Origins and scope of Infallibility

[TOmNossor]

All,
I wanted to post here a couple of questions. I will TRY to just listen to the answers. I will read everything, but I am not looking for what scripture says and how it should be interpreted in answer to the questions. An analogy would be when I have seen Protestants asked for the earliest evidence for “imputed righteousness” vs. “infused righteousness” and they quote St. Paul and say see here. I do not believe “imputed righteousness” was taught until the reformation BTW, but that has nothing to do with what I am asking.

I am looking for the earliest Catholic thinkers (ECF, Aquinas, …) who explain that this or that scripture or this or that xyz means “infallible” and concerning “faith and morals.”

Question #1: When was the earliest recognition that the output of an Ecumenical Council was infallible/irreformable? Together with this is how do we know councils were Ecumenical/General rather than local and when is this defined. I am quite sure that one EC (I think the 3rd) was originally considered a local council by at least one pope. I also think that post Nicea history almost demands that few if any Bishops thought Nicea was infallible.
Question #2: When was the earliest recognition that the restriction “concerning faith and morals” was placed upon the charism that results in infallibility. I understand that councils can make statements about church discipline that are not irreformable, but I doubt I would be able to perfectly draw the line concerning some things. I know that the brightest line is associated with “concerning faith and morals,” but I do not know when that line was explained/delineated.

I hope to read all responses for a while. I might be able to answer clarifying questions if necessary, but I generally want to see if I can restrict my engagement to learning in this thread. I really do not know when the earliest evidence for these are.
Charity, TOm

P.S. Papal Infallibility is not what I am talking about. I know that some have linked certain Vatican I statements as Papal Infallibility was defined to Conciliar Infallibility (and if this is the earliest evidence, then it is), but that would be pretty late. I also have read limitedly some of the documents external to Vatican I. I would be shocked if Newman’s letters do not have something about conciliar infallibility, but this again would be late (and I do not have a specific memory about this aspect).

 

[Nanotwerp]

All,
I wanted to post here a couple of questions. I will TRY to just listen to the answers. I will read everything, but I am not looking for what scripture says and how it should be interpreted in answer to the questions. An analogy would be when I have seen Protestants asked for the earliest evidence for “imputed righteousness” vs. “infused righteousness” and they quote St. Paul and say see here. I do not believe “imputed righteousness” was taught until the reformation BTW, but that has nothing to do with what I am asking.

I am looking for the earliest Catholic thinkers (ECF, Aquinas, …) who explain that this or that scripture or this or that xyz means “infallible” and concerning “faith and morals.”

Question #1: When was the earliest recognition that the output of an Ecumenical Council was infallible/irreformable? Together with this is how do we know councils were Ecumenical/General rather than local and when is this defined. I am quite sure that one EC (I think the 3rd) was originally considered a local council by at least one pope. I also think that post Nicea history almost demands that few if any Bishops thought Nicea was infallible.
Question #2: When was the earliest recognition that the restriction “concerning faith and morals” was placed upon the charism that results in infallibility. I understand that councils can make statements about church discipline that are not irreformable, but I doubt I would be able to perfectly draw the line concerning some things. I know that the brightest line is associated with “concerning faith and morals,” but I do not know when that line was explained/delineated.

I hope to read all responses for a while. I might be able to answer clarifying questions if necessary, but I generally want to see if I can restrict my engagement to learning in this thread. I really do not know when the earliest evidence for these are.
Charity, TOm

P.S. Papal Infallibility is not what I am talking about. I know that some have linked certain Vatican I statements as Papal Infallibility was defined to Conciliar Infallibility (and if this is the earliest evidence, then it is), but that would be pretty late. I also have read limitedly some of the documents external to Vatican I. I would be shocked if Newman’s letters do not have something about conciliar infallibility, but this again would be late (and I do not have a specific memory about this aspect).

When in doubt, always consult the Catholic Encyclopedia! newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[Abu]

TOmNossor #1
Question #1: When was the earliest recognition that the output of an Ecumenical Council was infallible/irreformable?

As the infallibility of the Church is given by Christ, infallibility does not extend to any but the dogmas or doctrines actually defined by an Ecumenical Council and approved by the Pope or his representative.

That infallibility was instituted by Christ:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).”

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Bishop Ossius of Cordoba signed as presider at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), the first since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, and two priests signed as the Pope’s legates.

 

[Abu]

Question #2: When was the earliest recognition that the restriction “concerning faith and morals” was placed upon the charism that results in infallibility.

