The Vatican Dogma

[Abu]

steve b
The Christian East in union with the pope is one. The Christian East that is EO is NOT in union with the pope, NOT one Church, and It’s NOT universal.

If Peter’s authority of primacy is not recognised, since “legitimacy” means “lawfulness by virtue of being authorized”, it is hardly reasonable to assume that the Orthodox Church has the same legitimacy as the Catholic Church in the mind of Christ, who gave His authority to Peter and his successors to teach, sanctify and rule, and whose supreme authority has been shown in the NT.

It is not only respect but obedience that is required.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve.

You didn’t answer my question (as usual). Let me repeat it: So you are claiming that because of this, infallibility belongs to the Pope ALONE? Would you like to answer it now?

He has a special infallibility granted in Peter,

Incorrect. He does NOT have a special infallibility. What he has is a special assistance from the Holy Spirit to be able to possess the infallibility OF THE CHURCH.

not so for individual bishops.

I think what you mean to say is “not so for any other individual bishop.” The Pope is only a bishop, after all.

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

What does the red highlighted mean to you?

Exactly what it says: “THEY CONCUR in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.”

The real question is do YOU understand what the words “they concur” mean? Let’s break this down. Do you understand that the term “they” designates a plural, not a singular? Do you understand that the term “concur” designates an agreement between parties (plural), not an imposition of views by one party upon another?

As I have stated repeatedly, neither you nor brother Abu have been able to give a single Magisterial source for your “Pope alone” error.

Do they (the bishops) conclusively have to concur in a single viewpoint 100% of the time? 75% of the time, 51% of the time, less that that to be conclusive?

100% is ideal, but is not required. Not even St. Vincent of Lerins’ famous maxim was meant by him as 100% agreement. We do know that according to the Rule of Faith which is Apostolic Canon 34, it must at least require the agreement of the head bishop plus others. The teaching of the head bishop alone is insufficient, and the teaching of bishops without the head bishop is likewise insufficient.

What about for infallibility?

It appears you really don’t understand the nature of collegial infallibility if you think that this question can in any way be considered distinct from your previous question.

What percentage of bishops disagreed with papal infallibility at Vat I? What percentage agreed? Who was infallible? Can’t be both.

I’m sure you can figure out percentages yourself. Whatever the case may be, it is certain that the agreement or confirmation of Pio Nono ALONE would have been insufficent to give the Council its authority. As a general principle, the approval of the head bishop alone is never sufficient to grant a Council its authority.

The constitution is a document of rules. Canon law is a document of rules. It shows rules and how they are to apply to everyone.

Finally, an actual straight up admission from brother Steve! Though I would correct you on the matter of “the Consitution.” The Consitution of the Church is was divinely established, and includes the doctrine of the Church, and is not merely “a document of rules.”

The problem is your misinterpretation. The quote explicitly states, without benefit of your misinterpretation, that the College exercises authority TOGETHER WITH the Roman Pontiff. It does not say that the Pope exercises personal authority THROUGH the College, which is your opinion

.
WHERE did I say what is underlined?

You did not use those words, but you surely meant it each time you challenged my (and brother AmbroseSJ’s) statements on the collegial authority of the Ecumenical Council and the College of Bishops. You mean it each time you state that the Pope is ABOVE an Ecumenical Council, which you in fact stated later in your post. So do us a favor and stop with the sophistry.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

provided we understand it’s *never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. **[LG ch 3 #22]

How does this contradict my statement that the College of Bishops possesses supreme authority when the bishops are considered TOGETHER WITH their head? Are you going to give a straight answer or employ another dance and jig or more sophistry?

all you have to know is they are his prerogatives ALONE. They are his prerogatives alone. That’s what alone means. Alone means alone. His, by himself.

And all you have to know is that his prerogatives in a Council or a College are prerogatives of a MEMBER of the Council or College, and not apart from or above it. And even his own PERSONAL supreme authority is NEVER EXERCISED ALONE.

He is above the council.

You have not given one iota of Magisterial evidence in support of this strange opinion. All you have given are the prerogatives of a bishop who is a MEMBER of the Council, not someone apart from or above it. Until you can actually give us actual evidence from Magisterial documents, you are simply letting out hot air.

I was clear on what I wrote. I don’t need you to rewrite or mischaracterize what I wrote.

In what way did I mischaracterize what you wrote by directly quoting it? You are grasping at straws now, brother. That’s a clear sign you are losing this debate.

In Vat I the bishops were Not of one accord. They were deeply divided. Both sides couldn’t be right.

So are you saying ALL the bishops were wrong? Obviously not. So the final outcome of the Council was NOT the judgment of the Pope ALONE. Case closed - the Pope is NOT the only authority in an Ecumenical Council.

You said
Originally Posted by M
And without the agreement of his brother bishops, his decrees ALONE don’t oblige either (Canon 341).

