The Vatican Dogma

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

How strange that he claims in one breath to agree with Fr John A Hardon, S.J. that “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”,
and in another breath that “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either.”

There is nothing strange at all. If you have the powers of reasoning required to understand the doctrine of infallibility, which you seem to feel you possess, then you should just as easily see why my comment is perfectly consistent.

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. The time of the Arian heresy was a good example of the Pope speaking infallibly against some bishops. However, there was still a good core of bishops that adhered to the Orthodox Christology. These were his “brother” bishops. These were the ones he was in Union with, and against whom he could NOT speak infallibly.

So as easy as that I can agree with Hardon, and disagree with you.

You continue to see infallibility as just a Papal prerogative, rather than what it really is, the protection of the Holy Spirit over the whole Church, which the pope participates in, in a special way, as an individual. The faithful (listening Christianity), the Ordinary Magisterium, (teaching Christianity) and the Pope, all share in this protection of the Holy Spirit under the umbrella of Church infallibility.

Now, if you can read the documents of Vatican I and II while comprehending this basic Christian mystery and doctrine, your interpretation of texts will improve dramatically.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ
You continue to see infallibility as just a Papal prerogative, rather than what it really is, the protection of the Holy Spirit over the whole Church,

False.

My post #22 simple shows the truth:
“newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.

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

[Code of Canon Law #337].”

And post #27 shows the truth:
“Despite all attempts at misrepresentation, the exercise of papal infallibility in doctrine, defined through a dogma in Vatican I, and reiterated by Vatican II, is quite clear; the exercise of papal primacy and apostolic collegiality (so well developed in Vatican II which defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council, LG #25 – a turning point in doctrinal history) will continue to be a fruitful source of dialogue to facilitate true communion with other Christian groups, even as more Anglican and Evangelical groups are presently seeking to come home.”

How strange when AmbroseSJ chooses to limit the supreme authority of the Pope to “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either”, against Vatican I and Vatican II – without any support whatever for his false view, from those Councils!

Fancy the “faithful” having to agree in order to make a doctrine true!

So from post #27 we know that:
“(Ecumenical Council Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus) Chapter 3.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

 

[Vico]

Bishop Gasser noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Abu,

Bishop Gasser specifically stated that only consultation is not absolutely required. “Consultation” is not the same thing as “agreement,” as Bishop Gasser specifically asserted - the agreement of the whole Magisterium is necessary for the exercise of papal infalibillity. Did you miss that part of Bishop Gasser’s statement? As stated in a previous post, the Absolutist Petrine position is really nothing more than another example of Cafeteria Catholicism. I’ve often heard the phrase, “trying to be more Catholic than the Pope” - an apt description of the Absolutist Petrine view.

The Absolutist Petrine view does no service to the Church. It promotes a twisted version of the teachings of the Vatican Councils and is a detriment to the unity of the Church.

Yes. The bishops knew what they were voting for. And it was the official understanding that Bishop Gasser asserted, not the papalist exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates (exaggerations which you and brother Steve B seem to share).

Did you know that a number of the absentees who initially opposed the Council were neo-ultramontanists? Neo-ultramontanists were those of the Absolutist Petrine camp who believed the Council was trying to restrict the Pope too much. They thought that the Council teaching was nothing more than Gallicanism in disguise. Guess what? Even these bishops aligned themselves to the High Petrine teaching of the Council when its Decrees were promulgated. That’s the Holy Spirit at work, brother.

You seek to revive the excesses of the neo-ultramontanists, which was repudiated by Vatican 1, and even moreso by Vatican 2. To repeat, your position does no service to and for the Church, but is a great stumbling block to the unity that our Lord commands us to have.

Blessings,
Marduk

Lumen Gemtium (LG) #22 which I quoted, is clear and to the point on the issue being discussed. It is not exaggeration. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7522638&postcount=103

All one has to ask

Does the pope need a council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? No

Does a council need the pope in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? Yes

 

[steve_b]

False.

My post #22 simple shows the truth:
“newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.

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

[Code of Canon Law #337].”

And post #27 shows the truth:
“Despite all attempts at misrepresentation, the exercise of papal infallibility in doctrine, defined through a dogma in Vatican I, and reiterated by Vatican II, is quite clear; the exercise of papal primacy and apostolic collegiality (so well developed in Vatican II which defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council, LG #25 – a turning point in doctrinal history) will continue to be a fruitful source of dialogue to facilitate true communion with other Christian groups, even as more Anglican and Evangelical groups are presently seeking to come home.”

