giant like Fr Hardon indicates the shallowness too often encountered to try to “score points”, and indicates a selfism which nurtures prejudice.
The following is merely to illustrate the confusion, some progress to understanding, and more confusion.
To Fr Hardon’s: The collegial infallibility in an Ecumenical Council is present “only if and when, and to the extent to which their teaching is approved by the Pope, at least implicitly,” and “It must be either explicit or so abundantly clear from the circumstances that the faithful can have no doubt that their bishops are in full agreement with the Vicar of Christ.”

Mardukm (post #44) replied:
his [Fr Hardon’s] opinions and interpretations don’t hold a candle to what the magisterial sources actually teach.
mardukm (post #118)
You claim, in contradiction to brother AmbroseSJ’s sensible (and correct) position, that the Pope “[can] teach what the faithful or other bishops do not approve.” You base this on the (false) assumption that Vatican 1 taught that the exercise of infallibility does not depend on the consent of the Church (your quote from Fr. Hardon).

With all due respect to Fr. Hardon and his supporters, he was simply wrong. Fr. Hardon’s interpretation of the Vatican 1 Decrees does not in fact align with the official interpretation as given by Bishop Gasser in his Official Relatio.

AmbroseSJ (post #121)
When Hardon says the Pope can decide, and proclaim without prior dependence on consensus, or subsequent approval etc. He is merely stating an extreme example of what could theoretically become necessary in a Church overwhelmed with heretical bishops….I can agree with Hardon…

Mardukm (post #139)
Dear brother AmbroseSJ,
Thank you for this mitigated understanding of Father Hardon. I do agree that consensus before the definition would be impossible to achieve if it is an extreme case where half or even a majority of the rest of the bishops are wrong.

AmbroseSJ (post #130)
the period of the Arian Heresy, when the general Faithful rejected the teachings of the Arian Bishops. This was a prime example of the Faithful guaranteeing the infallibility of the Church. IOW, exercising Church infallibility…the faithful’s consent that was necessary to make a doctrine true.Abu, post #136.
“False again.
“Never is the “consent” of the faithful needed to MAKE (or “guarantee”) any doctrine true – the faithful are faithful ONLY WHEN they ASSENT to the true doctrine or dogma, only when they agree on possessing the truth from the Magisterium. This cart-before-the-horse fantasy belongs to dissenting theologians – never can it be shown to be taught by any Ecumenical Council or any Pope!”

No acceptance of this error has been forthcoming, but instead hiding behind an excuse:

AmbroseSJ, post #143
“always niggling about people not expressing themselves exactly the way you would”

– rather than AmbroseSJ assenting to the precise teaching in Vatican I and II, as explained so well by Fr Hardon, and steve b.
The reaffirmation of the dogma through The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in a Dogmatic Constitution affirms that neither consent, nor approval are required for his definitions, nor can an appeal to any other judgment be allowed. This is the fact – no extreme example is needed.
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25).

Mardukm, post #159
you both consistently seek to separate the head from the body

How naïve. The selfism that tries to promote his own opinion is against the plain teaching of Christ’s Church, as Lumen Gentium 25, above).

Steve b, post #164
As I said before, a bishop’s authority is in his own diocese. Each bishop has no authority over another bishop’s diocese. In council, (ecumenical for example) the college needs the pope for the council to have universal authority.

Correct.

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

He has that ability to act alone if needed or he has no primacy.

The hallmark of primacy in the Body of Christ*** is not the ability to act alone. Rather, it is the ability to be the greatest servant of and for the Church. To repeat, your opinions are highly unbiblical.

If he NEVER acted alone, that doesn’t mean he can’t act alone.

In his pastoral to his flock after V1, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, England, of the Majority Party, wrote that “the past is the guarantee for the future, and prescribes the general principles and rules by which the Popes are guided.” He was, of course, referring to the role of Sacred Tradition within the Body of Christ, which is different from the ways of the world. This statement was made in specific support of the historical Proem that was added to the Decree on Infallibility. The Council’s addition of the Proem was intended to bind the papal exercise of the infallible Magisterium to the strictures of Sacred Tradition, not only in theory, but also in practice. In light of this, your foregoing statement here is meaningless.

Therefore as the constitution says

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."
Yes, as the Constitution says, “together with.” The Pope’s authority alone does not make up the the authority of the College. Rather, the Pope as the protos completes the constitution of the college, whereby the ENTIRE college (head + body) has authority.

