Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

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.

Teaching infallibly is a constant tradition and dogma of the Church? Any references to support such a claim from the first 1000 years A.D.?

 

[Vico]

Where does the Church teach this as a constant tradition?

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.

1. You said: “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly.

Since there is no primacy without the infallible teaching authority, that which supports primacy also supports the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff. That is why I ask for the logic in your statement.

1. However, the postings seem to keep focusing upon the quote about Leo from Chalcedon not being part of the basis given in Chapter 4.

For the first 1000 years, the Vatican I Chapter 4 on the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, includes the first seven ecumenical councils and the Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”, and custom, councils, and professions of the Holy See.

There are other references to the first 1000 years tradition.

1. “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.”

DS 284, Pope St. Leo I: temporal substance of flesh.-
Likewise we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, but we do not say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of the Trinity, but only to the Son, who alone assumed our nature in the unity of His person. Also, we must believe that the entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. However, only the Son took the form of a servant [cf. Phil. 2:7 ] in the singleness of His person, not in the unity of His divine nature; in what is proper to the Son, not in what is common to the Trinity; and this form was adapted to Him for unity of person so that the Son of God and the Son of man is one Christ, that is, Christ in these two natures exists in three substances; of the Word, which must refer to the essence of God alone, of the body, and of the soul, which pertain to true man.

The Vatican I statement proclaims the constant tradition, and includes the first 1000 years:

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.
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

 

[Vico]

Teaching infallibly is a constant tradition and dogma of the Church? Any references to support such a claim from the first 1000 years A.D.?

1. You have not provided any proof that Chalcedon is excluded from Vatican I Chapter 4, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, with nihil obstat and imprimatur has included it in the proof by tradition section:

Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) 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.”

It gives the following in particular, which you can see items 4 and 5 are from Vatican I Chapter 4 item 2 and the remaining are from the period of the first seven ecumenical councils.

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.

There are many sources for the first 1000 years given there:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[Vince1022]

1. You said: “Peter has spoken through Leo” has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly.

Since there is no primacy without the infallible teaching authority, that which supports primacy also supports the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff. That is why I ask for the logic in your statement.

Of course there can be primacy without infallible teaching authority. Again, as I’ve asked, where in the first 1000 years was there any Church teaching regarding papal infallibility? And yet clearly there are teachings about papal primacy. So…logically…and more importantly, historically…the understanding of papal primacy preceded any explicit understanding or exercise of teaching infallibly.

 

[Vince1022]

1. However, the postings seem to keep focusing upon the quote about Leo from Chalcedon not being part of the basis given in Chapter 4.

For the first 1000 years, the Vatican I Chapter 4 on the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, includes the first seven ecumenical councils and the Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. – Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, “Thou art Peter, etc.”, and custom, councils, and professions of the Holy See.

Where does Vatican I teaching, about papal infallibility (ch. 4 as you note) refer to the first seven ecumenical councils? Or Pope Hormisdas?

Yes, it refers to Constantinople IV, none of the other first seven, but in terms of primacy, not infallibility.

 

[Vince1022]

1. “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.”

You seem to be quoting something. What? As the filioque was not added in the west until later than Pope Leo I, as far as I know, I am interested in what reference you are citing.

From what I know, the introduction of the “filioque” in the west was first introduced formally at the Council of Toledo (not ecumenical) in …I think the 8th century. May have been 7th? I need to check. Regardless…not at Rome, and not universal. Still…what are you quoting?

And, back to the point of this thread (I think) what does the “filioque” have to do with whether the quote regarding Leo was used in the early Church to support papal primacy, or papal infallibility, or both, or neither?

 

[Vince1022]

DS 284, Pope St. Leo I: temporal substance of flesh.-

Likewise we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, but we do not say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of the Trinity, but only to the Son, who alone assumed our nature in the unity of His person. Also, we must believe that the entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. However, only the Son took the form of a servant [cf. Phil. 2:7 ] in the singleness of His person, not in the unity of His divine nature; in what is proper to the Son, not in what is common to the Trinity; and this form was adapted to Him for unity of person so that the Son of God and the Son of man is one Christ, that is, Christ in these two natures exists in three substances; of the Word, which must refer to the essence of God alone, of the body, and of the soul, which pertain to true man.

