How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[jinc1019]

I think Tim’s post was very good. It also helps to delve into the Greek of Luke 22. *Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your (singular) brethren.”*Where the Apostles corporately have infallibility (as Orthodoxy stresses in their own words, and as Catholics also teach of the Magisterium), Peter has this special guidance on matters of faith from Christ. This is not unique to God’s plan. Even the high priest of the Old Covenant received a similar special charism by virtue of his office. John 11:49-51 But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nationNow if the high priest of the Old Covenant should have such a charism as part of his office, how much more should the highest minister of the New Covenant? NT types are always superior to their OT antitypes. If Peter doesn’t have such a special charism of the Spirit, then he’d be inferior to the OT high priest and we would violate the basic principle of typology in Scripture.

On the issue of the apostles having infallible “corporately,” I think it’s important to note that Matt. 18 says pretty clearly that anytime 2 of the apostles teach in the name of Jesus, they do so with infallibility.

 

[jinc1019]

Therefore, I think your comment that apostles have infallibility together a group rather than infallibly, seems to conflict with Matt. 18.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Good points, but as I said before, the “binding and loosing” was promised to the other apostles as well. The keys to the kingdom could be about authority, but to say it is a statement of infallibility and then to say binding and loosing is not when applied to the other apostles is getting into dangerous waters. If “binding and loosing” applies to Peter, then it should apply to the rest as well.

It appears that the power of the keys, binding and loosing, is related to the sacrament of reconciliation per the Catechism, and not infallibility.

So scratch that approach!

It would seem that the teaching regarding the charism of infallibility resides moreso in Holy Tradition than Scripture, though one might argue that it is somewhat implied in Scripture by virtue of Paul’s condemnation of dissent and sedition. After all, how would dissenting to false dogmas be a sin?

In other words, if you are trying to ‘prove infallibility’ to a Protestant, don’t even worry about it. The Catholic faith is not bound to Scripture alone. Focus instead on the implicit necessity of infallibility by pointing out the fact that without the Church’s decree, they would not know what Scripture is and is not.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Therefore, I think your comment that apostles have infallibility together a group rather than infallibly, seems to conflict with Matt. 18.

I’m not quite following your sentence or conclusion there, but I take 2 or 3 more to suggest a plurality, a corporate pedigree. If it’s a local disciplinary issue, like the preceding context of Matthew 18, then maybe the local priest and bishop. But if it’s a doctrinal issue of the whole Church, then a council is in order.

If Matt. 18 literally meant 2+ with regard to doctrine, then Acts 15 would have a problem, since both sides had 2+ persons arguing for their position on a doctrine. Any group of 2 bishops could make doctrine for the whole Church, but of course, neither the Orthodox, nor Catholics teach that.

Anyway, so we agree on Peter’s unique infallibility then? You didn’t reply to any of that in the previous post.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree…but my point still remains. If the Catholic Church has infallibility because of the passages in Mat. 16, then the other apostles also have infallibility, and their successors as well, because of Mat. 18.

I would say that because of Matt 16 the Church has infallibility. Matt 18 is not an infallibility text. Church infallibility is concerned with teaching, nothing more. The Magisterium of the Church is all of the Bishops (originally the Apostles.) It is their teaching with one voice that is infallible. The Pope alone can also speak (teach) infallibly. The doctrine of infallibility was defined by Tradition explicitly, but is based on Church infallibility.

 

[CMatt25]

They did have access… they were in communion with the one holding them.

That sounds like you’re saying the others weren’t also truly given the power to bind and loosen the lock as it reads they were in Matt 18 unless they borrowed the keys from Peter.

 

[jinc1019]

It appears that the power of the keys, binding and loosing, is related to the sacrament of reconciliation per the Catechism, and not infallibility.

So scratch that approach!

It would seem that the teaching regarding the charism of infallibility resides moreso in Holy Tradition than Scripture, though one might argue that it is somewhat implied in Scripture by virtue of Paul’s condemnation of dissent and sedition. After all, how would dissenting to false dogmas be a sin?

In other words, if you are trying to ‘prove infallibility’ to a Protestant, don’t even worry about it. The Catholic faith is not bound to Scripture alone. Focus instead on the implicit necessity of infallibility by pointing out the fact that without the Church’s decree, they would not know what Scripture is and is not.

