Pope can't be infallible

[jfoges]

I fluent on the subject of infallibility, but I wanted to point out something I noticed on this comment. Please correct me if I am wrong.

“[Divine] Revelation is God revealing himself to us.”
“The Magisterium is the bishops and Pope teaching us what God has already revealed about himself.”

It seems to me that these two topics are indeed different, but they entirely go hand in hand. It seems like the first one is the outgoing message from God, and the second one is the receiving end of it. Who does God reveal himself to? Are you saying that God reveals himself to everyone? If this is the case then the Magisterium would be the ones who go and check it out and discuss it for everyone else. This “revealing to everyone” concept sounds allot like “personal revelation (interpretation)”.

You also talk about how the apostles were “no[t] the Magisterium” but rather “provided the deposit of faith itself”. This sounds like the apostles are the ones responsible for what we believe, not Jesus himself. You say the “deposit of faith is what the magisterium is supposed to teach from” which would be exactly what the apostles were doing. They were teaching about what they learned from direct divine revelation (Jesus Christ). You said that is what Magisterium does. They talk about revelation. I don’t know what is more revealing than Jesus himself! Let me know if this got astray or if it makes sense. Thanks and God bless.

The distinction I was trying to make was between revelation and the magisterium. revelation includes both scripture and tradition. This comes directly from God. Prophetic revelation is not the same thing as the magisterium. The magisterium does not provide new revelation, but only teaches that which God has revealed.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think what is important here is what this dispute between Cyprian and the Pope tells us about the meaning of quote from Cyprian that is said to support papal infallibility. If Cyprian did infact believe in papal infallibility, why did he then disagree with the Pope?

Catholicism holds to the axiom, “In essentials unity, in doubful matters liberty, in all things charity.” The dispute between Stephen and Cyprian exemplifies this beautifully.

At the time, the validity of heretical baptism was not defined dogmatically (ie. not de fide definita). Consequently, Cyprian held that this was a “doubtful matter” and so asserted this was a matter of liberty.

In other words, Cyprian held that the matter under dispute was not that of the deposit of faith, but of local custom where bishops could legitimately govern even if contrary to the custom of most every other bishop.

From Stephen’s point of view, he was concerned with universal unity. Everywhere in the Church, the teaching of St. Stephen was taught from the very start, excepting some regions in Asia Minor. So Firmillian, from Asia Minor, was attempting to remain staunchly loyal to the custom of his region. He was being “regional” not “catholic.”

Cyprian, on the other hand, made the error of thinking that the custom of his churches in his day was always the custom of his regional churches. This turned out to be an erroneous assumption on his part. Well before Cyprian, the region held to the same teaching that Stephen was defending. So it was not a constant custom Cyprian was defending.

The dispute between Stephen and Cyprian had nothing to do with the authority of the pope in matters regarding faith and morals (ie. essentials). In matters of dogma pertaining to faith and morals, Cyprian’s teaching was in full agreement with Catholicism.

Cyprian’s ecclesiology was very Catholic. Even Eastern Orthodox scholars admit:

"…according to [Cyprian’s] doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne-par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."

(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 98-99)

Cyprian held that the faithful throughout the world must agree with the Chair of Peter, the source of sacerdotal unity. The dispute Cyprian had was whether this matter about baptism was a matter of custom (ie., liturgical discipline) or whether it was truly a matter of dogma (faith or morals).

It was not yet dogmatically defined during Stephen’s papacy whether baptism by heretics is valid or invalid. He was tempted to excommunicate Cyprian due to lack of proper discipline, not for a rejection of ex cathedra papal acts. So, this was NOT a dispute of infallibility, as the matter of bapstim by heretics was not promulgated at that time as an infallible dogma.

Consequently, this is a bad example for dissidents to use to attempt to disprove the infallibility of the pope. Cyprian was among the most staunch champions of papal primacy and sacerdotal unity by virtue of agreement with the chair of Peter.

The matter was not considered de fide definita until the Council of Trent, I believe.

