Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[steve_b]

No, of course that’s not what’s meant – but, to tell you the truth, strictly speaking it’s a true statement!

Kathleen, I think, is misunderstanding the lectures she’s attending. Yes, the definition of infallibility was developed at 1st Vatican. Yes, since that time, there have only been three declarations that could be said, strictly speaking, to rise to the level of doctrine/dogma.

That’s an error. And we’ve heard it said that way dozens of times even from different people on these forums. All these people couldn’t have had the same teacher… could they? Yet it’s a pernicious error that many hold.

As the old saying goes, error makes itself half way round the world before the truth gets it’s shoes on.

infallible statements are made in every beatification by a pope. After the declaration of sainthood, then it’s a belief of the Church worldwide that everyone is to believe and trust in it, because it IS (without error) i.e. infallible.
G:

However, that does not imply that there was never an infallible statement made by the magisterium prior to 1st Vatican.

Given what she said, her teacher most certainly denied infallible statements were made prior to Vat I

example: Kathleen wrote

“In regards to the other teacher, he told me there was no infallible statements made prior to Vatican I, and those that were deemed infallible were the dogmas I stated.” KathleenGee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

That teacher is flat out wrong. I’m thinking what else is he wrong on? And supposedly he teaches in a seminary as well? Good Grief!!!
G:

Moreover, the fact that there have only been two dogmatic statements made since then does not imply that there haven’t been other statements of the magisterium that are infallible – just that there haven’t been any others in which the magisterium has made it a point to use the language of 1V to make it obvious that they were invoking the definition.

Refer to my previous entry. The teacher was denying any infallible statements made prior to Vat I and only 3 statements after that.

As an aside,

The wording of Vat I, shows the componants of what makes a statement infallible. The exact wording might not be used, but when all the ingredients (the formula) of the definition are there,

i.e.

1. 
   *]the matter is on faith and morals only
   *]a matter to be believed is defined by the pope
   *]The pope as shepherd of the entire Church is intending to bind the entire Church to believe in what is being defined (a doctrine)
   
   then the pope has the protection of the Holy Spirit promised to Peter. Then that matter to be believed is without error.

 

[Butzi]

Many Catholics are good at somewhat understanding what constitutes the Extraordinary Magisterium, but most Catholics are unaware of what the Church has taught about the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and how it is supposed to work.

 

[clem456]

Infallibility finds it’s source in Christ. This should be a non issue right? Christ is God?
He shares it as a charism (gift, grace) with his body the Church, with Peter as it’s head and supreme pastor. Peter doesn’t have infallibility because he is the human being in charge, he has it “in virtue of his office” as shepherd of the body, because Christ shares the gift and guarantees it. It’s present in the bishops also when they act in unity with Peter.

How any Christian could not believe that Christ continually guides his body in the true faith is beyond me. Looking for infallible declarations behind every tree, or lack thereof, as justification for rejection of the faith is putting God to the test.
God says “trust”, we say “show me the goods first or I believe what I please”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Many Catholics are good at somewhat understanding what constitutes the Extraordinary Magisterium, but most Catholics are unaware of what the Church has taught about the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and how it is supposed to work.

Butzi, perhaps you could clarify the Orthodox method for us.

It’s my understanding that after a council, all the people of the Orthodox churches mull the decisions of the council over for an indeterminate period of time (possibly centuries) to decide whether or not they will accept the council.

Then what? Is there a ballot and people vote? Or is there just some sense that “the people have spoken” after a few hundred years may have passed?

 

[steve_b]

Many Catholics are good at somewhat understanding what constitutes the Extraordinary Magisterium, but most Catholics are unaware of what the Church has taught about the Ordinary Universal Magisterium and how it is supposed to work.

If I asked you, who won the CMA awards that just took place, how long would it take you to find that answer? You may have never heard of CMA in your life. But I’ll bet you could get the answer in less that 5 minutes.

People today can find out about anything literally at their fingertips. Information has never been so readily and easy to access. If people don’t know something about their faith, and persist in that ignorance because they won’t look up the answer, then that’s voluntary ignorance. Certainly it’s not imposed. The Church makes all information about the faith and the Church available to all… It’s easy to access

 

[KathleenGee]

I came up privately between breaks and our instructor…regent of theology at our seminary…told us there were no infallible teachings prior.

We also have to look at the use of papal bulls – that were directed to the clergy and conciliar alone, not meant for the whole church.

