Vatican I

[mardukm]

Dear All,

As stated before, I will give evidence that the intentions of the Vatican fathers regarding its Decrees were not intended to be a license for the Pope to do what he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants (as our resident EO polemicists, and even some EO apologists have contended). To this end, I shall discuss issues and bring in texts from the Decree on the Primacy of the Pope, and the Decree on Infallibility.

DECREE ON THE PRIMACY

First, I will discuss three important texts in the Decree, and then provide the impetus for these amendments, thereby fulfilling my stated intention in the first paragraph.
First amendment: There was a revision in the statement of anathema.
First draft: “We condemn any who affirm that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs is not ordinary and immediate both over all the churches together, and over individual churches of particular pastors.”
Proposed amendment: “If anyone says that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is only the office of inspection and direction, and that his supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church is not full, but only extraordinary and mediate; let him be anathema.”
Final form: “If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church…that this power is not ordinary and immediate either over each and every church or over each and every shepherd and faithful member: let him be anathema.”

Second amendment: A very important addition.
“This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate Episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishop who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power [of the bishops] is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.’”

Third amendment: A very important deletion.
First draft explained the prerogatives of the Pope in the terms “episcopal, ordinary, and immediate.”
The final form deleted the word “episcopal.”

Why were these amendments enacted? There was a tremendous concern from the Minority bishops that: 1) the rights and privileges of the Patriarchs would be demeaned or erased; 2) the Pope’s brother bishops would be viewed either as mere vicars or representatives of the Popes. 3) The Pope’s prerogatives should not be regarded as something that is normally or usually utilized. The changes were enacted to meet these concerns.

Notice in the first amendment that the original draft made a stark distinction between “all the churches together,” on the one hand, and “individual churches” on the other hand. This highlighted the idea that the Pope could exercise his FULL prerogatives in EITHER sphere of jurisdiction (in fact, this is the very issue we are talking about currently in this thread). This was unacceptable. The final form mollifies this feature. Instead of distinguishing between “all the churches together” and “individual churches”, the stark distinction in the final form is now between “each and every church,” on the one hand, and the members of those churches, on the other. This lessened the possibility of the misinterpretation that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of individual churches at his whim.

In order to mollify the second concern noted above, a WHOLE NEW PARAGRAPH was inserted into the schema of the Decree, and this has already been quoted. It should also be noted that in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum (published 1896), he explicity asserts that “bishops are not to be accounted as vicars of the Roman Pontiff.”

To address the third concern, the word “episcopal” was removed. The word made it appear that, when the Pope exercised his unique prerogatives, there would either be more than one ordinary bishop in a diocese, or the ordinary bishop was being completely replaced (albeit temporarily), which is against the canons of the Church. There had to be a way to express the fullness of the papal prerogative while preserving the prerogatives of the local bishop. The truth of the matter was and is, of course, the Pope, when exercising his unique prerogatives in a jurisdiction outside his own, does so in an extraordinary manner – both in the sense that it is rare, and that such exercise is not a mere episcopal function. Suggestions were various: remove the words “ordinary and immediate”; preserve all the words with an official explanation of “ordinary and immediate”; retain “episcopal and immediate,” while substituting “extraordinary” for “ordinary”; remove all the words. In the end, it was decided that removing the word “episcopal” was sufficient to reflect the mind of the Church on the matter, leaving the proper explanation of the words “ordinary and immediate” to the discretion of the local bishops to their respective flocks.

