Papal Infallibility before the First Vatican Council

[ThereseFrancis]

I completely understand the scriptural and logical reasons behind papal infallibility. I believe that God will always guide His Church especially Peter. However, I am having a particular problem on this dogma.

Of course, as Catholics, we believe that Papal Infallibility has always been present but has just been first defined by the First Vatican Council. So my question is, aside from the event described in Acts 15, what are the precedence and examples wherein the Pope exercised this type of authority before the council?

 

[Vico]

I completely understand the scriptural and logical reasons behind papal infallibility. I believe that God will always guide His Church especially Peter. However, I am having a particular problem on this dogma.

Of course, as Catholics, we believe that Papal Infallibility has always been present but has just been first defined by the First Vatican Council. So my question is, aside from the event described in Acts 15, what are the precedence and examples wherein the Pope exercised this type of authority before the council?

Read Session 4 of Vatican Council I: Decrees of Vat. Ecum. Council I - Table of Contents - IntraText CT

 

[ThereseFrancis]

I checked it out. I do not see any answer to my question in this document. I am looking for specific examples when infallibility was exercised prior First Vatican Council. Can you guide me through this?

 

[MT1926]

So my question is, aside from the event described in Acts 15, what are the precedence and examples wherein the Pope exercised this type of authority before the council?

I think the thing to keep in mind is an infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

It’s like when my kids were young. Summer break would start and I would show each of them their daily barn chores and who did what on which day. Come mid July, the fighting would start about who didn’t do what on which day and Dad would have to create an Excel with it all written out and little initial boxes that they would have to mark at the end of each day. Dad had to make an infallible deceleration as the “pope” of the farm.

Acts 15 is a perfect example of this. Would there even be an Acts 15 if the Judiazers didn’t start complaining?

I found an article that states…

The First Vatican Council defined the circumstances in which the pope speaks infallibly:

When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

So the elements of papal infallibility are:

The pope is speaking as head of the Church.
The pope is defining a doctrine to be believed by all in the Church.
The doctrine is a matter of faith or morality.
The Church then simply applied this definition to past papal declarations and determined that the only time this had happened up to that point in history had been Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854.

This statement would lead me to believe that all of the other dogmas that where infallible defined were by the Pope and the Magisterium at ecumenical councils.

I’m not an expert on this but makes sense to me.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[commenter]

The Church then simply applied this definition to past papal declarations and determined that the only time this had happened up to that point in history had been Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854.

This statement would lead me to believe that all of the other dogmas that where infallible defined were by the Pope and the Magisterium at ecumenical councils.

It would help if you cite your source. I think it is important to make a distinction between the “ordinary Magisterium” and the “extraordinary Magisterium”. The definition of the Immaculate Conception, as well as the Assumption, are rare examples of the pope exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium. Other popes, for instance St. JP II, also exercised infallibility, outside any Council, for the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[MT1926]

It would help if you cite your source.

Sorry about that, it’s Fr. Charles Grondin…

Before Papal Infallibility Was Defined

The First Vatican Council defined the circumstances in which the pope speaks infallibly: When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Chri...

www.catholic.com

Other popes, for instance St. JP II, also exercised infallibility, outside any Council, for the Ordinary Magisterium.

Yes but the OP asked for before the council.

 

[commenter]

So my question is, aside from the event described in Acts 15, what are the precedence and examples wherein the Pope exercised this type of authority before the council?

Many doctrines were explicitly defined by councils, especially in the early centuries. But some authority called this council, and some authority approved the findings of this council, and rejected the findings of that council. Vatican II was possibly the first council, where the council decided its own agenda.

The canon of the New Testament was well established prior to the Council of Trent, when it was formally defined. Yes, it is true there were at least 2 councils in the 4th centuries where this canon was discussed, but I am sure the gnostic Christians had their own councils to affirm their own NT scriptures.

So some infallible authority, outside any council, had to ratify the (name removed by moderator)ut of some councils as helpful in making the final decision, long before Trent; and of course rejected the (name removed by moderator)ut of other Christian councils as unhelpful.

I think most Christians would agree that the NT canon was understood as infallibly defined long before Trent.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

The Church then simply applied this definition to past papal declarations and determined that the only time this had happened up to that point in history had been Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854.

Many doctrines were explicitly defined by councils, especially in the early centuries. But some authority called this council, and some authority approved the findings of this council, and rejected the findings of that council. Vatican II was possibly the first council, where the council decided its own agenda.

