Vicar of Christ and Ecumenical Councils

[mardukm]

Dear brother Schism hater,

Extra ecclesium nulla salus appears in Unam Sanctam, but only as a premise. To it is added the premise that the Church consists in subjection to the Roman pontiff. This logically leads to the conclusion, stated as a dogmatic declaration at the end of Unam Sanctam, that subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation. So the argument runs like this:

1. Outside the Church, no salvation.
2. To belong to the Church, one must be in subjection to its head, the pope
   Therefore
3. Subjection to the pope is necessary for salvation

That is what Unam Sanctam says, there is no getting around it.

That’s an important syllogism, and I believe you have presented it correctly. To me, it demonstrates that subjection to the papacy is not an end in and of itself as far as salvation is concerned, but relevant only insofar as it is determinative of whether one belongs to the Church, the latter being the actual essence of the dogma (in lieu of the mitigation of invincible ignorance, of course).

Naturally, this is on the premise that the Pope is orthodox. As St. Bellarmine taught, we are not subject to the Pope if he is tearing down the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ubenedictus]

Dear brother Schism hater,

That’s an important syllogism, and I believe you have presented it correctly. To me, it demonstrates that subjection to the papacy is not an end in and of itself as far as salvation is concerned, but relevant only insofar as it is determinative of whether one belongs to the Church, the latter being the actual essence of the dogma (in lieu of the mitigation of invincible ignorance, of course).

Naturally, this is on the premise that the Pope is orthodox. As St. Bellarmine taught, we are not subject to the Pope if he is tearing down the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

True!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Naturally, this is on the premise that the Pope is orthodox. As St. Bellarmine taught, we are not subject to the Pope if he is tearing down the Church.

Doesn’t this introduce a paradox? If the Pope is the authority on Church teaching, if there is a teaching that hasn’t been settled yet and the Pope introduces it, how should we know that he is tearing the Church down? If you look at the history of the Church with the likes of St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor, they were up against pretty much most of the bishops of the Church. What they were fighting about was not settled yet. So how do we determine when it is right to oppose the Pope, and when it isn’t? I think if the Pope teaches Arianism, Iconoclasm, or Nestorianism, it is pretty clear. But what if it is something else? Something we haven’t encountered before? For example, all the Marian dogmas the Roman Catholic Church introduces? Because this becomes dangerous, if we have no older teaching to fall back on, this pretty much gives the Pope license to teach anything that hasn’t been covered before and claim it to be the true teaching, even if it is not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Subjection to the pope is necessary for salvation

That is what Unam Sanctam says, there is no getting around it.

Yet St. Paul teaches that we belong to Christ alone. We are not baptized in the name of the Pope.

 

[Vico]

Bishop Gasser, from Vatican I, 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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Bishop Gasser, from Vatican I, 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.

Isn’t the Holy Spirit promised and given to the entire Church and not the Pope alone? I’m pretty sure everyone of the 120 present at Pentecost received the Holy Spirit equally, not just Peter.

1. 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.

Where is it here that says that such authority is shared with the entire Church? It is pretty clear that such authority is his alone

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.

1. 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.

How can we say that the Pope cannot err? There have been heretical Popes before.

 

[mardukm]

Doesn’t this introduce a paradox? If the Pope is the authority on Church teaching, if there is a teaching that hasn’t been settled yet and the Pope introduces it, how should we know that he is tearing the Church down?

I’m not aware that the Pope can introduce new teaching. Can you please point out where the Catholic Church teaches that?

If you look at the history of the Church with the likes of St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor, they were up against pretty much most of the bishops of the Church. What they were fighting about was not settled yet

They appealed to the papacy as one of their “signposts” (so to speak) of orthodoxy.

So how do we determine when it is right to oppose the Pope, and when it isn’t? I think if the Pope teaches Arianism, Iconoclasm, or Nestorianism, it is pretty clear. But what if it is something else? Something we haven’t encountered before? For example, all the Marian dogmas the Roman Catholic Church introduces?

Are you claiming that there was no belief in the Assumption prior to its dogmatization? Are you claiming that there was no belief that Mary was holy in the eyes of God at every moment of her existence prior to its dogmatization?

Because this becomes dangerous, if we have no older teaching to fall back on, this pretty much gives the Pope license to teach anything that hasn’t been covered before and claim it to be the true teaching, even if it is not.

Agreed. Now please show us where the CC teaches that the Pope can introduce new doctrine into the Church. Once that is done, we can discuss it. Until then, it’s just a red herring.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t the Holy Spirit promised and given to the entire Church and not the Pope alone? I’m pretty sure everyone of the 120 present at Pentecost received the Holy Spirit equally, not just Peter.

Where does the CC teach that it was only to Peter that the HS was promised? We can discuss it once the evidence is presented.

Where is it here that says that such authority is shared with the entire Church? It is pretty clear that such authority is his alone

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.

This has been discussed many times before, and I presented clear proofs and reasons why this cannot be taken to mean what you say it means. I suspect that it will be useless to present the evidence here because, like in the past, you will not respond, and then simply re-present your unjustified misrepresentations of Catholic teaching in another thread at another time.

How can we say that the Pope cannot err? There have been heretical Popes before.

