The Vatican Dogma

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

But it is a power that cannot be exercise to impede the authority of local bishops.

HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory gives a more authoritative statement on the matter:
"Vatican I’s definition, however, does not assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches. It means only to exclude the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy. The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061).

Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).”

I’d like to add that the Swiss episcopal conference also issued an encyclical after Vatican 1 with similar statements, also approved by Pio Nono:
"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our present discussion].”

POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk

Our discussion wasn’t about the bishop in his diocese. And Yes, a pope doesn’t micro manage bishops or each diocese. We’re talking about the power of the pope vs the power of a council of bishops. There is a hierarchy of power and authority. That’s what LG #22 (Dogmatic Constitution on The Church) was explainig.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Our discussion wasn’t about the bishop in his diocese. And Yes, a pope doesn’t micro manage bishops or each diocese.

Oh, I know. But on the off-chance that some Low Petrine advocate will misinterpret your statement, I wanted to clarify that.

We’re talking about the power of the pope vs the power of a council of bishops.

That’s exactly where we disagree. A council - any council - cannot be a legitimate council without a head. A Council is defined as head + body, not head versus body.

As stated, it is not valid to juxtapose the Pope apart from the Council (or College) of which he is a member.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

That’s exactly where we disagree. A council - any council - cannot be a legitimate council without a head. A Council is defined as head + body, not head versus body.

The analogy of head and body is meant to set parameters on councils not the pope. As you know, popes don’t always confirm the body, and popes make decisions regarding the entire Church without convening a council…

Does the pope need a council in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? No

Does a council need the pope in order to make decisions regarding the universal Church? Yes

That’s why LG #22 says (emphasis mine)

:
22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character.

[snip]

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. *In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head *exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation.

The 2 parts (highlighted) of these passages distinguishes the issues we are discussing.

1st part talks of the supreme power of the pope. He is over ALL. That means bishops, priests, laity, councils etc etc. He exercises this power without need of anyones approval.

2nd part talks about juristiction of a council providing the pope confirms them. This is a moderating limit to a councils authority. NOT a limit to the popes authority.

(LG continues)

The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

Marduk

The pope makes a council authoritative, NOT the council makes the pope authoritative. The pope has his authority by virtue of his office. The council has it’s authority by virtue of being in union with the pope and being confirmed by the pope.
M:

As stated, it is not valid to juxtapose the Pope apart from the Council (or College) of which he is a member.

Blessings,
Marduk

You’re absolutising member, and failing to see the primacy of the pope, yes even over the council.

 

[Abu]

mardukm
If he confirms and promulgates as a member of the Council, then it cannot be said that he is above an Ecumenical Council.

False.

steve b
Very informative post, #103.
As the president of the The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch has stated:
“According to the thought of the present Pope, ‘without primacy, the Catholic Church would also have disintegrated a long time ago into national and sui iuris Churches, which would have confused and complicated the ecumenical landscape.’ ” (Plenary Session in November 2010).
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=39305

What Vatican II teaches is that only the hierarchy under the Pope is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth – they are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

False.

steve b
Very informative post, #103.
As the president of the The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch has stated:
“According to the thought of the present Pope, ‘without primacy, the Catholic Church would also have disintegrated a long time ago into national and sui iuris Churches, which would have confused and complicated the ecumenical landscape.’ ” (Plenary Session in November 2010).
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=39305

What Vatican II teaches is that only the hierarchy under the Pope is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth – they are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them.

That’s not entirely true, although from a narrow legalistic viewpoint it might seem so.

In Truth, the Pope participates in the infallibility of THE CHURCH, which includes all the Faithful, guided by the Holy Spirit.

So for example, a Pope could say that he infallibly declares, ex cathedra, that such and such is dogma. However, without the consent of the Whole Church, his statement might be interpreted as being non-infallible, and void, just a mistaken private opinion. These are extreme examples, and ones I hope we never have to deal with.

Your own opinions BTW, are notoriously Ultramontane. That is a party that has always been pushing for strong centralization, authority, power and infallibility for the Pope. That it is not representative of the Church is proven by History, and the balanced view presented by Vatican I and II documents.

Just as the Holy Spirit can not be reduced to a mere incantation of words or legal mumbo-jumbo, neither can Papal infallibility be precisely defined in the abstract. Yes, it can be theologically defined, but what I mean is it can not be said that “if the Pope says such and such, regardless of what his brother Bishops and the Faithful think, it is infallible.” That is what you have done above. However it can be observed by the Faithful in a given situation, and a given time after the fact.

