The Charism of Infallibility

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 12:51 PM']That infallibility in the Church exists is questionable; that it is confined to the bishops and the Pope is even more suspect.

John Henery Newman, who believed in infallibility in the whole Church, was very uncomfortable limiting it to the bishops and the Pope.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), before Vatican I wrote,

"On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859"

"As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not in the pastors alone."

This idea did go over too well at the Vatican, and, as we shall see, Newman's voice came to be viewed with some concern.
[right][snapback]645473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1) Cardinal Newman nowhere denies the doctrine of papal infallibility.

2) Nobody claims that Newman is infallible.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:11 PM']What does Cardinal Newman say AFTER Vatican Council I, which solemnly defined Papal infalliblity?  Forgot to mention that didn't you.  We all know that Cardinal Newman had resevervations.....big deal, it was his perogative.....what did Cardinal Newman say after Vatican Council I?  That is the key, LittleLes.
[right][snapback]645496[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'll be dealing with Vatican I defining papal infallibility this evening.

Keep in mind, any bishop opposing papal infallibility after it had been vote in automatically became a heretic, could be removed from the clerical state, and lose all beneficies.

So as someone noted, Pius IX made the bishops an offer they couldn't refuse!

But I'm not sure if they were still burning heretics in 1870.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 16 2005, 05:08 PM']1) Cardinal Newman nowhere denies the doctrine of papal infallibility.

2) Nobody claims that Newman is infallible.
[right][snapback]645736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

A bishop doesn't deny papal infallibility and remain a bishop.

[LittleLes]

(1) Ultramontanism, Rome centered Catholicism, was at odds with Gallicism, which opposed Roman papal centralization.

(2) Pope Pius IX believed in his own infallibility. He reigned from 1846 to 1878. During this long reign, he shaped the episcopate by appointing men favorable to his point of view. (It should be noted that the same could be said for Pope John Paul II).

(3) He prohibited bishops from holding national councils.

(4) Pius IX, the author of the "Syllabus of Errors," called the First Vatican Council which began on 8 December 1869.

(5) The key committee which would draft any document on papal infallibility was De Fide chaired by Cardinal Manning. Manning prohibited membership on this committee to anyone not favoring papal infallibility.

(6) A motion of closure ending debate on a topic could be made at the request of any ten bishops.

(7) Contrary to tradition, any motion could be carried by a mere majority vote.

(8) Sixty bishops, unable in conscience to support the concept of papal infallibility, simply departed Rome.

(9) The text approving the doctrine of papal infallibility was voted in on July 18, 1870.

(10) Thereafter, any bishop refusing to submit to papal infallibilioty was a formal heretic and could be expelled from his position and the Catholic Church.

Question: Might Vatican I be consider a coerced council?

Primary reference: "A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Revised and Expanded Edition, Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books, NY, 1990, pp 284-293

Other references on the history of Vatican I:

Realism and Nationalism, Robert Binkley, Harper and Row, NY, 1963

The Vatican Council, 1869-1870, Cuthbert Butler, Newman Press, Maryland, 1962

How the Pope Becamce Infallible; Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, August B. Hasler, Doubleday, NY, 1981

The First Council of the Vatican, the American Experience, James Hennessey, S.J., Herder and Herder, NY, 1963

Popular Catholicism in Nineteenth Century Germany, Jonathan Sperber, Princeton University Press, 1984

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:40 PM']RESPONSE:

A bishop doesn't deny papal infallibility and remain a bishop.
[right][snapback]645978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Show me where he has denied papal infalliblity after Vatican Council I.

I assert the contrary:

[quote name='From letter to Alfred Plummer' date=' July 19, 1872. Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, C.S. Dessain and T. Gornall S.J. editors, Volume XXVI, p. 139 (1974)']"I have for these 25 years spoken in behalf of the Pope's infallibility. The other day a review (I forget what) observed with surprise that even in my article on la Mennais in 1838 I had tacitly accepted the Pope's infallibility. I think I have spoken for it in my Essay on Development of Doctrine in 1845. In 1850 I have introduced the Pope's Infallibility several times into my lectures at the Birmingham Corn Exchange. In 1852 I introduced it most emphatically and dogmatically into my lectures delivered at the Rotundo at Dublin. In 1856 I spoke of it in a new Preface I prefixed to the new Edition of my Church of the Fathers—and in 1868 I reprinted the passage from my Dublin Lectures in a collection of passages made by a Roman Jesuit Father on the dogma, in an Italian translation."[/quote]

[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman' date=' 27 July 1870']But there are other means by which I can be brought under the obligation of receiving a doctrine as a dogma. If I am clear that there is a primitive and uninterrupted tradition, as of the divinity of our Lord; or where a high probability drawn from Scripture or Tradition is partially or probably confirmed by the Church. Thus a particular Catholic might be so nearly sure that the promise to Peter in Scripture proves that the infallibility of Peter is a necessary dogma, as only to be kept from holding it as such by the absence of any judgment on the part of the Church, so that the present unanimity of the Pope and 500 Bishops, even though not sufficient to constitute a formal Synodal act, would at once put him in the position, and lay him under the obligation, of receiving the doctrine as a dogma, that is, to receive it with its anathema.[/quote]

Newman actually responds to those, who, like you LittleLes are trying to twist his words, he says:
[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman']IN beginning to speak of the Vatican Council, I am obliged from circumstances to begin by speaking of myself. The most unfounded and erroneous assertions have publicly been made about my sentiments towards it, and as confidently as they are unfounded. Only a few weeks ago it was stated categorically by some anonymous correspondent of a Liverpool paper, with reference to the prospect of my undertaking the task on which I am now employed, that it was, "in fact understood that at one time Dr. Newman was on the point of uniting with Dr. Dollinger and his party, and that it required the earnest persuasion of several members of the Roman Catholic Episcopate to prevent him from taking that step,"—an unmitigated and most ridiculous untruth in every word of it, nor would it be worth while to notice it here, except for its connexion with the subject on which I am entering.

But the explanation of such reports about me is easy. They arise from forgetfulness on the part of those who spread them, that there are two sides of ecclesiastical acts, that right ends are often prosecuted by very unworthy means, and that in consequence those who, like myself, oppose a line of action, are not necessarily opposed to the issue for which it has been adopted.  Jacob gained by wrong means his destined blessing. "All are not Israelites, who are of Israel," and there are partisans of Rome who have not the sanctity and wisdom of Rome herself.

I am not referring to anything which took place within the walls of the Council chambers; of that of course we know nothing; but even though things occurred there which it is not pleasant to dwell upon, that would not at all affect, not by an hair's breadth, the validity of the resulting definition, as I shall presently show. What I felt deeply, and ever shall feel, while life lasts, is the violence and cruelty of journals and other publications, which, taking as they professed to do the Catholic side, employed themselves by their rash language (though, of course, they did not mean it so), in unsettling the weak in faith, throwing back inquirers, and shocking the Protestant mind. Nor do I speak of publications only; a feeling was too prevalent in many places that no one could be true to God and His Church, who had any pity on troubled souls, or any scruple of "scandalizing those little ones who believe in" Christ, and of "despising and destroying him for whom He died."

It was this most keen feeling, which made me say, as I did continually, "I will not believe that the Pope's Infallibility will be defined, till defined it is."

Moreover, a private letter of mine became public property. That letter, to which Mr. Gladstone has referred with a compliment to me which I have not merited, was one of the most confidential I ever wrote in my life. I wrote it to my own Bishop, under a deep sense of the responsibility I should incur, were I not to speak out to him my whole mind. I put the matter from me when I had said my say, and kept no proper copy of the letter. To my dismay I saw it in the public prints: to this day I do not know, nor suspect, how it got there; certainly from no want of caution in the quarter to which it was addressed. I cannot withdraw it, for I never put it forward, so it will remain on the columns of newspapers whether I will or not; but I withdraw it as far as I can, by declaring that it was never meant for the public eye.[/quote]

He goes on to say:
[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman']So much as to my posture of mind before the Definition: now I will set down how I felt after it. On July 24, 1870, I wrote as follows:—

"I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. The question is, does it come to me with the authority of an Ecumenical Council?

