Examples Of Errors At Ecumenical Councils?

[Eliakim]

I'm pretty sure no one believes every single sentence promulgated at an Ecumenical Council is infallible.  (if not chime in). 

 

So are there examples of statements of error at EC proceedings? 

 

Found below thread interesting.  Fourth from bottom, ToS says Florence erred on holy orders...anyone know what he's talking about? 

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-hermeneutic-of-continuity.html

 

Also here's one I found: 11th paragraph down from 11th Session 1442.  Says those who merely practice circumcision cannot obtain salvation.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5

 

"Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

 

E

[Luigi]

I wish I had the time to search through centuries of Church documents looking for mistakes other people made.

 

 

Mote of dust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh.

[mortify ii]

Consider two examples from Vatican II which are confusing but not examples of formal heresy. 

 

---

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

Unitatis redintegratio #3

 

Compare this with...

 

"The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through 

her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation."

Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe # 29

 

And...

 

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are  outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,  cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives"

Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” Ex Cathedra

 

In other words its dogmatically defined that heretics and schismatics are outside of the Church, and yet...

 

"The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter"

Lumen Gentium #15

 

---

 

[Eliakim]

 

 

 

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are  outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,  cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives"

Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” Ex Cathedra

 

 

 

 

Mortify,

I have shown the same 11th session in Florence had an obvious error about circumcision.  But maybe these statements (mine and the one you quoted above) are not part of the infallible sections or ex-cathedra statements in this session/council... 

 

E

[mortify ii]

Mortify,

I have shown the same 11th session in Florence had an obvious error about circumcision.  But maybe these statements (mine and the one you quoted above) are not part of the infallible sections or ex-cathedra statements in this session/council... 

 

E

 

"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

 

I take this to mean the Holy Council was referring to circumcision for religious purposes. I don't think they envisioned the strange American practices of circumcising male infants just for the heck of it (which by the way has an interesting history in itself.)

[mortify ii]

I'm pretty sure no one believes every single sentence promulgated at an Ecumenical Council is infallible.  (if not chime in). 

 

So are there examples of statements of error at EC proceedings? 

 

Found below thread interesting.  Fourth from bottom, ToS says Florence erred on holy orders...anyone know what he's talking about? 

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-is-hermeneutic-of-continuity.html

 

Also here's one I found: 11th paragraph down from 11th Session 1442.  Says those who merely practice circumcision cannot obtain salvation.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5

 

"Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

 

E

 

Regarding the matter of holy orders it appears to have been a matter of dispute up until Pope Pius XII's time. The Council of Florence did not dogmatically define the mater of holy orders, but if it did and then Pope Pius taught contrary to it, e.g. "The Council of Florence taught X but I teach Y..." then that would be formal heresy. 

[LouisvilleFan]

To me it's just a matter of seeing the point they were getting at. At Florence, they were apparently concerned with Christians placing an unnecessary burden upon themselves by obeying the Mosaic law, which was fulfilled in Christ. Yet the vast majority of us wash our hands and circumsize for health reasons.

 

I don't know about the part that says "whether or not they place their hope in it," referencing circumcision. Leave that one to professional theologians to worry about :)

 

As for "all salvation comes from the Church" and the more recent teaching that expands upon who all is joined (however imperfectly) to the Church, this is more about adding color to a prior black-and-white definition. Yet, even in the original statements, the door is left open that Jews, heretics, etc. can be saved if "they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives."

 

Hmm... how many ways can one be joined to the Church? Certainly through a formal profession of faith, but has that always been the only way? We've always believed those who died with the intent to profess were granted the same grace. Why, then, don't we expect other graces to be at work?

 

The key difference today is we have 500 years of history with other Christians who reject must of Sacred Tradition, yet they retain valid Baptisms and Marriages, belief in the Trinity, and much that is core to faith in Christ. It's not perfect, yet neither are the actions of our Catholic Church. Just something to think about...

[mortify ii]

There is no union between Catholics and schismatics, heretics, Jews, or pagans objectively speaking. Speculations on "imperfect unions" are beyond the Church's competency since the Church can not judge internal matters. Furthermore, such speculations often leads to indifferentism and false ecumenism. 

[LouisvilleFan]

There is no union between Catholics and schismatics, heretics, Jews, or pagans objectively speaking. Speculations on "imperfect unions" are beyond the Church's competency since the Church can not judge internal matters. Furthermore, such speculations often leads to indifferentism and false ecumenism. 

 

So our Catechism is just speculating here?

Edited May 13, 2014 by LouisvilleFan

[ardillacid]

:cheeese: