OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 08:03:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Janus" (Döllinger) and "Anti-Janus" (Hergenröther)  (Read 2203 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« on: April 17, 2011, 12:40:03 AM »

These books are available in English and in German on http://books.google.com/ :

"Janus"
"Anti-Janus"
"Quirinus"
Letters 1869 - 1887

When I started getting closer to Church at the age of 17 - 19, I thought friendly about Roman Catholic Church and even used to read a book by John Paul II, and visited a site about Eucharistic Miracles ( http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html ), as well as sites about the orthodox miracles. But when I became interested about dogmatic differences between our Churches... The answer from the Orthodox Church on the dogma of Papal Infallibility was given on the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches Held in Connection with the Quingentenary Celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attainment to Autocephalous Status (Moscow, 1948). It was pointed to the works of Dollinger and some other historians, but his name was mentioned the most frequently and he was the most cited. I'm reading now his books: 1. Janus, 2. Anti-Janus by Hergenröther, 3. Quirinus, 4. Letters 1869 - 1887 (see the links above). Yes, even Hergenröther, because in fact, he always confirms, what Janus says. Did you try to read these books? What do you think about them?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 12:44:00 AM by Vadim » Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2011, 05:55:28 AM »

Although it seems strange, but the book by Hergenröther "Anti-Janus" only strengthens the assertions and facts, described in the book "Janus". Because if there wasn't any reply to Döllinger's book at all, you would doubt after reading it: maybe some facts were exaggerated, or is this only a part of truth? But as the reply to his book exists, you can take a fact from "Janus", and then look up what Hergenröther replies to that fact. And you will see after such comparison, that everything what Döllinger wrote was true.

For example, saying about influence of pseudo-Isidore on Pope Nicolas I, Döllinger writes (p. 98), that by modifying a single word this Pope changed the meaning of 17th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

"17. As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arise some dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustly treated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he may choose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed."

"Exarch of the diocese" is "primas dioceseos" in Latin. This means one of the patriarchs. Pope Nicolas I wrote to the Eastern Emperor, to the Frankish king, Charles, and to all the Frankish bishops (corresponding references to Mansi given in English text contain a mistake - in German text stands XV volume, not the V), that the singular, "dioceseos", meant the plural, "dioceseon", and therefore "Exarch of the diocese" meant the Pope. Hergenröther replies to that (p. 163): yes, "he did not rightly interpret the seventeenth canon of Chalcedon". And adds in the footnote, with a reference to Hefele: not only the 17th, but also the 9th canon. The 9 canon is almost the same as the 17th:

"9. If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him."

The only thing he disagrees with "Janus" is: Nicolas, Hergenröther says, changed the meaning of these two canons by himself, and not because he had read pseudo-Isidore. Because pseudo-Isidore gives another interpretation to the designation "Exarch". But if so, that is even worse then - because he used uncorrupted text of canons, and gave the wrong meaning to them. Observe that he was the first Pope who caused the schism with Greeks. He is considered to be "the Great" and saint by the Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 05:56:39 AM by Vadim » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2011, 10:19:16 AM »

Welcome to the forum, Vadim, and thanks for the links! Smiley
Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2011, 03:57:49 AM »

Welcome to the forum, Vadim, and thanks for the links! Smiley
Thanks, Michał. These links are really very important. These books are the first thing that anyone, who is interested about the Pope dogmas, must read. Because the Pope dogmas were pronounced on the Vatican Council. If this Council was free, it would be enough to read its acts, but the free discussion wasn't allowed there. Therefore, if we want to know the arguments of the opposition and the answers to these arguments, we have to read these books. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions these books in the article about the Vatican Council:

"From now onwards Dollinger was the leading spirit of the movement in Germany hostile to the council. He disputed most passionately the Syllabus and the doctrine of papal infallibility in five anonymous articles that were published in March, 1869, in the "Allgemeine Zeitung" of Augsburg. A large number of Catholic scholars opposed him vigorously, especially after he published his articles in book form under the pseudonym of "Janus", "Der Papst und das Konzil" (Leipzig, 1869). Among these was Professor Joseph Hergenrother of Wurzburg, who issued in reply "Anti-Janus" (Freiburg, 1870).
...
The most extreme opponent was Professor Dollinger of Bavaria. In his "Romische Briefe vom Konzil", published in the "Allgemeine Zeitung" and issued in book form (Munich, 1870), under the pseudonym of "Quirinus", he used information sent him from Rome by his pupils, Johann Friedrich and Lord Acton. In these letters he did everything he could by distorting and casting doubts upon facts, by scorn and ridicule, to turn the public against the council. This was especially so in an article of 19 Jan., 1870, in which he attacked so severely the address on infallibility, which had just become known, that even Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, an old pupil of Dollinger's and a member of the minority, protested publicly against it."


