Problematic Passage in Vatican I

[zach_dunn]

Hello,

I was doing some reading/studying and came across this passage in Vatican I that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable:

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful[sup]52[/sup], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [sup]53[/sup]. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [sup]54[/sup]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

. . .

[sup]52[/sup] Pius VI, Letter Super soliditate dated 28 Nov. 1786.
[sup]53[/sup] From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second council of Lyons (D no. 466).
[sup]54[/sup] Nicholas 1, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954).

What does this mean? I’m really not sure what it’s trying so say. One other thing that occurred to me while I was reading this, why is the office of Pope something we have to believe to be saved? I’m not saying that I don’t believe it, I’m just not sure why it is involved with my eternal salvation.

Thanks for your help

 

[Irish_Polock]

Hello,

I was doing some reading/studying and came across this passage in Vatican I that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable:

What does this mean? I’m really not sure what it’s trying so say. One other thing that occurred to me while I was reading this, why is the office of Pope something we have to believe to be saved? I’m not saying that I don’t believe it, I’m just not sure why it is involved with my eternal salvation.

Thanks for your help

The Pope would be “the supreme Judge of the faithful” in ecclesiastical matters that are this side of the vale. Without the guidance of our (the magisterium)authority, the church would be doomed to the same fate that has befallen the protestants. That certainly was not in Gods plan.

 

[WorkerPriest]

To be fair, there really is no protestant fate. The various streams of the Reformation, have received various fates, some better than others. It also strikes me, that the Eastern Orthodox have a fate their own, as well.

So, to the original poster, I would offer that you have stumbled upon a re-affirmation of doctrine that is at the heart of the Great Schism of 1054 between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, and eventually the schism of the Reformation in 1530. One of the greatest contentions between East and West, is that the Pope refuses to be judged by anyone, not even the supreme authority of the ancient and undivided Church, which was all the bishops of the world gathered in Ecumenical Council under the Holy Scriptures. This point also arises in the Lutheran Reformation, and is discussed at length in one of our confessional documents titled: The Power and Primacy of the Pope, by Philip Melanchthon (received by the theologians, pastors and bishops of Germany as an addendum to the Augsburg Confession.)

So, I suppose you have a great deal of company in being uncomfortable with these phrases of Vatican I. Were it not for this Roman Catholic council, some have speculated that the reunion of the Churches post Vatican II would have already been achieved.

Grace and peace to you.

The Pope would be “the supreme Judge of the faithful” in ecclesiastical matters that are this side of the vale. Without the guidance of our (the magisterium)authority, the church would be doomed to the same fate that has befallen the protestants. That certainly was not in Gods plan.

 

[1ke]

What does this mean? I’m really not sure what it’s trying so say.

It means the Pope is the highest authority in ecclesiastical matters-- canon law and the juridical processes of the Church (tribunals, trials, canonical penalties, canon law).

One other thing that occurred to me while I was reading this, why is the office of Pope something we have to believe to be saved?

Jesus established Peter in the office of Pope to guide and lead his flock. God himself ordained the structure and hierarchy of the Church. He did so for our benefit and protection from errors in teaching.

 

[JRKH]

Looking at this statement in the ful context of The Church it basically says that the Pope has the last word on matters effecting the faithful. He is the head of both the Church universal and the Magisterium. As such, after all of the discussions, debates, arguments, studies etc are made on a given matter it is he who rises like Peter at the council in Acts 15 and “silences debate”.

That is how I read it.

You also asked, “…why is the office of Pope something we have to believe to be saved? I’m not saying that I don’t believe it, I’m just not sure why it is involved with my eternal salvation.”
This is a bit trickier since the Church also teaches that those not in communion with Rome (don’t accept the pope) can also be saved, though with greater difficulty.
We accept the office of the pope because it is how Christ instituted His Church. He made Peter the Leader of the Apostles and those who followed after the apostles continued this primacy of the bishop of Rome as an article of faith. So we accept it as part of that single deposit of faith passed down to us from Christ Himself.

Peace
James

 

[jonpd]

So, I suppose you have a great deal of company in being uncomfortable with these phrases of Vatican I. Were it not for this Roman Catholic council, some have speculated that the reunion of the Churches post Vatican II would have already been achieved.

I’m not sure about that. It seems to me that the assertion of papal authority that occurred at Vatican I may have been a stumbling block for reunification with the other apostolic church traditions such as the Eastern Orthodox; however with the Reformed denominations there were (and are) much more difficult divisions to resolve such as the apostolic succession itself vs. the priesthood of all believers, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity for auricular confession, and so forth.

Before I returned to the CC as an Episcopalian I participated in discussions with Lutherans as part of efforts to establish a merger between the 2 faith communities, and even between our 2 denominations there were enough differences such as our understanding of the Eucharist and how to deal with apostolic succession that these discussions never got very far. So if these 2 denominations that were fairly close in belief could not find common ground it is difficult to see how Catholic and Protestant ever could.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Jon,

You are right to note my lack of specificity-- thanks for the opportunity to clarify. What I think you have put your finger on, is the anti-sacramental tendency within Calvinism, which has been a bigger player in the English Reformation than the German. While Calvinism and “union” churches of Germany do have their representatives, Confessional Lutheran theology is strongly sacramental and has always resisted the Calvinist (as well as Zwinglian, and other protestant) inclinations in other directions. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the issue regarding the sacraments was not their number, but the disposition of the heart of the receiver (faith which receives grace, or unbelief which receives condemnation) and the primacy of Holy Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Confession and Absolution. Ordination (which they prefered to retain in ancient form and the three-fold office) was understood sacramentally, and the rites of Confirmation, Marriage, and Annointing of the Sick were also reverently retained.