My response to you: Was the dogma of papal infallibility confirmed by the pope even though there was much opposition by his fellow bishops? Yes.

Ahhhh! We see that not only does the Absolutist Petrine advocates rely on cut-and-paste non-contextual hack jobs of Magisterial documents to support their position, they even deliberately do a cut-and-paste non-contextual hack job on reality itself. To Absolutist Petrine advocates, the only thing that matters is that the Pope confirmed a controversial teaching. They deliberately neglect the orthodox JUDGMENT of over 500 bishops. To Absolutist Petrine advocates, the Pope ALONE is the only authority in an Ecumenical Council.

Brother Steve, I urge you not to attempt your sophistry at this point. You have already exposed your own error. You made your statements in deliberate and explicit challenge, according to your own admission, to my statement that “without the agreement of his brother bishops, his decrees ALONE don’t oblige either (Canon 341).”

Why would the pope agree to secular power, or that he was tradition by himself ?

You need to read reliable accounts of the Council on the matter, not little snippets from your apologetic sources. My source is Dom Cuthbert Butler’s The Vatican Council 1869 - 1870. Others here have given another good book (though I don’t recall the name offhand, but the author had an Irish name, IIRC).

Try to Calm down, take few deep breaths. Don’t take this so personal. We’re just having a conversation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

*]And in case it’s necessary to say, Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore. It’s Istanbul, and muslim.

Incorrect. This is about as valid as saying that when the Papacy moved to Avignon, the seat of the papacy was no longer Rome.

*]The Christian East in union with the pope is one. The Christian East that is EO is NOT in union with the pope, NOT one Church, and It’s NOT universal.

It is incorrect to say that the EO are not one Church. They are one Church by virtue of sharing one Orthodox Faith. The Catholic Church likewise bases its unity on possessing one Orthodox Faith. We believe unity with the bishop of Rome is essential (along with unity with our bishop) because we understand that the Church in Rome has always been and always will be the surest perserver of the Orthodox Catholic Faith. Of course, the Orthodox Churches don’t believe that the bishop of Rome is currently fully Orthodox, but that does not obstruct the fact that our unity as Catholics is based primarily on our sharing of one, ORTHODOX FAITH.

I agree with you that the EOC is not universal, just because they ONLY represent one particular expression of the Orthodox, Catholic Faith, and not the full breadth of her beauty and universality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Partially correct. Constantinople was elevated to its position by an Ecumenical Council.

At whose request was Constantinople elevated over Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem? The bishops of Byzantium put that agenda on the table. Along with, wanting to make the new name Constantinople, the “new” Rome equal to or ahead of Rome, now that the emperor has a new address. Is THAT what makes a see 1st? The emperor? Was Rome 1st in ranking ecclesiastically, because that’s where the emperor was? No. The emperors before Constantine all wanted to wipe the Church off the map. Where the emperor lives has NOTHING to do with ranking in ecclesiastics. But those bishops in Byzantium/Constantinople thought it did. And you’ll notice, the bishops there didn’t get THAT part of their agenda passed. Why wouldn’t they be equal to, or greater than Rome, even though the emperor was now living at their address? It’s NOT the see of Peter. And the council understood that.

But they did succeed in putting themselves 1st in the East.
JD:

eccliastically speaking it still exists

Joseph,

I get where you’re coming from. I really do. Even though it lost its name in 1930 we still use the name because the EO want to retain the name.
JD:

False.

“The Christian East that is EO is NOT in union with the pope”. Certainly you don’t disagree with that statement, right?

“NOT one Church”. Is that the part you disagree with? Actually those aren’t my words. They come from Cardinal Kasper who is head of Vatican Eccumenical efforts with the Orthodox

He says

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
JD:

Although I suspect you are erroneously taking the term “catholic” to mean “universal”, you are incorrect again.

Then what do you mean by universal?

 

[steve_b]

Incorrect. This is about as valid as saying that when the Papacy moved to Avignon, the seat of the papacy was no longer Rome.

That analogy doesn’t work

Constantinople and Istanbul are the same citiy. The city officially got renamed in 1930 to Istanbul. That’s what I was referring to. Joseph’s point is that for ecclesiastic purposes they would like to continue using Constantinople. Okay, I’m cool, no problem.

BTW, as I understand, the largest and most vibrant Church in that city, is St Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.
M:

It is incorrect to say that the EO are not one Church. They are one Church by virtue of sharing one Orthodox Faith. The Catholic Church likewise bases its unity on possessing one Orthodox Faith. We believe unity with the bishop of Rome is essential (along with unity with our bishop) because we understand that the Church in Rome has always been and always will be the surest perserver of the Orthodox Catholic Faith. Of course, the Orthodox Churches don’t believe that the bishop of Rome is currently fully Orthodox, but that does not obstruct the fact that our unity as Catholics is based primarily on our sharing of one, ORTHODOX FAITH.

