Очерки учения о церкви. IV.О Ватиканском догмате 65

The doctrine of papism in Catholicism was formed over centuries in the struggle against the episcopal system. It expressed the religious voluntarism of Western Christianity, which perceives the Church primarily as an organization of power. However, until 1870, papism remained only a fact, powerful and decisive, it is true, but still not having the force of a dogma, which it became after the Vatican Council of 1870. The latter is a limit in the history of Catholicism, the limit to which it strove when developing the system of papism. In the previous history of the Church, along with countless testimonies in which papal absolutism is affirmed, one can probably cite as many testimonies in which it is directly or indirectly contested. This struggle manifested itself in Catholic literature on the eve of 1870 and even at the Vatican Council itself, where many of its most influential and learned fathers completely rejected the provision of the “scheme” about the pope, introduced for the discussion of the Council. And only after this Council, papism ceased to be just a fact, but became a dogma - the question was closed. Roma locuta est (Rome has spoken (lat.) - Ed.) - in front of the whole world, in the light of publicity. The preparation and course of the Vatican Council are revealed both by the testimonies of the participants and by the documents with complete clarity. This event is of the greatest importance for Catholicism. It revealed both the great strength of discipline and organization inherent in the Catholic world, and its great weakness - spiritual constraint. At the same time, the few protesting theologians, however, who personified the intellectual honesty of Catholicism, with the venerable Döllinger at their head, found themselves outside the Catholic Church as “Old Catholics.” As shown quite irrefutably in historical research Friedrich, 66 Schulte, 67 Friedberg, 68 The Vatican Council was as much a Council as many of the present meetings of delegates in Russia are the free expression of the will of the people. To begin with, although Councils usually consist of bishops, they are representatives or witnesses from their dioceses - a Council exists only when there is unction. But what kind of unction was possible if its very subject remained secret: the Council was convened for unknown reasons, and its main subject, which, however, was already quite clearly identified in the leading party of the Jesuits, was revealed only at the Council itself. The convocation of the Council was already planned in the allocution of June 26, 1867, and, however, during these two and a half years that elapsed before the Council, not a single issue was raised to be discussed, except for minor ones. The commission of theologians chaired by the cardinal, which prepared the materials, did not report the results of its work to the episcopate. Thus, his very first steps were shrouded in mystery. When the members of the Council arrived, a ready-made order was awaiting them, given by the pope, and all the officials were appointed to him. Of the several commissions that were provided for by order, the main commission of projects, besides which nothing could be submitted to the Council, was also appointed by the pope. The other two commissions were selected by a simple majority of votes, which also definitely belonged to the papal party due to the composition of the Council, but all these commissions included only about 100 members of the Council (that is, 1/6 - 1/7). 69 The remaining members were doomed to forced inaction, and they were not even allowed to gather for private meetings. They had to languish in anticipation of general meetings, the time of which was completely uncertain. The order was once again modified by the pope during the Council in the direction of greater severity. General sessions took place in a hall with such acoustics that most members could not hear their speeches at all, and the chairman had the power to determine the order of speeches and terminate debate. The members of the Council, receiving certain schemes from the commissions and not having books at hand (the Vatican Library was inaccessible to members of the Council), had only the shortest period of a few days to prepare for the meetings to discuss issues. Not to mention the atmosphere of snitching and espionage that various members of the Council complain about, it is clear that with such a general formulation of the matter it is difficult to talk about the Council, and it is enough to read the letters and materials published in abundance to see how despondent and even horrified the members of the Council were at what was happening. 70 However, one may ask, how could all the assembled bishops give their consent to something that was contrary to the conscience of many of them, when they were not threatened with Bolshevik cruelty, the rack and execution, but at most a ruined career for expressing their will? This is explained primarily by the fact that the composition of the Council was selected in advance, and a majority obedient to the pope was ensured. This was achieved by the fact that in addition to the real bishops representing their diocese, a significant number of titular bishops were introduced into the Council, who did not represent any diocese and, in essence, were simply obedient officials of the papal consistories, and even not even bishops at all - cardinals, order generals. 71 Further, among the actual bishops there was an overwhelming number of Italian ones (out of a total number of 541 European bishops, Italy was given 276, against Austria-Hungary - 48, France - 84, Germany - 19). It is clear what this predominance of Italian bishops meant, subordinate to the pope directly as their patriarch and completely imbued with the directives of Rome. If you add up all the non-diocesan elements of the Council, together with the disproportionate representation of the Italian episcopate, you get a hand-picked majority that can always majorize any assembly. This is what happened. When the decisive vote came, it turned out that 88 (non placet) and 62 conditionally (placet juxta modum) voted against the Vatican dogma on July 13, 1870, and of these 88 there were 84 actual diocesan bishops, and out of 62 there were 41, which means a total of 125 actual bishops, representing such influential Catholic countries as Austria-Hungary, France, Germany. In the final vote after the departure of the opposition bishops (as discussed below), 535 votes remained, of which 533 voted for, 2 against. Of this number, of the bishops represented at the Council of Germany, only 4 out of 24, Austria-Hungary only 9 out of 60, Italy - 148 out of 264, France 44 out of 86, etc. On the contrary, those who did not have a real diocese participated in the voting: 22 cardinals without dioceses, 3 Latin patriarchs in partibus (in countries (meaning “infidel”) (Latin) - Ed.), 4 abbots nullius dioceseos (without a diocese (Lat.) - Ed.), 23 order generals, 13 abbates generales, 88 episcopi in partibus infidelium (bishops in infidel countries (lat.) - Ed.), 13 abbots-generals, 88 of which 30 without any diocese or flock. 72 The numbers say so. Apart from bishops and papal officials in robes, representatives of theological science, to whom the Council of Trent devotes so much space, was not given participation at the Council (individual theologians brought as consultants were not counted - such was Prof. Frederick, who came with Arch. Hohenlohe). In general, any participation of the laity, direct or indirect, was consistently eliminated, even if only with an advisory voice, even if only in commissions. An obedient composition was required, which, in addition to general church discipline, would also be bound by direct dependence in the order of canonical subordination. As for the paperwork itself at the Council, it has already been said that the bull convening the Council did not contain any indications about the actual subject of discussion, and the “scheme” introduced in December 1869 also did not allow it to be predicted. What was needed was a staging of the appearance that the new dogma, for the sake of which the Council was convened, as its subsequent course showed, was a voice coming from below, from the flock. However, the mere fear that the dogma of papal infallibility would be introduced caused the greatest excitement and protests in Catholic circles starting in 1867, but in reality its danger, apparently, was still not taken into account. In the “schéma constitutionis dogmaticae de ecclesia” (draft of dogmatic establishment about the church (lat.) - Ed.), introduced to the Council with the direct permission of the pope, Chapter IX de ecclesiae infallibilitate (on the infallibility of the church (lat.) - Ed.), setting out the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, does not even mention the pope. 73 Chapter XI de romani pontificis primatu (on the primacy of the Roman pontiff - lat., Ed.) also contains nothing about papal infallibility. Such silence, at the moment, of course, incomprehensible and tempting in essence, was a matter of conscious calculation; a pre-established mechanism worked with the precision of a clock. Already at the beginning of January 1870, a petition to the pope followed on the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestrey, which immediately received a majority of the members of the Council and thus predetermined the issue before discussion. It dealt with the proclamation of the supreme and infallible authority of the pope in matters of faith. This was immediately followed by a counter-petition from 46 members of the Council from Austria-Hungary and Germany (joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops) 74 with a request not to allow this issue to be discussed. All this happened in an atmosphere of forced silence and moral pressure. In Rome itself it was not even possible to print speeches, notes, or reports, so a kind of illegal literature was formed, distributed from hand to hand (and only then saw the light of day in the collection of Prof. Friedrich). The majority of the members of the Council renewed their petition, and in response to this, the order was first changed (02/22/1870), and the remnants of conciliar freedom were eliminated, despite the protests of the minority, and then an “addition” was made in the “scheme on the Church” to Chapter XI on papal primacy, which formed the basis of the Vatican dogma. Introduced on March 6, this provision allowed written criticism by filing briefs only until March 17. So, only 11 days were given to criticize the situation that suddenly fell on the heads of the members of the Council and shook the very foundations of church life. The atmosphere of panic and decline that reigned at the Council, where they even talked about the madness of the pope, is understandable. The latter clearly and demonstratively supported the infallibilists at the Council, leaving the petitions and statements of their opponents completely unanswered and without attention. A collection of written comments on the topic of infallibility shows what kind of opposition this scheme met in the Council. 75 (Of these, 61 statements favor the elimination of the dogma, and some for the most decisive dogmatic and canonical reasons; 14 authors speak out for the need for additional research; some see innovation and contradiction in the dogma and warn against schism; and only 56 speak out in one way or another for acceptance). But according to the order, these notes were intended only for the commission, the composition and mood of which was determined in advance, and, of course, they were left by it without any consequences. And discussions in general sessions consisted of individual speakers delivering speeches that were inaudible due to poor acoustics, and this delivery, which did not remotely resemble debate, quickly tired the majority. In addition, the members of the Council suffered from the sweltering heat of the Roman summer, which was especially difficult for elderly northerners; in this heat, for the sake of which they asked in vain for a postponement or recess of the Council, there turned out to be an extra ally for the supporters of infallibility. Despite a number of protests and attempts at opposition from the minority, the original draft, modified even further (see comparisons in Schulte, 1. p. 285f.), was submitted on July 12 for discussion at the Council. This amended text, without any preliminary conciliar discussion (even contrary to the order), was immediately submitted for voting to the general meeting on July 13. And after this, also without any discussion, the project was submitted to a public meeting on July 18, where it was adopted by a majority of two and was immediately approved by the pope. On the way from the general meeting on July 13 to the public meeting on July 18, the draft once again underwent a silent but extremely important change: some reduction (Schulte, 76 1. P. 289) and a very significant addition. Namely, the words ex sese sine consensu ecclesiae (from oneself without the consent of the church (lat.) - Ed.), which constitute the very heart of the dogma, were inserted into it, inserted without discussion, directly to a vote, and were swallowed by the meeting en bloc (indiscriminately (French) - Ed.). This course of action cannot fail to amaze any sincere and impartial observer of Vatican action, no matter how firm and sincere his sympathies for the Western Church may be. But where did the opposition go and how did such stunning unanimity turn out to be possible when voting on the merits, that is, with a new addition of a formula that was not even discussed? Part of it, obviously, melted under the influence of the tropical heat and under the influence of the pressure of the Curia, but partly something amazing happened here even in the chronicle of this “Cathedral”. Having cast votes against the formula at the meeting on July 13, the opposition fell into cowardice, forced to maintain its unity, and at the same time unable to complete the matter. She decided to leave the battlefield, making a respectful gesture towards the pope. On July 17, on the eve of the last vote, a statement was submitted to the pope from 56 diocesan bishops with Archbishop Schwarzenberg of Prague at their head (including the famous Strossmeyer, Council historian Bishop Hefele, Archbishop Darbois of Paris, Dupanloup, etc.), in which, confirming their vote (suffragia renovare et affirmare (confirm and update the votes (lat.) - Approx. ed. ), declare at the same time that they will not be present at the public meeting, so as not to vote against the project in the presence of the Holy Father on a matter that personally concerns him (pietas enim filialis ac reverentia... non sinunt nos in causa Sanctitatis Vestrae personam adeo proxime concernante palam et in facie patris dicere" (after all, filial piety and respect... do not allow us to talk about a matter so closely related to the personality of Your Holiness directly and in the face of the Father" (Latin) - Ed.). In this act of weakness, shown on the part of the most independent part of the Vatican Council, the question of the basic dogma of the Church is put in connection with some kind of pietas et reverentia (deference and respect (Lat.) - Ed.) in relation to the Pope and the fact that his personal harassment seems to be emphasized. The Pope shelved this statement, as he had done before with with statements displeasing to him. The fathers thereby committed canonical suicide on themselves, and the Vatican dogma passed almost unanimously, and only two pop placet (“against” (Latin) – Ed.) testify in denunciation of the fathers of the Council that it was still possible to vote against the “scheme” even at the last moment of Vatican dominance. Contrary to the practice of previous Councils, the conciliar decree was published by a unilateral act of papal power in the form of the papal bull “Pater aetemus” on July 18, 1870, where there is only a mention: sancto approbante concilio (with the approval of the holy council (lat.) - Ed.). Through this, the self-abolition of the Council is expressed outwardly. However, it was possible to achieve a conciliar majority, but it still remained to implement the conciliar resolution. To achieve this, excommunications, anathemas and all sorts of punishments were immediately used. The same bishops who at the Council proved how contradictory the Vatican scheme was to Church Tradition immediately began to demand locally, under threat of excommunication, recognition of the Vatican dogma: this was the modus operandi of Bishop Ketteler 77 and others. A group of German scientists led by Döllinger (Schulte, Reinkens, Langen, Friedrich, etc.) were also victims of the Vatican dogma. Subsequently, they were pushed into a position of sectarianism and formed the “Old Catholic Church,” the weak success of which was evidence of how deeply Catholicism was saturated with papism: the reformation in the 19th century was no longer successful and its impotence testified to the in the eyes of some, its wrongness, in the eyes of others, its belatedness. For the conscious and thoughtful elements of Catholicism, free from ultramontane fanaticism, with the Vatican dogma a great test came regarding the measure and character of their ecclesiasticalism. The point is not that for the sake of church obedience those who previously disagreed with dogma submitted, but how did they submit? Externally, by force of habit and discipline, or internally, as Vatican dogma and the system of papism in general require this? After all, if the pope is vicarius Christi (vicar of Christ (lat.) - Ed.) ), the living embodiment of the Church, then one must obey its definitions in addition to any other evidence and even in spite of it. You must sincerely and internally disagree with yourself, with the arguments of your reason and its evidence, and make something that is not your thought your own; this is the sweet sacrifice, sacrificio