Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why a regional synod approved by a legitimate Roman Pontiff can be refuted by the clergy?
Only in relation to the Second Council of Orange, if approval of a pope does not confer infallibility of the teaching, then it is totally (partially?) inappropriate to mention that Pope Boniface II approved the council. The statement that the pope approved just a canon is too shameful, considering the effort to conceal his own inability to recognize a theological discontinuity evident after Trent.
If only the Canon 5 was protected with infallibility, Pope Boniface II should alert to the fact that other canons were not approved by him through the aid of the Holy Spirit that is free of errors or confusion. Now if there was an only tolerable opinion about the other canons, the pope failed to approve a regional synod without specifying what was actually approved.
If someone claims that this synod is partially infallible, then he must prove that the other canons were not protected by the Holy Spirit. The Per Filium Nostrum not precludes the approval of the other canons just because they were not mentioned explicitly. This fact does not prove the condemnation, or tolerance. However, this ambiguity can be an argument to confirm that the "Ex omnibus afflictionibus" considered part of the council's approval by Pope Boniface II. However, this is serious! It would be better to say that the Holy Spirit was far from Boniface II when he approved this synod.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