How strange when AmbroseSJ chooses to limit the supreme authority of the Pope to “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either”, against Vatican I and Vatican II – without any support whatever for his false view, from those Councils!

Fancy the “faithful” having to agree in order to make a doctrine true!
**

**
Indeed.

 

[Vico]

Lumen Gemtium (LG) #22 which I quoted, is clear and to the point on the issue being discussed. It is not exaggeration. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7522638&postcount=103

All one has to ask

Does the pope need a council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? No

Does a council need the pope in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? Yes

The first is ex cathedra and the second is conciliar. Not covered in these two, but similar to conciliar, is the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. For ex cathedra, the Supreme Pontiff must in moral conscience refer to the other bishops, it is not in isolation, not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.

 

[larryort]

Has anyone read the article by Sergius Bulgakov, The Vatican Dogma? It can be found here if not.

It’s a long article which makes several claims, but here is the gist of the portions I’m interested in getting some information on. The article essentially claims that Pope Pius IX essentially “stacked the deck” in order to ensure the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined and approved.

Is there any good evidence out there that this is a completely bizarre and unwarranted claim?

Lawrence

The proof is clear. Since the seat of Peter is supposed to be a succession of his authority and the Pope is to be considered God’s voice on earth, Papal infallibility is guaranteed or the whole idea of a succession is simply carnal politics and not of God.
However, it cannot be ignored that Roman Catholics persecuted and burned alive people according to Papal orders. This is clearly not the Spirit of the Christ who took upon him a cross and said forgive them for they know not what they do, and to love your enemies, and return good for evil. This is not the Holy Spirit working in this Pope. Therefore regardless to the time frame since Truth is always the same and never changes even as God is always the same and never changes, it is obvious to any honest soul that the claim of infallibility is not viable lest one turn away from the lesson of the cross which Christ paid his blood for us to learn.
Truth is not voted on by councils of men even though it is appropriate to address causes of division. Truth is the Spirit of light and those who can’t see that burning people alive is wrong are in darkness.

 

[steve_b]

The first is ex cathedra and the second is conciliar. Not covered in these two, but similar to conciliar, is the infallible Ordinary Magisterium. For ex cathedra, the Supreme Pontiff must in moral conscience refer to the other bishops, it is not in isolation, not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church.

Look at the text highlighted.

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

Chapter 3

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
   But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head,* exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. 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) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act."

Therefore,

What I said and the questions I asked and answered, are correct

• Does the pope need a council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? No
• Does a council need the pope in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? Yes

Re: ex cathedra look at LG Chapter 3 #25

 

[Vico]

Look at the text highlighted.

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

Chapter 3

1. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
   But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head,* exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. 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*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act."

Therefore,

What I said and the questions I asked and answered, are correct

• Does the pope need a council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? No
• Does a council need the pope in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? Yes

Re: ex cathedra look at LG Chapter 3 #25

What you highlighted does not conflict with what I wrote from the relatio of Vatican I.

You may be able to determine if what you are saying conflicts with the ideas of the* relatio*.

 

[steve_b]

What you highlighted does not conflict with what I wrote from the relatio of Vatican I.

You may be able to determine if what you are saying conflicts with the ideas of the* relatio*.

You were saying I mixed counciliar and ex cathedra. What I said was all described in Ch 3 paragraph #22 re: the authority of the pope vs the authority of the bishops either alone or in council
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557763&postcount=126

I didn’t address ex cathedra. I mentioned that was in Ch 3 #25.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7558273&postcount=129

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

Fancy the “faithful” having to agree in order to make a doctrine true!

The Faithful, or the Listening Church does indeed help guarantee the Church’s Infallibility. Again I point out 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. Or in your words, the faithful’s consent that was necessary to make a doctrine true. This had NOTHING to do with the Pope, as the Faithful were always in union with the Pope. You must also remember that Church infallibility has existed since the Apostolic Church, long before Vatican documents were written to clarify and articulate a doctrine that has always been within the Deposit of Faith. You seem to be ignoring 1800 years of Church history which is probably why you are unable to properly understand Vatican I and II.

That Listening Church (the Faithful) will detect errors and correct them, just as then.

