M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Nothing I’ve read on this thread cites the Church teaching “papal infallibility” in the first 1000 years.Already answered. If you disagree, please show us your reasons.
Blessings
Your reference to the Council of Constantinople’s reference to something from Pope Agatho included.
Right?
M
mardukm
Guest
Oh. OK. I see. So you really are looking for the terms “papal infallibility.” No problem. I don’t see those terms being used. I see the principles quite well, but it’s obvious that’s not what you’re looking for.Nothing I’ve read on this thread cites the Church teaching “papal infallibility” in the first 1000 years.
Your reference to the Council of Constantinople’s reference to something from Pope Agatho included.
Right?
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
I cannot answer your question if it is not understandable, and you are not cooperating.I am asking for where the Church teaches “papal infallibility” in the first 1000 years.
The topic has mutated anyway, as it began regarding the Tome of Leo, to which you responded in post #61 to JohnVIII:
This shows that you intended the concept of “the Church’s charism of teaching infallibly”.Thanks.
The Biblical passage you note is often cited to support Papal primacy, but not necessarily the Church’s charism of teaching infallibly.
So I will provide the missing definition. First, the term infallibility is from the middle ages so that is not going to be an issue. The definition of papal infallibility used in this thread in reference to constant tradition of the Catholic Church, expounded at Vatican I and II:
Papal infallibility means the Pope’s exercise of teaching authority on behalf of and in communion with the Church which is juridically irreformable, and limited to truths which form a part of the deposit of faith and that must be held as true.
As you can see from the definition, there are many examples of this exercise of this teaching authority, as defined above, through history.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Thanks Marduk. In some ways, yes, I am looking for those terms, because from what I’ve seen on this thread some seem to claim that papal infallibility, specifically, has always been taught. I don’t think that’s historically true.Oh. OK. I see. So you really are looking for the terms “papal infallibility.” No problem. I don’t see those terms being used. I see the principles quite well, but it’s obvious that’s not what you’re looking for.
Blessings,
Marduk
The theological principle that God preserves truth in the Catholic Church is of course a more fundamental and enduring principle.
Appreciate your response.
V
Vince1022
Guest
I cannot answer your question if it is not understandable, and you are not cooperating.
I don’t mean to be uncooperative, sorry if you interpret my posts that way. Although, I don’t understand how my supposedly being uncooperative prevents you from answering my question.
Vico;7411352:
Can you give a source, or reference, for this? What part or example from the Middle Ages are you referring to? Does it regard papal infallibility, or infallibility in a more general sense? Thank you.So I will provide the missing definition. First, the term infallibility is from the middle ages so that is not going to be an issue.
Right, so if it’s a constant tradition of the Catholic Church, that was expounded at the Councils of Vatican I and II, it existed before those Councils. I am simply looking for where such teaching existed, explicitly, prior to these Councils. A sincere (and cooperative) request.The definition of papal infallibility used in this thread in reference to constant tradition of the Catholic Church, expounded at Vatican I and II:
V
Vico
Guest
Vico;7411352:
The “uncooperative” only means that you did not provide the definition I asked for, so I supplied it for you in my previous post. I mean that I may not answer a question properly if it is not clear what is being asked.I cannot answer your question if it is not understandable, and you are not cooperating.
I don’t mean to be uncooperative, sorry if you interpret my posts that way. Although, I don’t understand how my supposedly being uncooperative prevents you from answering my question.
Can you give a source, or reference, for this? What part or example from the Middle Ages are you referring to? Does it regard papal infallibility, or infallibility in a more general sense? Thank you.
Right, so if it’s a constant tradition of the Catholic Church, that was expounded at the Councils of Vatican I and II, it existed before those Councils. I am simply looking for where such teaching existed, explicitly, prior to these Councils. A sincere (and cooperative) request.
The source about “middle ages” is the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003), “Infallibility”, p. 448, paragraph entitled “Doctrinal Formation”:
“While the term infallibility first emerged in medieval theology, Christians eventually ascribed some type of infalliblity to the Church …”.
The definition of papal infallibility is also derived from that article, with reference to with Vatican I and II documents. So I provided this:
Papal infallibility means the Pope’s exercise of teaching authority on behalf of and in communion with the Church which is juridically irreformable, and limited to truths which form a part of the deposit of faith and that must be held as true.
You posted “Right, so if it’s a constant tradition of the Catholic Church, that was expounded at the Councils of Vatican I and II, it existed before those Councils. I am simply looking for where such teaching existed, explicitly, prior to these Councils. A sincere (and cooperative) request.”
The subject, then, of your inquiry is as defined at Vatican I: “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 you are looking for explicit teaching of this prior to Vatican I rather than examples of the actual exercise of papal infallibility. Vatican I gave instances of explicit declarations: Constantinople 4 (869 A.D.), Lyons 2, Florence. Also the finality itself is explicit as every “anathema”.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Right. Primacy, not infallibility.The subject, then, of your inquiry is as defined at Vatican I: “That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.”
Where do any of these three councils refer to papal infallibility? I couldn’t find any reference. Thanks.So you are looking for explicit teaching of this prior to Vatican I rather than examples of the actual exercise of papal infallibility. Vatican I gave instances of explicit declarations: Constantinople 4 (869 A.D.), Lyons 2, Florence.
Anathemas issued by a council are just that…issued by a Council (not an individual). This does get to the idea that the Church is preserved in truth, but not really infallibility. Anathemas are typical parts of ecumenical councils, with no mention of or regard to infallibility. I probably misunderstand your point…can you clarify? Thanks.Also the finality itself is explicit as every “anathema”.
V
Vico
Guest
The council cannot issue an anathema without the contribution of the Supreme Pontiff agreement to the irreformable statements of faith and morals. The infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff is an attribute of the primacy, as explained at Vatican I.Right. Primacy, not infallibility.
Where do any of these three councils refer to papal infallibility? I couldn’t find any reference. Thanks.
Anathemas issued by a council are just that…issued by a Council (not an individual). This does get to the idea that the Church is preserved in truth, but not really infallibility. Anathemas are typical parts of ecumenical councils, with no mention of or regard to infallibility. I probably misunderstand your point…can you clarify? Thanks.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Right. As explained at Vatican I.The council cannot issue an anathema without the contribution of the Supreme Pontiff agreement to the irreformable statements of faith and morals. The infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff is an attribute of the primacy, as explained at Vatican I.
The earliest ecumenical councils were neither convened nor attended by the Pope, yet they issued anathemas.
V
Vico
Guest
The anathemas were not in effect unless accepted by the Supreme Pontiff. This may have been through papal legates.Right. As explained at Vatican I.
The earliest ecumenical councils were neither convened nor attended by the Pope, yet they issued anathemas.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Evidence for such regarding, let’s say, the first Ecumenical Council? Or any of the first 7 ecumenical councils?The anathemas were not in effect unless accepted by the Supreme Pontiff. This may have been through papal legates.
Meaning…at the time these councils were held…where do we have any evidence that the Bishop of Rome’s acceptance was contingent on their binding authority? Any valid historical reference from the first 800 years?
Thank you.
V
Vico
Guest
I do not understand the phrase “that the Bishop of Rome’s acceptance was contingent on their [the council’s] binding authority”.Evidence for such regarding, let’s say, the first Ecumenical Council? Or any of the first 7 ecumenical councils?
Meaning…at the time these councils were held…where do we have any evidence that the Bishop of Rome’s acceptance was contingent on their binding authority? Any valid historical reference from the first 800 years?
Thank you.
As the Catholic Church has defined there are only three situations where infallibility holds, all requiring assent of the Pope:
- Pope ex cathedra
- Bishops, in union with Pope, defining doctrine at General Council
- Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope
- “The articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.”
- “connected with revelation by a logical necessity”, “for example, the development in the understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility.”
The early general councils established many canons, which were accepted by the Church only with assent of the Supreme Pontiff. There are examples of his non-acceptance, one such is Canon 28 from Chalcedon, where no papal legates were present for the vote on canon 28, and it was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.
V
Vince1022
Guest
You said:I do not understand the phrase “that the Bishop of Rome’s acceptance was contingent on their [the council’s] binding authority”.
As the Catholic Church has defined there are only three situations where infallibility holds, all requiring assent of the Pope:
Cardinal Ratzinger explained regarding Pope John Paul II’s *Ad Tuendam Fidem, that *“the full and irrevocable character of assent” is owed equally to both the first and second levels of doctrines, which are:
- Pope ex cathedra
- Bishops, in union with Pope, defining doctrine at General Council
- Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope
So if you are looking for first 800 years examples they should conform to the specification above. This means all the canons accepted by the Supreme Pontiff from the general councils in the first 800 years.
- “The articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.”
- “connected with revelation by a logical necessity”, “for example, the development in the understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility.”
The early general councils established many canons, which were accepted by the Church only with assent of the Supreme Pontiff. There are examples of his non-acceptance, one such is Canon 28 from Chalcedon, where no papal legates were present for the vote on canon 28, and it was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.