The Vatican I statement proclaims the constant tradition, and includes the first 1000 years:

Yes, of course the constant teaching of the Church about the Trinity.

How does this relate to whether or not the quote about Leo (which I’ve been referring to) was used to support infallibility vs. primacy?

 

[Vince1022]

1. You have not provided any proof that Chalcedon is excluded from Vatican I Chapter 4, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, with nihil obstat and imprimatur has included it in the proof by tradition section:

I never said Chalcedon was excluded from Vatican I nor the Catholic Encyclopedia. So of course I did not provide proof of something I never claimed.

 

[Vince1022]

3

Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) 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.”

It gives the following in particular, which you can see items 4 and 5 are from Vatican I Chapter 4 item 2 and the remaining are from the period of the first seven ecumenical councils.

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.

Interesting, useful, and informative reference. Thanks!

But…compare that with the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (2003). I think the differences would be enlightening and informative.

Part of that current Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on Infallibility, says:

While the term infallibility first emerged in medieval theology, Christians eventually ascribed some type of infallibility to the Church, though with considerable divergence about its implications and implementation.

A definite teaching on the “infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” was formulated by VATICAN COUN CIL I (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870):

It’s a really great article. Please check it out, as you are able, as it is much more helpful than the edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia you cited (as it incorporates the teachings of all the Popes since Pius X, the Catechism, Vatican II, etc.).

And nowhere does it refer to the quote about Leo.

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting, useful, and informative reference. Thanks!

But…compare that with the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (2003). I think the differences would be enlightening and informative.

Part of that current Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on Infallibility, says:

It’s a really great article. Please check it out, as you are able, as it is much more helpful than the edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia you cited (as it incorporates the teachings of all the Popes since Pius X, the Catechism, Vatican II, etc.).

And nowhere does it refer to the quote about Leo.

Is there a definitive list of infallible statements published by the Vatican?

 

[Aramis]

Is there a definitive list of infallible statements published by the Vatican?

No. There are several well informed ones, but they are not definitive.

 

[Vico]

Of course there can be primacy without infallible teaching authority. Again, as I’ve asked, where in the first 1000 years was there any Church teaching regarding papal infallibility? And yet clearly there are teachings about papal primacy. So…logically…and more importantly, historically…the understanding of papal primacy preceded any explicit understanding or exercise of teaching infallibly.

Not according to Vatican I: “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.”

Where does Vatican I teaching, about papal infallibility (ch. 4 as you note) refer to the first seven ecumenical councils? Or Pope Hormisdas?

Yes, it refers to Constantinople IV, none of the other first seven, but in terms of primacy, not infallibility.

It is part or one or more of the reasons given here of the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff: “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.”

Session 4 of Vatican I includes:
—Chapter 1. On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
—Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
—Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
—Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
—The definition of Papal Infallibility

These are all on the primacy, Chapter 4 states: “That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles,** includes also the supreme power of teaching**.”

They are not independent.

You seem to be quoting something. …
And, back to the point of this thread (I think) what does the “filioque” have to do with whether the quote regarding Leo was used in the early Church to support papal primacy, or papal infallibility, or both, or neither?

Yes, of course the constant teaching of the Church about the Trinity.

How does this relate to whether or not the quote about Leo (which I’ve been referring to) was used to support infallibility vs. primacy?

That quote is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 247. Note that the Catechism states: “Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447”. I quoted this to show the tradition of infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, not for discussing the symbol of faith.

I never said Chalcedon was excluded from Vatican I nor the Catholic Encyclopedia. So of course I did not provide proof of something I never claimed.

I mean that you excluded the Leo quote from Chalcedon whereas Vatican I includes all such statements pertaining to the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, so you have not shown how Vatican I excludes this.

Interesting, useful, and informative reference. Thanks!

But…compare that with the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (2003). I think the differences would be enlightening and informative.