Your problem is only one of emphasis. You are over-emphasizing the special participation the Pope has in the Church’s infallibility to such a degree, that you are actually in error.

Of course we all know that any given heresy is merely an over-emphasis of some basic sound doctrine, to the detriment of other doctrines. That is why it always important to stay balanced, and refrain from making outrageous statements like the Pope’s infallibility is “not dependent” on the rest of the bishops. The Truth is, his infallibility is entirely dependent on the Holy Spirit which moves through the ENTIRE CHURCH. The Pope alone IS NOT the Church. Just as a decapitated head is not a body; which I think our brother Mardukm as been saying all along.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

AmbroseSJ:

Just as the Holy Spirit can not be reduced to a mere incantation of words or legal mumbo-jumbo, neither can Papal infallibility be precisely defined in the abstract. Yes, it can be theologically defined, but what I mean is it can not be said that “if the Pope says such and such, regardless of what his brother Bishops and the Faithful think, it is infallible.” That is what you have done above. However it can be observed by the Faithful in a given situation, and a given time after the fact.

Just to draw this out a little more.

Lets say in our extreme example above, the Pope had said something which he declared infallible and ex cathedra, yet without the consent of his brother bishops and the Faithful. The Magisterium would then teach that the pope had not taught infallibly (for whatever reason) But then some time later, maybe centuries later, what the Pope had said would be revisited and seen in a whole new light, due to the ever changing conditions of history. It would then be received by the whole Church in this new light (new perspective.)

The Pope did actually make a statement that was infallible, BUT NOT in the sense he meant it!! IOW, it was actually infallible in the sense which wasn’t uncovered until much later by the Faithful. Take the example of the high priest Caiaphus in the NT saying that it is right that one man die for the people. His statement was actually prophetic and true, but NOT in the way he meant, in fact just the opposite! The high priest was using this rationalization to appease the Romans.

Same for infallibility. It is not a legal fiction, it is a living breathing Spirit within the Church.

 

[militantsparrow]

I find the whole notion of differing views on what the Pope’s role is vs. what it isn’t as every disturbing. Why can’t it make sense to everyone. Why can’t it be clear. Why can’t the magisterium tell us the black and white truth?

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ
You are over-emphasizing the special participation the Pope has in the Church’s infallibility to such a degree, that you are actually in error.

How strange that AmbroseSJ should pit himself against Vatican I and II. The statement that “only the hierarchy under the Pope is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth – they are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them”, is found in The Teaching Church In Our time,1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 111, and is by none other than the esteemed Fr John A Hardon, S.J.

That is why steve b in post #103 has shown *Lumen Gentium 22: “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.
“The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”

For the same reason I also made available the true teaching in posts #27 and #33: “9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” (*Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I).

Neither Vatican I nor Vatican II are in error; those who are in denial of true dogma and doctrine are in error.

So for example, a Pope could say that he infallibly declares, ex cathedra, that such and such is dogma. However, without the consent of the Whole Church, his statement might be interpreted as being non-infallible, and void, just a mistaken private opinion….Lets say in our extreme example above, the Pope had said something which he declared infallible and ex cathedra, yet without the consent of his brother bishops and the Faithful. The Magisterium would then teach that the pope had not taught infallibly (for whatever reason)…

No wonder no evidence is given for such an erroneous opinion, only conjecture, for the infallibility of the Church resides in its fullness in the Pope, and also in an Ecumenical Council only when affirmed and confirmed by the Pope, and a papal dogma or doctrine does not need the consent of the “faithful” to be true and infallible.

Now wonder AmbroseSJ fails to explain that the infallible doctrine against contraception by Paul VI in *Humanae Vitae *was subject to dissent by many bishops and most Catholics, which changes its authority and infallibility not one iota.

What the faithful need is sound doctrine and to be aware of dissenters who try to mislead them.

 

[Abu]

militantsparrow
Why can’t the magisterium tell us the black and white truth?

Why can’t militantsparrow accept the Vatican I Magisterial dogma on papal infallibility – that IS the black and white truth – why not use your PC to see for yourself at dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume3.htm

“we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks 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 defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

 

[militantsparrow]

Abu,
It’s not that simple. I wish it were. Show me a definitive list of infallible statements that everyone agrees to.