As the whole of belief and practice in based on faith – what you should believe for salvation,
and on **morals – how you should act or behave, to be pleasing to God and avoid sin **so all of the vital issues of life are encompassed in those two categories. What else is there?

I might add that “as you think so do you act” is pretty general, so that the teaching of the Catholic Church, leads to the understanding of the true faith and correct behaviour or action. When we fail, we have contrition and the sacraments to restore us.

 

[TOmNossor]

Nanotwerp and Abu,
Thank you for your responses.
I read through the Encyclopedia article AND through Abu’s post.
Here is from the Encyclopedia:

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.

When it says “was formulated ecumenically for the first time” this means that I will not find a statement from any previous council that says explicitly that councils are infallible AND that I will not find any Papal statement that explicitly says that councils are infallible in words that could reasonably be inferred as being invoked via the chrism of infallibility (as a general rule with words that include things to the effect that one must believe and/or there are anathma’s for non-belief - like was present for the two Marian infallibility decrees).
Is that a good way of understanding what was said?
Note: I am not saying that conciliar infallibility was not true or part of the church before Vatican I, only that it was not explicitly defined. An example would be that all-male priesthood has yet to be explicitly defined as an exercise of Papal Infallibility OR Conciliar Infallibility but it is a truth that exists and cannot change because the universality with which it has been taught and believed (I get this from Cardinal Ratzinger …).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church’s infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. Even considered as purely human documents they furnish us, we maintain, with a trustworthy report of Christ’s sayings and promises; and, taking it to be a fact that Christ said what is attributed to Him in the Gospels, we further maintain that Christ’s promises to the Apostles and theirsuccessors in the teaching office include the promise of such guidance and assistance as clearly implies infallibility. Having thus used the Scriptures as merehistorical sources to prove that Christ endowed the Church with infallible teaching authority it is no vicious circle, but a perfectly legitimate logical procedure, to rely on the Church’s authority for proof of what writings are inspired.

This was a little confusing to me, but I think it says that the scriptures should be view as reliable sources of history. That these historical accounts evidence that Christ intended His Church to INFALLIBLY guard the deposit of faith. Is that what I should understand from the above paragraph?
That being said, I read through the scriptures and the pre-Nicene statements and think there is a reasonable case being made for ecclesiastical infallibility. I have never thought that God who can offer revelation to Peter could not protect a council from error or the possibility of error. I am looking for folks who quite explicitly understood “ecclesiastical infallibility” as being present in an ecumenical council.
This is powerful statement:

Even the heretics, for the most part recognized this principle in theory; and if in fact they often refused to submit, they did so as a rule on the ground that this or that council was not really ecumenical, that it did not truly express the corporate voice of the Church, and was not, therefore, infallible. This will not be denied by anyone who is familiar with the history of the doctrinalcontroversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, and within the limits of this article we cannot do more than call attention to the broad conclusion in proof of which it would be easy to cite a great number of particular facts and testimonies.

I have never searched for this in the ECF, and thus I have never noted it. As I mentioned in the OP almost the entire church was Arian post Nicea. If I read the above correctly, the Bishops from east to west would maintain their Arianism by saying that the Council of Nicea was not the first EC, but was a robber council or ??? That is not something I had ever seen, but I could have missed it. As Arianism was slowly squelch the Fathers when meeting later spoke of the Council of 318 Bishops very positively, but I am unware of the invoking of infallibility.
Is there a collection of folks claiming that Nicea was wrong BECAUSE it was not an ecumenical council?
All that being said, this really gets into the second part of my first question which is how and when do we know that a council is an ecumenical council?
The Catholic Encyclopedia makes this point and so does Abu (bolding mine).

As the infallibility of the Church is given by Christ, infallibility does not extend to any but the dogmas or doctrines actually defined by an Ecumenical Council and approved by the Pope or his representative.