dell'intelletto (sacrifice of reason (Italian) - Ed.), if it is possible. It is in such self-overcoming, at least in spite of all one’s consciousness, for the sake of submission to authority, that the essence of the church system of papism consists. If this internal act does not exist, then external hypocritical submission remains, legitimizing lies and hypocrisy. So how was this submission experienced? We see in some such a sharp change of front that there is almost no doubt about the nature of this subordination. But it is instructive to observe the spiritual drama of the chosen, sincere and spiritually responsible: such are, for example, Bishop Strossmayer and Bishop Hefele, both irreconcilable enemies of the Vatican dogma and who persisted for the longest time in not publishing it, and then resigned themselves and submitted. Their published letters make it possible to diagnose what happened. Bishop Hefele writes on August 10, 1870 from Rothenburg to Döllinger (therefore, after the publication of the Vatican dogma by the pope): “It would be best at the Council to declare again non placet and speak negatively about the desire for obedience. Since there was no unanimity, we accepted the already indicated course of action and agreed to henceforth act together locally... What I will do is not yet clear to me... but I will never recognize a new dogma without the restrictions we require and will reject the bindingness and freedom of the Council. Let the Romans ban and excommunicate me and appoint me an administrator of the diocese. Maybe God will be merciful until that time - to recall the perturbator ecclesiae (troubler of the church (lat.) - Ed.) from the stage. This statement 78 least of all testifies to the self-denial of reason in favor of papal infallibility, and this is an open wish for the speedy death of the infallible “violator of church peace” in the mouth of the most learned author of the Conciliengeschichte (history of councils (German) - Ed. note. ), for whom the history of church consciousness was an open book, makes a truly stunning impression. In the next letter, Hefele writes to the same Dellinger: “To recognize something that in itself is untrue as Divinely revealed - let whoever can do it, non possum” (I cannot (lat.) - Ed.) (ibid 223). And in November 1870, Hefele wrote to the Bonn Committee: “I also cannot hide from myself, both in Rottenburg and in Rome, that the new dogma is deprived of a true biblical and traditional basis, and the Church has received incalculable harm, so that she has never received a more cruel and deadly blow than on July 18” (224). On January 25, 1871, Hefele wrote the following to his Bonn friends: “Unfortunately, I must say with Schulte: for many years I lived in a grave delusion. I thought of serving the Catholic Church, but I served the distortion (das Zerrbild) that Romanism and Jesuitism made of it. Only in Rome did it become completely clear to me that what was happening there no longer had the appearance and name of Christianity, only the shell, the grain had completely disappeared, everything had become completely externalized (verausserlicht)” (ibid. 228). As you can see, this is anything but a resignation to infallible authority. And after 6 weeks, another conversation begins: through reinterpretations, reconciliation with dogma is established, and soon submission (ibid. 229 fg). At first, Bishop Strossmeyer was equally uncompromising, writing on 09/07/1870 to Professor Reinkens (later an Old Catholic bishop); here he speaks of papal despotism and arbitrariness manifested during the Council, of “the most blatant and disgusting use of papal infallibility in order to elevate papal infallibility into dogma” (252). “The papacy became entangled in all sorts of petty world trade and descended into a purely Italian institution” (253). He expresses confidence for his nation (the Croats) that “one day it will be freed from Roman despotism” (254). In a letter to Dellinger on 03/04/1871, he writes: “The most nasty and absurd means were used to prevent the free expression of opinions. There is no way, I repeat this a hundred times, there is no way (unmöglich kann) that God can give His blessing to a work that has arisen in this way” (254). “If ever there was a meeting in history that represented the exact opposite of what it should be, it is the Vatican Council. Everything that could happen to discredit the name of the Council happened to the highest degree” (255). “In Rome, of course, there is no breath of the spirit of Christ, for while He forbade calling Him “good,” in Rome they most shamelessly strived for the title infallibilis (infallible (lat.) - Ed.). (257). And then he has an invariable motive - wishing death for dad: “For several days now we have been talking about dad’s dangerous illness, even about his death. A true benefit to humanity...” (258). (Cf. a number of letters to different persons of similar content: 258–263). The matter ended in submission for this bishop, for whom, according to Schulte, “there was no interest in doing something for the faith, but the only interest was to raise the Yugoslav nation.” This Slavic nationalist in Catholicism forgot about the voice of his church conscience to such an extent that in 1881, in a pastoral letter, driven by national-political considerations, he himself proclaimed papal infallibility and omnipotence. And it is remarkable that this same Strossmeyer, having the full weight of this compromise on his church conscience, 10 years after the Vatican, converted our V.S. Solovyov to Catholicism. Supporters of the Vatican dogma strive to prove - and they cannot do otherwise, without falling into contradiction with it - that it has always been maintained by the Church (according to the maxim of Vikenty Dirinsky: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est (what has always been, what is everywhere, what everyone believed in (lat.) - Ed.). This not only does not correspond to reality at all, but also irrefutably shown by Catholic opponents of the Vatican dogma at the Council and outside it (and this is the enormous ecclesiastical merit of a group of scientists who subsequently joined Old Catholicism), but even in the very recent past, papal absolutism was recognized only by individual theological schools, but was by no means shared by the entire Catholic Church. 79 This dogma was solemnly denied by the entire Catholic Church at the Councils, which are now customary to belittle them. meaning, or even reject it altogether. We mean, of course, the large reformist Councils that took place in Constance and Basel, of which the first is recognized in one part by the Ecumenical Council, and the second is not recognized at all. According to the doctrine, the pope is the supreme and infallible head of the Church, not subject to jurisdiction and accountable to anyone and generally not knowing the ecclesiastical authority over him. However, in a completely insurmountable contradiction with this doctrine is the dogmatic, that is, having doctrinal significance, fact that in the history of the Catholic Church there were (and therefore generally possible) unrest associated with the personality of its head. In these troubles, the Church - in the person of its conciliar representatives - was faced with the need, firstly, to establish a true pope in the presence of two or even three anti-popes, moreover, equally dubious, and secondly, to judge and depose these popes and enthrone a new pope. In general, from the point of view of the consistent implementation of Vatican dogma, even the very interruptions in the papacy, which are naturally caused by the death of popes, are truly capable of causing dogmatic confusion: can the vicarius Christi be mortal, if such is even possible? Can the very office of the pope be interrupted, as we undoubtedly have in this case? The patriarchate may be interrupted by death or the removal of the patriarch, but it is not a special rank, which, according to Catholic dogma, the papacy is. The patriarchate is an ecclesiastical position associated with an honorary title and special jurisdiction, but is not a special rank, for by rank the patriarch is a bishop, while the episcopacy (like the priesthood) is not interrupted on earth by the death of its individual bearers and will not be interrupted until the end of the century. The papacy is in a different position, which is precisely interrupted by the death of its representatives, for the pope exists only in the singular. If they say that the papacy is not a special rank, but only a position, for by rank the pope is a bishop, then such a statement, which is fully consistent with the view of the Universal Church before the schism, is not reconciled with the Vatican concept. According to the latter, there is a special charisma characteristic of Peter in his successors - veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis (without fading truth and faith (lat.) - Ed.), establishing the rank of pope. In general, Catholic doctrine gradually but steadily raised the Apostle Peter above the other apostles to such an extent that for it he is not just an apostle, but a super-apostle, the prince of the apostles. He includes the general apostolic charism in his personal one, just as the episcopal office includes the priesthood. If a bishop celebrates the liturgy in the same way as a priest, and in this does not differ from him, then it does not follow that the rank of both is equal and identical. And the same must be applied regarding the Catholic concept of the pope, according to which the fourth and highest level of the priesthood was created for the pope. And although in Catholic literature there is no direct expression of the idea that the papacy is a special rank, the highest in the Church, episcopus episcoporum, episcopus universalis (bishop of bishops, universal bishop (lat.) - Ed.), then in this one can only see doctrinal evasion or incompleteness. The special and exclusive place given to “primacy” in Catholic canonical treatises means nothing more than that the pope is the highest, special degree of the priesthood. 80 If we understand the papacy as a special rank of the Apostle Peter (Tu es Petrus (You are Peter (lat.) - Ed.), sung when the newly elected pope is carried), then the difficulties that have already been noted more than once appear more clearly: on the one hand, bearers of a lower hierarchical rank cannot ordain a higher one, why the consecration of popes by bishops (cardinals) is a canonically sacramental nonsense (and therefore, during his lifetime, the pope himself would have to dedicate a deputy to himself), and on the other hand, the dignity cannot be interrupted in its bearers without interrupting the entire apostolic succession. Therefore, the permanent miracle of the existence of vicarius Christi would also presuppose the existence of his personal immortality. Otherwise, in the dogmatic teaching about the pope, one must decisively lower the tone and understand him only as the patriarch, but then, of course, the entire Vatican stronghold will collapse. In any case, we repeat, the death of the pope, which interrupts the papacy, is a dogmatic fact about which Catholic doctrine has not yet said a weighty word. But an even more dogmatic fact that must be taken into account in the problems of the papacy are the deliberate and artificial breaks in the papal succession, explained by the desire of the curia to manage without vicarius Christi. 81 Where remains the infallibility and fullness of ecclesiastical authority at this time? If we answer that the Church has, then this means that the Church can do without a pope, albeit “widowed,” like a diocese without a bishop. And from here it would seem to follow with complete clarity that it is not the Church that is a function of the papacy, but the papacy is a function of the Church, which itself can, under certain conditions, make up for the absence of the pope. But this same question, which only arises reflectively and covertly regarding the death of a pope, openly arises in the presence of church unrest and schism that arises with the appearance of several popes, which has happened more than once in history. And the Church itself, through its highest body - the Council, then disposed of the popes, judged them, deposed some, raised others. The primacy of the Council over the pope, which was dogmatically proclaimed by the Councils of Constance and Basel, was actually implemented by them before this dogmatic declaration. They actually rejected the provision that the pope is not subject to the jurisdiction of any church court, according to which prima sedes a nemine iudicatur* (the first throne is not judged by anyone (lat.) - Ed.). The popes were tried and deposed by the Council, and neither the Church, nor Pope Martin V, appointed by the Council of Constance, nor his successors objected to this. An objection would mean for them to challenge both their own legitimacy and the consciousness of themselves as usurpers. I repeat, these facts have a dogmatic significance, and if Catholics like to say that the Providence of God protected the Roman See from dogmatic errors, then in this case with the same reason one can assert that Providence omitted facts, the dogmatic significance of which was to protect the Roman See from false claims, to set dogmatic milestones. 82 Turning from facts to doctrines, it must be established that at the beginning of the 15th century in the Catholic Church in the general consciousness, of course, with many exceptions, the church system of papism was rejected in favor of the beginning of conciliarity, and this was manifested in both Councils. The necessity, fruitfulness and even universality (to a certain extent) of the Council of Constance do not meet with objections from the most ardent supporters of papism, who strive at all costs to weaken its dogmatic resolution, adopted at the IV meeting and representing a direct negation of Vatican dogma. This decree reads: ipsa synodus in spiritu congregata legitime generale consilium faciens, ecclesiam catholicam militantem representans, potestatem a Christo immediate habet, cui quilibet cujuscunque status dignitatis, etiamsi papalis existat, o bedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem et exstirpationem dicti schismatis et reformationem generalem ecclesiae Dei in capite et membris” (The council itself, assembled in the Spirit, legally holding a general council, representing the Catholic Church militant, has authority directly from Christ, which every person of any dignity, even papal, must obey, as regards the faith and the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the church of God in the head and members (lat.) - Ed.). 83 At the V session this resolution was repeated and further amended (it was also confirmed more than once at the Basel Council). This decree was adopted after the flight of Pope John XXIII, when the Council was preparing to begin his trial for a long series of crimes. As a result of the trial, this pope was deposed and the election of Pope Martin V was carried out, recognized as legitimate by the entire Catholic world. However, from the point of view of the principle of prima sedes a nemine judicatur, and even more so of Vatican dogma, the act of trial and deposition of the pope, and therefore the election of a new pope, is a revolutionary and illegal act. If the Council had the right to do what it did, then it had a legitimate dogmatic and canonical basis for this, which it expressed in the resolutions of the IV and V sessions. The overthrow of one pope and the election of another is a dogmatic or, as jurists say, an implied fact that overthrows the theory of the absoluteness of primacy, or, otherwise, interrupts the canonical succession of popes: if Pope Martin V is illegitimate, then all his successors are illegitimate, the papal succession is interrupted. Instead of extracting all the dogmatic and canonical consequences from the hopeless situation with which Providence, as it were, shows the papacy its boundaries, Catholic theology makes every effort to weaken the inconvenient fact, and the learned historian of the Council of Constance, Hefele, is also zealous in this direction. He recognizes the course of action of the Council for that difficult time, when there were three popes at once, as the only possible one. This means that he allows actions that, in his own opinion, are illegal. According to Catholic doctrine, it is impossible to replace one pope and install a new one for the Council, just as it is impossible for presbyters to ordain a bishop. But at the same time, he continues that the rights of the Ecumenical Council of Constance can be recognized only from the last (41-45 meeting), when he was in conjunction with Pope Martin V. But if initially it was illegal, or, in Hefele’s deliberately unclear expression, non-ecumenical, then all his actions should be insignificant. Even with a new pope, who in this case would obviously be a false pope, he could not become Ecumenical. 