The third concern is also the reason for the rejection of the anathema in the form that explicitly condemns the use of the word “extraordinary” (see Proposed amendment to the first draft above under the heading of “First Amendment”). Many of the Minority and even some of the Majority Fathers proposed the use of this very word in place of “ordinary” in the text. As noted in the previous paragraph, though the word “ordinary” was retained, it was obvious that in the proper explanation of the texts to their flock, the bishops would and should have recourse to the word “extraordinary” to explain the actual intention of the Decree. Hence, the Fathers decided that use of the word “extraordinary” to describe the prerogatives of the Pope should not obtain an anathema.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Now, here are a few relevant excerpts from the Council regarding the Primacy, gathered from the debates (i.e., from those WITHIN the Council, not the misleading, false, and distorted exaggerations of those outside of it, such as Dollinger):
The following are from representatives of the Minority Party:
Abp Rauscher of Vienna (leader of the Minority Party) – “In matters of discipline there is no institution so legitimate, no right so certain, that the Pontiff, when the good of souls calls for such action, cannot override it , as when Pius VII suppressed the French dioceses in the Concordat]. It cannot be denied that the Supreme Pontiff has the power in any diocese of doing the things that belong to the bishops. On the other hand, it cannot be called in question that bishops in ruling their dioceses have a right that is their own, and they are not vicars of the Pope. The statement that the Pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is ‘ordinary’ is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, ‘extraordinary.’” Abp Connolly of Halifax wants to use “super-ordinary.” Abp Haynald of Kalocsa, Hungary, with Bp Hefele of Rottenburg, Germany, urged replacing “immediate and ordinary” with “full power, which he can exercise not only in extraordinary cases, but always, alike on all the faithful and on the bishops of the whole Church.” Abp Haynald, in his own speech – “That by the words of Christ, ‘Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,’ the care and custody of the universal flock of the Lord entrusted to Peter and his successors the Roman Pontiffs; and that by this the unity and firmness of the holy Church of God is cemented, no Catholic denies. Every Catholic venerates Peter and the Roman Pontiff as the supreme pastor under whose supreme rule the other pastors, successors of the Apostles, rule as bishops the particular churches in which they are set by the Holy Ghost to rule the Church of God. I object to the word ‘episcopal’ because it is impossible for the Pope to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in all dioceses.” Abp Tarnoczy, Primate of Germany - “The formula ‘immediate and ordinary jurisdiction’ is most true if rightly understood, but liable to be misinterpreted if not made more clear.” Abp Melcher of Cologne, leader of the German Minority Party – “The Supreme Pontiff without doubt has supreme and full power over the whole Church and over each and every part of it; but it should be exercised saving the rights of the bishops. The jurisdiction of bishops is immediate and ordinary, received from God, each in his own dioceses; but is so subordinated to the Roman Pontiff that his supreme power of jurisdiction over every single part of the universal Church is immediate and ordinary.”
Bp Dupanloup of Orleans – “That the Pontiff has ordinary and immediate power over each and every church, is true and not open to doubt, in the sense that this power is his own and not delegated, and certainly exercised of itself and not directly; but it should not be brought into play usually, so as not to interfere with the bishop’s immediate and ordinary jurisdiction…The Pope’s primacy of universal jurisdiction rests on the clear words of Christ taken in their obvious and natural meaning. Such is the tradition of the Gallican Church from Irenaeus to Bossuet…Some limits should be set to the usual exercise of the primacy, and a recognition of the jurisdiction of bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs. The right of appeal to Rome is certain, but the jurisdiction of the lower courts should be respected.” Bp Ginoulhiac of Grenoble – “In a canonist and theological sense the Roman Pontiff may be said to have ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every single diocese, provided it is not taken to mean that he is the only real bishop of all the churches, and the others only improperly called bishops.” A group of ten Minority French bishops suggested the addition: “We teach and declare that the power of jurisdiction of the Primacy, which is proper to it, is ordinary and immediate over all, and maybe exercised directly, without seeking anyone’s consent.” Bp. Verot of Savannah (Verot was considered the “enfant terrible” of the Council, the most vocal opponent of the Majority view) proposed adding a clause that the Roman Pontiffs have always declared that their supreme authority is to be exercised according to the canons. Verot concluded his speech by proposing a new canon – “If anyone says that the authority of the Pope in the Church is so full that he may dispose of everything by his mere whim, let him be anathema.” The reaction of the bishops was laughter and murmurs, as if anyone ever taught such a thing. Card. Capalti, president of the commission, rebuked Bp Verot – “We are not in a theatre to hear buffooneries, but in the church of God to transact the serious business of the Church.” Greek-Melchite Patriarch Jussef of Antioch pleaded that “in view of the Orthodox Churches no canons with anathema should be enacted on the matter of the Primacy; only the decree of Florence without addition, [and] a decree protecting the rights and privileges of the old Patriarchates.” Abp Vanesa of Transylvania stated that “for the sake of reunion…another formula be substituted.” In his speech, he asserts, “I will not utter frivolities, but I must defend the institutions of my Church, by vindicating what is just and licit.” The Bishop of Nice (name not given), while admitting the Pope’s universal jurisdiction, denied that it could be described as “episcopal, ordinary, or immediate” and proposed substituting the word “pontifical.” These are sufficient to provide for the reader the general attitude of the Minority Party Council Fathers regarding the Primacy issue.

