Ineffabilis Deus infallible?

[Good_Fella]

You say “obviously” and then go on to say why it was not so obvious. Meeting a criteria that did not exist would be meaningless to Catholics of that day who did not have any such criteria.

Thank you for the answer, though. That is what I was asking.

Haven’t you paid attention to my first reply? The Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ does meet all five criteria, so these criteria must have already existed in the mind of the Church before Vatican 1. In retrospect the Council examined previous infallible papal pronouncements with which to officially establish the set of criteria for an infallible papal teaching. Pope Pius lX was clearly recognized as the supreme apostolic authority of the Church. (See “The Mind of the Bishops” again.)

Indeed, papal infallibilty was first proclaimed as dogma (divinely revealed truth) by Vatican 1 Council in 1870, though the concept itself was held by the Catholic Church long before the 19th century, perhaps as early as A.D. 90 with Clement of Rome, our traditional third Pope.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Atemi]

Haven’t you paid attention to my first reply? The Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ does meet all five criteria, so these criteria must have already existed in the mind of the Church before Vatican 1.

The “mind of the Church” is such a meaningless and ethereal concept as to not even be entertained here. You speak of a criteria that did not exist, nor can the use of such be cited elsewhere, nor were any Catholics obliged to believe in such things.

We are talking about what Catholics believed of that pronouncement in that day.

In retrospect the Council examined previous infallible papal pronouncements with which to officially establish the set of criteria for an infallible papal teaching.

Another Catholic just told me that Ineffabilis Deus was the first such pronouncement in almost 2000 years of church history.

This is exactly the state of things I am addressing in this thread…except taking it back to the mind of the Catholic back in the 1800s.

If Catholics today cannot recognize what were and were not infallible pronouncements, how did Catholics do so when Vatican I and the late coming dogma did not even exist?

Pope Pius lX was clearly recognized as the supreme apostolic authority of the Church. (See “The Mind of the Bishops” again.)

Agreed, but infallibility and authority are two very different things.

Indeed, papal infallibilty was first proclaimed as dogma (divinely revealed truth) by Vatican 1 Council in 1870, though the concept itself was held by the Catholic Church long before the 19th century, perhaps as early as A.D. 90 with Clement of Rome, our traditional third Pope.

“Held by the Catholic Church” yet not believed and taught by Catholics and bishops is another ethereal claim that cannot even begin to be verified.

In any event, you gave me the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

…

 

[Mannyfit75]

The “mind of the Church” is such a meaningless and ethereal concept as to not even be entertained here. You speak of a criteria that did not exist, nor can the use of such be cited elsewhere, nor were any Catholics obliged to believe in such things.

Catholics are require to believe because that was been taught by the Church. It is part of Divine Revelations. You can’t pick and choose beliefs, my friend. You either believe them or not.

We are talking about what Catholics believed of that pronouncement in that day.

Another Catholic just told me that Ineffabilis Deus was the first such pronouncement in almost 2000 years of church history.

This is exactly the state of things I am addressing in this thread…except taking it back to the mind of the Catholic back in the 1800s.

It was already believed. The Writings of the Early Church Father attest to this as fact.

“He was the** ark formed of incorruptible wood**. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let** woman praise Her, the pure Mary**.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary,** a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin**.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As** he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” **Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

 

[DCD]

And you did clarify it. Thank you. You are correct.

I will say that you have earned your nick in this one.

By whom?

It was not binding on any Catholics to believe the pope was infallible at any time, as can be seen with the results of Vatican I.

That cannot be possible as it took a Council to agree on such criteria…and many even abstained from even voting.

If such thought on papal infallibility was commonly understood by the average Catholic, then we would not have had such resistance or passivity of the bishops in Council.

Ahhhh.

First infallible declaration in 2000 years?

How did any Catholics believe the popes were infallible if they never even used such powers since Christ?

They surely could never point to any such instances.

In actuality, no Catholic knows what was the first infallible pronouncement as can be seen by the constant disagreement about how many there really were to date. The RCC unfortunately prefers to leave it this way.

…

Atemi,

“How did any Catholics believe the popes were infallible if they never even used such powers since Christ?”

The charisma comes immediately from Christ, not from the number of conciliar decrees being pronounced from Rome.

Peace,
David

 

[rwoehmke]

Many of the Bishops who either did not vote or voted no accepted and believed the Pope was infallible under certain circumstances, but sincerely believed that it was not a prudent time to be making such a declaration. I cannot remember why they thought this but as I recall that was the case. I do know the Council was cut short because war was impending.