"Now the primâ facie argument is in favour of its having that authority. The Council was legitimately called; it was more largely attended than any Council before it; and innumerable prayers from the whole of Christendom, have preceded and attended it, and merited a happy issue of its proceedings.

"Were it not then for certain circumstances, under which the Council made the definition, I should receive that definition at once. Even as it is, if I were called upon to profess it, I should be unable, considering it came from the Holy Father and the competent local {302} authorities, at once to refuse to do so. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there are reasons for a Catholic, till better informed, to suspend his judgment on its validity.

"We all know that ever since the opening of the Council, there has been a strenuous opposition to the definition of the doctrine; and that, at the time when it was actually passed, more than eighty Fathers absented themselves from the Council, and would have nothing to do with its act. But, if the fact be so, that the Fathers were not unanimous, is the definition valid? This depends on the question whether unanimity, at least moral, is or is not necessary for its validity? As at present advised I think it is; certainly Pius IV. lays great stress on the unanimity of the Fathers in the Council of Trent. 'Quibus rebus perfectis,' he says in his Bull of Promulgation, 'concilium tantâ omnium qui illi interfuerent concordiâ peractum fuit, ut consensum plane a Domino effectum esse constiterit; idque in nostris atque omnium oculis valdè mirabile fuerit."

"Far different has been the case now,—though the Council is not yet finished. But, if I must now at once decide what to think of it, I should consider that all turned on what the dissentient Bishops now do.

"If they separate and go home without acting as a body, if they act only individually, or as individuals, and each in his own way, then I should not recognize in their opposition to the majority that force, firmness, and unity of view, which creates a real case of want of moral unanimity in the Council.

"Again, if the Council continues to sit, if the dissentient {303} Bishops more or less take part in it, and concur in its acts; if there is a new Pope, and he continues the policy of the present; and if the Council terminates without any reversal or modification of the definition, or any effective movement against it on the part of the dissentients, then again there will be good reason for saying that the want of a moral unanimity has not been made out.

"And further, if the definition is consistently received by the whole body of the faithful, as valid, or as the expression of a truth, then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, 'Securus judicat orbis terrarum.'

"This indeed is a broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified. But for it, we might reasonably question some of the past Councils or their acts."[/quote]

Time to recant LittleLes. Newman supports papal infalliblity.
[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman']"And I confess, the fact that all along for so many centuries the Head of the Church and Teacher of the faithful and Vicar of Christ has been allowed by God to assert virtually his own infallibility, is a great argument in favour of the validity of his claim.[/quote]

Oh, Cardinal Newman was never a bishop. Sorry Charlie....that argument holds no water.

[Cam42]

NEWMAN, Orat., John Henry (1801-1890)

Birth. February 21, 1801, London, England. The eldest of the six children of John Newman, a banker, and Jemina Foundrinier, a descendent of the Huguenots who migrated from France after the revokation fo the Edict of Nantes. Baptized in the Church of England, April 9, 1801. He converted to Calvinism at the age of 15, August-December, 1816.

Education. Trinity College, Oxford, 1816-1822; elected a fellow at Oriel College, Oxford, April 12, 1822; ordained to the diaconate, June 13, 1824; curate of St. Clement's, Oxford, 1824-1826; ordained priest of the Church of England, May 29, 1825, Christ Church, Oxford; vice-principal at St. Mary's Hall, 1825; vicar of St. Mary's (also the university church), 1828. resigned his tutorship, 1832 and went on a trip around the Mediterranean (December, 1832-July, 1833); returned to Oxford. With the Assize sermon on "National Apostasy" by John Keble, on July 14, 1833, the Oxford Movement was born. The religious opinions and principles of the Movement toward High Church principles in opposition to liberalizing and evangelical tendencies and emphasizing the principles of primitive and patristic Chirstianity as well as the historic and catholic character of the church, were given in a series of 90 papers called the Tracts for the Times, published in Oxford from 1833 to 1841. Newman became the leader of the Tractarian Movement, as it was also known. Resigned from St. Mary's in 1843. On October 9, 1845 he converted to Catholicism and was received into the Church in Littlemore by Fr. Domenico Barberi, an Italian Passionist (1).