Comments from representatives of the Majority Party:
The Bishop of Barcelona (name not given) proposed that the universal jurisdiction should be described as “extraordinary.” Bp Freppel of Angers (theology professor at Sorbonne, and one of the few theologians called to Rome to prepare for the Council) – “The rights of the Patriarch are by ecclesiastical law, those of the Pope by divine law, and what is of divine law cannot be limited by what is of ecclesiastical law. We are making a dogmatic, not a disciplinary decree, and it would cause confusion to bring in what is only of ecclesiastical law. NOTE: This was in reference to the request by some of the Oriental representatives to include a statement on the prerogatives of Patriarchs. Though this latter request was not granted per the argument given by Freppel, a whole new text, as noted earlier, was added to include the rights of bishops, which are also of divine law, in keeping with the purpose of the text. The rights of the Patriarchs, however, was addressed at Vatican II, which formally completed Vatican I]. Ordinary and immediate are no new terms for the Pope’s universal jurisdiction; the former was used by the Fourth Lateran Council, the latter by St. Thomas. When Popes have said that they may not act counter to the canons, does that imply they are bound by the canons? …Every legislator in every kind of government is bound to observe the laws he has made or confirmed, unless and until they be lawfully abrogated; this by natural and divine law, because the common good and right order of any society require it…This distinction excludes the fantastic despotism, or absolutism that we have heard spoken of. Absolutism is the principle of Ulpian in the Roman law, that the mere will of the prince is law. But who has ever said that the Roman Pontiff should govern according to his sweet will, by his not, by arbitrary power, by fancy, that is, without the laws and canons. We all exclude mere arbitrary power; but we all assert full and perfect power. Is power arbitrary because it is supreme? Are General Councils confirmed by the Pope arbitrary because supreme? Let all this confusion of ideas Go! Let the doctrine of the schema be accepted in its true, proper, and genuine sense, without preposterous interpretations.” (This was followed by applause) Bp Zinelli of Treviso – he spent a good amount of time discussing the terms “episcopal, ordinary, and immediate.” “The jurisdiction itself [is] not questioned by anyone; but there [is] a certain jealousy that the terms used in asserting it might seem to derogate from the position of bishops as successors of the Apostles…The terms, when rightly understood, were sound and did not give rise to any curtailment of the ordinary, immediate jurisdiction of each bishop in his diocese. Will any bishops say that the Pope would have to get his permission to preach, or hear confessions, or administer the sacraments in his diocese? When this question has been put, it has been met with laughter – the most conclusive answer…In regard to this chapter being a bar to the reunion of the Eastern Churches, when the time comes God will move their hearts and minds; meantime let us pray for them, and let us define the truth fearlessly.”

For the sake of brevity, I will stop here.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

DECREE ON THE INFALLIBILITY

Opinions of the Minority Party need not concern us here – they are easily echoed by the objections of non-Catholic posters in this Forum. What is of paramount concern is the opinion of the Majority Party. Consideration of the latter is the only way to determine what the Council actually intended by the Decree on Infallibility.