By the way, I found on this forum this dialogue which was in 2003. Observe that in that year these books weren't available online, because Google started its service "Google Books" in October 2004.

"Br. Max, OFC: Has anyone ever read the work: The Pope and the Council By Janus a pseudonym for Johann J. Dollinger?  It was written circa Vatican I and primarily in opposition to the Doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.  It's hard to find, but a good read on the topic of Papal infallibility.

Byzantino (Orthodox Christian): I've been looking for it everywhere and i'm not having any luck. If i do, i'll let you know. Dollinger was the greatest Church historian of his time.

Br. Max, OFC: Byzantino: It's IMPOSSIBLE to find.  I finally got a friend of mine at a local RC high school to get the librarian there to get it from a seminary library on loan and photocopy it for me.  

I mean it's only 130 years out of print.   it should be available every where!!"
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 04:00:18 AM by Vadim » Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2011, 09:26:37 AM »

These books are the collections of facts, confirming several main ideas. By comparing two of them, "Janus" and "Anti-Janus", you can check, whether these facts are true.

It is easy to find Döllinger's main idea, because it is at the very end of "Janus", p. 425. He says that if the Council isn't free, it can turn into something like the fifth Lateran Council - "into the pope's testimony of himself". We cannot believe to such a testimony (says he in "A few words on the address..."), because of  John v.31, and, besides, because the arguments of the Pope were "all spurious or irrelevant".

"Janus", p. 425: "The recently proclaimed Council is to be held not only in Italy, but in Rome itself, and already it has been announced that, as the sixth Lateran Council, it will adhere faithfully to the fifth. 1) That is quite enough - it means this, that whatever course the Synod may take, one quality can never be predicated of it, namely, that it has been a really free Council.

Theologians and canonists declare that without complete freedom the decisions of a Council are not binding, and the assembly is only a pseudo-Synod. Its decrees may have to be corrected."

1) [Cf. supr. pp. 197, 198, 348.]

Let's see then, what he says about the fifth Lateran Council, p. 198:

"The papal decrees published there were, however, far from unimportant. On the contrary, a decree was issued exceeding in weight and significance any published in former Roman Councils, viz., Leo X.'s Bull, Pastor Aeternus, in which, while abolishing the Pragmatic Sanction in France, he declares as a dogma that "the Pope has full and unlimited authority over Councils; he can at his good pleasure summon, remove, or dissolve them." The proofs for this cited in the Bull are all spurious or irrelevant. Earlier and later fictions, partly borrowed from the pseudo-Isidore, are quoted to show that the ancient Councils were under the absolute authority of the Pope, that even the Nicene Council supplicated him for the confirmation of its decrees, etc."

Let's see at Hergenröther's reply about the fifth Lateran Council, p. 203, 210. He says, that not all of the proofs were spurious, some of them were genuine:

P. 203: "Whoever reads these words is tempted to believe that Leo X. cited only forged documents; but he cites..." (here he shows some genuine proofs). P. 210: "Let us now return to Pope Leo X. Supposing that all the historical arguments in the Bull "Pastor Aeternus" were alike untenable, will, therefore, the theological ones be thereby overthrown, which show that the head of the whole Church is the head of its representatives also? From the dogmatic definition of Florence, further consequences could be deduced. The reasoning might be incorrect, but still the enunciated doctrine is not therefore untrue."

Döllinger, Letters, p. 35 ("A few words on the address..."): "Everything thus resolves itself finally into the pope's testimony of himself, which is, indeed, a very simple matter. We need here only to remind ourselves that 1840 years ago One infinitely higher said of Himself, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John v.31).
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2011, 10:18:53 AM »

. . . because of  John v.31 . . .

