Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

I’m the trouble-maker in this case. I hold some doubts that infallibility is absolute in every matter of faith and my ‘for instance’ is the part of the Tome of Pope Leo where it says, “Christ is one in two natures”. I maintain that to be totally correct Pope Leo should have said, “Christ is one from two natures”. I suppose I am saying that there is a controversy with regard to the Diophysite/Miaphysite views. Both views are considered orthodox today by Rome. Some say that they are really one and the same view, only expressing that one view in two different ways. I find this hard to believe, I see that they are different views, different enough that they both cannot be true. I hold the Miaphysite view which is what you would hold if you believed Pope Leo’s wording should have been “Christ is one from two natures”, which is: ‘Christ has one composite nature, human and divine, united in one nature and one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.’ The Diophysite view comes from how Pope Leo did word it, namely, “Christ is one in two natures”, which is: ‘Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in one person without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’.

Of course, I can only have a good point here if every assumption that I have made here is correct.

I think infallibility, biblically, comes from Luke 22:32, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers”. And the answer I have for myself is that there are certain beliefs that do not harm a soul to the point of spiritual death. Just as there are mortal sins and venial sins there are mortal and venial mis-beliefs. I thing only the mortal mis-beliefs should be called “heresies”. And the promise to the successor to St. Peter goes no further than the fact that the Pope cannot teach heresy (under this specific definition) to the Church. This seems to be where the stalemate ended since I am all alone on this conclusion. The consensus of others is that they are really one and the same view, only expressing that one view in two different ways. (Either this or that the Tome of Pope Leo is not a valid example of ordinary infallibility.)

Thanks.

The Biblical passage you note is often cited to support Papal primacy, but not necessarily the Church’s charism of teaching infallibly.

 

[Vince1022]

Jeffrey Mirus wote something on infallability, including: “Peter has spoken through Leo”: under the subtitle history, which shows its bearing*.*

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Sometimes the bishops will make such a statement as above “Peter has spoken through Leo”. The definition must be received by the Church per Vatican II asserting that when the magisterium teaches infallibly the assent of the Church can never be wanting. The Holy Spirit directs the magisterium and the body of the faithful at the same time. The infallability is from God. For an excellent statement see:

Declaration In Defense Of The Catholic Doctrine On The Church Against Certain Errors Of The Present Day
(1973, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) contains:

1. The Oneness of Christ’s Church
2. The Infallibility of the Universal Church
3. The Infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium
4. The Church’s Gift of Infallibility Not To Be Diminished
5. The Notion of the Church’s Infallibility Not To Be Falsified
6. The Church Associated with the Priesthood of Christ

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html

“Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy.

Not for teaching infallibly.

 

[Vico]

“Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy.

Not for teaching infallibly.

“Peter has spoken through Leo” and “Peter has spoken through Agatho” are part of infallability, the proof from tradition.

See: The Catholic encyclopedia, Vol 7. p. 798. (Proof of papal infallability from tradition) –
By Charles George Herbermann, Edward Aloysius Pace, Condé Bénoist Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J Wynne… 1910

You can get a PDF of it from Google Books.

 

[Vico]

“Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy.

Not for teaching infallibly.

I see the same source is also on the internet site newadvent: Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition:

“And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.” then listing these in particular:

1. Ephesus 431 A.D. – sacred canons of Pope Celestine
2. Chalcedon 451 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Leo”
3. Third Council 680-681 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
4. Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”
5. Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D. & Florence Council 1438-1445 A.D. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[Vince1022]

“Peter has spoken through Leo” and “Peter has spoken through Agatho” are part of infallability, the proof from tradition.

See: The Catholic encyclopedia, Vol 7. p. 798. (Proof of papal infallability from tradition) –
By Charles George Herbermann, Edward Aloysius Pace, Condé Bénoist Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J Wynne… 1910

You can get a PDF of it from Google Books.

What edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia are you referring to? The one from a century ago, or the current (2003) one?

I’m referring to the current one, which nowhere mentions Leo in its entry on “Infallibility.”

The Church’s teaching has developed since 1910. See especially the teachings of the Second Vatican (ecumenical) Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Vince1022]

I see the same source is also on the internet site newadvent: Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition:

“And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.” then listing these in particular:

1. Ephesus 431 A.D. – sacred canons of Pope Celestine
2. Chalcedon 451 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Leo”
3. Third Council 680-681 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
4. Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”
5. Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D. & Florence Council 1438-1445 A.D. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Again, that’s an entry from the older (much older) edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Please refer to the current edition (2003). It sheds much light on Church teaching, as of course it includes teachings the previous edition couldn’t, such as Vatican II, the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the Code of Canon Law (1983), etc.

 

[Vico]

What edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia are you referring to? The one from a century ago, or the current (2003) one?

I’m referring to the current one, which nowhere mentions Leo in its entry on “Infallibility.”

The Church’s teaching has developed since 1910. See especially the teachings of the Second Vatican (ecumenical) Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Original comments:

---

Vico: “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy.

Vince1022: Not for teaching infallibly.

---

So, are you saying that it was never traditionally important, as shown in the older Catholic Encyclopedia, or that is is not currently important, because it is not mentioned in the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

 

[johnnykins]

To understand infallibility as set forth in VI you must read the Relatio by Bishop Vincent Gasser. The Relatio was the report of the Deputation on the understanding of papal Infallibility to the Council Fathers before the final vote was taken on the formula. It is the summary of what the Deputation believed the formula meant and what, presumably, the Council Fathers thought it meant as it was the official explanation of what it meant. In part:

"We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .

We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. (11)"
Here is a site for the Relatio matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise16.html

 

[Vince1022]

Original comments:

---

Vico: “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy.

Vince1022: Not for teaching infallibly.

