Ecumenical councils

[Yurysprudentsiya]

I have faith that, in time, they will say that what they believe is in entire accord with what Chalcedon teaches.  

Again your argument, or at least the argument you were defending, is this: A council is ecumenical when all the faithful accept it. Such a definition is meaningless and useless if we can say to anyone who rejects the council, "Your rejection is based on misunderstanding; you really accept it; therefore it is ecumenical."

I get your point on this.  But what makes Chalcedon so unusual, to me, is that both sides were really arguing past one another.  They weren't disagreeing so much as misunderstanding.  I believe that Chalcedon states timeless truth and that the belief of the OOs doesn't contradict it.  I think that they live according to Chalcedon and will someday accept it on those terms.  I don't think that this is time limited.  

I don't know of any other council before or since where there has been such wholesale misunderstanding and yet both sides continuously preserved Orthodox doctrine and praxis in accordance with the spirit of its teaching.

 

[Iconodule]

If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council...  Like a gangrenous limb amputated as it was falling off.

Are you actually saying that the OO's are a gangrenous limb?

Nope. The fact that they are not, i.e. their Faith is shared by the Orthodox Chalcedonians-despite a 1,500+ split while the Chalcedonian Vatican's faith is not shared by the Orthodox Chaleconians-raises the question of why that tourniquet wound too tight still has a healthy limb, demanding that the tourniquet be removed.

But you just said, "If they were Faithful, they wouldn't reject the Council." You say ecumenical councils are accepted by all the faithful... is Chalcedon ecumenical or not? Were the anti-Chalcedonians faithful or not?

Open a thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html

Unnecessary. The specifics of the Chalcedon dispute, and who was right or wrong there, need not be brought up here. The argument at play here is that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful. If there is a council which is both ecumenical and rejected by some of the faithful, whatever their reasons were for rejecting it, there is a hole that argument.

yes, necessary, as the specifics of the Chalcedon dispute you refer to here hold that both were right.

If you mean that both still held to orthodox doctrine, that is a different question from whether it was right to reject the council.

Again, your argument: we know a council is ecumenical because all the faithful accept it.

The fact that one of the ecumenical councils was rejected by a large portion of the faithful puts a massive hole in this argument.

No need for specifics- that's the hole right there.

Since that "hole" occurred in all the Ecumenical Councils except, in some respects, the Second, discussing the issue of the hole in Chalcedon would require discussion of the specifics of Chalcedon.  We have a place for that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,37.0.html

Now, if you want to discuss the issue of the hole in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Three Chapter Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Chapter_schism
that's a different issue.  I don't think the board has any specific rules on a specific fora for that debate.

You're right- your argument has more than one hole after all. Which convinces me further that this receptionist criterion of ecumenicity doesn't hold up.

 

[Iconodule]

From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.

And on the part of our fathers who believed some to be holding to errors which they did not.  It goes both ways. 

Yes, that's another problem. But I can tell you right now, I have yet to see any OO's say that, for instance, Dioscorus and Severus were mistaken for rejecting Chalcedon. I don't think they're likely ever to agree to that, which is why, IMO, formal acceptance of Chalcedon should not be a condition for reunion.

 

[Yurysprudentsiya]

From what I know of their faith, I don't believe that they rejected it.  They rejected something else, which was probably a good thing as I understand that the form was cloaked in imperialism. 

What you are saying is that their rejection of Chalcedon stems from ignorance on their part and on the part of their fathers. Good luck getting them to agree with you.

And on the part of our fathers who believed some to be holding to errors which they did not.  It goes both ways. 

Yes, that's another problem. But I can tell you right now, I have yet to see any OO's say that, for instance, Dioscorus and Severus were mistaken for rejecting Chalcedon. I don't think they're likely ever to agree to that, which is why, IMO, formal acceptance of Chalcedon should not be a condition for reunion.

Never say never.  It may take centuries of living side by side amid persecution.  We must all own up to our humanity and reject pride.  I have problems with that myself!  I think both sides have a lot of apologizing to do.  And again I think the argument can be made that their fathers didn't reject Chalcedon but rejected what it stood for politically and what others wrongly sought to use it to impose on them.

 

[Iconodule]

The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.