[. . .]

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John v.31).

John 5 v.31.
Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2011, 10:46:32 AM »

All the Bible quotes are given there in that way, for example on p. 9: "Luke xxii. 32".
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 10:51:25 AM by Vadim » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2011, 10:54:19 AM »

All the Bible quotes are given there in that way, for example on p. 9: "Luke xxii. 32".

I'm sorry -- I thought the "v." was for "verse," not for "five."
Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2011, 01:34:02 PM »

Why should we study carefully the history of the Vatican Council - maybe just to read several quotes from the writings of the Church Fathers would be enough to believe in the Pope dogma? No - because if it really was so obviously, the Council of Trent (which preceded the Vatican Council) wouldn't had rejected the infallibility dogma. "Letters 1869 - 1887", "Considerations for the bishops of the Council respecting the question of papal infallibility" (October 1869), p. 25:

"The whole history of the Church Shows, and, in conformity with this, all theologians teach, that the Church gives a more fixed and exact expression to a doctrine that has hitherto been believed and proclaimed, or that she establishes, limits, and defines that doctrine by a dogmatic decree, especially if it has been attacked from many sides, contested, suspected as an error, or misrepresented and distorted. This was just the position of papal infallibility at the time of the Synod of Trent. By all authors and adherents of Protestant teachings it was branded as an invention that lacked foundation, and as a device of later times. Moreover, the ecclesiastical theologians outside of Italy, who took under their especial protection all other doctrines which were assailed, were with few exceptions wont to abandon this one, either by their silence or in express words. It was accordingly strongly urged upon the Synod of Trent, if it regarded this doctrine as a part of the depositum fidei, and as being warranted by tradition, to raise it to an article of faith. Nevertheless, it was rejected by the Assembly, and the proposal that had already been made by the papal legates was withdrawn when they recognised that it was disapproved of by a number of the bishops."
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2011, 05:29:58 PM »


Br. Max, OFC: Byzantino: It's IMPOSSIBLE to find.  I finally got a friend of mine at a local RC high school to get the librarian there to get it from a seminary library on loan and photocopy it for me.  

I mean it's only 130 years out of print.   it should be available every where!!"
Alibris has both Janus and anti-Janus.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2011, 12:50:09 PM »

Some very important information, which I noticed accidentally: bishop Strossmayer, who was one of the most famous participants of the Vatican Council, and who at last accepted its dogmas, - he wrote that "Letters from Rome on the Council" by Döllinger - this is the third link in my first message - "Quirinus" - is the most exact and the best history of the Vatican Council. Hence an interesting question arises: is it possible to believe in dogmas of this Council without having read this book? Notice that it has 850 pages!

Döllinger wrote, that some letters from the bishops of the Vatican Council, which deeply impressed him, were gathered in the work by Herr von Schulte "Der Altkatholicismus":

Letters 1869-1887, Döllinger to Archbishop von Steichele, March 1st, 1887 (p. 144): "I had refused to recognise a Council which, except numbers, lacked all the conditions of validity fixed by theology; a Council at which there was notoriously no freedom, no thorough examination, and no statement of actual tradition; a Council whose very unexampled order of business proclaimed the servitude of the bishops. A very few days after his return, Archbishop von Scherr candidly communicated several facts to me which left me no doubt on this point, and to these were added other verbal and written opinions, all of which were to the same effect. In the recently published work by Herr von Schulte, Der Altkatholicismus, we have an ample collection of such letters and testimonies from bishops. What then can be still said in extenuation in face of this host of most weighty voices? Your Grace is certainly far from being willing to designate these venerable colleagues, some of whom are still living, as liars and calumniators of the Church. Verily, in view of these reports and testimonies, one would like to veil one's head in pain and mourning for this disgrace of the Occidental Church - a disgrace that can never more be wiped out. The course of the Vatican Council is worse than that of the Synod at Ephesus in 449 A.D. For cunning and deceit, mental compulsion, business - like oppression under the appearance of free deliberation are worse things than physical ill-treatment and wild clamour, such as there was at Ephesus."

