Topic: Question regarding Papal Infallibility

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

I meant "da Silva Candida" and not "da Silva Candica". Sorry for that LOL!

[Mickey]

All the Latins did was give it a name.

They like to make up names. 

The terms "ordinary" and "immediate" are also ecclesiological terms peculiar to the Catholic Church, and I am not sure when those terms came into vogue.

Peculiar indeed! 

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops.

No. You think that only because EO polemicists have told you that, not because the Catholic Church teaches it.  In fact, the "nature" of the bishop of Rome is no different from that of other bishops - it is an office of teaching and of sanctification, just like the office of other bishops.  The only difference is that he has a greater range of responsibility for the Church than other bishops given to him by Christ as successor of St. Peter who also had that responsibility for the whole Church.  He exercises this responsibility for the entire Church collegially.  Individual bishops can also do this either in the exercise of their Ordinary Magisterium when they teach something definitively and unanimously (or at least in a morally unanimous manner) or in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium formally in an Ecumenical Council.

If it were so, then the Orthodox Church couldn't have passed any documents at the First Coucil of Constantinople until the Pope ratified it? The fact that the Eastern Churches adopted the Creed of Nicaea as revised at Constantinople even before accepted it is a proof that the Eastern Christians  had no minimal knowledge of such a super-power in Papacy.

The dogmatic decrees of the Second Ecum Council were submitted to the Pope for ratification, so I don't know why you think it was done without the participation of the papacy.  The papacy does not have a "super-power."  That is just a myth perpetuated by anti-Catholics.

Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors.

Not when teaching formally to the entire Church.  Peter erred in practice, not in teaching.

Gregory the Great, a Pope himself, clearly affirmed three coriphei who are equally "successors of Peter".

No. He affirms that the Chair in Rome had the greatest dignity of the three.  In any body of bishops, there is always a head bishop.  Of the three, the head was the bishop of Rome.

I don't embrace the idea that if the four Patriarchates ALTOGETHER rebel to a decision of the Pope they must be heretic as you suggest.

I didn't say they "must" be heretic.  I stated that their orthodoxy is not secure unless it is confirmed by the bishop of Rome, which was considered the standard of orthodoxy in the early Church.

How could a single bishop be Orthodox and all the other be heretic? Is the pope the only true source of doctrine, and the other bishops are there only to repeat his words? Where is it written this in the Bible?

I don't know.  That's not what the dogma of papal infallibility states.  And that's not what I believe. Your arguments are straw men.

The fact that Jesus ordered Peter "to confirm" the other apostles in the faith doesn't mean that he has super-powers, but that Peter has the TASK to do whatever is possible to preserve unity.

Agreed.

Certainly, proclaiming doctrines on his own without an EC doesn't seem a way to confirm this faith and promote unity.

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, another straw man.  You claimed earlier, "I always had more or less the same opinion of it as Mardukm and Athanasios's when I was RC." Obviously, whatever you believed is not what I believe.  I suspect we can come to an understanding on the issue, but you have to be willing to let go of the biased misrepresentations of the papacy that you have imbibed.

As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form?

The Pope was dead when Cardinal Humbert made his excommunication.  Humbert was only authorized to discuss the issue of unleavened Bread, Cerularius' claim to the title "Ecumenical," and the jurisdiction of Bulgaria.  Filioque was not a problem with the papacy, but with Humbert.

Many of yours - even the Pope - claimed that the Filioque clause is a mistake in Greek but not in Latin. Then, what version of the Creed with Filioque did Uniates sing both in Latin and Greek at the Council of Florence? did they invent some new word for that kind of procession? if not, the Catholic church had imposed an heretic version of the Greek Creed to the Eastern Catholics at the act of Union, and thus both the Council and the Pope are fallible, if not heretic themselves.

Who said that the Greeks were forced to recite the Creed with Filioque after Florence?  Just because there was a misunderstanding due to language doesn't mean there was heresy.  Infallibility does not make you omniscient.

PS: If Bellarmine's position was such a dangerous heresy, why is he still considered a saint? Shouldn't he be anathematized and thus cancelled from the lists of saints in the Roman Church?

Who said it was a heresy?  You have quite an imagination.

Blessings

[Mickey]

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, another straw man.

Do you believe, at present, that the Pope of Rome could infallibly declare a doctrine, ex-cathedra, without the collegial input of the other bishops within the Roman communion?

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Many of yours - even the Pope - claimed that the Filioque clause is a mistake in Greek but not in Latin. Then, what version of the Creed with Filioque did Uniates sing both in Latin and Greek at the Council of Florence? did they invent some new word for that kind of procession? if not, the Catholic church had imposed an heretic version of the Greek Creed to the Eastern Catholics at the act of Union, and thus both the Council and the Pope are fallible, if not heretic themselves.
Who said that the Greeks were forced to recite the Creed with Filioque after Florence?  Just because there was a misunderstanding due to language doesn't mean there was heresy.  Infallibility does not make you omniscient. Roll Eyes

Now I quote from "The history of the Council of Florence", written by Basil Popoff.

The opinions of the Bishops were written down. An extract was made from all these opinions, in which it was said : "We believe that the Holy Ghost is ever and essentially from the Father and the Son, ever and essentially proceeds from the Father through the Son." This definition was written down in three copies, one of which was taken by the Emperor, another by the Patriarch, and the third was presented to the Pope. But even the new confession drawn up by the Greeks was not entirely approved by the Latins. The Cardinals demanded that the words, " through the Son" should be omitted in the confession. The Greeks disputed a long while about this; but, at the desire of the Latins, were at last obliged to change these expressions. The confession was re-written, presented to the Pope, and approved by him. On the 8th of June, the confession was read in the presence of the Pope, in Greek and in Latin.

Ignorance of Greek means ignorance of the Holy Scriptures. How can we trust a pope who can't read the Bible and the Fathers of the Church in their original tongue?

Quote from:
As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form?

The Pope was dead when Cardinal Humbert made his excommunication.  Humbert was only authorized to discuss the issue of unleavened Bread, Cerularius' claim to the title "Ecumenical," and the jurisdiction of Bulgaria.  Filioque was not a problem with the papacy, but with Humbert.

If the next pope was aware of Humbert's error, he would have convoked a reunion council at the time, which he didn't.

On Bellarmine:

PS: If Bellarmine's position was such a dangerous heresy, why is he still considered a saint? Shouldn't he be anathematized and thus cancelled from the lists of saints in the Roman Church?