In *On Baptism, *Augustine discusses how Cyprian was a staunch advocate for papal primacy and submitting to the chair of Peter. The Donatists quoted Cyprian in their rejection of papal primacy in support of their erroneous views of baptism. Augustine showed how absurd the Donatists were because they could only make their case by twisting the entire corpus of Cyprian’s teaching out of their context.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I too am joyful at the consolation provided by the authoritative teachings of the Magisterium. Joyful, that is, so long as those teachings are in accord with tradition and scripture.

Each dogma is, including the dogma of papal infallibility. The problem seems to be that some obstinately refuse to “listen to the Church” (Matt 18:17) as the Gospel according to St. Mathew teaches, by refusing the paraklesis of the First Vatican Council.

What the first Vatican Council decreed is just as much dogma as the decrees of Nicea and Constantinople regarding the Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten of the Father.” Arians were not convinced that “eternally begotten of the Father” was in accord with Scripture and Tradition. Since they didn’t see this teaching explicit in Scripture and Tradition, they couldn’t see it implicitly, as did the faithful Catholics of Nicea. So, the Arians exhaulted their private opinion, blinded by ignorance and pride, over the authoritative dogma of the Church. Sound familiar?

Just like Nicea, there are those throughout the history of the Church who refuse to “listen to the Church,” choosing instead to go by their own private lights regarding whether dogma is according to Scripture and Tradition. The Arians did it. The Monophysites did it, as well as the monothetilist, iconoclasts, the so-called “old catholics”, etc., etc. They made themselves the highest authority on the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. This is nothing more than the sin of pride harming their full communion with the Church of Christ.

The Arians refused the dogma of Nicea. Why? According to their false epistemology, it didn’t matter if the decree came from a lawful and authoritative council of the successor to the apostles in communion with the chair of Peter, but instead their sole criteria was that they had to be personally convinced it was in accord with Scripture and Tradition. It wasn’t authority that governed their religion, but their own private opinion. So the Arians left the Church. So too do those who reject the dogma of papal infallibility, by their own obstinate refusal of Catholic dogma.

The Scripture gives us a model for resolving disputes between brethren in Matt 18. The council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts even gives us an example of how Matt 18 was used to resolve such disputes in the first century. In the final analysis, Matthew tells us, to listen to the Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth, as the final arbiter.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The difficulty some people have with dogmatic decrees is that they can’t understand how dogma can legitimately develop.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. Summ. theo. I; II, 1, 7). Therefore, there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.

To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed (at least implicitly), e.g., the Hypostatic Union, Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated by the Magisterium in new, sharply defined concepts. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned.

So, dogma legitimately develops in the life of the Church.

St. Augustine explains in De Civ. Dei, XVI, 2:

“But even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle’s saying, “There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor 11:19). Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, “The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant.” For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question moved by an adversary becomes the occasion of learning.”

 

[jfoges]

Catholicism holds to the axiom, “In essentials unity, in doubful matters liberty, in all things charity.” The dispute between Stephen and Cyprian exemplifies this beautifully.

At the time, the validity of heretical baptism was not defined dogmatically (ie. not de fide definita). Consequently, Cyprian held that this was a “doubtful matter” and so asserted this was a matter of liberty.

In other words, Cyprian held that the matter under dispute was not that of the deposit of faith, but of local custom where bishops could legitimately govern even if contrary to the custom of most every other bishop.

From Stephen’s point of view, he was concerned with universal unity. Everywhere in the Church, the teaching of St. Stephen was taught from the very start, excepting some regions in Asia Minor. So Firmillian, from Asia Minor, was attempting to remain staunchly loyal to the custom of his region. He was being “regional” not “catholic.”

Cyprian, on the other hand, made the error of thinking that the custom of his churches in his day was always the custom of his regional churches. This turned out to be an erroneous assumption on his part. Well before Cyprian, the region held to the same teaching that Stephen was defending. So it was not a constant custom Cyprian was defending.

The dispute between Stephen and Cyprian had nothing to do with the authority of the pope in matters regarding faith and morals (ie. essentials). In matters of dogma pertaining to faith and morals, Cyprian’s teaching was in full agreement with Catholicism.

