The Vatican Dogma

[Abu]

mardukm
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.

As no one has said that – you are tilting at windmills.

What the Church teaches is that the Pope has to approve what is decided in the Ecumenical Council by the vote of the cardinals and bishops which he attends or to which he sends delegates – very clear in *Lumen Gentium *#22.

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]. The decrees have to be confirmed by the Pope and have to be issued by him – that’s the key, otherwise they are null, and void.

Further no papal document or Ecumenical Council document “has infallibility” – the power of infallibility is exercised in the definition of a specific dogma or doctrine in a papal document, or in the definition of an Ecumenical Council if approved by the Pope.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

As no one has said that – you are tilting at windmills.

I don’t think so. You have tried to make a case for the idea that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council and that the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility. It seems a logical corollary that you are attempting to present the Pope’s confirmation as an action that is separate from the Ecumenical Council. I’m asserting that it is not, and you have not given any evidence to the contrary. A Pope’s confirmation is given within an Ecumenical Council, and is constitutive of its Ecumenicity, along with the approval of the rest of the bishops. Further, the Pope does not exercise a singular infallibility during an Ecumenical Council. The whole body of bishops collectively enjoys infallibility in an Ecumenical Council. There is no special infallibility attached to the Pope’s confirmation within the Council. A Pope’s confirmation within the Council is simply one exercise of the infallibility with which the entire body of bishops is given by the Holy Spirit.

What the Church teaches is that the Pope has to approve what is decided in the Ecumenical Council by the vote of the cardinals and bishops which he attends or to which he sends delegates – very clear in *Lumen Gentium *#22.

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]. The decrees have to be confirmed by the Pope and have to be issued by him – that’s the key, otherwise they are null, and void.

Yes, the Pope’s confirmation is necessary, but so is the approval of the bishops. The approval of the bishops is as much a key to the validity of the Council as the actions of the Pope. These occur within the Council, not apart from it. You tried to make a case for the idea that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, which is false. He can only be above it if he is acting apart from it. So I don’t think I have misconstrued your intentions at all.

Further no papal document or Ecumenical Council document “has infallibility” – the power of infallibility is exercised in the definition of a specific dogma or doctrine in a papal document, or in the definition of an Ecumenical Council if approved by the Pope.

I really don’t know what the point of this is. Can you explain?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

mardukm
You have tried to make a case for the idea that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council and that the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility….The approval of the bishops is as much a key to the validity of the Council as the actions of the Pope.

The bishops in an Ecumenical Council discuss and vote. When a proposition is approved by vote it then depends on the Pope as to whether it is allowed to become legitimate through his approval.

1. No Group or Pope or document “is infallible” without qualification. Infallibility exists when a dogma or a doctrine is defined as declared in Pastor Aeternus for papal infallibility, and is defined in an Ecumenical Council when such definition is approved by the Pope.
2. 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.” (The Teaching Church In Our Time, in How Infallible Is The Teaching Church, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., St Paul, 1978, p 114).
3. The collegial infallibility in an Ecumenical Council is explained by Fr Hardon: “Always it is assumed that what the bishops agree among themselves has also been approved by the bishop of Rome. The manner of this approval will depend on the situation and, as the Church’s history more than once testifies, it cannot be just taken for granted. 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.” (Fr Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 233).

This is precisely what Canon #341 decrees and the procedure is that the bishops vote on a proposal and if carried it may or may not be approved by the Pope whose primacy is unchallenged. It is their agreement with the Vicar of Christ which enables a dogma, doctrine or a discipline to be promulgated.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

The bishops in an Ecumenical Council discuss and vote. When a proposition is approved by vote it then depends on the Pope as to whether it is allowed to become legitimate through his approval.

1. No Group or Pope or document “is infallible” without qualification. Infallibility exists when a dogma or a doctrine is defined as declared in Pastor Aeternus for papal infallibility, and is defined in an Ecumenical Council when such definition is approved by the Pope.
2. 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.” (The Teaching Church In Our Time, in How Infallible Is The Teaching Church, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., St Paul, 1978, p 114).
3. The collegial infallibility in an Ecumenical Council is explained by Fr Hardon: “Always it is assumed that what the bishops agree among themselves has also been approved by the bishop of Rome. The manner of this approval will depend on the situation and, as the Church’s history more than once testifies, it cannot be just taken for granted. 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.” (Fr Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 233).

