|
1 members (seven_mansions),
409
guests, and
37
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,393
Posts416,749
Members5,993
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear Latin Catholic, The answer depends on the question. What is it about Vatican I that you find hard to understand/accept?
As I understand Vatican I, reading it together with the rest of the teaching of the Fathers and the Councils, the infallibility of the Pope depends on the infallibility of the Church, which is guaranteed to Her by the Lord (Mt 16:18). So the Pope is infallible when, in communion with the other Bishops, he teaches what the Church has always taught.
As for the two papally defined dogmas (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption), I believe in them and hold them to be true, but I also accept that they are couched in Western theological terms which seem strange to Eastern Christians.
To give a counter-example, as a Latin Catholic I do not feel completely at home with the invocation "Most Holy Theotokos, save us!" but I accept that this is the liturgical language of the East and that this is the Eastern way of expressing the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary brings us salvation not on her own but through her Son.
So, while I realize not everyone will agree with me, I believe that with a little bit of good will and mutual understanding, we can overcome these apparent differences between East and West. That was well put. Thank you. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, I did not source this time because this horse has been flogged too many times after its demise. Just look up earlier threads on Vatican I. But I suggest a look at August Berhard Hasler's book How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion. (Doubleday) 1981; and Luis M. Bermeo's Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion (Christian Classic) 1992. The latter makes extensive use of contemporaneous notes taken by French theologian M. Icard, which includes such priceless examples as Pius IX public humiliation of Guidi. Bermejo quotes, for instance, this contemporary statement of Bishop F. Lecourtier, a delegate to the council: Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor from the tradition of the Fathers, nor the witness of the general councils, nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith fo more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts the conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare insert undebated paragraphs into the text after the debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission of postulates, which has been imposed upon it from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections and the opportunity to demand explanations. . . It is crushed by the nuncios, who try to promote the priests ahead of the bishops as witnesses of the faith. . . The minority is crushed above all by the full weight of the extreme authority which oppresses it with the praise and encouragement it lavishes on the the priests in the form of papal briefs. [pp.121-122] Bermejo does some interesting math, too. He notes that the total number of bishops who attendede the First Vatican Council was 793, but not all of these showed up for every session, and, as the council continued, fewer and fewer were in attendance. Of these, 285 of the bishops were from Italy, and 61 from the Oriental "rites". All of these were financially dependent upon the Papacy, which used that fact to force them to conform to Papal positions. The 61 Oriental bishops were directly controlled by the Praefect of the Propaganda Fidei (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Cardinal Barnabo. Of those, sixteen signed a postulatum against Pastor aeternus, but were forced by Barnabo to withdraw their signatures. As is well known, Melkite Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef was reprimanded, threatened and instructed not to address the council Fathers again without first submitting his speech for approval by Barnabo (this was during the council itself, and predates the infamous incident of the papal buskin upon the patriarchal neck). Between them, the Italians and the Orientals represented 43% of the total bishops in attendance. On the day that Pastor aeternus was approved, the combined Italian and Oriental vote constituted half of the bishops voting. That comes awfully close to the Chicago Rules. So, I'll stand with Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, who described Vatican I as having "as much claim to be called a council as the present day meetings of delegates in the USSR to be regarded as free expressions of the will of the people". I can go on at great length, and provide many other contemporaneous quotes from people who were there (e.g., Bishop Strossmeyer writing to Lord Acton: "There is no denying that the Council lacks freedom from beginning to end", and later to Professor Reinkens in the Netherlands, "My conviction, which I shall defend before the judgment seat of God just as I defended it in Rome, is firm and unwavering, namely that the Vatican Council had not the freedom necessary to make it a true council and to justify resolutions that would bind the conscience of the entire Catholic world"), but that would be tedious, and I have done so many times over the years, so if you wish to find citations, do what I did, and hunt for them. I would love to discuss this and perhaps correct your conception of the Vatican Council, but this thread and forum is obviously not the place. All I'll say right now is that all the "facts" are wrenched out of their proper context. Bermejo and Fr. Bulgakov just give you bits and pieces, creating a lively, if false, caricature of the Council. If anyone would like to start a new thread on the matter, or direct me to an existing one, I'll take it up there. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
I would love to discuss this and perhaps correct your conception of the Vatican Council Why do you presume I need correction? Maybe you need to jettison some of your preconceived notions, instead. This is an example of the tautological thinking that pervades any attempt to discuss Vatican I in an objective manner. " The council is ecumenical because the council is ecumenical" just doesn't cut the mustard.