Cyprian’s ecclesiology was very Catholic. Even Eastern Orthodox scholars admit:
Cyprian held that the faithful throughout the world must agree with the Chair of Peter, the source of sacerdotal unity. The dispute Cyprian had was whether this matter about baptism was a matter of custom (ie., liturgical discipline) or whether it was truly a matter of dogma (faith or morals).

It was not yet dogmatically defined during Stephen’s papacy whether baptism by heretics is valid or invalid. He was tempted to excommunicate Cyprian due to lack of proper discipline, not for a rejection of ex cathedra papal acts. So, this was NOT a dispute of infallibility, as the matter of bapstim by heretics was not promulgated at that time as an infallible dogma.

Consequently, this is a bad example for dissidents to use to attempt to disprove the infallibility of the pope. Cyprian was among the most staunch champions of papal primacy and sacerdotal unity by virtue of agreement with the chair of Peter.

The matter was not considered de fide definita until the Council of Trent, I believe.

In *On Baptism, *Augustine discusses how Cyprian was a staunch advocate for papal primacy and submitting to the chair of Peter. The Donatists quoted Cyprian in their rejection of papal primacy in support of their erroneous views of baptism. Augustine showed how absurd the Donatists were because they could only make their case by twisting the entire corpus of Cyprian’s teaching out of their context.

You seem to be saying that Cyprian could dipute with Pope Stephen because the matter was not defined dogmatically by an ex cathedra definition, or a solemn definition of an ecumenical council.

In this case, you are limiting magisterial infallibility to the Extraordinary Magisterium. However, the Church currently teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible too. If something is held by the Pope and majorrity of bishops it is held to be an infallible teaching.

Cyprian didn’t just blindly accept what the Ordinary Magisterium was teaching, he checked it against what he knew of Holy Tradition. This is what bishops, priests, and laity should do. And there is nothing wrong with that. There does not have to be total unity on every single doctrinal issue for their to be unity in the Church. We would not splinter into thousands of denomenations as protestnats have if we did not believe the Magisterium was infallible. This woudl not happen because we do have a Magisterium and a hierarchy to keep us united.

Can you imagine what would happen today if a bishop disagreed with Pope Benedict on any matter of doctrine that he was trying to teach? This happened in the 80’s with liberation theology and I believe Ratzinger and his CDF cracked down so hard on those bishops that Liberation theology is completly wiped out. Those bishops were all replaced with ones that would tow the vatican line.

The kind of freedom that bishops had in the ancient world is not possible today at all. Bishops today are all appointed by the Pope and seminarians are taught pro-papal theology.

I totally support recognizing the Pope as the successor to Peter. I just wish he would fulfill his role in a gospel based way as primer inter pares, not as a tyrannical absolute monarch of the Church in the style of Louis XIV.

 

[DianJo]

You seem to be saying that Cyprian could dipute with Pope Stephen because the matter was not defined dogmatically by an ex cathedra definition, or a solemn definition of an ecumenical council.

In this case, you are limiting magisterial infallibility to the Extraordinary Magisterium. However, the Church currently teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible too. If something is held by the Pope and majorrity of bishops it is held to be an infallible teaching.

Cyprian didn’t just blindly accept what the Ordinary Magisterium was teaching, he checked it against what he knew of Holy Tradition. This is what bishops, priests, and laity should do. And there is nothing wrong with that. There does not have to be total unity on every single doctrinal issue for their to be unity in the Church. We would not splinter into thousands of denomenations as protestnats have if we did not believe the Magisterium was infallible. This woudl not happen because we do have a Magisterium and a hierarchy to keep us united.

Can you imagine what would happen today if a bishop disagreed with Pope Benedict on any matter of doctrine that he was trying to teach? This happened in the 80’s with liberation theology and I believe Ratzinger and his CDF cracked down so hard on those bishops that Liberation theology is completly wiped out. Those bishops were all replaced with ones that would tow the vatican line.

The kind of freedom that bishops had in the ancient world is not possible today at all. Bishops today are all appointed by the Pope and seminarians are taught pro-papal theology.