I’ll let Cardinal Kasper explain why he says they aren’t one Church.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
M:

I agree with you that the EOC is not universal, just because they ONLY represent one particular expression of the Orthodox, Catholic Faith, and not the full breadth of her beauty and universality.

Blessings,
Marduk

They aren’t Catholic either. This has come up before.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30

 

[josephdaniel29]

“NOT one Church”. Is that the part you disagree with? Actually those aren’t my words. They come from Cardinal Kasper who is head of Vatican Eccumenical efforts with the Orthodox

He says

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

What the esteemed Cardinal says is really irrelevant. In fact, it says much more about how far the Latin Church has deviated from the correct Apostolic understanding than it does about us. I would have expected an educated man such as the Cardinal to know better.

Then what do you mean by universal?

Full, complete, lacking nothing.

 

[mardukm]

That analogy doesn’t work

Constantinople and Istanbul are the same citiy. The city officially got renamed in 1930 to Istanbul. That’s what I was referring to. Joseph’s point is that for ecclesiastic purposes they would like to continue using Constantinople. Okay, I’m cool, no problem.

Oh, OK. I see what you mean now.

I’ll let Cardinal Kasper explain why he says they aren’t one Church.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

As I’ve always maintained, unity will only be achieved through understanding each each, not by trying to impose our own paradigms on each other. Cardinal Kasper’s comments, with all due respect to him, would be an example of the latter, which is unacceptable as far as true ecumenism is concerned. The fact is, the Orthodox don’t view unity in terms of absolute ecclesiastical unity. They have jurisdictional problems. Heck, even my own mother Church the OOC today has some jurisdictional problems. We, as Catholics, don’t have those problems - but if you look at the history of the early Church, they were not bereft of jurisdictional problems either, yet I am sure you would not be bold enough to claim that they were not “one Church.” They were one precisely because of the Faith they shared despite their jurisdictional problems.

Having said that, I of course would agree with you that the Catholic model is ideal and best reflects the ideal of the Church as Christ intended. Jurisdictionalism only came about when the Church married the State - evinced by the fact that immediately upon the insitution of the idea of “jurisdiction” in the Church by the First Ecumenical Council, the problem of “this is my territory” or “I should have just as much honor as that bishop” began. The non-Latin Churches long for a return to the standards of the early Church. Normally, we mean the standard of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. But it would be foolish to think that the Church did not exist before the fourth century. I believe only the Catholic model fully integrates both the standard of the Church during the era of the Ecumenical Councils, and the standard of the Church before that time when no jurisdictionalism existed. Of course, this depends on a rejection of the Absolutist Petrine view of many Latin Catholics, as much as a rejection of the Low Petrine view of many Eastern Orthodox. Both of these positions depend on a concept of jurisdictionalism that can only damage the work of unity for the Church.

They aren’t Catholic either. This has come up before.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30

I would disagree with qualification (or “agree with qualification” if your glass is always half full ). We cannot deny that their Tradition is Catholic (“full and complete for the sake of salvation”) because they do indeed have the full means of salvation available to them. However, I would not call their Church Catholic because they deny that full and complete salvation exists in any other Tradition outside their own (the “we don’t know” affirmation is not enough). Only the Catholic Church as such can state with full certainty that all the apostolic Traditions of the Church (Latin, Eastern, Oriental, Church of the East) possess equally all the necessary means of salvation, and therefore do not reject communion with those members.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

…We cannot deny that their [the EO] Tradition is Catholic (“full and complete for the sake of salvation”) because they do indeed have the full means of salvation available to them…

As read Vatican I the EO cannot have salvation available to them. Can you be both saved and anathematized at the same time? What I have learned by reading though this thread is that not only is in necessary to accept the Pope as the universal head of the Church, but you have to accept him in precisely the way it is spelled out in Vatican I or else you are “anathema”!

Brother Marduk, it would make me very happy if I could agree with your understanding of Papal authority. It make a great deal of logical sense. However, I can’t see that your understanding matches Vatican I. Your view (the High Petrine view) argues that Vatican I should be interpreted in light of all of Holy Tradition that has proceeded it. The Absolutist Petrine view (as I read it) argues that all of Holy Tradition should be interpreted in light of Vatican I. Both views accept the premise that there can not be any contradiction between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I. Personally I do not accept this premise, as I am open to the possibility that there can be a contradiction between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I. Surely your view would win the day if they were made prior to Vatican I. But accepting the premise (for the sake of argument) that there can be no contradiction between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I (or for that matter between Vatican I and Vatican II) one should ask which of the two interpretations are correct, that is, should Vatican I be interpreted in light of all of Holy Tradition or visa versa? (Before giving my answer to this I would like to point out the fact that if there really were no contradictions between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I then either interpretation should come to the same conclusion, and clearly this is not the case!) My answer to this is that in most cases it would make better sense to interpret what is new in light of what come before it as a house must first be built upon a foundation, not the other way around. However, seeing that Vatican I is so clearly written and so forceful in it’s pronouncements it is clear to me that all of Holy Tradition should be interpreted in light of Vatican I in this case because it’s implied purpose seems to be to make clear what all that has preceded it really means.

