Here is the speech by his grace on Vatican I;
http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/VATICAN1.DOCIt is a Word document, so if you don't have Word, you can read it here, I will repaste it.
Vatican I - A Pseudo-Council?
Unfavorable Atmosphere of the Second Millennium
Council or pseudo-council, Vatican I is the product of a par�ticular Church, the Latin, that "cut off from the East, has seen its spirituality and theology dried up and impoverished by rationalization" (Cardinal Etchegaray).
This council is one of those that was held in the second millennium in the West. It followed the Council of Lyons (1274) that Pope Paul VI called the "sixth of the general synods of the West." Therefore Vatican I is not an ecumenical council, nor consequently, infallible. Moreover, one of the conditions required for a council to be ecumenical as enumerated by the second Ecumenical Council of Nicea (787) is that "the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem-in addition to that of Constantinople-consent to it" It is clear! Not being ecumenical, Vatican I cannot be infallible.
On the other hand, what right does any Church have, in the absence of other great churches and especially of the apostolic sees, to define the "things" that are binding on all Christianity, by submitting it to its ordinary, direct and immediate universal jurisdiction, and by imposing on it a papal infallibility binding in conscience. Such behavior is not surprising on the part of the Church of Rome, for already, on the eve of the Great Schism of 1054, Pope Leo IX claimed that "all that is decisive in the life of churches and even the quality of Church comes from the Roman Church" (Cardinal Yves Con gar, Eglise de Saint Augustin, p. 97). Only an ecumenical council held by both Rome and Orthodoxy can legislate in such a matter.
In the face of the impasse caused by Vatican Council I, we must ask ourselves what are the conditions in which this Council was held and unfolded, and if these conditions guaranteed the freedom of action of the bishops that participated in it.
Let us see the atmosphere that prevailed in the Church of the West, especially after the Great Schism of 1054.
1) We recall what Marcel Pacaut says concerning the Council of Lyons in 1274: "The conciliar assembly did not discuss; there was no debate, no opposition formulated; it heard the reading of the pro�posed documents and approved them. The Council of Lyons is there�fore, like the Councils prior to it from the twelfth century, a chamber recording pontifical decisions and not a parliament" ( Unite Chrhienne, 102 (1975), no. 2, p. 53).
Humbert of Romans, Master General of the young Order of Preachers, recounts in his report that Pope Gregory X, on the eve of the Council of Lyons, recommended the following motto: "Variety is the mother and origin of discord" (Unite Chretienne, idem).
We notice that six hundred years later the superior of the Redemptorists would write to Cardinal Deschamps, archbishop of Malines, on the subject of Vatican Council I: "In Rome, everything is so well prepared in advance, that nothing remained for the fathers other than voting" (Cardinal Deschamps, Louvain 1956, II, p.157).
2) It is true that beginning with Pope Saint Gregory the Great, the centralizing power of the pope grew more and more. But it is especially at the beginning of the second millennium that it became intolerable. So much so that Saint Bernard, in a brochure, titled Coun�sels to the Pope, reproached Pope Eugene III between 1148 and 1152, for "mutilating Churches, upsetting the hierarchy and displacing limits that its Fathers had set. You err if you believe that your apostolic power, because it is the highest, is the only one that God has instituted. All this forms a desire for prestige and wealth, that comes more from Constan�tine than Peter."
3) And popes assumed rights over life and death. The Tribunal of the Inquisition, born in 1231, condemned to death those who did not share the letter of the faith of the pope, or who adopted ideas considered dangerous. Among many others, Savonarola, Dominican preacher, was burnt in 1498, under the pretext of heresy. In order to escaped the pyre, Galileo, whose great scientific discoveries were judged dangerous, at 70 years of age on his knees before the Tribunal of the Inquisition would have to renounce his so-called heresy and lived under the strict surveillance of that tribunal until his death in 1643. Thus it was that the popes subjected the Son of God to a regime of incredible terror. The tribunal of the Holy Office succeeded that of the Inquisition.
4) The birth of the churches coming from the Reformation distressed the Roman Church, which tried by all means to protect herself against a new disintegration. In order to confront the decline of western Christianity and its political influence, the Council of the Counter Reformation, held in Trent 1545 to 1563, would make the pope, henceforth, the only defender of this Christianity, an absolute monarch. Without doubt, this Council would seek to bring back all the clergy, at all levels, to a more austere lifestyle, but it would be intransigent in the area of the faith, in order to avoid new shocks. Popes would impose a uniform formulation of this faith.
5) At the same time the pope became the absolute monarch, the curia became increasingly powerful. To it was confided the charge of preparing conciliar texts on which the bishops would vote. At Vatican Council II, in which I myself participated, we were presented with texts prepared in advance by the curia. The Fathers enjoyed a sufficient liberty to refuse these texts and to replace them by others. Thus it was not the same as the Council of Lyons and those that followed, including Vatican I, where the curia was all powerful and could impose its texts.
Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) who proclaimed himself the head of the entire Church and the father and the mother of all Christians, claimed that the college of cardinals was of divine origin. Indeed, in his Bull Non Mediocri, coming almost immediately after the Council of Florence (1439), he granted cardinals precedence over patriarchs, since according to terms of this same bull, the cardinalate had been, "insti�tuted by Saint Peter and his successors" and even, according to Innocent III, says the Bull, the cardinalate "is of divine origin."
6) With popes becoming a type of demiurge between Christ and his Church, which put them �above� and longer �within� the Church and curia �of divine origin� what could Vatican Council I be? If Pope Eugene IV proclaimed himself in the fifteenth century �father and mother of all Christians,� Pius IX, the pope of Vatican I, in a conversation with the Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Guidi, declared: "I am the Tradition!"-in other words- "I am the Church!"
The voters had to deal with a pope who identified himself as the Tradition and the Church, and with a curia claiming its origins in "Saint Peter and his successors," and who dreamt of sharing, if not in the ex sese infallibility of the pope, at least in his universal jurisdiction, from then on defined by a council. If we add there the climate of widespread distrust by the tribunal of the Holy Office, we are right in asking if the fathers of Vatican Council I enjoyed enough freedom to hold a valid council.
Oppressive Atmosphere of Vatican I
A. Vatican I-Council of the Latin Countries of Europe
Having called the Council of Lyons (1274) the "sixth of the general synods of the West," Pope Paul VI himself denied it the quality of being ecumenical along with all the councils held in the West after the schism of 1054.
Vatican I was not even representative enough of the Catholic West. Rather two-thirds of its majority represented the churches of the Latin countries of Europe.
According to historians, ofthe 1055 fathers having the right to vote, approximately 700 fathers were present.
The Italians represented 35 per cent of the fathers present, that is approximately 245 fathers.
The French, 17 per cent, that is approximately 119 fathers.
The fathers from America (121), Asia (41 ), Oceania (18), African Missions (9) totaled 189 Fathers and were, in their majority, originally from Latin countries of Europe.
Approximately two-thirds of the fathers present were therefore from Latin European countries.
The uniate fathers, latinized and subjected to Roman congre�gations, numbered sixty. Among them, three Patriarchs had arranged themselves on the side of the minority who refused the definition of infallibility of the pope and his other prerogatives, judged exaggerated.
One could object that the majority of council fathers of the ecumenical councils of the first millennium were Eastern, and despite that, their decrees were not rejected. Such an objection is not valid, because all the apostolic sees were represented there, including Rome; and the ecumenical councils that followed, recognized the acts of their predecessors. However the apostolic sees of the East were in no way present at councils held in the West after the schism of 1054, although this presence is required-according to the second Council of Nicea� for a council to be ecumenical.
Uniate bishops and patriarchs present at Vatican Council I and Vatican Council II did not represent Orthodoxy, first, because they were latinized, and also because they had not received a mandate to represent it. This is all the more true since the Roman Catholics and Orthodox would denounce uniatism at the Balamand meeting in 1993.
B. Imbalance in the Distribution of Responsibilities of the Council
1) Arbitrary Choice of Consultors and Experts charged with pre�paring the decrees of the Council.
Indeed, sixty of these Consultors and Experts were Romans and the others, numbering thirty six, were known for their ultramon�tanist tendencies. This resulted in the council decrees being prepared by a closed circle according to the will of the pope and the ultramon�tanists, and of their being presented as a fait accompli to the Council Fathers who, it was thought, would have only to sign them without debate.
2) Arbitrary Choice of Presidents of the Assembly.
They were all Italians and favorable to the definition of the prerogatives of the pope and his infallibility.
3) Those opposed to infallibility were excluded from the Com�mittee of the Faith.
In 1864, Pius IX began to prepare for the Council. In 1865, he appointed a commission of cardinals to be the central commission charged with directing the preparation of the council.
This commission appointed subsidiary commissions for the faith and dogmas and others subjects, either religious or politico-relig�ious, such as relationships of the church with the state. In all these commissions which comprised 102 members, only 10 were bishops, 69 diocesan priests and 23 religious priests. They had prepared 51 schemas to propose to the Council Fathers.
To facilitate the work, four permanent committees were cre�ated, among which the most important was that of the faith, from which were excluded those who opposed the definition of the prerogatives of the pope, particularly his infallibility. Archbishop Henry Edward Man�ning, principal partisan of the definition of infallibility, qualified those opposing it as "heretics, who came to the council only to be heard and condemned, not to take part in the formulation of the doctrine."
The fathers opposed to the definition of infallibility could indeed defend their viewpoint in the general congregations, but was it admissible that a group, composed of brilliant and good theologians, not be represented in the most important committee of the Council?
The way the council was conducted was imposed by the pope and his curia. It had not been elaborated by the conciliar assembly, nor even submitted to its vote as it had been at the Council of Trent.
Since the members of the assembly opposed to the definition of papal infallibility had not participated in the elaboration of the regulations, they did not feel themselves bound to secrecy and they used a press campaign to make their objections known. The campaign was sometimes violent, especially in Germany.
