CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 1st April 2007, 10:37 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy View Post
Ron, say the Church finds itself with no priests because of martyrdom. The Church would have the temporal authority to elevate deacons or certain faithful laity to the priesthood in an emergency to feed the flock? Sammy.

Yes, the Church has the authority to ordain deacons and laypersons to the priesthood without the long process of sending men through the seminary and university.

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 1st April 2007, 11:19 PM
CRW
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Strange but fact: The Pope does not have to be a priest or bishop to be elected, but if he is elected, he must be ordained a bishop.

Cecil
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2nd April 2007, 12:59 PM
MA MA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 126
Default

Ron,

In Tradition; could the sign of the cross , palm sunday and many of the things we do in holy week could fall into tradition?
-are only catholics the one who do the sign of the cross or do other christians do the same?

Thanks,

MA
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2nd April 2007, 01:17 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Tradition is 'the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.'

The Magisterium is not the Pope and the Bishops. The Magisterium is an ability and authority, given as a gift to the whole Church, but exercised only by the Pope and the Bishops, to teach the truths of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Ron, as an Eastern Christian, I deeply appreciate your definition of Tradition. As my fellow churchman Jaraslov Pelikan once said in his book, The Vindication of Tradition, Tradition is the living faith of the dead, not the dead faith of the living. Tradition is living, dynamic, and lived-out. It is not merely a set of propositions passed down, but a life that we live out, which we have received from those before us who lived that life.

You once said that even a muslim who prostrates in prayer passes on Tradition in an attenuated sense. This is true, especially since by prostrating, the Muslim lives out something that, though perverted, he has received via Holy Tradition from Christians. My wife was raised in Saudi Arabia, and has many traumatic associations with all things Islam. I once took her to a Chaldean Church Liturgy presided by the Patriarch of Babylon Mar Dinka himself. We had to leave because she felt so many associations with negative experiences from her childhood. THis is because Muhammed stole nearly everything good that he taught from this liturgical Tradition (that is, whatever he did not steal from Judaism of Ethiopian Orthodoxy, the two other influences on his thought).

Ron, a question regarding your second statement in above quote. What is the role of reception in "Magisterium?" There have been cases in the past in which a council that was supposedly a general or ecumencial council decided certain things that were universally, unanimously, and violently rejected by the entire body of Lay Faithful. The Orthodox Church emphasizes that for a council to be truly ecumenical, it must not only have to have the majority vote of the bishops in union with their universal head, but also the "universal reception" of the CHurch at large.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2nd April 2007, 01:52 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
What is the role of reception in "Magisterium?" There have been cases in the past in which a council that was supposedly a general or ecumencial council decided certain things that were universally, unanimously, and violently rejected by the entire body of Lay Faithful. The Orthodox Church emphasizes that for a council to be truly ecumenical, it must not only have to have the majority vote of the bishops in union with their universal head, but also the "universal reception" of the CHurch at large.

The Orthodox position that the Church must accept Concilar definitions for these to be valid is an heretical position. The Church teaches that doctrinal definitions of Councils, approved by the Pope, are infallible per se, regardless of how many or how few of the faithful accept the teaching. The same is true of papal infallibility, the Pope's infallible teachings are infallible per se, in and of themselves, and not by reason of their acceptance by the Bishops and the faithful.

There are no examples of infallible teachings unanimously or violently rejected by the entire body of the lay faithful. Councils do not only teach infallibly, they also teach non-infallibly and they also make practical decisions under the temporal authority of the Church.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2nd April 2007, 01:54 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MA View Post
Ron,

In Tradition; could the sign of the cross , palm sunday and many of the things we do in holy week could fall into tradition?
-are only catholics the one who do the sign of the cross or do other christians do the same?