Who said it was a heresy?  You have quite an imagination. Grin

You wrote some posts ago:

This view of Bellarmine's was rejected by the Council Fathers at Vatican 1.

To me, a belief rejected is a belief condemned. A belief condemned is heresy, especially when his words invited to papolatry (thinking that the pope was "more then God" is clearly papolatry).

Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors.

Not when teaching formally to the entire Church.  Peter erred in practice, not in teaching.

In Latin theology, maybe, but not in Eastern theology where praxis and theology are just two faces of the same medal. When Peter sustained the NECESSITY of circumcision for conversion, he was putting circumcision as equally necessary as baptism in providing salvation and belonging to the church, thus making a theological error.

The dogmatic decrees of the Second Ecum Council were submitted to the Pope for ratification, so I don't know why you think it was done without the participation of the papacy.  The papacy does not have a "super-power."  That is just a myth perpetuated by anti-Catholics.

He was submitted the decrees for ratification as to every other patriarch. Still, he didn't accept the canon on the elevation of Constantinople as a Patriarchate immediately (Canon III). This decree was never ratified and largely ignored by Popes up to 1215 AD, long after the Schism.

You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops.

No. You think that only because EO polemicists have told you that, not because the Catholic Church teaches it.  In fact, the "nature" of the bishop of Rome is no different from that of other bishops - it is an office of teaching and of sanctification, just like the office of other bishops.  The only difference is that he has a greater range of responsibility for the Church than other bishops given to him by Christ as successor of St. Peter who also had that responsibility for the whole Church.  He exercises this responsibility for the entire Church collegially.  Individual bishops can also do this either in the exercise of their Ordinary Magisterium when they teach something definitively and unanimously (or at least in a morally unanimous manner) or in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium formally in an Ecumenical Council.

No. YOU think that I believe that because of others. I believe it myself... not because I think this is official doctrine, but because it's implied in a certain attitude by Popes. St. Gregory the Great said that even his own successors would have been precursors of Antichrist if they dared to claim a super-authority over the others in the episcopal order. This occured many times in the past, but its peak occured in Vatican I.

In Christ,   Alex

[Mardukm]

Ignorance of Greek means ignorance of the Holy Scriptures. How can we trust a pope who can't read the Bible and the Fathers of the Church in their original tongue?

And how can we trust Patriarchs who don't understand Latin and go around making unfounded claims that the Latins were teaching heresy on filioque?  If you want to have a discussion on filioque, go for it.  But not in this thread, please.

As an example I ask you: why did Umberto da Silva Candica excommunicate Patriarch Michael Cerularius on account of the Filioque clause, when now this very same word is not added to the Creed in its Greek form?

The Pope was dead when Cardinal Humbert made his excommunication.  Humbert was only authorized to discuss the issue of unleavened Bread, Cerularius' claim to the title "Ecumenical," and the jurisdiction of Bulgaria.  Filioque was not a problem with the papacy, but with Humbert.

If the next pope was aware of Humbert's error, he would have convoked a reunion council at the time, which he didn't.

Were the Easterns interested at the time?  Why didn't they ask for one to be convoked?  Seems to me both sides were at fault.

To me, a belief rejected is a belief condemned. A belief condemned is heresy, especially when his words invited to papolatry (thinking that the pope was "more then God" is clearly papolatry)

I don't know if what you claim he stated was actually stated by him.  It could be an invention of polemicists for all I know.  I do know that the Fathers of Vatican 1 had discussed the idea that everything the Pope teaches is infallible, and they rejected it as an erroneous understanding of papal infallibility.  They did not condemn it as heresy.  Besides, as stated, Bellarmine also taught that the Pope has no authority to endanger the Faith.

Peter made mistakes, and so do his successors.

Not when teaching formally to the entire Church.  Peter erred in practice, not in teaching.

In Latin theology, maybe, but not in Eastern theology where praxis and theology are just two faces of the same medal. When Peter sustained the NECESSITY of circumcision for conversion, he was putting circumcision as equally necessary as baptism in providing salvation and belonging to the church, thus making a theological error.

You'd better read Scripture again.  Peter never taught the necessity of circumcision for conversion.  All he did was fail to eat with the Gentiles.  And St. Paul should speak, having actually circumcised Timothy so as not to give offense to the Jews!

The dogmatic decrees of the Second Ecum Council were submitted to the Pope for ratification, so I don't know why you think it was done without the participation of the papacy.  The papacy does not have a "super-power."  That is just a myth perpetuated by anti-Catholics.

He was submitted the decrees for ratification as to every other patriarch.

So what?  You claimed the Pope did not have any participation.  And the facts refute your claim.

Still, he didn't accept the canon on the elevation of Constantinople as a Patriarchate immediately (Canon III).

So what?  It just demonstrates that the Pope was more willing to preserve the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, while the Easterns were more willing to give in to the whims of the Emperor.

This decree was never ratified and largely ignored by Popes up to 1215 AD, long after the Schism.

Actually, it was accepted in 869 A.D. by Rome, because by that time, the Easterns finally gave up the idea that they were second just because they were the "New Rome." They finally came around to Rome's (and Alexandria's) correct understanding that the major Churches obtained their honor and prerogatives from their apostolic establishment, not merely because of geopolitical status.

You think this view is erroneous just because you think the Pope to be "essentially" different then the other bishops, i.e. that he has an order different by nature then the other bishops.

No. You think that only because EO polemicists have told you that, not because the Catholic Church teaches it.  In fact, the "nature" of the bishop of Rome is no different from that of other bishops - it is an office of teaching and of sanctification, just like the office of other bishops.  The only difference is that he has a greater range of responsibility for the Church than other bishops given to him by Christ as successor of St. Peter who also had that responsibility for the whole Church.  He exercises this responsibility for the entire Church collegially.  Individual bishops can also do this either in the exercise of their Ordinary Magisterium when they teach something definitively and unanimously (or at least in a morally unanimous manner) or in an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium formally in an Ecumenical Council.

No. YOU think that I believe that because of others. I believe it myself... not because I think this is official doctrine, but because it's implied in a certain attitude by Popes. St. Gregory the Great said that even his own successors would have been precursors of Antichrist if they dared to claim a super-authority over the others in the episcopal order. This occured many times in the past, but its peak occured in Vatican I.

