| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Vatican Councils | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 26. September 2010, 17:10 (354 Views) | |
| Mairtin | Sunday, 26. September 2010, 17:10 Post #1 |
|
I see no reason why not, Clare, provided that the criticism is based on some sort of rational deate and not the 'everything bad has happed since Vatican II so it must be to blame' sort of argument. A while back in another place I wrote a lengthy piece on what I thought were pertinent factors about the origins of Vatican II that I think tend to get overlooked; here it is again as perhaps a useful starting point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a quite a few posts here over the last while, I have noticed a lack of understanding about how Vatican II actually came about with some views ranging from the overly simplistic to the downright misleading. I thought it might be worthwhile looking at how it really did come about and the influences that affected it. I’m trying to write this as a factual summary, not an opinionated one, so that it can be a base that we can all agree on when we talk about the Council and its impact; I’m bound to make mistakes, I’d just ask people to correct those mistakes on the same factual basis, not an opinionated one. First of all, when looking at any historic event or period, you cannot look at it in isolation; historic events inevitably come from other things that preceded them so those things have to be considered too. In order to identify the origins of the Second Vatican Council, we first thing we have to do is go back a full century to its predecessor the First Vatican Council which took place from 1868 to 1870. That council was the first in over 300 years, the last one having been the Council of Trent and just like Vatican II took place in a time of massive social, political, economic and technological change. The 19th century had seen the final dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire with the Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and Ottoman empires starting to crumble whilst the British Empire reached its peak and the New Worlds of America and Australia accelerated in importance. The Industrial Revolution had just peaked with the rapid movement of populations off the land and into the cities; science too went through a period of rapid change and, probably for the first time, began to seriously influence cultural thinking with the publication of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in 1858 and the application of “higher criticism” to Bible texts to determine their actual origins. The First Vatican Council had a wide agenda to cover but only completed its work on the definition of the papacy – including papal infallibility – and definition of the Catholic Faith. Initial discussion on a draft constitution for the Church was brought to an abrupt end before any significant agreement could be reached by the Italian Army seizing Rome as the final step in the unification of Italy. Pope Pius IX suspended the Council indefinitely in October 1970; it was never reconvened but was not formally closed until 1960, following the announcement of Vatican II. Some historians would argue that this left an unbalanced Church in that the power of the Pope was authoritatively defined but no counter balancing powers of the bishops were defined, leaving the papacy without the restrictions that the Council would probably have put in place through the new constitution for the Church. Although the rapid social, political, economic and technological change continued unabated over the next 30 years, they had no major impact on the Church due largely to the work of Pope Leo XIII who worked hard at accommodating science and religion as well as building new relationships with secular powers and other churches. Nevertheless, there was a growing sense of unease within the Church at what was seen as the growth in modernism and relativism and their threat to the traditional teachings of the Church. When Pius X became Pope in 1903, he made opposition to Modernism in particular a central plank of his papacy and in his 1907 decree Lamentabili Sane, he formally condemned sixty five propositions associated with Modernism and followed this up with the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis which characterised Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies"; he also ordered all clerics to take the Sacrorum Antistitum, a formal oath against Modernism. At the same time, he rolled back much of the approach adopted by Leo XIII towards secular governments and adopted a much more aggressive and isolationist approach to them, attacking them particularly on the grounds that that there could be no separation of state and church. Although his approach was widely perceived as unnecessarily restrictive and somewhat heavy-handed, the following 50 years and the papacies of Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII were dominated by war, the threat of war or the immediate aftermath of war so there was little appetite to change the approach set in place by Pius X. By the late 1950’s, however, a majority of theologians and bishops in the Church had come to the belief that the dogmatic approach of Pius X was no longer up to the challenges they were facing from a post World War II generation with their changing views on sexuality combined with a level of affluence undreamt of by their parents and the greater availability of education; we children of the “Swinging Sixties” think that it all started then but most of it actually started in the 1950’s with the explosion onto the cultural scene of people like Bill Hayley, Buddy Holly and “Elvis the Pelvis. This was happening in an environment where the whole global order was changing with the beginning of the death of colonialism and the emergence of new independent nations in India and throughout Africa alongside the growth and spread of communism. There was also the ongoing acceleration in science and technology spurred first by World War II itself and continued by the Cold War between East and West especially in the “space race”. Though the feeling of the need for change was widespread among the bishops and theologians, there were two very distinct schools of thought on how that change should be achieved:
