B
Bev17243
Guest
I know that Papal Infallibility was defined by the Vatican Council I 1869. I heard however that in early church Pope was not considered infalliable. Is it true? And if itsn’t why wasn’t this defined before 1869?
- Status
M
Marie5890
Guest
If I remember correcting, a class I had on the popes and the papacy, the idea of infallibility didnt start to emerge until the 13th? 14th ?century.
There was a dispute amongst some Fransican communities (I pretty sure it was the Fransicians) about property and holding property is common?
Anyway, the pope at the time made a ruling, and the dispute was settled because “the pope had spoken”
That was the being seeds of the development of the doctrine now known as papal infallibility.
(Im sure if I am wrong Bro. J. will correct and set aright the history)
There was a dispute amongst some Fransican communities (I pretty sure it was the Fransicians) about property and holding property is common?
Anyway, the pope at the time made a ruling, and the dispute was settled because “the pope had spoken”
That was the being seeds of the development of the doctrine now known as papal infallibility.
(Im sure if I am wrong Bro. J. will correct and set aright the history)
P
PJM
Guest
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
God Bless,
Pat*
A
anodos
Guest
Sounds like the quote attributed to Augustine (4th, 5th century): “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” - Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.
L
Leegal
Guest
Formally defined as dogma in 1870, the early example of the Pope speaking “ex Cathedra” goes back to 1302 in Unum Sanctus by Pope Boniface VIII. A reference exists in 1075 by Pope Gregory VII which states the Roman Church cannot err. The Formula of Homisdas makes reference to to the Seat of Peter, the Pope, as the preserver of the faith, in 1519 and this may refer back to Pope Gregory in 1075 that the Church cannot err.
However, as early as 99 A.D. Pope Clement referred to having written “through the Holy Spirit” to the Corinthians. There were early references to the Pope being infused by the Holy Spirit; it’s hard to put an exact starting point within the early Church. Many have different interpretations as to when the idea of Papal infallibility first came into use or understanding.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Just so that my previous post doesnt cause any confusion, I want to clarify that I was speaking strictly on the idea of " papal infallibility" not “primacy” 
I see them as two different concepts.
I see them as two different concepts.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
It occurs to me that if we define Papal Infallibility as the Holy Spirit keeping the Pope from teaching error on Faith and Morals, then would not the first instance of this be when Peter determines that circumcision is not needed to be a part of the faith:
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law. The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. 10Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus,g in the same way as they. -Acts 15:5-11
You can’t get much earlier than that.
But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law. The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. 10Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus,g in the same way as they. -Acts 15:5-11
You can’t get much earlier than that.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Yes. In practice he always was. His first infallible pronouncement is “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” This pronouncement, proclamation and judgement was entirely inspired by, and even the word of, the Divine Spirit, as Christ Himself affirms.
In the Jerusalem Council this is also made clear. Saint Peter was in Saint Jame’s See/Bishopric (in Jerusalem), yet it is evident that he had a universal primacy and jurisdiction even there.
Further, it was Saint Peter that established the heirarchical arrangement of the early Church, which all later Popes were very careful to maintain and honour.
Further, all the earliest evidence indicates that it was the accepted Tradition of the Church to defer matters to Rome for a final judgement.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
I stand corrected. I like 1AugustSon7’s take on the first infallable papal decree.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I think there is a quote out there by St. Cyprian that says that heretics don’t come near the chair of St. Peter, where no error comes from. Or something like that. I was paraphrasing. It was from around 250 A.D. And St. Augustine said something like Rome has spoken, case closed. Once again, paraphrasing. So, yeah, I’d think he was considered infallible from the beginning if it was mentioned that early on.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Would it be fair to say that authority and infallibility are synonymous in definition? There is there really is not distinction between the two?
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I always take authority to mean that you must believe what is said, and infallibility meaning that there is no more room for development in that area. Infallibility is the summit of the authority. At least that’s how I look at it.
J
JReducation
Guest
The issue with the Franciscans is remotely related to infallibility, but it’s really an issue of obedience. The wording in the Rule concerning the individual ownership of property is quite clear. There is nothing that prohibits the corporate ownership of property. However, Francis’ actions are very clear that he opposed it; but he never wrote it down. The argument was whether one followed the written law or the example set by the founder. The pope decided.
