In any case, as Arthur has noted, the dogma of papal infallibility does not negate the collegiality of the episcopal college– its presupposes it. The pope’s only function (to use such a term) is to be the visible sign of episcopal union, which is a union primarily expressed in worship (concelebration) and teaching (magisterial orthodoxy); clearly he can only be that sign of union IN the episcopal communion. Supposing his Petrine autonomy removes him from his episcopal obligations exactly reverses the intent of the papal orthodoxy. In order to show the Pope is really at odds with this quote, is find a case of papal authority being exercised totally and explicitly apart from and in opposition to the larger episcopal (as apostolic) federation. Further, as Michael L argues, what is most clear about this passage is that it is establishing the apostolic basis for episcopal councils, not the impotence of the pope, nor, moreover, the sacramental equivalence of bishops and the Apostles.

I find it very telling that a very large amount of patristic “matter” (not to presume here to call it evidence nor to deign to call it prooftexting), is supposedly answered by this one quote. You’ve trotted this horse out many times before, so it must be a prize (perhaps lone?) stallion among lesser mules. It may be the silver bullet you want, but that’s just it: it is THE bullet, and, by my lights, mostly a dud for the apposite issue.

The argument you’re trying to make on the basis of the “Sentence” of the Fifth Ecumenical Council is much ado about nothing. From the fact, if it is a fact, that “no one of the Apostles needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work,” it does not follow that the bishops with apostolic succession, taken severally, don’t need such counsel either. So, even if the inference being made by the Council Fathers is as you interpret it, it is invalid. Pointing that out casts no doubt on any statement that council defined dogmatically and thus bound the Church as a whole to believe. It only casts doubt on one argument they used, if indeed the argument is what you suggest. But on my reading of the text, the Council Fathers were only explaining why it was both possible and helpful for the bishops to collectively rule on matters clear to each of the bishops taken severally. That explanation binds nobody even if was true.

The Apostles, after all, were each direct recipients of the definitive revelation in Jesus Christ. Their successors, the bishops, were not and are not. To make the relevant inference go through, one needs the further premise that what was truly said of the Apostles above applies equally to their successors. I know you hold that premise, and perhaps the Fathers of the Council did too. But I know of no good argument for it; indeed, and to me, history very much suggests its falsity.

Best,
Mike

You forget, I am the source. (Insert Darth Sideous voice here) Of course I have the book!

Cyril

Can you do a post or take a few excerpts from that book?

Daniel

Can you find that article online anywhere??

God Bless,
Todd

“Actually, St. Maximus is quite clear that Rome’s authority was granted to her by the very Incarnate Son of God Himself. This is also the teaching of Pope St. Agatho’s Dogmatic letter to the 6th Council which was received by that Council.”

*Whew* Glad that got cleared up. Does anyone know if the Methodists are taking applications? I’ve always had some closet sympathies for Wesley and Co. As they say, all you need is Jesus…