Priesthood. Ordained, May 30, 1847, Rome, by Cardinal Giacomo Flippo Fransoni. Returned to England in 1847 and established the Oratory of St. Philip Neri; set up the London house and began mission work in Birmingham; later moved to Edgbaston. Rector of the Catholic University of Ireland, 1851-1858. Editor of the Rambler, May-July, 1859. Issued his most famous work, Apologia pro Vita sua, in seven parts, April 21-June 2, 1864. He opposed that the Fist Vatican Council (1869-1870) would issue a document of papal infallibility He was not opposed to the concept but felt that the doctrine should be given more time to mature before it was codified. Once the doctrine was proclaimed, he strongly defended it. For many years he endured attacks and criticism from within and whithout the Church. Returned to Oxford as honorary fellow of Trinity College, February, 1878.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal decon in the consistory of May 12, 1879; received the red hat and the deaconry of San Giorgio in Velabro, May 15, 1879. The most famous and illustrious English convert, his life and thought are well documented through 21,000 of his personal letters that have survived as well as the 40 books that he published.

Death. August 11, 1890, Edgbaston, Birmingham, England. Exposed in the Oratory of St. Philip of Edgbaston and buried in the chapel of the village of Rednal, in the same tomb with Ambrose St. John.

Beatification. The cause for his beatification was opened in 1958. Pope John Paul II signed the document acknowledging he practiced the Christian virtues in a heroic degree and declared him Venerable, January 22, 1991.

Not a bishop....but a Cardinal......

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:20 PM']
Show me where he has denied papal infalliblity after Vatican Council I.

RESPONSE:

No. Newman elected to remain a Catholic bishop and so had to accept the "dogma" of infallibility. Good career move!

However, some other bishops did not. Obviously, they could not then remain Catholic bishops. Those dissenting from the "dogma" of papal infallibility formed their own Church which continues to this day.

An Old Catholic History...

The history of the Old Catholic Movement within Catholicism is significant for our faith community because it is from the Old Catholic Church that the Ecumenical Catholic Communion her apostolic succession and her distinctive theological orientation. This article was written by an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York.


"In Switzerland in 1876 Bishop Herzog was consecrated Bishop of the Old Catholic Movement there. Thus the scattered fragments of Christ’s Church were gathered together. In time the movement developed sufficiently in other parts of the world to warrant the necessity of Episcopal supervision and gradually the jealously guarded Catholic Episcopate came to bless these faithful children of the Catholic Church of Christ in increasing numbers everywhere.

In Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Switzerland, France, Yugoslavia and Poland the movement grew and took root and Bishops were consecrated at Utrecht, Holland, for almost all these countries."

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:12 AM'][quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:20 PM']
Show me where he has denied papal infalliblity after Vatican Council I.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. Newman elected to remain a Catholic bishop and so had to accept the "dogma" of infallibility. Good career move!

However, some other bishops did not. Obviously, they could not then remain Catholic bishops. Those dissenting from the "dogma" of papal infallibility formed their own Church which continues to this day.

An Old Catholic History...

The history of the Old Catholic Movement within Catholicism is significant for our faith community because it is from the Old Catholic Church that the Ecumenical Catholic Communion her apostolic succession and her distinctive theological orientation. This article was written by an Old Catholic Benedictine brother who lived in an Old Catholic community in Woodstock, New York.
"In Switzerland in 1876 Bishop Herzog was consecrated Bishop of the Old Catholic Movement there. Thus the scattered fragments of Christ’s Church were gathered together. In time the movement developed sufficiently in other parts of the world to warrant the necessity of Episcopal supervision and gradually the jealously guarded Catholic Episcopate came to bless these faithful children of the Catholic Church of Christ in increasing numbers everywhere.

In Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Switzerland, France, Yugoslavia and Poland the movement grew and took root and Bishops were consecrated at Utrecht, Holland, for almost all these countries."
[right][snapback]646308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Cardinal Newman was not a bishop....so you are flawed from the get go.....being a bishop has no bearing the life of Cardinal Newman. I assume that this is a recant of your statement about Cardinal Newman then? Good.

And as far as Bishop Herzog is concerned, was in schism just as Archbishop Lefevbre was. Just as all those who are part of the Old Catholic movement. But then again, you already know that.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:47 AM']And just where did that quote come from?  More quoting without sourcing.  Typical......no credence.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Sorry, CAM. Once again I thought that you were familiar with Catholic history. Isn't basic Church history part of any theology curriculum?

The quotation I used was from the Catholic Encyclopedia (False Decretals).

(The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore)

"False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection."

One group of these groups includes:

" A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. "


Have you ever heard of this one?

Donation of Constantine
(Lat., Donatio Constantini).

"By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world."

This dates me, but I was still being taught by the good sisters in Catholic elementary school that the Donation of Constantine was for real (and not a Church forgery).

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:20 PM']

Oh, Cardinal Newman was never a bishop.  Sorry Charlie....that argument holds no water.
[right][snapback]646034[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You might be correct about Newman never having been a bishop. But if that is the case, he should not have been allowed to vote on the question of papal infallibility at an ecumenical council, should he?

Perhaps in your research, you might want to revisit the question of how many churchman at Vatican I should not have been allowed to vote on infallibility.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:24 AM']RESPONSE:

Sorry, CAM. Once again I thought that you were familiar with Catholic history. Isn't basic Church history part of any theology curriculum?

The quotation I used was from the Catholic Encyclopedia (False Decretals).

(The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore)

"False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection."

One group of these groups includes:

" A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. "
Have you ever heard of this one?

Donation of Constantine
(Lat., Donatio Constantini).

"By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world."

This dates me, but I was still being taught  by the good sisters in Catholic elementary school that the Donation of Constantine was for real (and not a Church forgery).

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Blah, Blah, Blah.....Catholic Encyclopedia....blah, blah, blah.....

Considering that your use of false decretals has no bearing because your quote of Aquinas is misleading, because there is no proper citing....where is it again? I have not seen your quote of Aquinas in the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1 nor have I seen it in the Secunda Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1. I quoted both earlier in this thread. Your whole premise for using false decretals is unfounded (quite literally). Try again.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:32 AM']RESPONSE:

You might be correct about Newman never having been a bishop. But if that is the case, he should not have been allowed to vote on the question of papal infallibility at an ecumenical council, should he?

Perhaps in your research, you might want to revisit the question of how many churchman at Vatican I should not have been allowed to vote on infallibility.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am correct, there is no [i]"might"[/i] about it. Insofar as he was a Cardinal, he had the right. That is part of being a Cardinal. He was part of the governing body of the Church.

There are Cardinals today who are not bishops. This is not a novel idea. The most famous of our day is Avery Cardinal Dulles. The only major difference between the two is that Card. Dulles is over 80 and due to the rules of Paul VI, ineligible to vote.

There is no reason to research anything. your question is moot.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:34 AM']Blah, Blah, Blah.....Catholic Encyclopedia....blah, blah, blah.....

Considering that your use of false decretals has no bearing because your quote of Aquinas is misleading, because there is no proper citing....where is it again?  I have not seen your quote of Aquinas in the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1 nor have I seen it in the Secunda Pars; Secunda Pars, Article II; Question 1.  I quoted both earlier in this thread.  Your whole premise for using false decretals is unfounded (quite literally).  Try again.
[right][snapback]646316[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You really have to side step those "false decretals" don't you? To recognize their existence- which even the Church now admits - considerably undercuts many of the claims that apologists like make, especially about papal authority!