The Council of Florence attempted to stop the coming Reformation but it was too late and the Council was political in nature.

We have a Borgia, Pope Alexander…who had about 10 children, took good care of him. We have Pope Leo who resided over Martin Luther who became a cardinal at age 13, and wanted to go to his Swiss retreat instead of dealing with him.

Luther and the reformers had valid concerns.

Also, neither Pope Alexander or Pope Leo made any papal bulls

Our instructor said the Holy Spirit is always there, the Seat of Peter is always there, but it is up to the individual pope to draw on the grace of office.

The Council of Trent was reforming…but it didn’t get down into the why’s of Catholics believe as we believe until Vatican II…speaking for our instructor.

Our next class is on the confusing issue of when the pope does speak to us today in encyclicals…and the particular, ‘Humane Vitae’…a papal encyclical that many priests and bishops and Catholic lay persons have ignored.

There are degrees of truth per encyclical.

We also will see how it can be confusing of how how much obedience in responding to each encyclical, and our local diocesan bishop, who is self magistrating…is there to instruct us on such encyclicals.

 

[joe371]

If I asked you, who won the CMA awards that just took place, how long would it take you to find that answer? You may have never heard of CMA in your life. But I’ll bet you could get the answer in less that 5 minutes.

People today can find out about anything literally at their fingertips. Information has never been so readily and easy to access. If people don’t know something about their faith, and persist in that ignorance because they won’t look up the answer, then that’s voluntary ignorance. Certainly it’s not imposed. The Church makes all information about the faith and the Church available to all… It’s easy to access

:yup:

Unfortunately, some people refuse to go to the source…

 

[KathleenGee]

To clarify where I was coming from, I went up to the instructor to ask him if Pope Leo who had jurisdiction over Martin Luther, as well as Pope Alexander of the Borgias, ever wrote anything infallible.

On the side, there was a Pope Honorius who held on to heretical ideas, but when he wrote, ‘Christ had 2 wills but only fulfilled the will of the Heavenly Father’, I wondered if the two prior popes mentioned here did the same.

My instructor first said, ‘There were no infallible statements made then prior to Vatican I.’ And no, those two popes did not produce any thing in their teachings to the Church.

He stated in class the Holy Spirit is always there, but it is up to the popes to follow Him or not.

And the papal bulls are directed more to ecclesiastics and clergy, not to the whole Church.

Dogmas pertain to all believers.

 

[guanophore]

To clarify where I was coming from, I went up to the instructor to ask him if Pope Leo who had jurisdiction over Martin Luther, as well as Pope Alexander of the Borgias, ever wrote anything infallible.

On the side, there was a Pope Honorius who held on to heretical ideas, but when he wrote, ‘Christ had 2 wills but only fulfilled the will of the Heavenly Father’, I wondered if the two prior popes mentioned here did the same.

My instructor first said, ‘There were no infallible statements made then prior to Vatican I.’ And no, those two popes did not produce any thing in their teachings to the Church.

He stated in class the Holy Spirit is always there, but it is up to the popes to follow Him or not.

And the papal bulls are directed more to ecclesiastics and clergy, not to the whole Church.

Dogmas pertain to all believers.

It sounds like maybe your instructor is referring to only ex-cathedra statements as infallble.

What is it about this document that you think does not pertain to the whole Church?

 

[steve_b]

On the side, there was a Pope Honorius who held on to heretical ideas, but when he wrote, ‘Christ had 2 wills but only fulfilled the will of the Heavenly Father’, I wondered if the two prior popes mentioned here did the same.

have you read about Pope Honorius I
K:

My instructor first said, ‘There were no infallible statements made then prior to Vatican I.’ And no, those two popes did not produce any thing in their teachings to the Church.

He stated in class the Holy Spirit is always there, but it is up to the popes to follow Him or not.

And the papal bulls are directed more to ecclesiastics and clergy, not to the whole Church.

Dogmas pertain to all believers.

So…what do you think of his instruction so far? Based on what you’ve said here and previously about what he’s taught, Is it fair to say, he is doing more to deny than defend infallibility throughout the ages?

Infallibility and in particular papal infallibility, wasn’t invented @ Vat I.

Infallibility

 

[Peter_J]

To clarify where I was coming from, I went up to the instructor to ask him if Pope Leo who had jurisdiction over Martin Luther, as well as Pope Alexander of the Borgias, ever wrote anything infallible.