As I see it Vatican I essentially greatly subordinates the prior concept of collegiality held before by most bishops. To me Vatican I clearly puts the Pope in a category all by himself above that of the Church or any council.

I could be totally wrong in my understanding and Brother Marduk you could be totally right, but as long as my understanding is that the Absolutist Petrine view is the official view of the Roman Catholic Church and that there is an anathema attached to anyone not in agreement with it, I feel that it may not be ethical for me to remain Roman Catholic if I cannot fully agree with it. I used to think that there can be several views that would be acceptable as long as you recognized the Pope as the universal head of the Church. But, as I read it, you need to accept the supremacy of the Pope in exactly the way that Vatican I spells it out or else you are anathema.

My prior post on this thread may have sounded a little on the harsh side, but what I was trying to express is that to me all this arguing about papal authority leads me to insanity! It has to be a hard thing to calmly discuss this matter simple because it is so extremely dogmatized! To me it would be a big step in growing up if all the teachings about papal authority were officially un-dogmatized. How can all of this dogma be what true Catholicism is all about? St Augustine changed some of his views on papal authority on his death bed. If Vatican I happened before him he might have been condemned as a heretic! Can you picture the contrast of our Lord dying on the Cross while two men standing by Him argue as to whether or not the other one will go to hell if he doesn’t accept the infallible statements of St Peter? Crazy talk!

Brother Marduk, your views on papal authority are close to mine. But they are not exactly the same. So, even if you have the one true interpretation of Vatican I then I am still under its anathema, because whatever it means by what it says it declares that you must believe that in exactly that way or else you are anathema.

Please do not stop being my friend because of anything I have said! Please forgive me.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Vico]

As read Vatican I the EO cannot have salvation available to them. Can you be both saved and anathematized at the same time? What I have learned by reading though this thread is that not only is in necessary to accept the Pope as the universal head of the Church, but you have to accept him in precisely the way it is spelled out in Vatican I or else you are “anathema”!

…

Do you know that the Catholic Church teaches that those in the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the Eastern Orthodox, Old Believers, Polish National Catholic, are particular Churches and that the Reformation churches are ecclesial communities, and that even lacking full communion, or even those without valid water baptism, may be saved?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

“It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”
Unitatis Redintegratio

Those baptised are saved that are in a state of grace, which baptism may even be through baptism of desire or of blood. Also Latae sententiae does not apply to those that have never been formally members of the Catholic Church (CIC Can. 11).

In the Vatican I era, Pope Pius IX wrote about invincible ignorance, (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, No. 1647):

“For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hld for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” *, we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united.” *

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Having said that, I of course would agree with you that the Catholic model is ideal and best reflects the ideal of the Church as Christ intended. Jurisdictionalism only came about when the Church married the State - evinced by the fact that immediately upon the insitution of the idea of “jurisdiction” in the Church by the First Ecumenical Council, the problem of “this is my territory” or “I should have just as much honor as that bishop” began. The non-Latin Churches long for a return to the standards of the early Church. Normally, we mean the standard of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. But it would be foolish to think that the Church did not exist before the fourth century. I believe only the Catholic model fully integrates both the standard of the Church during the era of the Ecumenical Councils, and the standard of the Church before that time when no jurisdictionalism existed. Of course, this depends on a rejection of the Absolutist Petrine view of many Latin Catholics, as much as a rejection of the Low Petrine view of many Eastern Orthodox. Both of these positions depend on a concept of jurisdictionalism that can only damage the work of unity for the Church.

This is the best argument I’ve seen yet for why John Henry Newman would/could not have become Orthodox. I’ve seen Orthodox say that he would have become Orthodox if he lived today. But understanding the high Petrine view held by John Henry Newman, and his abhorrence of Erastianism (hence I might infer jurisdictionalism,) I believe he would still have converted to Catholicism for just the reason you have stated! We also know that he rejected both the Absolutist Petrine leaven as well as the Low Pertrine.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Thank you so much for your honest post. First, be assured that your religious affiliation won’t ever stop me from being your friend. Second, please permit the following comments to your wonderful post:

As read Vatican I the EO cannot have salvation available to them. Can you be both saved and anathematized at the same time? What I have learned by reading though this thread is that not only is in necessary to accept the Pope as the universal head of the Church, but you have to accept him in precisely the way it is spelled out in Vatican I or else you are “anathema”!

Brother, I guarantee you that not a single informed Catholic will ever tell you that anyone born and raised in the Orthodox Church falls automatically under the anathema of the Vatican 1 Decrees.

