Papal Infallibility before the First Vatican Council

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Of course someone has to be left in charge.
Mainline Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches do so very well without the addition of the infallibility business.

Not can I see anywhere in the NT where a Council was given the power to define when Peter (or the Council itself) can be known to speak infallible truth (as opposed to giving a judgement).

Vico says Acts 15.
There seems to be nothing in there remotely answering my query.
If any one individual seems in charge there then its James by the looks of things.

And the judgement was hardly infallible - the prohibition re eating the meat of strangled animals seems to have been breached very early on and continues to this day. No infallible truth, let alone unbreakable rulings made there…either by Peter or by the Council as a whole from what I see.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

Where in Acts 15 is there a verse that clearly defines the specific conditions when a Council is proclaiming something as infallibly true.

As I see it, there are already multiple threads to answer the question of Papal Infallibility. This thread aims at looking at the precedence, and examples of Papal Infallibility before it was formally defined by the First Vatican council; and its implications given how Papal Infallibility has been exercised before. I suggest you look into other threads. But to indulge you, here are good summaries: http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html ; http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm .

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

This is not really surprising given the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint. It is a joyous occassion to see the Orthodox Churches recognizing the primacy of the Pope, while the Catholic Church also recognizing the historical fact that the Pope had no canonical authority in the Churches of the East. It is truly a step forward. In relation to this thread, I wonder though how Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium was exercised and how it could inform the next steps towards full communion between the East and the West.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s what I am thinking.

There seems to be no teaching in Scripture that suggests the current very narrow teaching on Papal infallibility is warranted.

The Trinity is at least warranted as without doing so its hard to explain Father Son and Holy Spirit operating throughout the NT. One does not need infallibility buttressing on these teachings, they are fairly self evident.

The various mainline Churches have survived very well without the infallibility business.
Its really a non issue in the NT from what I can see.

 

[JimG]

The various mainline Churches have survived very well without the infallibility business.

Survived very well, or just multiplied very well?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Have the Eastern Orthodox muliplied?
Has Judaism multiplied.
Has Anglicanism, Presbyterianism multiplied?
Why would you say Catholicsm hasnt?

And why does multiplying indicate a teaching is wrong.
Many of Jesus disciples left over his teaching on unity with the Father, the Bread of Life and Marriage.

Seems a subjective view.

 

[MT1926]

Of course someone has to be left in charge.

Mainline Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches do so very well without the addition of the infallibility business.

They do? Who do they have in charge? And based on what Biblical evidence should I choose to believe they’re “judgements” can guide me to the truth.

Not can I see anywhere in the NT where a Council was given the power to define when Peter (or the Council itself) can be known to speak infallible truth (as opposed to giving a judgement).

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. He who hears you hears me.

Seems to convey a lot more than a judgement. Also, what good is a judgement if the person or persons giving that judgement have to admit they might be right or might be wrong? Why would Jesus leave us with such uncertainty?

Vico says Acts 15.

There seems to be nothing in there remotely answering my query.

If any one individual seems in charge there then its James by the looks of things.

The fact that everyone was arguing followed by Peter speaks up and it tells they all remained silent, speaks a multitude to me. I’ve been President of many organizations and I’ve have yet to see everyone remain silent after the leader makes a decision. Someone always questions the leaders decision.

Acts 15 is about circumcision, not meat. Seems like the proclamation of a truth, not a judgement, that was tearing the Church apart to me.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

The Trinity is at least warranted as without doing so its hard to explain Father Son and Holy Spirit operating throughout the NT. One does not need infallibility buttressing on these teachings, they are fairly self evident.

I hear this claim all of the time as a defense against the Catholic Church’s infallible declaration of the Trinity.

If you get time can you show us the “fairly self evident” scripture that teaches us the dogmas of the Trinity?

It’s pretty easy to say something is self evident after it’s already pointed out and explained to you.

God Bless

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you need to reread the text.
They were hushed by Paul not Peter.
The last speaker was James, who made judgement as if he was the boss and everyone agreed.

And then the allegedly infallible judgement was broken within weeks unto this day.
A large amount of wishful thinking going on here it seems.
The “multiplication” observation doesnt seem to make any objective sense. The Catholic Church splits off splinter groups just like any other mainstream religion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You see no major problems in the NT writings re Jesus and God that doesnt need further elucidation?

BTW where did I say I was supporting a dogma of the Trinity?

I simply observed there is at least strong indications of such a reality in Jesuss words and those of the Early Church that needed to resolve the nature of their special relationship. Yes that seems quite self evident.

But I see absolutely nothing about a Church Council claiming infallibility for itself under certain well defined circumstances which was my original question.

 

[commenter]

The Catholic Church splits off splinter groups just like any other mainstream religion.