I totally support recognizing the Pope as the successor to Peter. I just wish he would fulfill his role in a gospel based way as primer inter pares, not as a tyrannical absolute monarch of the Church in the style of Louis XIV.

You state the case for infallibility in this post and then you call the Church a “tyrannical absolute monarchy.”
What is your problem? I, for one, am done with your cynical and obstinate view of the teachings of the Church. God lets those who will not be obedient to His will wallow in their sin - so be it.
**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…the Church currently teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible too.

Only the universal ordinary magisterium, according to the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff or college of Bishops.

If something is held by the Pope and majorrity of bishops it is held to be an infallible teaching.

I disagree. It is not as simple as “majority rule.” On the contrary, the Church holds to the rule of of St. Vincent de Lerins. I can provide an example, but I’m on my way out the door.

Can you imagine what would happen today if a bishop disagreed with Pope Benedict on any matter of doctrine that he was trying to teach?

I don’t have to “imagine” as this is happening right now.

I’ll post more later.

 

[ricko]

You claim that the Church has no teaching authority. Scripture says:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Mt 28:18-20)

***Note that Christ said go forth and teach them to observe what I have commanded you. He did not say, go forth and take a poll to see what everyone wants to do and then let them do it. The Pope and Bishops throughout the history of the Church have taken very seriously the onerous duty of preserving the Deposit of Faith and teaching it to the flock entrusted to them. Dissent from Church teaching (even Church teaching that has not been infallibly declared) is essentially an indication by the dissenter that they understand better what Christ commanded the Apostles than the Bishops to whom Christ promised that knowledge. ***
They are talking about YOU (dissenter)

 

[knack]

I am writing here to express the position that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism. A true Catholic should reject this false teaching. The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition). It can’t make up something new. The doctrine of papal infallibility was never taught by the ordinary magisterium before 1,000 AD. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it does not come from the Apostles. It is a divisive and illogical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be rent asunder (the schism and roformation). It should be acknowledged as error so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the shepard and servant of the Church, not its absolute monarch.

When it comes to human related issues the pope has his own opinons & views on certain topics & he can been wrong on political views etc, or a maths question, but when it comes to the doctrine of the churches teachings his infallibility comes from the promise Jesus made that "the gates of hell shell never prevail against my church’Thou art Peter, etc… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, John 1:42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, etc… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, Matthew 7:24-25. The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Loose on earth… The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.
Hope this clears the mist about the papal infallibility’
Always in our Lords Peace
Knack.

 

[celticcrusader]

After some thought and reading these posts the title should be " The Pope has to be infallible! "

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You seem to be saying that Cyprian could dipute with Pope Stephen because the matter was not defined dogmatically by an ex cathedra definition, or a solemn definition of an ecumenical council.

It was neither defined dogmatically (de fide definita), nor taught universally as an article of faith (de fide catholica) nor taught doctrinally (sententia certa). Thus, in St. Cyprian’s view it was a matter of freedom. It was a matter of freedom, that is, until St. Stephen gave him his disciplinary instruction to conform to the liturgical norms of the Church of Rome. This became at that point a matter of obedience to one’s lawful superior. Refusal of “religious submission” is a sin against charity, rather than a refusal of “assent of faith,” which is a sin against faith.

This was not (at the time) de fide catholica, that is, an article of faith (de fide) according to the ordinary and universal magisterium of their day. Many bishops disputed this teaching throughout Africa and Asia Minor (Cappadocia). Over time, this certainly could be more clearly considered de fide catholica, as these Churches soon afterwards corrected their error, as Augustine tells us.

One would be hard pressed to make a case using principles common to Catholic dogmatic theology that at the time of Cyprian and Stephen, the magisterium taught that the validity of baptism by heretics was an article of faith, taught universally by the college of bishop that were in communion with the Pope. All of the bishops who opposed Pope Stephen’s instruction on the matter remained in communion with him.

Stephen’s writings on the matter no where hint that he was making a decision regarding an article of faith. Instead, his instruction was pertaining to a unity of liturgical practice. This was similar to earlier Pope Victor’s direction regarding the controversy of when to celebrate Easter.