 

[Atemi]

“How did any Catholics believe the popes were infallible if they never even used such powers since Christ?”

The charisma comes immediately from Christ, not from the number of conciliar decrees being pronounced from Rome.

Thanks for responding on that note, but you did not even begin to answer the question.

…

 

[Good_Fella]

The “mind of the Church” is such a meaningless and ethereal concept as to not even be entertained here. You speak of a criteria that did not exist, nor can the use of such be cited elsewhere, nor were any Catholics obliged to believe in such things.

We are talking about what Catholics believed of that pronouncement in that day.

Another Catholic just told me that Ineffabilis Deus was the first such pronouncement in almost 2000 years of church history.

If Catholics today cannot recognize what were and were not infallible pronouncements, how did Catholics do so when Vatican I and the late coming dogma did not even exist?

Agreed, but infallibility and authority are two very different things.

“Held by the Catholic Church” yet not believed and taught by Catholics and bishops is another ethereal claim that cannot even begin to be verified.
…

The criteria establishing an ‘ex cathedra’ declaration by the pope had already existed before they definitively formed part of the dogmatic declaration on papal infallibilty. Several papal pronouncements since the 5th century were “believed” to be infallible before 1870. One reason why the Eeastern Catholic Church (Orthodox) split from the Western Church in the 11th century was because the Catholics in the East rejected the the doctrine of the infallibilty of the Bishop of Rome. Further, the “constant mind of the faithful” (sensus fidelium) is not so ethereal as you wish it to be. In 1476, Pope Sixtus lV established the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8 in response to the constant and unified belief of the faithful (clergy and laity) since early Church times as expressed by the Church Fathers. For the same reason, Pope Pius lX responded to the belief and wishes of the faithful to dogmatically declare the Immaculate Conception a revealed divine truth contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith: Scripture and Tradition. “The Mind of the Bishops” in ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ clearly shows the Church had already believed in the supreme infallible teaching authority of the pope before Vaitican 1. It is because of this long-standing belief that the Council dogmatically declared papal infallibilty a divinely revealed truth. Hence, Catholics knew that the third Marian dogma of 1854 was binding, requiring a “sacred assent” among the faithful. The Church called Pius lX to make it so. (Please see the 5th criterion that was met in his Apostolic Constitution, as I showed above.) Papal infallibilty means the Church allows the divine office of the pope to be the ruling force in deciding what will be accepted as formal and required beliefs in the Church.

Catholic theologian and Church historian Klaus Schatz provided a list of documents which consist of infallible papal pronouncements made before Vatican 1: “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo l (A.D.449); Letter of Pope Agatho ‘Benedictus Deus’, Pope Benedict Xll ( 1336 ); ‘Cum occasione’, Pope Innocent X (1653); ‘Auctorem fidei’, Pope Pius Vl ( 1794); ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, Pius lX ( 1854 ). Your Catholic friend was mistaken about ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ being the first infallible papal declaration made outside of a Church ecumenical council.

What Catholics are you speaking of? Dissenting theologians like Hans Kung? Theologians (including the pope) who engage in private theological speculations do not officially represent the position of the entire Church. Such engagements are purely private and fallible. What infallible pronouncements haven’t Catholics recognized, may I ask? The Immaculate Conception was unanimously accepted by Catholics around the world at the moment of its dogmatic declaration. And Catholics were aware that this dogma, as all dogmas, including the Trinity and the Eucharist, was a required belief .

All Catholic doctrines have gradually evolved over time. Christian beliefs have not arisen instantly since Pentecost. The doctrine of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, like other Church teachings and institutions, is no exception. Clear indications of the primacy of the Roman Bishops and of the recognition of this primacy by the other churches and patriarchates appear as early as the end of the first century. (See letters of Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria) Many of the Church Fathers spoke of ecumenical councils and the supreme apostolic teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome. The concept of infallibilty wasn’t systematically treated by theologians until the Middle Ages, but it was evidently held by the Western Church since by the 5th century. Thomas Aquinas and John Peter Olivi treated the infallibilty of the pope in matters of faith and morals in theological works of theirs. Papal infallibilty was not a 19th century Church invention.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Tomster]

When Pius IX pronounced the Immaculate Conception in 1854, did the Catholics of the day, along with Catholic leadership, recognize this pronouncemnet to be infallible…or did they believe that they had the option to disregard it since it was not the product of a Council?

Was it recognized to be a fallible or infallible pronouncement at the time?

