Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

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.

My simple point is that the quotation from Leo, invoked at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. was indicative of his authority vis-a-vis primacy, not with any contemporary understanding of teaching infallibly (which didn’t exist at that time).

And, again, Vatican I nowhere uses this quotation from Leo when it teaches about papal infallibility (nor does Vatican II when it teaches about the complete Catholic understanding of teaching infallibly).

Does that help? Thanks.

 

[Vico]

My simple point is that the quotation from Leo, invoked at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. was indicative of his authority vis-a-vis primacy, not with any contemporary understanding of teaching infallibly (which didn’t exist at that time).

And, again, Vatican I nowhere uses this quotation from Leo when it teaches about papal infallibility (nor does Vatican II when it teaches about the complete Catholic understanding of teaching infallibly).

Does that help? Thanks.

You are aware from all the posts that there is no issue over referencing the quote of Leo, rather the quote is referred to generally because it shows the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff at Chalcedon, and is included in the Vatican I Chapter 4 under the custom, councils, or Holy See statements, and in particular:

“It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .”

I understand now that you do not agree with Vatican I and II that:

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

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."

 

[megous0002]

With the cover letter you can explain with more details the motivations, why you are applying for this job. Why are you sending the cv to the company? It is supposed to be a brief presentation of your curriculum vitae.

Cover Letter Curriculum Vitae

 

[Vince1022]

You are aware from all the posts that there is no issue over referencing the quote of Leo, rather the quote is referred to generally because it shows the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff at Chalcedon, and is included in the Vatican I Chapter 4 under the custom, councils, or Holy See statements, and in particular:

“It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .”

I understand now that you do not agree with Vatican I and II that:

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

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."

You are wrong.

I agree with Vatican I and II.

You have failed to answer the question I have continually asked here…where does the quotation regarding Pope Leo appear in Catholic teaching regarding infallibility? Not in Vatican I, not in Vatican II, and you have not provided any reference anyway.

Keep responding, if you’d like to, but if you’re not going to answer my repeated question there’s really no point.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vince1022,

I just made the effort to read through 5 pages of your discussion with brother Vico. You are correct that “Peter has spoken through Leo” bespeaks of the Primacy of the bishop of Rome, as Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles. But brother Vico is also correct.

The issue of Pope St. Leo at Chalcedon was debated specifically in connection with the question of papal infallibility. On this particular issue, the Minority Party was represented by Bishop Hefele of Rottenberg in a speech on May 15, 1870. The most able speech on the matter for the Majority Party was given by the Archbishop of Saragossa on May 16.

Though one can infer an admission of primacy from the conciliar exclamation “Peter has spoken through Leo!”, its more explicit intent was to indicate orthodoxy - that is, it’s import is primarily doctrinal/theological.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

You are wrong.

I agree with Vatican I and II.

You have failed to answer the question I have continually asked here…where does the quotation regarding Pope Leo appear in Catholic teaching regarding infallibility? Not in Vatican I, not in Vatican II, and you have not provided any reference anyway.

Keep responding, if you’d like to, but if you’re not going to answer my repeated question there’s really no point.

I did answer your question in in post #72, and other times after, which is to say that there is no reference to the Leo quote only a referral:
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.
Somehow, you do not acknowledge that answer.

For me, the question is to understand your logic for how you keep primacy and the teaching authority independent in face of Vatican I saying for the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff that "This holy see has always maintained this".

 

[Vince1022]

Dear brother Vince1022,

I just made the effort to read through 5 pages of your discussion with brother Vico. You are correct that “Peter has spoken through Leo” bespeaks of the Primacy of the bishop of Rome, as Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles. But brother Vico is also correct.

The issue of Pope St. Leo at Chalcedon was debated specifically in connection with the question of papal infallibility. On this particular issue, the Minority Party was represented by Bishop Hefele of Rottenberg in a speech on May 15, 1870. The most able speech on the matter for the Majority Party was given by the Archbishop of Saragossa on May 16.

Though one can infer an admission of primacy from the conciliar exclamation “Peter has spoken through Leo!”, its more explicit intent was to indicate orthodoxy - that is, it’s import is primarily doctrinal/theological.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks Marduk. I’m still not clear…are you saying that the quotation regarding Leo was used at Vatican I to support infallibility? That’s what I disagree with. Thanks again.

 

[Vince1022]

I "Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.
[/INDENT]Somehow, you do not acknowledge that answer.

Yes, because I don’t see anything there referring to it. Do you?

Here’s my reference: piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

Is this link accurate?

If not, please provide a more accurate reference to the teachings of Vatican I.

If it is accurate, please show me where it refers to the quotation of Leo invoked in the 5th century.

Thank you!

 

[Vico]

Yes, because I don’t see anything there referring to it. Do you?

Here’s my reference: piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

Is this link accurate?

If not, please provide a more accurate reference to the teachings of Vatican I.

If it is accurate, please show me where it refers to the quotation of Leo invoked in the 5th century.

Thank you!

*** reference 5. a. **A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source
**refer: 3. **To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class

Yes, that is the Vatican I document at the link. A reference (definition 5a above) is what you are looking for, which I have agreed with you, does not exist there. The Vatican I does refer (definiton 3 above) to the quote about Leo as it is included in the proceedings of the ecumenical councils and in particular pertains the the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Chalcedon accepted the teaching authority of Pope St. Leo, and Vatican I give the various sources for the declaration about the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff in that, the “holy see has always maintained this”, “constant custom”, and “ecumenical councils”, then listing the profession of faith of “the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors” ("You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church … ") and also the “approval of the second council of Lyons” and the “definition of the council of Florence”.