This is precisely what Canon #341 decrees and the procedure is that the bishops vote on a proposal and if carried it may or may not be approved by the Pope whose primacy is unchallenged. It is their agreement with the Vicar of Christ which enables a dogma, doctrine or a discipline to be promulgated.

You know you cannot cite any magisterial soruces for your beliefs, so you turn to the mere opinions of theologians. I realize that Fr. Hardon is quite popular among Latins, but his opinions and interpretations don’t hold a candle to what the magisterial sources actually teach. Canon 341 states that the approval of the bishops is just as necessary an element for the validity of the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council as the actions of the Pope. You can’t wish it away by appeal to popular theologians. It’s a fact that the Pope does not exercise infallibility by himself in an Ecumenical Council. It is also a fact that Vatican 1 teaches that the infallibility exercised by the Pope is the infallibility of the Church. It is also a fact that the Fathers of Vatican 1 changed the title of the Decree on the Infallibility from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to :the Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope," and we know that the infallible Magisterium is not exercised by the Pope alone. Infallibility is not the Pope’s personal charism that he can spread around as he wills. Infallibility belongs to God and God alone, and it is HIS to give to whom He pleases. It is God who grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility, not the Pope, and nothing you’ve written contradicts that fact.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

In view of the obfuscation, here is the Magisterium on the facts, from Vatican II:
“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

“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].

That is why an EWTN historian and theologian can report these facts:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=583237&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Ecumenical+Councils&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=3&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
Answer by Matthew Bunson (EWTN) on Oct-20-2009:
“According to the Code of Canon Law” [see canons 338, 341], “an ecumenical council must be convened by the Pope, and the decrees must be sanctioned and promulgated by the Holy See if they are to have binding force….The most important of councils are the general, or ecumenical, councils of the Church, bringing together the bishops and representatives from the entire world. An often monumental assembly, these ecumenical councils act with the highest of all possible authority and thus must be summoned by the pope and its acts approved by him. There have been twenty-one general councils in history; the last was Vatican Council II (1962-1965). By custom, the first council was described in Acts (15:6) when ‘The apostles and the elders were gathered together’ at Jerusalem.”

The Code of Canon Law is also quite clear.
“Can. 338 ß1 It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.

“ß2 It is also the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be dealt with in the Council, and to establish the order to be observed. The Fathers of the Council may add other matters to those proposed by the Roman Pontiff, but these must be approved by the Roman Pontiff.”

“Can. 341 ß1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.”

“**ß2 **If they are to have binding force, the same confirmation and promulgation is required for decrees which the College of Bishops issues by truly collegial actions in another manner introduced or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[Deconi]

Dunno what all the fuss is aboot!

I agree with Abu.

A collegiate of bishops, without the Pope, is what the EO suffers!

Any council, ecumenical or otherwise (V2) can make any number of decisions…but these are NOT binding on the faithful unless the Pontiff ‘agrees’ with it, or TO it.

It is that clear.

As a bishop, he can participate in discussions / debates, etc. during conciliar debates. His views may be the minority or sole voice in that debate and by a majority vote the other bishops wins the debate.

This won view can be ‘carried’ and upheld to be diseminated to the Christian globe…BUT ONLY with the seal of the Pontiff. Without that ‘approval’ - say he spits the dummy - all matters ‘decided’ in debate means NOTHING!

That is why we pray for him and every bishop, at every Mass! That he doesn’t falter and fall to his pride.

Simple really.

 

[Vince1022]

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Given to all Apostles, see Matt 18.

 

[Vince1022]

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

Given the historical fact that Popes have taught some erroneous things I guess your question is answered.

 

[Vince1022]

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).

Where does this writing identify Clement or “Pope”? Yes, it’s known as the letter of Clement, but where in the text of the letter is Clement mentioned, or the Pope? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

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.

