What does Apostolic Canon 34/35 mean to you?

[mardukm]

I would just like to gauge my fellow Catholics’ understanding of Apostolic Canon 34/35.

Apostolic Canon 34/35 states:
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…but neither let him (who is head) do anything without the consent of all.

What does this mean to you in the context of an Ecumenical Council?

This poll assumes the orthodoxy of ALL the bishops in the Council.

It’s possible that some bishops (including the Pope) may be sick and could not make it to the Council.

This poll reflects your PERSONAL, SINCERE belief. In other words, this poll is not about what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches, or what you think the Catholic Church SHOULD teach.

This poll is open only to Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

If you vote for any other option except the first one, please state your reasons for the vote.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I noticed someone picked the second selection. And it got me to thinking.

I suppose there are two ways to interpret the matter:

First, there is the matter of the PROMULGATION of a decree in an Ecumenical Council. In this instance, I believe the first option is the valid choice. Certainly, not all bishops can or do or want to make it to an Ecumenical Council. It would be ludicrous to assume that the Council must wait hand and foot on those bishops. This is a circumstance that has certainly occurred in all the Councils of the Church (the first Seven, and the other general/ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church).

However, there is also the matter of the EXECUTION of the decree. Even if a bishop disagrees during the promulgation stage, he must accept it afterwards as a working of the Holy Spirit and forthwith execute the decree within his diocese. Otherwise, he would be branded a heretic (a schismatic at best). So indeed, in the matter of its execution, there MUST be complete unanimity - or, as the poll has styled it, a necessary agreement by ALL the bishops. Those who are orthodox in Faith will be united to the Council; those who are not are heterodox and have cut themselves off. Hence, the unity of the Council and the Church is preserved.

I think perhaps when people first read the poll question, they automatically think of the promulgation. Others, perhaps, might think instead of the execution phase which indeed requires complete unanimity, with the danger of heresy for the bishop who does not adhere to the promulgation and fails to execute it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

How would the decrees of an Ecumenical Council be passed but with the majority of those Bishops attending?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JMJ_coder,

How would the decrees of an Ecumenical Council be passed but with the majority of those Bishops attending?

I’m sure that is a rhetorical question, but it got me thinking.

As everyone here knows, the Council of Sardica was orginally intended to be an Ecumenical Council. It never gained ecumenical status because the VERY GREAT majority of bishops in the East were heretics (of course, all its decisions were later ratified by 2 Ecumenical Councils). So it seems Church history (which we call Tradition) validates that the agreement of an objective majority of bishops is necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Dear brother JMJ_coder,

I’m sure that is a rhetorical question, but it got me thinking.

As everyone here knows, the Council of Sardica was orginally intended to be an Ecumenical Council. It never gained ecumenical status because the VERY GREAT majority of bishops in the East were heretics (of course, all its decisions were later ratified by 2 Ecumenical Councils). So it seems Church history (which we call Tradition) validates that the agreement of an objective majority of bishops is necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk

Indeed. If we thought that it was just the Pope calling the shots, there would be no need of Ecumenical Councils – the Pope would just make ex cathedra decrees. Even after the formal declaration and definition of Papal Infallibility at the Vatican I Council, there was still another Ecumenical Council (or there wouldn’t be a I after it ) – which shows that the Catholic faith has never been considered a one man show.

So an Ecumenical Council requires both – the majority of Bishops must agree in order to write the canons and decrees and the Pope (who usually doesn’t take that active of a role during the Council – if he even attends in person) must affirm those canons and decrees – both are needed for an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Formosus]

Doesn’t that fall into the conciliarism of the late middle ages though? If its a majority vote then where exactly would the Pope’s perogitives (please excuse me if that is spelled wrong ) fit in? The current Canon law for Eastern Churches states that only a Pope can call an Ecumenical Council and that its decrees are nonbinding until promulgated by the Pope. In theory, if the majority of Bishops all voted to proclaim one thing, and the Pope refuses to promulgate it, its all a moot point. Assuming that this declaration is fully orthodox. The Pope’s non promulgation of it would not be a contradiction of the Papacy’s infallibility since it wouldn’t be action against it, but rather choosing not to further define the teaching. Doesn’t that scenario though simply eliminate even the need to hold Councils I am just a bit confused is all …