I found that book, "Der Altkatholicismus" by Schulte, on http://www.archive.org/ , but it was in German. Some fragments of the letters published in this books I found in this article, which is available on this site: "The Vatican Dogma", by Sergius Bulgakov:

"In a letter to Döllinger of 4.III.1871 he writes: “the most objectionable and absurd means were used to prevent a free exchange of opinions. I repeat for the hundredth time that never, never can God give His blessing to a thing that has come about in this fashion” (254). “If ever in history a meeting was the very opposite of what it ought to be, it was the Vatican Council. Everything which could compromise the name of ‘council’ was there to a superlative degree” (255). <...> (see also a number of similar letters to various people: 258-263). <...> It is noteworthy that about the same time Strossmeyer, with the weight of this compromise on his conscience, was trying to convert V. Solovyov to Catholicism."

Then I opened "Der Altkatholicismus" on these pages, 254-256, where these fragments were, and noticed accidently, that in that same letters, quoted above, bishop Strossmayer wrote that "Letters from Rome on the Council" by Döllinger - this is the third link in my first message - "Quirinus" - is the most exact and the best history of the Vatican Council:

p. 254: "I'll read again your Letters. As far as I remember, they ["Letters from Rome on the Council"] - are the most exact and the best history of the Council. My dearest friend! It's impossible to imagine something more hindered and unfree, than this Council was. The most objectionable and absurd means..." (4.III.1871)
p. 255: "I've looked again through your Letters and repeat, that they are the most exact compendium of the Vatican Council. If ever in history a meeting was..." (10.VI.1871)
p. 256: "I don't remember, whether you have mentioned in your Letters, that after the speech of cardinal Guidi..." (10.VI.1871)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,636



« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2011, 02:26:49 PM »

Christos Voskrese!

Somewhere here Fr. Ambrose has posted the Anglo-Irish Catechism, or some such title, published 1870, where the imprematur  is given to the statement that papal infallibility is "a Protestant lie," made to defame the followers of the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2011, 03:10:14 PM »

Christos Voskrese!

Somewhere here Fr. Ambrose has posted the Anglo-Irish Catechism, or some such title, published 1870, where the imprematur  is given to the statement that papal infallibility is "a Protestant lie," made to defame the followers of the Vatican.
But it's unclear whether the AIC definition of "papal infallibility" is the definition adopted by Vatican I.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2011, 02:32:39 PM »

Christos Voskrese!

Somewhere here Fr. Ambrose has posted the Anglo-Irish Catechism, or some such title, published 1870, where the imprematur  is given to the statement that papal infallibility is "a Protestant lie," made to defame the followers of the Vatican.
Voistinu Voskrese!
Here is that message of Father Ambrose.

But it's unclear whether the AIC definition of "papal infallibility" is the definition adopted by Vatican I.
Yes, it is. See also Letters 1869 - 1887, p. 166; "Quirinus", p. 97; "Roman Catholic opposition to papal infallibility", p. 111.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 02:34:00 PM by Vadim » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2011, 04:40:25 PM »

Christos Voskrese!

Somewhere here Fr. Ambrose has posted the Anglo-Irish Catechism, or some such title, published 1870, where the imprematur  is given to the statement that papal infallibility is "a Protestant lie," made to defame the followers of the Vatican.
Voistinu Voskrese!
Here is that message of Father Ambrose.

But it's unclear whether the AIC definition of "papal infallibility" is the definition adopted by Vatican I.
Yes, it is. See also Letters 1869 - 1887, p. 166; "Quirinus", p. 97; "Roman Catholic opposition to papal infallibility", p. 111.
In all of those pre-Vatican I denials of papal infallibility, no precise definition of what "papal infallibility" actually means, is given. They just mention "papal infallibility", as if everyone knows what it means; of course, people have had all sorts of ideas about what it means, which is why Vatican I gave a fairly precise definition:

Quote
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,

(1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
(2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
(3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

Vatican I actually denied "papal infallibility" -- that is, the inherent infallibility of the Pope in all that he says. Instead, it defined a very restricted version of papal infallibility, so restricted that, I would argue, to use the term "papal infallibility" to describe it, would be inaccurate. A more accurate term is "papal under-extreme-circumstances-when-speaking-for-the-Church infallibility".
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 04:41:04 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,423


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2011, 02:18:11 AM »