I’m just asking for any historical reference to support such an idea from the first, let’s say, 1000 years of Catholic tradition. Thanks.The anathemas were not in effect unless accepted by the Supreme Pontiff. This may have been through papal legates.
V
Vico
Guest
So 1000 years now. Some of those were given before, which include examples in the form of tradition, councils, and Holy Scripture. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremecy or papal doctrinal authority (infallibility by inference as later given in Vatican I).You said:
I’m just asking for any historical reference to support such an idea from the first, let’s say, 1000 years of Catholic tradition. Thanks.
A. Ecumenical Councils are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees receiving papal confirmation bind all Christians. So a council may fail ratification of the whole Church or of the pope, and so not be called an Ecumenical council, which happened with the Robber Synod of 449 the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and partially with the Councils of Constance and Basle. And a general synod such as The Synod Of Constantinople (381) which was originally only an Eastern general synod is Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately ratified by the Pope. So every general council is an example of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
•Ephesus (431) the Fathers declare that they “are compelled” to condemn the heresy of Nestorius “by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome.”
•Chalcedon (451) the Fathers after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.”
•Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), repeated formula: “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
•Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted that by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; “the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See.”
B. Hormisidas.
Densinger (old numbering):
ST. SYMMACHUS 498-514, ST. HORMISDAS 514-523
The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff *
“Libellus professionis fidei” added to the epistle “Inter ea quae” to the bishops of Spain, April 2, 517]
171 [Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” . . . [Matt. 16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. Desiring not to be separated from this hope and faith and following the ordinances of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, who at one time was bishop of the city of Constantinople, condemned in the Council of EPHESUS by the blessed CELESTINE, Pope of the City of Rome,* and by the venerable man Cyril, high priest of the City of Alexandria. Similiarly anathematizing both Eutyches and Dioscorus of Alexandria condemned in the holy Synod of CHALCEDON [see n. 148] which we follow and embrace, which following the sacred Council of NICEA proclaimed the apostolic faith, we detest both Timothy the parricide, surnamed the Cat, and likewise his disciple and follower in all things, Peter of Alexandria. We condemn, too, and anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Apostolic See, their confederate and follower, or those who remained in the society of their communion, because Acacius justly merited a sentence in condemnation like theirs in whose communion he mingled. No less do we condemn Peter of Antioch with his followers, and the followers of all mentioned above.
C. Demonstrations in action, of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff:
•Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,
•the way that Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;
•the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century about the paschal controversy;
•the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays down the rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii)
•second half of third century, the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria
D. Biblical process
1 bishops meet to examine the matter (Acts 15:6)
2 debate (Acts 15:7)
3 The Pope decides on the debate (Acts 15:7-11)
4 The Petrine position is explained (Acts 15:12-19)
5 Amendments may be made for the sake of peace (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:28-29)
E. Archbishop Gasser states that there are very many examples of exercise of the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff in his relatio, Vatican I.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes of course. Something that does not exist cannot be formally denied.Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremecy
Yes, that is what the Church teaches today (more or less–Church teaching today has no reference to papal legates regarding the convoking of ecumenical councils) but historically this is not what happened.A. Ecumenical Councils are convoked from the whole world under the presidency of the pope or his legates,
What role did the Supreme Pontiff have in the first Ecumenical Council? Or the second? Or the third?. So every general council is an example of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Great reference.S
•Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,
Where does it mention the supreme Pontiff? Infallibility? Papal supremacy? Anything related to this Thread? Thanks.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Where does the book of Acts use the terms “Pope” or “bishop” in the passages you cite? Thanks.D. Biblical process
1 bishops meet to examine the matter (Acts 15:6)
2 debate (Acts 15:7)
3 The Pope decides on the debate (Acts 15:7-11)
4 The Petrine position is explained (Acts 15:12-19)
5 Amendments may be made for the sake of peace (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:28-29)
V
Vince1022
Guest
He didn’t address a Pope, or a supreme Pontiff, or infallibility, so what do you mean? Thanks.•the way that Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;
V
Vico
Guest
These are examples of the exercise of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff, which has the quality of finality which implies infallibility.Great reference.
Where does it mention the supreme Pontiff? Infallibility? Papal supremacy? Anything related to this Thread? Thanks.
Papal infallibility means the Pope’s exercise of teaching authority on behalf of and in communion with the Church which is juridically irreformable, and limited to truths which form a part of the deposit of faith and that must be held as true.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.