A council is only ecumenical when and if the Pope approves of the council. This is surely a later understanding, but it may be an essential understanding. It is hard for me to not side with the Anglicans in saying that a council is ecumenical after decades or centuries when the Christian world gets behind it. Cardinal Newman retained SOME of this thought even as a Catholic and quoted Augustine in support of it. But, I think the best answer after Vatican I is that it is Papal approval that seals a council as an Ecumenical (and therefore infallible) council (and the Catholic Encyclopedia’s appeal to Nestorians/Monophysites is a strong point).
Have I understood reasonably well the points associated with my question #1?
I will say that much of the early apologetic for infallibility is built upon “ecclesiastical infallibility” and not conciliar infallibility. Part of what I exploring here is where and when was it defined that councils were the organs of infallibility and only the statements concerning “faith and morals” at a council. This IMO is an important understanding because there is a lot said outside of a council and/or by councils not concerning faith and morals that is no longer believed.
Thanks again for reading and posting.
Charity, TOm

 

[Abu]

TOmNossor #5
When it says “was formulated ecumenically for the first time” this means that I will not find a statement from any previous council that says explicitly that councils are infallible

The statement is not that Councils are infallible but that the Pope is infallible, and only what is approved by the Pope or his legate is part of the Ecumenical Council of the Church. Nothing is infallible that is not a dogma or a doctrine.

Note: I am not saying that conciliar infallibility was not true or part of the church before Vatican I, only that it was not explicitly defined. An example would be that all-male priesthood has yet to be explicitly defined as an exercise of Papal Infallibility OR Conciliar Infallibility but it is a truth that exists and cannot change because the universality with which it has been taught and believed (I get this from Cardinal Ratzinger…)

The male priesthood has been infallibly defined:
Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself:
‘Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.’

#6
A council is only ecumenical when and if the Pope approves of the council. This is surely a later understanding, but it may be an essential understanding.

That is correct – the Pope, or his chosen legate in the early centuries.

It is hard for me to not side with the Anglicans in saying that a council is ecumenical after decades or centuries when the Christian world gets behind it.

The “Christian world” is terribly divided in failing to recognize Christ’s Church and her infallibility in teaching on faith and morals, most sects supporting remarriage after divorce, contraception, euthanasia, IVF, cloning, lacking the priesthood and The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and most sacraments.

Part of what I exploring here is where and when was it defined that councils were the organs of infallibility and only the statements concerning “faith and morals” at a council. This IMO is an important understanding because there is a lot said outside of a council and/or by councils not concerning faith and morals that is no longer believed.

Councils, approved by a Pope or his legates, were always recognised as proclaiming and teaching. Infallible teaching to be held by the whole Church, on faith and morals, is proclaimed by the Pope or by an Ecumenical Council approved by a Pope.

What do you consider “has been said”, where and by whom, “that is no longer believed”?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

tOM,

Very good and a surprise to see you!

I disagree if you are presupposing that all Catholics must maintain that every word of every ecumenical council, even in dealing with matters of faith and morals, is necessarily infallible. I believe the Catholic doctrine on this point remains to be developed. I think that might explain the lack of an early claim that ecumenical councils are infallible.

Take a peek at what the Council of Florence teaches as the matter for Holy Orders and compare it with what Pope Pius XII teaches and is necessary if as I believe, that the New Rite Ordinal is materially valid, since the “passing of the instruments” has been suppressed in the New Ordinal:

“The sixth [Sacrament] is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread.”

But Pius XII corrected it in 1947 as follows: " Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide:* that the matter, and the only matter,* of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy* is the imposition of hands*." (Sacramentum Ordinis, #4)

Following the lead of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, the faithful must refrain from a simple presumption about certainty that a valid ecumenical Council is always speaking to the entire church infallibly. Sometimes not, as in the case of the Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 November, 1439.

God bless,

Rory

 

[Abu]

RoryMcKenzie56 #8
I disagree if you are presupposing that all Catholics must maintain that every word of every ecumenical council, even in dealing with matters of faith and morals, is necessarily infallible.

No real Catholic has that misapprehension.

I believe the Catholic doctrine on this point remains to be developed. I think that might explain the lack of an early claim that ecumenical councils are infallible

.
Such a “claim” is mistaken, not only about Ecumenical Councils but also about papal teaching. Any dogma or doctrine on faith and morals proclaimed to the whole Church is necessarily infallible.

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

**Council of Chalcedon **
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

 

[RebeccaJ]

All,
I wanted to post here a couple of questions. I will TRY to just listen to the answers. I will read everything, but I am not looking for what scripture says and how it should be interpreted in answer to the questions. An analogy would be when I have seen Protestants asked for the earliest evidence for “imputed righteousness” vs. “infused righteousness” and they quote St. Paul and say see here. I do not believe “imputed righteousness” was taught until the reformation BTW, but that has nothing to do with what I am asking.

I am looking for the earliest Catholic thinkers (ECF, Aquinas, …) who explain that this or that scripture or this or that xyz means “infallible” and concerning “faith and morals.”

