Totally heretical? But what of the novelties developed, then many times later rammed through various councils with the claim the Holy Spirit was behind the process? The fruit produced in 1870 was quite sour. The various Orthodox of the brethren to the East took offense at that one. Many bishops in the Latin church took offense too, though were eventually pressured to bend, facing the choice of submitting to decree, or become "Old Catholic". Since personal positions, office & mens' livelihoods were on the line, the stubborn & proud seem to have gotten their way, by hook, crook, & slide (subtle substitutions, both of precise phrasings, and implied meanings) causing a few notables whom opposed the process & it's eventual result, to need abandon their own previous understanding of both the Word, and "Tradition" itself! It's becomes apparent that it's always been that way (to limited but SIGNIFICANT aspect) the more carefully into history one looks.
Looking back merely to 1870, there is this analysis from an Eastern brother which closely examines details of the process concerning papal supremacy, over & above that produced of previous councils, was finalized (calcified?).
The process itself was appalling. The Vatican Dogma
Rationist thought a consequence of the Reformation? Yes, to an extent. Reason & investigation opposed to bowing before sola ecclesia, which itself is not the firmest of foundations, "evolving" as it can shown to have...
At the same time, it was much the Hellenistic "rationist" process long applied to scriptural understandings, which lead to all the man-made embroidered finery associated with interpretations of the texts themselves, producing such things as Purgatory & Indulgences (with all their extended meanings) the abuse of the latter being much a justification for challenging the then status quo in the first place.
So don't think! Surrender rational thought, if it lead anywhere but to bowing before Romish dogmatic proclamations, crafted under the loose mantle of "infallibility" which is found to be much like the hide of living animal, which scurries away when fully confronted, claiming then itself to be only strictly limited. IT IS NO WONDER MUCH OF THE WORLD IS IN REBELLION. They have been given yet another excuse for it, which is today quite difficult to overcome, by anything other than the Word, promised to not return to Him void.
Tradition must follow scripture. Not the other way around. Works (actual good works) follow, spring to life in the freedom of being cleansed of sin. That the cleansing is to occur repeatedly in process, can be seen in the foot washing Christ Himself humbled himself to perform. We of course should do likewise, for one another, not casting fears upon one another that the original sacrifice was not enough to seal us unto him (simply for reason of having dirty feet, from walking through the dust from which we were formed) with our baptisms signifying our own deaths to our own previous lives. For now, those of us whom have been born of Him & sanctified of Him, need only our feet washed...to better enter in to join Him at His Supper which we must partake of, or He will have no part with (in?) us. That food, is what gives us life, draws us closer to Him.
Is what I say here not lawful? By letter, spirit, and tradition? I speak of proper order of operations, putting not the cart of our own response, before the power of His own pull of ourselves to Himself (the Father) by Christ His only begotten, broken for us, so that we may live.
This is where the difference truly lay, between much of the way the process is spoken of, a "which comes first" then "what can follow". Our own efforts simply cannot suffice. It is ONLY Him in us, living within us, that brings the proper fruit, the works which will withstand the testing fires of His judgement. Romans chpt 7
That is backwards. Shall we once again need show here Patristric Fathers whom indicated that scripture itself must be foremost & final test of doctrine? that can be easily enough done. For the umpteenth time.
What I think should be more than understandable regarding the truths of the faith handed down to the Apostles and ultimately to us in the here and now is that there never really was an "Apostolic Succession" of authority that wasn't first dependent upon the revealed Scriptures. The example I gave of Peter being corrected by Paul concerning the "requirements" expected of Gentiles coming to the Christian faith should be more than adequate to demonstrate that, even in that first century there was no absolute belief in an authority intrinsic to the Apostles nor to their personally named successors. It was always dependent upon what was the truth and their faithfulness to what Jesus had taught them. Certainly, the Apostles were given authority by Christ to preach the gospel and to disciple others to carry on the ministry of reconciliation. But, he did not give them the authority to make it up as they went along. It was supposed to be as they were lead by the Holy Spirit and as he revealed the truths to them to pass onto the church.