On the side, there was a Pope Honorius who held on to heretical ideas, but when he wrote, ‘Christ had 2 wills but only fulfilled the will of the Heavenly Father’, I wondered if the two prior popes mentioned here did the same.

My instructor first said, ‘There were no infallible statements made then prior to Vatican I.’ And no, those two popes did not produce any thing in their teachings to the Church.

He stated in class the Holy Spirit is always there, but it is up to the popes to follow Him or not.

And the papal bulls are directed more to ecclesiastics and clergy, not to the whole Church.

Dogmas pertain to all believers.

It sounds like maybe your instructor is referring to only ex-cathedra statements as infallble.

What is it about this document that you think does not pertain to the whole Church?

Yes, my guess at least is that the professor was only commenting on how many *ex cathedra *statements there have been. It is well established in Catholic teaching that ecumenical councils are infallible too.

 

[KathleenGee]

This class on infallibility was meant to be given in February, but according to the abbot at the seminary, there was this awful snowstorm…so everybody had to wait for our Regent Theologian to return…and I don’t intend to give his name…but I may contact him to read and clarify…

‘Infallibility makes no sense without the Church, and another tidbit…Catholic infallibility cannot trump conscience…’ So says our mystery theologian.

Now back to the weekend regarding Vatican I and I laid out the bulleted points.

1. There are many misrepresentations of Vatican I, both among other Christians as well as among most Catholics…there is this defensivenes of Catholic integrity.
2. Vatican I was the Catholic answer to the many revolutions affecting the nineteenth century: the French Revolution, the American revolution, the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution. A thousand years of papal sovereign rule in central Italy were in their final twelve months.
3. Since Pius VII’s time, a succession of popes had set official Catholicism’s face squarely against the political, social, and intellectual temper of the times. The Vatican Council was designed by Pius IX to set the seal and that opposition.
4. there had been no ecumenical council since the Council of Trent in the sixteen century and the bull of convocation included such matters as ‘clerical life and its needs, providing new safeguards for Christian marriage and the Christian education of the youth, taking up in this new age the ancient problems of the regulations of Church and State and providing appropriate guidance, so as to promote peace and prosperity in the national life everywhere’…this in essence the mission of the Church.

There were 80,000 participants that literally crammed the tightly packed basilica at St. Peters for the opening event. This was the first general council of the Church in which bishops assembled in Rome from every continent…and

The hot button was infallibilty!!!

There were new missions needing Rome’s funding and support, as she has always done, in Africa, the Far East, and America…The Latins call the pope, Papa…viva!

1. Pope Pius IX stated: “I don’t know whether the Pope will emerge from this Council fallible or infallible, but it is certain that he will be bankrupt.”
2. In terms of an overview we may say that there were two basic groups at the Council – the ultramontanist group, desirous of supreme authority in the church for the pope and of total Catholic allegiance to that authority, and the liberal group who wished to promote closer relationship between the Church and the modern world.

The theologian divided the two groups as the conservatives…in the Garden and the liberals, the Prophets…with a long line between the two on the board. As I stated, there were the opportunists who were relunctant to do so because of timing…the French…who always were left alone to manage themselves…and the American bishops…

1. Two doctrinal constitutions were promulgated…‘Dei Filius’ (April 24, 1870) dealing with reason and faith…and the pope then had no issue with Darwin…and 'Pastor Aeternus (July 18, 1870), defining the primacy and infallibility of the Pope.

Regarding the Constitution ‘Dei Filius’, the initial sessions were handed over to the Dogmatic Constitution which had to do with revelation and faith.

The opening section of the Constitution reiterates Christ’s presence to and in the church, guarding and assisting the Church in all truth. I believe that, stated that earlier in this post.

Chapt. 1 is entitled, "On God the Creator of All Things’…God is distinct from the world and creates not otu of necessity, but freely, to manifest His perfection. Ch 2 is “On Revelation”. Its opening sentence reads: “The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, may be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…” This is the natural knowledge of God.

Chapt 2. Faith is a gift of God. This chapter also defends the reasonableness of the act of faith. (It is setting up ground work for infalliblity of the pope?..) The Constitution maintains that "It was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit outward indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all. The insistence on these outward signs of revelation as well as the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly responding to those theologians of the nineteenth century were emphasized the interiority of Christian experience over against all external manifestations of revelation.