Thanks,

MA

In my view, making the sign of the cross falls under Tradition, so does our spiritual and liturgical life in general. However, the specifics of liturgical acts are not Tradition, since these can be modified readily by the Church from time to time.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2nd April 2007, 02:13 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

Upon further reflection, I realize that it is correct that a truly ecumencial council has never been reject by the faithful. One example often cited is Florence: the bishops returned to the East only to be overthrown immediately by the populous, who rioted in the streets. But If I accept Soufanieh, then I must accept what Florence did, in essence.

Otherr examples are the Robber Council, the false ecumenical councils of the Arians and the Iconoclasts. But these did not have the presence of Rome's deligates, as did the other ecumenical councils.

MA, yes, others use the sign of the Cross besides CAtholics, because it is an Apostolic Tradition, not merely a Latin tradition. There are key differences, though. The Byzantines still do the cross from right to left (the Latin west changed this gradually during the early middle ages) and instead of using our whole hand we use three fingers together to represent the Trinity and two fingers in our palm to represent the two natures of Christ.

Teh sign of the cross is a universal Tradition, but one that has its expression in different local rites.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 2nd April 2007, 02:21 PM
Nathan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

let me also ask you about the case of Pope Honorius, condemned for confirming Monotheletism by the sixth ecumenical council. Popes after him, in their oath, confirmed their assent to the council's condemnation of Honorius.

Clearly, he was not excersizing his charisma of infallible teaching, otherwise he would not have condemned heresy. But drawing implicaitons from this, I have the following questions:

1. under what circumstances, like Honorius, may a council depose a pope of Rome?
2. under what circumstances, like Honorius, could a pope theoretically confirm a false teaching?

Honorius is an old war horse and a favorite polemical subject. I bring him up not for polemics, but merely to discern how this exception better illuminates the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 2nd April 2007, 02:53 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
Ron,

Upon further reflection, I realize that it is correct that a truly ecumencial council has never been reject by the faithful. One example often cited is Florence: the bishops returned to the East only to be overthrown immediately by the populous, who rioted in the streets. But If I accept Soufanieh, then I must accept what Florence did, in essence.

Otherr examples are the Robber Council, the false ecumenical councils of the Arians and the Iconoclasts. But these did not have the presence of Rome's deligates, as did the other ecumenical councils.

Florence is unusual in that it moved from one city to another, and there were a group of bishops who rejected the authority of the Pope, but most other bishops did not. The Pope later accepted some few decisions of the Council. The faithful are not required to accept any of the decisions of the Council except those later approved by the Pope.

I don't think there are any controversial teachings, approved by the Pope, from that Council.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 2nd April 2007, 02:59 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
Ron,

let me also ask you about the case of Pope Honorius, condemned for confirming Monotheletism by the sixth ecumenical council. Popes after him, in their oath, confirmed their assent to the council's condemnation of Honorius.

Clearly, he was not excersizing his charisma of infallible teaching, otherwise he would not have condemned heresy. But drawing implicaitons from this, I have the following questions:

1. under what circumstances, like Honorius, may a council depose a pope of Rome?
2. under what circumstances, like Honorius, could a pope theoretically confirm a false teaching?

Honorius is an old war horse and a favorite polemical subject. I bring him up not for polemics, but merely to discern how this exception better illuminates the rule.

The doctrinal issue was whether Christ has two wills or one. Honorius did not decide the question, and the question had not been decided by the Magisterium prior to Honorious. It was an open question. Pope Honorius did not teach the answer to that question, neither infallibly nor non-infallibly. He did express some personal opinions on the question in private letters, but it was clear even from these letters that he had not made up his own mind on the issue. So he did not teach a falsehood, nor did he fall into heresy.

The Council infallibly decided the question: Christ has two wills.

However, the action that the Council took was an exercise of the temporal authority of the Church, which is never infallible. The Council was wrong to chastise the former Pope (this was about 60 years after his death). They were anxious to prevent anyone from going astray by citing the private undecided opinion of this prior Pope, but they went too far in condemning him. He was not excommunicated, but merely censured by the Council.

The Pope is only infallible when teaching under the conditions set by the First Vatican Council. Otherwise, Popes can make mistakes.


Ron
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.