Pope Stephen wrote:

“If therefore any come to you from any heresy whatsever, let nothing be renewed except what has been transmitted, so that the hand is placed upon them for repentance”

[Fragment of a letter to Cyprian from Stephen, cited by Cyprian’s letter to Pompey, DS 46]

In this case, you are limiting magisterial infallibility to the Extraordinary Magisterium.

No. But I am saying that the magisterium at the time of St. Stephen and St. Cyprian, whether ordinary or solemn, did not teach this this as an article of faith (de fide).

However, the Church currently teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible too.

Only when intending to propose an article of faith, and only thourgh an exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

If something is held by the Pope and majorrity of bishops it is held to be an infallible teaching.

If by “held” you mean de fide tenenda, yes. However, the case for St. Stephen, St. Cyprian, and the majority of bishops considering this matter as de fide tenenda at the time of St. Stephen and St. Cyprian is untenable, given the extant evidence.

Cyprian didn’t just blindly accept what the Ordinary Magisterium was teaching

No Catholic should blindly accept anything. We are called by Scripture to “test everything, hold fast to the good.” Yet we are also commanded to “obey your superiors and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the only time we are permitted to disobey our lawful superior is when it is contrary to the demand of a higher authority, or when the superior demands something outside the scope of his responsibility.

The pope has always had plenary authority as the vicar of Christ to govern the church universal in matters religious, to include regulation of the sacraments. Cyprian was wrong. Augustine quoting from Cyprian to the Donatists, make this clear. The subsequent response of all the Churches which changed their canons after the martyrdom of Cyprian and Stephen, thereby conforming to the canons of Rome also make this clear.

 

[jfoges]

This was not (at the time) de fide catholica, that is, an article of faith (de fide) according to the ordinary and universal magisterium of their day. Many bishops disputed this teaching throughout Africa and Asia Minor (Cappadocia). Over time, this certainly could be more clearly considered de fide catholica, as these Churches soon afterwards corrected their error, as Augustine tells us. .

Dave,

You say that it was not an article of faith at the time but became one later. I don’t see how this makes any sense. The Magisterium can only teach something that is already held to be true by the Church as a part of revelation. How can something be highly disputed and then suddenly be known to be part of Holy Tradition? What could have been the basis for determining that it was part of Holy Tradition if it wasn’t already taught by the ordinary Magisterium?

 

[jfoges]

Just to follow up on what I was saying…

If something is taught by the Magisterium it has to be something that was already taught by the Magisterium in the past. It cannot suddenly become part of infallible truth. If the Magisterium were to teach something new then this would prove that the Magisterium is not infallible, because it would be teaching something outside revelation. Everything in revelation would have to have been taught by the Magisterium, from the beginning of Christianity, according to the logic of textbook theology. By the way, I am talking about the infallible ordinary Magsterium here.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can you imagine what would happen today if a bishop disagreed with Pope Benedict on any matter of doctrine that he was trying to teach?

Yes. As a historical example, in the 1400s, the pope taught that Mary was immaculately conceived. In fact, this teaching was celebrated as a feast day in the liturgical calendar of the Holy Roman Church. Does this mean it was necessarily promulgated at that time as doctrine binding upon all Catholics whereby they owed their assent of intellect and will to this teaching? Was it, in other words, promulgated by the Roman Pontiff at that time as “certain teaching” (sententia certa), or even more authoritatively, de fide? No. It was still up to that time a matter of “free opinion” even though the pope taught it as well as celebrated it as a feast day in the Church of Rome.

Yet, there were some clergy in the 1400s who insisted that those who denied the immaculate conception of Mary were heretics. Likewise, there were some who insisted that those who affirmed the immaculate conception of Mary were heretics.

This is the danger of “sola traditio et Scriptura.” When one presumes to know the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff based upon their own fallible interpretation of Holy Writ and the ecclesiastical documents of the past, they have often been wrong, historically speaking.