You must try to understand that infallibility is a protection upon Church teaching through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You are conflating Papal power, and papal infallibility and not recognizing Church infallibility as the source of Papal infallibility.

 

[Vico]

You were saying I mixed counciliar and ex cathedra. What I said was all described in Ch 3 paragraph #22 re: the authority of the pope vs the authority of the bishops either alone or in council
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557763&postcount=126

I didn’t address ex cathedra. I mentioned that was in Ch 3 #25.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7558273&postcount=129

Well, I must be off topic then, because I am not referring specifically to Lumen Gentium 22 or 25, but the a more general basis common to all three: ex cathedra, conciliar, and ordinary magisterium as it pertains to the two questions you put forth there.

It is that in general the Supreme Pontiff’s authority is not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.

 

[Abu]

larryort
it is obvious to any honest soul that the claim of infallibility is not viable

How strange to deny Christ Himself:

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied? It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[steve_b]

Well, I must be off topic then, because I am not referring specifically to Lumen Gentium 22 or 25, but the a more general basis common to all three: ex cathedra, conciliar, and ordinary magisterium as it pertains to the two questions you put forth there.

It is that in general the Supreme Pontiff’s authority is not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.

• I highlighted your statement above which appears to conform with the document below. Session 4 Ch 3, Vat I documents (1st **dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ) **ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 July 18, 1870
• Lumen Gentium which I quoted from va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html NOV 21, 1964
• as I understand, we teach and declare (highlighted below) is language used to identify infallible teaching.

**Chapter 3. **

On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
   To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
   All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
   4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
4. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]
   6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
5. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
6. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
7. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

 

[mardukm]

False.

I think not. You give these quotes, yet pay only lip service to them. These subsequent quotes you give defend the position that brother AmbroseSJ has been asserting, not your own.

My post #22 simple shows the truth:
“newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.

Yes, as this quote clearly indicates, all the bishops (and others) have a vote in an Ecumenical Council. This means that EVERY MEMBER WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE has deliberative and legislative authority along with the Pope in an Ecumenical Council. But your position claims that the only vote that really counts is the that of the bishop of Rome. That this quote gives any credence to your position is wishful thinking.

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

[Code of Canon Law #337].”

Did you even read the quote before presenting it as (pretended) evidence for your position?The very first statement states “the COLLEGE of bishops.” It does not say “the Pope alone exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an Ecumenical Council.” The Pope has a certain, unique role within this college/Council, but just because he has a unique role does not mean that he is above it or acts apart from it. A rudder has a unique role in a ship that is not shared by any other instrument on a ship, but who is foolish enough to claim that the rudder alone makes the ship what it is, or that the rudder can function alone?

And post #27 shows the truth:
“Despite all attempts at misrepresentation, the exercise of papal infallibility in doctrine, defined through a dogma in Vatican I, and reiterated by Vatican II, is quite clear; the exercise of papal primacy and apostolic collegiality (so well developed in Vatican II which defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council, LG #25 – a turning point in doctrinal history) will continue to be a fruitful source of dialogue to facilitate true communion with other Christian groups, even as more Anglican and Evangelical groups are presently seeking to come home.”

Did you miss the terms “collegial” and “collegiality” in the quote?

How strange when AmbroseSJ chooses to limit the supreme authority of the Pope to “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either”, against Vatican I and Vatican II – without any support whatever for his false view, from those Councils!

I’ve given you plenty of support from the very quotes you and brother Steve B has given. The only reason both of you feel these quotes give any kind of support for your “Pope alone” position is simply because you ignore (intentionally or not, I cannot say) the terms in your very quotes that denote the collegial nature of the Church’s infallibility and authority. Typical Cafeteria Catholicism.

Fancy the “faithful” having to agree in order to make a doctrine true!

If you think the Pope “makes” a doctrine true, you probably don’t have a good grasp of what infallibility is.

So from post #27 we know that:
“(Ecumenical Council Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus) Chapter 3.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

“Supreme” and “full” does not necessarily mean that such power is exercised in isolation from the rest of the Church. Your and brother Steve B’s claims that infallibility and universal authority in the Church belong to or is exercised by the Pope alone is an interpretation (a misinterpretation, at that), not the actual teaching of the Vatican Councils.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ
The Faithful, or the Listening Church does indeed help guarantee the Church’s Infallibility. Again I point out 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. Or in your words, the faithful’s consent that was necessary to make a doctrine true.