Catholics may have the most intense differences…but we don’t break the bond of communion!!!

Ch 4…he did not define Ch 3 clearly, finally is “On Faith and Reason”.

The conviction of the Constitution is that since God is the source of both our intelligence/reason and revelation/faith, there can be no real disagreement between faith and reason…rather faith and reason are mutually supportive.

We then had our break…and thinking about Pope Honorious…hearing about him on EWTN from a man who became Catholic, I asked about Pope Alexander VI and Pope Leo who went on mountain retreats rather than deal with Luther…"No, no infallible statements prior to Vatican I…and “No”…these popes made no contribution to our faith.

Now on to the next post as I don’t have enough space.

 

[KathleenGee]

Regarding Infalliblity, ‘Pastor Aeternus’.

Again, please bear with the bulleted as to avoid any disputes, I am simply conveying to you what our illustrious mystery theologian taught at our local seminary under the blessing of the Abbot, who built up this seminar as one we have all been waiting for some time!

1. There was full and, from the comments of the participating bishops, sometimes frustratingly repititous debate. “The text as we have it fails to show any marks of the sweat – rather, stains of blood – that was shed as it was being composed. It is the product of a conflict of ecclesiologies.” Fergus Kerr, OP.
2. The atmosphere among the prelates was quickly concentrated around papal infallibility. Different groups formed around the question of infalliblity, and with the majority, in fact, being in favor of some kind of definition.
3. The extremist ultramontanes (The Garden People) advocated for the most comrehensive possible defintion. William G Ward, a convert from Anglicanism, for example, desired that all papal pronouncements be considered infallible. Archbishop Manning of Westminster, used excessive language of the pope such as “the incarnation of the Holy Spirit.”
4. The French Catholic layman ultramontaine Louis Veuillot, editor of the paper ‘The Universe’, wrote: "We all know certainly one thing, that is that no man knows eveything except the man with hom God is forever, the man who carries through the thought of God. We must unswervingly follow his inspired directions.’
5. The Jesuit paper in Rome, ‘Civilita’ Catolica’, said, “When the Pope thinks, it is God who is thinking in him.” while leaving open the element of eclesiologicla truth found inthose expressions, this is surely hyperbole. These were the “infallibilists”.
6. Many French bishops opposed defining infallibility…from the tradition of Gallicanism…independent of Rome who appointed their own bishops.

There are some quotes from the inopportunists who only saw disasters for making any decision on infalliblity…with the intent to spare the Church and the Holy See from evils that may become disasters for all Christendom during long ages.’’’, Bishop Felix Dupanloup of Orleans. Some American bishops also sided with the French.

Now on to the text:

1. The preamble to the actual text of ‘Pastor Aeternus’ often is overlooked, and yet it is very important for an adequate interpretation of the decree, as Fergus Kerr, OP, comments: “The preamble of ‘Pater Aeternus’ sets the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the Petrine primacy very firmly in the context of preserving the unity of the episcopate with a church which has been founded to perpetuate the saving work of redemption”…

Again, Infallibility makes no sense without the Church.

1. Ch. 1 and 2 of ‘Pastor Aeternus’ define “a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God” given to Peter and to his successors, the popes. This primacy of jurisdiction is “over all others” in matters of faith and morals, adn also in matters of discipline and government. As it stands, this kind of language suggests that the bishops are nothing more than papal representatives.

But we go on to Ch 3.
However, we read: "So far is this power from the Pope from being damaging or obstructive to that ordinary and immediate power of the episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops, who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the place of the apostles, feed and govern each his own flock, as true pastors, that their power, precisely asserted, strengthened and protected by the supreme and universal pastor.

Each bishop has his own magesterial authority.

In other words, the bishops are not mere papal mouthpieces but succeed to the place of the apostles, and the Pope’s role is to assert, strengthen, and protect the pastorate of the bishops. The understanding of papal primacy is that its role is to maintain and support and never to weaken or threaten the integrity of the local churches.

Ch 4 we find the definition of papal authority: “We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff spekas from the chair, ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

The pope must make it clear he is speaking from the chair.

And the term, irreformable insist that for definitions of the pope to be binding they must have the consequent assent of the church. The Pope is the bond of communion.