Question #1: When was the earliest recognition that the output of an Ecumenical Council was infallible/irreformable? Together with this is how do we know councils were Ecumenical/General rather than local and when is this defined. I am quite sure that one EC (I think the 3rd) was originally considered a local council by at least one pope. I also think that post Nicea history almost demands that few if any Bishops thought Nicea was infallible.
Question #2: When was the earliest recognition that the restriction “concerning faith and morals” was placed upon the charism that results in infallibility. I understand that councils can make statements about church discipline that are not irreformable, but I doubt I would be able to perfectly draw the line concerning some things. I know that the brightest line is associated with “concerning faith and morals,” but I do not know when that line was explained/delineated.

I hope to read all responses for a while. I might be able to answer clarifying questions if necessary, but I generally want to see if I can restrict my engagement to learning in this thread. I really do not know when the earliest evidence for these are.
Charity, TOm

P.S. Papal Infallibility is not what I am talking about. I know that some have linked certain Vatican I statements as Papal Infallibility was defined to Conciliar Infallibility (and if this is the earliest evidence, then it is), but that would be pretty late. I also have read limitedly some of the documents external to Vatican I. I would be shocked if Newman’s letters do not have something about conciliar infallibility, but this again would be late (and I do not have a specific memory about this aspect).

Hello Tom,

Infallibility is a divine attribute of the Church, and is a mark of the true Church, so I see what you’re asking as an a priori type of thing. That the Church is the vessel and protector of the Faith, requires that She is protected from teaching false doctrines. This naturally extends to all Bishops, who in communion with the Pope, each other and all the faithful, teach One Faith, One Baptism.

In Council, Bishops are acting towards that One Faith, not seeking to define another, new, faith. By their position, they possess an extra gift of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of guiding the faithful. The Holy Spirit, being Divinity itself, is infallible.

 

[TOmNossor]

The statement is not that Councils are infallible but that the Pope is infallible, and only what is approved by the Pope or his legate is part of the Ecumenical Council of the Church. Nothing is infallible that is not a dogma or a doctrine.

It is clear that at Vatican I, “Papal Infallibility” was defined. I had read (inferred that they were saying) in the Catholic Encyclopedia that “conciliar infallibility” was defined at the Vatican I. After I quoted this you replied that, the Catholic Encyclopedia was explaining that Papal Infallibility was that which “was formulated ecumenically for the FIRST” time. As I read though Vatican I, I think the Catholic Encyclopedia is not saying that Vatican I first defined “conciliar infallibility” or “papal infallibility” but rather that “ecclesiastical infallibility” was “formulated ecumenically for the first time.” So, the idea of INFALLIBILITY may be inferred from scripture and various historical events and documents, but it is “ecclesiastical infallibility” that the Catholic Encyclopedia claims was first “formulated ecumenically” at Vatican I. Do you read it any differently?
I also think of course that Papal Infallibility was first defined at Vatican I, but that was not what the Catholic Encyclopedia was referring to at that point.

The male priesthood has been infallibly defined:
Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself:
‘Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.’

Then Cardinal Ratzinger agrees with you and Pope St. JPII that it is impossible to ordain woman to the priesthood, but Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with you that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an exercise of Papal Infallibility. I have never seen (or do not remember) any explanation for the motivation of Cardinal Ratzhinger nor for how one could know based on the language of OS it was not infallible, but I think it best to follow the CDF on this question. This of course is not part of my question though.

Now this concept of “ecclesiastical infallibility” being first defined with clarity at Vatican I is interesting. It seems to me that Rory is correct that we will not find a council that clearly states that “conciliar infallibility” is one of two “organs of infallibility” the other being “papal infallibility.”
This seems to align PARTIALLY with something Abu said which is that councils are only infallible in that they are accepted and approved by the Pope.
So I now expect to find no conciliar declarations that there is a “conciliar infallibility.” I certainly do not expect to find any conciliar declarations that the Pope is infallible before Vatican I. While looking for somewhat explicit definitions of “conciliar infallibility” I found some difficult things to reconcile with “conciliar infallibility.” I knew there was a time when 3 folks claimed to be the pope. This was ended by the Council of Constance which succeeded in ending the papal confusion, but though considered an Ecumenical Council became the example of what Abu urged from the beginning. “Conciliar infallibility” only exists in connection with the Pope. The Pope chosen by the council to end the Papal confusion never approved of the further declaration of the council that councils are an authority on the Papacy. The fifth Lateran Councils seems to be directly contradicted the Council of Constance here too.
I know Newman lamented the difficulties born of Vatican I when it was proposed that the Pope was infallible. He said that he always believed in papal infallibility, but that the bringing up of difficulties for papal infallibility by the council (and other things) was an unnecessary stress upon the Church. I have no knowledge of similar stress brought on by the exploration of “conciliar infallibility,” and I now think Rory is likely correct that there is little to recommend it. Ultimately this aligns well with Abu too who was quite opposed to Rory’s statement, but in one respect agrees completely when he says that conciliar infallibility depends directly upon papal infallibility.
So, I am still interested in my original questions, but I am beginning to think Vatican I is where I will first find infallibility language. And that this was in reference to “ecclesiastic infallibility” and “papal infallibility” NOT in reference to “conciliar infallibility.” Thoughts?
Next, I have seen many invocations of “all truth,” “so hated error he walked to the other side of the street,” and other more or less clear statements that can be built into “ecclesiastic infallibility.” But, when did a theologian or council or pope or ? first declare that the church was protected from error/possibility of error OR was infallible? Was this before Vatican I?
Charity, TOm