No better viewpoint can be obtained for our purpose than that expressed by Mgr. Vincent Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen. He was a member of the Majority party and the spokesman for the deputation de Fide, which was responsible for presenting to the General Assembly the matters to be voted upon. He have the LONGEST speech at the Council, taking nearly four hours to deliver. Dom Butler describes him as “the most prominent theologian of the Council.” The following are excerpts from his speech:
“In what sense is the infallibility of the Pope to be called separate? It may be called separate, or rather distinct, because it is founded on the special promise of Christ, and on the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, which is not the same as that enjoyed by the whole body of the teaching Church joined with its head “not the same” in reference to the type of assistance from the Holy Ghost, not in reference to the infallibility]…But we do not therefore separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church. For he is infallible only when as doctor of all Christians, that is, as representing the universal Church, he judges and defines what is to be believed or rejected by all. He can no more be separated from the Church than the foundation can be separated from the building he bears. Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church…we do not exclude such co-operation and such concourse of the Church. The end is the preservation of the truth in the Church…Here, we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it…and we ought to piously believe that in the divine assistance given to Peter and his successors by Christ there is included a promise as to the means necessary and apt for making an infallible judgment by the Pope…IN what sense is the Pope’s infallibility absolute? In NO sense is it absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone. The Pope’s is restricted by limitations and conditions as set forth in the definition.
“I say [this] with sorrow [that it has been] alleged in this ambo [that] all the infallibility of the Church were seated in the Pope and from the Pope derived and communicated to the Church; but I cannot understand how… The true reason is that this infallibility was given by Christ to the entire magisterium of the Church, that is to the Apostles along with Peter. But conversely, can the Pope do nothing without the bishops? Not so, for Christ said to Peter alone, ‘Thou are Peter,’ etc., and ‘I have prayed for thee,’ etc.
“It is true that the Pope in his definitions ex cathedra has the same founts (fonts) 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 by the Pope. 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 the 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. That strict necessity, such as would be necessary for inclusion in a dogmatic decree cannot be established. There may be a case so difficult that the Pope deems it necessary for his information to inquire from the bishops, as the ordinary means, what is the mind of the churches: such was the case regarding the Immaculate Conception: but such a case cannot be set up as a rule.”

I was thinking that this would suffice on the matter, but I decided to include comments from two other prominent members of the Ultramontane (i.e., Majority) Party (out of respect for the biblical injunction “where two or three…”).

Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham, England: “It has been widely, but most erroneously, asserted by the adversaries of our faith, and possibly even some Catholics may have imbibed the notion, that this definition makes the Pope infallible in all his words and actions, and even to the extent of whatsoever he thinks. Nay, some have been so absurd as to say that it makes him sinless. But this is not the doctrine of the definition, nor is it the teaching of the Church. The definition does not extend infallibility to the private teaching of the Pope, still less to his conversation, or to his ordinary actions, or to his political functions, or to his judgment of causes as between man and man. To nothing of this kind does it reach; they are excluded by the very terms…The Past is guarantee for the Future, and prescribes the general principles and rules by which the Popes are guided. Scripture and Tradition are the fountains of their judgments. Into these they inquire, consulting [his brother bishops] according to the gravity of the case. In some cases, the Catholic Tradition is so obvious that they require but little if any consultations [to determine the mind of the Church]…Hence, it is also stated in the decree, that it is not ‘new doctrine’ or any new revelation, but ‘the deposit of faith delivered to the Apostles’, which, not by inspiration, but by the guiding assistance of the Holy Ghost, they are able to keep inviolable, and to expound without error…Christ constituted His Vicar as the representative of His authority; to Peter, thus constituted, He promised by His prayer an unfailing faith; and with that unfailing faith He enjoined him to confirm his brethren. But if the consent of the Church were needed for the validity of his definitions, it would not be the Vicar of Christ who confirmed his brethren, but his brethren who confirmed him.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Bp. Fessler of Austria, Secretary of the Council (Butler wrote that he was “behind the scenes as no one else, in closest touch with all that went on, so that of all the bishops he was by his position the best accredited interpreter of the acts of the Council”): “The dogmatic definition de Fide commences after the solemn formula definimus – the introduction is very important [Comment: more on the historical introduction later], but it is not to be looked at as the definition itself…The utterances of the Pope are to be received as infallible definitions only under certain conditions, and these conditions have been exactly specified in the Vatican Council itself…The Pope in his doctrinal utterances only speaks what he finds, under the special divine assistance, to be already part of the truth, revealed by God, necessary for salvation, which He has given in trust to the Catholic Church…The Pope cannot according to his own will and fancy extend his infallible definition to matters relating to the jus publicum, to which the divine revelation does not extend.”