It's good to see that cleared up. Thank you.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2011, 03:03:01 AM »

These books are available in English and in German on http://books.google.com/ :

"Janus"
"Anti-Janus"
"Quirinus"
Letters 1869 - 1887

When I started getting closer to Church at the age of 17 - 19, I thought friendly about Roman Catholic Church and even used to read a book by John Paul II, and visited a site about Eucharistic Miracles ( http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html ), as well as sites about the orthodox miracles. But when I became interested about dogmatic differences between our Churches... The answer from the Orthodox Church on the dogma of Papal Infallibility was given on the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches Held in Connection with the Quingentenary Celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attainment to Autocephalous Status (Moscow, 1948). It was pointed to the works of Dollinger and some other historians, but his name was mentioned the most frequently and he was the most cited. I'm reading now his books: 1. Janus, 2. Anti-Janus by Hergenröther, 3. Quirinus, 4. Letters 1869 - 1887 (see the links above). Yes, even Hergenröther, because in fact, he always confirms, what Janus says. Did you try to read these books? What do you think about them?

If Papal infallibility were such a revolutionary idea in 1870 then why do you think the vast, vast majority of RC's went along with it?  If Dollinger and his "old catholic" movement were so traditional then why did only a handful of Catholics follow him (He received most of his support from the anti clericalism of the German empire which had an obvious axe to grind against the Vatican)? 

The concept of Papal infallibility was around in the west a long time before Vatican I came around, it just wasn't defined as dogmatic by the RCC until then.  I'm wagering that most common, ordinary RC's (Who bothered to think about it) probably already held a view that the Pope could not error when proclaiming the faith even before 1870.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2011, 03:12:29 AM »

Christos Voskrese!

Somewhere here Fr. Ambrose has posted the Anglo-Irish Catechism, or some such title, published 1870, where the imprematur  is given to the statement that papal infallibility is "a Protestant lie," made to defame the followers of the Vatican.

A lot of the anti Papal crowd always points to this catechism as solid proof that RC's everywhere denied the concept of Papal infallibility before 1870.  It hardly needs to be pointed out that one catechism does not represent the whole of Catholic teaching on this subject and cannot be used as conclusive proof on what all RC's believed at the time of its publication.  Show me catechism's from other countires published before 1870 which deny Infallibility?  Can you? What was the consensus of the rest of the Catholic world outside Ireland on this subject at the time?

Also, it goes without saying that one has to remember the times and the difficult situation that the Irish Church aced (Being subjugated to a Protestant power).  It's obvious that the RCC in Ireland wished to downplay a teaching such as Papal infallibility (Which might cause RC's to be viewed with suspicion and even treachery by their Protestant overlords).  Also, as we all know the dogma of Papal Infallibility was not officially defined at the time, so it was possible for individual Catholics, and even an entire local Church to cast doubt on it.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2011, 07:01:31 AM »

The concept of Papal infallibility was around in the west a long time before Vatican I came around, it just wasn't defined as dogmatic by the RCC until then.
I agree with this. Papal infallibility was just a logical conclusion from the statement that Pope has more power then Ecumenical Councils, which was made several centuries before, on the Fifth Lateran Council, and "proved" by many falsifications (see Reply #4).

I just wanted to say that, as Orthodox Church said on the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches Held in Connection with the Quingentenary Celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attainment to Autocephalous Status (Moscow, 1948), these books are the best and the shortest way to learn the truth about the Pope dogma.

Have you already read them, and if no - will you read them?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 07:15:29 AM by Vadim » Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2011, 09:06:28 PM »

The concept of Papal infallibility was around in the west a long time before Vatican I came around, it just wasn't defined as dogmatic by the RCC until then.
I agree with this. Papal infallibility was just a logical conclusion from the statement that Pope has more power then Ecumenical Councils, which was made several centuries before, on the Fifth Lateran Council, and "proved" by many falsifications (see Reply #4).

I just wanted to say that, as Orthodox Church said on the Meeting of Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches Held in Connection with the Quingentenary Celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attainment to Autocephalous Status (Moscow, 1948), these books are the best and the shortest way to learn the truth about the Pope dogma.

Have you already read them, and if no - will you read them?