But in Catholicism, there is an original, and continuing, “something”, from which splinter groups have always, and will, splinter off. One aspect of that “something” is the Magisterium. Millions of people claim this or that splinter, or even all the splinters, are better than the Catholic Church. But they always know that this is the Catholic Church, and that is the splinter. The Magisterium does not prove Catholicism good, it does make it identifiable - both its friends, and its enemies, generally acknowledge that much.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So what.
Every break away group says they are the true group holding fast to the founders intent and teaching regardless of who retains the website name and password or registered company name. Thats just image.

The issue is that religions do not need an infallibility charism to thrive and flourish. Its not a well flying kite to say Jesus must have wanted it even if he didnt say anything remotely like it.

 

[MT1926]

I think you need to reread the text.

They were hushed by Paul not Peter.

12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Still looks to me like Peter spoke then the assembly fell silent then comma which means pause what you are saying then it says AND which tells us what happened after they fell silent. If it said AS they listened to Zpaul but the AND tells us they fell silent before Paul spoke.

The last speaker was James, who made judgement as if he was the boss and everyone agreed.

Agreed and he starts his speach by saying Simeon has spoken. To me that means Peter has spoken case closed let’s wrap this up and close this council.

And then the allegedly infallible judgement was broken within weeks unto this day.

How does someone not following an infallible teaching prove the teaching wasn’t infallible!

The “multiplication” observation doesnt seem to make any objective sense. The Catholic Church splits off splinter groups just like any other mainstream religion.

I don’t understand what you are getting at here? What “multiplication “ observation did I make?

 

[MT1926]

You see no major problems in the NT writings re Jesus and God that doesnt need further elucidation?

I’m note following you hear? Yeah of course I see all kind of problems in the NT that need further clarification. That’s why I can’t believe anyone, that knows anything about business, would think leaving a bunch of illiterate people a confusing book was the best way to teach what He wanted them to know.

BTW where did I say I was supporting a dogma of the Trinity?

I didn’t mean to come across that way, all I was saying was it is easy to say the Trinity can easily be found in scripture when you won’t actually show someone how you found it on your own.

I simply observed there is at least strong indications of such a reality in Jesuss words and those of the Early Church that needed to resolve the nature of their special relationship. Yes that seems quite self evident.

Care to share with the rest of us?

But I see absolutely nothing about a Church Council claiming infallibility for itself under certain well defined circumstances which was my original question.

Because as already stated earlier the Church didn’t just go around making dogmas. They didn’t usually make a proclamation until a group of people would get together and contradict a Church teaching that was always believed.

 

[twf]

No. Ecumenical Councils are definitely not mere advisory bodies for the Pope. Yes, a Council isn’t ecumenical unless recognized as such by the Pope… but the Spirit acts through the entire Council. All the bishops, united with the Pope, exercise infallibility at Councils.

 

[MT1926]

The issue is that religions do not need an infallibility charism to thrive and flourish. Its not a well flying kite to say Jesus must have wanted it even if he didnt say anything remotely like it.

How do you know they are thriving and flourishing? Because they’re happy, because their church is full? I’m sure you could give me 1000 worldly reasons you believe they’re thriving but…

Unless Jesus sent you word that they are thriving and flourishing or left us some way of infallibly knowing we are on the right road how can you claim thet arethriving?

God bless

 

[commenter]

It is important for us all to try to stay close to the topic. Disagreement is ok.

Sometimes a poster will become adversarial, contrary just to get a rise out of people. They are not really seeking information. It is best not to respond.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I really don’t know what your point is or the relevance of “hushing” be it due to Paul or Peter.
There is nothing I see in Acts 15 that tells us that Jesus gave the gift of infallibility to a Council under specific conditions. I don’t think its “hushing”.

How does someone not following an infallible teaching prove the teaching wasn’t infallible!

Um, because the person who ignored the decision was an apostle and his example was soon universal.

I don’t understand what you are getting at here? What “multiplication “ observation did I make?
You didn’t, nor did I say you did, but you did engage on the thread.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you cannot see that other world religions survive as well as the Catholic Church without an infallible Peter in charge then most would call that a set position that cannot be disturbed by facts - so please excuse me for not seeing any point in taking this further with you.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

Well, this thread got out of hand. . Look, you can debate about Papal Infallibility on other threads. However, this thread is already assuming the truth of Papal Infallibility. This is about how it has been practiced before its formal definition during the First Vatican Council; and based from this precedence and examples, how does this shape our perspective on the relationship of the Pope and ecumenical councils. Let’s get back on track, shall we?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am on track as far as I am aware.
I simply cannot see how anyone might remotely think there was an exercise of infallibility, Conciliar or Papal, in Acts 15. (Let alone defining of Papal infallibility).

Practical issues were decided upon unanimously - and then disobeyed almost immediately by Paul and then the Church universal ever since (re the meat).