The Vatican Dogma

[militantsparrow]

Has anyone read the article by Sergius Bulgakov, The Vatican Dogma? It can be found here if not.

It’s a long article which makes several claims, but here is the gist of the portions I’m interested in getting some information on. The article essentially claims that Pope Pius IX essentially “stacked the deck” in order to ensure the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined and approved.

Is there any good evidence out there that this is a completely bizarre and unwarranted claim?

Lawrence

 

[tafan]

I don’t really have time to study this right now. But it was a general council in union with the Pope that defined the dogma of papal infallibility, as such it is a core belief. It really doesn’t matter the politics that went on behind the scenes at the 1st Vatican Council, that happens at all councils. You can find inferences of possible behind the scene politics in Acts when describing the Council of Jerusalem. We moderns like to think that the Holy Spirit should inspire the church in a simple and peaceful manner, it would seem based on church history of both councils and conclaves that this guidance of the Holy Spirit plays out through very human forms. God has His ways.

 

[militantsparrow]

I don’t really have time to study this right now. But it was a general council in union with the Pope that defined the dogma of papal infallibility, as such it is a core belief. It really doesn’t matter the politics that went on behind the scenes at the 1st Vatican Council, that happens at all councils. You can find inferences of possible behind the scene politics in Acts when describing the Council of Jerusalem. We moderns like to think that the Holy Spirit should inspire the church in a simple and peaceful manner, it would seem based on church history of both councils and conclaves that this guidance of the Holy Spirit plays out through very human forms. God has His ways.

Tafan,
While I certainly appreciate your response and believe your statement is accurate, it wouldnt hold much weight in a debate with an Old Catholic or an Orthodox.

 

[Vince1022]

Is there any good evidence out there that this is a completely bizarre and unwarranted claim?

No.

Still, the Council taught such, so Catholic are obliged to accept such teaching in accordance with Catholic teaching.

Clearly, this was a controversial issue, and many of those who attended Vatican I left the council prior to the discussion/vote on papal infallibility because they disagreed with the idea of formally proclaiming such teaching.

 

[FightingFat]

I think the reality is that the doctrine of papal infallibility has a much, much longer history of development which was born out of the Avignon captivity of the papacy from 1309 to 1378. This led to a fear that the pope was influenced by the French and old rivalries led to problems in supporting the true pope when the Western Schism finally happened from 1378 to 1417. Basically that gave kings an option between two popes and divisions were based on whether you were enemies with France or not, for example, England and Scotland supported different sides. This leads to Concilliarism and the disaster that was basically brought about by William of Ockham, and in turn, due to the inability to form any firm decisions, this led to papal supremacy being necessary and the ultramontanism of the First Vatican Council.

An aside is to consider it in terms of the best possible form of government, which many thinkers consider to be benevolent dictatorship.

 

[Todd_Easton]

A lengthy description of the procedings of First Vatican Council can be found in the article on “Vatican Council” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[Spirithound]

But it was a general council in union with the Pope that defined the dogma of papal infallibility, as such it is a core belief. It really doesn’t matter the politics that went on behind the scenes at the 1st Vatican Council, that happens at all councils. You can find inferences of possible behind the scene politics in Acts when describing the Council of Jerusalem. We moderns like to think that the Holy Spirit should inspire the church in a simple and peaceful manner, it would seem based on church history of both councils and conclaves that this guidance of the Holy Spirit plays out through very human forms. God has His ways.

While I certainly appreciate your response and believe your statement is accurate, it wouldnt hold much weight in a debate with an Old Catholic or an Orthodox.

The problem is that the dogma of papal infallibility is self-referential. Whether you believe it or not, that belief automatically backs up your beliefs regarding the Catholic faith as a whole.

That being said, I like to work through debates slowly and methodically. Ask your friend why he thinks it matters whether there were back-room discussions.

 

[militantsparrow]

A lengthy description of the procedings of First Vatican Council can be found in the article on “Vatican Council” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Todd,
This is a very good article. Thank you.

 

[militantsparrow]

The problem is that the dogma of papal infallibility is self-referential. Whether you believe it or not, that belief automatically backs up your beliefs regarding the Catholic faith as a whole.

That being said, I like to work through debates slowly and methodically. Ask your friend why he thinks it matters whether there were back-room discussions.

Good point.

I don’t have a friend with whom I’m debating. It’s more a group of Eastern Orthodox that have used these backroom discussions to illustrate that Papal Supremecy is not some organic growth of the early Church but is in fact a deliberate grab for power. It’s this power grab that they also site as the cause of the schism.

So the gist or the argument is, decisions were originally made by a council. The Pope manipulated a council to give him authority even over councils.

 

[militantsparrow]

I think the reality is that the doctrine of papal infallibility has a much, much longer history of development which was born out of the Avignon captivity of the papacy from 1309 to 1378. This led to a fear that the pope was influenced by the French and old rivalries led to problems in supporting the true pope when the Western Schism finally happened from 1378 to 1417. Basically that gave kings an option between two popes and divisions were based on whether you were enemies with France or not, for example, England and Scotland supported different sides. This leads to Concilliarism and the disaster that was basically brought about by William of Ockham, and in turn, due to the inability to form any firm decisions, this led to papal supremacy being necessary and the ultramontanism of the First Vatican Council.

An aside is to consider it in terms of the best possible form of government, which many thinkers consider to be benevolent dictatorship.

Excelent point.