---

So, are you saying that it was never traditionally important, as shown in the older Catholic Encyclopedia, or that is is not currently important, because it is not mentioned in the New Catholic Encyclopedia?

I’m saying it’s not important because it’s not taught, as part of Tradition.

 

[Vico]

I’m saying it’s not important because it’s not taught, as part of Tradition.

Since you added a capital t to traditon, it is still not clear what you mean.

 

[Vince1022]

Since you added a capital t to traditon, it is still not clear what you mean.

I’m simply saying (again) that the quotation “Peter has spoken through Leo” was primarily used in the Tradition to support Papal primacy. Not papal infallibility. Nothing in Vatican I or II teaching on infallibility referred to this quotation. Nor does the Catechism (when addressing infallibility).

There’s a very significant difference between papal primacy and papal (or other) infallibility).

Does that help?

 

[Vico]

I’m simply saying (again) that the quotation “Peter has spoken through Leo” was primarily used in the Tradition to support Papal primacy. Not papal infallibility. Nothing in Vatican I or II teaching on infallibility referred to this quotation. Nor does the Catechism (when addressing infallibility).

There’s a very significant difference between papal primacy and papal (or other) infallibility).

Does that help?

Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.

"That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.

• This holy see has always maintained this,
• the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
• the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it."

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#SESSION

Item 1 refers to the ecumenical councils (which means these from my earlier post are included). Vat. I, item 2 specifically refers to numbers 4 & 5 below:

1. Ephesus 431 A.D. – sacred canons of Pope Celestine
2. Chalcedon 451 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Leo”
3. Third Council 680-681 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
4. Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”
5. Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D. & Florence Council 1438-1445 A.D. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians.

Vatican II Lumen Gentium 25 (no. 2) and Mysterium ecclesiae (1973) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Compendium (2005) all teach the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, his juridic autonomy as part of the Body.

“This occurs when the bishops scattered throughout the world but teaching in communion with the Successor of Peter present a doctrine to be held irrevocably.(27) It occurs even more clearly both when the bishops by a collegial act (as in Ecumenical Councils), together with their visible Head, define a doctrine to be held,(28) and when the Roman Pontiff “speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, exercising the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, through his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.”(29)” – Mysterium ecclesiae (1973)

 

[Vince1022]

Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.

Please clarify. How do you know Vatican I refers to it, given that Vatican I didn’t quote or cite it? Thanks.

 

[Vico]

Please clarify. How do you know Vatican I refers to it, given that Vatican I didn’t quote or cite it? Thanks.

The Vatican dogmatic definition for infallability refers, in the first two items, to:

“That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.” and states, among other reasons, “the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.”

Councils that meet that criteria were included in those quoted in the Original Catholic Encyclopedia that I mentioned earlier:

1. (No. 3) Ephesus 431 A.D. – sacred canons of Pope Celestine
2. (No. 4) Chalcedon 451 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Leo”
3. (No. 6) Third Council 680-681 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”

And the second item from Vatican I also mentions these specifically:

1. (No. 8) Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”
2. (Nos. 14 & 17) Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D. & Florence Council 1438-1445 A.D. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians.

 

[Vince1022]

The Vatican dogmatic definition for infallability refers, in the first two items, to:

“That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.” and states, among other reasons, “the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.”

Councils that meet that criteria were included in those quoted in the Original Catholic Encyclopedia that I mentioned earlier:

1. (No. 3) Ephesus 431 A.D. – sacred canons of Pope Celestine
2. (No. 4) Chalcedon 451 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Leo”
3. (No. 6) Third Council 680-681 A.D. – “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”

And the second item from Vatican I also mentions these specifically:

1. (No. 8) Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”
2. (Nos. 14 & 17) Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D. & Florence Council 1438-1445 A.D. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians.

The old (superseded) version of the Catholic Encyclopedia including a reference to Leo’s quote is not the same as a Council of the Church referring to it. Sorry.

 

[Vico]

The old (superseded) version of the Catholic Encyclopedia including a reference to Leo’s quote is not the same as a Council of the Church referring to it. Sorry.

My comments are relative to your statement, which was:

“Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy.

Not for teaching infallibly.

Since you stated that for papal primacy the quote of Leo has been an important and strong argument, and since the Vatican I dogmatic definiton of infallability, is as stated, based upon the apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter with teaching authority, expressed by the ecumenical councils, it is not clear why you say that the quote of Leo does not apply.

 

[Vince1022]

My comments are relative to your statement, which was:

Since you stated that for papal primacy the quote of Leo has been an important and strong argument, and since the Vatican I dogmatic definiton of infallability, is as stated, based upon the apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter with teaching authority, expressed by the ecumenical councils, it is not clear why you say that the quote of Leo does not apply.

Because the quote of Leo was not used to support infallibility.

 

[Vico]

Because the quote of Leo was not used to support infallibility.

Actually Vatican I supports infallibility using all the quotes of “the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared” the apostolic primacy of the Roman pontiff as successor of Peter including also the supreme power of teaching.

 

[Vince1022]

Actually Vatican I supports infallibility using all the quotes of “the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared” the apostolic primacy of the Roman pontiff as successor of Peter including also the supreme power of teaching.

Ecumenical councils by Catholic definition include everyone, east and west. So where did any such council use the quote we’re discussing to support infallibility?

 

[Vico]

Ecumenical councils by Catholic definition include everyone, east and west. So where did any such council use the quote we’re discussing to support infallibility?

Although not the complete statement from Vatican I, the following from the dogmatic declaration of infallability refers to Chalcedon as it is such an ecumenical council as those included in the third bullet below:

"That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.

• This holy see has always maintained this,
• the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
• the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it."

papalencyclicals.net/Coun…20.htm#SESSION