Cardinal Newman vindicated (re Vatican I)?

[Peter_J]

First a little background:

1. Cardinal Newman, although he believed that Papal Infallibility was a true doctrine, strongly opposed it being dogmatically defined by Vatican I.
2. The papacy (particularly Papal Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction) is the main area of disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox (along with the Assyrian Church of the East and the PNCC).
3. The current policy of the Catholic Church is to admit to communion any Orthodox (or PNCC or Assyrian Christian) who requests communion from a Catholic priest.

Okay. Now here’s the point: in view of #1 and #2, wouldn’t it make sense to call #3 a vindication of Cardinal Newman? In other words, if Cardinal Newman had been wrong, and it was a good idea for Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility (and UOJ for that matter), then it wouldn’t really make much sense to admit to communion Christians who deny Papal Infallibility (and UOJ, and the filioque for that matter).

 

[Peter_J]

Another thought came to mind as I was reading the “Infallible Pope” thread:

Given that Vatican I dogmatically defined that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, it would seem like the “logical next step” would be to make a list of ex cathedra statements. (After all, the Catholic Church does have an official list – or quasi-official list, or standard list, or whatever you want to call it – of ecumenical councils. I won’t list them here, but there’s 21.)

So is the fact that, 138 years after Vatican I, we still don’t have a list of ex cathedra statements, a further vindication of Cardinal Newman, i.e. a further indication that the Catholic Church is reconsidering the wisdom of dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility?

 

[bilop]

Another thought came to mind as I was reading the “Infallible Pope” thread:

Given that Vatican I dogmatically defined that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, it would seem like the “logical next step” would be to make a list of ex cathedra statements. (After all, the Catholic Church does have an official list – or quasi-official list, or standard list, or whatever you want to call it – of ecumenical councils. I won’t list them here, but there’s 21.)

So is the fact that, 138 years after Vatican I, we still don’t have a list of ex cathedra statements, a further vindication of Cardinal Newman, i.e. a further indication that the Catholic Church is reconsidering the wisdom of dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility?

So, Peter, you are saying that the dogmatic declaration was not incorrect, but unwise in terms of reunion with the Orthodox? I can buy that.

God Bless

 

[East_and_West]

Yeah. Let’s not proclaim a truth of the faith because makes non-Catholics angry. Gimme a break.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There were many fathers at Vatican I who personally believed in Papal Infallibility (in some form or other) but believed that it was inopportune to define it at that time. Many of these voted “Placet juxta modum”–“acceptable with reservations”–which votes were counted as simple “placets”.

Melkite Patriarch Gregory Joseph deliberately left the council before the vote was taken was later forced to sign the decree. He did so, but added something to this effect: “providing the rights of the Eastern patriarchs are not compromised.”

Many of those who were against the doctrine also left the council before the vote was taken: some voluntarily, others were forced out.

I wonder what the result would have been had their votes of “non placet” been counted?

 

[bilop]

Yeah. Let’s not proclaim a truth of the faith because makes non-Catholics angry. Gimme a break.

I think the point is that on some matters there is an acceptable degree of agreement for full communion to exist, but when you push to describe it in great detail (which is common in the Western tradition, but not in the Eastern) you may surface an unecessary disagreement on the particulars of how that doctrine is expressed.

God Bless

 

[East_and_West]

I think the point is that on some matters there is an acceptable degree of agreement for full communion to exist, but when you push to describe it in great detail (which is common in the Western tradition, but not in the Eastern) you may surface an unecessary disagreement on the particulars of how that doctrine is expressed.

God Bless

No unity at the expense of truth!

 

[bilop]

No unity at the expense of truth!

I agree, but , I think we have to realize that out Eastern brothers think a little differently about theology and philosophy, and if there is no fundamental disagreement, don’t sacrifice unity to inessential details.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” - St. Augustine

God Bless

 

[Peter_J]

So, Peter, you are saying that the dogmatic declaration was not incorrect, but unwise in terms of reunion with the Orthodox? I can buy that.

God Bless

Right. (I don’t recall whether Newman mentioned the Orthodox by name, but he definitely thought it unwise to dogmatically define P.I.)

 

[bilop]

Right. (I don’t recall whether Newman mentioned the Orthodox by name, but he definitely thought it unwise to dogmatically define P.I.)

It makes a lot of sense to me.

I’ve come to realize that Eastern Christians think about theology a lot differently that Western.

There’s a number of issues (Infallibility, filioque, Imaculate Conception, Assumption, etc.) where I think we really don’t disagree on anything essential, but we create disagreement by trying to overdefine a too specific understanding of the same basic mystery/doctrine.

It reminds of a incident where the Franciscans and Domincians were fiercely disagreeing over the interepretation of a doctrine (I can’t remember which). The Pope said both are acceptable, and banned further discussion because it was divisive.

God Bless

 

[Peter_J]

It reminds of a incident where the Franciscans and Domincians were fiercely disagreeing over the interepretation of a doctrine (I can’t remember which). The Pope said both are acceptable, and banned further discussion because it was divisive.

God Bless

Hmm … I think I was at a talk some years ago and that was mentioned. I don’t remember the name of the theory they argued over, but it was related to free will.

 

[Peter_J]

I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). Pope John Paul II.

Is the above statement regarded as infallible?

Ron et al,

Catholics are required to believe that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”, right? Now just suppose that Pope Benedict made a further statement “Pope John Paul II exercised infallibility on May 22, 1994 when he issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and all Catholics, under pain of excommunication, must agree that he exercised infallibility.” Would you agree that that would cause more division?

 

[East_and_West]

I agree, but , I think we have to realize that out Eastern brothers think a little differently about theology and philosophy, and if there is no fundamental disagreement, don’t sacrifice unity to inessential details.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” - St. Augustine

God Bless

If the infallibility of the Pope is the truth, then it is from God and we have no right to call it non-essential.

 

[BSHoop96]

There’s a number of issues (Infallibility, filioque, Imaculate Conception, Assumption, etc.) where I think we really don’t disagree on anything essential, but we create disagreement by trying to overdefine a too specific understanding of the same basic mystery/doctrine.

bilop, you are just really hitting the nail on the head in my eyes lately. Very wise.

 

[Peter_J]

East and West,

Not to put you on the spot, but I’m curious what your take is on the current practice of admitting Orthodox to holy communion if they request it, and whether you see any connection between that practice what Newman’s ideas?

 

[bilop]

bilop, you are just really hitting the nail on the head in my eyes lately. Very wise.

Thak you very much

 

[bilop]

If the infallibility of the Pope is the truth, then it is from God and we have no right to call it non-essential.

If no one within the Church is disputing the correctness of his Magisterial teachings on faith and morals, then it is not essential to proclaim his infallibity.

Historical, the Church has only definitively declared things when a particular truth is challenged.

The nature of Christ was not explained until the arians challenged his divinity, the Canon of the Bible was not declared until Luther challenged it, and so on.\

God Bless