That it was a succession of the teachings of Christ and not of the teachers, is pretty well attested to both in the New Testament epistles and the writings of the early church fathers. What Rome relies upon is the supposed perpetual "Seat of Peter" having ultimate authority over all the Christian faithful. But there is no evidence in Scripture that this was Christ's intent. It is the duty of the church to pass on the faith "once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And I think we agree that the church is the “buttress and pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). However, I think Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession "in person". Whereas, Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. That's why Roman Catholics will focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, but not integral. In the Apostles' time, they were very careful to train up church leaders and as Paul said to Timothy, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." (I Timothy 5:22)
Rather than this way of thinking about church leadership and the working of the Holy Spirit in those doing the leading being a "new" or novel concept, I think it can be easily shown to be the way Christ designed and intended His body to operate. If not, then I hardly see the need for the Scriptures. If the succession of authority included the gift of "infallibility" and it could be miraculously handed down from one individual to his next in line, there would be no need for divinely inspired Scripture containing the teachings to be held by all. The special "prophet" could be entrusted to keep it all straight and he would also have the authority to develop doctrine as the need arrived since he has a direct line to God and all. Right? It seems to work like this for the Mormons. What could go wrong???
BlueDragon:
I am well aware that the Vatican I Council and the definition of Papal Infallability is a problem for the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am honest enough to admit that. Nevertheless, unless you are dealing with the Monks of Mt. Athos, most of the Eastern Orthdox Patriarchs and Metropolitans will honestly concede that the Church of Rome did in fact exercise a Primacy. That is undeniable from the constant History and Tradition of the Undivided Catholic Church, of which both Rome and the East claim to 100% in continuity with and as both sides will admit [not the most strident internet layman], the differences between the 2 with respect to Doctrine is less than 1%.
And again, nobody in the first millenium of the Church held to sola scriptura. You can scream it to be true but it is not true. Since you mentioned the Eastern Orthodox, who are not part the Western-Latin-Roman Christian Tradition, and split from Rome in the 11th century, they no nothing of “sola scriptura” nor of any of the Reformed doctrines of justification. So if you are going to bring up the East on the question of the Bishop of Rome and Vatican I, which is a “legitimate question to raise with me and other Catholics”, then it should also follow that you should consider what the Eastern Orthodox thinks about the Reformed view of sola scriptura, sola fide, its view of Liturgy and Worship, its view of Sacraments/Holy Mysteries [as the East calls them], what the East thinks of how the Reformed view The Blessed Virgin Mary or as the East calls her the All Holy Panagia/Most Holy Theotokos, etc, etc, etc.
As for the Old Catholics, most of them are now similar to the Anglican-Episcopalians in that they have caved in on womens ordination and on modernity’s view of Marriage, etc. Only the Polish National Catholic Church [part of the Old Catholic Church is still viewed by Rome as having valid Sacraments and not changing anything in terms of Doctrine, Liturgy, etc, since Vatican I in 1870]. Someone can confirm that but I am pretty sure they are the only one of the Old Catholic Groups that Rome still views as having a valid Eucharist in the same fashion that Rome views the Eastern Orthodox as having valid 7 sacraments/Holy Mysteries, etc.
And as the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, again, the Bible alone is not in their writings. Saying that Sacred Scripture and everything needs to be in accordance with Scripture is not to say “the Bible alone” That is not what any of them meant. There are many excellent Church Historians in the Protestant World who don’t come to the conclusions that you do. JND Kelley and Chadwick, both Anglicans, J. Pelikan who was Lutheran when he wrote is series on the History of Doctrine [later became Orthodox] and Philip Schaff, the great Scholar from the 19th century, who was Reformed and in his work, sort of moved more to a Catholic position and even got critisized by the hyper Reformed types for working with the Tractarians/Oxford Movement Anglicans who were doing similar studies in Patristics and were calling the Church of England to move back in line with the Catholic Church and Rome, of course its leader, John Henry Newman and many others became Catholic.
Schaff wanted to move to Christian Unity and thought that Rome should take the lead, but he also questioned the need for Vatican I to define papal infallabilit knowing that once Rome defined it, there was no going back from it, and given the divisions between Rome and the Orthodox and the Protestant confessions, it would not help heal the breach.
Now you contend that Vatican I and Papal Infallability has soured Christian unity. Perhaps? I would contend that in the age of secularism, their is an foundation that is holding steady in the face of the secular onslaught. Here we are 142 years later and Rome and the Orthdox have the warmest relations between the Two Churches since the 11th century or maybe the attemp in the 15th century at the Council of Florence to establish full communion again [which of course did not happen]. As for how the Protestant world sees Vatican I, well I don’t know, I guess it depends on which Protestant Group you ask, some Anglicans see it now as a great defense against modernims and heresy [which is the way orthodox Catholics see it] and many of those guys have come back to Rome. Even some Lutherans see it that way, for example the late Father Richard J. Neuhaus, although not as many see it as the Anglicans with strong Catholic leanings. How the Reformed view it? well, probably not much different than what they did in the 19th century. at least that is my conjecture.