There is an article in the rule that says that the Franciscan men shall never question the prudential decisions of popes, bishops and religious superiors. There is another in the admonitions that says that even if the pope, bishops and religious superiors are wrong, the friars are bound under penalty of mortal sin and threat of excommunication, to comply. The only time that you may disobey is when authority commands you to do something that the Church has identified as sin. It can’t even be something that your conscience believes is a sin. Francis believed that a well formed conscience thought with the Church. If your conscience and the Church disagreed, your conscience is wrong. The Church is right and you have a moral obligation to form your conscience according to the mind of the Church.
This is remotely related to infallibility because by the 13th century it was held that the pope was infallible and that the bishops in communion with him also share in infallibility. The term infallibility was coined much later. But since the time of Clement of Rome, there was already an understanding that the pope and the Church could not err on faith and morals.
Francis understood this and he also understood that along with the gift of infallibility came the gift to govern that is given to every bishop. He brings the two together to formulate his command that we obey without questions and that those who do not obey without questions must be corrected, put on trial, if necessary dismissed and excommunicated.
This was put to the test after Francis died. The Superior General made some changes. He was charged with violating Francis’ will. The General Chapter gathered and the brothers voted to dismiss him from the order and to petition Rome for excommunication and execution for heresy. It is heresy to dispute Francis. The pope excommunicated, but did not burn the poor man.
He later recanted, was received back into the Church. However, he was not received back into the Franciscan Order. His vows had been declared null and void. He was also a priest and the General Chapter declared that he was unfit for ministry so he remained suspended until he died. He lived a very holy life as a penitent. He went through the cities confessing his disobedience of the pope and of Francis.
We obey the pope and the bishops, because Francis commands it. It’s important to understand why he commands it. He was convinced that the pope could not err in matters of faith and morals and that all bishops have the right to govern, even in matters that are not about faith and morals. This came from Act 4.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Jane_of_Arc
Guest
Very Good post. the Infallibility & primacy of Peter & his successors has been believed since the beginning. It wasn’t until someone questioned it (or verified it) that it became neccesary to proclaim it as doctrine.It’s been the same with many articles of the faith. The perpetual virginity of Mary, though believed in for centuries, wasn’t defined under anathema until the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
kjkjkjkjkj
C
Cristiano
Guest
Would you please elaborate a little bit more about the comment that “it is heresy to dispute Francis”. I do not understand which logical/informed path I need to follow to reach that conclusion. Sometimes I can be thick and I do not get it.
L
LexusGs350
Guest
Papal infallibility was defined in 1870,just like The Title “Mother of God” was defined in 431, The 2 Natures of Christ in One Divine person was defined in 451 ETC… every Dogma of The Catholic Church is Biblical.
St.Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that THY FAITH FAIL NOT: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
The Pope cannot err when speaking on a Doctrine that binds The ENTIRE Church or on Faith or Morals.
“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” Pope Agatho,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople(A.D. 680)
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it… The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain, nor blemish, nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus(A.D. 382)
Papal Infallibility happened at The Council of Chalcedon in 451 because Pope Leo was proclaiming a doctrine that would bind the ENTIRE Church. Pope Leo could not err when speaking about the 2 Natures of Christ in One Divine Person.
The Pope’s letter was read to the assemblage of bishops, and they cried with one voice: “Peter has spoken by Leo; let him be anathema who believes otherwise!”
The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. And it was also believed in the early Church, as we see here. It was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
St.Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that THY FAITH FAIL NOT: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
The Pope cannot err when speaking on a Doctrine that binds The ENTIRE Church or on Faith or Morals.
“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has NEVER turned away from the path of truth in ANY direction of ERROR, whose AUTHORITY, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” Pope Agatho,To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople(A.D. 680)
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it… The First See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain, nor blemish, nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus(A.D. 382)
Papal Infallibility happened at The Council of Chalcedon in 451 because Pope Leo was proclaiming a doctrine that would bind the ENTIRE Church. Pope Leo could not err when speaking about the 2 Natures of Christ in One Divine Person.
The Pope’s letter was read to the assemblage of bishops, and they cried with one voice: “Peter has spoken by Leo; let him be anathema who believes otherwise!”
The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. And it was also believed in the early Church, as we see here. It was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Thanks Lexus,
How is one to know if what a Pope is writing or saying is infallible. I know that Popes have spoken incorrectly, I know now there are a lot of opinions expressed by our dear Pope and God bless him I do not agree - I know they are not from the Seat of Peter. But again, how does one know if something is infallible; e.g., does it say, “this is infallible what follows…”?