Vatican 1 made it quite plain and clear that the authority of the Pope cannot stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local see.  So whatever fears Pope St. Gregory the Great had does not apply to Vatican 1, no matter how much the papacy is misrepresented by its detractors.

Blessings

[Mickey]

Vatican 1 made it quite plain and clear that the authority of the Pope cannot stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local see. 

Not everyone at Vatican 1 was so convinced as you are. 

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Vatican 1 made it quite plain and clear that the authority of the Pope cannot stand in the way of the authority of the bishop in his local see. 

Not everyone at Vatican 1 was so convinced as you are. 

If everyone at Vatican 1 was not convinced, I wonder how the following ever made it into the Decree:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops 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 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 borthers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
Paragraph 5, Decree on Papal Primacy

This paragraph, which was added to the original draft by the efforts of not only the Minority Party, but also many in the Majority Party at Vatican 1, is often overlooked by Catholic and Orthodox polemicists alike.  A few months ago, while debating a monarchial papist over at CAF, I pointed out to him that the Pope cannot override the authority of a bishop in his local diocese, and that this is what Vatican 1 stated.  I was surprised (as it seemed to me he was a knowledgeable Catholic) that he asked me where Vatican 1 said this!

Blessings,
Marduk

[Mickey]

If everyone at Vatican 1 was not convinced, I wonder how the following ever made it into the Decree:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops 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 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 borthers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
Paragraph 5, Decree on Papal Primacy

What does "far from standing in the way" actually mean?  Why does it not say that the Pope of Rome may not interfere in the episcopal jurisdiction of another bishop?  This language is vague. Can the Pope of Rome declare a new doctrine, speaking ex-cathedra, without collegiality?  What does paragaph 5 mean in relation to this section from LUMEN GENTIUM:


“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

I also offer this quote from one of the bishops at Vatican 1:

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor 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 of 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 conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert un-debated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

If everyone at Vatican 1 was not convinced, I wonder how the following ever made it into the Decree:

The power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops 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 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 borthers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.
Paragraph 5, Decree on Papal Primacy

What does "far from standing in the way" actually mean?  Why does it not say that the Pope of Rome may not interfere in the episcopal jurisdiction of another bishop?  This language is vague.

Look up what "interfere" means in an English dictionary, and compare it with the phrase "standing in the way." Is English your first language?  If so, why do you think it is vague?

Can the Pope of Rome declare a new doctrine, speaking ex-cathedra, without collegiality?  What does paragaph 5 mean in relation to this section from LUMEN GENTIUM:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

The Church also teaches the exact same “submission of mind and will” to the Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops of the Church.  I don’t know how you can claim “no collegiality” from this quote.

 

I also offer this quote from one of the bishops at Vatican 1:

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture nor 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 of 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 conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert un-debated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it".
Bishop Francois Le Courtier

Do you know how many hundreds of folio pages actually exist in the official records of Vatican 1?  This claim is simply false.  All the speeches of the Minority bishops are recorded for anyone willing to see.  There was full debate, and freedom was had by all the bishops.  Interestingly, the creation of the commission on postulations was instigated by one of the Minority Party, Bishop Hefele, not "imposed from above." The Commissions themselves had to guard against the extremes of both the Minority and Majority.  What you probably don’t realize is that there were many in the Majority Party who likewise did not completely agree with the Definitions of V1, as they felt it restricted the Pope too much (lucky for us!). But not one bishop caused a schism after the Definitions were passed.  And no “un-debated paragraphs” were inserted in the text of the Decrees, but merely one line in the text of the Decree on the Primacy, which was: “or that he has only the principal part, but not the full plenitude of the supreme power.”  In short, this was the jaundiced and sensationalist report of one bishop of the Minority Party, who was in fact the most vocal opponent among the Minority.  There were actually less than a handful (literally) of bishops who even complained that there was no freedom at the Council (among the 700 who attended, nearly 200 being of the Minority Party). Of course, it is incumbent upon polemicists to exaggerate the matter and make it appear as though this was the general feeling of most of the bishops who attended. 

And, btw, I don't know who gave that translation of the bishop's words, but it's different from my own source.  The last line of that quote should be: "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our head."

Blessings

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

200 bishops versus 500... this is not a low percentage, its... let's do some maths... some 28.5% of bishops contrary to the definitions. Wow... what a large majority that 71.5% of corrupted bishops, mainly from Italy and from the Gesuit Order LOL! And how strange that the highly accultured German and English bishops invoked a further restriction of Papal authority, understanding how risky it was for the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact that the bishops didn't leave the RCC is due to necessity, and not to approval of its decision. Leaving the RCC would have meant losing the ministry, and the few who did it (the Old Catholics) had no sufficient power to contrast the Vatican authority.

Now, I've got a little question for the RCs on this forum. I read that the First Vatican Council has never been 'closed' before the Second Vatican Council. Doesn't this affect the validity of the Council itself? If the single sessions of it had been voted, but the decrees of the Council after his suspension had never been finally approved, were the RCs still bound to believe in Papal Infallibility? In other words: is in the RCC a specific dogma binding even before the end of a council, i.e. in the same moment of its approval by the bishops during the Council? I ask this because in the Orthodox Church - I think - an official definition becomes effective with the final approval of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council (that is its signature by the bishops and the proclamation of the Horos), but not prior to it. I wonder if, for example, the simple approval of Pope Pius IX in the bull Pastor Aeternus was sufficient per se, because in that case there would be a redundancy, having the Pope affirming his own authority before the decrees of the Council were finally approved.

Thanks in advance for your answers and contributions.

In Christ,   Alex

[Mardukm]

200 bishops versus 500... this is not a low percentage, its... let's do some maths... some 28.5% of bishops contrary to the definitions. Wow... what a large majority that 71.5% of corrupted bishops, mainly from Italy and from the Gesuit Order LOL! And how strange that the highly accultured German and English bishops invoked a further restriction of Papal authority, understanding how risky it was for the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's a bit dishonest, brother Alexander.  Those numbers do not represent "bishops contrary to the definitions." In truth, there were NO bishops that were contrary to the definitions, as proven by the fact that no episcopal schism resulted from the definitions.  Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council.  The numbers I gave was an unoffical estimate given by one of the bishops.  A roll call on January 6, 1870, counted 750 bishops. By April 24, the number was reduced to 677 due to illness, death, and approved leaves.  At the July 13 voting, there were 451 placet, 62 placet juxta modem, 88 non placet.  76 had left; of those 76, 50 were deliberate abstentions. More debate occured, two emendations were adopted, and at the final July 18 voting, there were 533 placet, 2 non placet, and the rest were abstentions.