I am not only referring to the “binding and loosing” in Mathew 18. I am also referring to the passage that essentially says they have infallibility that is, I believe, right after it. Jesus says that when 2 or 3 of them speak in His name, that He will be with them…Mathew 18 clearly grants infallibility to the apostles.

 

[jinc1019]

That sounds like you’re saying the others weren’t also truly given the power to bind and loosen the lock as it reads they were in Matt 18 unless they borrowed the keys from Peter.

100% agree with this.

 

[jinc1019]

I would say that because of Matt 16 the Church has infallibility. Matt 18 is not an infallibility text. Church infallibility is concerned with teaching, nothing more. The Magisterium of the Church is all of the Bishops (originally the Apostles.) It is their teaching with one voice that is infallible. The Pope alone can also speak (teach) infallibly. The doctrine of infallibility was defined by Tradition explicitly, but is based on Church infallibility.

I am sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. Mathew 18 spells it out very clearly:
"15 “If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”**

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not quite following your sentence or conclusion there, but I take 2 or 3 more to suggest a plurality, a corporate pedigree. If it’s a local disciplinary issue, like the preceding context of Matthew 18, then maybe the local priest and bishop. But if it’s a doctrinal issue of the whole Church, then a council is in order.

If Matt. 18 literally meant 2+ with regard to doctrine, then Acts 15 would have a problem, since both sides had 2+ persons arguing for their position on a doctrine. Any group of 2 bishops could make doctrine for the whole Church, but of course, neither the Orthodox, nor Catholics teach that.

Anyway, so we agree on Peter’s unique infallibility then? You didn’t reply to any of that in the previous post.

I am not sure Acts 15 really points out a division between multiple apostles. Further, Peter’s pronouncement has little to do with his position and is really a result of God speaking through Peter earlier in Acts, when Peter has a vision (Acts 10)…I don’t think Peter made the decision he did because he was an apostle, I think he made the decision because he believes God told him to do so through his vision.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not quite following your sentence or conclusion there, but I take 2 or 3 more to suggest a plurality, a corporate pedigree. If it’s a local disciplinary issue, like the preceding context of Matthew 18, then maybe the local priest and bishop. But if it’s a doctrinal issue of the whole Church, then a council is in order.

If Matt. 18 literally meant 2+ with regard to doctrine, then Acts 15 would have a problem, since both sides had 2+ persons arguing for their position on a doctrine. Any group of 2 bishops could make doctrine for the whole Church, but of course, neither the Orthodox, nor Catholics teach that.

Anyway, so we agree on Peter’s unique infallibility then? You didn’t reply to any of that in the previous post.

Also, to answer your question, I do not think the Bible says Peter has unique infallibilty, quite the opposite actually as I have clearly stated many times before. The other apostles have infallibility as well according to the Bible.

 

[James224]

I understand the promises made to Peter in Mathew 16 and to the apostles as a whole in Mathew 18, but what I would like someone to explain is the Church teaching behind this concept: When Jesus tells the apostles he will send the Holy Spirit down to them and prevent them from saying untruths and essentially make them unfallible, how do we know He intended that to be passed down through apostolic succession? Protestants argue He was just talking to the apostles alone and not to the Church itself…So how does the Church react to this? I know Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that doesn’t promise infallibility necessarily. There has to be a better argument than just that. Help on this would be much appreciated!

I Cor 4:16-17 “ Wherefore, I beseech you , be ye followers of me, as I am also of Christ. For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful to the Lord; who will put you in mind of my ways, which are in Christ Jesus; as I teach everywhere in every church.” Timothy teaches the same as Paul. Timothy passed on the same faith. How? Orally. Timothy’s faith was binding. (answer to Prot: I Cor 14:37)
I Tim 4:14 “ Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” Timothy received the grace for this ministry through Orders – Must receive this sacrament.
Heb 13:17 “ Obey your prelates, and be subject to them…” Paul writes this verse to those who were under the successors to the Apostles – Not the Apostles themselves.
Heb 13:7 “ Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you…”

II Thess 2:1-12 V2-3 “ That you be not easily moved from your sense…nor be terrified neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us…Let no man deceive you by any means for unless there come a revolt first…” Do not be deceived by false teachers. The “Revolt” spoken of here is the revolt against the true church. The way not to be deceived is to hold to “Both” Traditions.
I Pet 1:25 “ But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word by which the gospel hath been preached unto you.” “Oral” word of God lasts forever – not just until the Apostles die. (Remember that 9 of the Apostles wrote nothing in the New Testament. They started churches and orally preached.)