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

Doesn’t that fall into the conciliarism of the late middle ages though? If its a majority vote then where exactly would the Pope’s perogitives (please excuse me if that is spelled wrong ) fit in? The current Canon law for Eastern Churches states that only a Pope can call an Ecumenical Council and that its decrees are nonbinding until promulgated by the Pope. In theory, if the majority of Bishops all voted to proclaim one thing, and the Pope refuses to promulgate it, its all a moot point. Assuming that this declaration is fully orthodox. The Pope’s non promulgation of it would not be a contradiction of the Papacy’s infallibility since it wouldn’t be action against it, but rather choosing not to further define the teaching. Doesn’t that scenario though simply eliminate even the need to hold Councils I am just a bit confused is all …

I believe it’s clear (to me anyway) that the use of “majority” in the past several posts refers to the ENTIRE body of bishops in an Ecumenical Council, irrespective of rank, and includes the Pope. My poll question, in distinction, uses the term “majority” in reference to the rest of the bishops aside from the Pope.

It is my sincere belief that an objectively orthodox teaching of bishops within an Ecumenical Council will ALWAYS have the Pope’s approval - and not because of the Pope’s personal infallibility, but because of the infallible working of the Holy Spirit in the workings of the Council itself. Once the Pope calls or consents to the holding of an Ecumenical Council as such, by its very nature it will have an incomprehensible guidance by the Holy Spirit.

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Indeed. If we thought that it was just the Pope calling the shots, there would be no need of Ecumenical Councils – the Pope would just make ex cathedra decrees. Even after the formal declaration and definition of Papal Infallibility at the Vatican I Council, there was still another Ecumenical Council (or there wouldn’t be a I after it ) – which shows that the Catholic faith has never been considered a one man show.

So an Ecumenical Council requires both – the majority of Bishops must agree in order to write the canons and decrees and the Pope (who usually doesn’t take that active of a role during the Council – if he even attends in person) must affirm those canons and decrees – both are needed for an Ecumenical Council.

:bowdown2: :bowdown2:

 

[jimmy]

At least the majority of the bishops approval is necessary. I would also say that the pope can not make infallible proclamation according to this canon because the canon requires the consent of the bishops.

 

[mardukm]

At least the majority of the bishops approval is necessary. I would also say that the pope can not make infallible proclamation according to this canon because the canon requires the consent of the bishops.

I believe this would be a moment when Catholics would say “you are preaching to the choir, brother.”

Now, tell us again. Where do you find any warrant in the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope has the authority to reject the orthodox advice of orthodox bishops?

Looking forward to your response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

When both Vatican I and II say ‘not from the consent of the Church’ in relation to the authority of the declarations of the pope it is quite clear that they don’t think the pope needs the consent of the bishops. Vatican I and II are quite clear on the issue. I have said this all in my last several posts and I will not repeat it because it is tiring.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

When both Vatican I and II say ‘not from the consent of the Church’ in relation to the authority of the declarations of the pope it is quite clear that they don’t think the pope needs the consent of the bishops. Vatican I and II are quite clear on the issue. I have said this all in my last several posts and I will not repeat it because it is tiring.

Since you interpret the Vatican I and Vatican II statements that way, then that means you believe that the Truth requires consensus to be Truth. That is the post-modernist heresy, brother. It saddens me that you would espouse that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother jimmy,

Since you interpret the Vatican I and Vatican II statements that way, then that means you believe that the Truth requires consensus to be Truth. That is the post-modernist heresy, brother. It saddens me that you would espouse that.

Blessings,
Marduk

It saddens me that you like to twist peoples words in order to support your own agenda.

 

[mardukm]

It saddens me that you like to twist peoples words in order to support your own agenda.

But that is the only purpose of the Vatican Councils’ statement that an ex cathedra statement needs no consensus - i.e., the Truth does not require consensus. Yet you complain and argue that an ex cathedra statement DOES need consensus. What am I to conclude? If you mean something else, please say so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I want to point out at this point that many, some in view of a personal agenda to discredit the office of the papacy and some out of genuine misunderstanding, have extrapolated the most incredible things from the dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council.

Here is the relevant portion of the text of the decree on an ex cathedra teaching by the Pope:

“…such definition of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their very nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.”