The fact that the bishops didn't leave the RCC is due to necessity, and not to approval of its decision. Leaving the RCC would have meant losing the ministry, and the few who did it (the Old Catholics) had no sufficient power to contrast the Vatican authority.

Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Now, I've got a little question for the RCs on this forum. I read that the First Vatican Council has never been 'closed' before the Second Vatican Council. Doesn't this affect the validity of the Council itself? If the single sessions of it had been voted, but the decrees of the Council after his suspension had never been finally approved, were the RCs still bound to believe in Papal Infallibility? In other words: is in the RCC a specific dogma binding even before the end of a council, i.e. in the same moment of its approval by the bishops during the Council? I ask this because in the Orthodox Church - I think - an official definition becomes effective with the final approval of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council (that is its signature by the bishops and the proclamation of the Horos), but not prior to it. I wonder if, for example, the simple approval of Pope Pius IX in the bull Pastor Aeternus was sufficient per se, because in that case there would be a redundancy, having the Pope affirming his own authority before the decrees of the Council were finally approved.

The First Vatican Council was indeed officially closed.  But it is recognized that not all the matters that were intended to be discussed and voted on had the opportunity to be presented at Council due to its premature closing.  As noted in an earlier post, that the papal prerogatives were basically the only things that made it to the floor (which was not even on the original agenda to begin with), was really due to the disturbances caused by the secular and anti-Catholic media around the world on the issue of the papal prerogatives.  The issue, in short, was forced, but not by the Pope, as many non-Catholic polemicists like to pretend.

Blessings

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Don't see dishonesty and polemics everywhere, I'm just trying to understand how it turned out. I consider that cases such as the bishops of the Minority Party were well aware of the motivations of their oppositions, since I read in full the objections (vehemently accused of heresy and protestantism) of one of the conciliar fathers, bishop Strossmayer, and it's clear that he strongly opposed the positions held at the Council.

Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Everything of what I wrote is MY personal opinion, and I think I'll keep it. Anyway, I think that the Orientals still believed that being under the Pope is more necessary then confessing orthodoxy, as many other bishops at the council did. Afterall, being in union with the Pope means having many advantages, and by that I mean power and money. Come here and see how much welfare have all RC priests in Italy - where Catholicism is partially maintained by the State - and you'll understand how important it could be to stay Catholic, compromising one's faith. RC priests in Italy receive money from the Vatican, a part of which directly comes from the pockets of those who - like my family - prefer giving money to the Church then to the State even if they don't approve of the conduct of the Church. I'm referring specifically to a tax named "8 per mille" through which all citizens have the choice to give the money either to the RCC, to a little series of sects and religions (Orthodoxy is not in the list, while Jehovah's Witnesses are, for example) or to the State. The RC Church has had so much influence in Europe that abandoning it would have meant losing power, money and all the benefits that came with it. Now Italy is one of the last countries where Catholicism is official religion by Constitution, but until the last century Catholic prelates had as much authority in the people's minds as a mayor, if not greater. So I clearly believe that the Vatican I was passed by this will to preserve power, and not for the sake of the Catholic Faith.

I know I'll sound rude, but you just can't understand this well if you don't live in a country where the decisional presence of Catholicism is FORCED even on other Christians, atheists and non-Christians. Here the power - not only as authority, but also as corruption and welfare - of the Roman pontiff and his fellows is so vivid that it can't even be doubted.

Forgive,   Alex

[Mickey]

LOL! If I stand in your way, you can go around me. It is vague.
Is English your first language?

The Church also teaches the exact same “submission of mind and will” to the Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops of the Church. 

I am familiar with the Orthodox concept of obedience to one's spiritual father.  But where is the info for submission of mind and will to the bishop?
 

This claim is simply false. 

You are mistaken.

In shortThere were actually less than a handful (literally) of bishops who even complained that there was no freedom at the Council (among the 700 who attended, nearly 200 being of the Minority Party).  

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.


The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it.
(The Vatican dogma)

[Mickey]

And, btw, I don't know who gave that translation of the bishop's words, but it's different from my own source.  The last line of that quote should be: "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our head."

That is from a different quote from the same bishop. And it is very telling of the confusion and dissent that was prevalent at the "council". 

[Mickey]

Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council. 

Yeah. By the time it ended, many who had been opposed were silenced. 

[ialmisry]

200 bishops versus 500... this is not a low percentage, its... let's do some maths... some 28.5% of bishops contrary to the definitions. Wow... what a large majority that 71.5% of corrupted bishops, mainly from Italy and from the Gesuit Order LOL! And how strange that the highly accultured German and English bishops invoked a further restriction of Papal authority, understanding how risky it was for the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's a bit dishonest, brother Alexander.  Those numbers do not represent "bishops contrary to the definitions." In truth, there were NO bishops that were contrary to the definitions, as proven by the fact that no episcopal schism resulted from the definitions.  Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council.  The numbers I gave was an unoffical estimate given by one of the bishops.  A roll call on January 6, 1870, counted 750 bishops. By April 24, the number was reduced to 677 due to illness, death, and approved leaves.  At the July 13 voting, there were 451 placet, 62 placet juxta modem, 88 non placet.  76 had left; of those 76, 50 were deliberate abstentions. More debate occured, two emendations were adopted, and at the final July 18 voting, there were 533 placet, 2 non placet, and the rest were abstentions.

The fact that the bishops didn't leave the RCC is due to necessity, and not to approval of its decision. Leaving the RCC would have meant losing the ministry, and the few who did it (the Old Catholics) had no sufficient power to contrast the Vatican authority.

Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Now, I've got a little question for the RCs on this forum. I read that the First Vatican Council has never been 'closed' before the Second Vatican Council. Doesn't this affect the validity of the Council itself? If the single sessions of it had been voted, but the decrees of the Council after his suspension had never been finally approved, were the RCs still bound to believe in Papal Infallibility? In other words: is in the RCC a specific dogma binding even before the end of a council, i.e. in the same moment of its approval by the bishops during the Council? I ask this because in the Orthodox Church - I think - an official definition becomes effective with the final approval of the decrees of the Ecumenical Council (that is its signature by the bishops and the proclamation of the Horos), but not prior to it. I wonder if, for example, the simple approval of Pope Pius IX in the bull Pastor Aeternus was sufficient per se, because in that case there would be a redundancy, having the Pope affirming his own authority before the decrees of the Council were finally approved.

