Infallibility - revisited

[Vico]

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.

There are references given at Vatican I, given by me before in this thread, which they have presented to show how the tradition has been constant. It is the finality of the teaching authority of that implies infallibility. I do not dispute the Church on their statement or that it is constant, as has been done by those that object to Vatican I and II, such as Kung, Tierney, August Hassler. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia they have been criticised for denying “a priori, legitimate development of the doctrine through history.” (See p. 450-452 Catholic Encyclopedia). The definition was necessary to put down Gallicanism. Other sources were given in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

It was stated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (written 1265-1274) second part, question 1, part 10, that:
Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. …

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred,” as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.
newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10

 

[Vince1022]

There are references given at Vatican I, given by me before in this thread, which they have presented to show how the tradition has been constant. It is the finality of the teaching authority of that implies infallibility. I do not dispute the Church on their statement or that it is constant, as has been done by those that object to Vatican I and II, such as Kung, Tierney, August Hassler. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia they have been criticised for denying “a priori, legitimate development of the doctrine through history.” (See p. 450-452 Catholic Encyclopedia). The definition was necessary to put down Gallicanism. Other sources were given in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

It was stated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (written 1265-1274) second part, question 1, part 10, that:
Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. …

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred,” as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.
newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10

What article in the old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia are you referring to? I don’t have a hard copy, so the page references don’t help. I’d like to compare it to what the current edition says.

I of course agree with St. Thomas, my point was that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit there.

 

[Vico]

What article in the old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia are you referring to? I don’t have a hard copy, so the page references don’t help. I’d like to compare it to what the current edition says.

I of course agree with St. Thomas, my point was that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit there.

The pages are in, New Catholic Encyclopedia, second edition, 2003, v. 7. Hol-Jub “Infallability”, pp. 448-452.

It is the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching that is constantly maintained by the Magisterium, as explained in Vatican I and by others.

I could not give a reason, based upon what you have posted in this thread, that is not in conflict with the statements of Vatican I, showing how the primacy had no teaching authority of a final nature, on matters of faith and morals, prior to Vatican I. Of course, to put down Gallicanism, the definition was made in 1870, and clarified at Vatican II, yet the Church has long taught infallibly. You seminal posts used the term “teaching infallibly”, which is what I responed to:

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

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

Even at the Council of Trent, the French contested the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as expressed at the Council of Florence, which was not resolved until Vatican I.

 

[mardukm]

Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. …

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, “to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred,” as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.
[/INDENT]newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10

Interesting quote from St. Thomas Aquinas. He seems to confirm the High Petrine position that the infallible authority of the Pontiff is a universal appellate authority. Indeed this position was affirmed by Vatican 1, Vatican 2, and most recently by Pope Benedict XVI (easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2010/12/pope-of-rome-and-christian-east.html).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vince1022]

The pages are in, New Catholic Encyclopedia, second edition, 2003, v. 7. Hol-Jub “Infallability”, pp. 448-452.

It is the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching that is constantly maintained by the Magisterium, as explained in Vatican I and by others.

I could not give a reason, based upon what you have posted in this thread, that is not in conflict with the statements of Vatican I, showing how the primacy had no teaching authority of a final nature, on matters of faith and morals, prior to Vatican I. Of course, to put down Gallicanism, the definition was made in 1870, and clarified at Vatican II, yet the Church has long taught infallibly. You seminal posts used the term “teaching infallibly”, which is what I responed to:

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

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

Even at the Council of Trent, the French contested the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as expressed at the Council of Florence, which was not resolved until Vatican I.

Thanks! Appreciate the reference, I didn’t know you were referring to the current Catholic Encyclopedia. Great post.

Still, my point in this thread is not refuted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, for what it’s worth.

Thanks again.

 

[SCALCO]

Dear Vince,

I’ve sort of been following along the past couple of pages and it’s been a little funny seeing you and Vico go back and forth.