84 With similar stretches they try to weaken the fact that Pope Martin V confirmed all, or at least some 85 decisions of the Council of Constance, recognizing it as Ecumenical at least only in part, but he never declared any of its decisions to be heretical. On the contrary, the pope undoubtedly approved (and is currently considered canonical: see Enchiridion symbolorum Denzigeri, ed. XIII, p. 224–235) the dogmatic provisions of the same Council concerning the false teachings of Wyclef, Hussus and others and adopted by the Council simultaneously with the resolution regarding the primacy of the Council over the pope. Is it really possible that the Council, recognized as clearly heretical in the main dogma of the Church, can at the same time be considered Ecumenical in another respect? This is one of the evasive ambiguities of Roman doctrine, which is historically explained simply by the fact that Pope Martin V did not dare to protest against provisions that were unpleasant to him, waiting for a more favorable moment for this, and at the same time wanted to use the Council to fight heretics. But dogmatically there remains an unacceptable ambiguity here. In any case, Saint Martin V in relation to the Council of Constance was satisfied with the formula, which, according to Hefele himself, each side could interpret in its own way (Hefele, VII, 348,368). His successor, Pope Eugene IV, in 1446 more definitely accepted the decisions of the Council of Constance, absque tamen praeiudicio iuris dignitatis et praeeminentiae sedis apostolicae (however, without censure of the right of dignity and primacy of the Apostolic See (lat.) - Ed.). (On this basis, Hefele (VI, 372–373) considers all decrees limiting papal rights excluded). Subsequently, Pope Pius II condemned in the bull “Exsecrabilis” of 1459 an appeal against the pope to the Council, and Pope Leo X in the bull “Pastor aetemus” of 1516 condemned the decree of the Basel Council, reproducing only the decree of Constance, on the supremacy of the Council over the pope, and so it remained until the bull “Pastor aetemus” of Pius IX on July 18 1870 and even to this day... It is instructive to observe the degree of papistic hypnosis in Catholic dogma: for it, the stamp of papal approbation has become so decisive that interest in the very original source of the affirmed provisions, in the Council, is already lost. It turns out that the Council, consisting of obvious heretics in one respect, is a statement of orthodoxy in another - healthy and poisoned waters flow from the same source. Or the Council simply turns into the papal office for preparing projects on the dogmatic side. This hesitation and inconsistency affects even more clearly the history of the Council of Basel, with which for decades there has been a real struggle on the part of the pope, leaning first in one direction or the other. After the victory of the papacy, the Basel Council was naturally completely excluded from the number of Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Western Church (although, by the way, it expressed the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, proclaimed in 1854 by Pope Pius IX). What is interesting and significant for us is not his later rejection, but the long-term vacillations in attitude towards him, which would have been impossible if the Church had then contained the dogma of papal infallibility. On the contrary, the Council of Basel stood firmly on the basis of the dogmatic definition of the Council of Constance and confirmed it several times. The Basel Council, which opened on July 23, 1431, shortly after the election (after the death of Martin V) of Eugene IV to the papal throne, immediately fell into conflict with the pope, who wanted to dissolve it in order to assemble a new one (Councils were now, according to the resolution of the Council of Constance, to meet periodically, every 10 years) in Bologna, within Italy. The Council responded to this with a resolution denying the pope the right to dissolve the Council (and, therefore, plena potestas (full power (lat.) - Ed.). After some time, the pope made concessions to the rebellious Council and invited him, through the Bishop of Tarentum (whose speech at the Council was an exaltation of papal primacy and plena potestas) to compromise and move the Council or limit its competence. The Council responded to this accusing the pope of a schismatic spirit and demanding the abolition of the dissolution of the Council, arguing that this would also harm the cause of union with the Greeks, to which the pope referred. ), the Council states that the competence of the Council is determined in three respects: in matters of faith, the eradication of schism and the reform of the Church in the head and members as defined by the Council of Constance. Only God and the Ecumenical Council are infallible, while even the Angels are fallible, and popes, like Anastasius and Liberius, have erred. In general, the pope is only a caput ministeriale (official head (Latin) - Ed.), nothing more. By this, the fathers prove the legality of their disobedience and, therefore, the illegality of the pope’s claims (Hefele, VII, 477-478). Subsequently, this divergence between the Council and the pope in the doctrine of church authority deepens more and more. At the second meeting on 27/IV 1433, the Council adopted decrees obliging the pope to convene the Council and attend it under threat of trial and even schism (532–533). On June 16, the Council adopted a new resolution condemning the pope for his attitude towards the Council, and it was established that the fidem concemit (the faith establishes (lat.) - Ed.) position, according to which the pope is subordinate to the Ecumenical Council, and Pope Eugene IV will be like a pagan and a tax collector if he disobeys the Church (that is, the council). On July 13, the Council again confirmed the main theses of the Council of Constance. The conflict with the pope turns into an open struggle for power; a trial is scheduled for the pope, the time of which is postponed several times, but in the end the trial is carried out and leads to his deposition. However, before this, events occurred that were also of fundamental importance. The Pope first issued on July 29, 1433, not knowing about the threatening decisions of the Council against him, the bull “Inscratabilis”. In it, he canceled all the resolutions of the Council directed against him. But a few days later, on August 1, he was forced to issue the bull “Dudum sacra” (in the first form), which already fully recognizes the Council under the condition of the chairmanship of his legates and the repeal of decisions personally directed against him (at the same time, another bull “Deus novit” directed against the Council, the draft of which also became known to the Council, was declared not genuine). However, having learned about the decrees of the Council directed against him, the pope issued a new bull “In Arcapo” on September 11, in which he annulled these decrees and anathematized those who obeyed them. On October 16, at the Council, in the presence of Emperor Sigismund, a debate was organized by the chairman of the council, Cardinal Julian Cesarini, and the papal legate, Archbishop of Spolenta, on a Vatican theme, but not in a Vatican setting: the first asserted the primacy of the Council over the pope, citing the decisions of the Council of Constance, the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, Blessed Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great and Chalcedon Council, and also challenged the pope’s right to dissolve the Council, and ended with the fact that we are talking specifically about the position of faith (ibid. 554). The terms of peace were dictated to the pope, which, being in a difficult situation, he fully accepted in a new bull, also “Dudum Sacra” on December 15, 1433, namely: here he admits that he had previously strived for a dissolutio concilii (dissolution of the council (lat.) - Ed.), which is why graves dissensiones (severe disagreements (lat.) - Ed.). Instead of the previous authoritarian formula volumus contentamur (we wish (lat.) - Ed.), there is now decemimus et declaramus proposed by the council (we approve and declare (lat.) - Ed.). ); it is recognized that the Council “from the opening proceeded and continued lawfully with regard to the well-known three points (the eradication of heresy, the pacification and reform of the Church in the head and members) and related to that”, as if there was no dissolution, which is now declared invalid and without force, with readiness cum effectu ac omni devotione ac favore prosequi (really and with all good will and approval to follow (lat.) - Ed. ) Cathedral. Both previous bulls “Inscrutabilis” on July 26 and “In agrsapo” on September 13 are taken back (along with the inauthentic “Deus novit”), all censorship and repressions against members of the Council are cancelled.” 86 We leave it to the supporters of papal infallibility to reconcile all these wavering and contradictory judgments on the same issue (undoubtedly from the field of de fide et moribus (on faith and morals (Latin) - Ed.), and over the course of only a few months. But it should be stated that in this recognition of the Council, where it is open and de fide (as dogma (Lat.) - Ed.) the primacy of the Council over the pope is established, not only the admissibility, but also the legality of such a proclamation is expressed. Otherwise, the inevitable conclusion is that the pope committed an act of recognition of a obviously heretical Council, which, moreover, was still establishing itself in its heresy. This is what happens if you don’t measure the Constanta-Basel doctrine by the Vatican. Of course, yielding to the Council out of necessity and insincerely, Pope Eugene IV, through omissions, prepared for himself the usual path of retreat in advance. In 1439, under changed circumstances, he declared in the College of Cardinals that he agreed only to the continuation of the Council, but not to its decrees - an idea that was picked up and diligently developed by the papal theologian I. de Torquemada. 87 In the bull “Moyses” on September 4, 1439, Pope Eugene IV had already condemned the Basel decrees as impious, and at the same time he was trying, following the wisdom of Torquemada, to undermine the power of the Decree of Constance. 88 But all this came later. Then the pope's capitulation to the Council of Basel was met there with great triumph and was immediately enshrined in its various decrees. 89 The most important thing is that the Council of Basel, already recognized by the pope, in its meeting on June 18, 1434, renewed the decree of the 5th meeting of the Council of Constance on the primacy of the Council over the pope, and all acts of the Council were declared as bulls in the name of the Council, in contrast to the Vatican, where the “decree of the Council” was clothed in a bull of the pope 90. Here is a new factor in the history of the Council - negotiations with the Greeks about union, which ended with the Union of Florence. Leaving aside the question of the union itself in essence, here we are only interested in the significance of this Council in the destinies of the Western Church. From the very beginning, negotiations with the Greeks became a means of struggle between the pope and the Council. Of course, the Greeks themselves did not at all strive to unite with the Western Church in essence (on the contrary, they treated it with traditional hatred and disgust), and this step on the part of the emperor was entirely dictated by political calculations, the hope of military assistance against the Turks (and initially among the Greeks who arrived there were no supporters of Latinism at all, only during the conciliar session they appeared in the person of Vissarion, Isidore and several others). But regardless of the mood of the Greeks, who were mistaken in their political calculations, negotiations on union began at a time when the Western Church was incapacitated due to schism and itself needed union. Negotiations were possible only with one of the two church parties into which the Church split, each of the parties seeking to use the union with the Greeks for its own triumph. Greek deputations initially negotiated with both sides, the pope and the Council, 91 and both sides invited the Greeks, sending their embassies to Constantinople, who were at enmity with each other 92 and intriguing. They promised the Greeks various advantages and increased their price. These negotiations lasted for more than 4 years. In the end, the pope won, and the Greeks agreed to come to his Council not because, of course, they considered it canonically correct, but because the Baselians went too far in their demands regarding the place of the Council and, moreover, at the same time they themselves quarreled, in a word, they made a number of tactical mistakes. And yet, the Greeks, having arrived in Ferrara, remained inactive for another six months (from April to October 1438), awaiting the arrival of the Baselians, representatives of the French and German nations, who never arrived. As a temporary Council, the Greeks had before them the papal conciliabulum (cathedral (lat.) - Ed.), which consisted of 8 cardinals (all the rest were in Basel), two “titular” patriarchs, 61 archbishops (most of them only electi (elected (lat.) - Ed.), that is, “Vatican”), 43 abbots (!) and order general, while the whole real representation of the nations, numbering several hundred, with the rest of the cardinals, sat in Basel. Therefore, as far as the Western Church is concerned, the Florence Council was not Ecumenical and was not recognized as such in the West until the 19th century, 93 and the stamp of ecumenicality was put on it only by the Vatican. True, the pope even then assured the Greeks that his presence alone was enough to justify the Ecumenical Council, but in this case it would have been possible to do without the Council entirely through negotiations with the pope, as was staged in 1274, also at the so-called “ecumenical” Council of Lyons, where the envoys of Emperor Michael read the required confessio (confession (Latin) - Ed.) before the papal representatives, and that was the end of the matter. However, in this case, after the Greeks negotiated with the entire Western Church in the person of its two centers, hierarchical and conciliar, it was impossible to force the issue like that. And it immediately became clear that the Ecumenical Council with the Greeks had failed, for the Basel side immediately opened hostilities, and while in Florence the Greeks were wresting recognition of papal supremacy, in another part of the Catholic Church its rejection was established as a dogma of faith. And only the hopelessness of the position of the Greeks, together with their real indifference to this issue, essentially prevented them from appearing as super-arbiters in the great church schism of the Western Church and establishing the principles of Orthodoxy there, and thereby preventing both the death of Byzantium and the inevitable Reformation... At the time the Council of Florence met, a new conflict between the pope and the Council had reached full maturity. To the pope's bull about moving the Council from Basel to Ferrara, the people of Basel responded by judging the pope and banning him in temporalibus et spiritualibus (in secular and spiritual matters (lat.) - Ed.). In response to the pope's announcement of the opening of the Ecumenical Council in Ferrara, the people of Basel, at the 32nd meeting on March 24, 1438, solemnly condemned the Ferrara Council as a schismatic meeting, and de fide the pope's right to postpone the Council was denied. At this time, the most influential Catholic countries, France and Germany, determined their attitude to the conflict, and they generally took the side of the Baselites (the Bourges Assembly and the “pragmatic sanction” of July 7, 1438 and the conciliatory “neutrality” of Germany, the Main Reichstag of March 26, 1439 with the adoption of the reformation Basel decrees, and finally, the efforts of all Western countries to establish a new common Cathedral). In any case, there was no talk of recognizing the Council of Florence, and the pope remained isolated along with the Greeks he had enticed. Given this deep schism in the Western Church, speeches about union sounded ridiculous and false. At the 32nd meeting on May 16, 1439, as if in warning of the corresponding definitions of the Florence Council, it was once again determined that the veritates fidei catholicae (truths of the Catholic faith (Latin) - Ed.) are: 1) the Ecumenical Council is higher than the pope; 2) the pope cannot postpone, cancel, or dissolve the Ecumenical Council; 3) anyone who denies this is a heretic (Hefele, VII, 778–779), and at the 34th meeting on June 25, 1439, the pope was declared deposed by the court. Thus, while a union with the Greeks was being signed in Florence, the Basel Council, which represented, in any case, a significant part of the Western Church, firstly, completely rejected the powers of the pope and his Council, and, secondly, the doctrine of the primacy of the pope, proclaimed at the Florence Council, was dogmatically rejected as heresy. And this, even at one time disputed, Florentine definition was resurrected in our days by the Vatican Council and was included as a basis in its definition. 94 It is composed in very imprecise, figurative and ambiguous expressions 95 and was imposed on the Greeks already at the end of the long Council, without sufficient discussion. It is characteristic that John of Ragusa, in his response to Vissarion, recognized the power of the pope over the bishops as his vicars, for the Apostle Peter allegedly appointed patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops to their places, and referred as proof to the forged pseudo-Isidore passage from Anacletus, and ended with a reference again to the forged text of canon 6 of the First Council of Nicaea (papal legates were once convicted of this forgery at the IV Ecumenical Council in 451, where the falsity of this text was shown). In his argumentation, John also referred to the deliberately forged testimony of Donatio Constantini (Donation of Constantine (lat.) - Ed.), the inauthenticity of which was shown even earlier by the studies of Lawrence Valla and Nicholas of Cusa (Hefele VII, 733). The formula appears to have been little discussed in detail, but there was some dispute over one essential addition which the Latins demanded but the Greeks did not accept, namely, the recognition of papal authority on the basis of sacra scriptura et dicta sanctorum (Holy Scripture and the words of the saints (Latin) - Ed.), and as these dicta, individual expressions in the most exaggerated interpretation would receive the governing significance. In the end, the definition was retained: καθ' ὃv τρόπον – quemadmodum (etiam) in gestis conciliorum et in sacris canonibus (as far as in the acts of councils and sacred canons (Latin) - Ed.), which constitutes the key position of the entire definition and represents undoubted ambiguity and rubber formula. If we give it a restrictive character and understand it in the sense that the primacy of the pope is recognized only within the limits of the Ecumenical Councils (of which the Greeks then, as now, know only 7) and their canons, then this definition confirms the correctness of the attitude towards the pope as the first bishop on the part of the Orthodox East, but, of course, rejects in advance any expansion towards the Vatican dogma. If we remove this restrictive meaning (which is done in the Latin translation by the word etiam, 96 which has no correspondence in the Greek text), then, on the contrary, the Ecumenical Councils and canons are attributed a recognition of papism that does not correspond to history, but is postulated by the latest Catholic dogma. One way or another, if we compare with this the former Basel and Constance Councils at the same time, then the disagreement on this issue in the depths of the Catholic world itself will turn out to be no less than it was at the Vatican Council, but then it was expressed freely, but here it was strangled. One more circumstance is also curious: while proclaiming the papacy, the Florentine Decree passes over in silence the question that was precisely the most militant and acute - about the attitude of the pope to the Council. 