A ship cannot function without a rudder, but the rudder alone does not make the ship what it is. In the same way, the College has no authority without the Pope, but the Pope alone does NOT constitute the entirety of the College’s authority.

power to control is part of the power of the papacy. Jurisdiction without power is not even jurisdiction, it’s nothing.

The hallmark of jurisdiction is not power. Rather, it is the fact that it is the law of the Church. Laws in the Body of Christ are not coercive by virtue of power, but by virtue of love, according to the words of Scripture, “for the love of Christ compels us…”

Who said otherwise?

Who said otherwise?

Of course

Aaaah! So you admit that the Pope’s authority is not independent of the rest of the bishops. If it is truly independent, if the Pope is truly “over” his brother bishops as you have claimed, then he would be above correction. Steve has spoken! The case is closed! You have lost the debate.

Now, let’s move on to the matter of the infallibility.

1. Do you agree with brother Abu that the infallible Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council is wholly dependent on the papal exericse of the infallible Magisterium? Or do you agree with me that the Ecumenical Council is infallible in and of itself?
2. Do you claim that papal exercise of the infallible Magisterium is independent of the infallibility of the Church?
3. What other issues do you percieve between our respective viewpoints on infallibility?

I consistantly show where the head really is the head.

Don’t make me laugh! Your head is not a head, but a phantasmagorical monstrosity. A head is not a head without a body, yet you consistently present the papacy as an entity that is independent or separate from the body - and not only separate, but style your rhetoric in terms of the head VERSUS the body.

You consistantly show where the head is just first among equals.

As stated, it’s the difference in our respective ecclesiological paradigms which causes you to express our differences in this fashion. Your ideal Pope is not one who serves, but one who controls (contrary, btw, to our Lord’s own exhortations). It seems that to you, any sign of humility on the part of the papacy is a diminution of the Pope’s “power.” The more I think about it, the more I feel in good conscience that I must reject your position.

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[mardukm]

He has universal jurisdiction and governance over the universal Church. Name another person who has that jurisdiction.

Not a person, but a College. The College has the same univeral jurisdiction and governance over the universal Church as the Pope.

As I said before, a bishop’s authority is in his own diocese. Each bishop has no authority over another bishop’s diocese. In council, (ecumenical for example) the college needs the pope for the council to have universal authority.

In Council, the Church needs the bishops just as much as the Pope. The Pope alone does not constitute the authority of the Council, and I’ve yet to see a clear statement from your sources on that, btw. All I’ve read from you so far are syllogistic arguments, but nothing concrete and explicit. But I guess that is the best you can do.

I think you’re defending 1st among equals which is a rather low Petrine view.

If that makes you sleep better. But that’s a sorry way to justify your position to yourself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

Mardukm (post # 167)
In Council, the Church needs the bishops just as much as the Pope. The Pope alone does not constitute the authority of the Council, and I’ve yet to see a clear statement from your sources on that, btw.

Tilting at windmills again – an Ecumenical Council is the Bishops with the Pope as head, who says otherwise?
“Not only are some equating the possession of the truth with the right to decide what is truth, but they are obscuring the role of the papacy in the exercise of the Church’s teaching authority.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Teaching Church In Our Time,1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 114].

How timely and relevant!

The collegial infallibility in an Ecumenical Council is present “only if and when, and to the extent to which their teaching is approved by the Pope, at least implicitly,” and “It must be either explicit or so abundantly clear from the circumstances that the faithful can have no doubt that their bishops are in full agreement with the Vicar of Christ.”

“Moreover, he [the Pope] can do what they [the bishops] cannot do. He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy….their acceptance is not a necessary condition for the exercise of infallibility.” [My emphasis. *The Teaching Church In Our Time,1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 114].

BTW, *The Teaching Church In Our Time *has an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

“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].”

 

[steve_b]

CONTINUED

In his pastoral to his flock after V1, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, England, of the Majority Party, wrote that “the past is the guarantee for the future, and prescribes the general principles and rules by which the Popes are guided.” He was, of course, referring to the role of Sacred Tradition within the Body of Christ, which is different from the ways of the world.

Quote from any paragraph from any of the 3 councils I gave links to and quoted from copiously, that says the pope can’t act alone.