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Also, to answer your question, I do not think the Bible says Peter has unique infallibilty, quite the opposite actually as I have clearly stated many times before. The other apostles have infallibility as well according to the Bible.

I realize I’ve said this before, but Mathew 18:18, the verse you cite for this idea, is not referring to doctrinal infallibility.. It is referring to the authority of the individual apostles (or small groups thereof), and by extension the bishops, and this authority is not small. You can tell it is referring to authority over people and sin and such and not infallibility (which is not authority over truth, but the ability to discern the truth without error) because the passage begins by referring to matters of discipline, then says that God will make their decisions happen.

That is, this verse says “Apostles decide something, then God makes it happen.” For example, “Apostles say a sin is forgiven, so God forgives the sin.” The authority to bind and loose is this sort of thing. You don’t bind and loose truth, truth is already fixed. Binding and loosing refers to, essentially, forgiving sins and telling people what to do.

Infallibility works the other way around: “Reality is X, so God guides the Apostles’ discernment so that they figure this out.” It is not that after one of our Popes made an infallible statement about Mary’s sinlessness that God then made it so that Mary was sinless (which is the order of things that your verse uses) but that Mary was sinless so God guided the Church into saying so.

 

[thistle]

Haydock Commentary on loosing and binding in Matt 16:19

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. — And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) — Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) — Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c.** The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) **— The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signify ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."

 

[jinc1019]

I realize I’ve said this before, but Mathew 18:18, the verse you cite for this idea, is not referring to doctrinal infallibility.. It is referring to the authority of the individual apostles (or small groups thereof), and by extension the bishops, and this authority is not small. You can tell it is referring to authority over people and sin and such and not infallibility (which is not authority over truth, but the ability to discern the truth without error) because the passage begins by referring to matters of discipline, then says that God will make their decisions happen.

That is, this verse says “Apostles decide something, then God makes it happen.” For example, “Apostles say a sin is forgiven, so God forgives the sin.” The authority to bind and loose is this sort of thing. You don’t bind and loose truth, truth is already fixed. Binding and loosing refers to, essentially, forgiving sins and telling people what to do.

Infallibility works the other way around: “Reality is X, so God guides the Apostles’ discernment so that they figure this out.” It is not that after one of our Popes made an infallible statement about Mary’s sinlessness that God then made it so that Mary was sinless (which is the order of things that your verse uses) but that Mary was sinless so God guided the Church into saying so.

First of all, I don’t totally disagree with what you are saying. I do agree that truth is the truth and that this passage is not giving the apostles the right to remake truth, which of course is impossible anyway.

Second, I totally disagree with everything else you said. This passage is about infallibility, ESPECIALLY when you put it in context. The whole point of infallibility is that whoever has it, has the ability to determine what truth is, not to change truth…This passage is Jesus saying to the apostles, “Look apostles, you can trust the decisions you make when teaching about me because I am going to make sure you don’t screw it up.” This is about infallibility, plain and simple.

Third, you keep brining up “binding and loosing,” and in your comments about that, you may very well be right. Even if you take the binding and loosing out of the infallibility argument, this passage is still clearly about infallibility. As I mentioned before many times, this passage in Mathew 18 is about Jesus telling the apostles they have the authority and the Holy Spirit behind them to determine what the truth is. He is not entrusting them to make those decisions, Jesus is telling them He will guide them in what they say so they never err, so long as at least two of them agree.