97 And there is reason to think that, at least then, this issue was not yet considered resolved by the Florentine Decree. After the Council, in September or October 1439, in Florence the pope organized a debate on this topic in the presence of cardinals and other officials, and Cardinal Cesarini defended the Basel definition, while Torquemada (who soon received the cardinalship) refuted it, which means that this still remained an open question. 98 Faith in papal infallibility was just as little characteristic of the papal theologian, because he asserted that the pope was not subject to jurisdiction, except in the case of falling into heresy, which, however, he considered incredible. 99 This same case was also admitted by Hefele, 100 of course, to the Vatican, who believed that then the pope would cease to be a living member of the Church. The Basel Council brought the conflict with Eugene IV to an end and elected antipope Felix V at the end of 1439, who then moved the Council to Lausanne. The schism resumed, and only after the death of Eugene IV (1447) did the newly elected Pope Nicholas V, who managed to make peace with the princes and secure their support, entered into peace negotiations with the antipope. Felix was offered the following conditions: he had to give up the tiara and be rewarded for this by Pope Nicholas with money, and moreover, remain the first cardinal with all the benefits of the title. In view of Felix's agreement in a special bull, Nicholas V canceled all measures against Felix, the Baselians and their supporters. Also, Felix, for his part, in a special message, abolished censorship against Eugene IV, Nicholas and their supporters, but confirmed all his appointments, privileges, etc. At the 2nd meeting of the Lausanne Council, Felix signed a refusal, and confirmed that he accepted the election from the Ecumenical Council for the good of the Church, and in this Lausanne Council, which, being rightfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, rightfully represents the Ecumenical Church, he refuses “pure, libere, simpliciter et sincere, realiter et cum effectu (purely, freely, in simplicity and sincerity, truly and truly (lat.) - Ed.) in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." At the following meetings, the Council confirmed its principles and, due to the vacancy (sic!) of the papal throne, also elected Nicholas V. 101 Next, he transferred to Felix the corresponding cardinal powers, jurisdiction, the highest position after the pope, the papal robe and part of the insignia. The cathedral closed. The restoration of peace was solemnly celebrated in Rome; the pope, in a bull of April 18, 1449, confirmed all the appointments of the Council and Pope Felix, who died two years after the abdication in the glory of great piety. This peaceful liquidation of the church schism was, of course, a compromise for both sides, dictated by considerations of church “economy” or simply opportunism. But, despite this, here we also have a fact of fundamental, more precisely, dogmatic significance. And first of all, it is clear that reconciliation and agreement is impossible for the Church either with heretics or with malicious schismatics and rebels: in relation to them in the Vatican there have always been corresponding anathematizations and excommunications. Meanwhile, the people of Basel did not at all give up their dogmatic and canonical positions and, despite the decree of the Florence Council, they continued to assert both the primacy of the Council over the pope and the supreme rights of the Council to govern the Church. Also, the rights of Pope Felix remained unshaken for them, who himself, for the good of the Church, and, moreover, on the most honorable conditions, again provided to him by the Council itself and supported by the future Pope Nicholas, renounced the throne. And the new Pope Nicholas was elected by the Council itself, and was not at all accepted by it as an already existing legitimate pope, to whom every Catholic believer is obliged to obey. And all these conditions were confirmed by the opposite side, that is, Pope Nicholas, who accepted and fulfilled all the conditions of the Lausanne Council. Now the question is: who was this Felix, whom Pope Nicholas elevated to honorary cardinal? Antipope, a rebel, and a heretic who professed the Basel heresies? In addition, he rejected the “Ecumenical Council of Florence” with its decree on papal power simply because this Council, anathematized by the Basel Council, was the work of Pope Eugene deposed in Basel. And what was this Lausanne gathering, with which the pope not only entered into an agreement, but formally submitted to the terms of which? Was it the Ecumenical Council, as it called itself, or the council of the wicked, a rebellious and heretical gathering that dared to judge and depose the pope, elect and install a new one, anathematize the Papal Council, proclaim new and, from the point of view of the Vatican, false, heretical dogmas about the subordination of the pope to the Council? Is it possible, although for the sake of "economy", agreements and even just negotiations with church robbers and heretics, and isn't a man guilty who goes to the council of the wicked and kisses their intentions there, as was the case in this case, although the pope himself was the actor? So, one of two things: either the Roman Church itself fell into a grave heresy and damaged its hierarchy by entering into communion with Belial and accepting Pope Nicholas from the evil gathering, or the Roman Church recognized the Council of Basel (not to mention the Council of Constance, which in essence was previously recognized) with its dogmas and its hierarchy. But in this case, a number of further questions inevitably arise, namely: if the Basel Council retained its canonical power in 1449, and therefore did not lose it earlier, despite all the repressions of Pope Eugene IV, in this case, the prohibition and then the deposition of this latter, as well as the anathematization and declaration of the Florence Council as having no force, were valid. This latter, at best, represents a canonical ambiguity and therefore has no binding force for the Universal Church. Meanwhile, the Florence Council turned out to be one of the dogmatic supports for the Vatican. Further, the question turns out to be completely insoluble: who was the true pope and, therefore, who was the antipope: Eugene or Felix? De facto (in fact (lat.) - Ed.) both of them were recognized by the Roman Church: Eugene throughout his life, Felix after his death at the time of his abdication, which was constructed precisely as a free abdication, opening the election of a new pope. At the same time, Eugene, after his deposition in Basel and until his death, was not recognized for a single moment by the entire Church, because he always had the entire Basel Church against him. On the contrary, Felix, at least at the moment of his renunciation, seemed to be recognized by the entire Church, not only Basel, but also Rome. At the same time, the doubtfulness or invalidity of all his actions, and above all all the decrees of the Florence Council and the bull “Laetentur coeli” of July 6, 1439, is obvious. This dubiousness and invalidity stems from the indirect recognition of the competence of the Basel Council with its pope by the Roman Church at the time of the final liquidation of the Council. Thus, the usual political resourcefulness and opportunism of the curia in this case turned out to be unacceptable dogmatic opportunism, introducing uncertainty and ambiguity into the most basic issues. The contradictions that arise from this have no less significance for Vatican dogma than the inconsistency and confusion in the behavior of Popes Vigilius and Liberius and the heresy of Honorius, which was so persistently, although in vain, recalled at the Vatican Council. But it is remarkable that no one remembered the dogmatic fact that we are now considering. So, the Basel Council dogmatically won, forcing itself to still admit, historically the papacy won, which led the Church irresistibly to the Reformation, that is, to the final and incurable schism, and together to the Vatican as the completion of the counter-reformation and its final victory within the Catholic Church. Feeling the ground under their feet, the popes retroactively and in contradiction with their predecessors begin to destroy the traces of this Council. In 1460, that is, 10 years after the final recognition and reconciliation with the Council of Basel, Pope Pius II (in the bull “Execrabilis”) recognized the abuse 102 worthy of damnation to proclaim the right of appeal against the pope to the future Council (hoc pestiferum virus... materiam scandali (this is a destructive poison... the cause of temptation (lat.) - Ed.). And already in In 1516, in the face of the beginning of the Reformation, Pope Leo X in the bull “Pastor aeternus” (Enchir. 257) proclaimed, along with the invalidity of the Basel Council (however, only after the pope attempted to transfer it to Ferrara), and the invalidity of its position that the Council was superior to the pope (as if it had been proclaimed only after the transfer and only by the Basel Council). So the historical memory in the Vatican turned out to be short. The next step was the complete removal of the Basel Council from the number of Ecumenical Councils and the limitation of the significance of the Constance Council while at the same time exalting the Florence Council: the machine of “tradition” worked purely, and since the stamp of infallibility was made in the Vatican, the technique of work has become extremely easier, so that now no one dares to raise a voice in defense of the authority of the Constance and Basel Councils. 103 But all this is donee corrigetur (until it is corrected (lat.) - Ed.), and the opposite picture is also completely conceivable, in which Florentinum and Vaticanum will change places with Constantiense et Basiliense, the story is not over yet... However, let us turn closely to the Vatican dogma. The Vatican decrees consist of two parts: constitutio dogmatica de fide catholica” (sessio III, 24 Aprilis 1870 (dogmatic establishment of the Catholic faith (session III, April 24, 1870 (lat.) - Ed.)), consisting of three chapters: de Deo rerum omnium creatore, de revelatione and de fide (about God, the creator of everything, about revelation and faith (lat.) - Ed.), - this is a page from the Catechism, testifying to the general tendency of Catholicism to multiply dogmatic definitions, whether they are caused or not by the irreducible needs of church life, but at the same time it has the meaning of masking the terrain, covering the main battery - namely, the second resolution of the Vatican Council: constitutio dogmatica I de ecclesia Christi, sessio IV, 18 Julii 1870 (Dogmatic Establishment I on the Church of Christ (Session IV, July 18, 1870 (lat.) - Ed.). It, in fact, represents the famous Vatican dogma, which constitutes an era in the history of Catholicism. It consists of a general introduction and four chapters, which, in turn, consist of a motivation and a resolution, a “canon”, sealed with anathemas of those who do not accept it (by the way, according to the meaning of these anathemas, all non-Catholics who do not recognize the Vatican dogma are subject to them, and, therefore, all “schismatic” fratres separati (separated brothers (lat.) - Ed.), that is and all of us, Orthodox). This motivation contains what has been preserved for believers from the session of the Council itself; its binding force is not as indisputable as the canons. The first canon reads: “If anyone therefore says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not appointed by the Lord Christ the head of all the apostles and the head of the entire militant Church, or that he received directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ the primacy of honor only, and not of true and genuine jurisdiction, let him be anathema.” Second canon: “So, if anyone says that it is not on the basis of the establishment of the Lord Christ Himself or by divine right that blessed Peter has uninterrupted successors in his primacy over the entire Church, or that the Roman Pontifex 104 is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.” Canon Three: “If anyone therefore says that the Roman Pontifex has only the powers of supervision or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters which relate to faith and morals, but even in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the whole world of the widespread Church; or that he has only the most important parts, but not the entirety of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and direct, both over each and every Church, and for each and every pastor and faithful, let him be anathema.” Canon Four: “So, we, faithfully following the Tradition accepted from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God the Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approval of the sacred Council, we teach and determine what constitutes this dogma of Divine Revelation; The Roman Pontifex, when speaking from the pulpit, that is, when, in fulfilling the ministry of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by the power of his highest apostolic authority, defines the doctrine of faith or morals as content for the whole Church, with the help of God promised to him in blessed Peter, he uses that infallibility, which the Divine Redeemer blessed to endow His Church, in defining the doctrine of faith or morals; and thus the determinations of the Roman Pontifex in themselves, and not on the basis of the consent of the Church, are not subject to correction. (Canon): If anyone decides to contradict this definition of ours, let God avert it, let him be anathema.” 105 All these decrees (unlike other Catholic Councils, not only the Constance Council, but even the Trent Council) are clothed in the form of a bull, issued as a personal decree of the pope. This stunning definition in the first two chapters contains a teaching that has long been (though not from the beginning) inherent in the Roman Church: the primacy of Peter and his succession in the Roman pontifex. It was dogmatized, however, hesitantly and as if in passing, except at the Council of Florence. 106 In the Vatican, the content of this primacy is revealed in two directions: from the side of completeness of power and jurisdiction, as well as from the side of dogmatic infallibility. People are usually amazed by the second part of this definition, while the first part is no less significant, 107 or rather, both in connection with each other. The third canon gives the pope absolute power, not allowing any exceptions, over the entire Church, all its members and in all matters, moreover, complete power and in the exact sense of the word, that is, “not the primacy of honor,” but precisely jurisdiction, direct and ordinary. This means, in other words, that at least in the area of ​​jurisdiction, the ecclesiastical authority is the pope, for there is not and cannot be any original authority alongside him. Bishops are deprived of their staff and become demand-correctors, completely dependent on the pope in everything, for this power is not only supreme, but also ordinary and direct, the pope is the only bishop with authority. And before the destructive power of this spiritual absolutism, unheard of in history, which returns us far beyond Christianity to the Egyptian theocracy and to the pagan “Pontifex maximus” of the emperor, the reservation in the motivation of cap.Z sounds like an official and meaningless reply. 