These are the best examples and reasoning that I have seen thus far. So, so far we have seen infallibility in terms of the authority of Rome during the ecumenical councils and in the instance of the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Very interesting indeed. I am well satisfied with your help. Thank you so much!

Just to push the discussion further: Given the historical context how Papal Infallibility (according to how it is defined by the First Vatican Council) has been exercised in previous ecumenical councils, couldn’t it also mean that the Pope could undermine future ecumenical councils? After all, the Pope can reject the findings of that council. Wouldn’t this reduce ecumenical councils to somehow, a consultatory body for the Pope?

 

[Vico]

I checked it out. I do not see any answer to my question in this document. I am looking for specific examples when infallibility was exercised prior First Vatican Council. Can you guide me through this?

It is not only dogmas but the Pope’s power of defining the secondary truths is also de fide. Here are some recent examples of infallible definitions:

• Pope St. Pius V’s eighty censures against the errors of Michael de Bay, a.k.a Baius, Condemned in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567. See No. 1001-1082 Denzinger - English translation, older numbering
• Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of many errors (such as Naturalism, Communism, Socialism) in the 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura. See No. 1688 and following, Denzinger - English translation, older numbering
  Denzinger EN 2867

The only official explanation of what define means in the 1870 dogma is given by Cardinal Joseph Gasser:

It is obvious from the many exceptions that this word is an obstacle for many of the reverend fathers; hence, in their exceptions, they have completely eliminated this word or have substituted another word, viz., ‘decree’, or something similar, in its place, or have said, simultaneously, ‘defines and decrees,’ etc. Now I shall explain in a very few words how this word ‘defines’ is to be understood according to the Deputation de fide. Indeed, the Deputation de fide is not of the mind that this word should be understood in a juridical sense (Lat. in sensu forensi) so that it only signifies putting an end to controversy which has arisen in respect to heresy and doctrine which is properly speaking de fide. Rather, the word ‘defines’ signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff. Such, therefore, is the meaning of the word defines.

See: James T. O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1986, pp. 73-74

 

[commenter]

Given the historical context how Papal Infallibility (according to how it is defined by the First Vatican Council) has been exercised in previous ecumenical councils, couldn’t it also mean that the Pope could undermine future ecumenical councils? After all, the Pope can reject the findings of that council. Wouldn’t this reduce ecumenical councils to somehow, a consultatory body for the Pope?

Well, I wouldn’t call the pope’s actions as part of his role as “undermining”. He is part of the process. You might argue that any actions of any players of the council are “undermining”. Someone else might use the term “participating”.
One might argue that if the pope can modify the actions of a bishop in his own diocese - which does happen, though rarely - this is also “undermining”, and makes bishops mere consultants in their own diocese.

 

[po18guy]

A general rule is that the Church accepts what has been handed on to her. At various times, she must speak out and settle things with certainty. This is often in response to the many and varied heresies that have risen. Acts15, a response to the Judaizers, if the first example.

The Arian heresy was a huge example that raged in the Church for hundreds of years. The heresy of Protestantism lead to rulings on things such as the canon of scripture - which had been accepted and used until a certain European man challenged it.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome had its challengers as well. Each and every one of these was corrected, and in some cases, set in stone. The Church, is it is noted, does not run around like a decapitated chicken when controversy arises. Many times, those controversies have died out by themselves.

However, occasionally, they persist and must be effectively and authoritatively corrected and/or condemned. The infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, when limited to matters of faith and morals, and when speaking from the chair of Peter, is one such doctrine. The immaculate conception of Mary is another.

This is done out of jealousy - the same jealousy that God has for those who are in His hands - that not one be snatched away by the devil - no matter how “Christian” the devil appears from age to age. Infallibility is gained from reading the scriptures relating to Peter.

The 195 references to Peter, and the nature and content of those references, established Peter’s infallibility in these two areas while Christ yet walked this earth. The Church declares nothing new. She only sets in stone those revealed truths which come under attack.

Essentially, each and every doctrine has been, is being, or will be attacked. Thus, the Church speaks against it, allows it to die a natural death, but does drive a stake through the heart of those persistent heresies.

 

[commenter]

I know the OP was interested in “before Vatican I”, but it helps to look at the history of the Old Catholic movement. It got explicitly developed as a separate denomination as a result of that council, specifically around the issue of infallibility. In other words, they wanted to preserve everything else of the Catholic Faith, other than this, which they considered a novelty.