It occurs to me, that where Anglicans have found commonality with Rome, has been precisely in their sacramental catholicity and rejection of the Calvinist elements of their tradition. Likewise, Lutherans who have retained their confessional catholicity, have had more natural relationships with Rome and the East (and Anglo-Catholics, for that matter.)

What strikes me as a final stumbling block (or, perhaps one amongst a final set of stumbling blocks) toward reunification of catholic minded Lutherans, Anglicans, and the East with Rome, is this issue of papal superiority. I do think it is fair to note, that this doctrine was fundamental to the first great schism of Christendom, and elemental in the primary Reformation movement of the Lutherans. The establishment of the Ordinariate for the Anglicans may prove to be one of the most momentous in this regards, establishing an authority amongst the Anglo-Catholics that works in unity with Rome… a much more fraternal arrangement. I like to think this bodes well for the rest of Christendom.

Grace and peace to you.

I’m not sure about that. It seems to me that the assertion of papal authority that occurred at Vatican I may have been a stumbling block for reunification with the other apostolic church traditions such as the Eastern Orthodox; however with the Reformed denominations there were (and are) much more difficult divisions to resolve such as the apostolic succession itself vs. the priesthood of all believers, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity for auricular confession, and so forth.

Before I returned to the CC as an Episcopalian I participated in discussions with Lutherans as part of efforts to establish a merger between the 2 faith communities, and even between our 2 denominations there were enough differences such as our understanding of the Eucharist and how to deal with apostolic succession that these discussions never got very far. So if these 2 denominations that were fairly close in belief could not find common ground it is difficult to see how Catholic and Protestant ever could.

 

[Irish_Polock]

To be fair, there really is no protestant fate. The various streams of the Reformation, have received various fates, some better than others. It also strikes me, that the Eastern Orthodox have a fate their own, as well.

So, to the original poster, I would offer that you have stumbled upon a re-affirmation of doctrine that is at the heart of the Great Schism of 1054 between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox, and eventually the schism of the Reformation in 1530. One of the greatest contentions between East and West, is that the Pope refuses to be judged by anyone, not even the supreme authority of the ancient and undivided Church, which was all the bishops of the world gathered in Ecumenical Council under the Holy Scriptures. This point also arises in the Lutheran Reformation, and is discussed at length in one of our confessional documents titled: The Power and Primacy of the Pope, by Philip Melanchthon (received by the theologians, pastors and bishops of Germany as an addendum to the Augsburg Confession.)

So, I suppose you have a great deal of company in being uncomfortable with these phrases of Vatican I. Were it not for this Roman Catholic council, some have speculated that the reunion of the Churches post Vatican II would have already been achieved.

Grace and peace to you.

I am not sure how familiar you are with canon law, but the sentence I have emphasized is somewhat misleading. The fact is, while the college of Cardinals can not depose of the pope for themselves; they can bring him to trial, convict him of heresy, and then elect another pope, and let the next pope do the deposing.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Fascinating. I had never heard that before. Thanks for the education.

Peace to you.

I am not sure how familiar you are with canon law, but the sentence I have emphasized is somewhat misleading. The fact is, while the college of Cardinals can not depose of the pope for themselves; they can bring him to trial, convict him of heresy, and then elect another pope, and let the next pope do the deposing.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Hello,

I was doing some reading/studying and came across this passage in Vatican I that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable:

What does this mean? I’m really not sure what it’s trying so say. One other thing that occurred to me while I was reading this, why is the office of Pope something we have to believe to be saved? I’m not saying that I don’t believe it, I’m just not sure why it is involved with my eternal salvation.

Thanks for your help

The reason for Vatican I was to define once and for all the powers of the Papacy as many miscon ceptions had crept in after the Last few sessions of the Council of Constance that ended the Western Schism , which if you recall - settled the issue of Three men who all claimed to be Pope simultaneously. The Papacy itself is established to guide Holy mother the Church in the Deposit of Faith (Which is The Revelation of Jesus given directly to St Peter and the Apostles and that St Peter being the elect who is guided to define in the Deposit of faith with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Since only St Peter had that power - so too does the Vicar today have that same power - but that power lies only in keeping the Church on the Straight and narrow in defining within the Deposit of Faith. for example - a Pope cannot alter Dogma. He can more adequately Define it - but he cannot redefine it. So there are limits to what even a Pope can do. As for your eternal Salvation - the Pope is over the Magisterium which is over the Bishoprics which is over each Diocese in which Priests serve their flocks of which you are a member. - That would be how.

 

[Vince1022]

Hello,

I was doing some reading/studying and came across this passage in Vatican I that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable:

What does this mean? I’m really not sure what it’s trying so say. One other thing that occurred to me while I was reading this, why is the office of Pope something we have to believe to be saved? I’m not saying that I don’t believe it, I’m just not sure why it is involved with my eternal salvation.

Thanks for your help

Anyone can be saved regardless of believing this teaching. One cannot be Catholic without accepting this teaching.