Literally, the statement refers to the ex cathedra statement itself. It is not a statement about the Pope. The statement does not say a thing about how the Pope comes to have knowledge of the theological facts in order to form the teaching. Neither does it say a thing about the necessary consensus for the unity of the Church. It SIMPLY says, exactly as it says, that the definition ITSELF is irreformable by its nature, not by consent. It goes to the heart of what Truth is.

From this, naysayers have dreamed up a fantastic array of powers and prerogatives for the Pope, including, but not limited to:

1. The Pope can reject the orthodox teaching of orthodox bishops for an ex cathedra decree.
2. The Catholic Church is a one-man show.
3. The Pope is NEVER required to search the mind of the Church through his brother bishops for an ex cathedra decree.
4. The Pope can conceivably violate Sacred Tradition in an ex cathedra decree.

These conclusions are ludicrous, and it takes a mind pre-disposed against the papacy in the first place to grant any validity to such conclusions. Naysayers will claim that Catholics are blind submissive individuals who follow the Pope ONLY because the Pope says so. They don’t believe we have informed consciences and do our best to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That’s interesting because I’ve heard athiests accuse Christians in general of the same thing - that Christians are just blind little lapdogs of whatever authority it pleases them to follow, whether it is the bible, the priest, the bishop, or the Pope.

The Lord said to judge with right judgment, and also warned that whatever unjust judgment you have imposed upon another, that same judgment will be imposed upon you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

But that is the only purpose of the Vatican Councils’ statement that an ex cathedra statement needs no consensus - i.e., the Truth does not require consensus. Yet you complain and argue that an ex cathedra statement DOES need consensus. What am I to conclude? If you mean something else, please say so.

Blessings,
Marduk

First, this declaration that they don’t need the consent of the CHurch is not in a decree on truth, it is in a decree on the Church. Further, it is in a section of that decree that is discussing whether the pope has the authority to declare a dogma. They are not talking about whether truth is absolute or relative.

Further, it was declared by the first Vatican council that the pope personally has a charism of infallibility. It was not declaring the infallibility of the Church, but that of the pope who makes statements ex cathedra whose statements are authoritative of themselves and do not need the consent of the Church. This comes from a personal charism that the pope has. This is a perrogative that the other bishops do not have.

Lumen Gentium is not talking about whether truth is absolute or relative, it is talking about the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
…And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith… *Lumen Gentium *25.2]
The statement ‘not from the consent of the Church’ is not a statement about whether truth is absolute or relative. The ‘therefore’ used makes it dependant on the previous statement about the Roman Pontiff having infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Therefore the following statement about ‘his definitions’ depends on the previous sentence and so it is a statement about the infallibility of the Pope. They do not need the consent of the rest of the Church because the Holy Spirit guides the pope(the college is not associated with this, it is personal). The purpose of ‘not by the consent of the Church’ does not refer to the absoluteness of truth but the absoluteness of the definitions of the Roman Pontiff. And this absoluteness is dependant upon the charism which the pope personally possesses. And so you have the final sentence which starts with ‘For then’ which basically supports what I have said about Leo’s Tome and the bishops response to it at Chalcedon. It is associated with the pope as the shepherd of the whole Church. He is personally teaching the whole Church, including the bishops.

Literally, the statement refers to the ex cathedra statement itself. It is not a statement about the Pope. The statement does not say a thing about how the Pope comes to have knowledge of the theological facts in order to form the teaching. Neither does it say a thing about the necessary consensus for the unity of the Church. It SIMPLY says, exactly as it says, that the definition ITSELF is irreformable by its nature, not by consent. It goes to the heart of what Truth is.

He has a personal charism of infallibility. His knowledge of the theological facts are through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you read the quote from Lumen Gentium above you will see this. It is also stated clearly in Vatican I in the sentence right before where you quoted from. This is what the absoluteness of the declarations is based on so yes it is a statement about the pope. You have assumed in the above paragraph that the pope has knowledge of the truth without the unity of the Church and therefore any consensus has nothing to do with actual knowledge of the true faith but is simply a pastoral matter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Thank you for the discussion

First, this declaration that they don’t need the consent of the CHurch is not in a decree on truth, it is in a decree on the Church. Further, it is in a section of that decree that is discussing whether the pope has the authority to declare a dogma. They are not talking about whether truth is absolute or relative.

I have to disagree. The section at issue indeed occurs in a decree on the Church. The section at issue, however, is SPECIFICALLY a statement on ONE of the means by which the Church comes to know the Truth. As you have pointed out below in your quote from LG, the reason an ex cathedra statement needs no consensus is because it has been given with the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, NOT because it comes from the Pope per se. As the First Vatican Council explicitly explained:
“However, the Roman Pontiffs…have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolic tradition. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS PROMISED TO THE SUCCESSORS OF ST. PETER…”
Really, brother, it’s not about trust in the Pope per se, it’s about trust in the Holy Spirit who has been promised to guide the Church, and trust in Christ’s promise. That is why I have constantly objected to your depiction of our bishops, and Catholics in general, as mere lapdogs of the Pope.

Again it is about Truth - to be more concise, the Truth from God - not about the Pope. The Pope himself serves the Truth.

Further, it was declared by the first Vatican council that the pope personally has a charism of infallibility…This comes from a personal charism that the pope has.

Not true. Just to be clear, the Pope does not have a personal charism of infallibility. The infallibility is in the OFFICE, not in the person of the Pope. The infallibility is only evident during the exercise of a specific function of the Pope.

It was not declaring the infallibility of the Church, but that of the pope who makes statements ex cathedra whose statements are authoritative of themselves and do not need the consent of the Church.

Not true. As I noted in the old “Vatican I” thread. The title of the Decree was changed SPECIFICALLY from “The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff” to “The Infallible Teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff” to indicate exactly as I have stated - that the infallibility resides not in the Pope personally, but in the office of Teaching, an office that is shared by the bishops of the world formally in Council, and even singularly when dispersed throughout the world when they are teaching in unison on a matter of faith or morals.

This is a perrogative that the other bishops do not have.

Not true, as explained above.

Lumen Gentium is not talking about whether truth is absolute or relative, it is talking about the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Not true. It is NOT about the authority of the Roman Pontiff per se. It is about the greater responsibility of the Roman Pontiff in service of the Truth.

It is associated with the pope as the shepherd of the whole Church. He is personally teaching the whole Church, including the bishops.

Yes, it is the Pope’s responsibility to confirm the faith of his brother bishops.

He has a personal charism of infallibility.

Not true, if you mean it belongs to the person of the bishop of Rome (as already explained above). Rather, it is a charism of the OFFICE.

His knowledge of the theological facts are through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

DEFINITELY not true! What you have described is inspiration, not infallibility! No wonder you have such turmoil! His knowlege of the theological facts comes from the advice of his brother bishops. If there is any heterodoxy in such advice, the charism prevents the declaration of such teaching. If the advice is orthodox, he has a divine obligation to respect it and base the promulgation on that advice.

You have assumed in the above paragraph that the pope has knowledge of the truth without the unity of the Church

Not true. Only YOU have assumed that, which is the source of your turmoil.

and therefore any consensus has nothing to do with actual knowledge of the true faith but is simply a pastoral matter.

Consensus is necessary for the knowledge of Truth to be dispensed and distributed throughout the Church. Consensus is NOT necessary to determine what Truth is. It MAY be determined in consensus, but it is NOT NECESSARY to be determined in consensus.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

His knowledge of the theological facts are through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. … It is also stated clearly in Vatican I in the sentence right before where you quoted from. This is what the absoluteness of the declarations is based on so yes it is a statement about the pope.

This remark seems close to an answer to the question that I posed to you on another thread. As Markdum has already pointed out, it is dead wrong. Pastor Aeternus specifically rules out the idea that the charism of infallibility implies that the Pope receives revelation from God. The Mormons make such a claim for their President. And many enemies of the Catholic church make such straw -man arguments about the Pope. But the Catholic church directly rules out such a claim.

 

[dvdjs]

This remark seems close to an answer to the question that I posed to you on another thread. As Markdum has already pointed out, it is dead wrong. Pastor Aeternus specifically rules out the idea that the charism of infallibility implies that the Pope receives revelation from God. The Mormons make such a claim for their President. And many enemies of the Catholic church make such straw-man arguments about the Pope. But the Catholic church directly rules out such a claim.

 

[mardukm]

As we have several new Eastern and Oriental members here since the last time this poll was posted, I thought I’d give it a bump. I hope our new members will participate in the poll.

Blessings,
Marduk