Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

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

Exactly my point. Thanks.

 

[Vico]

Exactly my point. Thanks.

You may think that you have made a point, yet you have not explained it. It is not clear what you are talking about.

 

[Vince1022]

You may think that you have made a point, yet you have not explained it. It is not clear what you are talking about.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

“The Pope has spoken through Leo” was not part of your post. So, I agree, you confirmed my point.

 

[Vico]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

“The Pope has spoken through Leo” was not part of your post. So, I agree, you confirmed my point.

But that is a different idea than what you said (name removed by moderator)ost #62 that, “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly."

I am trying to understand the logic of your original statement from post #62, especially since primacy and teaching infallibly are per the Vatican I dogmatic definition of papal primacy with teaching authority, always maintained, a constant custom, and declared ecumenically by East and West.

If seems that you reject that papal primary includes teaching authority traditionally as described in Vatican I.

 

[Vince1022]

But that is a different idea than what you said (name removed by moderator)ost #62 that, “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly."

I am trying to understand the logic of your original statement from post #62, especially since primacy and teaching infallibly are per the Vatican I dogmatic definition of papal primacy with teaching authority, always maintained, a constant custom, and declared ecumenically by East and West.

If seems that you reject that papal primary includes teaching authority traditionally as described in Vatican I.

Where did Vatican I use this quote to support papal infallibility?

 

[Vico]

Where did Vatican I use this quote to support papal infallibility?

Vatican I includes all of the following which apply to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff: statements made by the Holy See, the constant custom of the church, and the ecumenical councils. This includes Chalcedon.

"Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

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. …

1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma …"

 

[Vince1022]

Vatican I includes all of the following which apply to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff: statements made by the Holy See, the constant custom of the church, and the ecumenical councils. This includes Chalcedon.

"Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

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. …

1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma …"

Yes, of course, I’ve read it. But, again, no reference to the quote regarding Leo. Thanks anyway.

 

[Vico]

Yes, of course, I’ve read it. But, again, no reference to the quote regarding Leo. Thanks anyway.

You did not answer my query.

I am trying to understand the logic of your original statement from post #62, especially since primacy and teaching infallibly are per the Vatican I dogmatic definition of papal primacy with teaching authority, always maintained, a constant custom, and declared ecumenically by East and West.

 

[Vince1022]

You did not answer my query.

I am trying to understand the logic of your original statement from post #62, especially since primacy and teaching infallibly are per the Vatican I dogmatic definition of papal primacy with teaching authority, always maintained, a constant custom, and declared ecumenically by East and West.

In my post 62 I posted ““Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly.”

Vatican I, when teaching about papal infallibility, did not refer to the quotation about Leo. Which confirms my understanding. I hope this clarifies. Thanks.

 

[Vico]

In my post 62 I posted ““Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly.”

Vatican I, when teaching about papal infallibility, did not refer to the quotation about Leo. Which confirms my understanding. I hope this clarifies. Thanks.

Yet, Vatican I states that it is a constant tradition that:

“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 does not exclude Chalcedon where the statement of teaching authority was made: “Peter has spoken through Leo”.

The primacy is not independent of the teaching authority so if “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy, then how can it not apply to teaching infallibly without denying what Vatican I has stated?

 

[Vince1022]

Yet, Vatican I states that it is a constant tradition that:

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

Yes. Exactly. No mention of the quotation referring to Leo
Vico;7239373:

and does not exclude Chalcedon where the statement of teaching authority was made: “Peter has spoken through Leo”.

Of COURSE it doesn’t exclude it, My simple point is that it does not cite or refer to it.

The primacy is not independent of the teaching authority so if “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy, then how can it not apply to teaching infallibly without denying what Vatican I has stated?

Of COURSE primacy is not independent of teaching authority. I never said nor suggested otherwise. Again, simply, Vatican I (in this case, but this applies to other cases too) does not invoke the quote referring to Leo when discussing/defining papal infallibility.

 

[Vico]

Vico;7239373:

Yet, Vatican I states that it is a constant tradition that:

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

Yes. Exactly. No mention of the quotation referring to Leo

Of COURSE it doesn’t exclude it, My simple point is that it does not cite or refer to it.

Of COURSE primacy is not independent of teaching authority. I never said nor suggested otherwise. Again, simply, Vatican I (in this case, but this applies to other cases too) does not invoke the quote referring to Leo when discussing/defining papal infallibility.

I am trying to understand your perspective of why the quote pertains to primacy but not to teaching infallably.

Since you stated that for papal primacy the quote of Leo has been an important and strong argument, and that the primacy is not independent of the teaching authority, then it is then not clear why you say that the quote of Leo does not apply to teaching infallably, especially since the Vatican I dogma defines the infallable teaching authority of the Roman pontiff which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter is a constant tradition.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince1022;7241169:

I am trying to understand your perspective of why the quote pertains to primacy but not to teaching infallably.

Since you stated that for papal primacy the quote of Leo has been an important and strong argument, and that the primacy is not independent of the teaching authority, then it is then not clear why you say that the quote of Leo does not apply to teaching infallably, especially since the Vatican I dogma defines the infallable teaching authority of the Roman pontiff which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter is a constant tradition.

