Catholic Problems

[Marta]

The woman being ordained was an Episcopalian student and I am not a bishop (or priest or deacon). My role in the Anglican/Episcopalian ordination ceremony was comparable to that of the rector of a theology seminary in the Catholic ordination ceremony, namely I officially attested to her theological preparation. Though a lesser offense, surely this too is 'frowned upon' by canon law, but I did not bother to look up the canons at the time. Some things are more important, in my opinion, in this case grass-roots efforts toward Christian unity, encouragement of women's ordination among Catholics, but my primary motivation was that I was deeply honored to be asked to play this role for a friend.

[robrecht]

Marta, what exactly is your point here?

[Marta]

Marta, what exactly is your point here?

[hansgeorg]

If a pope can profess heretical dogmas privately, why could he not profess them publicly?

There is a distinction between "ut doctor privatus" and "as supreme judge of the Church".

[One Bad Pig]

There is a distinction between "ut doctor privatus" and "as supreme judge of the Church".

When "ut doctor privatus" IS "supreme judge of the Church", not so much. And I'll note, again, that it's the very concept of "supreme judge of the church" with which I most disagree.

[hansgeorg]

When "ut doctor privatus" IS "supreme judge of the Church", not so much.

Not so.

Main rule : if a bishop just says "let's not bother", he is speaking "ut doctor privatus".
If a bishop says : this and that and sundry is condemned, he is speaking as supreme judge of his see, and in the case of the Pope of the Church universal.

So, if your bishop (not meaning I consider him as legitimately possessing a see ... but ...) tells you that "Church Fathers are not infallible individually" WHEN someone quotes a very typical Patristic position (Young and Still Earth, not past 8000 years, not moving in space), since he is saying "you don't need to bother", he might be speaking as of his private opinion in theoloogy rather than exercising his episcopal jurisdiction (if any).

[One Bad Pig]

Not so.

Main rule : if a bishop just says "let's not bother", he is speaking "ut doctor privatus".
If a bishop says : this and that and sundry is condemned, he is speaking as supreme judge of his see, and in the case of the Pope of the Church universal.

So, if your bishop (not meaning I consider him as legitimately possessing a see ... but ...) tells you that "Church Fathers are not infallible individually" WHEN someone quotes a very typical Patristic position (Young and Still Earth, not past 8000 years, not moving in space), since he is saying "you don't need to bother", he might be speaking as of his private opinion in theoloogy rather than exercising his episcopal jurisdiction (if any).

Your "main rule" is nonsense. It would help if you didn't base it on a far-fetched post hoc interpretation of the writings of Pope Honorius.

And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.

[hansgeorg]

And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.

Bishops do issue condemnations, like bishop Alexander (while Athanasius was as yet a deacon or presbyter) condemned not just presbyter Arius, but also his theses, before the convocation of Nicea I.

Both bishops and local councils issue condemnations which are not necessarily confirmed by ecumenical ones, but as long as not invalidated by a such, or by a Pope, remain binding on area and may be authoritative outside it.

Examples, bishop Tempier condemned on laetare Sunday of early 1277 / "late 1276" as they would have said, a number of authors and at least one book whose author was free to write other ones (Andrew the Chaplain was not necessarily a bad theologian because his love lore was bad for morals), and also 219 theses.

48 years later Stephen III of Paris revoked, not the condemnations of Stephen II, but any irregularity or condemnation which the theses of St Thomas possibly could have incurred due to it.

Or the Councils of Toledo, of which the FIRST (finished in 400 AD) had filioque in an authoritative creed (not the Nicene one!) after which certain condemnations were added.

It is possible that in Spain the "uncreated energies" of Palamas would be falling under those condemnations of the bishops assembled in Toledo.

So, yes, ecumenical councils are NOT the only occasions when bishops decide with authority binding on their own subjects, what these are not allowed to believe.

Sorry. Hard to have to break it to a ecclesiological historical ... shall we say fluff bunny? ... such as Eastern Orthodox often are.

[One Bad Pig]

Bishops do issue condemnations, like bishop Alexander (while Athanasius was as yet a deacon or presbyter) condemned not just presbyter Arius, but also his theses, before the convocation of Nicea I.

That was in a local council. Derp.

Both bishops and local councils issue condemnations which are not necessarily confirmed by ecumenical ones, but as long as not invalidated by a such, or by a Pope, remain binding on area and may be authoritative outside it.

Examples, bishop Tempier condemned on laetare Sunday of early 1277 / "late 1276" as they would have said, a number of authors and at least one book whose author was free to write other ones (Andrew the Chaplain was not necessarily a bad theologian because his love lore was bad for morals), and also 219 theses.

48 years later Stephen III of Paris revoked, not the condemnations of Stephen II, but any irregularity or condemnation which the theses of St Thomas possibly could have incurred due to it.

Or the Councils of Toledo, of which the FIRST (finished in 400 AD) had filioque in an authoritative creed (not the Nicene one!) after which certain condemnations were added.

It is possible that in Spain the "uncreated energies" of Palamas would be falling under those condemnations of the bishops assembled in Toledo.

So, yes, ecumenical councils are NOT the only occasions when bishops decide with authority binding on their own subjects, what these are not allowed to believe.

I see you're hedging your bets here a bit. I didn't say that decisions were limited to ecumenical councils. Late actions by schismatic bishops are irrelevant.

Sorry. Hard to have to break it to a ecclesiological historical ... shall we say fluff bunny? ... such as Eastern Orthodox often are.

Ell Oh Ell.

Have fun bouncing around in your own little world; you're far too sloppy in your arguments to be taken seriously.

[hansgeorg]

I see you're hedging your bets here a bit. I didn't say that decisions were limited to ecumenical councils. Late actions by schismatic bishops are irrelevant.

If you admit that Toledo I (finished 400 AD) was a legitimate local council, you must admit filioque is legitimate theology unless condemned by an ecumenical council, and if so, where is your ground for calling Stephen II Tempier or Stephen III "schismatics"?