 

[Abu]

militantsparrow
It’s not that simple. I wish it were. Show me a definitive list of infallible statements that everyone agrees to.

“Everyone” is an impossible assumption – Judas chosen by Jesus Himself chose to betray Him even after all the miracles and evidence of divinity.

What criteria would you use to determine whether a papal statement was infallible? What infallible dogmas or doctrines do you doubt and why?

militantsparrow evades the very simple straight answer in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and Lumen Gentium of Vatican II and will never understand it unless and until he chooses to do his homework. Post #109 has supplied the means to understand papal infallibility and there are numerous helps through EWTN questions and when a definition is made as prescribed (post #109) in an Encyclical or other papal document THAT definition is infallible. Examples include Humanae Vitae (Encyclical), and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle). Another example is the definition in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930). The Popes teach by infallible definitions within a document. All else within is not infallible.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Christ personally chose His Apostles and this is how He chose to bring them to their senses: to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

 

[militantsparrow]

It’s not a matter of me doing my homework. Humane Vitae is a great example. It is not universally understood as infallible.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lets review:

Me:

You are over-emphasizing the special participation the Pope has in the Church’s infallibility to such a degree, that you are actually in error.

Response from Abu:

How strange that AmbroseSJ should pit himself against Vatican I and II. The statement that “only the hierarchy under the Pope is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth – they are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them”, is found in The Teaching Church In Our time,1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 111, and is by none other than the esteemed Fr John A Hardon, S.J.

Reply:

How predictable that you would accuse me of disagreeing with a 1978 book, when in fact I am disagreeing with your own misinterpretation of the remark.

Accusing me of pitting myself against Vatican I and II, when in fact I distinctly said that the documents of Vatican I and II are balanced and true, unlike your own Ultra-Montane views.

Nobody here (that I have seen) is disagreeing that the Pope’s special participation in the Church’s infallibility is such that he can speak infallibly, as an individual. This is not true of any other individual within the Church. However, the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either. That seems to be your contention. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your point.

 

[Vico]

It’s not a matter of me doing my homework. Humane Vitae is a great example. It is not universally understood as infallible.

Some things taught by the Pope and other bishops are not infallible (irreformable) but are nevertheless to be given religious submission of intellect and will, obsequium religiosum (see Lumen Gentium 25).

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ
How predictable that you would accuse me of disagreeing with a 1978 book, when in fact I am disagreeing with your own misinterpretation of the remark…the Pope’s special participation in the Church’s infallibility is such that he can speak infallibly, as an individual……the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either.

No wonder no evidence is given for such an erroneous opinion, only conjecture – never is such a limitation supported by Vatican I or II – and the kerfuffle over Humanae Vitae is ignored.

AmbroseSJ has set himself up against Vatican I and Vatican II by assuming falsely that “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either.”

This confusion is precisely what the esteemed Fr John Hardon, S.J. addresses: “But possessing the truth is one thing, and deciding on what seems to be true is false – this prerogative does not belong to all the faithful….Moreover, he [the Pope] can do what they [the bishops] cannot do. He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy….their acceptance is not a necessary condition for the exercise of infallibility.” [My emphasis. *The Teaching Church In Our Time,1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 112, 114].
This is based on the teaching of Vatican I:
“: “9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” (*Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I).
And on Vatican II:
“Lumen Gentium 22: “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

The confused deny what suits them from Vatican I, Vatican II and the immense wisdom shown by Fr John A Hardon, S.J., a renowned theologian of fidelity to follow their own opinions, prejudices, feelings and desires.

For edification here is the website for the beatification of this lover of truth:
hardonsj.org/
Welcome to the official website for the Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Archive and Guild. I hope that you will find this site helpful for learning more about the Servant of God Father John Hardon, S.J., his holiness of life, and the cause for his beatification and canonization. Among other things, you will find on this site the approved prayer for the beatification and canonization of Father Hardon, a brief biography of Father Hardon, relevant contact information for the Archive and Guild, and some photographs of the Servant of God. I encourage you to pray the prayer for Father Hardon’s beatification and canonization, daily, entrusting to the intercession of Father Hardon your special intention.
Thank you for visiting the official website of the Archive and Guild of the Servant of God Father Hardon. I hope that you will become a regular visitor. Most of all, I hope that you will keep the intention of Father Hardon’s Cause in your daily prayers."
Raymond Cardinal Burke

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

AmbroseSJ has set himself up against Vatican I and Vatican II by assuming falsely that “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either.”