Simply because Vatican I never referred to the quote about Leo when discussing infallibility (which of course is not simply a Papal thing, as primacy is).

 

[Vico]

Vico;7242276:

Simply because Vatican I never referred to the quote about Leo when discussing infallibility (which of course is not simply a Papal thing, as primacy is).

Vatican I makes a declaration Chapter 4 “On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff” which is very specific “That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.”

So how do you separate primacy and teaching infallably with regard to Vatican I dogma in Chapter 4?

 

[Vince1022]

Vince1022;7247286:

Vatican I makes a declaration Chapter 4 “On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff” which is very specific “That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.”

So how do you separate primacy and teaching infallably with regard to Vatican I dogma in Chapter 4?

And how does this refer to the Leo quote that has been the subject of many posts on this thread?

But, anyway, to answer your question, Vatican I was incomplete. Vatican II completed the Catholic doctrine regarding infallibility, which Vatican I was unable to do as it was abruptly cut short due to political/national events. Vatican II completed and clarified the teaching of Vatican I by describing all the ways the Church may teach infallibly. Vatican I only addressed one of the methods.

Primacy is one issue, infallibility is one issue. Of course the two are related, but they are not the same.

So, where does this quotation about Leo appear in Vatican I (or Vatican II) teachings regarding infallibility?

 

[Vico]

Vico;7247501:

And how does this refer to the Leo quote that has been the subject of many posts on this thread?

But, anyway, to answer your question, Vatican I was incomplete. Vatican II completed the Catholic doctrine regarding infallibility, which Vatican I was unable to do as it was abruptly cut short due to political/national events. Vatican II completed and clarified the teaching of Vatican I by describing all the ways the Church may teach infallibly. Vatican I only addressed one of the methods.

Primacy is one issue, infallibility is one issue. Of course the two are related, but they are not the same.

So, where does this quotation about Leo appear in Vatican I (or Vatican II) teachings regarding infallibility?

Infallability does not apply independent of the primacy, according to both Vatican I and II.

See Lumen Gentium 22 from Vatican II:

“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.” – LG 22, Chapter III, item 18.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Vico]

Vince1022;7247623:

Infallability does not apply independent of the primacy, according to both Vatican I and II.

See Lumen Gentium 22 from Vatican II:

“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.” – LG 22, Chapter III, item 18.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Errata: the previous post quotes Lumen Gentium 18, and portion of LG 22 is below:

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[Vince1022]

Vince1022;7247623:

Infallability does not apply independent of the primacy, according to both Vatican I and II.

See Lumen Gentium 22 from Vatican II:

“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.” – LG 22, Chapter III, item 18.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Of course. Didn’t apply to my question though, did it? I never said infallibility and primacy were independent of each other, simply that they weren’t the same. And that the quote about Leo didn’t apply to infallibility. Your post didn’t really respond to that. Thanks anyway.

 

[Vico]

Vico;7248441:

Of course. Didn’t apply to my question though, did it? I never said infallibility and primacy were independent of each other, simply that they weren’t the same. And that the quote about Leo didn’t apply to infallibility. Your post didn’t really respond to that. Thanks anyway.

Thank you for clarifying that infallibility and primacy are not independent. There are two different terms “primacy” and “teaching infallaby,” and the Church as declared it is a constant tradition that the primacy includes the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff.

Actually the quote about Leo from Chalcedon is applicable to your question, as the statement was not excluded from the Vatican statements, rather is a part of one more more of the custom, councils, or profession of the Holy See, and does pertain to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, although you believe that it is not in Tradition (and did not define). For reference, the statement from Chalcedon with regard to the Tome of Leo is:

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.”

(Acts of the Council, session 2, 451 A.D.).
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html

I have gone through all the posts from #62 to try and find the reasoning to answer my query: “I am trying to understand your perspective of why the quote pertains to primacy but not to teaching infallably.” Some follow:​

Post 65:
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.
Post 69:
I’m saying it’s not important because it’s not taught, as part of Tradition.
Post 71:
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.
Post 79:
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?​

A few writers have opposed the dogma of the constant tradition of the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, from Vatican I/II. Such opinions are described in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, those of historian Brian Tierney, modernist Hans Kung, Bernard Hassler, and historian Johann von Dollinger. They are anti-Vatican.

 

[Vince1022]

Thank you for clarifying that infallibility and primacy are not independent. There are two different terms “primacy” and “teaching infallaby,” and the Church as declared it is a constant tradition that the primacy includes the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff.

Where does the Church teach this as a constant tradition?

Actually the quote about Leo from Chalcedon is applicable to your question, as the statement was not excluded from the Vatican statements, rather is a part of one more more of the custom, councils, or profession of the Holy See, and does pertain to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, although you believe that it is not in Tradition (and did not define). For reference, the statement from Chalcedon with regard to the Tome of Leo is:

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.”

(Acts of the Council, session 2, 451 A.D.).
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html

Yeah…ok…so, again…not cited at Vatican I with respect to infallibility, right? Being “not excluded” is hardly the same as being referenced or cited, which has been my question all along.