The disparate ideas that these two schools of thought had about solutions should not blind us to the common ground they shared in their conviction of the need for change and particularly the development of a greater degree of collegiality which many regarded as the ‘unfinished business’ of Vatican I. This is illustrated by the thinking of one young theologian fast coming to prominence in the Church who belonged very much to the second group and was well known as a sturdy conservative; nevertheless, he wrote in his 1968 book Introduction to Christianity that the pope has a duty to listen to the different voices within the Church before making a decision; he downplayed the centrality of the papacy and said that the Church of the time was too centralised, rule-bound and overly controlled from Rome. That theologian was Joseph Ratzinger. The only group who opposed this move for fresh thinking and a change of approach by the Church were a group of aged cardinals who preferred to cling to the ethos laid down by Pius X; whilst this group was small in numbers, it did have one great advantage on its side – the immensely powerful Roman Curia was drawn almost exclusively from its ranks. When Pope John XXIII announced the calling of the Second Vatican Council in January 1959, just 3 months after his election as Pope it caught the whole Church by surprise, not least the Curia. Many people have speculated since about why Pope John made his announcement so quickly and did not seem to have consulted anyone else about it; the only logical explanation seems to be that he did it that way to neutralise any attempt by the Curia to strangle the idea at birth. Despite the surprise element, the announcement met with widespread approval both within and outside the Church except for the Curia who showed very little reaction to the announcement, choosing instead to stay mainly mute on the matter. In October 1962, after two and a half years of extensive and incredibly detailed preparation, the Council formally opened. Many, however, would regard it as the completion of Vatican I rather than a different Council. Edited by Mairtin, Sunday, 26. September 2010, 22:19.
|
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Sunday, 26. September 2010, 18:02 Post #2 |
|
Mairtin, From what I have read about V1 it seemed like a stich up. The question of infallibility caught people (Bishops) unawares and there was much arm twisting and political shenanigans used to get it through. And when it looked like going through a large number of opposition bishops absented themselves rather than vote against it (which seems cowardly to me). Every account of the proceedings that I have read also makes a point of telling of the thunderstorm that raged as the dogma was proclaimed, with lighting hitting a window in the rood and broken glass showering down around the main players. Newman said that before a dogma could be perceived as infallible it would have to be generally accepted by the church (the people of God). In this respect the jury is still out on this one and one can understand why Kung has not been disciplined for his stance. Gerry Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Sunday, 26. September 2010, 18:10 Post #3 |
|
I don't know whether the following text I have on file helps in any way Mairtin? (It is not something that personally I have taken any special interest in) PJD Definition of Vatican I 9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. Papal Infallibility The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due. Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in moral unity, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Vatican II’s Explanation Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). Based on Christ’s Mandate Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). Some Clarifications An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone, by an ecumenical council, or by the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium through the centuries—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined by an official papal statement. There are, in fact, few topics on which it would be possible for a pope to make an infallible decision without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Sunday, 26. September 2010, 22:23 Post #4 |
|
That sounds like something from the mouth of Sir Humphrey Appleby :smile: |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Sunday, 26. September 2010, 22:47 Post #5 |
|
Martain sounds more like open university- and why not indeed ? Tom |
![]() |
|
| Phil_sfo | Monday, 27. September 2010, 00:04 Post #6 |
|
Papal Infallibility http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html "This doctrine was taken up again, confirmed and further explained by Vatican II, which states: "And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32), by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment." |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 27. September 2010, 06:07 Post #7 |
|
It gives the impression of the Bishops having some form of infallibility but the condition "while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor means that they only have infallibility if they are in agreement with the Pope who has already been declared to be infallible; that's what makes the definition the sort of impressive sounding but meaningless politico-speak that Sir Humphrey was so good at. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Monday, 27. September 2010, 09:14 Post #8 |
|
PJD, My heart sank when I saw your post. I didnt think I could be bothered responding to huge chunks of text pasted in from elsewhere. But some of Mairtin's thoughts gave me enough heart to say something. Let me say at the outset that I think those of us who doubt this particular dogma, all consider that the Church IS guided. Its the definition of infallibility we find difficult to believe. This certainly includes Hans Kung. I also think it included Newman - who accepted infallibility, argued against defining it, and only accepted the definition in its most minimalist terms, and thought it needed triming by future Councils.
The thoughful arguments against the definition are legion and I dont have time to say too much about them (read either Newman or Kung). But the definition you posted has within it one of the arguments against.