 

[Abu]

TOmNossor #11
I am beginning to think Vatican I is where I will first find infallibility language. And that this was in reference to “ecclesiastic infallibility” and “papal infallibility” NOT in reference to “conciliar infallibility.” Thoughts?
when did a theologian or council or pope or ? first declare that the church was protected from error/possibility of error OR was infallible? Was this before Vatican I?

Here the Holy Spirit is named as teaching through Pope St Clement, the third successor of St Peter, who wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), therefore from the Christ Himself, and St Peter was infallible in the exercise of his office.

There is supreme clarity in the words of Jesus of Nazareth after His Resurrection and before His Ascension:
“Going therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Mt 28:19).

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

As God the Holy Spirit is expressly named to “guide you to all truth” – that truth which God the Son had commanded them to teach all nations, there can be no real question as to error in teaching

For the final proposed definition of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

Now, CCC 891 explains: "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm

In his book, Sources of Renewal Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope St John Paul II) wrote: “It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.” The Cardinal goes on: “All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Ibid, p 38-39). [My emphases].

The denigration of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility is a failure to assent to Christ, and Vatican II repeats this teaching in *The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium) (#18):
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council… This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”

 

[Vico]

All,
I wanted to post here a couple of questions. I will TRY to just listen to the answers. I will read everything, but I am not looking for what scripture says and how it should be interpreted in answer to the questions. An analogy would be when I have seen Protestants asked for the earliest evidence for “imputed righteousness” vs. “infused righteousness” and they quote St. Paul and say see here. I do not believe “imputed righteousness” was taught until the reformation BTW, but that has nothing to do with what I am asking.

I am looking for the earliest Catholic thinkers (ECF, Aquinas, …) who explain that this or that scripture or this or that xyz means “infallible” and concerning “faith and morals.”

Question #1: When was the earliest recognition that the output of an Ecumenical Council was infallible/irreformable? Together with this is how do we know councils were Ecumenical/General rather than local and when is this defined. I am quite sure that one EC (I think the 3rd) was originally considered a local council by at least one pope. I also think that post Nicea history almost demands that few if any Bishops thought Nicea was infallible.
Question #2: When was the earliest recognition that the restriction “concerning faith and morals” was placed upon the charism that results in infallibility. I understand that councils can make statements about church discipline that are not irreformable, but I doubt I would be able to perfectly draw the line concerning some things. I know that the brightest line is associated with “concerning faith and morals,” but I do not know when that line was explained/delineated.

I hope to read all responses for a while. I might be able to answer clarifying questions if necessary, but I generally want to see if I can restrict my engagement to learning in this thread. I really do not know when the earliest evidence for these are.
Charity, TOm

P.S. Papal Infallibility is not what I am talking about. I know that some have linked certain Vatican I statements as Papal Infallibility was defined to Conciliar Infallibility (and if this is the earliest evidence, then it is), but that would be pretty late. I also have read limitedly some of the documents external to Vatican I. I would be shocked if Newman’s letters do not have something about conciliar infallibility, but this again would be late (and I do not have a specific memory about this aspect).

Vatican I:But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

TrentFurthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.

Lyons IIthe Greeks made the following profession:
“The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

John 14:16 and following, Matt. 28:20, John 14:26, John 16:13, Acts 1:8. Romans 1:5, Mark 16:16, Luke 10:16, Matt 10:40, John 13:20, 1 Timothy 3:15. St. Irenaeus against the Gnostics. Tertullian, De praesc. 28; St. Cyprian, Ep. 59 7.