The Old Catholic Movement has splintered into multiple denominations, some of which wildly contradict other Old Catholic denominations, and some of which have taken positions totally at variance from their own prior positions. There have been, and still are, efforts at unity, with each other and with outside groups, with alliances coming and going. They have not, to my knowledge, ever developed any kind of evangelism program, but simply have tried to encourage people to switch to them from the RCC.

One way to describe the need of Papal Infallibility is to consider the history of people who tried to preserve all of Catholicism - except that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Where was it defined under what conditions a Council speaks infallibly?

Personally I can see nowhere in Scripture where Jesus gave such a specific gift of defined infallibility to Peter.

Nor can the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox who surely know the Bible as well as we do.

 

[ziapueblo]

Here is an interesting article from the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

ZP

 

[ThereseFrancis]

Indeed, the Deputation de fide is not of the mind that this word should be understood in a juridical sense (Lat. in sensu forensi) so that it only signifies putting an end to controversy which has arisen in respect to heresy and doctrine which is properly speaking de fide. Rather, the word ‘defines’ signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff. Such, therefore, is the meaning of the word defines.

Now this makes so much sense! Thank you!

Where was it defined under what conditions a Council speaks infallibly?

I have already mentioned an example in Acts 15. Even the Orthodox Churches tend into the notion that a Council can decree and define a certain theological truth to clarify certain disputes. This is not even a question when put into the light of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have already mentioned an example in Acts 15. Even the Orthodox Churches tend into the notion that a Council can decree and define a certain theological truth to clarify certain disputes. This is not even a question when put into the light of Sacred Tradition.

I don’t see anything you mentioned?
Where in Acts 15 is there a verse that clearly defines the specific conditions when a Council is proclaiming something as infallibly true.

 

[joeybaggz]

I don’t see anything you mentioned?
Where in Acts 15 is there a verse that clearly defines the specific conditions when a Council is proclaiming something as infallibly true.

I’ll see your question, and raise you one more. Where in Sacred Scripture do you find the word, infallibility? How can you ask such a question about a word that never appears in Scripture. I could be wrong (and would gladly accept correction) but I don’t remember ever hearing anyone in the Old or New Testaments using that word.

Now where do we get the concept of the Church speaking in truth. Might want to read the 16th chapter of John.

Shalom

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not really sure what you are saying.

I simply do not see my question answered in Acts 15 as Vico suggests.

 

[MT1926]

Personally I can see nowhere in Scripture where Jesus gave such a specific gift of defined infallibility to Peter.

Personally for me it is common sense that Jesus would have left someone in Charge in His absence. I’m a business owner it’s pretty much common knowledge that a business can’t run itself. Especially when the way a business runs needs to keep up with the changes over time.

We can see from scripture that Jesus started a Church. I’m sure he wanted His Church to thrive and grow. Can any business grow without a business manager? We know Jesus ascended, so although He is the owner of the Church He can’t be the manager because the manager is the one in the office running the day to day business that needs to be done. So we go back to scripture. Who sounds like the most likely candidate. Matthew 16 we see Jesus singling out Peter. We see Jesus giving Peter keys. I think to myself what can I do with keys? I can open doors. Well if these are Jesus keys I bet they can open up a lot of doors. This guy Pete must be pretty important to be given a master key. I ask myself was anyone else given these keys? Well no. That sure sounds like this guy Pete can open some doors no one else on earth can. It also occurs to me that these doors are probably doors in Jesus house which would make them doorways to truth. To me that is what the infallibility of the Pope is, the ability, given by Jesus for His visible steward of the keys to open the door that proclaims what we should believe on faith and morals.

Once I realize this all of the other verses regarding Peter make perfect sense. We all can agree that Jesus is infallible. It would only be logical that the person He left here to speak for Him would also speak infallibly. If Jesus didn’t leave someone to speak for Him, in His abscence, then He is obviously the worst business man to have ever lived and knows nothing about how to lead people to success. I find that hard to believe.

God Bless

 

[joeybaggz]

Not really sure what you are saying.

I simply do not see my question answered in Acts 15 as Vico suggests.

Acts 15 speaks of the first recognized situation where a situation was brought to the twelve and Peter settled it. Again, the word infallibility is not used anywhere in scripture.

And again, the concept and Catholic belief in the infallibility of the Church derives from Christ’s words in John 16.

Your question (and conundrum) is a dog chasing its tail. You might as well be looking for a Scriptural justification of the RCC doctrine of the Trinity. That word, too, do not appear anywhere is scripture. It, like infallibility is derived from the teachings of Christ and the history of the development of the Magesterium of the Church.

Hmmmm, magesterium, another word not in scripture!