C. Politico-Religious Character of the Council
Pope Pius IX publicly announced the council on July 26,1867, at a time when churchmen in the West were of two major mindsets: on the one hand the liberal Catholics and neo-gallicans, and on the other hand the ultramontanists, adversaries of modem liberty.
The conflict was not exclusively religious. It was politico-re�ligious. The two parties were opposed with regard to their conception concerning relations between the Church and the State. The ultramon�tanists, counter to the other part, wanted more interference of popes in the affairs of the State. When the council was announced their press campaign would claim that the definition of the prerogatives of the pope, and particularly his infallibility in matters of faith, would entail a certain infallibility in the political area and in his relations with the State, thus also favoring an autocratic authoritarianism.
D. The two-thirds majority was hardly concerned with theological reasons
The fathers who were opposed to the definition of infallibility and the other prerogatives of the pope, while less numerous, had greater stature. They were distinguished by their theological knowledge and by the importance of their sees.
This minority was especially made up of the episcopates of Austria-Hungary, the great German Sees, a third of the French episco�pate, several archbishops from America, the archbishop of Milan and three Eastern patriarchs.
With the infallibility majority, non-theological considerations prevailed. They were:
-Infallibility would have repercussions in the political domain, conferring more ascendancy to the pope over civil authorities and putting an end to the controversies on this subject.
-For more pastoral reasons, some bishops sought, through the definition of infallibility and the other prerogatives of the pope, to strengthen the principle of authority in a society and in a Church invaded by a revolutionary spirit.
The minority, opposed to this definition, advanced reasons from the ecumenical and theological order:
-The pope cannot define a matter of faith independently of the college of bishops and the ecumenical council. Such a defini�tion made by the pope personally would upset the traditional constitution of the church and would compromise the power of bishops and the episcopal college.
-The extension of the prerogatives of the pope would deepen the gulf that separates the Roman Church from the Orthodox Churches of the East. And Protestants would profit by consoli�dating their position in the face of the Catholic Church.
-Aside from the extension of the prerogatives of the pope, new schisms could be provoked in the milieus of Germanic intel�lectuals and others.
It is regrettable that these considerations of theological, eccle�siological and ecumenical order were not shared by the European majority of Fathers and did not orient the council in a more religious rather than a political direction.
E. Pressures exerted by the Pope over the Council
Some Council Fathers favorable to the definition of infallibil�ity, wanting to rally the opposing party, sought to appear conciliatory and to bring some rather fundamental reservations to the formulas prepared by the consultors and experts. The pope opposed this and intervened in favor of a rigorous formulation.
On the other hand, fearing that political events would abruptly stop the works of the council before the elaboration of the definition of his infallibility, Pius IX had a chapter on infallibility and his other prerogatives added to the chapter titled "the Church of the Christ," April 27,1870. He decided to pass immediately, and by anticipation, to the discussion of this additional chapter. Under the threat of developing political events, the pope pressed the council fathers to finish and to accelerate the activities of the council by rushing through 37 general congregations between May 13 and July 13, 1870. Thus on July 13,1870, thanks to this rush, infallibility and the other personal preroga�tives of the pope were voted on, constituting a special decree under the title "Pastor aeternus."
Driven by power to brake this zeal of the ultramontanists, openly pushed by Pope Pius IX, and not wanting to confront a pope who decided to have his infallibility defined and to widen his powers over the whole Church of God, an important number of bishops left Rome before the final vote. Some say a quarter of the council fathers left early.
To give one example of the authoritarianism of Pius IX, let us cite the following fact. Our Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch, Gregory Youssef, had refused to sign the acts of the council relative to infalli�bility and to the unlimited powers of the pope over the whole Church. Having undergone some pressures, he ended up by subscribing to it by adding: "except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs." Before leaving Rome, he went to take leave of the pope, who shook the head of the old patriarch who was on his knees, and said to him. "Testa dura!" Therefore it is not surprising to see that Latin bishops left Rome and abstained from voting "non placet" in the presence of a pope so jealous of his authority.
In conclusion, I am not an historian and am not qualified to settle this question of the validity or the invalidity of Vatican Council I. All that I can do is to submit to qualified historians this information, collected from here and there, so that they may check it, complete it or, if necessary, correct it. I leave to theologians the responsibility to judge, in the light of the pressures exerted over the council Fathers, whether they enjoyed enough freedom to hold a valid Council.
What I know is that a marriage celebrated in similar conditions would have been declared null by the Roman Authorities themselves. If only reverential fear suffices for a declaration of nullity of a Catholic marriage, how can a council, held under such a regime of oppression, be valid?
In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a "general" synod of the West. With this desig�nation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone. Besides, these theological opinions are peculiar to the circumstances of a certain historical period. And the Catholic Church itself today, with all of its bishops and theologians, would have hesitated to adopt them and especially to erect them as dogmas.
from the book �Ecumenical Reflections� by Elias Zoghby,
Greek Melkite Catholic Archbishop,
published by Eastern Christian Publications, 1998