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!

That the true faithful have often kept the faith against erring bishops demonstrates that they had assented to the truth proclaimed by the Magisterium, or refused to be misled by some new teaching that was not from the Magisterium – they were faithful to the Magisterium instituted by Christ.

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

Mardukm
claims that infallibility and universal authority in the Church belong to or is exercised by the Pope alone is an interpretation (a misinterpretation, at that), not the actual teaching of the Vatican Councils.

False again. Simply that he has what Vatican I clearly expresses: personal infallibility only as Roman Pontiff, always only as supreme judge in faith and morals to the universal Church, in defining. While all means are required to ascertain the truth, consent is not a necessary condition before or after a definition is made. No Pope or Ecumenical Council teaches that error.

In Session 4, chapter 3, Vatican I teaches:
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both Episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SteveB,

Lumen Gemtium (LG) #22 which I quoted, is clear and to the point on the issue being discussed. It is not exaggeration. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7522638&postcount=103

Yes. Vatican 2 is clear that both infallibility and authority are primarily collegial within the Church. I pointed this out to you in the very quote you gave in an earlier post (i.e., the clauses containing the preposition “with”). You and brother Abu’s position depends wholly on simply ignoring such important terms – that’s Cafeteria Catholicism, brother.

All one has to ask

Your first question is wrong, and the answers to both your questions are very lacking.

Does the pope need a council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? No

Brother Vico explained a nuance which you seem content to ignore. Permit me to answer, taking brother Vico’s considerations into account.
As far as an Ecumenical Council is concerned, you ask the wrong question. The infallibility and authority of an Ecumenical Council is collegial, and its subject is not the Pope in relation to the rest of the bishops or the rest of the bishops in relation to the Pope, but the Council (all the bishops) in relation to the rest of the Church. As Bishop Gasser asserted in his Official Relatio, in a Council, it is a matter of the bishops judging along with the Pope, not the Pope judging the bishops, or vice-versa. Your understanding of the relationships within an Ecumenical Council is obviously at odds with the teaching of the Vatican Councils. The correct question to ask as far as an Ecumenical Council is concerned is, “does the Church need the Council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church?” That you consistently set up the head in opposition or separation from the rest of the body in the context of an Ecumenical Council demonstrates to me a novel and unpatristic concept of the “Ecumenical Council,” which, again, is at odds with the teaching of the Fathers of both Vatican Councils.

As far as the ordinary Magisterium, again, since this is a collegial infallibility and authority, the Pope exercises no unique infallibility or authority. His (name removed by moderator)ut, being the protos, is certainly necessary – in fact, the only singular bishop whose (name removed by moderator)ut is absolutely necessary in this context – but his (name removed by moderator)ut alone does not constitute the infallibility and authority of the ordinary Magisterium. Again, in this context, you ask the wrong question.

As far as the Pope’s exercise of the infallible Magisterium, your question has the greatest relevance, but at this point, a “Council” has no bearing. I would break it down to the legislative, judicial, and executive elements. Does the Pope need the rest of the Magisterium to exercise the judicial and executive elements of an ex cathedra decree? No. Does the Pope need the rest of the Magisterium to exercise the legislative element of an ex cathedra decree? Absolutely YES.

Does a council need the pope in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? Yes

A Council also needs the rest of the bishops who have a deliberative vote in the judicial, legislative and teaching authority of the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothe Abu,

Sorry. I don’t see anywhere in those quotes which state that the Pope exercises his prerogatives “alone.” The closest thing that comes to such a notion is paragraph 8 regarding the Pope’s role as the supreme judge. The thing you fail to understand is that the notion of the Pope’s role as supreme judge is not something new. This papal prerogative was first codified by the Council of Sardica (it was certainly exercised before this time, but it was only codified - as well as many other ecclesiastical matters - in the 4th century).

If you look at the decrees of the Council of Sardica, if you look at the Pope’s exercise of his supreme judicial authority throughout history for the universal Church (i.e., not just the Latin Catholic Church, which is a different thing), you will discover that this supreme judicial authority has always been exercised in a collegial manner - i.e., it is either exercised as an appellate authority (i.e., it has never been exercised in a unilateral manner), or it is a matter of the Pope agreeing with the previous judgments of other bishops on a matter that is brought before him (i.e., it has never been exercised in a solitary manner). In short, even the Pope’s exercise of his supreme judigical authority has always been exercised COLLEGIALLY.