The First Vatican Council was indeed officially closed.  But it is recognized that not all the matters that were intended to be discussed and voted on had the opportunity to be presented at Council due to its premature closing.  As noted in an earlier post, that the papal prerogatives were basically the only things that made it to the floor (which was not even on the original agenda to begin with), was really due to the disturbances caused by the secular and anti-Catholic media around the world on the issue of the papal prerogatives.  The issue, in short, was forced, but not by the Pope, as many non-Catholic polemicists like to pretend.

Blessings

Prematurely closed. LOL.  Vatican I wasn't officially closed until you were about to open Vatican II.  As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander," and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

IIRC, a number of bishops walked out.  And the only "father" of Vatican I whom the Vatican has canonized, the confessor to the Spanish royal family (what was his stance on the Spanish Inquisition?) stated that he had never heard such heresy as had been uttered in the Council.  I presume he meant those opposed to the Vatican's latest invention.

The Easterners and the Orientals could have returned to the Church.  Indeed many did, and were martyred for it. "And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.' 1) Old Catholic Union, 2) which countries are you talking about, as I don't know of any.

[Mickey]

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander," and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

Yes. The Keenan Catechism called it "a protestant invention".

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

Don't see dishonesty and polemics everywhere, I'm just trying to understand how it turned out. I consider that cases such as the bishops of the Minority Party were well aware of the motivations of their oppositions, since I read in full the objections (vehemently accused of heresy and protestantism) of one of the conciliar fathers, bishop Strossmayer, and it's clear that he strongly opposed the positions held at the Council.

Forgive me for presuming polemics on your part.  With respect to bishop Strossmayer, it should be noted that 1) the reservations he made that caused him to be accused of "heresy" and "protestantism" by many of the bishops were actually eventually accepted by the Council; 2) there was a vehemently anti-Council letter that was falsely attributed to him after the Council, a letter which was proven to be a forgery, but which still remained in circulation as late as 1928 in Egypt.  I have little doubt your sources are still citing that forgery as genuine.

Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Everything of what I wrote is MY personal opinion, and I think I'll keep it. Anyway, I think that the Orientals still believed that being under the Pope is more necessary then confessing orthodoxy, as many other bishops at the council did. Afterall, being in union with the Pope means having many advantages, and by that I mean power and money. Come here and see how much welfare have all RC priests in Italy...So I clearly believe that the Vatican I was passed by this will to preserve power, and not for the sake of the Catholic Faith.

So because the people are willing to support the Church, you interpret that to mean that Catholic priests and bishops are just money-hungry demagogues? I admit I don't understand.

I know I'll sound rude, but you just can't understand this well if you don't live in a country where the decisional presence of Catholicism is FORCED even on other Christians, atheists and non-Christians. Here the power - not only as authority, but also as corruption and welfare - of the Roman pontiff and his fellows is so vivid that it can't even be doubted.

Oh, you mean the same kind of national decisional presence that the Russian Orthodox Church practices.  OK.  So I guess that makes the Eastern Orthodox in general less true, according to your standard, correct?

Forgive,   Alex

There's nothing to forgive, brother.  But I do expect you to not be hypocritical in your judgment of the Catholic Church (see my previous paragraph).

Blessings

[Mardukm]

LOL! If I stand in your way, you can go around me. It is vague.
Is English your first language?

So if the Pope is really not standing in the way (according to your principle of "vagueness"), then you really have no basis for a complaint, do you?

The Church also teaches the exact same “submission of mind and will” to the Ordinary Magisterium of the bishops of the Church. 

I am familiar with the Orthodox concept of obedience to one's spiritual father.  But where is the info for submission of mind and will to the bishop?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  Are you asking for info from EO teaching, or CC teaching?
 

This claim is simply false. 

You are mistaken.

Based on the claim of a handful of bishops?  Where's your proof aside from that hearsay?

In shortThere were actually less than a handful (literally) of bishops who even complained that there was no freedom at the Council (among the 700 who attended, nearly 200 being of the Minority Party).  

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.

The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it.
(The Vatican dogma)

So out of a roll call of 750 bishops, 135 did not wish for it to be discussed.  And because it was indeed discussed, then this means there was no freedom at the Council. RIIIIIGHT.

Blessings

[Mardukm]

And, btw, I don't know who gave that translation of the bishop's words, but it's different from my own source.  The last line of that quote should be: "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our head."

That is from a different quote from the same bishop. And it is very telling of the confusion and dissent that was prevalent at the "council". 

So you call on a "confused" bishop as your witness.  OK. 

Blessings

[Mardukm]

Those numbers represent the estimates at the beginning of the Council. 

Yeah. By the time it ended, many who had been opposed were silenced. 

By the Truth and by their conscience. 

Blessings

[Mardukm]

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander," and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

Yes. The Keenan Catechism called it "a protestant invention".

You've seen enough of these debates, brother Mickey.  I'm sure you are aware that non-Catholics love to give caricatures of Catholic teachings.  The doctrine on papal infallibility was also the subject of these inventive caricatures.

Blessings

[Mardukm]

Prematurely closed. LOL.  Vatican I wasn't officially closed until you were about to open Vatican II.

 
Do you know what a prorogation is?  That's what happened with Vatican 1.  All the sessions were officially closed.  There was intention of re-opening it at some future date, and many expected it to be re-opened within a year, actually.  When V2 came to the fore, there was discussion of either re-opening V1, or calling a new Council entirely.  It was decided that an entirely new one be convened.  V1 had already been officially closed since 1870.  What happened before V2 was not a matter of closing V1, but of opening a new Council.

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander,"

I know.  The caricatures non-Catholics have of papal infallibility are indeed slanderous.

and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

So what?

IIRC, a number of bishops walked out.  And the only "father" of Vatican I whom the Vatican has canonized, the confessor to the Spanish royal family (what was his stance on the Spanish Inquisition?) stated that he had never heard such heresy as had been uttered in the Council.  I presume he meant those opposed to the Vatican's latest invention.

I'm not sure what your point is.

The Easterners and the Orientals could have returned to the Church.

 
Indeed many did, and were martyred for it.

Really?  Can you be more specific?  There were also many Catholics who were persecuted and martyred during this period in history.

"And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.' 1) Old Catholic Union, 2) which countries are you talking about, as I don't know of any.

  France, England and the U.S. to name a few.  I'm not sure what "the Old Catholic Union" signifies in relation to this topic. They had no bishops so they were not Churches.  To repeat, no bishops caused a schism due to V1.

Blessings

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

[qu

Dear brother Alexander,

Don't see dishonesty and polemics everywhere, I'm just trying to understand how it turned out. I consider that cases such as the bishops of the Minority Party were well aware of the motivations of their oppositions, since I read in full the objections (vehemently accused of heresy and protestantism) of one of the conciliar fathers, bishop Strossmayer, and it's clear that he strongly opposed the positions held at the Council.

Forgive me for presuming polemics on your part.  With respect to bishop Strossmayer, it should be noted that 1) the reservations he made that caused him to be accused of "heresy" and "protestantism" by many of the bishops were actually eventually accepted by the Council; 2) there was a vehemently anti-Council letter that was falsely attributed to him after the Council, a letter which was proven to be a forgery, but which still remained in circulation as late as 1928 in Egypt.  I have little doubt your sources are still citing that forgery as genuine.

Is that really "a fact" or just your opinion?  The Easterns and Orientals could have simply returned to the Orthodox Churches. And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.  I believe the more logical and truthful conclusion is that all these bishops actually believed that the Holy Spirit was at work in that Council.

Everything of what I wrote is MY personal opinion, and I think I'll keep it. Anyway, I think that the Orientals still believed that being under the Pope is more necessary then confessing orthodoxy, as many other bishops at the council did. Afterall, being in union with the Pope means having many advantages, and by that I mean power and money. Come here and see how much welfare have all RC priests in Italy...So I clearly believe that the Vatican I was passed by this will to preserve power, and not for the sake of the Catholic Faith.

So because the people are willing to support the Church, you interpret that to mean that Catholic priests and bishops are just money-hungry demagogues? I admit I don't understand.

I know I'll sound rude, but you just can't understand this well if you don't live in a country where the decisional presence of Catholicism is FORCED even on other Christians, atheists and non-Christians. Here the power - not only as authority, but also as corruption and welfare - of the Roman pontiff and his fellows is so vivid that it can't even be doubted.

Oh, you mean the same kind of national decisional presence that the Russian Orthodox Church practices.  OK.  So I guess that makes the Eastern Orthodox in general less true, according to your standard, correct?

Forgive,   Alex

There's nothing to forgive, brother.  But I do expect you to not be hypocritical in your judgment of the Catholic Church (see my previous paragraph).

Blessings

I'm not citing the letter. I'm quoting directly from the transcription of his discourse during the Council, with the inclusion of the insults from the Majority Party, as you call it. None of the points he makes based on Patristics and Bible have been completely ignored and followed by insults.
I am not accusing all priests and bishops to be "money-hungry demagogues", but since I personally know of an atheist parish priest who stays a Catholic minister for the money (I even heard him blame God's name), and I have seen many priests who insist in demanding money over money to the parishoners saying there's no money enough, and then you can see them travelling around in their ultra-modern car, I can say for experience that too many Catholic priests in Italy are there only for personal interests, or because they take the Catholic Church for a charitable institution and not as a religion. I know this is disgusting, and I also know it's not the same in all parts of the Catholic communion... but I'm sure that the Italian church is heavily deprived, and since afterall Italy is the country where the RCC is based, I know that her attitude will affect soon or later all the Roman communion.

Hatred for corruption, hypocrisy and selfishness in the Italian Church is what made me abandon it as soon as possible. Lots of people are living the churches here out of disgust. Many are even denying God because they can't stand such a corruption. I don't think the RC dogma of Papal Infallibility has been that useful and positive to the Roman Church, afterall.

In Christ,   Alex

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

I'm not citing the letter. I'm quoting directly from the transcription of his discourse during the Council, with the inclusion of the insults from the Majority Party, as you call it. None of the points he makes based on Patristics and Bible have been completely ignored and followed by insults.

I know English is not your first language.  In your last sentence above, did you mean "NOT ALL of the points he makes...have been completely ignored and followed by insults"?

To be perfectly clear, for those who may have not read the discourse, the big "scene" (as it was popularly known at the Council), was during the general session on the Constitution on the Catholic Faith (not the sessions regarding the papal prerogatives).  The proposed document contained a statement that blamed Protestantism for all the maladies of modernism, including atheism.  Bishop Strossmayer suggested that this statement should be removed, and launched into a "defense" of Protestants (though not a defense of Protestantism) which basically stated that he knew many that were genuine Christians.  This drew accusations of heresy and Protestantism from Council members.  It should be noted Strossmayer may well not have been cognizant of the actual tension between Catholics and Protestants in Western countries.  The next day in session, another bishop repeated the same points that Strossmayer had made, but heads had already cooled by then, and there were no objections.  Strossmayer's suggestions carried the day and the offensive statement about Protestants was removed.

I am not accusing all priests and bishops to be "money-hungry demagogues", but since I personally know of an atheist parish priest who stays a Catholic minister for the money (I even heard him blame God's name), and I have seen many priests who insist in demanding money over money to the parishoners saying there's no money enough, and then you can see them travelling around in their ultra-modern car, I can say for experience that too many Catholic priests in Italy are there only for personal interests, or because they take the Catholic Church for a charitable institution and not as a religion. I know this is disgusting, and I also know it's not the same in all parts of the Catholic communion... but I'm sure that the Italian church is heavily deprived, and since afterall Italy is the country where the RCC is based, I know that her attitude will affect soon or later all the Roman communion.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the Catholic Church, there are secular priests, and religious priests.  Secular priests are not required to profess a vow of poverty, but I seriously doubt any make enough money to have an "ultra-modern" car.  Do you know for sure that the car was bought by the priest, and not donated by an appreciative benefactor?  In any case, religious priests cannot own property.  If they were seen in an "ultra-modern" car, it would be the property of the Church, not the priest.  In any case, what do you mean by "ultra-modern" car?  Do you mean the modern fuel-efficient, or hybrid cars?  In any case, there are too many factors to consider, and I don't think you really have a right to judge the whole Church based on your mere perception of a few. 