 

[Yurysprudentsiya]

The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.

It might be enough for them to say that what it teaches is not error.  We have to be united in faith. 

 

[ialmisry]

And when does he write as a private theologian?

Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Yeah, Popes always wrote as private theologians and so it wasn't a big deal with Pope Benedict did it.  It was just for the sake of one or two confused idiots that he had to specify in the preface to the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth that his book was "absolutely not a magisterial act", normal people would've known that instinctively.    

given the amorphous definition of what is ex cathedra, what is normal?  Not only the status of various encyclicals, but we can't get a straight answer at the ex cathedra status of the CCC: their Supreme Pontiff had all his bishops review it and he promulgated it with an "Apostolic Constitution."

Was it not in the exercise of his "office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians"?

Was it not promulgated, with an "Apostolic" constitution, in virtue of his "supreme apostolic authority"?

Does it define a doctrine concerning faith or morals not to be held by the whole church, but just part?

Yet try to get a definitive answer on its "infalibility."

 

[mike]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.  His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

 

[ialmisry]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

 

[ialmisry]

You're right- your argument has more than one hole after all. Which convinces me further that this receptionist criterion of ecumenicity doesn't hold up.

Well given that you haven't held up your criterion of ecumenicity, I have to conclude that whole of it must be all hole.

Ours are all filled in.

 

[ialmisry]

The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.

To the contrary, it answers the question.

 

[Wandile]

when he writes as private theologian

I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?

 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views

who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm not gonna pretend to.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views

who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 

 

[Wandile]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

 

[Iconodule]

The question is, do they need to formally accept the council to reunite with us? I don't think so. The agreement between St. Cyril and John of Antioch did not require the latter to formally accept Ephesus. Which again puts a big question mark on the idea that an ecumenical council is accepted by all the faithful.

To the contrary, it answers the question.

If you mean that it shows that reception of an ecumenical council by all the faithful is unnecessary, then I agree.

 

[Cyrillic]

Am I the only one to think that holding to the faith of the Councils is more important than having the correct list of Councils?

 

[Iconodule]

Am I the only one to think that holding to the faith of the Councils is more important than having the correct list of Councils?

I think that's basically what I and others have just said. Which makes the whole argument about "How do you know a council is ecumenical without the Pope"? unnecessary.

 

[Cyrillic]

Well, then we answered the OP's question.

 

[ialmisry]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

 

[ialmisry]

when he writes as private theologian

I notice you had no answer to the other questions.

And when does he write as a private theologian?

 
Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views

who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm not gonna pretend to.

Why stop now?

 

[ialmisry]

Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views

who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 

and it would be interesting to know why that is.

 

[Alpo]

Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views

who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 

and it would be interesting to know why that is.

Maybe he was trying to emphasize that he is writing as an individual and not as a pope.

 

[Romaios]

Maybe he was trying to emphasize that he is writing as an individual and not as a pope.

Quite the contrary - he did write it as pope.

Pontifical documents, encyclical letters, etc. usually come without imprimaturs (translations thereof might need a stamp of approval, though, to show they "concord with the original").

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 

and it would be interesting to know why that is.

For one thing, it's no longer required by their canon law.  Encouraged, maybe, but not necessary anymore.

 

[Wandile]

Have you ever heard of the books he publishes ? Like when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote private theological books and published those  books not as Pope Benedict, bishop of Rome but as Joseph Ratzinger the German theologian  

Does it have an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Yes because he is still writing as a catholic theologian presenting catholic views

who issues it?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to everything and I'm nit gonna pretend to.

Actually, IIRC Pope Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth trilogy has neither nihil obstat nor imprimatur. 

True and Most books of Catholic authors such as Bishop Fulton Sheen, Father Benedict Groeschel, Peter Kreeft, and Eugene Kennedy have no Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

 

[Wandile]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice. 

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 

 

[ialmisry]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions

No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

 

[ialmisry]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 

Exactly.  Where any of the writings of prior "Supreme Pontiffs" ever given a imprimatur or nihil obstat when the Vatican required that de rigueur?

 

[Wandile]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so... Writing their own books for personal reflection not as a source of teaching for their congregations. That definition of writing in personal/theological capacity. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI even said the book was how own private work did he not?

