Infallibility Question

[Gueranger]

Would it be possible for the Church in a Council, or for the Pope, to define as a dogma a teaching which was not held by the majority of the Church Fathers, or even contradicted the views of many/most of them? Or something they never even considered? I’m having trouble coming up with good “what-ifs” for examples. Please forgive my rather strange example below.

Could the Pope define dogmatically that the ‘seemingly’ gibberish language in Catholic-Charismatic prayer gatherings is authentically a gift of the Holy Spirit? For instance;

“We solemnly teach, declare, and define, that when Catholics are gathered in a meeting approved by their legitimate Bishop, for the purpose of speaking in tongues, that the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself in tongues not recognizable as any human speech, but in angelic tongues which are interpreted by one authorized by the Bishop to do so.”

I’m not asking if that is a reasonable dogma, or if tongues are authentic or not. I’m asking if something so apparently out of left field, and not universally held in the past could be defined.

And I apologize if that was offensive to any charismatics that’s not my intention, its just the best example I could come up with for my sort of strange question.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Would it be possible for the Church in a Council, or for the Pope, to define as a dogma a teaching which was not held by the majority of the Church Fathers, or even contradicted the views of many/most of them?

I can do you one better than that. There is a dogma of the Catholic Church, which is accepted by the West, and apparently by the East (though I still intend to explore this aspect on the Eastern forum), which was absolutely OPPOSED by EVERY SINGLE Early Church Father to write about the subject (including my favorite ECF, St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was nicknamed “the African Pope” due to his considerable influence, and you largely have Cyprian to thank for defining the Canon of the New Testament, as he was the first Bishop and theologian to propose the list of New Testament books that appear in your Catholic (or protestant) Bible.

This doctrine was proclaimed by a single Pope (Pope St. Stephen-1). As far as we can determine, he was the FIRST person (not the first Pope, but the first person) in the Catholic Church to proclaim this doctrine, and he went against each and every Early Father on record in doing so.

After Pope St. Stephen proclaimed this doctrine, most opposition ceased. Cyprian (who had written prolifically and passionately against it) fell silent on the issue. The only continuing opposition was directed at Pope Stephen himself (mainly by Firmillian). Soon thereafter, all opposition ceased, and the unanimous consensus of every subsequent Early Father was in support of this doctrine, and there was no subsequent dissent (in either East or West).

Pope St. Stephen taught during his very early reign, sometime between 251 and 257 AD. He taught and reigned long before it was even “legal” to be the Pope of the Church (during his reign, being Pope was a capital crime in the Roman Empire, and would remain such until the Edict of Milan in 312 AD).

So I suppose I ought to mention the specific doctrine that Pope St. Stephen taught. He taught that Baptism by heretics (who possessed valid intent and used the Trinitarian form) was valid. The Catholic Church continues to teach this today, and fully accepts most protestant Baptisms as valid.

Before St. Stephen taught about this, St. Cyprian would not even use the word “baptism” in the context of heretic Baptism. He referred to those who were “made wet” by heretics. I think that’s funny. Cyprian shut up after Stephen’s teaching, though his friend and ally, Firmillian, continued to run his mouth (and pen), but quickly found himself among the minority in terms of theological opinion.

So, yeah, the Early Church Fathers are a great resource, but they are not actually part of the official Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church, and a single Pope can completely blow away all opposition.

 

[JerryZ]

WOW :clapping:

Thanks, you can always learn something new.

Even if it is actually very OLD

Peace

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks, you can always learn something new.

Even if it is actually very OLD

I find that such things are the best “new” things to learn. I was Baptized in a protestant church (Episcopal), and my wife was Baptized in a protestant church (Baptist), but, after a few perfunctory questions, there was no question about the validity of our Baptisms when we both converted to the Catholic Faith. Neither of us underwent any sort of “conditional Baptism” which is common when a person “thinks” he was Baptized, or cannot recall the circumstances. The Church fully accepted our protestant Baptisms.