The quotes from Bp Fessler above are contained in a tract he presented to refute a series of tracts entitled The Power of the Roman Pontiffs over Sovereigns, Countries, Peoples, and Individuals, according to the Vatican Decrees (published 1871), which were written by an Old Catholic named Dr. Schulte, who argued just as our resident EO polemicists argue, that the Pope can do what he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants. Bp Fessler was refuting the idea that the supreme, ordinary and immediate authority of the Pope ex cathedra is applied to ALL actions of the Pope, in EVERY field, in EVERY sphere of influence, in EVERY jurisdiction of the Church (“…all public official acts of Popes, bulls of depositions of monarchs, of assigning sovereignty over territories, acts of legislation, impositions of penalties, and much else…”). Butler wrote: “He submitted a copy of his pamphlet to Pius IX, who had it examined by a board of theologians, and caused it to be translated into Italian, that he might read it himself. As the result the Pope sent to Fessler a warm letter of thanks and approval, signed by his own hand, for ‘having brought out the true meaning of the dogma of papal infallibility.’ Thus it is not too much to say that Fessler’s tract is in all its circumstances the most authoritative interpretation hitherto given of the infallibility decree.”(p.459)

We also have the following, contained in the Pastoral Instruction of the Swiss Bishops issued June, 1871, after the Council:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleaser, 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 previous line has great relevance to our discussion about the Pope’s relationship to his brother bishops]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious societies there is a civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.”

GOODNESS! With all these restrictions, you’d immediately think, if the non-Catholic polemic that the Pope can do what he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants, was true, these Swiss bishops would have been given the anathema maranatha! by Pio Nono! However, Dom Butler records 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.” I don’t know about anyone else here, but I would much rather listen to Pope Pius IX, rather than the exaggerations of non-Catholics, even less, those of anti-Catholics.

MAIN SOURCE: Dom. Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council, 1869-1870 (the Newman Press: Westminster, MD, 1962). His main sources are: Mansi, Collectio Lacensis; in his words “two histories [of the Council], of Friedrich and of Granderath, of great length, running each to over two thousand pages; Letters of Bp. Ullathorne, member of the Moderate Party at the Council, which he wrote “week by week to England, telling them news of the Council and of Rome.”

I hope this has helped to settle everyone’s mind on the matter whether or not the Pope can do anything he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants. The obvious answer from the Fathers of Vatican I is that he cannot. I hope non-Catholic apologists (and polemicists in particular), as well as CATHOLIC apologists (and polemicists in particular) will search their consciences before trying to (mis)present the monstrous caricatures of the papacy that animate much of anti-Catholic polemics.

Blessings,
Marduk

I also want to add one more thing regarding two important changes to the decree on infallibility.

1. The title was changed from “The Roman Pontiff’s Infallibility” to “the Roman Pontiff’s Infallible Magisterium”. Why? To meet the concerns of the Minority Party that the definition could be mistaken to mean that ONLY the Pope possesses infallibility.
2. A historical preamble (Sections 2,3, & 4 of the Decree) was added. Why? To ensure that infallible decrees are understood to be consonant to and bound by Sacred Tradition.