Well, the Council of Constantinople IV condemned Pope Honorius on certain teachings:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.html

 

[Abu]

Vince1022
the Council of Constantinople IV condemned Pope Honorius on certain teachings

Papal infallibility, as defined, was not involved here. 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. Pope St Leo II substantially modified the sense of the council’s decree on Honorius who was condemned for allowing a heresy to spread and grow.

 

[Abu]

Vince1022
Where does this writing identify Clement or “Pope”? Yes, it’s known as the letter of Clement, but where in the text of the letter is Clement mentioned, or the Pope?

Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say. The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement.
The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.): “But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin” (59).
I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).
He is the fourth Pope of St Peter’s See as identified by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius.

 

[Vince1022]

. 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.

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.

Pope St Leo II substantially modified the sense of the council’s decree on Honorius who was condemned for allowing a heresy to spread and grow.

Ok, I didn’t know that. Thanks. Still, it does not refute the fact of what the Council taught.

 

[Vince1022]

Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say. The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement.
The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.): “But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin” (59).
I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).
He is the fourth Pope of St Peter’s See as identified by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius.

Thanks. So we agree, nowhere is “Pope” or Clement mentioned in the letter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Deconi,

Dunno what all the fuss is aboot!

I agree with Abu.

A collegiate of bishops, without the Pope, is what the EO suffers!

Any council, ecumenical or otherwise (V2) can make any number of decisions…but these are NOT binding on the faithful unless the Pontiff ‘agrees’ with it, or TO it.

It is that clear.

As a bishop, he can participate in discussions / debates, etc. during conciliar debates. His views may be the minority or sole voice in that debate and by a majority vote the other bishops wins the debate.

This won view can be ‘carried’ and upheld to be diseminated to the Christian globe…BUT ONLY with the seal of the Pontiff. Without that ‘approval’ - say he spits the dummy - all matters ‘decided’ in debate means NOTHING!

That is why we pray for him and every bishop, at every Mass! That he doesn’t falter and fall to his pride.

Simple really.

It’s not that simple. There is absolutely no magisterial support for brother Abu’s opinion that the necessity of the Pope’s confirmation means that his actions are the only thing that are necessary for the validity of an Ecumenical Council.

And there is absolutely no magisterial support for his opinion that only the Pope can exercise infallibility during an Ecumenical Council or that the Pope grants a Council its infallibility.

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.

We can agree on the necessity of the papacy, but brother Abu’s excesses are to be rejected as nonpatristic errors. I hope it is the necessity of the papacy that you support, brother Deconi, and not the excesses that he has expressed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vince,

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.

The idea of the necessity of the approval of the head bishop among the body of bishops is not a “later development.” It is the based on the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 (ca. 2nd cent.): “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account them as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…” Of course, this canon also asserts that the approval of the body of bishops is also a necessity. We need to oppose the excesses of Absolutist Petrine advocates (for the sake of Truth and for the sake of unity with our Orthodox brethren), but we need to do it without going overboard the opposite way.

Ok, I didn’t know that. Thanks. Still, it does not refute the fact of what the Council taught.

Let’s be careful about using the word “teach” (or its derivatives). “Teaching” is a very specific word in ecclesiastical usage. The Council was not “teaching” anything with regards to Honorius, as if his condemnation was some kind of infallible act. Remember that infallibility only applies to doctrine and morals. Condemning persons are not infallible acts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

The continued unsuccessful attempts by mardukm to explain away Vatican II, and Canon #341, 1 and 2 (post #27), and Canons #338, 1 and 2, and #341, 1, and 2 (post #45) are eroded further by Fr Brian Harrison; the clue to mardukm’s fantasy is apparently due to his deluded feeling 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 acceptance of Christ’s Supreme Pastor, the Pope, as having the primacy and the infallibility dogmatically defined at Vatican I, and affirmed at Vatican II is required for full participation in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The restoration of unity with the Orthodox is an ongoing task of the Church.