Part of that current Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article on Infallibility, says:
“While the term infallibility first emerged in medieval theology, Christians eventually ascribed some type of infallibility to the Church, though with considerable divergence about its implications and implementation.
A definite teaching on the “infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” was formulated by VATICAN COUNCIL I (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870)”

It’s a really great article. Please check it out, as you are able, as it is much more helpful than the edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia you cited (as it incorporates the teachings of all the Popes since Pius X, the Catechism, Vatican II, etc.).

And nowhere does it refer to the quote about Leo.

Oh yes, I have read the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) section on infallibility (they have it at a nearby library). There they give the Vatican I and II teachings and then mention the dissenters and their issues. You will note there that the modern opinions since Vatican II, and of others after Vatican I, are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the constant tradition of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff. You should be aware of this it you read the New Catholic Encyclopedia, because the authors specifically mentioned the controversial nature of both Vatican I and II, and also the dissenters when Vatican II refrained from rephrasing the dogma of infallability. In fact that is the source I used when mentioning historian Brian Tierney, modernist Hans Kung, Bernard Hassler, and historian Johann von Dollinger. They are anti-Vatican.

 

[Vince1022]

Is there a definitive list of infallible statements published by the Vatican?

Nope. I kind of wish there was!

 

[Vince1022]

Not according to Vatican I: “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.”

What is the “this” and “it” referred to in this quotation?

 

[Vince1022]

They are not independent.

I don’t think I ever said primacy and infallibility are independent. If I did, I didn’t mean to. The point is, primacy belongs to the Pope alone, infallibility is a charism of the Church. So while the two are not independent, they are distinct.

And still…back to the original question, the quotation about Leo refers to primacy, not infallibility.

 

[Vince1022]

That quote is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 247. Note that the Catechism states: “Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447”. I quoted this to show the tradition of infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, not for discussing the symbol of faith.

The Catechism does not say anything about infallibility there. Right?

Teaching dogma and teaching infallibly are not the same thing. The Church teaches many dogmas, but only infrequently infallibly.

I mean that you excluded the Leo quote from Chalcedon whereas Vatican I includes all such statements pertaining to the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, so you have not shown how Vatican I excludes this.

I did not exclude anything from Chalcedon. Vatican I did not cite a quote about Leo when teaching about infallibility.

Oh yes, I have read the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) section on infallibility (they have it at a nearby library). There they give the Vatican I and II teachings and then mention the dissenters and their issues. You will note there that the modern opinions since Vatican II, and of others after Vatican I, are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the constant tradition of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff. You should be aware of this it you read the New Catholic Encyclopedia, because the authors specifically mentioned the controversial nature of both Vatican I and II, and also the dissenters when Vatican II refrained from rephrasing the dogma of infallability. In fact that is the source I used when mentioning historian Brian Tierney, modernist Hans Kung, Bernard Hassler, and historian Johann von Dollinger. They are anti-Vatican.

So…the Catholic Encyclopedia is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church? Or did I misunderstand your claim? Thanks.

 

[Vico]

The Catechism does not say anything about infallibility there. Right?

Teaching dogma and teaching infallibly are not the same thing. The Church teaches many dogmas, but only infrequently infallibly.

I did not exclude anything from Chalcedon. Vatican I did not cite a quote about Leo when teaching about infallibility.

So…the Catholic Encyclopedia is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church? Or did I misunderstand your claim? Thanks.

It may be that we are in agreement that the statements from Chalcedon showing the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, are included in one or more of the following categories from Session 4, Chapter 4 of Vatican I, although not directly quoted: “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.”

Vince1022, 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).”
**reference 5. ****a. **A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.

Vico, Post 72:
"Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.
**refer: 3. **To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class.

The Catholic Catechism No. 247, referring to Pope Leo I Quam laudabiliter (447 A.D.) does not use the word “infallibility”, it does however, refer to an infallible dogma, since the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.), the Second Council of Lyons (1274 A.D.), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445 A.D.). Therefore the Catechism is refering to a dogma of faith.

Teachings of the Church are never infallible doctrines without with the agreement of the Supreme Pontiff. Only those doctrines are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra.