I want an answer with quotes from those documents, and with all due respect, I’m not looking for opinion. I want quotes.
M:

Yes, as the Constitution says, “together with.” The Pope’s authority alone does not make up the the authority of the College. Rather, the Pope as the protos completes the constitution of the college, whereby the ENTIRE college (head + body) has authority.

Marduk, that’s for the COUNCIL to have authority, NOT the pope.

Quote from any document that says the pope has no universal authority without somebody behind him. Quote the passage…I’ll wait.
M:

The hallmark of jurisdiction is not power.

Jurisdiction without power is NOTHING. That’s why 1st among equals is nonsense.
M:

Rather, it is the fact that it is the law of the Church. Laws in the Body of Christ are not coercive by virtue of power, but by virtue of love, according to the words of Scripture, “for the love of Christ compels us…”

When Paul said that those who dissent and divide and live that way won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven [Gal 5:20-21] was he coercing the Galatians with undue pressure? Was he judging them saying they will go to hell if they don’t straighten up? Was he speaking from a lack of love? Or was he speaking with love backed up by power of the HS?
M:

Aaaah! So you admit that the Pope’s authority is not independent of the rest of the bishops. If it is truly independent, if the Pope is truly “over” his brother bishops as you have claimed, then he would be above correction. Steve has spoken! The case is closed! You have lost the debate**. **

C’mon Marduk, you’re better than that. I’m disappointed.
M:

Now, let’s move on to the matter of the infallibility.

1. Do you agree with brother Abu that the infallible Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council is wholly dependent on the papal exericse of the infallible Magisterium? Or do you agree with me that theEcumenical Council is infallible in and of itself**?**

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”(Lumen Gentium 25).

As you can see, certain provisions must be met

• must be in a bond of unity with each other
• must be in union with the pope
• must be on matters of faith and morals
• must concur in a single viewpoint and must be held conclusively

When all that happens, “Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”

Therefore, to answer your question as aksed

• do you agree with me that theEcumenical Council is infallible in and of itself

without the above provisions being met, the answer is no.
M:

1. Do you claim that papal exercise of the infallible Magisterium is independent of the infallibility of the Church?

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
M:

1. What other issues do you percieve between our respective viewpoints on infallibility?

I’m not going to fall into THAT trap again. Be specific
M:

As stated, it’s the difference in our respective ecclesiological paradigms which causes you to express our differences in this fashion. Your ideal Pope is not one who serves, but one who controls (contrary, btw, to our Lord’s own exhortations).

I’ve already aswered this. Jesus gave power to Peter when He siad to Peter feed AND [poimaino] rule, my sheep. Not feed alone, not rule alone, but feed AND rule.[Jn 21:17…]
M:

It seems that to you, any sign of humility on the part of the papacy is a diminution of the Pope’s “power.” The more I think about it, the more I feel in good conscience that I must reject your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

Now the issue is the pope’s humility? Where is THAT coming from? With all due respect my friend, you’re all over the place.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

– rather than AmbroseSJ assenting to the precise teaching in Vatican I and II, as explained so well by Fr Hardon, and steve b.

Words fail me! That you would accuse me of not assenting to Vatican I and II as explained so well by Fr Hardon, and steve b after you had just finished quoting me as agreeing with Hardon! That too, on a matter which YOU have failed to show that you disagree with ME! But instead elaborated on WHY you agree with me!

Talk about tilting at windmills!

 

[Vico]

I think you all agree to both Vatican I and Vatican II, but Vatican II wording is not precise as Vatican I (it is inconsistent). The Canon law of 1983 and actual practice help in that matter:

1. Pope is the Metropolitan of the Roman ecclesial province (supervision of the suffragan bishops). (1983 CIC 331)
2. Pope is Bishop of the Roman Church with Jurisdiction: as shown today in the 1983 CIC, the pope posesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise (CIC 331).
3. Collegial Jurisdiction shown in the 1983 CIC 336: the college of bishops whose head is the Supreme Pontiff … is also subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.

 

[steve_b]

I think you all agree to both Vatican I and Vatican II, but Vatican II wording is not precise as Vatican I (it is inconsistent). The Canon law of 1983 and actual practice help in that matter:

1. Pope is the Metropolitan of the Roman ecclesial province (supervision of the suffragan bishops). (1983 CIC 331)
2. Pope is Bishop of the Roman Church with Jurisdiction: as shown today in the 1983 CIC, the pope posesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise (CIC 331).
3. Collegial Jurisdiction shown in the 1983 CIC 336: the college of bishops whose head is the Supreme Pontiff … is also subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.