J
JReducation
Guest
In his Testament, Francis decreed that the rule had been revealed by Christ himself and that no human hand played any part in its creation. He also decreed that the brothers were to obey him without question and he vowed to obey the bishops and the pope without question. The chain of command from top to bottom is Pope - Francis - General Chapter - Superior General - Regional Superior - Local Superior.Would you please elaborate a little bit more about the comment that “it is heresy to dispute Francis”. I do not understand which logical/informed path I need to follow to reach that conclusion. Sometimes I can be thick and I do not get it.
When a brother in solemn vows, ordained or not, disobeys Francis, he’s disobeying a private revelation that the Church has approved and sealed with a Papal Bull. The Franciscan Rule is the only religious rule that claims to be of direct revelation from Christ. Pope Honorius accepted it as such and sealed it so that it can never be changed except by another pope. Francis’ successors may never touch the rule. Elias did just that.
They can add a constitution with amendments to address things that are not addressed in the rule, but that which is in the rule may not be changed.
When Brother Elias disagreed with Francis’ statement on poverty, even though Brother Elias was the Superior General, a priest and a theologian, Pope Gregory IX charged him with heresy, because what Francis had written was safeguarded by the papacy itself. No Franciscan may ever dissent from what Francis has commanded without the permission of the pope.
We have to understand the circumstances here. Pope Gregory IX had been the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscans. He was also a Secular Franciscan himself. He knew the rule and he knew the mind of Francis. It was he who advocated before Pope Honorius to approve the Franciscan Rule without mitigation. It was he who bypassed the entire college of cardinals and even the Franciscan general chapter to canonize Francis and Anthony of Padua without a process of investigation. His only response was, “They were my friends. No one better than I knows of their sanctity. I don’t need proof of the alleged miracles. I believe they are true.”
He did not declare them venerable or blessed. He canonized Francis 18 months after his death and Anthony 11 months after his death. A canonization is an infallible statement from the Chair of Peter.
Given Pope Gregory’s knowledge of the mind of Francis and his belief that the Franciscan rule was truly of divine inspiration, it is understandable why he would consider any opposition a heresy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BrunoMaria
Guest
One must know, as Catholic doctrine in RCC describes, that the Papal Infallibility is limited on divine Revelation only. Meaning; Church doctrine clarifies passages of the Gospel for us, that might have been misinterpret or misunderstood before; though it was for 2000 years unalterable fixed in the Bible.
One really also ought to internalize, that not only the Holy Scriptures, but also and even mainly so, Jesus foundation - his Roman Catholic Church from the beginning on was and is pervaded by the God - by the Holy Spirit, and so, not at all as skeptics presume - man-made and so matter of human arbitrariness and discretionary. It’s not! It’s not even then, when at times in history the smoke of Satan penetrated the walls of our church. (Pope Paul V.)
Now, if the Pope says - tomorrow will be rain, this prediction definitely not subject of Papal Infallibility, but his private opinion. But if the Pope says - and all these dogmas must be in agreement of all Cardinals and Bishops - Holy Mary ascended to heaven with her body, then it’s an infallible dogma of the RCC Church. This however of course is not a statement of the Gospel, but it certainly lays in the alignment of the Holy Gospel and is to a real believer absolutely clear anyhow.
Let’s finally have a look at the Catechism:
RCC 2035: The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.
Yours
Bruno
One really also ought to internalize, that not only the Holy Scriptures, but also and even mainly so, Jesus foundation - his Roman Catholic Church from the beginning on was and is pervaded by the God - by the Holy Spirit, and so, not at all as skeptics presume - man-made and so matter of human arbitrariness and discretionary. It’s not! It’s not even then, when at times in history the smoke of Satan penetrated the walls of our church. (Pope Paul V.)
Now, if the Pope says - tomorrow will be rain, this prediction definitely not subject of Papal Infallibility, but his private opinion. But if the Pope says - and all these dogmas must be in agreement of all Cardinals and Bishops - Holy Mary ascended to heaven with her body, then it’s an infallible dogma of the RCC Church. This however of course is not a statement of the Gospel, but it certainly lays in the alignment of the Holy Gospel and is to a real believer absolutely clear anyhow.
Let’s finally have a look at the Catechism:
RCC 2035: The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.
Yours
Bruno
- Status