Can you please answer a quick question…if I get correctly, your point is that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit prior to Vatican I.

What I don’t get is (I may have missed it), what is the point of your point? I’ve just been curious.

Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Scalco

 

[Vico]

Thanks! Appreciate the reference, I didn’t know you were referring to the current Catholic Encyclopedia. Great post.

Still, my point in this thread is not refuted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, for what it’s worth.

Thanks again.

I am not able to get you to answer my question. The logic for my statement is this:

1. Vatican 1 states that the primacy has always had the authority of “teaching infallibly”
2. Vatican 1 states that (1) above has always been maintained by the Magisterium
3. The statement from Chalcedon regarding Leo pertains to the teaching authority of the primacy (it’s finality)
4. Vatican 1 does not exclude (3) above so it might include it.

Therefore it can not certainly be said that the Leo quote has not been used for “teaching infallibly”.

There are many documents both before and after Vatican I that use the quote regarding Leo from Chalcedon in regard to “teaching infallibly” in the finality of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Two modern Catholic authors have also published that the particular quote regarding Leo from Chalcedon is an example of ex cathedra (although I am not giving my opinion on that).

 

[Vince1022]

Dear Vince,

I’ve sort of been following along the past couple of pages and it’s been a little funny seeing you and Vico go back and forth.

Can you please answer a quick question…if I get correctly, your point is that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit prior to Vatican I.

What I don’t get is (I may have missed it), what is the point of your point? I’ve just been curious.

Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Scalco

Hi Scalco, glad you’re amused. We all need to laugh and lighten up, no doubt!

My point, from what I recall, was regarding the claim that Leo I’s statement regarding the Council of Chalcedon had to do with papal primacy but not papal infallibility. From what I recall, that’s where I chimed in and have been corresponding with Vico and others about. I was responding to what others raised. See my post #62. Hope this helps.

 

[Vince1022]

I am not able to get you to answer my question. The logic for my statement is this:

1. Vatican 1 states that the primacy has always had the authority of “teaching infallibly”
2. Vatican 1 states that (1) above has always been maintained by the Magisterium
3. The statement from Chalcedon regarding Leo pertains to the teaching authority of the primacy (it’s finality)
4. Vatican 1 does not exclude (3) above so it might include it.

Therefore it can not certainly be said that the Leo quote has not been used for “teaching infallibly”.

Yes, of course. My point is that until Vatican I no Church teaching correlated the two explicitly.

There are many documents both before and after Vatican I that use the quote regarding Leo from Chalcedon in regard to “teaching infallibly” in the finality of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Could you please share some pre-Vatican I documents? Thanks!

 

[Vico]

Yes, of course. My point is that until Vatican I no Church teaching correlated the two explicitly.

Could you please share some pre-Vatican I documents? Thanks!

Many have posted here already, from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, and Vatican I specifically listing some general councils, etc… Note that from post #64:

“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.”

 

[SCALCO]

Hi Scalco, glad you’re amused. We all need to laugh and lighten up, no doubt!

Dear Vince,

Laughter is the best medicine, as the saying goes. And, the gift of perseverance, shown by you and Vico, can be something good.

My point, from what I recall, was regarding the claim that Leo I’s statement regarding the Council of Chalcedon had to do with papal primacy but not papal infallibility. From what I recall, that’s where I chimed in and have been corresponding with Vico and others about. I was responding to what others raised. See my post #62. Hope this helps.

Understood. I take note you do not see any hint of the Leo quote being used to support infallibility now or ever. On this point, I guess anyone can agree to differ whether or not the charism of infallibility has been understood or taught at all, which isn’t about saying it hasn’t always existed.

Peace and joy to you always,
Scalco

 

[Vince1022]

Many have posted here already, from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, and Vatican I specifically listing some general councils, etc… Note that from post #64:

“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.”

Yes, of course, the post on 64 mentioned infallibility, but none of the Church teachings linked on that post did. So, my question remains unanswered. Or did I misunderstand or misread post 64?