Last edited by StuartK; 09/30/10 11:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Whether one believes any particular infallible ex cathedra decree (btw, I have to add "infallible" to that statement because not all ex cathedra decrees are infallible) is irreformible has nothing to do with the proscription of this Vatican dogma.
I know several Catholics who accept the Vatican dogmas as well as the Dogma of the Assumption, but doubt or do not in good conscience or by mere lack of understanding do not accept the dogma of the IC, Latins and Easterns alike (I've met only one Oriental Catholic who is of like disposition). I am a little confused by your answer. Are you saying that the Immaculate Conception is not an infalliable ex-cathedra statement? When you have a moment, please clarify. Thank you, Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Bob, Please forgive my inadequate language. Whether one believes any particular infallible ex cathedra decree (btw, I have to add "infallible" to that statement because not all ex cathedra decrees are infallible) is irreformible has nothing to do with the proscription of this Vatican dogma.
I know several Catholics who accept the Vatican dogmas as well as the Dogma of the Assumption, but doubt or do not in good conscience or by mere lack of understanding do not accept the dogma of the IC, Latins and Easterns alike (I've met only one Oriental Catholic who is of like disposition). I am a little confused by your answer. Are you saying that the Immaculate Conception is not an infalliable ex-cathedra statement? When you have a moment, please clarify. All I am saying is that Catholic A accepts the dogma of the IC. Catholic B does not in good conscience accept the dogma of the IC. But both believe the dogma on papal infallibility. In other words, the proscription contained in the dogma on papal infallibility only applies to lack of belief in that teaching [i]itself[/i] -- it does not apply to one's lack of belief in any other teaching. I hope that helps. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, Why do you presume I need correction? Maybe you need to jettison some of your preconceived notions, instead. This is an example of the tautological thinking that pervades any attempt to discuss Vatican I in an objective manner. " The council is ecumenical because the council is ecumenical" just doesn't cut the mustard. My reasons for accepting the ecumenicity and infallibility of that Council is not so simplistic.  As far as correction, I'll give you just one example of the error of your sources: Bermejo quotes, for instance, this contemporary statement of Bishop F. Lecourtier, a delegate to the council: Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor from the tradition of the Fathers, nor the witness of the general councils, nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith fo more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts the conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare insert undebated paragraphs into the text after the debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission of postulates, which has been imposed upon it from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections and the opportunity to demand explanations. . . It is crushed by the nuncios, who try to promote the priests ahead of the bishops as witnesses of the faith. . . The minority is crushed above all by the full weight of the extreme authority which oppresses it with the praise and encouragement it lavishes on the the priests in the form of papal briefs. [pp.121-122] I'm sure readers here in ByzCath or other Eastern sites will look at that quote and say -- "See! The non-Latins had absolutely no freedom!" But here are just a few of the facts: 1) Bishop Lecourtier was a Neo-ultramontanist, not a member of the Minority Party. The Majority Party was composed of the Ultramontanists and the "Neo-ultramontanists." The latter was the name given by contemporary writers to the group that adhered to an Absolutist Petrine view. They were distinct from the Ultramontantists who were of the High Petrine view. 2) When the Bishop complains that there was an imposing minority, he did not have the Minority Party in mind, but the Neo-ultramontanists who were themselves a minority within the Majority party. 3) When he complains that the Council was adding paragraphs out of the blue, he is referring to the historical Proem of the Decree on Infallibility, which was added through the diligence of the Minority Party as well as many ultramontanist members of the Majority Party. The Neo-ultramontanists lobbied vociferously that the Proem was nothing more than Gallicanism in disguise! There was indeed sufficient debate on the matter, but - being a member of the group that did not get their way - he is obviously going to present the case in the least endearing light. That is why I do in fact believe your understanding of Vatican 1 needs correction. It is not so much a knock on you, but rather on your sources. If you wish to discuss this issue further, it would probably be best, in deference to the judgment of the Moderator of course, to start a new thread in a new forum, or just give me a link to an existing thread on the matter. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