And regarding the Summa 2/2 question 1, perhaps you'd like to use the copy at the New Advent website. Or visit you local library and check their holdings.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 05:32 AM']RESPONSE:

You might be correct about Newman never having been a bishop. But if that is the case, he should not have been allowed to vote on the question of papal infallibility at an ecumenical council, should he?

Perhaps in your research, you might want to revisit the question of how many churchman at Vatican I should not have been allowed to vote on infallibility.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
John Henry Newman, who was not even a Cardinal at the time, did not participate at all in the proceedings of the First Vatican Council.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:11 AM']RESPONSE:

You really have to side step those "false decretals" don't you? To recognize their existence- which even the Church now admits - considerably undercuts many of the claims that apologists like make, especially about papal authority!

And regarding the Summa 2/2 question 1, perhaps you'd like to use the copy at the New Advent website. Or visit you local library and check their holdings.
[right][snapback]646327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You can't dodge this one.....I posted it....want the links...here ya go.....you really are looking for a beat down on this one.....

[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html"]Summa Theologica[/url]
[url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS001.html#SSQ1OUTP1"]Summa Theologica: Second Part of Second Part; Question 1; Article 1-10[/url]

Sorry...but you have no legs on this one.....you said earlier:
[quote name='LittleLes' date=' Yesterday, 08:00 AM ']This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”[/quote]

Nope. What you are saying comes most closely to article 10. This is what article 10 says:

[quote name='Summa Theologica II;II:1:10']Whether it belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith?

Objection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. For a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to explain the articles of faith, as stated above (Article [9]). Now, in the Old Testament, the articles of faith were more and more explained as time went on, by reason of the truth of faith becoming clearer through greater nearness to Christ, as stated above (Article [7]). Since then this reason ceased with the advent of the New Law, there is no need for the articles of faith to be more and more explicit. Therefore it does not seem to belong to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a new edition of the symbol.

Objection 2: Further, no man has the power to do what is forbidden under pain of anathema by the universal Church. Now it was forbidden under pain of anathema by the universal Church, to make a new edition of the symbol. For it is stated in the acts of the first* council of Ephesus (P. ii, Act. 6) that "after the symbol of the Nicene council had been read through, the holy synod decreed that it was unlawful to utter, write or draw up any other creed, than that which was defined by the Fathers assembled at Nicaea together with the Holy Ghost," and this under pain of anathema. [*St. Thomas wrote 'first' (expunged by Nicolai) to distinguish it from the other council, A.D. 451, known as the "Latrocinium" and condemned by the Pope.] The same was repeated in the acts of the council of Chalcedon (P. ii, Act. 5). Therefore it seems that the Sovereign Pontiff has no authority to publish a new edition of the symbol.

Objection 3: Further, Athanasius was not the Sovereign Pontiff, but patriarch of Alexandria, and yet he published a symbol which is sung in the Church. Therefore it does not seem to belong to the Sovereign Pontiff any more than to other bishops, to publish a new edition of the symbol.

On the contrary, The symbol was drawn us by a general council. Now such a council cannot be convoked otherwise than by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, as stated in the Decretals [*Dist. xvii, Can. 4,5]. Therefore it belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol.

I answer that, As stated above (OBJ 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [*Dist. xvii, Can. 5]. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Lk. 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Cor. 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

Reply to Objection 1: The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since, according to 2 Pt. 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.

Reply to Objection 2: This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed.

Reply to Objection 3: Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.[/quote]

Now with all that being said, you are assuming the decretals to be false. There is no denying that there are false decretals, but there are also those which are considered to be the "papal decretals." These are very valid and very sound. This is what Aquinas is applying to his answer of the objections, not the false decretals. This is all very disingenious of you, LittleLes, to be this obtuse.

Aquinas is speaking of the decretals of Gregory the IX, not the false decretals that you so ineptly allude to in your posting.