Here in the text of ‘Pastor Aeternus’ the implication seems to be that such consequent assent is unnecessary since the prior consultation with the episcopate would have taken place, thus making consequent assent redundant. It was generally assumed that no pope would proceed with an infallible definition without consulting the Church, eg dogma of the Immaculate Conception, 1854.

In this balance infallibility provides service to the Church, a service in with and for the Church that is the very hallmark of papal infallibility.

Now on to the last part, the finale.

 

[KathleenGee]

Now to the finale at the end Vatican I…and…

More bullets:

The Rev. Thomas Mozley, Anglican priest, brother-in-law of John Henry Newman, who our mystery theologian considered the best bishop of the 19th century, and who also was correspondent for the London ‘Times’: “The storm, which had been threatening all the morning, burst now with the utmost violence, and to many a superstitious mind, might have conveyed the idea that it was an expression of divine wrath, as 'no doubt it will be interpreted by the numbers; said one officer of the Palatine Guard. And so the ‘placets’ (positive notes) of the fathers struggled through the storm, while the thunder pealed above and the lightning flashed in at every window and down through the dome and every smaller cupola, dividing if not absorbing the attention of the crowd. ‘Placet!’ shouted his Eminence or Grace, and a loud clap of thunder followed the response, and then lightning darted about the baldachino and every part of the church and the conciliar hall, as if announcing the response.”

Critics took this as a sign of God’s anger. Not Archbishop Manning, who said, 'They forgot Sinai and the Ten Commandments." ( Manning was very close friend to the Pope as well as Bishop Newman, a ‘Prophet’. Manning was of the ‘Garden’ type. Both believed in infallibility. But Newman thought it unwise to define it, whereas had great faith in its definition, assuming the Anglicans would come flocking over to Rome…Manning wanted downright, masculine, and decided Catholics…more Roman than Rome…)

Sixty one fathers submitted written protests against the definitions and left Rome on the eve of the solemn promulgation, although they accepted it once it had passed. Two bishops who had voted against it, accepted the definitions right away.

Conclusion:

The day following the definition of infallibility, war was declared between Prussia and France, effectively bringing the Council prematurely to an end. The French needed all their military, and so the French garrison in Rome, gauranteeing papal independence and protection, was withdrawn almost immediately. Within a month King Victor Emmanuel invaded the Papal States. Rome fell to his troops on September 30, and Pius became a ‘prisoner of the Vatican’. On October 20, Pius IX issued an apostolic letter suspending the Council indefinitely.

The Second Vatican Council clarifies Vatican I…and the pope teaches the Church today through encyclicals.

Well, so goes the seminar that was interrupted and delayed by a snowstorm. Hope this doesn’t cost me any thunder claps…and if you were all able to get through the 3 posts, you saved yourself $15 not attending the seminar but getting the facts straight from the mystery theologian’s hand outs.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s an error.

Perhaps you missed when I stated it again, later in my post. Do you disagree with my statement, phrased thusly: “there haven’t been any others in which the magisterium has made it a point to use the language of 1VC to make it obvious that they were invoking the definition”…?

infallible statements are made in every beatification by a pope. After the declaration of sainthood, then it’s a belief of the Church worldwide that everyone is to believe and trust in it, because it IS (without error) i.e. infallible.

That seems to be a disputed point (although the argument seems reasonable). Do you know of any magisterial statement that makes the assertion you’re making here? (In any case, it doesn’t refute my statement – there have been only two statements, following 1VC, in which the magisterium have made a point of asserting a dogmatic statement, using the language of the definition of infallibility to do so.)

Given what she said, her teacher most certainly denied infallible statements were made prior to Vat I

I’ll have to read what Kathleen has written following your post. I’m still of the opinion that he’s making the point that, if ‘infallibility’ was defined at 1VC, no by-the-definition ‘infallible’ statements could have been made before that point. (This doesn’t mean, of course, that the magisterium did not make statements on faith and morals that were true.)

Let’s use an analogous example. Prior to his consecration as a bishop, Ratzinger couldn’t have been said to make a magisterial statement. Yet, does this mean that he didn’t make statements that were magisterially true? Of course not. Yet, by the strict definition, he couldn’t make a magisterial statement until he possessed the authority of the magisterium. Can you see what I’m getting at? I think that this is what the professor is asserting…

Refer to my previous entry. The teacher was denying any infallible statements made prior to Vat I and only 3 statements after that.

Trust me, you don’t need to repeat yourself. I get what you’re saying.

I just think that he’s not saying what you and Kathleen think he is saying.