It certainly does. Now it is my turn to clarify. My original question was an attempt to focus on the 'official,' standing of the IC, as you understand it. My purpose for bringing up Vatican 1's teaching on ex-cathedra statements was to further define what is meant by an ex-cathedra statement as such, and also to see what, if any, liberty is allowed for dissention from the definitions. It would seem that if we say there is some liberty allowed on this doctrine, it is somehow 'reformable,' and it should not fall under the purview of an ex-cathedra definition. Yet, it is listed as one in most, if not all, documented cases of ex-cathdra statements, see the Catholic Encylopedia for example (I'm not sure if this qualifies as an 'official,' listing).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450 |
I think rather not. There are far too many individuals cited verbatim in Bermejo to be discounted as exaggerations and polemic, and to discount critics of the council because they are critical of the council seems a bit tautological to me. The treatment of the Eastern Catholic bishops at the council is, by itself, more than sufficient to discredit it in my eyes. Hermann Pottmeyer writes about Vatican I and develops an understanding of just how Pastor Aeternus can be interpreted within the light of a primacy in communion as understood in the first millenium. Eventhough many strong-arm tactics were used at Vatican I, the Holy Spirit was still present. The truth was proclaimed at Vatican I. However, that truth will be found in a much more nuanced reading of the Vatican I documents than many read them before. I realzied that a "nuanced view" makes many uncomfortable, because they only see it as weaseling out. But i don't think this is the case considering that our understanding of the deposit of faith develops and matures over time. Divine revelation does not change, but our understanding of it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Even though many strong-arm tactics were used at Vatican I he Holy Spirit was still present How do we know that, without tautological reasoning? Or can the irregularities and lack of charity by which the council was governed by themselves be taken as evidence that the Holy Spirit was indeed lacking?
Last edited by StuartK; 09/30/10 02:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
I'm not sure that the fruits of Vatican 1 have been such that we need to retain it, even if we nuanced it. Has it been good, on the whole, for the Latin Church or the Church's in communion with her?
Next it must be asked if it has borne fruit on the universal level. It remains an obstacle to reunion with the EO, and for what? Are the two dogmatic definitions that have come from Papal infallibility (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) really worth keeping alive the illusion of Papal infallibility? The church did not need an infallible proclamation of the later, and the former, being couched in Latin terms is of dubious value. Are we really suppose to take Mat 16 to mean that a special charism was given to Peter alone so he could, 1850 years later, define as dogma, a theolgoical opinion of a particular church? Up until that point there was freedom on the question, since the fathers did not see it as directly relating to the person of Christ and his mission to save humanity.
The universal jurisdiction that was given to the Pope by the council also has practical difficulties. I recently watched the CNN videos on youtube, called “What the Pope knew,” and it highlighted, for me, that bishops simply don’t feel free to act within their territory. This is a known problem with centralized control/authority, and it was culpable, to some extent, in prolonging the ministries of pedophile priests. So rather than nuancing Vatican 1, I think a truly ecumenical council needs to deal with the question of the Petrine ministry.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Like the doctrine of the temporal supremacy of the Pope (taught de fide for centuries), papal infallibility may eventually come to be seen as a doctrine conditioned by the history and culture of the time in which it was promoted. And like the temporal supremacy of the Pope, it will quietly be set aside, with everybody pretending it never happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Bishop Lecourtier was a Neo-ultramontanist, not a member of the Minority Party.
1. What the heck is a "neo-ultra-montanist"?
2. That someone on the other side also felt that the council lacked freedom makes my point, not yours. You seem to be working backwards from the assumption that Vatican I was ecumenical to finding reasons why it was so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Even some who accepted the council's definition complained of its irregularity. Cardinal Newman springs to mind as one critical of the lack of freedom, who nevertheless accepted the council.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450 |
Even though many strong-arm tactics were used at Vatican I he Holy Spirit was still present How do we know that, without tautological reasoning? One could make the same argument about any council. The criteria for determining the presence of the Holy Spirit is dependent upon the ways in which one sets the rules for declaring a council as ecumenical. Or can the irregularities and lack of charity by which the council was governed by themselves be taken as evidence that the Holy Spirit was indeed lacking? Do you mean then, that this never existed? No previous council had occurences of a lack of charity and no Bishop ever ued strong-arm tactics in the first millenium? [/quote]
Last edited by danman916; 09/30/10 03:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450 |
Like the doctrine of the temporal supremacy of the Pope (taught de fide for centuries) De fide? What is your Source? I don't doubt that this was taught, but it seems to stretch to say that it was expressed a de fide dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