As a Catholic, you might be familiar with the concept of invincible ignorance. The fact is, an anathema only applies to those who with full knowledge and belief rejects the teaching. If I have understood you correctly, you would accept Vatican 1 if the High Petrine view is the correct understanding of it, but you feel conscientiously bound to reject Vatican 1 because it appears that the Absolutist Petrine view is the actual intention of the Decrees.

Bottom line is, if you reject the dogmas of Vatican 1 because you personally perceive that the Absolutist Petrine view is the proper way to interpret Vatican 1, I am of the solid, unwavering opinion that you do not fall under the anathema, for, in fact, the Absolutist Petrine view does not correctly reflect the intentions of the Fathers of Vatican 1 – so you are not actually rejecting what the Vatican 1 Fathers taught. At the judgment seat of Christ, those who mislead others from the correct understanding of Vatican 1, and thereby cause them to reject or fall away from the Catholic Church, would have all culpability in the matter (IMO).

Brother Marduk, it would make me very happy if I could agree with your understanding of Papal authority. It make a great deal of logical sense. However, I can’t see that your understanding matches Vatican I. Your view (the High Petrine view) argues that Vatican I should be interpreted in light of all of Holy Tradition that has proceeded it. The Absolutist Petrine view (as I read it) argues that all of Holy Tradition should be interpreted in light of Vatican I. Both views accept the premise that there can not be any contradiction between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I.

Please consider this carefully: There has not been a single instance during the course of this debate when the Absolutist Petrine advocates even attempted to bring up or appeal to Sacred Tradition to support their view. Every single appeal to Sacred Tradition has been made by those who support the High Petrine view. I hope the reason is obvious to you – namely, the Absolutist Petrine view has absolutely no support from Sacred Tradition. It is not true that the Absolutist Petrine advocates claim that Holy Tradition should be interpreted in the light of Vatican 1. It is a plain fact that the Absolutist Petrine view simply has no connection with Holy Tradition at all. If Absolutist Petrine advocates even attempted to juxtapose their misinterpretations of Vatican 1 with Sacred Tradition, they would only succeed in defeating themselves, for the light of Sacred Tradition would burn away their pretensions.

Personally I do not accept this premise, as I am open to the possibility that there can be a contradiction between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I. Surely your view would win the day if they were made prior to Vatican I. But accepting the premise (for the sake of argument) that there can be no contradiction between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I (or for that matter between Vatican I and Vatican II) one should ask which of the two interpretations are correct, that is, should Vatican I be interpreted in light of all of Holy Tradition or visa versa? (Before giving my answer to this I would like to point out the fact that if there really were no contradictions between all of Holy Tradition and Vatican I then either interpretation should come to the same conclusion, and clearly this is not the case!)

It seems your statement here is based on the premise that the Absolutist Petrine advocates even claimed that Sacred Tradition must be interpreted in light of Vatican 1. The fact is, they never claimed that. The only ones who have made any connection between Sacred Tradition and Vatican 1 are the High Petrine advocates, and we all assuredly believe that Vatican 1 must be faithful to Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

My answer to this is that in most cases it would make better sense to interpret what is new in light of what come before it as a house must first be built upon a foundation, not the other way around.

I absolutely agree with you. And this is what every High Petrine advocate in this thread (brothers AmbroseSJ, Vico, Johnnykins, etc.) have consistently affirmed. Vatican 1 must be interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is always the foundation upon which any belief must be based.

However, seeing that Vatican I is so clearly written and so forceful in it’s pronouncements it is clear to me that all of Holy Tradition should be interpreted in light of Vatican I in this case because it’s implied purpose seems to be to make clear what all that has preceded it really means.

It is an interdependence, borne of the fact that Truth can never contradict itself. It is true that the purpose of any dogma is to clarify what was taught before. At the same time, it is an irrefragable Rule of Faith that any dogma cannot go beyond nor contradict what went on before. Dogma can only confirm or explain, and nothing more.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

As I see it Vatican I essentially greatly subordinates the prior concept of collegiality held before by most bishops. To me Vatican I clearly puts the Pope in a category all by himself above that of the Church or any council.

I admit that

• IF I was not aware of Bishop Gasser’s Official Relatio;
• IF I focused ONLY on the definitions instead of the entire context of the Decrees;
• IF I was not aware of the changes in the text of the Decrees due to the efforts of the Minority Party as well as many in the Majority Party;
• IF I was not aware that the debates were not just between the Majority vs. Minority Party, but also between the ultramontanists and neo-ultramontanists;
• IF I was not aware that not even Pio Nono himself got everything he would have wanted out of V1…
  then and only then would I agree with you that “Vatican 1 clearly puts the Pope in a category all by himself above that of the Church or any council.” But given that, by God’s grace, I became aware of all those things above in my study of Vatican 1, I cannot conscientiously agree with your statement.