As far as not being able to appeal to an Ecumenical Council, what you fail to notice is the important conditional clause attached to that statement - namely, “as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff” (so far, this ignoring of relevant texts has been a hallmark of your and brother Steve B’s position). One can certainly appeal to an Ecumenical Council, wherein the Pope, as a member, can be persuaded to change his mind by the counsel of his brother bishops. An Ecumenical Council is not above the Pope, because he is a member of it. But neither can it be said that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council, again, precisely because he is a member of it.

The problem, it seems, is that you and brother SteveB think (interestingly, along with those non-Catholics who oppose the papacy) that the Vatican Councils exist in some sort of vaccum devoid of any relationship to Sacred Tradition. That’s the only way you can conceivably pull this “Pope alone” rabbit out of a hat. On the other hand, understanding the Vatican Councils in the context of Sacred Tradition is a good way to prevent the innovations which you and brother Steve B have proposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

False again. Simply that he has what Vatican I clearly expresses: personal infallibility only as Roman Pontiff, always only as supreme judge in faith and morals to the universal Church, in defining. While all means are required to ascertain the truth, consent is not a necessary condition before or after a definition is made. No Pope or Ecumenical Council teaches that error.

In Session 4, chapter 3, Vatican I teaches:
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both Episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

 

[Vico]

• I highlighted your statement above which appears to conform with the document below. Session 4 Ch 3, Vat I documents (1st **dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ) **ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 July 18, 1870
• Lumen Gentium which I quoted from va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html NOV 21, 1964
• as I understand, we teach and declare (highlighted below) is language used to identify infallible teaching.

Chapter 3. …

What I posted was covered in the relatio which determined what the bishops voted on at Vatican I, specifically the reasoning for Session 4, **Chapter 4, Part 2 **which gives the declarations on Papal teaching authority of the ecumenical councils Constantinople IV, Lyons II, and Florence. So it is important in understanding the concepts of Pastor Aerternus which did not include the words personal, separate, and absolute that were used in the relatio. This may be the most important portion of the relatio.

Chapter 3 is a different topic than Chapter 4. Chapter 3 is on the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, but Chapter 4 is on the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, the topic of the definition. And, at the end of that chapter appears a different phrase "we teach and define" than what is used in the other chapters “teach and declare”. The ex cathedra definiton is in a juridical sense irreformable but is capable of further development. Vatican II did not, of course, introduce any new dogmas, and choose to restate Vatican I.

“This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful” (Lumen Gentium 18).

“… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” – Pastor Aeternus Session 4, Chapter 4, Part 9.

 

[mardukm]

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.

But even if half or most of the bishops are wrong, there will never be a time when only the Pope will possess the infallibility God gave to his Church. This is because the episcopal office, like the office of the papacy, is of DIVINE institution, and it is under God’s protection. The agreement of the whole Magisterium will still be necessary, as asserted by Bishop Gasser to be the RULE OF FAITH. It’s just that those bishops who fall outside orthodoxy will no longer properly be considered part of the Magisterium. Whatever the case may be, it is certain that it is never “the Pope alone.” (I wrote the foregoing in agreement with you, not to correct )

Blessings,
Marduk

There is nothing strange at all. If you have the powers of reasoning required to understand the doctrine of infallibility, which you seem to feel you possess, then you should just as easily see why my comment is perfectly consistent.

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. The time of the Arian heresy was a good example of the Pope speaking infallibly against some bishops. However, there was still a good core of bishops that adhered to the Orthodox Christology. These were his “brother” bishops. These were the ones he was in Union with, and against whom he could NOT speak infallibly.

So as easy as that I can agree with Hardon, and disagree with you.

You continue to see infallibility as just a Papal prerogative, rather than what it really is, the protection of the Holy Spirit over the whole Church, which the pope participates in, in a special way, as an individual. The faithful (listening Christianity), the Ordinary Magisterium, (teaching Christianity) and the Pope, all share in this protection of the Holy Spirit under the umbrella of Church infallibility.

Now, if you can read the documents of Vatican I and II while comprehending this basic Christian mystery and doctrine, your interpretation of texts will improve dramatically.