108 It remains completely incomprehensible how any other power outside the fullness of papal jurisdiction can be established in the Church. And if we use the favorite comparison of the papacy with the monarchy, then in an absolute monarchy what kind of independence does the nature of power have for ministers, governors and all officials? In fact, the exercise of power is delegated, but it is always carried out in everything “by decree of His Imperial Majesty.” This means: the pope can order everything and demand everything under the threat of the most terrible punishment - spiritual execution, anathema (especially since long ago popes were given orders not only in the earthly world, but also in the afterlife, through indulgences in purgatory. In this sense, indulgences have a direct connection with the development of papal plena potestas (full power (lat.) - Ed.) and were strengthened on the basis of such aspiration: practice indulgences are one of the manifestations of papism). True, they will say here that the pope is limited by church laws, dogmas, and church Tradition in general, as they said something similar about the absolute monarch. However, as a monarch, he is not limited by laws, but he limits himself by them, so the pope himself is the living Tradition of the Church, or rather, it is he and only he, within the meaning of Vatican dogma, who is this Tradition. Therefore, he is not bound by church tradition, or rather, he has the power to interpret it authentically, which is why the “judgment of the Apostolic See,” above which there is no authority, should not be canceled by anyone and no one is allowed to judge his judgment. Peremptory judgment actually includes infallibility, even if it were not deliberately formulated in Chapter 4. The case of papal heresy, which even after the Vatican dogma is still allowed by “compromisers”, such as Hefele, 109 becomes unacceptable, because the possibility of an authority that would testify to this heresy and thereby dare de eius judicare judicio (to judge according to one’s own understanding (lat.) - Ed.) is eliminated in advance). Thus, legal and, so to speak, mechanical infallibility is established associated with a position or rank, and, most importantly, permanent and lifelong. The 3rd canon gives the pope such actual infallibility in the absoluteness of his ecclesiastical authority that the 4th canon, which usually attracts attention to itself, is to a certain extent even a limitation on it, or rather, it tries to establish it. Namely, if the pope, by the power of his plena potestas, can order everything, and therefore, almost always and in everything irreformabilis (infallible (lat.) - Ed.), then the 4th canon is this infallibility, infallibilitatem et irreformabilitatem (both of these terms, as we have seen, are used in the definition of the 4th canon, the first more meaning the theoretical infallibility of thought, the second - the practical infallibility of a definition, dogmatic rule or order) is limited only to matters of faith and morals, and, moreover, subject to the statement ex cathedra (from the pulpit (i.e. publicly, officially) (lat.) - Ed.). Needless to say, what historical difficulties exist for the dogma of inerrancy. 110 But even dogmatically, this rubbery formula can be stretched in different directions, as if this is what it was put for (because otherwise the inconsistency of the dogma would be undisguised by nothing). If canon 4 had not been preceded by the first three associated with it, then its thought about an authoritative first hierarch proclaiming the decisions of the Council in final form would have been almost harmless and even... Orthodox. It would determine the position of the pope as the first patriarch in relation to the entire Ecumenical Church by analogy with the position, for example, of the Russian patriarch in relation to the Russian Church, as it was determined by the Council of 1917–1918 - to be the mouth of the local Church as the head of the local Council. And this would generally correspond to the authority of the pope, which was inherent in him (though not without hesitation) in the era of the Ecumenical Councils before the division of the Churches. But in connection with canon 3, canon 4 establishes the actual infallibility or, more importantly, the immutability, irreformabilitatem, of every papal judgment. Any determination of the pope, which he makes as pope, with the fullness of his power, is already ex cathedra, because it is impossible to separate in the person of the pope a priest, a Roman bishop, an Italian patriarch and an ecumenical bishop. Of course, he dines and rests as a private person, but then he does not turn to the Church. He celebrates the Mass only as a bishop or priest, but to that extent he also does not address the Church (however, since he himself is his own and only bishop, he celebrates the Mass by the power of papal jurisdiction). Yet all his ecclesiastical definitions, at the Council or in the consistory, bulls or breves, equally bear the stamp of full power, irreformabilitatem, and all are in this sense ex cathedra. 111 There is only one definable and tangible papal cathedra - the fullness of power, and therefore everything that he does in the Church is ex cathedra, just as the will of an absolute monarch is equally immutable and sovereign in a legislative act as in any administrative appointment, and the differences relate only to the field of classification and codification, and not to the nature of the power. The same should be said about the further restriction regarding de fide et moribus (about faith and morality (lat.) - Ed.). Needless to say, the last clause - de moribus - already has a completely indefinite and limitless content: what in human affairs does not in one way or another relate to mores (morals (lat.) - Ed.)? But on closer examination it is no less uncertain de fide. The position 2x2 = 4 is not de fide, but de arithmetica (not “about faith”, but “about arithmetic” (Latin) - Ed.). However, if a religious dispute ever arose in connection with the multiplication table (on the basis of epistemology), the papal decree about it would be de fide not directly, but indirectly. Otherwise, what did the papal definition refer to with the condemnation of the astronomical theory of Copernicus, with which apologists like Hergenrother now have such a difficult time? In general, when a pope instructively addresses the Church in the person of any of its bodies as a pope, he does so only de fide et de moribus, p.ch. There are no other interests in the life of the church at all; nevertheless, the specific means matter: canonism, discipline, liturgics, etc. More precisely, every question either directly has, or can acquire, when intensified, a religious or moralizing meaning. 112 Therefore, the clause of the 4th canon in reality does not stipulate anything, and the pope is here taught, together with plena potestas and plena infallibilitas et irreformabilitas, in other words, it is silently proclaimed that the Church is the pope. And behind every papal order there is a plena potestas, either in principle or in actuality. Is there a limit to papal omnipotence in the Church? It cannot be specified once individual absolute power is fundamentally recognized. In essence, all Catholic dogma is exhausted by Vatican dogma alone, for it establishes a criterion of church truth, which, according to the meaning of the dogma (no matter how much it contradicts church history) 113 has force for both the past and the future. The dogmatic truth is what the pope proclaims as such infallibiliter (infallibly (lat.) - Ed.), and the practical truth is his orders as irreformabiles (infallible (lat.) - Ed.). It is inherent in the infallibility of the entire Church: according to the formula can. 4, per assistentiam divinam ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit (with the help of God promised to him in Blessed Peter, he takes advantage of the infallibility that the Divine blessed to endow His church with Redeemer (lat.) - Ed.), so that in the dogma itself there is an equal sign between the Church and the pope. However, even here, deliberately or due to haste, a deliberate ambiguity was allowed, which makes it possible to interpret the dogma with the same, moreover, basis in two different, if not directly opposite, senses. We have indicated the first meaning, which naturally follows from the general context: at least in cases of infallible judgment, the Church is the pope. The second meaning is tried to be extracted by theologians who do not know what to do with this dogmatic absurdity and interpret it “positiv, nicht exklusiv (positively, not exclusively (German) - Editor’s note).” This point of view is held, for example, by authoritative representatives of German Catholic theology: Scheeben-Atzberger, Simar, Pohle, etc. According to this interpretation, the pope has the same power that belongs to the Church, and therefore, at the very least, the question remains open whether the college of bishops, that is, the council (of course, also in conjunction with the pope) iure divino (by Divine Right (Latin) - Ed.), has the same fullness of power as the pope alone, and also whether the bishops receive the power of jurisdiction directly from Christ or from the pope, a question that was debated at the Council of Trent, moreover potestas ordinis (power of rank (Latin) - Ed.) was derived directly from Christ, and the origin of iurisdictio (jurisdiction (Lat.) - Ed.) remains uncertain. 114 “It is not said here that the help specifically promised to the pope exhausts in general the help promised to the teaching Body of the Church or is a formal adequate basis for the entire infallibility of the teaching Body, and that, therefore, the latter is exhausted by papal infallibility or is realized by it exclusively. For the words ea infallibilitate pollere qua etc. rather, they assume that there is a non-adequate, but an inadequate difference (?) between the infallibility of the Pope and the Church, otherwise the statement actually intended by these words, that one has the same scope as the other, would not have the correct meaning.” 115 Therefore, according to Atzberger and other named theologians, Ecumenical Councils with the pope at the head, which are important for the clarity of decisions and support for the pope (as if such support is possible and he needs it!), also have their own independent infallibility, which would be inherent in them, even if the pope were not infallible. “This explains how, before the Vatican, not only was the infallibility of the Councils affirmed without the infallibility of the pope, but it could also be considered recognized that the latter does not necessarily lie in the former, and it could be proven in another way than through the former or together with the former.” 116 However, according to the meaning of the Vatican Dogma, which casts light on the entire past church history and gives it an authoritative dogmatic interpretation, the power of the Councils lay in their approval by the Pope, without which they would not have been Ecumenical Councils. On the other hand, the pope can do without Councils, which he needs only in an advisory manner, not at all legislative, and therefore can be replaced by a curia, or even completely abolished. More consistent interpreters of Vatican dogma (such as the Jesuit Palmieri), 117 directly assert that the pope is the only authority in the church, possessing both infallibility and infallibility. Indeed, there cannot be two sovereignties, two supreme jurisdictions or bodies of infallibility, and therefore it is either thoughtlessness or open opposition to the real meaning of Vatican dogma (which, apparently, is more widespread in the Catholic world than it seems) such recognition of some independent rights both for the episcopate and for the Council. The first is denied decisively and not allowing for two interpretations by the decree of the 3rd canon, which makes bishops simple vicars of the pope, and his not only episcopus universalis, but also episcopus episcoporum (not only “universal bishop”, but also “bishop of bishops” (Latin) - Ed.). 118 The second is excluded by the addition ex sese, non ex consensu ecclesiae (from oneself, not by the consent of the church (lat.) - Ed.), inserted, as we already know, by presumptuous zealots at the last moment 119 and accepted without discussion. Apologists also interpret this addition to the original ex sese as restrictive, specifically defining the meaning of this expression, which otherwise could mean the complete unlimitedness of the pope in the proclamation of dogmas. In the overall context, it was not this danger that threatened, but rather it was simply about driving in the last nail to secure the formula. The elimination of some truly restrictive words in the draft, which required the pope to be faithful to Church Tradition and opened the way to criticism, also had the same meaning. These, in a fatal formula, the most fatal words separate the pope from the Church and contrast him with it as a ruler, transcendental to the Church (contrary to the constantly made comparison of the head in conjunction with the body). They implicite (in a hidden way (lat.) - Ed.) reject the principle of conciliarity in the Church, based on the words of Christ: “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20 - Ed.) and on the apostolic succession of the episcopate. If these words were completely absent from the formula (or instead the opposite words would stand: non ex sese, sed cum consensu ecclesiae), then it would be possible to legitimately defend the episcopal and conciliar point of view, but it is silently but expressively rejected in these words. Expressed in the language of Catholic theology, only infallibilitas passiva (passive infallibility (Latin) - Ed.), that is, the virtue of believing obedience, is left to the lot of the entire Church, but all inf. activa (active infallibility (abbr. Latin) - Ed.), which Catholics attribute to the teaching Church, belongs to one pope. This is also emphasized by the fact that the resolution of the Council was published by a unilateral papal order, a bull, which, however, mentions sacro approbante consilio (with the approval of the sacred assembly (lat.) - Ed.), but only as an actual, accompanying circumstance, and not as a canonical motive or resolution: this approbatio approval (lat.) - Approx. ed. ) The Council is opposed to the papal docemus et definimus (we count and determine (lat.) - Ed.). Of course, Vatican dogma could also be published by a resolution of the Council, confirmed by the pope. Then, according to the meaning of the dogma, the cathedral would only be a “cathedra”, a papal ex cathedra (as imperial decrees sometimes took the form of resolutions of the state council, approved by the highest authorities). In reality, the adopted method of publication is incompatible with any independent role of the Council. This becomes even more understandable if we take into account that the right to publish dogmas or rules of faith belongs to those who have full power. Therefore, in the Ecumenical Church this right was inherent only in ecumenical councils as bodies of the highest ecclesiastical authority for the entire church. Now this plena potestas is attributed to the pope alone, and to him is the right to proclaim dogmas. The Vatican Council was not a Council, but a simple meeting under the pope, an expanded consistory, for with the absolute power of the pope there cannot be a Council at all - not in fact, but canonically. Here we come close to the main internal contradiction, which is fatal in the self-determination of the Vatican Council. It was convened as a Council, because before it there were no dogmas about either plena potestas or infallibilitas - proof of this is that both of them were discussed at the Council as controversial provisions that were completely rejected by many. In other words, both dogmas belonged to truths that were not self-evident; they belonged not to axioms, but to theorems. But at the same time, their proclamation at the Council and on behalf of the Council is internally contradictory. By proclaiming papal sovereignty, the Council thereby abolished itself, committed dogmatic suicide, and declared its own non-existence. It is impossible and internally contradictory for such an assembly to decide something that, from the moment of its resolution, abolishes and denies its own competence and even possibility, and not only in the future, but also in the past and present. There is no contradiction if the constituent assembly elects a monarch or dictator and then abolishes itself, submitting to him: it transferred to it the fullness of its own power, sovereignty is not interrupted here, it has legally disposed of the fullness of its power. But what position does the Council find itself in when it discusses and votes on such a dogmatic position, due to which it turns out that it does not at all have full power, or even independent significance at all, since the supreme power in the Church belongs and has always belonged to the pope? Is the Council competent in this case to judge and rule on this? Can the chief executives, having gathered, decide anything regarding the power of the director of the department to which they are legally subordinate? Can any assembly in an autocratic empire decide anything regarding the rights of its monarch, weigh them or vest them in him? However, such dogmatic absurdity is precisely what takes place at the Vatican Council. How could a provision be introduced to the discussion of the Council that it is not the Council, but the pope, who has the authority to judge and decide, and how could the Council even agree to discuss such an absurdity? One can, of course, argue that the Council had to carry out the order of the pope in the name of obedience, no matter what it concerns, however, even an infallible pope cannot commit actions that are absurd and self-contradictory, which, undoubtedly, is the introduction to the council discussion and decision of the question that the supreme power in the Church in general (and in particular, this decision) belongs not to the Council, but to the pope. The Vatican zealots, in their theological voluntarism, did not fully think through their plan to use the council for something that, in its meaning, is beyond the jurisdiction of any Council in the world, and thereby actually and dogmatically turned the Council, convened and opened as a Council, into a cathedral masquerade or a simple meeting of bishops under the pope, the subject of which is only to discuss how to express in dogma a fact that has existed from time immemorial. For it is obvious that if papal primacy is a fact established by God Himself and has always existed, then it could at most have been proclaimed by the Council, but not approved. 