|
1 members (theophan),
225
guests, and
42
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,466
Posts417,237
Members6,105
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Schoenborn would get my vote anyday!
Cardinal Kasper would be an interesting choice...
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Thanks for posting that link. I've seen it for years at Light and Life and wanted to read it without contributing one dime to support its publication. Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Here's a more readable copy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vxQQAAAAIAAJ&dq=papacy+historic+origins&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=PgAGJrqWp8&sig=gf4QQcjpUnR3br0qbKKkq5p4i20#PPR1,M1
One great thing about the Internet is that a lot of 18th and 19th century books are being digitized and put in the public domain. Most of these are out of print and hard to find.
Now they are online free.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
And here is the famous work by Doellinger.
http://books.google.com/books?id=RAIQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=papacy&as_brr=1#PPP1,M1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
And a work by George Salmon http://books.google.com/books?id=YBo3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA444&dq=papal+infallibility&as_brr=1#PPR8,M1
I have no idea what his thesis is or what the quality of the work is but I thought I'd include it for avid and interested readers. Perhaps I'll go back and make a new thread under books, collating what I find.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
What about Giacomo Cardinal Biffi? Imagine what a tag team he would make with Patriarch +Alexei to stand down Western Secular Humanism and the Hagarene hordes!
Alexandr I don't know Alexandr, he is a big fan of Soloviev. I thought you weren't a fan of Soloviev.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
After giving this document a closer read (the first time I was too influenced by other's remarks), I must say I get a much different read on it than before. First, I dont think there is a concession that ecumenical councils 8-21 are now in question. Actually, the document affirms the essential nature of the pope's involvement in order for a council to be ecumenical. This strikes me as a concession on the part of the Orthodox. 42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils. That the pope was not present and did not convene early ecumenical councils, a council could not be ecumenical without his participation and confirmation. This is very very big, in my reading. In essence it admits a theoretical possibility of 8-21 being ecumenical in that the pope is essential. Regarding reception, it seems to me that there is simple affirmation that a council must be received sooner or later. That sounds to me like the Eastern Churches could still receive the teachings of 8-21, which would resolve the problem. Of course this is unlikely. Nevertheless, it is a theoretical possibility recognized by the document. Regarding filioque: 33. It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always "to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas" (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself - thus, on the very being of the Church. One way of reading this is that the pope is not just a local church. It had just been conceded that the pope has a universal role with regard to ecumenical councils. Is Rome just a local church?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
33. It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always "to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas" (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself - thus, on the very being of the Church. Actually, the papal infallibility does require the consent of all the bishops of the church. The two instances of infallibility both followed a polling of the Catholic bishops who in both cases overwhelmingly supported the teaching. Here is what is said of infallibility in Vat. I: The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions. Vat. I envisions PI as a instance of the infallibility of the Church, not an imposition upon the Church. Nothing says this teaching cannot be further refined to require the consent of the bishops of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
33. It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always "to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas" (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself - thus, on the very being of the Church. Actually, the papal infallibility does require the consent of all the bishops of the church. The two instances of infallibility both followed a polling of the Catholic bishops who in both cases overwhelmingly supported the teaching. Here is what is said of infallibility in Vat. I: The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions. Vat. I envisions PI as a instance of the infallibility of the Church, not an imposition upon the Church. Nothing says this teaching cannot be further refined to require the consent of the bishops of the world. Father how should we interpret this clause from Vatican I? consequently such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves irreformable, and not from the consent of the Church.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
After giving this document a closer read (the first time I was too influenced by other's remarks), I must say I get a much different read on it than before. First, I dont think there is a concession that ecumenical councils 8-21 are now in question. Actually, the document affirms the essential nature of the pope's involvement in order for a council to be ecumenical. This strikes me as a concession on the part of the Orthodox. 42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils. That the pope was not present and did not convene early ecumenical councils, a council could not be ecumenical without his participation and confirmation. This is very very big, in my reading. In essence it admits a theoretical possibility of 8-21 being ecumenical in that the pope is essential. Regarding reception, it seems to me that there is simple affirmation that a council must be received sooner or later. That sounds to me like the Eastern Churches could still receive the teachings of 8-21, which would resolve the problem. Of course this is unlikely. Nevertheless, it is a theoretical possibility recognized by the document. Regarding filioque: 33. It is clear, therefore, that one and the same faith is to be confessed and lived out in all the local Churches, the same unique Eucharist is to be celebrated everywhere, and one and the same apostolic ministry is to be at work in all the communities. A local Church cannot modify the Creed, formulated by the ecumenical Councils, although the Church ought always "to give suitable answers to new problems, answers based on the Scriptures and in accord and essential continuity with the previous expressions of dogmas" (Bari Document, n.29). Equally, a local Church cannot change a fundamental point regarding the form of ministry by a unilateral decision, and no local Church can celebrate the Eucharist in wilful separation from other local Churches without seriously affecting ecclesial communion. In all of these things one touches on the bond of communion itself - thus, on the very being of the Church. One way of reading this is that the pope is not just a local church. It had just been conceded that the pope has a universal role with regard to ecumenical councils. Is Rome just a local church? Father, Doesn't this statement from the Ravenna document, This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term effectively deny the ecumenicity of any council post schism? And doesn't it even go further by implying that an ecumenical council would only be possible after reunion? Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
That the pope was not present and did not convene early ecumenical councils, a council could not be ecumenical without his participation and confirmation. That's not my reading and I don't believe that this point would stand historically. One pre-schism council was never affirmed by the Pope and the Orthodox kept on having councils considered ecumenical after the schism. Regarding reception, it seems to me that there is simple affirmation that a council must be received sooner or later. That sounds to me like the Eastern Churches could still receive the teachings of 8-21, which would resolve the problem. Of course this is unlikely. Nevertheless, it is a theoretical possibility recognized by the document. I don't think the door is open to that since Constantinople IV, i.e. the 8th Ecumenical Council, condemned as heresy the Filioque. Something affirmed as dogma by a later RCC council. One or both would have to go from ecumenical status to turns-out-that-wasn't ecumenical status. That's a problem, and one of the thorniest. It had just been conceded that the pope has a universal role with regard to ecumenical councils. Is Rome just a local church? The Pope has no more universal a role in the ecumenical councils than the head of any local church. I don't see the document affirming any more than that.
Last edited by AMM; 10/23/07 12:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Father how should we interpret this clause from Vatican I? consequently such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves irreformable, and not from the consent of the Church. As I understand it, this means that no reacknowledgment or consent is required after the fact (as the Gaulist position once claimed ratification in order for Roman documents to be promulgated in France). But the teaching does envision the pope either convening a council or polling the episcopate as happened in both 1854 and 1950. "Irreformability" does not mean the teaching cannot be developed. It just can't be contradicted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Father how should we interpret this clause from Vatican I? consequently such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves irreformable, and not from the consent of the Church. As I understand it, this means that no reacknowledgment or consent is required after the fact (as the Gaulist position once claimed ratification in order for Roman documents to be promulgated in France). But the teaching does envision the pope either convening a council or polling the episcopate as happened in both 1854 and 1950. "Irreformability" does not mean the teaching cannot be developed. It just can't be contradicted. Father, but consent and counsel before the fact isn't necessarily required. The Pope could issue a statement without consulting anyone if he chose to, though it would be prudent for him to do so. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 194 |
Thanks to JSM-O- and AMM.
As I say, I am a neophyte in this area. I have spent a great deal more time on the Anglican/Protestant side. So, thanks for sharpening my perspective on the Eastern issues.
I had not realized, for example, that Orthodoxy had proclaimed an ecumenical council. This is a thorny mess, isn't it.
Well, this likely will take some decades or centuries... but such effort is necessary. I am wondering if Rome is hoping for some considerable breakthroughs in time for 2054. There IS time, and that would undoubtedly be a powerful moment. Come, Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
By the way Father, Welcome the forum.  I hope you find this a stimulating place. 2054, you know I hadn't even thought about that. If I quit smoking I might live long enough to see it. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