 

[Vico]

Yes, of course, the post on 64 mentioned infallibility, but none of the Church teachings linked on that post did. So, my question remains unanswered. Or did I misunderstand or misread post 64?

Notice that I gave the Old Catholic Encyclopedia quote there including “finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching”.

From the beginning, my comments have been on “teaching infallibly”, not on historical statements that used the word “infallibility”.

“Teaching infallibly” means the tradition of the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Vince1022]

Many have posted here already, from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, and Vatican I specifically listing some general councils, etc… Note that from post #64:

“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.”

Implication.

Meaning, not explicit. If it were explicit, it would not be implied.

Exactly my point.

And, of course, the old Catholic Encyclopedia vs. the current edition (2003). Worth looking at.

Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

Understood. I take note you do not see any hint of the Leo quote being used to support infallibility now or ever. On this point, I guess anyone can agree to differ whether or not the charism of infallibility has been understood or taught at all, which isn’t about saying it hasn’t always existed.

Peace and joy to you always,
Scalco

Laughter is indeed the best medicine.

My point is that prior to Vatican I, the quote of Pope St. Leo the Great was not used to support papal infallibility. It was used to support papal primacy. That’s all.

I fully believe in both Catholic teachings regarding infallibility and papal primacy.

 

[Vico]

Implication.

Meaning, not explicit. If it were explicit, it would not be implied.

Exactly my point.

And, of course, the old Catholic Encyclopedia vs. the current edition (2003). Worth looking at.

Thanks.

Yes, however, explicit is what you now say, yet the original phrase was: “not for teaching infallibly” and is what I responded to.

Of course, I have read both the CE and NCE sources on infallibility. Have you?

 

[Vince1022]

Y

Of course, I have read both the CE and NCE sources on infallibility. Have you?

Yes. I wouldn’t have referred to both if I had not read them. thanks for asking, though.

 

[Vico]

Yes. I wouldn’t have referred to both if I had not read them. thanks for asking, though.

Excellent.

We understand then that the Church has always maintained the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as expressed in Vatican I, and that it’s formal definiton only was made at Vatican I.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Excellent.

We understand then that the Church has always maintained the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as expressed in Vatican I, and that it’s formal definiton only was made at Vatican I.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you SOMEwhat.

I believe the FACT of papal infallibility was first explicitly acknowledged by an Ecumenical Council when the Sixth Ecumenical Council accepted without reservation the Letter of Pope St. Agatho which contained these words:
“…this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy [the Faith]; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she hsa received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the Prince of the Apostles, saying: 'Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And when though art converted, strengthen thy brethren…”

What V1 did was define the limits of the papal exercise of the Church’s infallibility, though it was not, as noted, the first Ecumenical Council to recognize the fact of papal infallibility.

The Easterns obviously understood the import of these words, for at the Trullan Council (which Easterns consider to be part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council), they reconfirmed the Canons of the Council of Sardica, Sardica itself having been an implicit admission of papal infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you SOMEwhat.

I believe the FACT of papal infallibility was first explicitly acknowledged by an Ecumenical Council when the Sixth Ecumenical Council accepted without reservation the Letter of Pope St. Agatho which contained these words:
“…this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy [the Faith]; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she hsa received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the Prince of the Apostles, saying: 'Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And when though art converted, strengthen thy brethren…”

What V1 did was define the limits of the papal exercise of the Church’s infallibility, though it was not, as noted, the first Ecumenical Council to recognize the fact of papal infallibility.

The Easterns obviously understood the import of these words, for at the Trullan Council (which Easterns consider to be part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council), they reconfirmed the Canons of the Council of Sardica, Sardica itself having been an implicit admission of papal infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you, I should have said that the formal dogmatic definiton as “infallibility” was finally made at Vatican I, and the limits were elaborated at Vatican I and II, yet the finality of the teaching authority was confirmed long ago as mentioned in the Vatican I statements.