What tradition? There is no tradition of papal infallibility. Its a new concept. You dont find any such tradition in the Orthodox churches do you? There was no consensus even in modern times - there was a large body of Bishops agianst the definition, even at the Council. Other points - it is too easy to find examples of Papal pronoucements, apparently ex cathedra, that are reversed later. I seem to remember Pope Honorius I being a common example - and the example I favour is of the Concilar anathema - "Outside the Chuch there is no salvation". I also look at the fruit of some of these dogmas - and they put obstacles to unity and obstacles to potential converts. I would say unnecessary obstacles. Some of the modern "dogmas" would exclude even some of the Fathers of the Church. This is not good fruit. Actually I think, in the end, its this fruit that will bring this particular house of cards crashing down. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Monday, 27. September 2010, 09:57.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Monday, 27. September 2010, 09:38 Post #9 |
|
P.S. Just had a look on Wiki at the Othodox understanding of infallibility - and it looks good to me. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Monday, 27. September 2010, 10:26 Post #10 |
|
Nonsense! That is exactly what Councils do - reform definitions of earlier Councils. My example above - "There is no salvation outside the Church" (Trent) - was indeed reformed by V2 (Much to the annoyance of some members here). Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Monday, 27. September 2010, 11:21 Post #11 |
|
"PJD,My heart sank when I saw your post. I didnt think I could be bothered responding to huge chunks of text pasted in from elsewhere. But some of Mairtin's thoughts gave me enough heart to say something." I only put it in in case it helped Gerry. As I indicated - for myself, it is not a topic I have studied or had a special interest in. If some of Mairtin's thoughts gave you enough heart to say something, then that in itself is progress. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 28. September 2010, 00:51 Post #12 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Newman rounded off his letter to the Duke of Norfolk with
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 28. September 2010, 08:33 Post #13 |
|
And let us remember that at the very earliest days of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem accepted that Paul was right and Jesus' own choice for pope, Peter, was wrong over the issue of whether a man could be a Christian without first being circumcised. So, the pope, personally chosen by Jesus, says they can't be Christian... the Council of his 'inferiors' says they can (what's more, on the grounds of nothing more than it would keep away perfectly good people!!!)... and the Council wins. If it's Tradition you want, you can't get much more Traditional than that! And that says exactly what about papal infallibility??? En passant, I am greatly reassured that our supposedly trad pope beatifies the English cardinal who very clearly challenged papal infallibility so directly!
Edited by Anne-Marie, Tuesday, 28. September 2010, 08:35.
|
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 28. September 2010, 09:43 Post #14 |
|
Yes, I find that very encouraging. As for Peter and the first council - much as I would like to agree with your analysis Anne-Marie I cant. Peter Baptised Cornelius's household prior to the Jerusalem Council - Peter baptised these gentiles without requiring them to be circumsised. Peter and Paul were actually in agreement at the first council. - And that is the message I would take from it. That it happened after listening to each other and the conclusion was with agreement. And without shenanigans. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Alpac | Tuesday, 28. September 2010, 10:03 Post #15 |
|
Please explain, if you read the acts of the apostles, Ch 10 and Ch 11 Peter, not Paul is the 1st to baptise a gentile after his vision and it is Peter who explains his actions to the Church in Jerusalem. The Council of Jerusalem, Ch 15 the debate is renewed and again it is Peter who having listened to the debate stood up and again reminded the assembly that god had made "no distinction between us and them" Acts Ch15 v 9. So what is t Anne-Marie that you want us to remember? Peter and Paul stood on the same side at the Council of Jerusalem and it was Peter who silenced the criticism of others and gave Paul and Barnabus the floor to retell their story. Mairtin asked us to stick to facts not opinions and I am therefore just wishing to clarify a simple fact that Peter is was and shall always be the one who having listened to the council of others, proclaims the teaching of the church. The second Vatican Council was more than just a continuation of Vat I but it did conclude, as Mairtin pointed out, some of the unfinished business of the earlier council and in particular the imbalance created over the controversial definition of Papal Infallibility. It is also worth noting that since its definition in 1870 only one Pope has issued an Ex Cathedra statement; Pope Pius XII 1950 when defining the assumption of Mary. However I look forward to reading and learning more of the issue of Vatican Councils which Mairtin began so well. (composed while Gerard added his post. sorry ) Edited by Alpac, Tuesday, 28. September 2010, 10:11.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







7:53 PM Jul 11