Code of canon law

PART II. THE HIERARCHICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH

• SECTION I. THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 330 - 367)
• CHAPTER I. THE ROMAN PONTIFF AND THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS
• Art. 1. THE ROMAN PONTIFF
• Art. 2. THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS
• CHAPTER II. THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
• CHAPTER III. THE CARDINALS OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH
• CHAPTER IV. THE ROMAN CURIA
• CHAPTER V. LEGATES OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ, post #170
Words fail me!

As they should for you still seem sunk in error. Facts are facts.

AmbroseSJ (post #130)
the period of the Arian Heresy, when the general Faithful rejected the teachings of the Arian Bishops. This was a prime example of the Faithful guaranteeing the infallibility of the Church. IOW, exercising Church infallibility…the faithful’s consent that was necessary to make a doctrine true./QUOTE]

Abu, post #136.
“False again.
“Never is the “consent” of the faithful needed to MAKE (or “guarantee”) any doctrine true – the faithful are faithful ONLY WHEN they ASSENT to the true doctrine or dogma, only when they agree on possessing the truth from the Magisterium. This cart-before-the-horse fantasy belongs to dissenting theologians – never can it be shown to be taught by any Ecumenical Council or any Pope!”

No acceptance of this error has been forthcoming, but instead hiding behind an excuse.

 

[Abu]

Vico
I think you all agree to both Vatican I and Vatican II, but Vatican II wording is not precise as Vatican I (it is inconsistent).

What inconsistency and who claims this?

As you can see from posts #173, 165, there are confused ideas re what has been authoritatively taught by Vatican I and Vatican II by several posters. It is necessary to know and show the truth, not facile agreement on some opinion.

The Code of Canon Law is 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.”

“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25).

What is “inconsistent” here?

 

[Vico]

What inconsistency and who claims this?

As you can see from posts #173, 165, there are confused ideas re what has been authoritatively taught by Vatican I and Vatican II by several posters. It is necessary to know and show the truth, not facile agreement on some opinion.

The Code of Canon Law is 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.”

“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25).

What is “inconsistent” here?

I may not answer your last question, since it is different that what I wrote: "…Vatican II wording is not precise as Vatican I (it is inconsistent). "

What that means is that Vatican II introduced new terms and different terms and are inconsistent.

munus

sacer primatus is used in LG yet in Vatican I primatus iurisdictionis

plena (full) with potestas (power) in LG 22
also
universalis plena suprema, in LG, now reflected in 1983 CIC Can. 331

immediate was not used in LG referring to the power of the pope
but
potestas immediata was used for the diocesan bishop in LG

You can read more on it in:

New commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, pp. 427-429, and before and after those pages.

 

[Abu]

There is nothing substantial showing that there is a contradiction between Vatican I and Vatican II or a statement in one which can be termed to be untrue with regard to the other Council.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steveb,

Quote from any paragraph from any of the 3 councils I gave links to and quoted from copiously, that says the pope can’t act alone.

I want an answer with quotes from those documents, and with all due respect, I’m not looking for opinion. I want quotes.

All the quotes you gave are sufficient to refute your “Pope alone” opinion. That you myopically focus only on those particular portions of the texts that support your innovation, and refuse to consider the entire context of the Decrees and magisterial statements you have quoted isn’t my fault.

Marduk, that’s for the COUNCIL to have authority, NOT the pope.

Thank you for admitting your error. This is the point that brothers AmbroseSJ, Vico, and I have been trying to make all along. This whole debate started because I challened brother Abu’s errors regarding the authority and infallibility of a Council and collegiality - namely, (1) that only the Pope has authority in the context of an Ecumenical council and the College of bishops; and (2) that only the Pope has infallibility in the context of an Ecumenical Council and the College of Bishops. In the context of both an Ecumenical Council and collegiality, both authority and infallibility belong to the entire Council or College, not merely the Pope. Neither you nor brother Abu could support your innovative errors on the matter from Magisterial documents, so you slyly did a “switch and bait.” Instead of admitting your errors, you appealed to Decrees regarding the Pope’s universal authority and exercise of the infallible Magisterium from V1. Of course, this really did not address the original issue.

Quote from any document that says the pope has no universal authority without somebody behind him.