Let me put a question to you. What if you had discovered documents from V1 itself that had a more collegial understanding of the Church than what is contained in the Decrees on the papacy? What if you had discovered that these documents were intended to be voted on, but were not simply because the Council was prematurely prorogated due to impending war in Europe? What if you had discovered that the Council was never even formally closed because these very documents reflecting a more collegial understanding of the Church was intended by the Council to be voted on and passed at a later time? Could you conscientiously claim that the Catholic Church at V1 “clearly puts the Pope in a category all by himself above that of the Church or any council?” I can tell you, brother Adrian, that those documents do indeed exist. Would you like me to quote them for you? In fact, you don’t really need those documents. The gist of those documents was formally affirmed by Vatican 2 in her own Decrees. Of course, if you want them, I’ll take the time to type them out, just to put your mind at ease that the Fathers of Vatican 1 never supported, and would never have supported, an Absolutist Petrine understanding of its Decrees.

I could be totally wrong in my understanding and Brother Marduk you could be totally right, but as long as my understanding is that the Absolutist Petrine view is the official view of the Roman Catholic Church and that there is an anathema attached to anyone not in agreement with it, I feel that it may not be ethical for me to remain Roman Catholic if I cannot fully agree with it. I used to think that there can be several views that would be acceptable as long as you recognized the Pope as the universal head of the Church. But, as I read it, you need to accept the supremacy of the Pope in exactly the way that Vatican I spells it out or else you are anathema.

I don’t think I have ever asked you - exactly what do you think that the teaching on the supremacy of the Pope spells out? (Granted, as an Oriental, I am sure I have a different understanding of “supremacy” than you do).

My prior post on this thread may have sounded a little on the harsh side, but what I was trying to express is that to me all this arguing about papal authority leads me to insanity! It has to be a hard thing to calmly discuss this matter simple because it is so extremely dogmatized! To me it would be a big step in growing up if all the teachings about papal authority were officially un-dogmatized. How can all of this dogma be what true Catholicism is all about? St Augustine changed some of his views on papal authority on his death bed. If Vatican I happened before him he might have been condemned as a heretic! Can you picture the contrast of our Lord dying on the Cross while two men standing by Him argue as to whether or not the other one will go to hell if he doesn’t accept the infallible statements of St Peter? Crazy talk!

A few comments on this part of your post:

• I certainly agree with you that debating what has been dogmatized is certainly a headache. You think what has been dogmatized would be more clear. But do you think the Fathers just gave up when they discovered that their Decrees at the First Ecumenical Council were insufficient to stamp out heresy? And how about the Second Ecum Council? Can you imagine the frustration that the Fathers at the Third Ecum Council felt? And the Fourth? And the Fifth? Etc. Etc? Except for the Seventh, the Decrees of every Council after the First was the result of a much-needed clarification of prior infallible Decrees.
• St. Augustine did not change any of his views on the papacy. If you read his Retractations again, you will realize that, contrary to the claims of non-Catholic polemicists, he did not reject any of his prior interpretations; all St. Augustine did was tell his readers that they were free to choose whatever of the three interpretations he had given in his prior expositions on Mt 16:18. He was simply insisting that none of his interpretations was so correct so as to exclude the validity of his other interpretations.
• I agree that it seems rather silly and tedious for the thieves on the cross to argue about what you stated, but wouldn’t it seem just as silly for them to be arguing about whether Christ had one or two wills?

You need to follow your conscience, brother. And no one will hold it against you. What I and others hope we can do for you is to provide you with enough information so your conscience will be fully and maturely formed before you make a decision.

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

This is the best argument I’ve seen yet for why John Henry Newman would/could not have become Orthodox. I’ve seen Orthodox say that he would have become Orthodox if he lived today. But understanding the high Petrine view held by John Henry Newman, and his abhorrence of Erastianism (hence I might infer jurisdictionalism,) I believe he would still have converted to Catholicism for just the reason you have stated! We also know that he rejected both the Absolutist Petrine leaven as well as the Low Pertrine.

Once again, thank you for the props.

I have not read much of Newman aside from his seminal On Development of Doctrine. I’m sure you are aware of his literary war with Ward. In case you did not know, Ward was himself a neo-ultramontanist who proposed the Absolutist Petrine excesses we have seen in this thread. You had mentioned earlier that Newman was opposed to papal infallibility in his writings. My question is, if Ward was his main opponent, is it possible that what Newman opposed was not actually the teaching of Vatican 1, but the excesses of the Catholic Neo-ultramontanists?