 

[jinc1019]

Haydock Commentary on loosing and binding in Matt 16:19

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. — And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power. (Witham) — Loose on earth. The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence: the power of which is here granted. (Challoner) — Although Peter and his successors are mortal, they are nevertheless endowed with heavenly power, says St. Chrysostom, nor is the sentence of life and death passed by Peter to be attempted to be reversed, but what he declares is to be considered a divine answer from heaven, and what he decrees, a decree of God himself. He that heareth you, heareth me, &c.** The power of binding is exercised, 1st. by refusing to absolve; 2nd. by enjoining penance for sins forgiven; 3nd. by excommunication, suspension or interdict; 4th. by making rules and laws for the government of the Church; 5th. by determining what is of faith by the judgments and definitions of the Church. (Tirinus) **— The terms binding and loosing, are equivalent to opening and shutting, because formerly the Jews opened the fastenings of their doors by untying it, and they shut or secured their doors by tying or binding it. (Bible de Vence) — Dr. Whitby, a learned Protestant divine, thus expounds this and the preceding verse: “As a suitable return to thy confession, I say also to thee, that thou art by name Peter, i.e. a rock; and upon thee, who art this rock, I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of making laws to govern my Church.” (Tom. i, p. 143.) Dr. Hammond, another Protestant divine, explains it in the same manner. And p. 92, he says: " What is here meant by the keys, is best understand by Isaias xxii. 22, where they signify ruling the whole family or house of the king: and this being by Christ accommodated to the Church, denotes the power of governing it."

Thank you very much for inserting yourself into this debate and for brining up several great passages…I will first say that I am not disputing that Peter has been given the keys of the kingdom in the way you describe it; that could very well be the case. Of course, I can also argue that when Jesus said that, He didn’t mean it in the context you mean it. He meant you have the keys to the kingdom, meaning the truth (the only way to get into the kingdom) and that through you, all people will be able to enter the kingdom heaven (not because Peter can make the rules but because the very real truth about Jesus is understood by Peter alone at first. This would explain why Jesus says this IMMEDIATELY following Peter’s comments about who Jesus is). I am not saying this second interpretation is the right one, only that it can be made. I know you, and many Catholic scholars, use the passage in Isiah to say “This is what Jesus meant by keys,” but I don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense. Just because the term “keys” are used in an Old Testament passage one way does not mean it is meant to be used the same way centuries later. It could be Jesus was referencing this, but it is also possible He wasn’t. The point is, I don’t know the answer to it, but I can reasonably see other interpretations.

Back to the original point…I am not saying Peter doesn’t have the keys to the kingdom, only that infallibility was promised to both Peter and to the other apostles as well, which I believe is CLEARLY laid out in Mathew 18. Some here have argued that I am wrong about that, but I think Mathew 18 spells out infallibility even better than Mathew 16, when Jesus is talking to Peter alone.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

For what it’s worth, the first Vatican Council, in defining Papal Infallibility specifically cites Luke 22:32 as the Biblical text responsible for St. Peter’s promise of infallibility.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #75
The whole point of infallibility is that whoever has it, has the ability to determine what truth is

That is precisely why infallibility is conferred by Christ on St Peter and his successors as Christ’s Supreme Vicars, and is not transferable from the Apostles to any other bishops individually.

Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:
The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20).

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

Vatican I is explicit in a dogma in Pastor Aeternus – for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”]

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321). The teaching of Ecumenical Councils has to be approved by Christ’s Supreme Vicar and then encompasses therefore collegial infallibility.

 

[david_ruiz]

That is precisely why infallibility is conferred by Christ on St Peter and his successors as Christ’s Supreme Vicars, and is not transferable from the Apostles to any other bishops individually.

Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:
The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20).

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

Vatican I is explicit in a dogma in Pastor Aeternus – for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”]

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321). The teaching of Ecumenical Councils has to be approved by Christ’s Supreme Vicar and then encompasses therefore collegial infallibility.

That is the age old polished CC “response”. Thank-you .Of course their is the aged old polished rebuttal also, point by point. Hence, the aged old original question of this thread.

 

[Abu]

The inanity of feeling that Christ gave bishops infallibility as individuals is so preposterous given the evident fallibility of bishops through the ages, it beggars belief that it would now be concocted.

Infallibility is possessed only by the popes as given by Christ and Ecumenical Councils approved by popes when defining faith and morals (post #78). There is no possible reasonable, faithful, and true objection to Christ as He established His Church with His Supreme Vicar.