 

[Wesley7]

What does infallibility actually mean?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregory Joseph was not in favor of this decree and deliberately left the council before the vote was taken (which seems pointless to me).

He was forced to sign the decree, and so added this signing statement: “Without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs” or words to that effect.

 

[chrisb]

For me such claims for far too long rested on the Dictus Papae, Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and particularly the Donation of Constantine for me to accept Vatican I as anything but a grave mistake and the ultimate nail in the coffin of any sense of Western Collegial Tradition. To dwell on this without understanding the many years of the development of Papal Monarchy is simply not a discussion which rests on truth.

I find this so saddening.

 

[Ghosty]

For me such claims for far too long rested on the Dictus Papae, Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and particularly the Donation of Constantine for me to accept Vatican I as anything but a grave mistake and the ultimate nail in the coffin of any sense of Western Collegial Tradition. To dwell on this without understanding the many years of the development of Papal Monarchy is simply not a discussion which rests on truth.

I find this so saddening.

The Donation of Constantine was about land, not ecclesial authority, and the portions of the False Decretals that dealt with the Papacy have been proven to be plagiairized from previous Papal statements, going back beyond St. Leo the Great.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

A few months ago I was having a “back and forth” e-mail debate with an Orthodox. To research a few points, I began reading the letters of Pope Leo the Great, which are actually very interesting and cover some interesting times in the Church, such as the “Robber Council” of Ephesus, and the Pelagian heresy.

In reading those letters it is very obvious that Pope Leo was the head of the Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople wrote to him a few times asking that the Pope make a decision on this or that point. Reading those letters would make it very obviousl for anyone who is sincere that Pope Leo was considered the head of the Church at the time.

I am going to provide a link to the letters. They not only include the letters from Pope Leo, but a few that were written to him as well.

home.newadvent.org/fathers/3604.htm

 

[LakaYaRabb]

Pax,

I hate to break it to you, but quoting a text from a non-Orthodox 100+yr old translation is not going to get anyone very far. Without the phronema of the Orthodox, very little can be accomplished. Let’s study the actual letters of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria from 500 AD to 900 AD in their original language and within an non-Roman context.

 

[chrisb]

The Donation of Constantine was about land, not ecclesial authority, and the portions of the False Decretals that dealt with the Papacy have been proven to be plagiairized from previous Papal statements, going back beyond St. Leo the Great.

“This grateful Emperor then conveys on the …most blessed Sylvester, our father, supreme pontiff and universal pope of the city of Rome,… he shall have rule as well over the four principal sees, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in all the world.”

~The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Treatise of the Donation of Constantine - page 1, text and translation by Christopher B. Coleman, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1993.

If the Bishop of Rome already had such authority then why did they feel that the Emperor had it to give? No, for over 600 years this document was an unqualified success in advancing papal claims, a document so successful that its authority was unquestioned, even by the enemies of Rome. In his negotiations with Constantinople in 1054, Pope Leo IX resorted to “huge quotations from the Donation of Constantine” as a prized “authority for his claims” over the Eastern Church.

 

[chrisb]

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger (1799-1890) was Germany’s greatest Roman Catholic historian. He was professor of canon law and Church history at Munich University and was president of the Bavarian Royal Academy of Sciences. Under his leadership, Munich University was to gain first place in Europe as a center for ecclesiastical studies; Butler said that von Dollinger was “the great champion of the Catholic cause in Germany.” His contemporaries regarded him as one of the greatest historical scholars in Europe.

His book, The Pope and the Council, is a frontal attack on Papal Infallibility. Dollinger claims that this notion was completely unknown in the Early Church and has always been relentlessly resisted by the Orthodox Church; therefore, he says: “to the adherents of the theory of infallibility the history of the Church must appear as an incomprehensible problem.” For on one was ever accused of heresy in denying the authority of the popes in their pronouncements of faith, and it was only much later, with the assistance of a good number of forgeries, e.g., the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, etc., that Papal Infallibility gained ground.