The section on Infallibility in the New Catholic Encyclopedia is an opinion written by F. X. Lawlor, J. Ford, and J. L. Heft. They review the Vatican I (Pastor Aeternis) and II (Lumen Gentium) pp. 448-450. Later, pp. 450-452, they review the contemporary discussions. As stated there, Kung, Tierney, and Hasler, have been criticized for over stating the intent and extend of the Vatican I defintion of infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, and for denying, a priori, a legitimate development of the doctrine through history. The opinions of Kung, Tierney, and Hasler are contrary to the Church.

In the previous posts I named Bernard Hassler by mistake, it should have been August Hasler.

 

[Vince1022]

It may be that we are in agreement that the statements from Chalcedon showing the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, are included in one or more of the following categories from Session 4, Chapter 4 of Vatican I, although not directly quoted: “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.”

Of course the teachings of Chaldedon, as with all Ecumenical Councils (as understood by the Catholic Church) are in accordance with the teaching of the Bishop of Rome (I assume that’s what you mean my Supreme Pontiff). I never said otherwise.

I
Vince1022, 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).”
**reference 5. ****a. **A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.

Vico, Post 72:
"Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.

As I said, and you seem to agree, no quote. So any supposed reference is just that…supposed.

**refer: 3. **To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class.

The Catholic Catechism No. 247, referring to Pope Leo I Quam laudabiliter (447 A.D.) does not use the word “infallibility”, it does however, refer to an infallible dogma, since the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.), the Second Council of Lyons (1274 A.D.), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445 A.D.). Therefore the Catechism is refering to a dogma of faith.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church are not limited to teachings that have been taught infallibly. Regardless, this example does not contradict my understanding that the quote regarding Leo was used in the Tradition to refer to primacy and not infallibility.

Teachings of the Church are never infallible doctrines without with the agreement of the Supreme Pontiff. Only those doctrines are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra.

Of course.

 

[Vico]

Of course the teachings of Chaldedon, as with all Ecumenical Councils (as understood by the Catholic Church) are in accordance with the teaching of the Bishop of Rome (I assume that’s what you mean my Supreme Pontiff). I never said otherwise.

As I said, and you seem to agree, no quote. So any supposed reference is just that…supposed.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church are not limited to teachings that have been taught infallibly. Regardless, this example does not contradict my understanding that the quote regarding Leo was used in the Tradition to refer to primacy and not infallibility.

Of course.

What I asked you back in post #76 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.”

And you wrote on Nov 14:

"I don’t think I ever said primacy and infallibility are independent. If I did, I didn’t mean to. The point is, primacy belongs to the Pope alone, infallibility is a charism of the Church. So while the two are not independent, they are distinct.

And still…back to the original question, the quotation about Leo refers to primacy, not infallibility."

I will take “not infallibility” as “not for teaching infallibly”, if I may, so it will match your original post.

You say that any reference (**reference 5. a. **A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source) is supposed, and that is what I agreed to before also, yet the quote of Leo is referred to by Vatican I (**refer: 3. **To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class) as it pertains to the mentioned evidence of primacy with teaching authority in one of the forms given in Session 4, Chapter 4.

The Church cannot make infallible definitions without the Supreme Pontiff, of any category 1) ex cathedra or general council, which are extraordinary, or 2) the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Bishops of the Church.

Which is why I originally asked for your logic. I still could not describe your logic that the quotation about Leo refers to primacy, not for teaching infallibly. You do not show how the quote does not pertain to teaching authority.

 

[Vico]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church” in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 18 November 1998. It contains a statement on the prerogative of infallibility associated with the primacy in “II. The Exercise of the Primacy and Its Forms”:

“The Roman Pontiff’s episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal *magisterial office;*38 it is an office that involves a charism: the Holy Spirit’s special assistance to the Successor of Peter, which also involves, in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility.39 Just as “all the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ”,40 in the same way the Bishops are witnesses of divine and Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff.41”

1. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 4: Denz-Hun, nn. 3065-3068.
2. Cf. ibid.: Denz-Hun, 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25; CIC, can. 749, §1; CCEO, can. 597, §1.
3. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.
4. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html