I am not the one who needs to study Aquinas. You either do not know how to quote Aquinas properly, or you are being misleading on purpose. In either case, it is not me who has the problems with Aquinas, it is you. But when you do quote Aquinas, you should at least know what you are talking about. Because sooner or later, someone, usually me, as of late, will call you to the table.

LittleLes, you are wrong. Dead wrong. Here is the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]papal decretals[/url] from your "beloved" Catholic Encyclopedia.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:22 AM']John Henry Newman, who was not even a Cardinal at the time, did not participate at all in the proceedings of the First Vatican Council.
[right][snapback]646333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are correct. Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. Vatican I was held in 1869-1870.

Newman claimed that a declaration of papal infallibility was "inopportune." I guess you don't simply tell a pope - at least not Pope Pius IX - he's wrong>

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:41 AM']
You can't dodge this one.....I posted it....want the links...here ya go.....you really are looking for a beat down on this one.....

RESPONSE:

The New Adent link to the Summa, second part of the second part, question 1, article 10 would be:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/300110.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/300110.htm[/url]

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5.

Hope that this helps you find the reference.

[LittleLes]

Now with all that being said, you are assuming the decretals to be false. There is no denying that there are false decretals, but there are also those which are considered to be the "papal decretals." These are very valid and very sound. This is what Aquinas is applying to his answer of the objections, not the false decretals. This is all very disingenious of you, LittleLes, to be this obtuse.

Aquinas is speaking of the decretals of Gregory the IX, not the false decretals that you so ineptly allude to in your posting.

I am not the one who needs to study Aquinas. You either do not know how to quote Aquinas properly, or you are being misleading on purpose. In either case, it is not me who has the problems with Aquinas, it is you. But when you do quote Aquinas, you should at least know what you are talking about. Because sooner or later, someone, usually me, as of late, will call you to the table.

LittleLes, you are wrong. Dead wrong. Here is the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]papal decretals[/url] from your "beloved" Catholic Encyclopedia.
[right][snapback]646335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You can find this is the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, on line or at your library. The article is titled "False Decretals"
"
They were accepted to some extent by the papacy in support of its age-old claims. By incorporation and quotation in the Decretum of Gratian, the False Decretals received a definite authority in textbooks of canon law in the Middle Ages. The False Decretals have gained their chief fame because they were one of the great forgeries of history"

Perhaps you will quote and source the Decretal of Gregory IX that you claim Aquinas was referring to since you claim it is separate from the Decretum of Gratian.

It might be. It would be good to know with whom the error really lies!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:01 AM']RESPONSE:

You are correct. Newman was made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. Vatican I  was held in 1869-1870.

Newman  claimed that a declaration of papal infallibility was "inopportune." I guess you don't simply tell a pope - at least not Pope Pius IX  -  he's wrong>
[right][snapback]646338[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I haven't read this entire thread and I apologize. Actually I've just scanned over a couple individual posts (including the one quoted above).

Anyway, Newman's claim that the definition of papal infallibility was "inopportune" just means he thought the timing was bad. That's not to say that he thought the pope was wrong, that's silly. I've read some of what Newman said in the past and I recall perhaps concerns about the possible articulation as well as the timeliness given the ecumenical and political milieu of the time, but the man was a faithful Catholic, I have little doubt that he would have shed his blood to defend the truth of papal infallibility. I'll get you quotes sometime when I'm more awake and inspired... if you want.

cheers

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 10:44 AM'][quote name='Cam42']
Now with all that being said, you are assuming the decretals to be false.  There is no denying that there are false decretals, but there are also those which are considered to be the "papal decretals."  These are very valid and very sound.  This is what Aquinas is applying to his answer of the objections, not the false decretals.  This is all very disingenious of you, LittleLes, to be this obtuse.

Aquinas is speaking of the decretals of Gregory the IX, not the false decretals that you so ineptly allude to in your posting.

I am not the one who needs to study Aquinas.  You either do not know how to quote Aquinas properly, or you are being misleading on purpose.  In either case, it is not me who has the problems with Aquinas, it is you.  But when you do quote Aquinas, you should at least know what you are talking about.  Because sooner or later, someone, usually me, as of late, will call you to the table.