The question, I think, that’s relevant to ask him is, “are you saying that there were no pre-1VC statements that were true in the way that 1VC defined infallible statements to be true, or are you saying that, since infallibility was ‘defined’ at 1VC, no statements prior to that point could be said (strictly speaking) to be ‘infallible’ per se?”

 

[Gorgias]

Each bishop has his own magesterial authority.

Within his local church, yes, and inasmuch as he doesn’t contradict the magisterial teaching of the universal Church.

The pope must make it clear he is speaking from the chair.

And right there, we have the answer to the question steve b and I have been debating. You’re really speaking of ex cathedra statements, vis-a-vis their infallibility, and not the general question of whether papal statements on faith and morals are true.

 

[spina1953]

This class on infallibility was meant to be given in February, but according to the abbot at the seminary, there was this awful snowstorm…so everybody had to wait for our Regent Theologian to return…and I don’t intend to give his name…but I may contact him to read and clarify…

‘Infallibility makes no sense without the Church, and another tidbit…Catholic infallibility cannot trump conscience…’ So says our mystery theologian.

Now back to the weekend regarding Vatican I and I laid out the bulleted points.

1. There are many misrepresentations of Vatican I, both among other Christians as well as among most Catholics…there is this defensivenes of Catholic integrity.
2. Vatican I was the Catholic answer to the many revolutions affecting the nineteenth century: the French Revolution, the American revolution, the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution. A thousand years of papal sovereign rule in central Italy were in their final twelve months.
3. Since Pius VII’s time, a succession of popes had set official Catholicism’s face squarely against the political, social, and intellectual temper of the times. The Vatican Council was designed by Pius IX to set the seal and that opposition.
4. there had been no ecumenical council since the Council of Trent in the sixteen century and the bull of convocation included such matters as ‘clerical life and its needs, providing new safeguards for Christian marriage and the Christian education of the youth, taking up in this new age the ancient problems of the regulations of Church and State and providing appropriate guidance, so as to promote peace and prosperity in the national life everywhere’…this in essence the mission of the Church.

There were 80,000 participants that literally crammed the tightly packed basilica at St. Peters for the opening event. This was the first general council of the Church in which bishops assembled in Rome from every continent…and

The hot button was infallibilty!!!

There were new missions needing Rome’s funding and support, as she has always done, in Africa, the Far East, and America…The Latins call the pope, Papa…viva!

1. Pope Pius IX stated: “I don’t know whether the Pope will emerge from this Council fallible or infallible, but it is certain that he will be bankrupt.”
2. In terms of an overview we may say that there were two basic groups at the Council – the ultramontanist group, desirous of supreme authority in the church for the pope and of total Catholic allegiance to that authority, and the liberal group who wished to promote closer relationship between the Church and the modern world.

The theologian divided the two groups as the conservatives…in the Garden and the liberals, the Prophets…with a long line between the two on the board. As I stated, there were the opportunists who were relunctant to do so because of timing…the French…who always were left alone to manage themselves…and the American bishops…

1. Two doctrinal constitutions were promulgated…‘Dei Filius’ (April 24, 1870) dealing with reason and faith…and the pope then had no issue with Darwin…and 'Pastor Aeternus (July 18, 1870), defining the primacy and infallibility of the Pope.

Regarding the Constitution ‘Dei Filius’, the initial sessions were handed over to the Dogmatic Constitution which had to do with revelation and faith.

The opening section of the Constitution reiterates Christ’s presence to and in the church, guarding and assisting the Church in all truth. I believe that, stated that earlier in this post.

Chapt. 1 is entitled, "On God the Creator of All Things’…God is distinct from the world and creates not otu of necessity, but freely, to manifest His perfection. Ch 2 is “On Revelation”. Its opening sentence reads: “The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, may be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason…” This is the natural knowledge of God.

Chapt 2. Faith is a gift of God. This chapter also defends the reasonableness of the act of faith. (It is setting up ground work for infalliblity of the pope?..) The Constitution maintains that "It was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit outward indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all. The insistence on these outward signs of revelation as well as the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly responding to those theologians of the nineteenth century were emphasized the interiority of Christian experience over against all external manifestations of revelation.

Catholics may have the most intense differences…but we don’t break the bond of communion!!!

Ch 4…he did not define Ch 3 clearly, finally is “On Faith and Reason”.

The conviction of the Constitution is that since God is the source of both our intelligence/reason and revelation/faith, there can be no real disagreement between faith and reason…rather faith and reason are mutually supportive.

We then had our break…and thinking about Pope Honorious…hearing about him on EWTN from a man who became Catholic, I asked about Pope Alexander VI and Pope Leo who went on mountain retreats rather than deal with Luther…"No, no infallible statements prior to Vatican I…and “No”…these popes made no contribution to our faith.

Now on to the next post as I don’t have enough space.

Hi Kathleen Gee: Great post! Very informative.

 

[spina1953]

Now to the finale at the end Vatican I…and…

More bullets:

The Rev. Thomas Mozley, Anglican priest, brother-in-law of John Henry Newman, who our mystery theologian considered the best bishop of the 19th century, and who also was correspondent for the London ‘Times’: “The storm, which had been threatening all the morning, burst now with the utmost violence, and to many a superstitious mind, might have conveyed the idea that it was an expression of divine wrath, as 'no doubt it will be interpreted by the numbers; said one officer of the Palatine Guard. And so the ‘placets’ (positive notes) of the fathers struggled through the storm, while the thunder pealed above and the lightning flashed in at every window and down through the dome and every smaller cupola, dividing if not absorbing the attention of the crowd. ‘Placet!’ shouted his Eminence or Grace, and a loud clap of thunder followed the response, and then lightning darted about the baldachino and every part of the church and the conciliar hall, as if announcing the response.”

Critics took this as a sign of God’s anger. Not Archbishop Manning, who said, 'They forgot Sinai and the Ten Commandments." ( Manning was very close friend to the Pope as well as Bishop Newman, a ‘Prophet’. Manning was of the ‘Garden’ type. Both believed in infallibility. But Newman thought it unwise to define it, whereas had great faith in its definition, assuming the Anglicans would come flocking over to Rome…Manning wanted downright, masculine, and decided Catholics…more Roman than Rome…)

Sixty one fathers submitted written protests against the definitions and left Rome on the eve of the solemn promulgation, although they accepted it once it had passed. Two bishops who had voted against it, accepted the definitions right away.

Conclusion:

The day following the definition of infallibility, war was declared between Prussia and France, effectively bringing the Council prematurely to an end. The French needed all their military, and so the French garrison in Rome, gauranteeing papal independence and protection, was withdrawn almost immediately. Within a month King Victor Emmanuel invaded the Papal States. Rome fell to his troops on September 30, and Pius became a ‘prisoner of the Vatican’. On October 20, Pius IX issued an apostolic letter suspending the Council indefinitely.

The Second Vatican Council clarifies Vatican I…and the pope teaches the Church today through encyclicals.

Well, so goes the seminar that was interrupted and delayed by a snowstorm. Hope this doesn’t cost me any thunder claps…and if you were all able to get through the 3 posts, you saved yourself $15 not attending the seminar but getting the facts straight from the mystery theologian’s hand outs.

Hi Kathleen Gee: Thanks so much for your posts as they are so informative and I learned so much from it.

 

[steve_b]

Perhaps you missed when I stated it again, later in my post. Do you disagree with my statement, phrased thusly: “there haven’t been any others in which the magisterium has made it a point to use the language of 1VC to make it obvious that they were invoking the definition”…?

That seems to be a disputed point (although the argument seems reasonable). Do you know of any magisterial statement that makes the assertion you’re making here?

(In any case, it doesn’t refute my statement – there have been only two statements, following 1VC, in which the magisterium have made a point of asserting a dogmatic statement, using the language of the definition of infallibility to do so.)

Not so. Here’s an example of just 2 others. Kathleen should take these to her class to show her teachers

“For the honour of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the fostering of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayers for the divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of our Brother Bishops, we declare and define that Bl. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, Edith Stein, is a saint and we enrol her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated in the whole Church as one of the saints. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM

That’s an infallible statement, as is the satement that follows on male only priesthood, both using the formula of Vat I. BTW, the above statement is NOT the only making of a saint where that language was used. So there are lots of examples of the Vat I formula used.

from*** OrdinatioSacerdotalis JPII***

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
   Wherefore,* in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) 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.***
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

 

[jlhargus]

That’s not what Peter, nor the bishops in the early church taught. That doctrine would take hundreds of years to show up.

Yet your teachings didn’t show up before one thousand five hundred years later.