Before the Council of Vatican I convened, he wrote to Bishop Johann Baptist Greith: “Before I could ever inscribe this modern invention [the doctrine of infallibility] on the tablet of my mind, I would first have to plunge my fifty years of theological, historical, and patristic studies into Lethe [river of forgetfulness] and then draw them forth like a blank sheet of paper.”

When Papal Infallibility was declared a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, Dollinger was requested by his bishop to offer his submission on March 28, 1871. He replied in a letter to the Archbishop of Munich and requested a hearing before a Board of bishops, theologians and “the most eminent German historians of the Catholic faith.” Dollinger further told the Archbishop that he was prepared to prove that “the new articles of faith rest for their establishment from the Scriptures on the passages Matt. 16:18, John 21:17, and as far as the infallibility is concerned on the passage of Luke 22:32, with which, bibically considered, it stands and falls. Now we are bound by a solemn oath, which I have taken twice, not to accept or expound the Scriptures ‘in any other way than according to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ The Fathers of the Church have all without exception expounded the passages in quesiton in a sense entirely different from the new Decree, and expecially in the passage Luke 22:32 they were far from seeing an infallibility granted to all the Popes.” He then stated that Papal Infallibility rests “on a complete misunderstanding of ecclesiastical tradition in the first thousand years of the Church, and on a distortion of her history; it contradicts the clearest facts and evidences.”

~Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees, 1869-1887 - pages 83-84, Ignaz von Dollinger, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1891.

Looking into Vatican I is what ultimately killed my faith in the Western Church. I honestly don’t believe anything profitable can emerge from the study of it. It was, in my humble opinion, one of the darkest days of the Western Church. I truly lament it being brought up as a topic of discussion in Eastern Catholicism.

 

[peary1]

When all is said and done, Vatican I happened; its decrees are for posterity; it guides the direction of the Church as do all councils whether one agrees with it or not. It’s accepted and the Church moves on.

 

[Harmony1988]

I think ultimately what it comes down to is interpretation and praxis. I haven’t the time to go over the entire document nor go through it reading the OP’s interpretation of it and “notice this word was deleted”, it sounds like you are chasing a conspiracy theory. It makes sense that before something is promulgated, that it is edited and seen fit to be published, hence things will be deleted.

On the second point, praxis, this philosophy in practice. It has occured how many times? On the issue of infallibility? Twice, and neither has been disproven, not in scriptural or philosophical terms.

 

[Peter_J]

I think ultimately what it comes down to is interpretation and praxis. I haven’t the time to go over the entire document nor go through it reading the OP’s interpretation of it and “notice this word was deleted”, it sounds like you are chasing a conspiracy theory. It makes sense that before something is promulgated, that it is edited and seen fit to be published, hence things will be deleted.

You think someone here is chasing a conspiracy theory?

 

[Peter_J]

On the second point, praxis, this philosophy in practice. It has occured how many times? On the issue of infallibility? Twice,

That’s your opinion.

 

[Peter_J]

chrisb,

Thanks for the info about Dollinger. If I have a chance, I might try and read up on him a bit more.

Looking into Vatican I is what ultimately killed my faith in the Western Church. I honestly don’t believe anything profitable can emerge from the study of it. It was, in my humble opinion, one of the darkest days of the Western Church. I truly lament it being brought up as a topic of discussion in Eastern Catholicism.

I definitely think it was a mistake for Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility, but that doesn’t mean that Papal Infallibility is false.

As long as we’re talking about this in the “Eastern Catholicism” forum, I’d like to point out that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch at Vatican I object to the decree on Papal Supremacy, not the one on Papal Infallibility.

 

[Hesychios]

… I’d like to point out that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch at Vatican I object to the decree on Papal Supremacy, not the one on Papal Infallibility.