Where does the CC teach that the Pope cannot err…PERIOD? Once the evidence is prsented, we can discuss it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed. Now please show us where the CC teaches that the Pope can introduce new doctrine into the Church. Once that is done, we can discuss it. Until then, it’s just a red herring.

I’m puzzled by this response. When did Constantine say that the Church teaches that the Pope can introduce new doctrine into the Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not aware that the Pope can introduce new teaching. Can you please point out where the Catholic Church teaches that?

I don’t know, I never made such a claim. Maybe you can point out where that is because this idea came only from you.

They appealed to the papacy as one of their “signposts” (so to speak) of orthodoxy.

They appealed to a bishop who was orthodox, and who just happened to be a Pope. This also happened for other Bishops, not just the Pope. People appealing to orthodoxy isn’t exclusive to the Pope. This is one of the greatest polemics of Papists, to make it seem that only the Pope is appealed to.

I
Are you claiming that there was no belief in the Assumption prior to its dogmatization?

You really love putting words into my mouth, don’t you?

Are you claiming that there was no belief that Mary was holy in the eyes of God at every moment of her existence prior to its dogmatization?

Are you claiming that there is only belief in holiness because of dogma? Because clearly that is the only implication of this statement.

Agreed. Now please show us where the CC teaches that the Pope can introduce new doctrine into the Church. Once that is done, we can discuss it. Until then, it’s just a red herring.

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy. It never existed in Church belief before Vatican I.

 

[Vico]

Quote Originally Posted by Vico
Bishop Gasser, from Vatican I, 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.
Isn’t the Holy Spirit promised and given to the entire Church and not the Pope alone? I’m pretty sure everyone of the 120 present at Pentecost received the Holy Spirit equally, not just Peter.

Quote Originally Posted by Vico View Post 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.
Where is it here that says that such authority is shared with the entire Church? It is pretty clear that such authority is his alone

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.

Quote Originally Posted by Vico View Post 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.
How can we say that the Pope cannot err? There have been heretical Popes before.

Those are good questions.

The posted statements are restricted to papal authority role. Since it is not personal there is no statement that the person that is Bishop of Rome cannot error at all, rather the scope is restricted in the dogma to ex cathedra.

What I posted, is of the Vatican I address given by Bishop Gasser prior to the vote on the issues of primacy and papal authority, including the dogma that you posted. The dogma that resulted is of papal authority ex cathedra which is only one of three forms.

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. But that reference is not necessarily with consultation. This is also from the relatio:

Bishop Gasser: “It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”
Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Isn’t the Holy Spirit promised and given to the entire Church and not the Pope alone? I’m pretty sure everyone of the 120 present at Pentecost received the Holy Spirit equally, not just Peter.

There were not 120 present at Pentecost. 120 were present at the election of Matthias, which is found at Acts 1:15 et seq. That is an event apart from the gathering at Pentecost, which was the Apostles only. That event is found at Acts 2:1 et seq. It begins, “When the day of Pentecost came…” and refers, not to 120, but “them.”

Only the Apostles were told by the Lord to await the arrival of the Holy Spirit, not 120 people. “Them” refers to the Apostles, who were the only ones to go into the street and preach the Gospel after the anointing. Indeed, they and St. Paul were the only ones authorized by the Lord to preach the Gospels and to authorize others to do the same. Scripture is not clear about that, but it’s the only scenario that makes sense.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I don’t know, I never made such a claim. Maybe you can point out where that is because this idea came only from you.

He asked you to show where the Church taught the pope can introduce new dogmas. You used the Marian dogmas as 'something we have never encountered before and pronounced them ‘dangerous.’ Marian dogmas were believed by the Church long before being declared dogma.

They appealed to a bishop who was orthodox, and who just happened to be a Pope.

LOL. Good of you to add a little levity to the discussion.
ConstantineTG;10052959:

You really love putting words into my mouth, don’t you?

But he didn’t do that at all. He simply asked a question: Do you believe the Assumption was not taught before being declared dogma?

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy. It never existed in Church belief before Vatican I.

It existed in the Church, in fact and in practice, long before being declared dogma by VI.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t know, I never made such a claim. Maybe you can point out where that is because this idea came only from you.

Did you read your own last sentence in this post?

They appealed to a bishop who was orthodox, and who just happened to be a Pope. This also happened for other Bishops, not just the Pope. People appealing to orthodoxy isn’t exclusive to the Pope. This is one of the greatest polemics of Papists, to make it seem that only the Pope is appealed to.

Typical. I say “ONE of the signposts of orthodoxy” and in the mind of CTG, that translates to “ONLY the Pope.” By this misreading of my statement, I can see the strange way your mind works in misinterpreting and misrepresenting the Catholic teaching on the papacy.

You really love putting words into my mouth, don’t you?

You said “something we haven’t encountered before…the Marian dogmas…” Those were your words. What other new Marian dogmas (plural) does your imagination pretend exists aside from the IC and the Assumption?

Are you claiming that there is only belief in holiness because of dogma? Because clearly that is the only implication of this statement.

If you knew anything about the dogma, yes, that is all the dogma is referring to – her holiness, her spiritual unity with God throughout her existence. What do you think the IC means?

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy. It never existed in Church belief before Vatican I.

Not according to your Absolutist Petrine misrepresentations, I’ll agree.

Blessings,
Marduk