I suspect you are British? If so, I would like your opinion on the ecclesiology of Anglicanism (of you are not British, oh well - please answer anyway).
(1) Would it be correct to say that Anglicanism possesses a Low Petrine ecclesiology?
(2) Would it be correct so say that those who are attracted to Catholicism in the face of the doctrinal liberalism of Anglicanism feel attracted to the High Petrine view, instead of the Absolutist Petrine view?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Do you know that the Catholic Church teaches that those in the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the Eastern Orthodox, Old Believers, Polish National Catholic, are particular Churches and that the Reformation churches are ecclesial communities, and that even lacking full communion, or even those without valid water baptism, may be saved?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

“It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”
Unitatis Redintegratio

Those baptised are saved that are in a state of grace, which baptism may even be through baptism of desire or of blood. Also Latae sententiae does not apply to those that have never been formally members of the Catholic Church (CIC Can. 11).

In the Vatican I era, Pope Pius IX wrote about invincible ignorance, (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, No. 1647):

“For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hld for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” *, we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united.” *


Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

Once again, thank you for the props.

I have not read much of Newman aside from his seminal On Development of Doctrine. I’m sure you are aware of his literary war with Ward. In case you did not know, Ward was himself a neo-ultramontanist who proposed the Absolutist Petrine excesses we have seen in this thread. You had mentioned earlier that Newman was opposed to papal infallibility in his writings. My question is, if Ward was his main opponent, is it possible that what Newman opposed was not actually the teaching of Vatican 1, but the excesses of the Catholic Neo-ultramontanists?

I suspect you are British? If so, I would like your opinion on the ecclesiology of Anglicanism (of you are not British, oh well - please answer anyway).
(1) Would it be correct to say that Anglicanism possesses a Low Petrine ecclesiology?
(2) Would it be correct so say that those who are attracted to Catholicism in the face of the doctrinal liberalism of Anglicanism feel attracted to the High Petrine view, instead of the Absolutist Petrine view?

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello brother Marduk,

I can definitely answer your first question with an emphatic affirmative. Newman’s debate with Ward was exactly as you suppose. Newman was strongly in favor of what you call the High Petrine doctrine. His book A Letter to the Duke of Norfolk would be proof. In it he argues against the recent tract by Prime Minister Gladstone who averred that Catholics would be forced to obey their Pope instead of their Monarch because of Vatican I’s definition on Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. It’s not a long work, and one you might enjoy!

I’m not British, therefore I’m not in a position to answer your subsequent questions. If we could get Contarini over here, he would have some interesting thoughts on the matter!

 

[JohnVIII]

Let me put a question to you. What if you had discovered documents from V1 itself that had a more collegial understanding of the Church than what is contained in the Decrees on the papacy? What if you had discovered that these documents were intended to be voted on, but were not simply because the Council was prematurely prorogated due to impending war in Europe? What if you had discovered that the Council was never even formally closed because these very documents reflecting a more collegial understanding of the Church was intended by the Council to be voted on and passed at a later time? Could you conscientiously claim that the Catholic Church at V1 “clearly puts the Pope in a category all by himself above that of the Church or any council?” I can tell you, brother Adrian, that those documents do indeed exist. Would you like me to quote them for you?

No, don’t quote then, not now, maybe later.

First of all, I want to assure you that I have read your arguments both before as well as now. But, as I see it, the decrees of Vatican I only matter if and only if they were written under the protection of the Holy Spirit. The other stuff, such as what they may have said if it wasn’t for the war in Europe … etc, don’t have much bearing to me. Sorry about that. I do see that Vatican II departs from Vatican I in many respects.

In short, I see it as a mass of confusion leading to insanity. And for me there is sanity waiting for me back in the Eastern Church were everything except your dog is not dogmatized! The real reason that the anathema of Vatican I doesn’t apply to me, as I see it, is because just like they really didn’t mean what they so clearly said in their pronouncements, they probably didn’t really mean it when they anathematized either. That’s why I said it might not be “ethical” for me to remain. If I could believe that they say what they mean, and mean what they say I would instead say something like “in peril of my eternal salvation” instead of “ethical”.

I came to believe that the Pope is the universal head of the Church in part because of what St Irenaeus said about Rome as well as other fathers of the Church, but who knows, maybe they really didn’t mean what they said either. Sorry for the sarcasm. But when I said that the EO outgrew a need for a pope, it would have been better for me to say that they outgrew the need of a dogmatized pope. Clearly they played that game at the 4th Ecumenical but they grew up since then.

I don’t think I have ever asked you - exactly what do you think that the teaching on the supremacy of the Pope spells out? (Granted, as an Oriental, I am sure I have a different understanding of “supremacy” than you do).

My opinion would only be of value in the context of a pleasant non-dogmatic conversation. Neither this topic not the one on second-marriages would fly here. Once again, sorry.

I certainly agree with you that debating what has been dogmatized is certainly a headache.

Amen!

…all St. Augustine did was tell his readers that they were free to choose whatever of the three interpretations he had given in his prior expositions on Mt 16:18…

Would they be “free” to choose now, after Vatican I?

I agree that it seems rather silly and tedious for the thieves on the cross to argue about what you stated, but wouldn’t it seem just as silly for them to be arguing about whether Christ had one or two wills?