Just like when Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote some books. They weren't bishops letter s that have teachings authority on the dioceses buy were merely his own personal works or else bishop Fulton sheen . According to your logic, could not write as a private theologian too  :-\

 

[Wandile]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 

Exactly.  Where any of the writings of prior "Supreme Pontiffs" ever given a imprimatur or nihil obstat when the Vatican required that de rigueur?

All the process seeks to achieve is to allows regular Catholics to read documents free from any teaching contradictory to the Catholic Faith. It is not to determine whether you may or may not write as a private theologian or not
.. So why are we even discussing this again? What's the point you are trying to get at?

 

[Wandile]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions

No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

Clearly we disagree so lets leave it then? Coz I'm not gonna get into "nuh-uh... Uh-huh" spat over who proved who wrong between mardukum and cavaradossi

 

[Cyrillic]

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions

If that's true I'll eat my hat.

 

[ialmisry]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions

No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

Clearly we disagree so lets leave it then? Coz I'm not gonna get into "nuh-uh... Uh-huh" spat over who proved who wrong between mardukum and cavaradossi

I could just as easily show that Pope Vigilius rejected/opposed the Fifth Ecumenical Council on theological grounds, but why redo what Cavardossi has already done?

 

[Wandile]

I'm curious to known what makes a council ecumenical in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Acceptance by the faithful.   His sheep shall know His voice.  

I've always had a problem with this explanation and honestly think this is not the true Orthodox answer. Its Ahistorical as none of the 7 ecumenical councils were accepted by all faithful... None of them

IIRC, Constantinople II was accepted without much controversy.

Hardly.  There was a large schism for decades over it in the West.  And the Archbishop of Rome was struck from the diptychs by the Fathers of the Council until he submitted to it.

For that reason, I've seen a number of Ultramontanists try to back track on it, like they have with their council of Pisa, and engage in revisionism of its degrees, like they have with their council of Constance.

He never rejected the council for doctrinal reasons but for political reasons :

"...Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs, without prejudice, however, it was said, to communion with the Apostolic See. Soon the Roman clergy and people, now freed by Narses from the Gothic yoke, requested the emperor to permit the return of the pope, which Justinian agreed to on condition that Vigilius would recognize the late council. This Vigilius finally agreed to do, and in two documents (a letter to Eutychius of Constantinople, 8 Dec., 553, and a second "Constitutum" of 23 Feb., 554, probably addressed to the Western episcopate) condemned, at last, the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 424-20, 457-88; cf. Hefele, II, 905-11), independently, however, and without mention of the council. His opposition had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportuneness of the measures proposed, the wrongful imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, especially in the West. Here, indeed, despite the additional recognition of it by Pelagius I (555-60), the Fifth General Council only gradually acquired in public opinion an ecumenical character. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with the Apostolic See; the former yielding only towards the end of the sixth century, whereas the latter (Aquileia-Grado) protracted its resistance to about 700 (Hefele, op. cit., II, 911-27). (For an equitable appreciation of the conduct of Vigilius see, besides the article VIGILIUS, the judgment of Bois, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1238-39.) The pope was always correct as to the doctrine involved, and yielded, for the sake of peace, only when he was satisfied that there was no fear for the authority of Chalcedon, which he at first, with the entire West, deemed in peril from the machinations of the Monophysites..."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm

Tsk, tsk.  I know you know better.  Back on CAF which spawned this thread
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833565&page=13
Cavaraodossi has supplied Archbishop (I'm sure if they were popes quite yet) Vigilius' "Apostolic" Constitutions defending the Three Chapters.  That they further cause problems for in view of Pastor Aeternus (a ex cathedra statement upholding the heretical Letter Attributed to Ibas) doesn't obscure that.

seen the thread on CAF a few weeks ago. Mardukum dealt adequately to disprove Cavaradossi's assertions

No, he failed as usual, and Cavaradossi, as usual was spot on with the documents, which he, unlike Mardukm often does not, provides always.  Hence Cavaradossi demonstrates, not asserts.