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 realised.
[ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=572181&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Ecumenical+Councils&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at]](http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showre...ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at])

The Roman Theological Forum is a gold mine of trustworthy information and readers are directed to savour this for themselves, in particular, Papal Authority In The First Ecumenical Councils, by Brian W. Harrison, May 1990 at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html
In particular readers may note that Fr Harrison stresses at the start “There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.” (Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22).
“In the records of the great Councils of the fifth century, we can see the Bishops of Rome coming to assume explicitly the dominant position which their successors have continued to exercise ever since in those Councils recognized by the Catholic Church as “Ecumenical.” That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria appeals to Celestine of Rome to deal with Nestorius in Constantinople; and Celestine replies, delegating Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he fails to recant within ten days, equating his own judgment with “the divine sentence of our Christ,” and stating that he has written in similar terms to four other major Bishops. 1 In the ensuing Council of Ephesus, we find that Cyril presides in the place of Celestine, 2 and that the whole Council accepts as “suitable” 3 and worthy of confirmation by all, the words of the Roman legate Philip, in presenting for conciliar approval (not debate) Celestine’s prior condemnation of Nestorius:
“ ‘It is doubted by no one, but in fact has been known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter … received from our Lord Jesus Christ … the keys of the kingdom, and that power was granted to him of binding and loosing sins; who up till this time and always lives in his successors and exercises judgment.’ 4”

 

[mardukm]

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;
2. only the Pope exercises infallibility during an Ecumenical Council and that it is only his agreement that makes a Council infallible.

The Protestants have their erroneous “sola” doctrines. Catholics who hold the Absolutist Petrine view also have their own erroneous “sola” doctrine - sola papa (i.e., “the Pope alone”).

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I’m going to start a poll on this issue. I hope you participate.

 

[Vico]

Infallibility is of the Church as a Whole

Cooperation and assent of the Church is always an aspect of papal infallibility. Papal Infallibility is individually present in the sucessors of Peter, who act not as private persons but as supreme teachers of the entire Church. (“Head of the College of Bishops” – Vatican II).

Extraordinary Magisterium

1. Pope defining and proclaiming a doctrine definitively
   …a. Infallible: a truth of faith or morals. *
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

• What has been proclaimed is not subject to review or approval by the other bishops or the faithful, but is guaranteed infallible through the action of the Holy Spirit (and the assent of the Church will eventually be evident).

1. Pope and bishops teaching when in council
   …a. Infallible: proclaiming a truth.
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

Ordinary Magisterium

1. Pope and bishops teaching while dispersed throughout the world
   …a. Infallible: bishops teaching in harmony a truth that they say must be held definitively by all the faithful.
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

References:
Vatican I
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25
The Gift of Infallibility by Bishop Gasser, Rev. James O’Connor, p 120-123.

So we see here that for infallibility the assent of the whole Church is necesary (eventually) but must, at the first moment of certainty, include the assent of the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[mardukm]

Thank you for this, brother Vico. Bishop Gasser is an excellent source, having been not only a participant at Vatican 1, but also the official spokesman for the Committee De Fide, which was responsible for formulating the Decrees.

Infallibility is of the Church as a Whole

Cooperation and assent of the Church is always an aspect of papal infallibility. Papal Infallibility is individually present in the sucessors of Peter, who act not as private persons but as supreme teachers of the entire Church. (“Head of the College of Bishops” – Vatican II).

Extraordinary Magisterium

1. Pope defining and proclaiming a doctrine definitively
   …a. Infallible: a truth of faith or morals. *
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

• What has been proclaimed is not subject to review or approval by the other bishops or the faithful, but is guaranteed infallible through the action of the Holy Spirit (and the assent of the Church will eventually be evident).

1. Pope and bishops teaching when in council
   …a. Infallible: proclaiming a truth.
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

Ordinary Magisterium

1. Pope and bishops teaching while dispersed throughout the world
   …a. Infallible: bishops teaching in harmony a truth that they say must be held definitively by all the faithful.
   …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.

References:
Vatican I
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25
The Gift of Infallibility by Bishop Gasser, Rev. James O’Connor, p 120-123.

So we see here that for infallibility the assent of the whole Church is necesary (eventually) but must, at the first moment of certainty, include the assent of the Supreme Pontiff.