Yes! It most definitely would!

Do you know that the Catholic Church teaches that those in the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the Eastern Orthodox, Old Believers, Polish National Catholic, are particular Churches and that the Reformation churches are ecclesial communities, and that even lacking full communion, or even those without valid water baptism, may be saved?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Yes I did know that. But I’m not going to ask the question “how then can someone be both anathematized and saved” because as I see it it is just proof that they really didn’t mean anything they said. I’m sorry, but this is all pure insanity to me.

Peace to all!

 

[Vico]

…Yes I did know that. But I’m not going to ask the question “how then can someone be both anathematized and saved” because as I see it it is just proof that they really didn’t mean anything they said. I’m sorry, but this is all pure insanity to me.

Peace to all!

It is logical and fair. It means that those that are not aware of what they are doing cannot give full consent so the belief it is not a serious sin. For example, individuals raised in other churches; those that did not intentionally and knowingly defect.

 

[JohnVIII]

It is logical and fair. It means that those that are not aware of what they are doing cannot give full consent so the belief it is not a serious sin. For example, individuals raised in other churches; those that did not intentionally and knowingly defect.

So basically you’re saying that because I’m stupid I can go to Heaven, but if I were smart I would go to hell, right? (rhetorical joke, no need to answer)

 

[mardukm]

No, don’t quote then, not now, maybe later.

First of all, I want to assure you that I have read your arguments both before as well as now. But, as I see it, the decrees of Vatican I only matter if and only if they were written under the protection of the Holy Spirit. The other stuff, such as what they may have said if it wasn’t for the war in Europe … etc, don’t have much bearing to me. Sorry about that. I do see that Vatican II departs from Vatican I in many respects.

I understand your perspective (though don’t accept it). Permit me to explain my own perspective further. I would humbly ask that you put yourself in the place of say, the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council (by the way, what I am about to say is a GENERAL principle, and can be applied to any of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, including the Decrees of Vatican 1).

They made a Decree in the form of the Nicene Creed. This was the Rule of Faith of the Church, and it was guided by the Holy Spirit.

However, a group called the Pneumatomachi (a general name for various sects who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, including some Arian sects) took up this Rule of Faith, and used it to defend their own belief that the Holy Spirit was not God. Many Fathers after the Nicene Council (particularly, the Cappadocians and the bishops of the Church of Rome), insisted that the Pneumatomachi were misinterpreting the intentions of the Fathers of the Nicene Council, and a later Council had to clarify the Rule of Faith established by the Nicene Council, and in fact added to the Rule of Faith known as the Nicene Creed.

If your paradigm is correct, brother Adrian, then the Pneumatomachi were wholly justififed in their belief, since they were in fact utilitzing the definition of Nicene Creed itself to defend their heterodox belief. If your paradigm is correct, then the refutations of the Fathers outside of the Council were, according to your own words, “*the other stuff *[that] don’t have much bearing to me.” Do you seriously believe that? If you have read St. Basil’s own work On the Holy Spirit, you will discover that while the Pneumatomachi were busy trying to restrict the debate to the words of the definition as contained in the Creed, it was the orthodox Catholic defenders of the Faith who understood that the Faith of the Church does not rest on the definitions of the Faith alone, but also on the entire witness of Sacred Tradition.

I would also add the experience of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria in this discussion. The Fathers of the 3rd Ecum Council chided St. Cyril for using expressions and arguments in his remonstrances against Nestorius that were different from the established definitions of the Fathers at the Nicene Council. St. Cyril correctly shot back that the Faith of the Church is not contained in definitions alone, but the entire witness of Sacred Tradition. According to your paradigm, if you were present at that time, it seems you would have sided against St. Cyril, and would have referred to his arguments as “*the other stuff *[that] don’t have much bearing to me.”

In short, why should we accept - why should you accept - your claim that the proper understanding of the Decrees of Vatican 1 rests solely in the definitions themselves, and not (as High Petrine advocates assert) in the context of Sacred Tradition as a whole? Why should we accept - why should you accept - your claim that the Official Relatio, which represent the OFFICIAL understanding of the text of the V1 Decrees, has no bearing on the proper understanding of the V1 Decrees?

In short, I see it as a mass of confusion leading to insanity. And for me there is sanity waiting for me back in the Eastern Church were everything except your dog is not dogmatized!

This same mass of confusion existed even after the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church promulgated their own Spirit-guided infallible Decrees. Why should we - why should you - accept your perception that what occurred after Vatican 1 is unique? Since this same mass confusion existed even after the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church promulgated their own Spirit-guided infallible Decrees, how can anyone justify a rejection of the V1 Decrees based on the existence of such confusion? To be consistent, since such confusion existed after the Ecum Councils of the early Church, should you not equally reject the Decrees of the Ecum Councils as well?

CONTINUED