You have not shown that I have set myself up against Vatican I or II by my quote. But please do. None of your quotes EVER say anything about the Pope speaking infallibly* in defiance* of his brother bishops or the Faithful. Your quotes are tendentious but not conclusive.

Show me something in the documents of Vatican I or II to prove your ridiculous claim. Show me something that says the Pope can speak infallibly even in defiance of his brother bishops and the Faithful (and/or past popes.)

The quote you provided and underlined from Hardon DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AT ALL!! I have no problem with what Hardon says there. It is your misinterpretation that is the problem.

 

[Abu]

How strange that AmbroseSJ wills not to see that when Vatican I and II emphasise that “the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power….And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment”, (Vatican II), and that to deny that his power “is ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema” (Vatican I) – he has no case for his fantasy that “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either.”

How strange that he claims in one breath to agree with Fr John A Hardon, S.J. that “He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy….their acceptance is not a necessary condition for the exercise of infallibility”,
and in another breath that “the Pope can not speak infallibly in defiance of his brothers the bishops and the Faithful of the Church either.”

Obviously the onus is on AmbroseSJ to quote Popes or Ecumenical Councils to the effect that any Pope cannot teach what the faithful or other bishops do not approve – this he cannot do because it is false.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

As brother AmbroseSJ has noted, neither he (nor I) have a problem with Vatican 1 or 2. What we have a problem with is the (mis)interpretation you have foisted upon it to validate an unjustifiable Absolutist Petrine position.

Previously, we have been talking about the role of the Pope in an Ecumenical Council. But there are certain here (such as you, brother Abu), who confuse the issue with the exercise of papal infallibility - as, btw, brother Vico earlier pointed out.

There is simply no way for you to support your exaggerated interpetation of the papacy in the context of an Ecumenical Council from Magisterial documents. So now, you have to impose the teaching on papal infallibility into the discussion in hopes of saving your position.

But even that is futile. You claim, in contradiction to brother AmbroseSJ’s sensible (and correct) position, that the Pope “[can] teach what the faithful or other bishops do not approve.” You base this on the (false) assumption that Vatican 1 taught that the exercise of infallibility does not depend on the consent of the Church (your quote from Fr. Hardon).

With all due respect to Fr. Hardon and his supporters, he was simply wrong. Fr. Hardon’s interpretation of the Vatican 1 Decrees does not in fact align with the official interpretation as given by Bishop Gasser in his Official Relatio.

What Vatican 1 actually taught - from its own words - is not that the “exercise of infallibility” is independent of the consent of the Church. Rather, Vatican 1 taught that “the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformible because of their nature, not because of the agreement of the Church.” To be perfectly clear, it is not the “exercise of infallibility” that is independent of the consent of the Church, but rather “the definition.” The last sentence of the Vatican Decree on the infallible Magisterium of the Pope is only referring to circumstances after the infallible Magisterium has already been exercised (i.e., the definition has already been made). So Fr. Hardon is in clear error (as are you) for extrapolating the condition of non-consent from what goes on after the definition is made (the Council’s intent) to what goes on before the definition is made (the error which you apparently obtained from Fr. Hardon).

I’m not injecting my own interpretation here, brother Abu. I am simply expressing exactly what Bishop Gasser asserted in his Official Relatio:
“It is said that once the Pope has issued a dogmatic definition, bishops no less than priests and laity are bound to submit to his infallible authority; but this is not so before the definition has been made; and the bishops should concur in the making of such a definition…It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts as the Church has, Scripture and Tradition. It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church united with its head is the rule of faith even for definitions of the Pope.”

Bishop Gasser goes on:
“But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops. For such agreement can very often be deduced from clear testimonies of Holy Scripture, from the agreement of antiquity, that is, of the Holy Fathers, from the opinions of doctors, or in other private ways, which suffice for full information.”

So we see here the true intent of the Fathers of Vatican 1. Absolutist Petrine advocates have grossly twisted the Vatican Decree to mean that the agreement of the bishops is not absolutely necessary, both after and before a dogmatic definition has been issued ex cathedra. But Bishop Gasser, in explicit opposition to these misinterpretations, explained that the irreformibility that does not require consent only refers to the state of the matter after the definition has been issued (not before). Further, Bishop Gasser explained that it is only the consultation of the bishops that is not absolutely necessary, but that the agreement of the entire Magisterium is nevertheless the rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope – in other words, the agreement of the bishops can be determined by other means aside from direct consultation with them, but their agreement must still be ascertained before the definition can take place.