Why defend something I never stated? Seems to be your common tactic - trying to put words in my mouth. What I’ve asserted is (1) the Pope cannot exercise universal authority without the support of his brother bishops, and (2) the Pope’s universal authority cannot be separated from the authority of the Church. That is collegiality both in principle and in action. Do you require further explanation? Please accept my offer (because I really think you need it ). In any case, I will explain the matter more in the section below where re: St. Paul.

Jurisdiction without power is NOTHING. That’s why 1st among equals is nonsense.

The “first among equals” innovation is nonsense not because it deprives the head bishop of power, but because it denies the existence of a head bishop in the first place (which, as you know, was the position of several EO here back when the ECF was still the “Eastern Christianity Forum”). It is nonsense simply because it deprives the Church of a role (or “office,” if you will) established by Christ himself for the upbuilding of His Body.

When Paul said that those who dissent and divide and live that way won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven [Gal 5:20-21] was he coercing the Galatians with undue pressure? Was he judging them saying they will go to hell if they don’t straighten up? Was he speaking from a lack of love? Or was he speaking with love backed up by power of the HS?

Authority in any context has two essential elements- (1) one based on potestas (i.e., by virtue of the law, divine or ecclesiastical, inherent in the one who wields authority), and (2) one based on auctoritas (i.e., by virtue of honor and love accorded by those on whom authority is exercised). In the exercise of authority, both potestas and auctoritas must be present in order for it to be effective. St. Paul had inherent authority from God (potestas), but that authority would have no value or effect without the concurrent auctoritas admitted by those to whom he was preaching.

In our debate, you have myopically focused only on the element of authority derived from potestas, seemingly without a clue to the necessity of auctoritas for the exercise of authority. No one here (least of all, brothers Vico, AmbroseSJ, and I) denies the potestas of the Pope. But your utter neglect of the element of authority derived from auctoritas causes you to deny our statements asserting the collegiality of both infallibility and authority, even with regards to the unique Petrine role of the papacy.

To clarify:

As to the College of Bishops and the Ecumenical Council, authority by virtue of both potestas and auctoritas is collegial, and does not belong to nor generated by the Pope alone.

As to the unique Petrine role of the Pope, the element of authority by virtue of potestas is singular, but the element by virtue of auctoritas is collegial. In other words, though the Pope has a singular authority in and of himself, it can only be exercised in a collegial manner.

I hope that helps.

C’mon Marduk, you’re better than that. I’m disappointed.

If you don’t have it in yourself to admit your error, that’s no skin off my nose.

I’ve already aswered this. Jesus gave power to Peter when He siad

And as Jesus taught, the greatest is the one who serves. The Pope does not need power to feed and rule - what he needs is humility and love towards those he serves. Your “power” trip is simply unbiblical.

Now the issue is the pope’s humility? Where is THAT coming from? With all due respect my friend, you’re all over the place.

That you can separate humility from this discussion on authority is very telling of the error of your position.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

mardukm:

1. Do you agree with brother Abu that the infallible Magisterium of an Ecumenical Council is wholly dependent on the papal exericse of the infallible Magisterium? Or do you agree with me that theEcumenical Council is infallible in and of itself?

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”(Lumen Gentium 25).

As you can see, certain provisions must be met

• must be in a bond of unity with each other
• must be in union with the pope
• must be on matters of faith and morals
• must concur in a single viewpoint and must be held conclusively

When all that happens, “Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”

Therefore, to answer your question as aksed

• do you agree with me that theEcumenical Council is infallible in and of itself

without the above provisions being met, the answer is no.

So you admit that brother Abu was wrong in claiming that infallibility in an Ecumenical Council is dependant on the Pope’s exercise of the infallible Magisterium alone. In other words, infallibility is exercised COLLEGIALLY. Thank you.

Do you claim that papal exercise of the infallible Magisterium is independent of the infallibility of the Church?

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

You seem to be wishy washy on the matter. Can you answer straight up with a “yes” or “no?” The answer is obvious to me (as well as brothers Vico and AmbroseSJ). Is the Absolutist Petrine position so confused on the matter?

I’m not going to fall into THAT trap again.

What “trap” did you fall into before?

Be specific.

The two above are the only issues that have been discussed, to my recollection.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There is nothing substantial showing that there is a contradiction between Vatican I and Vatican II or a statement in one which can be termed to be untrue with regard to the other Council.

Brother Vico did not say there were “contradictions.” I don’t know what causes both you and brother SteveB to constantly impose misinterpretations on our statements.

Blessings