LittleLes, you are wrong.  Dead wrong.  Here is the article on [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]papal decretals[/url] from your "beloved" Catholic Encyclopedia.
[right][snapback]646335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote][/quote]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 10:44 AM']RESPONSE:

You can find this is the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition,  on line or at your library. The article is titled "False Decretals"
"
They were accepted to some extent by the papacy in support of its age-old claims. By incorporation and quotation in the Decretum of Gratian, the False Decretals received a definite authority in textbooks of canon law in the Middle Ages. The False Decretals have gained their chief fame because they were one of the great forgeries of history"

Perhaps you will quote and source the Decretal of Gregory IX  that you claim Aquinas was referring to since you claim it is separate from the Decretum of Gratian.

It might be. It would be good to know with whom the error really lies!
[right][snapback]646349[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It lies with you, LittleLes.

I have provided links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is apparently gospel to you) to support my position.

Are you ready to feel Little.....Les?
[quote name='Catholic Encyclopedia. Papal Decretals']Finally, under the name decretals are known certain collections, containing especially, but not exclusively, pontifical decretals. [b]These are the canonical collections of a later date than the "Decretum" of Gratian (about 1150).[/b] The commentators on these collections are named decretalists, in contradistinction to the decretists, or those who commented upon the "Decretum" of Gratian. [i]Eventually some of these collections received official recognition; they form what is now known as the "Corpus Juris Canonici". An account will be given here of the collections of decretals, but particularly of those of Gregory IX.[/i][/quote]

[quote name='ibid.']Gregory IX, in 1230, ordered his chaplain and confessor, St. Raymond of Peñaforte (Pennafort), a Dominican, to form a new canonical collection destined to replace all former collections. It has been said that the pope by this measure wished especially to emphasize his power over the Universal Church. The papacy had, indeed, arrived at the zenith of its power. Moreover, a pope less favourably circumstanced would, perhaps, not have thought of so important a measure. Nevertheless, the utility of a new collection was so evident that it is needless to seek other motives than those which the pope himself gives in the Bull "Rex pacificus" of 5 September, 1234, viz., the inconvenience of recurring to several collections containing decisions most diverse and sometimes contradictory, exhibiting in some cases gaps and in others tedious length; moreover, on several matters the legislation was uncertain.

St. Raymond executed the work in about four years, and followed in it the method of the aforesaid "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". He borrowed from them the order of the subject-matter, the division into five books, of the books into titles and of the titles into chapters. Of the 1971 chapters which the Decretals of Gregory IX contain, 1771 are taken from the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ", 191 are due to Gregory IX himself, 7 are taken from decretals of Innocent III not inserted in the former collections, and 2 are of unknown origin. They are arranged, as a general rule, according to the order of the ancient collections, i. e. each title opens with the chapters of the first collection, followed by those of the second, and so on in regular order; then come those of Innocent III and finally those of Gregory IX. Almost all the rubrics, or headings of the titles, have also been borrowed from these collections, but several have been modified as regards detail. This method considerably lightened St. Raymond's task. However, he did more than simply compile the documents of former collections. He left out 383 decisions, modified several others, omitted parts when he considered it prudent to do So, filled up the gaps, and, to render his collection complete and concordant, cleared up doubtful points of the ancient ecclesiastical law by adding some new decretals. He indicated by the words et infra the passages excised by him in the former collections. They are called partes decis . The new compilation bore no special title, but was called "Decretales Gregorii IX" or sometimes "Compilatio sexta", i. e. the sixth collection with reference to the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". It was also called "Collectio seu liber extra", i. e. the collection of the laws not contained (vagantes extra) in the "Decretum" of Gratian. Hence the custom of denoting this collection by the letter X (i. e. extra). [/quote]

Time to give it a rest LittleLes.....you are proven wrong. Gregory IX's decretals are what Aquinas was referencing......