If you did not already know, Bishop Gasser was the OFFICIAL spokesman for the Deputation De Fide, the Committee at Vatican 1 responsible for formulating the Decrees.

So, contrary to what you and others have opined, and in support of what brother AmbroseSJ has been asserting, the Fathers of Vatican 1 never intended the Decrees to mean what you want them to mean - i.e., that the Pope can exercise infallibility apart from (and much less, opposed to) the Church. To repeat, it is only your misinterpretations that brother AmbroseSJ and I have a problem with, not the actual Decrees of the Vatican Councils.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

I have already exposed the fact that there was only silence in neglecting the majority in favour of contraception, when Humanae Vitae was issued. At Vatican II Pope Paul VI overruled the majority to ensure that reference to Pius XI’s Casti Connubii was made in the footnote to Gaudium et Spes, 51.

rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html
“…at the conclusion of Vatican II, when *Gaudium et Spes *was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of *Casti Connubii *in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil.” This is in the Ecumenical Council Vatican II.

Now mardukm quotes Bishop Gasser that “It is said that once the Pope has issued a dogmatic definition, bishops no less than priests and laity are bound to submit to his infallible authority; but this is not so before the definition has been made; and the bishops should concur in the making of such a definition…… But from this can by no means be deduced a strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops.”

How true – of course there is no “strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops.” No one here has said that the Popes do not consult with the bishops – that’s what Christ’s Church is about – successors of the Apostles with the Pope having Primacy. This merely confirms Fr Hardon’s “He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy….their acceptance is not a necessary condition for the exercise of infallibility.”

This thread started as looking at Vatican I as defining the dogma of papal infallibility. Vico in post #4 immediately decided that “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.” That set the tone for downgrading the actual dogma, and trying to restrict the Pope through an Ecumenical Council. In fact, at the Public Session 433 voted for the Definition, 2 against, and 66 absentees wrote the Pope as against. All of the absentees eventually declared their full acceptance, a massive majority of the original 601 bishops present. (Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, Chevalier, 1975, p 159).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

How true – of course there is no “strict and absolute necessity for inquiring about it from the bishops.” No one here has said that the Popes do not consult with the bishops – that’s what Christ’s Church is about – successors of the Apostles with the Pope having Primacy. This merely confirms Fr Hardon’s “He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy….their acceptance is not a necessary condition for the exercise of infallibility.”

Bishop Gasser specifically stated that only consultation is not absolutely required. “Consultation” is not the same thing as “agreement,” as Bishop Gasser specifically asserted - the agreement of the whole Magisterium is necessary for the exercise of papal infalibillity. Did you miss that part of Bishop Gasser’s statement? As stated in a previous post, the Absolutist Petrine position is really nothing more than another example of Cafeteria Catholicism. I’ve often heard the phrase, “trying to be more Catholic than the Pope” - an apt description of the Absolutist Petrine view.

The Absolutist Petrine view does no service to the Church. It promotes a twisted version of the teachings of the Vatican Councils and is a detriment to the unity of the Church.

This thread started as looking at Vatican I as defining the dogma of papal infallibility. Vico in post #4 immediately decided that “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.” That set the tone for downgrading the actual dogma, and trying to restrict the Pope through an Ecumenical Council. In fact, at the Public Session 433 voted for the Definition, 2 against, and 66 absentees wrote the Pope as against. All of the absentees eventually declared their full acceptance, a massive majority of the original 601 bishops present. (Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, Chevalier, 1975, p 159).

Yes. The bishops knew what they were voting for. And it was the official understanding that Bishop Gasser asserted, not the papalist exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates (exaggerations which you and brother Steve B seem to share).

Did you know that a number of the absentees who initially opposed the Council were neo-ultramontanists? Neo-ultramontanists were those of the Absolutist Petrine camp who believed the Council was trying to restrict the Pope too much. They thought that the Council teaching was nothing more than Gallicanism in disguise. Guess what? Even these bishops aligned themselves to the High Petrine teaching of the Council when its Decrees were promulgated. That’s the Holy Spirit at work, brother.

You seek to revive the excesses of the neo-ultramontanists, which was repudiated by Vatican 1, and even moreso by Vatican 2. To repeat, your position does no service to and for the Church, but is a great stumbling block to the unity that our Lord commands us to have.

Blessings,
Marduk