Papal Infallibility rests upon the concept Universal Jurisdiction, the first is inextricably linked to the second.

That is why universal jurisdiction needed to be established first. It does not make any sense to theoretically condense the infallibility of the church onto one person unless that person is responsible for everything in the church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Chrisb,

For me such claims for far too long rested on the Dictus Papae, Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and particularly the Donation of Constantine for me to accept Vatican I as anything but a grave mistake and the ultimate nail in the coffin of any sense of Western Collegial Tradition. To dwell on this without understanding the many years of the development of Papal Monarchy is simply not a discussion which rests on truth.

Every single one of these sources you have brought up had nothing to do with the Pope’s primacy in teaching, nor his infallibility. They are all concerned with the TEMPORAL and SECULAR prerogatives of the Pope, not the theological basis of those prerogatives. The temporal and secular prerogatives of the Popes are not of the esse of the papacy, and no Catholic claims so, and neither did Vatican I claim so. If these archaic and non-existent temporal/secular claims is your best reason for leaving the Church, then THAT is the most saddening thing of all.

Btw. I’m not all that familiar with the dictus papae. Are you referring to the correspondences he had with Henry IV of France?

I find this so saddening.

I can appreciate your reaction. When I was Coptic Orthodox not in communion with Rome, I found it saddening too that all my beliefs about Catholicism turned out to be misconceptions. So I definitely know where you’re coming from.

If the Bishop of Rome already had such authority then why did they feel that the Emperor had it to give? No, for over 600 years this document was an unqualified success in advancing papal claims, a document so successful that its authority was unquestioned, even by the enemies of Rome.

Demonstrate that this was the ONLY source for the Pope’s claims to primacy, and I’ll concede your point. I’ll be waiting eagerly for your response.

In his negotiations with Constantinople in 1054, Pope Leo IX resorted to “huge quotations from the Donation of Constantine” as a prized “authority for his claims” over the Eastern Church.

Btw, have any General Councils of the Catholic Church ever appealed to these three sources that you mentioned? Did the Pope make claims of primacy/supremacy BEFORE the latter half of the 8th century (the earliest generally accepted dating for the Donation; the False Decretals are dated mid-9th century; not sure about dictus papae, though that one must have been after the 10th century)? I’ll be waiting eagerly for your response.

Looking into Vatican I is what ultimately killed my faith in the Western Church. I honestly don’t believe anything profitable can emerge from the study of it. It was, in my humble opinion, one of the darkest days of the Western Church. I truly lament it being brought up as a topic of discussion in Eastern Catholicism.

If your main source was Dollinger, your claim doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Papal Infallibility rests upon the concept Universal Jurisdiction, the first is inextricably linked to the second.

That’s not accurate. In the mind of the Fathers who were able to separate the issues of primacy and infallibility, and were pushing for a decree on Infallibility, it was actually the other way around – the infallibility was viewed as a guarantee of the primacy.

That is why universal jurisdiction needed to be established first. It does not make any sense to theoretically condense the infallibility of the church onto one person unless that person is responsible for everything in the church.

Do you have any sources from Vatican I to back up this claim (from the Council Fathers themselves, not the speculations of polemicists outside of it)? Actually, the two Decrees (on Primacy, and on Infallibility) stand on their own. In fact, aside from revisions on the wording of the Decree, there was no objection from the Minority Party that the Decree on the Primacy should not have come to the General Congregation for debate. The Decree on the Primacy was never in question. You make it seem like the Decree on the Primacy was some kind of afterthought in order to lay a groundwork for the Decree on the Infallibility. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

To repeat, please provide for us a source (from the Vatican Council Fathers, and not from some speculation outside of it) for your claim that the Decree on the Primacy “needed to be established first” to ensure the Decree on the Infallibility. For the sake of understanding and unity, we (Catholics) need to refute and you (Orthodox) need to divest yourselves of all the horrid caricatures made of the Vatican Council.

Blessings,
Marduk