Any explanation of why would be helpful. Thank you.

…

Yes, they recognized the pronouncement to be infallible. On February 2, 1849, the Pope issued the Encyclical Ubi primum, in which he informed the Bishops of his intention, asking them to call for prayers. The Bishops were to let the Pope know what the feeling was among their clergy and people with regard to the conception of Mary, whether a papal decision was desired by them, and above all what the Bishop’s own personal opinion was.

The result was staggering: of the 603 answers received, five were against a dogmatic definition, twenty-four doubted its opportuneness, ten voted blank, and about the same number did not like the idea of such a pronouncement because it would make heretics of those who thought differently. Thus more than nine-tenths, i.e. 546 Bishops voted for a dogmatic definition. Many of these were fully alive to the fact that a definition might give rise to attacks and accusations from the opposing side (just as has happened in our own days over the question of Mary’s mediation), but they were convinced that “one should not let oneself be held back by these incidental minor inconveniences.” The Bishop of Malines did suggest that because of this the Tradition should be exposed in the papal decree itself, so that it might be made easier for the defenders to find material for their replies.

 

[Atemi]

Yes, they recognized the pronouncement to be infallible.

Thank you. That was my question.

Since no Catholic was obligated to believe that the Pope was infallible at any time before Vatican I, how is it that they somehow all recognized it as infallible?

On February 2, 1849, the Pope issued the Encyclical Ubi primum, in which he informed the Bishops of his intention, asking them to call for prayers. The Bishops were to let the Pope know what the feeling was among their clergy and people with regard to the conception of Mary, whether a papal decision was desired by them, and above all what the Bishop’s own personal opinion was.

Well bishops are only supposedly protected from error in Council, not by informal poll.

Can you cite another incident in the past where bishops were merely informally polled to define a dogma?

…

 

[Tomster]

Thank you. That was my question.

Since no Catholic was obligated to believe that the Pope was infallible at any time before Vatican I, how is it that they somehow all recognized it as infallible?

Well bishops are only supposedly protected from error in Council, not by informal poll.

Can you cite another incident in the past where bishops were merely informally polled to define a dogma?

…

First of all, re-read post #6. Secondly, Pius IX did not even have to ask the Bishops for their (name removed by moderator)ut. He could have just declared the Immaculate Conception a dogma and that would have been the end of it. But, since he did “poll” the bishops that fact in itself did not make the “poll” infallible. Pius IX could have rejected the poll, sat on it for a while or promulgated it immediately. The fact is that the decision to promulgate the definition was Pius IX’s alone. All the Bishops of the world could have been 100% in agreement with the idea of the Immaculate Conception, but if Pius IX did not “sign off” on it - NO DOGMA! And this was before Pastor Aeternus was promulgated.

On a much more wider scope, for lack of a better way of putting it right now, the dogma of The Immaculate Conception can be traced back through the Old Testament and up to the present day.

One interesting point you might want to examine in the developement of the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception is to go back and look at the Council of Nicea bearing in mind what the Church has defined regarding the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness.

Another historical reference for you would to be to examine the works of Cardinals Henry E. Manning and John Henry Newman in regards to the promulgation of papal infallibility at Vatican I. Its a fascinating history which I am sure will help you clarify and answer a lot of your questions.

More later, if you wish.

 

[Genesis315]

The dogma of the Imamculate Conception, contrary to popular opinion was not the first exercise of papal infallibility. Here are some chapters from St. Francis de Sales apologetics work on the papacy in the 1600s. He argues the necessity of papal infallibility, saying it has been used many times. It seems to me as if the Vatican Council I took a lot from this work in coming to their definition:

%between%
**CHAPTER XIII.
IN HOW GREAT ESTEEM THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE OUGHT TO BE HELD **
**CHAPTER XIV.
HOW THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THIS AUTHORITY **

Here’s a passage from the last chapter:

"Thus we say that we must appeal to him not as to a learned man, for in this he is ordinarily surpassed by some others, but as to the general head and pastor of the Church and as such we must honour, follow, and firmly embrace his doctrine, for then he carries on his breast the *Urim * and Thummim, doctrine and truth. And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err *extra cathedram, *outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example. But he cannot err when he is *in cathedra *, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith.

 

[Genesis315]

Also, the official relator at the Council, responded thusly when some bishops wanted to make the formula very strict (they wanted the definition to say the pope had to pray about, use the same words “declare, define, etc.” and other technicalities):

“But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?”