tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post7426282943439238829..comments2023-11-24T06:43:02.286+00:00Comments on Aspicientes in Jesum: CouncilsPastor in Montehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05949810648656544072noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-35175653794639138082011-03-17T17:52:35.702+00:002011-03-17T17:52:35.702+00:00The question of how to categorize councils, and wh...The question of how to categorize councils, and which authority they have, is an on-going one. Recent attempts to deal with such questions have been made by Norman Tanner, whose book I discuss here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/02/synodality-and-primacy.html<br /><br />Further, on the question of the Council of Constance in particular--which council poses hugely vexing problems--Francis Oakley's recent book is extremely important: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2010/10/conciliarism-and-catholic-crisis-of.htmlDr. Adam DeVillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06505315831493271933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-17619038593902992752011-03-17T05:31:16.748+00:002011-03-17T05:31:16.748+00:00With regard to your comment about Trent, it doesn&...With regard to your comment about Trent, it doesn't seem to say that minor orders are sacramental. It simply says that they "exist in the Church." Obviously I don't think there's any denying that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-39073047622210810602011-03-16T21:19:31.522+00:002011-03-16T21:19:31.522+00:00One thing Fr Hunwicke briefly on is: which parts o...One thing Fr Hunwicke briefly on is: which parts of a Council count as the Ecumenical Council?<br /><br />Chalcedon is the illustrative example here: namely, Canon 28, which raises Constantinople to the same privileges as the First Rome.<br /><br />[Then, of course, there are Canons 29 and 30...].<br /><br />I suspect the counter-argument to this problem is that the same problem arises with Papal Infallibility (namely, what is, and which bits. Unam Sanctam contains one bit which uses the correct formulary, but, being effectively the same as 'extra ecclesia', the question there arises of what it actually means.).https://www.blogger.com/profile/04611694996611765479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-3513805158685345332011-03-16T19:50:56.573+00:002011-03-16T19:50:56.573+00:00I had to smile at the reference to the Arian counc...I had to smile at the reference to the Arian council of Ariminum, as it called to mind a limerick by P.G. Wodehouse:<br /><br /><i>There was a young man from Ariminum<br />Who would jump into rivers and swim in 'em.<br />When his friends said, 'You Fish!'<br />He would answer, 'Oh, pish!<br />Fish can't swim like me, they've no vim in 'em!'</i>Deacon Nathan Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05883626628089839136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-6123093500647672702011-03-15T12:42:04.667+00:002011-03-15T12:42:04.667+00:00Your first point is exactly what Gregory Dix argue...Your first point is exactly what Gregory Dix argued at some length. Nikaia I was a feast of adhoccery and had not the faintest idea that it was the first of an august succession of Ecumenical Councils. The subsequent reception of it by seventeen Christian centuries does, of course, make a difference to its position within the Magisterium.Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-11067961369413629612011-03-13T21:12:19.223+00:002011-03-13T21:12:19.223+00:00Just came across this:
[It is a] quite unworkable...Just came across this:<br /><br />[It is a] quite unworkable idea that the authority of the Pope depends on the authority of the Council. There is no way of deciding which councils were ecumenical councils except by saying that those councils were ecumenical which had their decisions ratified by the Pope. Now, either that ratification is infallible of itself, or else you will immediately have to summon a fresh ecumenical council to find out whether the Pope's ratification was infallible or not, and so on ad infinitum. You can't keep on going round and round in a vicious circle; in the long run the last word of decision must lie with one man, and that man is obviously the Pope. In the last resort the Pope must be the umpire, must have the casting vote. If therefore there is to be any infallibility in the Church, that infallibility must reside in the Pope, even when he speaks in his own name, without summoning a council to fortify his decision.<br /><br />It comes from “In Soft Garments” by Ronald Knox.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-57163282801606828492011-03-13T19:35:46.559+00:002011-03-13T19:35:46.559+00:00I'm sorry to have such a trivial comment on su...I'm sorry to have such a trivial comment on such a splendid piece, bu t is the first time that Hari Seldon has been quoted as a secondary authority in a work of ecclesial history?Ttonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185875893212146794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-44253198730793644372011-03-13T18:36:59.456+00:002011-03-13T18:36:59.456+00:00Infallibility is a negative power. Certainly the H...Infallibility is a negative power. Certainly the Holy Spirit provides the bishops with the graces necessary to say something helpful but He doesn't guarantee they will use them only that they will not err in what they actually say. This applies generally to the content of documents directed by Pope or Council to the Universal Church on a matter of faith and morals and to the form and the content of a document addressed by the same to the same while invoking their supreme teaching authority. This can be seen from the use of phrases such as 'solemnly define', 'apostolic authority' etc.<br /><br />An Ecumenical Council is Ecumenical because all the bishops communion with the Holy See are invited and the Holy See confirms its acts afterwards. This is clear from many sources not least Lumen Gentium. It doesn't matter how many bishops not in communion with the Holy See form a council or what a council whose acts are not confirmed says, either way they are not ecumenical. Nicaea certainly saw itself as authoritative. The behaviour of Eusebius a leader of the Arian party and an imperialist sycophant is neither here nor there. It is precisely the form of words and its irreformability which distinguishes the extraordinary magisterium from the ordinary and universal magisterium. The question about Vatican II is not whether is bellongs to the extraordinary magisterium (it clearly doesn't) but whether and if so how much of it belongs to the ordinary and universal magisterium which is infalible as to content but not form. This question is problematic because of the statements of John XXIII about its 'pastoral' and non-dogmatic character and the fact that two douments are labelled 'dogmatic' and one 'pastoral'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807826652341078989.post-7541292959349374422011-03-13T14:23:12.480+00:002011-03-13T14:23:12.480+00:00Perhaps here we have an indication to Reception/Se...<i>Perhaps here we have an indication to Reception/Sensus Fidelium. It isn't an instant thing, but can take a very long time.</i><br /><br />This is pretty much the Orthodox understanding: Councils gain their particular not of authority from their reception by the whole Church, and subsequent <i>martyria</i>. As we're reminded today, in the case of Nicaea II, that took the best part of a century and claimed more lives than Diocletian.Anagnostishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03706938507885553293noreply@blogger.com