For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (148).

[–] • 0 pt

It is clear from scripture that the final word and decision rests with James. Moreover, this supposed first pope was rebuked by Paul!

The quote from St. John Chrysostom I referenced also addresses this point about James. As for Paul, many traditional Catholics actually cite Paul's rebuking of Peter to justify accepting Pope Francis as pope, without feeling obliged to obey everything he says. Which is what the Church teaches about the popes - that they can exercise an infallible charism, under certain specific circumstances, but outside of this they remain fallible, and they are always capable of sin.

why would there have been a council? The more important question follows: why couldn't this model of synod of bishops have accomplished what you say with respect to curating the Bible? After all, it's clear from Acts that important decisions as late as 50 A.D. were being decided by council, and not by Peter alone.

It was not God's will that a single man dictate the faith on his own, but that a single man serve as the ratifier of what the universal Church (through councils) expressed.

you assume your capital-T Tradition was something established by Holy decree early and therefore carried on infallibly, and at the same time you say that this Tradition was necessary to prevent infallibility, as a real threat, from entering Tradition. The councils to ratify canon are evidence of that threat.

But do you not see the patent circularity in this?

The infallibility comes from the Magisterium - the Holy Spirit. It is this that allows the Tradition to inform Scriptural interpretation and this that allows Scripture to be canonized. The Magisterium (Holy Spirit) works primarily through the Pope. Council documents can contribute to it, but only if "signed off" by the Pope. This is the safeguard; this is how the keys are exercised.

Life is not elasticity or liberality, though the way contemporary teachings are exploited could be said to be.

To call a council without ratification from Rome is contrary to what the earliest saints have taught. Even prior to the schism, there were councils that lacked Rome's approval and thus were not considered magisterial.

I refer you to my last reply for all else you've said.

>It is clear from scripture that the final word and decision rests with James. Moreover, this supposed first pope was rebuked by Paul! The quote from St. John Chrysostom I referenced also addresses this point about James. As for Paul, many traditional Catholics actually *cite* Paul's rebuking of Peter to justify accepting Pope Francis as pope, without feeling obliged to obey everything he says. Which is what the Church teaches about the popes - that they *can* exercise an infallible charism, under certain specific circumstances, but outside of this they remain fallible, and they are *always* capable of sin. > why would there have been a council? The more important question follows: why couldn't this model of synod of bishops have accomplished what you say with respect to curating the Bible? After all, it's clear from Acts that important decisions as late as 50 A.D. were being decided by council, and not by Peter alone. It was not God's will that a single man *dictate* the faith on his own, but that a single man serve as the ratifier of what the universal Church (through councils) expressed. >you assume your capital-T Tradition was something established by Holy decree early and therefore carried on infallibly, and at the same time you say that this Tradition was necessary to prevent infallibility, as a real threat, from entering Tradition. The councils to ratify canon are evidence of that threat. >But do you not see the patent circularity in this? The infallibility comes from the Magisterium - the Holy Spirit. It is this that allows the Tradition to inform Scriptural interpretation and this that allows Scripture to be canonized. The Magisterium (Holy Spirit) works primarily through the Pope. Council documents can contribute to it, but only if "signed off" by the Pope. This is the safeguard; this is how the keys are exercised. Life is not elasticity or liberality, though the way contemporary teachings are exploited could be said to be. To call a council without ratification from Rome is contrary to what the earliest saints have taught. *Even prior to the schism*, there were councils that lacked Rome's approval and thus were not considered magisterial. I refer you to my last reply for all else you've said.

parent
link