120 The Council is given a task here that obviously exceeds its competence, and therefore should be rejected by it or left without discussion. In both cases, considering it is a misunderstanding and a mistake. There are truths that cannot be proven, for they themselves lie at the basis of any proof: these are the mathematical axioms on the basis of which theorems are proven. An axiom in no way can be turned into a theorem and itself become the subject of proof or research. In the same way, in the history of Christian dogmas there are primordial and fundamental truths, the recognition (or non-recognition) of which determines belonging (or non-membership) to the Church. This recognition is, so to speak, a constitutive sign of churchliness. Speaking in Kant’s terms, dogmatic axioms of this kind are in history synthetic judgments a priori (before experience (Latin) - Ed.), (and not analytical judgments a posteriori (after experience (Lat.) - Ed.), they underlie all church experience and determine all acts of dogmatic consciousness. Such an immutable axiomatic basis of churchliness is faith in Christ the God-man, Savior and Lord and His Church. Those Christological (partly ecclesiological) dogmas that were established at the Ecumenical Councils are, in relation to these axioms, dogmatic theorems that were tested and proven on their basis. So, for example, the rejection of Arianism was a particular position, intended to more closely, more specifically define the Divinity of the Son, and the Nicene Dogma sets itself the same task - to identify the immutable axiom of faith in a particular formula, to establish a theorem of faith. The peculiarity of such a dogmatic theorem is that it is problematic until its authoritative and final definition, and the Council responds to this problem of faith with a dogma, after which it also receives the force of an axiom, its immutability. The rest of the dogmas established in the history of the Church were of a similar nature. In this sense, each dogma for its time gave something new, which was not yet in the church consciousness (which is why, in the face of this fact, one can speak of the dogmatic development of the Church), although at the same time, in principle, there can be nothing new in this development, for in the Church everything is given from its foundation, it is the fullness of the Filler in everyone, and all its dogmas - theorems are only different manifestations of its immutable axioms, expressing its very existence. Therefore, generally speaking, there cannot be and have not been Councils that dogmatically established faith in the God-Man and His Church, although this faith was solemnly proclaimed (for example, in the Nicene-Contantinople Symbol). However, here only a well-known formula of faith was established, and not faith itself, which, of course, existed without symbols and before the symbol, and it was precisely this that approved both the Council and the symbol. Let us apply this distinction to the question of Vatican dogma. Does it, if it is true, belong to the number of dogmatic theorems that until time remained outside the dogmatic field of vision and only from a certain moment come into it? Can such a dogma be a dogmatic innovation (at least in the relative sense in which this is generally possible), or does it belong to the constitutive conditions of any religious experience, is, as it were, a priori of churchliness? In the form in which papal primacy was understood and established at the Vatican Council, obviously, only the latter can happen. The peculiar ecclesiopapism proclaimed there, declaring submission to the pope a condition of churchliness and making the latter the living head of the Church on earth, the earthly vicar of Christ, that is, the earthly Christ in relation to the Church, obviously could only be as primordial as that axiom of faith that Christ is the Head of the Church. And it is obvious that the proclamation of such a dogma is possible only as a solemn declaration, and not as the fruit of discussion and resolution of a dogmatic problem presented in the form of a “scheme” to the Council for discussion and acceptance or non-acceptance. The Council, which proclaims infallible authority in the Church ex sese sine consensu ecclesiae, commits an act that is contradictory and senseless, destroying itself, is a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity (Latin) - Ed.) of this Council itself. Therefore, the Vatican dogma is internally self-destructive. Such a dogma could not at all be proclaimed by the Council in the form of a dogmatic resolution, but only confessed in the form of a loyal address with an expression of devotion and obedience. Such a dogma, according to its meaning, has the power to pronounce only a pope, and every pope at any time, not only Pius IX in the Vatican, but also, for example, Martin V in Constance or Eugene IV in Basel. Therefore, not only the last two Councils, but even the Vatican Council with its struggle and attempts at opposition on the part of the minority turn out to be an actual denial of the imaginary dogmatic axiom. These very attempts are already an illegal action of the Council members, their duty, but a direct church rebellion and heresy. The situation cannot be saved by pointing out that although this dogma has always been contained in the Church, only now the time has come for its proclamation. The idea of ​​“development of dogmas” is not at all useful in relation to the question of the Church and its head: here only the formulas of the dogma can change, but its essence must always be axiomatically clear, and, as a dogmatic innovation, such a dogma cannot be proclaimed. The inclusion of a deliberate ambiguity in the formula of the dogma: Sacro approbante consilio (which can be translated with equal justification both as a circumstance of time: by or with the approval of the Council, and as a circumstance of the manner of action: as a result, by virtue of, after, as a result of the approval of the Council) further emphasizes the internal impossibility of the dogma ex sese sine consensu ecclesiae, and this last insertion, made at the last moment, most of all transforms the Vatican dogma into nonsense, into a round square and fried ice. The story of the Babylonian pandemonium repeated itself once again... Those intoxicated with victory sought to obtain the greatest triumphs, but in their impulse they were unable to stop in time and make ends meet. This exposes the internal contradiction, the general impossibility of ecclesiopapism. The Vatican dogma was not needed by the Catholic Church. The creation of one “ultramontane” or, in our terminology, ecclesiopapist or simply papist party in the Church, it came as a surprise, imposed from above. He did not in any way increase or strengthen the papal authority in fact - it was already and remains so great that it can hardly even be increased. The new dogma only gave the pope a dogmatic halo. Catholic theology, which was forced into its annals by the Vatican, does not know what to do with this dogma, and to this day it remains a dogmatic charade (despite the grumbling statement of Pope Pius IX back in 1871, in response to requests for the most accurate interpretation of the new dogma, that it is clear to all with a good conscience - but what else could be said creator, and together with the victim of the Vatican definition?) Until now, in half a century, no practical application has been made of it, the pope has never spoken solemnly ex cathedra. His plena potestas alone turned out to be enough to invest all sorts of definitions, including dogmatic ones, with infallibility (for example, against modernists). However, despite its practical uselessness, this dogma was inevitable as the last logical conclusion of church jurisprudence and as the ultimate symptom of the deep spiritual collapse of Western Christianity that occurred with the Reformation. Vatican dogma is the last word of Protestantism within Catholicism, the Reformation acting as a counter-Reformation. Despite the lust for power of individual popes and the historical strength of the papacy, the Vatican dogma would have been both impossible and meaningless before the Reformation: impossible because the principles of church freedom were still alive in the Catholic Church, as we already know from the history of the pre-Reformation Councils, and the doctrine of papal primacy did not take on the character of the doctrine of church autocracy; is meaningless because there was no enemy at all who rejected the ecclesiastical power of the hierarchy. The Reformation split not only the external Body of the Church, but also its internal unity. That combination of Christian freedom and ecclesiastical obedience, which constitutes the essence of the Church and is now confessed only in Orthodoxy, has collapsed: the love of freedom has gone, attracted by the ghost of freedom without obedience, into the desert of Protestantism and individualism, and obedience, having realized itself in its hostility to freedom, has dried up even more than before in legalism. The reaction of the Old Testament principles in Christianity, which had previously been noticeable in the Western Church, has now intensified, and the last word of this Old Testament was the Vatican dogma. The Catholic Church has not yet recovered from a peculiar spiritual exhaustion after the Reformation, expressed, among other things, in the peculiar spiritual militarism of the societatis Jesu (Jesuit Order (Latin) - Ed.), this image of the newest, post-Reformation Catholicism. One cannot help but be amazed at the abundance of strength and vitality of Western Christianity, revealed in Protestantism, and even more so in Catholicism, but one must also see this special quality of it. There is no need to be blinded by the wealth of its human powers, the age of culture, the height of civilization - Western Europe has a rich heritage, but one should distinguish the special tonality of this churchliness from its essence. The Western European world remains sick with the unresolved and unresolved Reformation, which was its inevitable crisis. And the Vatican Council testifies that the Reformation is not over yet, that it continues in both Catholicism and Protestantism. These two divided halves are going in different directions, and the Vaticanum is, of course, preparing new weapons against the Reformation. However, it is powerless and indicates spiritual weakness rather than power. Catholicism is a powerful, disciplined army, but the Church is not an army, and the Reformation cannot be defeated by an army, as history sufficiently testifies to this; and the Vatican army is still powerless against the Reformation. Catholicism as a counter-reformation was itself defined through the denial of Christian freedom, which the Gospel announced to the world. The Protestant world heard with the greatest clarity this gospel of freedom from the sermon of the Apostle Paul. For those for whom Christian freedom is an immutable duty of a Christian, which he cannot refuse, there is no way to the Vatican. On the contrary, for them the path to Orthodoxy is quite possible and natural, although entry into it must necessarily be accompanied by internal and external overcoming of the Reformation as anti-hierarchism, a disease instilled in it by papism. The Reformation is a great catastrophe of Western Christianity, but it is only a continuation of the same process that previously caused the so-called division of churches. The latter, of course, has complex national-cultural and historical reasons, and it is impossible to deny the share of blame in it, along with Rome, and on Byzantium, on the ambition of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Byzantine Caesaropapism, but this is not what we are talking about. What interests us here is that the same change in the understanding and feeling of churchliness, which was expressed in the predominance of legal principles and in papism, this Old Testamentism, which manifested itself and became increasingly stronger in the Western Church, turned out to be incompatible with Eastern churchliness. The latter suffered from servility and even enslavement from the outside, but inside she kept the covenants of Christ’s beloved disciple. Petrinism, moreover, increasingly opposed to Paulinism (although Peter and Paul together were the founders of the Roman Church), turned out to be incompatible with the Johannine Christianity of the East - not in its historical weaknesses, but in its intelligible essence, in its very εἶδος (idea (lat.) - Ed.). Catholic theologians still do not see or realize this. But the next step in strengthening the Old Testament, spiritual-Judaic principles in Catholicism was the ugly and unnatural opposition of the apostles Peter and Paul, which took place in the depths of Western Christianity. And Vatican dogma needlessly deepens this gap. In this sense, he is an evil deed. The fanatical blindness of the Counter-Reformation prompted this internal rift to be brought to the point of complete irreconcilability. By Vatican dogma, Catholicism is currently spiritually isolating itself from the rest of the Christian world (as is again evident in our days with the example of the Lausanne 121 Conference). Always aggressive and proselytizing in fact, now it is dogmatically forced to be so. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation (Latin) - Ed.) is now definitely understood to mean that without submission to the pope, to whom belongs the omnis creatura (all creation (Lat.) - Ed.; also according to Boniface VIII's bull Unam sanctam), there is no salvation. For Catholics, one course of action becomes natural - aggressive, one policy - papal imperialism. Catholicism, by its dogmatic essence, cannot know any other union other than subordination to the pope; this love of power is not personal or, so to speak, psychological, but ontological. Catholicism must change ontologically, lose its papism, become Orthodox at this decisive point in order for the need for unification to arise. The Lord’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21 – Ed.) is understood significantly differently by Catholicism and Orthodoxy, so much so that they pray for different things. The Vatican dogma, which was violence against a certain part of the Catholic Church that is closer to Orthodoxy, and currently forces many to hypocrisy. However, it cannot be denied that papism to this day constitutes an internal fact and the spiritual foundation of the Catholic world. And while this remains so, we have to say that the latter is not yet ripe for a genuine union of the Churches. Theological arguments are powerless here, otherwise the Vatican stronghold of voluntaristic theology should have crumbled before them long ago. For this, in addition to the centuries-old scientific work of Protestantism, the destructive and scientifically irresistible criticism of even the Old Catholics would be sufficient. All the work of scientific overthrow of papism has, in essence, already been done. No, life itself must influence here, a new experience that Catholicism does not yet know. The papacy experienced great upheavals and dogmatic fluctuations: during the era of the Avignon captivity, in the 15th century, at the end of the 18th century. In our age of great upheavals, is it guaranteed against them, although it seems that the “Petrov’s rock” is unshakable, and even the papal state is being restored? The stronghold of Tsarist Caesaropapism also seemed unshakable, but it crumbled to pieces in a few days. And every historical hour, every revolution is fraught with new opportunities and shocks. Until now, as long as the Vatican dogma stands, for the Orthodox world it is an insurmountable obstacle to a sincere and genuine movement towards reunification with Catholicism. Undoubtedly, in Orthodoxy there are people of Catholic psychology and Catholic way of thinking - papists without a pope, who understand churchliness in a Catholic way and, in a Catholic way, do not talk about reunification, but only about joining and subordination. Without taking here the question of the church schism and its overcoming in all its dogmatic volume, it can be stated, however, that Catholic opinions by no means exhaust or determine the entire attitude to the issue under consideration in Orthodoxy, and in any case, in the depths of Orthodoxy there remains a full opportunity to judge the issue on its merits. Over the centuries of division between East and West, many dogmatic differences, if not disagreements, have accumulated. All of them can still be discussed on their merits, if only there is an opportunity for this on both sides. For Orthodoxy there is such an opportunity. However, as long as the Vatican dogma stands firmly, this possibility (at the Ecumenical Council or in another way) for Catholicism disappears, which is why all the dogmas of Catholicism, whatever they are and whatever they concern, are not subject to discussion on the merits, since they have received papal approval and have the stamp of infallibility on them. Perhaps there is only submission and accession. But, of course, Orthodoxy cannot enter such ground in its essence, for this would mean rejecting its ecclesiastical nature, the grace of the Holy Spirit living in the Church, which every Orthodox knows. Vatican dogma is now central to the question of the reunification of the Church if the Lord ever reveals this miracle of His mercy to the world. Previously, in the era of the Second Council of Lyon and Florence, the main issues of dogmatic wrangling were the dogma of the Holy Spirit, the filioque (and from the Son (lat.) - Ed.), and only in second place was the question of papal primacy (together with the question of celebrating the Liturgy on leavened or unleavened bread, about purgatory and some others). At present, the question of the Holy Spirit, of course, has not lost either its importance or its difficulty, but in fact, in the mind, it has already ceased to be an impedimentum dirimens (a dividing obstacle (lat.) - Ed.), as V.V. Bolotov put it, and allows for the possibility of a calm theological discussion (as was the case during negotiations with the Old Catholics). The question about the difference in the Eastern and Western Liturgy and about unleavened bread, which was exorbitantly exaggerated in its time, has almost lost its significance. Even the question of purgatory is comparatively minor, as is the new dogma of the Immaculate Conception (since it is not woven together with papal infallibility). But all these particular disagreements are overshadowed by one thing - the main one. This is papism that has grown and strengthened enormously over these centuries, dogmatically approved in the Vatican dogma. This is the main and defining disagreement between East and West. Catholicism has become papism and is affirmed as such; on the contrary, Orthodoxy, although it can and should recognize the primacy of the Roman see, giving it ancient honor, in no case can it accept papism, which for it is a heresy in the teaching of the Church. Thus, the question faces a fatal hopelessness: until Catholicism ceases to be papism and essentially renounces the Vatican dogma (at least through a new and more accurate interpretation of it) - and for this a geological revolution must take place in it - there are no ways to unite with it. However, what is impossible for man is possible for God, and we can only entrust ourselves to Providence, which guides us, arranges the destinies of the Church and accomplishes what is impossible for humans. The present essay is an extract from a larger work written some years ago. The external motivation for its publication is some aggressive speeches on the Catholic side (see, for example, the article by Count Bennigsen in the Catholic Temporary: “Dangerous teaching”). The internal motive is the desire to raise the question that most divides the West and the East for an unbiased theological discussion, and this very posing does not stem from hostility, but, on the contrary, from a sincere desire for mutual understanding and rapprochement based on it. It is a continuation of “Essays...”, the first three parts of which are combined in this edition in the first section. Published by “The Path”... No. 15–16. February-May 1929. – Approx. edit Friedrich. Tagebuch während des Vaticanischen Consils geführt. Nordlingen. 