  I might have already, an English translation anyway.  My Russian is not so good, so if you could direct me to a competant English translation I would do my best to study them.
I am aware that during and after the war, the Moscow Patriarchate issued condemnations of the Papacy as a tool of fascism and "collaborators" with the enemies of the Soviet.  The Vatican also answered these charges through documents and radio broadcast aimed at counterattacking these pronouncements as communist propaganda.

Could you believe anything that the MP said during this time period since they were so obviously controlled by Stalin and his henchmen?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2011, 10:00:59 AM »

 I might have already, an English translation anyway.  My Russian is not so good, so if you could direct me to a competant English translation I would do my best to study them.
I was very surprised with your erudition, but today I've noticed that you've already been an orthodox (in this topic: What to make of my Orthodox baptism?). If I understand correctly, you've read 1948 Council acts. But I was asking about that books to which I've put links in my first message. Have you read them? I can't understand how is it possible to remain being Roman Catholic while having read that books. But Roman Catholics whom I asked, even didn't want to read them, because they were afraid that Döllinger was a heretic.

For example, what would you reply to this:

Döllinger, Letters, p. 35 ("A few words on the address..."): "Everything thus resolves itself finally into the pope's testimony of himself, which is, indeed, a very simple matter. We need here only to remind ourselves that 1840 years ago One infinitely higher said of Himself, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John v.31).
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 10:02:01 AM by Vadim » Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2011, 04:34:26 PM »

 I might have already, an English translation anyway.  My Russian is not so good, so if you could direct me to a competant English translation I would do my best to study them.
I was very surprised with your erudition, but today I've noticed that you've already been an orthodox (in this topic: What to make of my Orthodox baptism?). If I understand correctly, you've read 1948 Council acts. But I was asking about that books to which I've put links in my first message. Have you read them? I can't understand how is it possible to remain being Roman Catholic while having read that books. But Roman Catholics whom I asked, even didn't want to read them, because they were afraid that Döllinger was a heretic.

For example, what would you reply to this:

Döllinger, Letters, p. 35 ("A few words on the address..."): "Everything thus resolves itself finally into the pope's testimony of himself, which is, indeed, a very simple matter. We need here only to remind ourselves that 1840 years ago One infinitely higher said of Himself, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John v.31).

That statement makes little, if any sense.
Alos, I am not sure if I have ever read the 1948 council acts (Although I may have somewhere down the line).  Do you really think that it would make any difference for me if I did?  This council was called by the Soviets in order to use the ROC and affiliated Churches to bash the Western world (Which for them was headed by the Vatican) .
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2011, 02:36:12 PM »

Here is an example, which shocked me, in which Archbishop gave no answers to questions of teacher of his youth, whom he loved:

"Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees 1869-1887", p. 137

Archbishop of Munich and Freising Antonius von Steichele to Döllinger, 1878, 1879, 1886

...I feel myself impelled to put this gift into your hands also as a souvenir, Most Reverend Provost, the teacher of my youth, towards whom I have always preserved my earlier admiration and sense of gratefulness. ...

...Tomorrow you will celebrate your eightieth birthday. I hail this day with heartfelt sympathy. It is with the thankfulness of a pupil to the hoary-headed teacher, with the respect of a disciple for the honoured bearer of the richest knowledge, and with the love of an anxious bishop for the brother who unfortunately is not yet at one with him in that which is highest and most important, that I shall be hovering about you in the spirit to-morrow. ... for what gift of God could I pray more sincerely and heartily for you than for the grace that His lamp and His staff may lead you back to unity with that Church ... and to the consolation of the Holy Church, separated from unity with which, the isolated soul can surely never find rest and peace. ...

...There are but few days which pass without my thinking of you with the old love and sympathy, and without my soul being moved with anxiety and prayer for your welfare and salvation. To-day, the eve of the festival of your name-day, which you will keep to-morrow, offers me an opportunity of bearing testimony to my feelings. I too shall celebrate this festival with you, though I am sorry I cannot do so with unalloyed joy. It is tarnished by the thought that I cannot reach you the hand of brotherly love to mutual endeavours for Christ and His kingdom, that the respected teacher stands here and the grateful pupil there, that of all who are entrusted to his care the bishop must see just that one afar off whom with the love and warmth of his heart he would like to see nearest. It is this feeling which admonishes and urges your bishop to address a few friendly and well-intentioned words to his dear brother, inviting and begging him to be reconciled to the Holy Catholic Church for which he was once so ardent, and for which he has worked by spoken and written words and actions that have been so richly blessed; he also begs him further to re-enter that communion in which he once felt such happiness.

Within the last few weeks, respected Provost, you have made such friendly advances and shown such good-will towards me on occasions of our meeting, that I make this appeal to you with courage and confidence. God has added an almost unusual number of days to the term of your life, and wonderfully blessed you with strength of body and mind. But who knows how long the days of grace for returning into the bosom of the Church will still be granted to you? ...

Döllinger to Archbishop von Steichele, March 1st, 1887

<Long letter in seventeen pages, in which he briefly explains his main thoughts and arguments>

Archbishop von Steichele to Döllinger, March 19th, 1887

Reverend Provost and Reichsrath, - In your letter to me ofthe 1st inst., among other things you say: "I cannot help conjecturing that your Grace has addressed your letter to me at the instigation of colleagues, or because you were moved to it by influence from abroad." This passage of your letter requires a correction. Rest assured that I did not take that step at the instigation of colleagues, or because I was moved to it by influence from abroad. The thought of once more addressing myself to you sprang from my own heart; I carried it out with the feeling of my duty, and out of love to you. You must kindly excuse my entering into details on any other points of your letter. Always bearing the same love to you. - I remain, yours truly,
Antonius,
Archbishop of Munich and Freising.
Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2011, 04:41:28 PM »

The Council of Florence. We can read in its definition:

Session 6—6 July 1439

[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff <...> governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

"Acts of ecumenical councils" - which of them? Now it is often said, that well-known definition of the Council of Constance on the primacy of Ecumenical Councils, contradicting Vatican I, was not confirmed by the Popes; but at the time of the Council of Florence this wasn't so simple. This definition was also renewed on the Council of Basle.

Janus, p. 326: "After the departure of the Greeks, Eugenius severely denounced the Synod of Basle in his Bull, issued from Florence, but this censure only touched the sessions held after its prorogation, and the "false interpretation put upon the decrees of Constance." In this reserved and tortuous document he did not venture to make any direct attack on the decrees of Constance, then so highly reverenced throughout the Christian world, but he tried to damage their credit by observing that they had been passed during the time of the schism by one Obedience only, and after the departure of Pope John."

Indeed, Eugenius says in this bull, that decrees of Constance were misinterpreted in the same way, as Scripture and writings of holy fathers were usually misinterpreted by the heretics:

Session 7—4 September 1439

[Decree of the council of Florence against the synod at Basel]

"...held a so-called session on 16 May last asserting that they were obeying certain decrees, although these were passed at Constance by only one of the three obediences after the flight of John XXIII, as he was called in that one obedience, at a time of schism.

Alleging obedience to those decrees, they proclaimed three propositions which they term truths of the faith, seemingly to make heretics of us and all princes and prelates and other faithful and devout adherents of the apostolic see. The propositions are the following.

"The truth about the authority of a general council, representing the universal church, over a pope and anyone else whatsoever, declared by the general councils of Constance and this one of Basel, is a truth of the catholic faith. The truth that a pope cannot by any authority, without its consent, dissolve a general council representing the universal church, legitimately assembled for the reasons given in the above-mentioned truth or for any of them, or prorogue it to another time or transfer it from place to place, is a truth of the catholic faith. Anyone who persists in opposing the aforesaid truths is to be considered a heretic."

In this, those utterly pernicious men, masking their malice with the rosy colour of a truth of the faith, gave to the council of Constance an evil and mischievous meaning completely opposed to its true teaching, imitating in this the teaching of other schismatics and heretics who always amass for their support fabricated errors and impious dogmas drawn from their perverse interpretation of the divine scriptures and the holy fathers."

This bull wasn't commented at all by Anti-Janus (while some other writings and sayings of the Popes about Constance and Basle Councils were commented by him). So what is the "correct interpretation" of decrees of Constance? The answer to this question wasn't given at the Council of Florence, so the meaning of its definition is unclear.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 04:42:05 PM by Vadim » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 51 queries.