Dear sister Monica,
I read on an Orthodox forum that some of the Ecumenical Council’s anathemas were changed at Vatican I to accommodate for the Papacy… is this true??? (it was not mentioned which ones)
I don’t even know how to find out the answer.
Can you be more specific about what these Orthodox are claiming - I mean, what anathema was suppose to have been changed?
From my studies of Vatican 1, it could refer to two possible things:
(1) During the debates on the Decree on the Primacy, one of the proposed Canons for consideration ran “
If anyone says that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is only the office of inspection and direction, and that his supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church is not full, but only extraordinary and mediate: let him be anathema.” Many Fathers protested that it is inappropriate to place an anathema on using the term “extraordinary” to describe the primatial prerogatives, because in practice, the primatial prerogatives are indeed ONLY exercised in extraordinary circumstances. The final form of the anathema (as contained in the Decree that anyone can access on the net) conceded this point.
(2) The Second draft of the definition in the Decree on the Infallibility contained the following clause: “
such decrees or judgments [are] irreformible of themselves…” This was issued on May 9.
On July 9, the final form as we have it was formulated with the exception of the clause “
and not from the consent of the Church.” and distributed to the Fathers for study.
On July 11, Bishop Gasser presented to the Council Fathers the
Official Relatio, which explained that the clause “irreformible of themselves” meant that the infallibility of a papal decree is guaranteed not by the consensus of the Church, but by the special promise of Christ through the help of the Holy Spirit. It also explained that while the consensus of the Church was the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope, there was no absolute necessity that this consensus be determined by inquiring of the matter to all the bishops of the world - i.e., the consensus was necessary, but the mode of determining the consensus was not dictated.
On July 13, the initial voting on the final draft was voted upon, with a last opportunity for the Fathers to submit emendations to the Decree.
On July 16, in response to the emendations submitted by the Fathers, the Committee
de Fide (that was responsible for formulating the Decrees), added the clause “
and not from the consent of the Church” to the Decree.
The final voting on the Decree took place on July 18.
As you can see, the idea of “
not from the consent of the Church” was already contained in the
Official Relatio. It’s addition to the Decree itself on the 16th did absolutely nothing to change the original intent of the Fathers before the addition.
If they press you on the matter of the clause “not from the consent of the Church,” explain to them that there is absolutely no patristic warrant to claim that the nature of a teaching as Truth depends on consensus. The only thing that objectively makes Truth what it is is nothing more nor less than the fact that it is from God. When St. Peter promulgated the first dogma of the Church to the Church in Jerusalem in Acts 11, the Truth of what he taught absolutely did not depend on any sort of consensus from the Church - in other words,
it was irreformible not by the consent of the Church. Also point out to them that according to the Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34, the purpose of consensus is not to determine the Truth, but rather to ensure the unity of the Church. With this in mind, the statement from the Decree on the Infallibility that an ex cathedra decree is irreformible of itself and not from the consent of the Church violates not a single patristic principle.
Blessings,
Marduk