1871 (mit Beilagen). His same. Documenta ad illustrandum consilium Vaticanum. I-II. Schulte. Die Stellung der Concilien, Päbste, Bischöfe vom historischen und canonischen Standpunkte und die päbstliche Constitution vom 18 July 1870. Mit den Quellenbelegen. Prag. 1871. His f. Der Altkatholizismus etc. His same. Die Macht der römischen Päbste etc. Prag. 1871. Friedberg. Die Sammlung der Actenstücke zum ersten Vaticanischen Concil. 1892. The minutes of the Vatican Council are now published in the famous Mansi collection. The total number of council members ranged from 764 to 601. See the note of one of the council members: La liberté du concile et l'infallibilité (Friedrich. Documenta, 1,129–185). For a sample list, see Friedberg, 1.p.376. The composition of the cathedral: 4 cardinal bishops, 37 cardinal priests (20 of them were actually in the position of diocesal bishops), 7 cardinal deacons, 10 patriarchs (of course, nominal - in partibus infidelium (in the countries of the infidels (lat.) - Ed.)), 7 primates (the same), 121 archbishops (of which 188 dioceses, 13 without dioceses); 487 bishops (including 399 diocesan and 49 apostolic vicars), 38 titular, therefore 448 actual); 6 abbots nullius (without (implying “diocese”) - Ed.), 15 abbots, 25 order generals. Total 586 legitimate, 133 unfounded. Schulte. Der Altkatholizismus. pp.294–295. Here we read: haec autem infallibilitas, cuius finis est fidelium sanctitas in doctrina fidei et morum intemperate veritas, magisterio inest, quod Christus in ecclesia sua perpetuum instituit, cum ad Apostolos dixit: Mth.28:19-21. (And this infallibility, the purpose of which is the holiness of the faithful in the doctrine of faith and the unchanging correctness of morals, is inherent in the teaching that Christ forever established in His church when he said to the apostles: Matthew 28:19-21. (Latin) - Ed.) (Friedrich. Documenta, I, 91-93). Friedrich, Documenta, 1,250 ff. Printed by Friedrich. Documenta, II, 212–289. Synopsis observationum quae a partibus in caput addendum decreto de Romani Pontificis primatu (infallibilitate) factae fuerunt. (A compilation of comments that were made by various participants in the chapter that should have been added to the decision on the primacy (infallibility) of the Roman Pontiff (lat.) - Ed.) For the Latin text see Schulte. Die Stellung etc., German. lane in his Der Altkatholizismus, 291–292, lat. text by Friedrich. Documenta, II, 262 and in Friedberg, I, pp. 622–623. The latter distributed at the Council a pamphlet against infallibility, Questio (Friedrich, 1. C.I), which gave a comprehensive historical and dogmatic criticism of dogma, in some parts directly adjacent to Janus. (Janus. Pabst und das Concil. Leipzig. 1869). (Janus is the collective pseudonym of professors Döllinger, Friedrich, Schulte, etc.). In learning and strength, no more crushing blow was dealt to the claims of papism. This book (also available in French translation) retains its significance to this day. Schulte, der Altkathol. 222. Wed. generally Friedrich. J. v. Dollinger, B. III. Sufficient material confirming this can be found in Pichler. Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung des Orients und Occidents. 2 Bde. Munich. 1868. This work was published on the eve of the Vatican Council and unintentionally contains its historical and dogmatic denunciation. From the canonical zealot of papism, Prof. Phillips, we read, for example, the following definitions: the pope occupies the place of “eien Mittelperson zwischen Gott und dem Bischofe, der seine Gewalt selbst von Gott hat.” (Das Kirchenrecht, I. 190) “Nicht die Kirche giebt dem Pabste die Gewissheit sondem sie empfangt von ihm, denn sie steht auf ihm, als auf dem Fundamente, nicht er auf ihr (II, 315). (a mediator between God and the bishop, who himself has power from God. It is not the Church that certifies the Pope, but she is certified by him, since she stands on him as a foundation, and not he on her. (German) - Ed.) Pope Celestine IV was elected 2 years after the death of his predecessor, Gregory X - 3 years later, Nicholas IV - almost a year later. Between his death and the election of Celestine V, 2 years and three months passed, after the death of Benedict XI, 11 months passed, and after Clement V - 2 years and 4 months. (Janus. Der Papst und das Concil. pp.232–233). Prof. Schulte makes a general estimate that since the time of Pope Leo the Great the papal throne has remained vacant for a total of 40 years, namely 7 times it was vacant for more than a year, three times for more than two years, 13 times for more than 6 months” (Die Stellung der Concilien, Pabste, etc.). Schulte (1. p., 256, pr. 7) poses the following series of questions: “Question: was the 10-12 year old boy Benedict IX (1033-1048) also infallible? Was it Adrian V, who was never a priest? What is the situation with infallibility in the terrible times of John XI, Leo V, Sergius III, as with Leo VIII, Benedict V, John XIII? What about Don II, shown in the Roman calendar, whose non-existence has been proven? What about Benedict VII, Boniface VII, who are strangely rivals? Did John XIX, who was both a layman and a pope on the same day, immediately become infallible? Gregory XII was unanimously elected on October 30, 1406, and on June 5, 1409. deposed in Pisa, but refused only on July 4, 1415. Was he, or was he elected in June 1409? Alexander V (†05/3/1410), or elected 05/17/1410. and 05/29/1415 in Constance, deposed by John XII by the infallible pope?.. Another question: Pope Benedict IX, consecrated in January 1033, sold on 05/01/1045. his pontificate to Gregory VI was on July 16, 1048. expelled by Emperor Heinrich. The Romans after the expulsion of Benedict on February 22, 1044. They elected Sylvester III, but on April 10 he was expelled and on December 10 he was deprived of his rank and priesthood and imprisoned in a monastery. Gregory VI, on the basis of his purchase, occupied the papal throne from 04.1045 to 20.12.1045, when he himself admitted in the presence of Heinrich that he should be removed as a result of this purchase, and died a few years later on the Rhine. Where was the continuity here? Harduini, vol. VIII. P.252. Hefele. (Conciliengeschichte, VII, 104, cf. I. 53). This consideration was expressed on May 15, 1438 by John of Ragusa in Vienna: “Aut (concilium constantiense) fecit quod potuit, aut quod non potuit... Si fecit quod non potuit, sequitur quod lohannes non fuit depositus, et per consequens nec papa Martinus non fuit papa, et ita, nec qui ei succesit Eugenius (Cm. N. Valois. Le pape et le concile, 1418–1450. Paris, 1909. T.I. Introduction). (Either the Council of Constance did what it could, or what it could not... If it did what it could not, then John was not deposed, and, therefore, neither Pope Martin was a pope, nor thus Eugene, who followed him) Here there are pro and contra (for and against (lat.) - Ed.), given on both sides by both supporters of the Council of Constance and opponents, and the latter, to save the situation, refer to the fact that the two popes are John XXIII and Gregory XII themselves subsequently renounced their rights. However, the same cannot be said about Benedita XIII. It is curious that Cardinal Otto Colonna, the future Pope Martin V, himself participated in the Council of Constance and in the trial of the pope. However, as Valois aptly remarked, there is no place from which people would emerge with a greater change of heart than a conclave. – Wed. also V.Hubler. Die Constanzer Reformation und die Concordate 1418 Leipzig, 1867. Pope Martin issued a bull upon his election condemning 45 Wyclefian and 30 Hussian provisions, and bishops and inquisitors must interrogate suspicious persons under oath whether they hold evil teachings, and among them, under §6, it was asked: “Does he believe that what the holy Council of Constance, representing the common Church, approved and approves in favorem fidei et salutem animarum (for the sake of the good of faith and the salvation of souls (Latin) - Ed.), should be contained by all Christianity?" Hence, many members of the Council of Basel and Gallicans concluded that the pope approved of the entire Council of Constance. It has been objected to this since the 17th century that only what has received approval here relates to the needs of faith and salvation, and this is not applicable to the provision on the primacy of the Council over the pope. This opinion is also joined by Hefele, who considers the Council of Constance to be undoubtedly Ecumenical only in the last four (42–45) sessions in which the pope was present (but in this case it turns out that before the election of the legitimate pope, the Church was completely deprived of legal power, since it was neither the Council nor the antipope). – The second definition of Pope Martin V about the Council of Constance regarding the Falkenberg case confirms what he decreed in materiis fidei et conciliariter (in matters of faith and conciliarly (lat.) – Ed.), and again the latter is interpreted in a restrictive sense. There is no point in arguing about this. As N. Valois (1.s.) quite convincingly shows, all the pope’s statements are evasive and ambiguous, they are deliberately in the nature of understatements, and therefore both sides can find support for themselves in this traditional slyness. This uncertainty corresponded to the objective state of affairs: in the depths of the Catholic Church itself there was a struggle between two principles - conciliarism and absolutism, and then the struggle was not yet resolved, but later the latter triumphed. The 15th century in this sense is a crossroads at which two paths crossed. But the very fact of this struggle and hesitation, historically unshakable, sufficiently suggests that the Vatican dogma is not an unchangeable tradition, but is the result of the newest self-determination of Catholicism in the Reformation. Hefele, VII, 563. Text of the bull in Mansi, XXIX, 78 sq., Harduinis t. VzII, 1172 sq. The Baselites responded to this that the doctrine of the superiority of the Ecumenical Council over the pope is a position of faith de necessitate salutis (necessarily concerning salvation (Latin) - Ed.) and that this doctrine was announced not only at the 33rd meeting, but much earlier, when the papal legates presided. And even Pope Eugene himself, when he renounced the first dissolution of the council, formally approved this teaching. (Hefele, VII, 783). Papal legates Cardinal N. Albergati de Santa Croce (later revered as a saint) and three others were accepted into the Council on April 24, 1434. only after they - however, only propriis nominibus (in their own names (lat.) - Ed.), but not on behalf of the pope - swore that: 1) The Constance and every Ecumenical Council has power directly from Christ, and everyone, even the pope, is obliged to obey him in matters of faith, the eradication of schism and the reform of the Church in the head and members; 2) everyone, even the pope, who does not obey him in this, must be punished. April 26, 1434 There was a meeting at which papal legates were present in the name of the pope and in his place, moreover, under the condition that they did not belong to compulsory jurisdiction and that they would observe the order established at the Council. Hefele, VII, 565–567. I. (2A), 54. Valois, 1. pp. 176–176. Hefele, after the Vatican, already expresses the following point of view: “Directly (ausdrücklich) Eugene IV did not recognize submission to the Ecumenical Council, but, of course, from his statement that he recognizes the previous course of the Council, it could seem that implicite (by default (lat.) - Ed.) he accepts this thesis, and therefore the Constance position. But, of course, he left until a more favorable time to speak more closely on this issue and against the Basel and Constance resolutions. Now he could not do this, because this thesis was, so to speak, the fighting slogan of the time, and emperors and kings, cardinals and bishops, secular and spiritual scholars disseminated and defended this view” (VII, 567). This naive and cynical reasoning ad majorem papae gloriam (to the greater glory of the pope (lat.) - Ed.) in the mouth of one of the best Catholic scholars cannot but cause, at best, regret for its author, who, moreover, after his Vatican days, does not deserve trust in his sincerity. But this is a vivid example of “voluntaristic” church science. In addition to cit. op. Wed Syropulus. Vera historia unionis non verae inter graecos et latinos. Hagae. 1660. Sectio II. In September 1437 Two fleets arrived in Constantinople with two embassies - from the synod and from the pope, and the papal legates did not hesitate in their means: an attempt was made on John of Ragusa. The Savoyard herald, sent to Byzantium with letters from the council and the rulers of France, Aragon, Savoy, Milan and others, disappeared on the ship of the papal legates, which is why there was no fresh news from the Council in Constantinople (Johannes Haller. Concilium Basiliense, Basel 1896. Bd. 1,132, pr. I). Wed. Friedrich. Tagebuch während des Vaticanischen Consils geführt. Nordlingen, 1871. Beilage. The Florence Council was not recognized as Ecumenical not only until the 17th century, along with all the Councils of the Middle Ages, but in Germany it remained unrecognized until recently. In particular, at the Council of Trent, the Florence Council in its entirety was recognized as non-ecumenical by the French representatives, just as it was not recognized by Germany (437, 6). His canons were discussed as open questions (438). Wed. also Theodor Fromann Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte des Florentiner Kircheneinigung. Halle. 1872. S.250. Döllinger (in Einige Worte über Unfehlbarkeitsadresse, y Friedberg 1. C.501 sq.) points out that from all of northern, then still Catholic Europe, from Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Poland, Bohemia, what was then France, Italy, Portugal, etc., no one arrived. We can say: nine-tenths of the then Catholic world did not participate in the Council in principle, p.ch. they considered it illegal in relation to Basel... Finally, with difficulty, Eugene IV assembled a group of Italian bishops, about 50, joined by several more bishops sent by the Duke of Burgundy, several Provencals and two Spaniards, in total there were 62 bishops who signed (500). Item definimus sanctam Apostolicam Sedem et Romanum pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum pontificem Romanum successorem esse beati Petri principis apostolorum et verum Christi vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput et omnium christianorum patrem et doctorem existere: et ipsum in beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac gubemandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro I.Christo plenam potestate traditam esse; quem ad modum etiam in gestis oecumenicorum Conciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur. (We also determine that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff have primacy throughout the world and that this Roman pontiff is the heir of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and all Christians, the father and teacher: and that to him himself, in the person of St. Peter, full pastoral, royal and administrative power over the universal Church was transferred by our Lord Jesus Christ; to what extent it is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons (Latin) - Ed.) Both sayings have already been introduced here: plenam potestatem and vicarius Christi (full power and vicar of Christ (Lat.) - Ed.), which are characteristic of the doctrine of papism (and which, of course, cannot be justified on the basis of gesta conciliorum oecumenicorum et sacri canones (acts) ecumenical councils and sacred canons (lat.) - Ed.), however, without a precise definition. The researcher of the Florence Council Th. Froman says: “In any case, the definition of primacy was stated in such extended, figurative expressions that each party could read its own views; this shows the most widespread interpretation of this passage by John Provincial (who found here a primatus iurisdictionis (primacy of jurisdiction (Latin) - Ed.) with all the consequences, for example, the right of appeal Labbei XVIII, 1152) and the understanding of primacy as a primacy of honor on the part of the Greeks. There was no unity here, or even just a compromise, but only the blurring of differences through a vague and ambiguous formula” (Krit. Beitzr. S.18–19). Regarding this word “etiam”, see Hefele’s polemic with Janus, who in his book indicated and exaggerated this option: Hefele, VII, 733. This does not change the essence of the matter. The following expression is attributed to Pope Eugene IV: “Ego nesdssem plura a Graecis petere, quia quae quaesivimus et petivimus, habuimus.” (I did not know what else to demand from the Greeks, since we already received what we wanted and demanded (lat.) - Ed.) He could not repeat this in relation to the Basel fathers, the denial of whose formula could not be introduced into the Florentine demand. N.Valois. 