Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

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.

No, sorry. Any reference from the first 1000 years (at least) of the Church that refers to papal infallibility?

Thanks.

 

[Vico]

No, sorry. Any reference from the first 1000 years (at least) of the Church that refers to papal infallibility?

Thanks.

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

 

[Vince1022]

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

Ok, sorry if I misinterpreted your reference to “has always maintained the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff” I thought that meant papal infallibility.

So, then, any references to “teaching infallibly” in the first 1000 years (or more)?

 

[Vico]

Ok, sorry if I misinterpreted your reference to “has always maintained the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff” I thought that meant papal infallibility.

So, then, any references to “teaching infallibly” in the first 1000 years (or more)?

Read from around post #109. As was stated before from Vatican I:
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.
   …
2. 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 - Bernard, *Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).]
   And they specifically give three councils by name: Constantinople 4, Lyons 2, and Florence.
   56 From Pope Hormisdas’s formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.
   57 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).
   58 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528). S Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

 

[Vince1022]

Read from around post #109. As was stated before from Vatican I:

Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
​

In your post $157 were you referring to papal infallibility, or something else? Thanks.​

 

[Vince1022]

Read from around post #109. As was stated before from Vatican I:
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.
   …
2. 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 - Bernard, *Ep.

(Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).]
And they specifically give three councils by name: Constantinople 4, Lyons 2, and Florence.
56 From Pope Hormisdas’s formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.
57 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).
58 Council of Florence, session 6 (see above p. 528). S Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190 (PL 182, 1053).

None of those references are from the first 1000 years, are they?

 

[mardukm]

Ok, sorry if I misinterpreted your reference to “has always maintained the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff” I thought that meant papal infallibility.

So, then, any references to “teaching infallibly” in the first 1000 years (or more)?

I gave one in my last post.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vince1022]

I gave one in my last post.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks Marduk!

Let me make sure I understand…you’re referring to the council of Constantinople that took place in 680-681 A.D. Is that right?

I see where that Council accepted the teaching of Pope Agatho, regarding the issue at hand (monothelitism) but I don’t see where the acts of that Council addressed papal infallibility. Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vince,

Thanks Marduk!

Let me make sure I understand…you’re referring to the council of Constantinople that took place in 680-681 A.D. Is that right?

I see where that Council accepted the teaching of Pope Agatho, regarding the issue at hand (monothelitism) but I don’t see where the acts of that Council addressed papal infallibility. Can you clarify? Thanks.

What a Council accepts as part of its records is always accepted in toto. If the Council did not accept a part of a certain document, it would explicitly say so.

There are examples from other Councils where there have been differences between the Latin and Greek copies of the Council records. The Letter of Pope Agatho was accepted in full by the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vince1022]

Dear brother Vince,

What a Council accepts as part of its records is always accepted in toto. If the Council did not accept a part of a certain document, it would explicitly say so.

There are examples from other Councils where there have been differences between the Latin and Greek copies of the Council records. The Letter of Pope Agatho was accepted in full by the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

OK, so what did the Council accept regarding any reference to infallibility?

Thanks.

 

[123xcmy]

cheap chloe handbag,cheap fendi handbag,cheap moncler coat,cheap moncler jacket,lacoste polo shirt,ralph lauren shirt jacket.
This is a cheap apparel store,sale $30 handbag,if you want to buy cheap chloe handbag,cheap gucci handbag,cheap fendi handbag,cheap lv bag,come one,we are you the best choice.we also wholesale cheap moncler coat,moncler down coat,cheap moncler jaceket is hot sale now.we also wholesale cheap short and long sleeve t shirt,polo shirt,Lacoste polo shirt,ralph lauren shirts,lv t-shirts,gucci t-shirts,d&g t-shirts,the shirt sale as $15 only.get more discount now.
cheap4apparel.com/categor…+Handbags.html

 

[mardukm]

OK, so what did the Council accept regarding any reference to infallibility?

The Letter of Pope Agatho, part of which I quoted above.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

In your post $157 were you referring to papal infallibility, or something else? Thanks.

In #157 I wrote: “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.”

Which I clarified to Mardukm: “… 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.”

It is the finality of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff which implies infallibility as defined at Vatican I.

None of those references are from the first 1000 years, are they?

As you asked, “first 1000 years (or more)”. It does include Hormisidas, 517 A.D., in the footnote given, and Constantinople 4 869 A.D. is listed, but Lyons 2, and Florence were after 1000. In general, however, Vatican I includes all statements of the councils as explained in earlier posts, including all before and after 1000 A.D.

You can read the relatio of Bishop Gasser from Vatican I, translated into English for insight into what they voted on.

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop by James T. O’Connor.

 

[SCALCO]

So, then, any references to “teaching infallibly” in the first 1000 years (or more)?

Dear Vince,

Why not consider the 2nd century teachings of Ignatius and Irenaeus, which you have seen before I know?

“the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things…who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint.” Ignatius, Epistle to Romans, c.107 A.D.

“Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, i.e. with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who . . . are the guardians of our faith . . . and securely [sine periculo] expound the Scriptures to us” Adv. Haereses book 4, ch. 26, c.180 A.D.

God bless,
Scalco

 

[Vince1022]

Dear Vince,

Why not consider the 2nd century teachings of Ignatius and Irenaeus, which you have seen before I know?

"the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things…who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint." Ignatius, Epistle to Romans, c.107 A.D.

"Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, i.e. with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who . . . are the guardians of our faith . . . and securely [sine periculo] expound the Scriptures to us" Adv. Haereses book 4, ch. 26, c.180 A.D.

God bless,
Scalco

Of course. But no mention of papal infallibility there. Right?

 

[Vince1022]

In #157 I wrote: “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.”

Which I clarified to Mardukm: “… 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.”

It is the finality of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff which implies infallibility as defined at Vatican I.

As you asked, “first 1000 years (or more)”. It does include Hormisidas, 517 A.D., in the footnote given, and Constantinople 4 869 A.D. is listed, but Lyons 2, and Florence were after 1000. In general, however, Vatican I includes all statements of the councils as explained in earlier posts, including all before and after 1000 A.D.

You can read the relatio of Bishop Gasser from Vatican I, translated into English for insight into what they voted on.

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop by James T. O’Connor.

Ok…but still…where in the first 1000 years of the Church is papal infallibility mentioned?

 

[mardukm]

Of course. But no mention of papal infallibility there. Right?

Your question sounds legalistic. Are you looking for the actual words “P-A-P-A-L I-N-F-A-L-L-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y,” or are you looking for the principles of papal infallibility? You have already been given good sources for the latter.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

Ok…but still…where in the first 1000 years of the Church is papal infallibility mentioned?

Define what you are asking for, giving all sufficient possibilites. I need to know what form “mention of papal infallibility” would take, for example, would it employ the use of specific words, or is a concept sufficient? If a concept then define it.

 

[Vince1022]

Your question sounds legalistic. Are you looking for the actual words “P-A-P-A-L I-N-F-A-L-L-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y,” or are you looking for the principles of papal infallibility? You have already been given good sources for the latter.

Blessings

I’m looking for papal infallibility, which some posts on this thread have claimed as always been taught by the Church.

 

[Vince1022]

Define what you are asking for, giving all sufficient possibilites. I need to know what form “mention of papal infallibility” would take, for example, would it employ the use of specific words, or is a concept sufficient? If a concept then define it.

I am asking for where the Church teaches “papal infallibility” in the first 1000 years.