St. Cyprian would have done backflips. St. Stephen said it is OK. But, although St. Cyprian was nicknamed “the African Pope,” he was not actually the Pope. St. Stephen was actually the Pope.

My wife and I both know full well who won that disagreement.

 

[hazcompat]

Saint Optatus writes in 374 A.D. The influence of St. Cyprian being evident, and the dogma confirmed.

THE WORK OF
ST. OPTATUS THE AFRICAN
BISHOP OF MILEVIS
ON THE SCHISM OF THE DONATISTS
AGAINST PARMENIAN

They therefore are without doubt brothers, though not good brothers. Wherefore let no one marvel that I term those brothers, who are unable to escape being our brethren. 5 They and we have one spiritual birth

5 They could not escape this, because by Baptism they had become Sons of God, and therefore brethren of all the brothers of Christ.

Saint Augustine quotes St. Optatus frequently.

Peace

 

[cheezey]

WOW :clapping:

Thanks, you can always learn something new.

Even if it is actually very OLD

Peace

I second this! thank you. It makes me think of a question I’d like to ask on another thread. I just don’t know how to ask it yet.
Thank you!

 

[Gueranger]

While this is the type of example I would be interested in, I don’t think its accurate to say that Pope St. Stephen was alone in this teaching. Certainly St. Cyprian and Firmillian opposed him, but did the whole Church? Was he really the first to teach it?

Saint Vincent of Lerins said of this instance;

**“When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, **thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, **in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: “Let there be no innovation–nothing but what has been handed down.” For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers **the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. **What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.” **

Was St. Vincent wrong about this?

Also, does Pope St. Stephen’s original letter still exist? Does he never appeal to the fathers or tradition in it? Or does he rely entirely on his authority as Pope?

 

[Boulder257]

Wow David. I always enjoy reading your posts and contributions to the forum. You certainly have a wealth of knowledge and I am glad you choose to share it with us!

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

Before St. Stephen taught about this, St. Cyprian would not even use the word “baptism” in the context of heretic Baptism.

That is contrary to what I have always heard about this issue. Cyprian did hold to this error, this was contrary to what was taught prior to the time. The Pope simply re-affirmed the Traditional teaching which was contrary to the novelty of Cyprian.

Do you have any evidence that previous Fathers were in agreement with Cyprian, rather that Pope Stephen?

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

To add to what I wrote above, the following is taken from the Catholic Enyclopedia. It confirms that the teaching of Cyprian was a novelty. Pope Stephen was upholding the Traditional doctrine.

"To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this point in the ancient Church. In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”.

Cyprian was teaching something new, based on his “study of the subject”. Pope Stephen was upholding Tradition.

 

[Genesis315]

The teaching of the Fathers is strong evidence as to what the Church has believed and taught, but it is not absolutely authoritative like the solemn judgement of the Church. Cardinal Manning explains this in his treatise on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Spirit:
Cardinal Manning:

The Fathers were the children and the disciples of the Church. They learned their faith from it, and they expressed it partly in the words the Church had taught them, partly when, as yet, the Church had not fixed its terminology in language of their own. In the former, the Church recognises its own voice ; in the latter, it knows their intention even when their language is less perfect. And when they err, the Church both discerns and corrects it : for the Church was their guide and teacher, not they hers. If any one desire to see both proof and illustration of what is here said, let him examine the treatises of Petavius on the Patristic language relating to the Holy Trinity ; or, to refer to a more accessible work, let him turn to the language of the Fathers on the Immensity of the Son in a well-known work on the Development of Christian Doctrine. The havoc made not only with the writings of the Fathers, but with the doctrines of faith, by those who profess to interpret them, apart from the lineal tradition of the Church, is evidence enough of the falseness of this method. The only Father in whom, it is said, the Church has noted no error, is St. Gregory of Nazianzum. The Church can freely criticise the works of its own disciples : for while they may err, it cannot. And the imperfect conceptions and imperfect definitions of individual fathers of an early age are rectified by the mature conceptions and authoritative definitions of the Church in a later.