 

[Vince1022]

*** reference 5. a. **A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source
**refer: 3. **To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class

Yes, that is the Vatican I document at the link. A reference (definition 5a above) is what you are looking for, which I have agreed with you, does not exist there.

Thanks. Seems like we finally agree.

 

[Vico]

Thanks. Seems like we finally agree.

Yet there has been no change since Post #72: Vico: "Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.

As explained (being a reference vs referral is irrelevant to what I have posted), I do not understand the logic of your statement in post #62, in view of Vatican I statements on the primacy with infallible teaching authority:

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

 

[Vince1022]

Yet there has been no change since Post #72: Vico: "Actually Vatican I does refer to the statement without using an actual quote, in 1870 V1, Session 4, Chapter 4, item 1.

As explained (being a reference vs referral is irrelevant to what I have posted), I do not understand the logic of your statement in post #62, in view of Vatican I statements on the primacy with infallible teaching authority:

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

The logic of my statement is that nowhere did Vatican I cite the quote from Leo regarding infallibility.

Again, if you can point me to where Vatican I did cite such, please share. Thanks.

 

[Vico]

The logic of my statement is that nowhere did Vatican I cite the quote from Leo regarding infallibility.

Again, if you can point me to where Vatican I did cite such, please share. Thanks.

So are you saying that, “Peter has spoken through Leo” has not been a traditionally important and strong argument for teaching infallibly because Vatican 1 did not cite the quote?

Do you say that Vatican I excludes “Peter has spoken through Leo” of Chalcedon, from the reasons given for Session 4, Chapter 4: “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.” ?

 

[Vince1022]

So are you saying that, “Peter has spoken through Leo” has not been a traditionally important and strong argument for teaching infallibly because Vatican 1 did not cite the quote?

I am saying both (1) the quote has not traditionally been used to support infallibility and (2) Vatican I did not cite that quote when teaching on infallibility.

Do you say that Vatican I excludes “Peter has spoken through Leo” of Chalcedon, from the reasons given for Session 4, Chapter 4: “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.” ?

No, I am not saying Vatican I excluded anything, simply that it didn’t cite or invoke that quotation.

 

[Vico]

I am saying both (1) the quote has not traditionally been used to support infallibility and (2) Vatican I did not cite that quote when teaching on infallibility.

No, I am not saying Vatican I excluded anything, simply that it didn’t cite or invoke that quotation.

Then you agree that Vatican I does not exclude the statement about Leo from Chalcedon, so it may include it. In fact Vatican I states that the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff has always been maintained by the Holy See. (This does not mean that the dogma of faith was declared earlier than 1870, rather that it was always true and constantly maintained.) That teaching authority is an attribute of the primacy (authority of the Supreme Pontiff).

Going back to your original statement, I do not understand how the Leo quote can apply to primacy, somehow excluding teaching authority, as these are not independent, and as stated in Vatican I, always maintained.

 

[Vince1022]

Then you agree that Vatican I does not exclude the statement about Leo from Chalcedon, so it may include it.

I am saying that Vatican I did not cite that quote. That’s all. Really. Again, if you can show me where in the documentation from Vatican I this is not true I would be happy to learn.

Going back to your original statement, I do not understand how the Leo quote can apply to primacy, somehow excluding teaching authority, as these are not independent, and as stated in Vatican I, always maintained.

There was no discussion of papal infallibility in the 5th century (Pope St. Leo the Great’s time). Nor for many centuries after. So, my only point is, that this quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great was always traditionally understood to refer, primarily, to primacy, regardless of what later interpretations may have been added to it.

The quotation, in its original context, had nothing to do with papal infallibility (unless you understand such to mean “anything to do with the Pope” which of course then it does).

And, of course, any time the Church teaches a fundamental truth, the Church presents it as continuous with Tradition. But when and how such a given teaching became explicit is a matter of historical development. The Scriptures alone do not define all that Catholics believe, nor do the teachings of the first 5 centuries, or the second 5 centuries, etc.

 

[Vico]

There was no discussion of papal infallibility in the 5th century (Pope St. Leo the Great’s time). Nor for many centuries after. So, my only point is, that this quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great was always traditionally understood to refer, primarily, to primacy, regardless of what later interpretations may have been added to it.

The quotation, in its original context, had nothing to do with papal infallibility (unless you understand such to mean “anything to do with the Pope” which of course then it does).

And, of course, any time the Church teaches a fundamental truth, the Church presents it as continuous with Tradition. But when and how such a given teaching became explicit is a matter of historical development. The Scriptures alone do not define all that Catholics believe, nor do the teachings of the first 5 centuries, or the second 5 centuries, etc.

You refer to primacy and the “later interpretations may have been added to it.” Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy. As pointed out in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

“…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.” …

They list Chalcedon quote about Leo among others and continue with:

“Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils.”

 

[Vince1022]

You refer to primacy and the “later interpretations may have been added to it.” Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy. As pointed out in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

“…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.” …

They list Chalcedon quote about Leo among others and continue with:

“Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils.”

Sure, the older version of the Catholic Encyclopedia may have included this quotation, but Vatican I did not. Nor does the current Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[Vico]

Sure, the older version of the Catholic Encyclopedia may have included this quotation, but Vatican I did not. Nor does the current Catholic Encyclopedia.

You missed the meaning of my post which is not about a quote in Vatican I, rather that the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff is not a later interpretation of the primacy. That is why I began with:
You refer to primacy and the “later interpretations may have been added to it.”
Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy.

 

[Vince1022]

Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy.

Yes, of course.

But is that claim true? Where, prior to Vatican I, is any such teaching proclaimed by the Church?

Of course such a teaching is coherent with Catholic Tradition, but where prior to Vatican I has it ever been explicitly taught?

Thanks for any reference.