Dissenting Bishops Sinning?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i never really got a clear answer with this, given my last post was a complicated poll on the matter.

a substantial number of bishops dissented to infallibliity at the council vatican I to the idea the pope is infallible. after the council, the doctrine was set, that he's infallible. one would think some of hte dissenting bishops would have a hard time, and many probably did not, adhere to believing that.

were they sinning for not beliving this now fundamentally required teaching?

[prose]

I don't know. I have heard something about Mary along the lines of if the Eastern Church (not sure official name) came back they would not be forced to believe things about Mary that were declared after they left Rome.

this is a good question because it leads to the one that if Catholics do not believe these things, are they excommunicated too?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1435413' date='Dec 17 2007, 08:04 PM']i never really got a clear answer with this, given my last post was a complicated poll on the matter.

a substantial number of bishops dissented to infallibliity at the council vatican I to the idea the pope is infallible. after the council, the doctrine was set, that he's infallible. one would think some of hte dissenting bishops would have a hard time, and many probably did not, adhere to believing that.

were they sinning for not beliving this now fundamentally required teaching?[/quote]

The doctrine carries an anethema and so yes, they would be objectively. Subjectively we leave it to God to deide on what level. The Old Catholics broke off because of this Council I believe.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1435573' date='Dec 18 2007, 09:28 AM']The doctrine carries an anethema and so yes, they would be objectively. Subjectively we leave it to God to deide on what level. The Old Catholics broke off because of this Council I believe.[/quote]

that's a good response. i was wondering if anyone would say something like that.

[rkwright]

Prove that a significant number of bishops truly dissented. The Newman article you provided in the last thread didn't say they truly dissented.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought it was common knowledge to those who know of vatican I. but, here ya go, from the catholic encyclopedia for actual numbers...
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm[/url]

[quote]There were present 601 fathers. Of these 451 voted placet, 62 placet juxta modum (conditional affirmative), 88 non placet.[/quote]

placet means affirmative. 88 out of 600 disapproved, and 140 out of 600 either disapproved or conditionally approved. i think that's "significant".

the real question, at least to me, is how many remained skeptical. i'm just speculating they would have. and i'd also speculate it was not only them, but many other regular joe catholics in the church too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so, 15% disapproved, and 25% either disapproved or conditionally did.

this link verifies that thes was right that the old catholics broke bc of infallibility. it also verifies that those who dissented at the council were representtative of a "significant" number of catholics too.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church[/url]

i think it's ironic or something.... "old catholics" believe not in infalliblity as promulgated at vatican I.... and traditionalists believe not in "no salvation outside..." as promulgated at vatican II.
basically, catholics who consider themselves olden catholics dissent from all this stuff.

just an observation.

i guess you could argue, that old catholics and traditionalists can't both be right, cause they view infalliblity differently. so in a sense, that shows what they know...

Edited December 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

Did you read the rest of that article??

[quote]Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune. On Monday, 18 July, 1870, one day before the outbreak of the Franco-German War, 435 fathers of the council assembled at St. Peter's under the presidency of Pope Pius IX. The last vote was now taken; 433 fathers voted placet, and only two, Bishop Aloisio Riccio of Cajazzo, Italy, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Arkansas, voted non placet. During the proceedings a thunderstorm broke over the Vatican, and amid thunder and lightning the pope promulgated the new dogma, like a Moses promulgating the law on Mount Sinai.[/quote]


[quote]III. ACCEPTANCE OF THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL

After the council had made its decision everyone naturally looked with interest to those members of the minority who had maintained their opposition to the definition of infallibility up to the last moment. Would they recognize the decision of the council, or, as the enemies of the council desired would they persist in their opposition? As a matter of fact, not a single one of them was disloyal to his sacred duties. As long as the discussions lasted they expressed their views freely and without molestation, and sought to carry them into effect. After the decision, without exception, they came over to it, The two bishops who on 18 July had voted non placet advanced to the papal throne at the same session and acknowledged their acceptance of the truth thus defined. The Bishop of Little Rock said simply and with true greatness, "Holy Father, now I believe." It is not possible in this brief space to mention the accession of each member of the minority. As concerns the members from North America who are of special interest here, Bishop Vérot of St. Augustine gave his adhesion to the dogma while still at Rome in a letter addressed on 25 July to the secretary of the council. Bishop Mrac of Sault-Saint-Marie sent his declaration of adherence at the latest by Jan., 1872. A year later Bishop Domenec of Pittsburgh did the same. In 1875 Bishop MacQuaid of Rochester, if not earlier, announced his adherence to the dogma by its formal and public promulgation. When Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis returned to his diocese on 30 Dec., 1870, he made an address at the reception given him, in which he first gave the reasons that had decided his position at the council as long, as the question was open to discussion, and then closed with the declaration that, now the council had decided, he submitted unconditionally to its decree.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

so, factually, bishops did dissent, but they all recanted (i'm assuming those that recanted were those from the original vote and not the second one... it's not clear. the second one doesn't describe if all of the dissenters revoted or what)

apparently, my assumptions were wrong as per the bishops remaining skeptical, but not many regular joes.