Btw, here in the U.S., churches have what is known as "tax-exempt" status.  This means (partly) that if someone donates to a church, one can have one's taxes to the government reduced by that amount.  This seems to be the same as what you stated occurs in Italy, but I don't see how one can use that fact to judge the Church.

Hatred for corruption, hypocrisy and selfishness in the Italian Church is what made me abandon it as soon as possible. Lots of people are living the churches here out of disgust. Many are even denying God because they can't stand such a corruption. I don't think the RC dogma of Papal Infallibility has been that useful and positive to the Roman Church, afterall.

So you think the dogma of papal infallibility is supposed to prevent people from sinning?  And your rationale is that if people of a Church sin, then that means the Church isn't the true Church? If that's the case, I don't know why you think the EOC is the true Church.  Don't you know that the country that has the highest abortion rate in the world is Orthodox Russia?  Are you going to judge the Eastern Orthodox Church by that fact?  If you're judging the Catholic Church based on the supposed failure of its leadership to impose a Christian lifestyle, why won't you do the same with the EOC?  I can understand that you detest corruption, but your arguments should not lead to hypocrisy.

Blessings

[Mickey]

So if the Pope is really not standing in the way (according to your principle of "vagueness"), then you really have no basis for a complaint, do you?

You have never answered my question. Is your Pope able to declare an "infallible" doctrine without collegial approval?

Are you asking for info from EO teaching, or CC teaching?

What have you got?
 

[Mickey]

So out of a roll call of 750 bishops, 135 did not wish for it to be discussed.  And because it was indeed discussed, then this means there was no freedom at the Council.

There is plenty of discourse from the unhappy bishops who were silenced. But you have seen it already. 

[Mickey]

So you call on a "confused" bishop as your witness. 

This is your rebuttal? LOL! 

[Mickey]

By the Truth and by their conscience.

By Pope Pius IX and the ultramontanes. 

[Mickey]

The doctrine on papal infallibility was also the subject of these inventive caricatures.

I do not believe that the Keenan Catechism was invented by the protestants. 

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

The doctrine on papal infallibility was also the subject of these inventive caricatures.

I do not believe that the Keenan Catechism was invented by the protestants. 

LOL

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

So you think the dogma of papal infallibility is supposed to prevent people from sinning?  And your rationale is that if people of a Church sin, then that means the Church isn't the true Church? If that's the case, I don't know why you think the EOC is the true Church.  Don't you know that the country that has the highest abortion rate in the world is Orthodox Russia?  Are you going to judge the Eastern Orthodox Church by that fact?  If you're judging the Catholic Church based on the supposed failure of its leadership to impose a Christian lifestyle, why won't you do the same with the EOC?  I can understand that you detest corruption, but your arguments should not lead to hypocrisy.

I could never say such a stupid thing. Of course, I was just advancing the opinion that "maybe" the purpose of proclaiming Papal infallibility (i.e. stopping the advance or relativism in its various forms within the Church) hasn't been reached, since you can still find Catholic voices contrary to the the decisions of the Infallible Pope, such as pro-choice Catholics, and are Catholics who refute to accept that limbo has never been an official dogma of the Catholic Church. In other words, while the approach of the Orthodox Church is to SHOW the unbroken tradition - and not to define anything new - since the last 1000 years at least, the RCC is still adding new doctrines - including Papal infallibility - which are the result of speculations. This way, your church has opened a breach for relativism, because few doctrines are easier to be accepted then tons. When you look at the doctrines officially declared in the last millennium by the Catholic Church you can find:
Filioque
Papal Primacy
Transubstantiation
Purgatory
Papal Infallibility
Immaculate Conception
Assumption

All these doctrines outnumber the only three doctrines established by the first Seven Councils common to Orthodoxy, i.e. Holy Trinity, dyophysism and veneration of icons. Also, the necessity of the latest Latin doctrines isn't so essential. The Filioque in the Greek text (according to the Pope's words) is useless and even erroneous, so it could have been avoided introducing a more accurate translation of the Greek Creed. Papal Primacy as a "primus inter pares" or as a "corypheus" was already a doctrine of the church (according to RC theology) long before its declaration. Transubstantiation, while accurete as it might be, was menaced by no real contrary theological solution (a "real presence" would have been more then sufficient). Purgatory, as long as you witness prayers for the dead, is a doubtful and even useless doctrine: prayers for the dead were never doubted by Christians except by some pre-protestant sects (the Waldenians for example) of little interest before the rise of Protestantism. Papal Infallibility, once established Papal primacy, was of no use, because the Magisterium was already held as infallible in itself. Immaculate Conception is just a "Latin" definition, since its concepts are foreign to the other half of Catholicism (the Easteners) who can easily accept its conclusions (that Mary was always all-immaculate) but not its premises (that she was thus created by God). Finally, the Assumption is even more useless, since a feast of that name already existed in the liturgical tradition of the Latin Church.
In other words, what I mean is that you (=Catholics) claim Papal infallibility to be necessary, but everything the authority of the Pope has brought is a list of minor doctrines of no use and which made more divisions with their legalistic definitions then their simple affirmation by Tradition. I don't understand how the ministry of the Pope can be seen as an instrument of union, once seen its effects.

I know English is not your first language.  In your last sentence above, did you mean "NOT ALL of the points he makes...have been completely ignored and followed by insults"?

To be perfectly clear, for those who may have not read the discourse, the big "scene" (as it was popularly known at the Council), was during the general session on the Constitution on the Catholic Faith (not the sessions regarding the papal prerogatives).  The proposed document contained a statement that blamed Protestantism for all the maladies of modernism, including atheism.  Bishop Strossmayer suggested that this statement should be removed, and launched into a "defense" of Protestants (though not a defense of Protestantism) which basically stated that he knew many that were genuine Christians.  This drew accusations of heresy and Protestantism from Council members.  It should be noted Strossmayer may well not have been cognizant of the actual tension between Catholics and Protestants in Western countries.  The next day in session, another bishop repeated the same points that Strossmayer had made, but heads had already cooled by then, and there were no objections.  Strossmayer's suggestions carried the day and the offensive statement about Protestants was removed.

You got the meaning, but I read Strossmayer's discourse and (except for the innuendo of the other bishops) there was no reference of Protestantism at all. The issue analysed was Papal infallibility. At this point, anyway, I might think that many bishops insulted Strossmayer on the base of his previous assertions on Protestantism, too.

In Christ,   Alex

[ialmisry]

Prematurely closed. LOL.  Vatican I wasn't officially closed until you were about to open Vatican II.

 
Do you know what a prorogation is?  That's what happened with Vatican 1.  All the sessions were officially closed.  There was intention of re-opening it at some future date, and many expected it to be re-opened within a year, actually.  When V2 came to the fore, there was discussion of either re-opening V1, or calling a new Council entirely.  It was decided that an entirely new one be convened.  V1 had already been officially closed since 1870.  What happened before V2 was not a matter of closing V1, but of opening a new Council.

So the closing of VI was as vague as the dogma it invented.  How nice.

As Father Ambrose has posted, in catechisms approved by the Vatican, papal infallibility was called "Protestant slander,"

I know.  The caricatures non-Catholics have of papal infallibility are indeed slanderous.

And the explanations that Ultramontane apologists have offered are indeed laughable.

and Hefele had to rework his magni opi when Pastor Aeternus came in the middle of it.

So what?

So the fact that the leading scholar of the Vatican on dogma had to revampt his compendium of the same shows how novel the invented dogma was.

IIRC, a number of bishops walked out.  And the only "father" of Vatican I whom the Vatican has canonized, the confessor to the Spanish royal family (what was his stance on the Spanish Inquisition?) stated that he had never heard such heresy as had been uttered in the Council.  I presume he meant those opposed to the Vatican's latest invention.

I'm not sure what your point is.

That the rosey portrayal you are offering on the "consensus" of Vatican I is what we at the University of Chicago would call the residue of the gastrointestinal workings of the male bovine.

The Easterners and the Orientals could have returned to the Church.

 
Indeed many did, and were martyred for it.

Really?  Can you be more specific?

 

Why, of course I can: for example St. Maksym Sandovych.
http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/lemkos/maksym.htm

We have dealt with this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg341358.html#msg341358

In the 1890s, 145 years after Orthodoxy had ceased to exist in the Carpathians, a 'return to Orthodoxy' movement began, reaching a high point in the 1920s. Many Greek Catholics who became Orthodox were arrested for treason and a few were even executed by the government, with the Talerhof Concentration Camp5 and Martyr-Priest Maxim Sandovich's death in 1914 being the best known incidents...

Currently, Orthodox believers are outraged at the impending construction of a new Roman and Greek Catholic cathedral complex in the vicinity of the Orthodox cathedral. So, they announced they would erect another church of their own in downtown Uzhgorod, right in front of the original Greek Catholic cathedral, tit-for-tat. The new church will be consecrated after St. Alexei Kabalyuk, a Rusyn Orthodox hero. Kabalyuk was born into a Greek Catholic family but converted to Orthodoxy, became a priest and played a major role in reviving Orthodoxy in Transcarpathia in the early 20th century. On the eve of WWI, Kabalyuk was jailed, and later was a major leader of the Carpathian Orthodox until his death in 1947....

I thought I had posted somewhere about the Romanians in submission and the Transylvanian Memorandum, a result where the Union of Three Nations and Edict of Turda (1568, the one in 1366 ordered the expulsion or extermination of the "schismatic Vlachs." The Vatican's census of Transylvania in 1332 showed over 90% of the population was "schismatic Vlachs" i.e. Orthodox Romanians) where the the Calvinists, Lutherans, Unitarians had official standing, but the Romanians in submission were just "tolerated":  In 1892 the Romanians in Transylvania, led by those in submission to Rome, petitioned Emperor-King Franz Josef in the Transylvanian Memorandum to stop the persecution, disenfranchizement and Magyarization of all Romanians in Transyvania (submitted or Orthodox). Franz Josef sent it to Budapest, who tried its signers for "the treason of homeland betral" in Cluj (i.e. on Romanian soil) and sentenced them, including those in submission to the Vatican, to long prison terms. Many lived on to take part in the assembly of Alba Iulia, Transylvania (also where the church you are speaking for came into being) which proclaimed reunion with the rest of Romania. Communist Hungary responded by trying to reconquer Transylvania.  The Romanian Orthodox were confined to one bishop (Sibiu/Hermanstadt: the fact that it was a German Free city had a role in the possibility of the Orthodox having a bishop) in Transylvania.  That was only just before Vatican I, and only because the policy of extermination and suppression hadn't put a dent in the Romanian Orthodox population, and an independent Romanian Orthodox Kingdom was forming on the southern border.

There were also many Catholics who were persecuted and martyred during this period in history.

There were many followers of the Vatican who were persecuting and making martyrs of the Orthodox in this period in history.

"And there were many countries who were not exactly "pro-papal" and it would have been more convenient for the bishops in those countries to have created their own Churches.'

1) Old Catholic Union, 2) which countries are you talking about, as I don't know of any.

France, England and the U.S. to name a few. 

Oh, you mean countries where the temporal sword a la Unam Sanctam was not in the employ of the spiritual sword of the Vatican, to force submission. How more convenient did the Lefebrists find it?

I'm not sure what "the Old Catholic Union" signifies in relation to this topic. They had no bishops so they were not Churches.  To repeat, no bishops caused a schism due to V1.

Then maybe you can explain why the Vatican recognizes the Old Catholic orders?
http://www.churchofthebeatitudes.org/id8.html

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

The priests, faithful and theologians who built the Old Catholic Church have found their movement in a valid apostolic succession under the archbishopric of Utrecht, which was a sort of "sui iuris" church since they had their own Chapter for the election of bishops and archbishops without the consent of the Pope. After they began to protect the Jansenists escaping from persecution in France, the Pope excommunicated the Archbishop of Utrecht, and the local church entered into schism during the 18th century. It is from this episcopal line that the Old Catholics have received their episcopal orders in a way even the Roman Catholic Church couldn't put in doubt.

In Christ,   Alex

[Frederic]

Here are the Ex Cathedra statements that I am aware of:

Assumption: Pope Pius XII - Munificentissimus Deus (Nov. 1, 1950)
Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus (Dec. 8, 1854)
Beatific Vision:  Pope Benedict XII - Benedictus Deus (1336)

There is a controversy whether Unam Sanctam is an ex cathedra statement. This bull, proclaimed by Boniface VIII in 1302, contains the following statement.

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. [...] Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other. [...] Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

The wording of the definition is not very different from the one of Ineffabilis Deus:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

Some progressive Roman Catholic theologians say that Unam Sanctam does not fit the ex cathedra requirements because it was written out of anger towards King Philip le Bel of France!