 

[Spirithound]

It’s more a group of Eastern Orthodox that have used these backroom discussions to illustrate that Papal Supremecy is not some organic growth of the early Church but is in fact a deliberate grab for power. It’s this power grab that they also site as the cause of the schism.

So the gist or the argument is, decisions were originally made by a council. The Pope manipulated a council to give him authority even over councils.

Now that part that I highlighted is just silly. The schism occurred 800 years before Vatican I.

 

[Vince1022]

A lengthy description of the procedings of First Vatican Council can be found in the article on “Vatican Council” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

An even better account (and more accurate) is given in the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (2003). Unfortunately, not available online. But, a better reference.

 

[Vince1022]

Todd,
This is a very good article. Thank you.

Very good for it’s time, yes. But the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite different. Check it out if you have a chance.

 

[militantsparrow]

Now that part that I highlighted is just silly. The schism occurred 800 years before Vatican I.

I should have worded that better. Nobody blames Vatican I for the schism. But they see a similarity in how Rome, during the events leading up to the schism and Vatican I, has increased it’s authority and power.

 

[Spirithound]

I should have worded that better. Nobody blames Vatican I for the schism. But they see a similarity in how Rome, during the events leading up to the schism and Vatican I, has increased it’s authority and power.

Ok, I thought that might be what they were getting at, but I also thought the analogy wasn’t as strong as it could be. For example, the Schism was not caused by “back-room deals”. On the other end, I don’t see what kind of illicit back-room deals could contaminate the process. If papal infallibility (and papal immediate jurisdiction, which was also defined at Vatican I) are not true, then all bishops are juridically equal, and cannot threaten each other with any suitable sanction.

Back in the 2nd century, Pope Victor tried to excommunicate all the bishops of Asia for not celebrating Easter on the same day as he did, but other bishops, including St. Irenaeus stepped in and reminded him it was not an excommunicable offense. Of course I’m not trying to imply that all popes would automatically be as reasonable as Victor, but if Immediate Jurisdiction and Infallibility were coming out of nowhere, the other bishops certainly would have had a proper sense of their own rights.

 

[rwoehmke]

So the gist or the argument is, decisions were originally made by a council. The Pope manipulated a council to give him authority even over councils.

I believe that decisions, etc. of even the early councils required ratification by the reigning pope before they were considered infallible.

 

[militantsparrow]

I believe that decisions, etc. of even the early councils required ratification by the reigning pope before they were considered infallible.

I believe that, but the Eastern Orthodox I speak to do not believe that. I wish there were a way to prove it.

 

[Abu]

militantsparrow
The article essentially claims that Pope Pius IX essentially “stacked the deck” in order to ensure the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined and approved.

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed definition of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

Further the denigration against the dogma of papal infallibility is a monstrous rumour, and Vatican II repeats this teaching in *The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium) (#18):
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council… This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”

Is there any good evidence out there that this is a completely bizarre and unwarranted claim?
Looking “to play down” the doctrine of infallibility is the perennial pastime of many a dissenter so well revealed here, but on top of such lunacy is a further fallacy and distortion – because the theme (in Ut Unum Sint, 1995) of the Holy Father was not about papal infallibility at all, but to present and encourage dialogue on the exercise of papal primacy (jurisdiction), leading to full communion of the Orthodox Churches, and the separated ecclesial communities, with the Catholic Church.

And, such ecumenical dialogue requires Catholics (theologians as well) first, within the Church, to heed and accept Magisterial teaching. (Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, John Paul II, 1994, #21).

Despite all attempts at misrepresentation, the exercise of papal infallibility in doctrine, defined through a dogma in Vatican I, and reiterated by Vatican II, is quite clear; the exercise of papal primacy and apostolic collegiality (so well developed in Vatican II which defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council, LG #25 – a turning point in doctrinal history) will continue to be a fruitful source of dialogue to facilitate true communion with other Christian groups, even as more Anglican and Evangelical groups are presently seeking to come home.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother militantsparrow,

rwoehkme:

I believe that decisions, etc. of even the early councils required ratification by the reigning pope before they were considered infallible.

I believe that, but the Eastern Orthodox I speak to do not believe that. I wish there were a way to prove it.

It’s not really a matter of “proving,” but a matter of understanding.

Many EO (especially polemicists) as well as Absolutist Petrine polemicists misconstrue the necessity of papal confirmation of an Ecumenical Council to mean that the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its infallibility. But that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. An Ecumenical Council is infallible in and of itself (read as: an Ecumenical Council exercises the infallible Magisterium of God). It is the whole body of bishops acting in concert that exercises the infallible Magisterium in the setting of an Ecumenical Council, not the Pope alone.

So trying to “prove” that the Pope’s ratification is necessary for an Ecumenical Council to be infallible is a fruitless endeavor because its premise is flawed in the first place.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Lawrence,

Has anyone read the article by Sergius Bulgakov, The Vatican Dogma? It can be found here if not.

It’s a long article which makes several claims, but here is the gist of the portions I’m interested in getting some information on. The article essentially claims that Pope Pius IX essentially “stacked the deck” in order to ensure the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined and approved.

Is there any good evidence out there that this is a completely bizarre and unwarranted claim?

Please read the first two pages of the following thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494568

I presented some facts regarding Vatican 1 which refutes the idea that Pope Pius IX called the Vatican Council for the express purpose of defining Papal infallibility.

Let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Marduk