1. P. II, 202–205. Conciliengeschichte 1.50 sl. His motives are characteristic in this case: “Knowing from a reliable report that he believes and contains the dogma: the general Council has its authority directly from Christ, and everyone, including the pope, owes him in iis, quae pertinent ad fidem, extirpationem schismatis et ad generalem reformationem Ecclesiae Dei in capite et membris (as regards the faith, the eradication of schism and the general change of the Church God in the head and members (lat.) – Ed.) to obey, the Council commands the faithful to obey him as the pope” (Hefele, VII, 849). Enchiridion symb. 251. It is curious that this pope was the same writer Aeneas Silvius, who at one time was one of the spiritual leaders of the opposition at the council and wrote treatises on the authority of the Council over the pope. In the Enchiridion symbolorum there is no even mention of the Basel Council, despite the fact that, at least before the papal decree on transferring it to Ferrara, it was recognized as Ecumenical and by Pope Eugenius himself (as well as by Leo X in the bull just quoted). However, not a single one of the decrees of the Basel Council is cited. Of the decisions of the Council of Constance, almost only the condemnations of Huss and Wicdef are cited. We leave without translation this Roman-pagan Pontifex, p.ch. this is not quite the same as the high priest in Christian usage, although this is how the word is usually translated. Canon I. Si quis igitur dixerit, beatum Petrum Apostolum non esse a Christo Domino constitutum Apostolorum omnium principem et totius Ecclesiae militantis visibile caput; vel eundem honoris tantum, non autem verae propriaeque iurisdictionis primatum ab eodem Domino nostro Jesu Christo directe et immediate accepisse: anathema sit. Canon II. Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem: anathema sit. Canon III. Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenarn et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis, authanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles: anathema sit. Canon IV. Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Christianae exordio perceptae fideliter inhaerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis catholicae exaltationem et christianorum populorum salutem, sacro approbante Consilio, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam définit, per assistentiam divinam ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definenda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreiormabiles esse. (Canon). Si quis huic Nostrae definition! contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit: anathema sit. The attempt to connect the second canon with the Ephesian Ecumenical Council by reference to the pretentious speech of the papal legate is one of those historical stretches and distortions that are fully and irrefutably exposed by Schulte in “Die Stellung,” etc. Friedrich rightly notes. Tagebuch, Beilage III, 435, that “plenam potestatem ordinariam et immediatam” (“full ordinary and immediate power” (Latin) – Ed.), “these few words are the most dangerous in the whole scheme. Through them the episcopate is encouraged to give its approval to the essentially immoral system of papism, against which the Councils of Constance and Basel protested and proclaimed the episcopal system, which even caused Luther’s Reformation and the strongest opposition at the Council of Trent.” It is curious that the former supporters of the absolute power of the pope understood what they wanted and did not veil it with sophisms, as is customary now. In "Nouvelles Religieuses", 1 September 1923. reported open Elter S.J. Maitre Herve's 14th-century treatise defending the privileges of monastic orders in connection with papal jurisdiction. De iurisdictione et de exemptione (“On jurisdiction and exemption” (Latin) – Ed.) (Gregoriana, June, 1923). Here it is defined by the following features: “In the Universal Church the pope has received directly from God through the mediation of Christ, of whom he is vicar, the full power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Bishops, according to the property of the rank, have only the power of ordinis (“rank” (Latin) – Note. ed.), effectively perform the sacraments. By ceding jurisdiction to them, P.M. (“Great Pontiff” (abbr. Latin) - Ed.) does not renounce any of his highest rights. He remains always as the head of the Church, the ordinary and immediate head of all believers, each of them, whatever their rank in the hierarchy. He can limit or suspend with the whole of his sovereign power all episcopal jurisdictions” (385–386). “However, it is not that this power of the Supreme Pontifex violates the ordinary and direct power of episcopal jurisdiction, by the power of which bishops, as appointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), took the place of the apostles, as true shepherds shepherd and rule the flock entrusted to them, each his own" (further reference is made to St. Gregory V., who, as is known, angrily rejected the title as pretentious episcopus universalis (“universal bishop” (lat.) – Ed.). Hefe l e, I, 50: against the Gallicans, the Councils of Constance and Basel, who recognized two possibilities for the removal of the pope: ob mores or ob fidem aut haeresim (“because of morality or because of faith or heresy” (Latin) - Ed.), he allows only the second, but then the pope ceases to be a member of the Body of the Church. Of course, this judgment is no longer compatible with the Vatican. There is another question: can the pope be mentally ill, as Pius IX was revered by some of his fathers during the Vatican Council (according to Friedrich)? Pope Adrian VI, when he was a professor at the University of Louvain, had a specialty in denouncing popes of heresy (Janus, 399, 430). Also Pohle, Unfehlbarkeit in Kirchenlexicon Wetzer u. Weités, XII, 244, surprisingly finds: “From the Vatican dogma it does not even follow that the pope will formally fall from the faith, just as canon law for such a case (of course, imaginary) provides for the immediate loss of the papal dignity” (Decret. Grat. dist. 39, p. 6, cf. Phillips. Das Kirchenrecht, I, 261 f., Scheeben. d. Dogmatik, I, 214). But the provisions of the Gratian Code date back to a time when church law did not yet know papal infallibility. Exceptions to infallibility include cases where the pope is exposed to external violence and does not have Freedom of Judgment (Palmieri. De romano pontifice, 1877, P.628). However, to allow such an error, so to speak, false ex cathedra (“from the pulpit” (Latin) – Ed.), does not correspond to the so boldly proclaimed veritatis et fidei nunquam delicientis charisma (“Charisma should never sin against truth and faith” (Lat.) – Ed.), leaving a critical examination of the cathedral quality of the papal judgment. It is easy to imagine what significance this clause will have if the dark days that have already happened in the past come again for the Roman See. “Undoubtedly, it has been historically established that even Peter, according to the divine assistance in faith promised to him, as the Vaticanum puts it, was not only mistaken, but also rejected Christ; that it was not Peter, but the council of the apostles who decided the dispute about the need for circumcision (Acts 15); that Peter was rebuked by Paul for his teaching (Gal. 2:11); that P. Honorius was mistaken in his faith; that the 6th, 7th and 8th Ecumenical Councils cursed P. Honorius as a heretic, that P. Leo II recognizes the error of Honorius; that St. Vigilius taught heretically, that St. Pelagius II recognized in Aelia Aquileia in 585, that the 5th Ecumenical Council cursed St. Vigilius as a heretic; that for centuries the popes, in the vow they took upon taking office, promised observance and recognition of the 8 Ecumenical Councils, cursed their predecessor Honorius (Liber diumus ed. de Roziere form. 83 ff); that popes had formerly admitted their fallibility in matters of faith (see Stellung, 74 ff); that between the papal decrees ex cathedra, between them and the provisions of the Ecumenical Councils, between their individual points, which invariably relate to faith, there are contradictory provisions: between the bull Unigenitus p. Clement XI, paragraph 91 and the letter of Gelasius against Acacius, paragraph 43 – between Eugene III and cons. Remense 1148 and sap. 4 de sarc. ord. Cons. Trid. sess. XXIII, – between ep. 6 Gelasia and cap.4 and can.4 de comm. sess. XXI (Stellung, 183ff.), between Gelasius ep. 37 ita nos and can. 1. 3. de comm, sub utraque sess. XXI cons. Trid.; that all significant canonists from Gratian in the 12th and 13th centuries. c., many in the 14th and 15th centuries. V. and both the most significant of the Jesuits: Schmalzgrüber and Lyman admit that the pope can be accused of heresy (Stellung, 189); that the ancient popes definitely considered councils necessary to resolve issues of faith, regarding which the 5th Ecumenical Council even referred to the example of the apostles” (Schulte. Der Altkatholizismus, 309). The following examples can also be added to this list: Pope Nicholas I determined in his response to the Bulgarians in 866 that Baptism performed only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, even by a Jew, is valid (Denzingeri, paragraph 335), on the contrary, according to the definition of Pope Alexander III (XII century), Baptism performed only in the name of the Holy Trinity is valid (Denz. 399) and this, of course, is confirmed in the Florentine Cathedral (Denz. 696). (Of course, the erroneous definition of Nicholas I is interpreted as an expression of his personal opinion, not ex cathedra). In the above definition of St. Alexander III, the words ego te baptizo (“I baptize you” (Latin) – Ed.) must also be introduced into the form of Baptism; on the contrary, St. Alexander VIII (XVII century) recognized (Denz. 1317) that the omission of these words (ego in nomine (“I in the name” (Latin) – Ed.) does not destroy the validity of Baptism. In the definition of intentio (“intentions” (Lat.) – Ed.), St. Innocent III (1210) in a bull against the Waldensians demands i.fidelis ("true intention" (abbreviated Latin) - Ed.), also P. Alexander VIII asserts that Baptism, performed in its entirety, has no force if the priest within himself (?) says non intendo ("I do not want" (Lat.) - Ed.), Thus, the concept of intentio interna ("internal intention" (Lat.) - Ed. note) is adopted. Anglican Ordinations (1896) states directly that the Church does not judge the internal intention, but she should judge it only as it manifests itself from the outside. Of course, Catholic theology insists on distinctions: “Theologians put forward the position that the pope, neither as a private scientist, nor as a secular sovereign (as if he did not put forward spiritual punishments as an instrument of political struggle!), nor as a simple (?) bishop of the city of Rome, nor as the primate of Italy, nor as the patriarch of the West, has infallibility, but only solely and exclusively as the supreme head of the church (and, moreover, ex cathedra)... Therefore, orders educational-police, ecclesiastical-political, administrative nature or the application of doctrinal principles to particular cases affect papal infallibility just as little as when the pope, although he decides the issue of doctrine, but not in a solemn, universally binding form ex cathedra” (Pohle 1. P. 244). Of course, all these abstract distinctions have no force in front of the concrete unity of the individual, the bearer of absolute power. This only shows what degree of confusion exists on this issue in theology and how theologians themselves do not know what to do with the Vatican dogma and where to put it. At Schulte. Die Macht der römischen Papste über Fürste etc., 1871, a selection of papal bulls was made, relating to various issues and, in the sense of infallibility, retaining force and now, for example, establishing the full power of the pope over kings and subjects, both Catholic and non-Catholic, on the basis of which they grant them new countries with the right to enslave the population... Thus, Pope Nicholas V in bull Romanus Pontifex, as well as in the bull Nuper non of January 9, 1454. gives such rights to the Portuguese king Alfonso regarding western Africa (confirmed by P. Callistus III in the bull Inter caetera of 1456 and Sixtus IV in the bull Aetemi Regis of 1481). In the bulls of Nicholas V, the Portuguese are given exclusive power over the seas. P. Alexander VI in the bull Inter caetera May 4, 1493 the newly discovered countries and islands are given to King Ferdinand and Queen Elizabeth “by the power of the apostolic fullness of authority,” “the authority of almighty God given to us in St. Peter and as the vicar of Jesus Christ” (36–37). The Pope can also make Christian subjects, whose head is anathematized, slaves and give gifts: p. Gregory XI rel. Florentines March 22, 1376 in the bull In omnes fere (38), etc. Schulte rightly points out that the reference to the Florentinum (Florentine Council (lat.) - Ed.) in p. IV, as well as the quotation from his resolution, are made tendentiously, with the end omitted, where there is a reference to all councils. “The Greeks meant by them only the so-called Ecumenical Councils adopted by them. Uniates only 8; none of them from Nicene 325. to 4 Constantinople 869 the Roman bishop was not recognized as either the only or infallible teacher of faith and morals; this happened just as little at 4 Lateran 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215 and at two Lyons 1245 and 1274 and Vienna 1311. On the contrary, the Council of Constance at its 5th meeting on April 6, 1415. dogmatically determined: the pope, like any other, is subject to the general council. This 5th Constance meeting undoubtedly belongs to the part of the Council recognized by P. Martin V. Thus, none of the And recognized in Rome itself before the Florence Council or, omitting the Council of Constance (Basel does not count), of the 16 Ecumenical Councils, did not decide what to confirm in c. IV is given by Florentinum. However, what the Florence Council says, himmelweit (as to heaven - Approx. ed) is far from the Vatican definition, so that even the opposition at the Vatican Council was inclined to repeat the Florentine definition. Above all, Florentinum is outdated or explained through Tridentinum (Council of Trent (Latin) - Ed.) (1. P. 307). See Scheeben Handb. d. kath. Dogm. IV. Bd. I Abth., von. L. Atzberger. Freiburg; Br. 1898, pp.443–444. Wed. here is a description of the completeness of papal power: pp. 438–439. Scheeben, 1.s., 225 (as if this is an argument!) Scheeben, 1.s., 244. Cf. Th. H. Simar. Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 4 Auff. 1899, I, 40; II, 754–756; Pohle, 1.c. 248. H. Schell. Die cathol. Dogmatik. Paderborn. 1892. Bd. Ill, 1,410–422. De romano pontifice, thes. 21. Schulte. Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts, 3 A. 1873, pp. 241–242. In the scheme of July 15, cum caeteris (“with others” (lat.) – Ed.) was crossed out (which could be interpreted in a “Gallican” spirit), thereby strengthening the element of papal infallibility regardless of the episcopate, and the words “non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae” (“but not with the consent of the Church” (Lat.) – Ed.) – the key position of the dogma) were inserted. Then in paragraph IV of Ch. Hoc igitur the words nunquam deficientis were put instead of non deficientis (“never deprived” instead of “not deprived” (Latin) - Ed.), which rejected the well-known errors of previous popes to all historians. (Schulte, 1. P.289). This absurd inconsistency of Vatican dogma was clearly demonstrated by Schulte Der Altkatholizismus. Giessen. 1871. P.311. “The vote of the 553 members of the Council who voted for the Vatican Dogma on July 18, 1870 is in itself indifferent, for if it were necessary, then the definition would be incorrect in itself, for both circumstances - immutability from itself, and not on the basis of the definition of the Church, and immutability with the consent of the Church - are contradictory provisions at the Council. Also, both provisions: it is a dogma revealed from God, that the pope who speaks ex cathedra has infallibility due to Divine help, and that the pope became infallible as a result of the recognition of his infallibility by the Council, are contradictory contradictions. Consequently, the consent and assistance of the Council is pointless; whoever believed in papal infallibility must believe in it, p.ch. the pope proclaimed it from the pulpit, and not because 553 different kinds of prelates agreed to it.” Wed. our article in “Path”, August 1928: On the issue of the Lausanne Conference (encyclical of Pius XI mortalium animos).