Clearly we disagree so lets leave it then? Coz I'm not gonna get into "nuh-uh... Uh-huh" spat over who proved who wrong between mardukum and cavaradossi

I could just as easily show that Pope Vigilius rejected/opposed the Fifth Ecumenical Council on theological grounds, but why redo what Cavardossi has already done?

Go ahead.. Do your best

 

[ialmisry]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located. 

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?  He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican). 

Exactly.  Where any of the writings of prior "Supreme Pontiffs" ever given a imprimatur or nihil obstat when the Vatican required that de rigueur?

All the process seeks to achieve is to allows regular Catholics to read documents free from any teaching contradictory to the Catholic Faith. It is not to determine whether you may or may not write as a private theologian or not
.. So why are we even discussing this again? What's the point you are trying to get at?

When isn't your supreme pontiff  speaking "infallibly", especially in view of this:

Lumen Gentium:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

So if he doesn't speak ex cathedra, we have to act as if he did.  Big help, infallibility.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so...

But only a small minority of those fathers claimed the prerogatives which the Roman Popes claim, and were treated accordingly by their faithful.

Writing their own books for personal reflection not as a source of teaching for their congregations. That definition of writing in personal/theological capacity. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI even said the book was how own private work did he not?

He said his book was not a magisterial act.  Very well.  But it's insane to think that a "book for personal reflection" that is also written by a world class theologian and Pope is going to be treated as a bedside diary.  It is most definitely received by the RC faithful as a source of teaching (see ialmisry's citation from Lumen Gentium).  It was most definitely written by a theologian Pope in order to teach Christian truth.  By your logic, it would be no big deal if a Pope wrote a "book of personal reflection" on God as a woman, as long as he doesn't try to do it from his throne in the Lateran Basilica.  That's stupid.   

Just like when Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote some books. They weren't bishops letter s that have teachings authority on the dioceses buy were merely his own personal works or else bishop Fulton sheen . According to your logic, could not write as a private theologian too  :-\

Make up your mind: either there is a difference between the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rochester, or there is not. 

Sheen can write books as a private theologian, and so can Ratzinger (one does wonder, however, what is the point of a "private theologian"...theology is not a hobby like collecting butterflies, it is at the service of the Church).  But a Pope will always trump a bishop in your system:

 

It's disingenuous for you to act as if a Pope writing a book is no different from anyone else writing a book.

 

[Wandile]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so...

But only a small minority of those fathers claimed the prerogatives which the Roman Popes claim, and were treated accordingly by their faithful.

universal truth is not measured in mass appeal... Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo and Gregory the Greats as well as Pope Damasus, Agatho and many others for their claims? Who reprimanded Maximus the confessor or patriarch John of jerusalem for his claims about the papacy? Or many other countless fathers of the west and the east who said the same?

He said his book was not a magisterial act.  Very well.  But it's insane to think that a "book for personal reflection" that is also written by a world class theologian and Pope is going to be treated as a bedside diary.  It is most definitely received by the RC faithful as a source of teaching (see ialmisry's citation from Lumen Gentium).  It was most definitely written by a theologian Pope in order to teach Christian truth.  By your logic, it would be no big deal if a Pope wrote a "book of personal reflection" on God as a woman, as long as he doesn't try to do it from his throne in the Lateran Basilica.  That's stupid.

That's not my logic . The fact is he can write as a private theologian. I never said his writings won't be a big deal or that it would be ok for him to teach heresy in those  writings. These writings are not binding on the faithful. What don't you get about that?

Make up your mind: either there is a difference between the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rochester, or there is not.

The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.

can write books as a private theologian, and so can Ratzinger (one does wonder, however, what is the point of a "private theologian"...theology is not a hobby like collecting butterflies, it is at the service of the Church).  But a Pope will always trump a bishop in your system:

It certainly isn't but it helps to make a distinction between what is binding on the faithful and what is not. Just because the Popes writings might carry more weight due to who he is does not make them authoritative.

It's disingenuous for you to act as if a Pope writing a book is no different from anyone else writing a book.

And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.

 

[Cyrillic]

Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo

The majority of the Christians in Syria, Egypt and, at the time, Palestine.

and Gregory the Greats

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"

 

[ialmisry]

I guess maybe the Pope might not need one as it is needed from the local overseer... It kind a follows that book of bishops like Jesus of Nazareth written by PBXVI have neither as the process would end with themselves

An imprimatur can be granted not only by the local ordinary of the author, but also by the ordinary of the place where the book will be published.  It is conceivable, then, that a Pope could ask for an imprimatur from the bishop of the place where Doubleday or whatever is located.  

But your point makes the point: if a Pope doesn't need an imprimatur because "the process would end with himself", how can he write as a private theologian?   He can only do that now that the whole process for ecclesiastical approval of books is not obligatory, and still it is not without controversy (e.g., Benedict XVI's controversial statement on condom use and its controversial clarification by the Vatican).  

Easy by just doing so ...as many fathers in the past did so...

But only a small minority of those fathers claimed the prerogatives which the Roman Popes claim, and were treated accordingly by their faithful.

universal truth is not measured in mass appeal

It isn't dictated by the pretensions of bishop suffering megalomania either.  Especially when he has had to acquiesce to reality.

... Secondly who reprimanded Popes Leo and Gregory the Greats as well as Pope Damasus, Agatho and many others for their claims

The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and his suffragans in the Balkans (we have Pope St. Leo's to the Empress whining about that).

His suffragans in Sicily (Pope St. Gregory's famous line on the EP are in his letter trying to silence his critics for his imitation of Constantinopolitan ways).

The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, and their successors until 399, over a decade after his death.

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council-they went ahead for nearly a year after Pope St. Agatho reposed shortly after it opened.  Pope Leo II would not succeed Pope St. Agatho for nearly a year after the Council closed and issued its Decrees, including the anathema against Pope Honorius.

And Archbishop (definitely not "Pope" then) St. Victor I, the first to make such pretensions, as, as Eusbius records, was reprimanded by "the whole Church."

Who reprimanded Maximus the confessor

St. Maximus the Confessor, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

or patriarch John of jerusalem for his claims about the papacy?

The Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and his successor Pat. St. Sophronios.

Or many other countless fathers of the west and the east who said the same?

That you so desperately wish to ignore context and cling to an obscure third hand (at least) quote unknown in 1870 just shows that you don't exactly have a great number of Fathers in the East to count on.

He said his book was not a magisterial act.  Very well.  But it's insane to think that a "book for personal reflection" that is also written by a world class theologian and Pope is going to be treated as a bedside diary.  It is most definitely received by the RC faithful as a source of teaching (see ialmisry's citation from Lumen Gentium).  It was most definitely written by a theologian Pope in order to teach Christian truth.  By your logic, it would be no big deal if a Pope wrote a "book of personal reflection" on God as a woman, as long as he doesn't try to do it from his throne in the Lateran Basilica.  That's stupid.

That's not my logic . The fact is he can write as a private theologian. I never said his writings won't be a big deal or that it would be ok for him to teach heresy in those  writings. These writings are not binding on the faithful. What don't you get about that?

How you get around Lumen Gentium 25.

And how you are fine if your supreme pontiff writes that God is a woman (not far off, with how far your Supreme Pontiff John Paul II let Maximillian Kolbe's semi-incarnated Immaculata and the Fifth Marian Dogma folks go).

Make up your mind: either there is a difference between the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rochester, or there is not.

The popes universal authority is not attached to him being a bishop but to his role as head of the church. So there is no difference Mor. A bishop is a bishop.

unless he is the bishop of Rome.  Or Avignon.

can write books as a private theologian, and so can Ratzinger (one does wonder, however, what is the point of a "private theologian"...theology is not a hobby like collecting butterflies, it is at the service of the Church).  But a Pope will always trump a bishop in your system:

It certainly isn't but it helps to make a distinction between what is binding on the faithful and what is not.

Lumen Gentium 25 renders that a distinction without a difference.

Just because the Popes writings might carry more weight due to who he is does not make them authoritative.

So the Winnipeg Statement is the equal of Humanae Vitae?

It's disingenuous for you to act as if a Pope writing a book is no different from anyone else writing a book.

And equally so its disingenuous of you to try imply that because a Popes writings carry more weight that that makes them automatically binding. That's stupid.

It is. And yet your "Apostolic Constantion" Lumen Gentium 25 mandates just that.