This is shown in the above example. Pope Sixtus IV (1483) wrote in response to the above dispute:

Although the Holy Roman Church solemnly celebrates the public feast of the conception of the immaculate Mary ever Virgin, and has ordained a special and proper office for this feast, some preachers of different orders, as we have heard, in their sermons to the people in public throughout different cities and lands have not been ashamed to affirm up to this time, and daily cease not to affirm, that ***all those who hold or assert ***that the same glorious and immaculate mother of God was conceived without the stain of original sin, sin mortally, or that they are heretical, who celebrate the office of this same immaculate conception, and that those who listen to the sermons of those who affirm that she was conceived without this sin, sin grievously…

We reprove and condemn assertions of this kind as false and erroneous and far removed from the truth, and also by apostolic authority and the tenor of these present [letters] we condemn and disapprove on this point published books which contain it … [but these also we reprehend] who have dared to assert that those holding the contrary opinion, namely, that the glorious Virgin Mary was* conceived with original sin are guilty of the crime of heresy and of mortal sin, since up to this time there has been no decision made by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See.*

[Sixtus IV, from the Constitution *Grave nimis

, Sept. 4, 1483, Denzinger’s 735]
The Sola Scriptura et Traditio approach of the so-called “old catholics” or of others who reject the authoritative dogmas of the Holy Catholic Church is just as flawed an epistemology as the Protestant claim of *sola Scriptura. *They both elevate their own “private lights” above that of collective tradition and authoritative interpretation of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

You say that it was not an article of faith at the time but became one later. I don’t see how this makes any sense.

Then I’d say you have an incorrect understanding of Catholic dogmatic theology and the legitimate development of dogma. Dogma can and does progress from “material” dogma or “implicit” beliefs to more “formal” dogma or explicit beliefs. This is manifest throughout Catholic history. It was theologically certain according to all schools of Catholic theology even prior to the decree on Papal Infallibility. Your rejection of this dogma while still asserting to be “Catholic” is a clear contradiction.

 

[jfoges]

Then I’d say you have an incorrect understanding of Catholic dogmatic theology and the legitimate development of dogma. Dogma can and does progress from “material” dogma or “implicit” beliefs to more “formal” dogma or explicit beliefs. This is manifest throughout Catholic history. It was theologically certain according to all schools of Catholic theology even prior to the decree on Papal Infallibility. Your rejection of this dogma while still asserting to be “Catholic” is a clear contradiction.

You are right that dogmata can go from being implicit to explicit. From being taught by the ordinary magisterium to the extraordinary magisterium. However, for something to be taught by the ordinary magisterium in teh first place it has to be universally agreed upon by the bishops. This is the only test as to whether it is in revelation, according to textbook theology. So, if something was at one time highly disputed among the bishops, then according to textbook theology, it can’t ever have been in revelation in the first place.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So, if something was at one time highly disputed among the bishops, then according to textbook theology, it can’t ever have been in revelation in the first place.

The Vatican thinks otherwise. From the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (see here):

b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think you confuse “material” side of development with the “formal” side of development of dogma.

Catholicism insists that the “matter” of Divine revelation, called “material dogma,” did indeed develop over time until the 1st century. After the apostolic era of the first century, Divine general revelation, that is, the “stuff” of the deposit of Catholic Faith ceased to develop, materially speaking. However, the understanding and clarification of that “stuff” is the “form” which that teaching takes, according to the needs of each era. The needs of each century of human existence is constantly changing. So, this Catholic teaching, or “formal dogma,” does develop, never in disagreement with the “material dogma” or deposit of Catholic faith handed on to the Church in the first century, however, clarifying the same truth in the face of new errors of the modern age.

So, formal dogma continues to develop as we continue to prayerfully contemplate the material dogma or “deposit of faith” that was passed “once and for all” to the saint in the first century.

Here’s some excertps from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *which explains the distinction between development of material dogma (which ceased in the 1st cent.) and the development of formal dogma (which continues to develop):

2. Development of Dogmas in the Catholic Sense
a) From the material side of dogma, that is, in the communication of the Truths of Revelation to humanity, a substantial growth took place in human history until Revelation reached its apogee and conclusion in Christ (cf. Hebr. I, I).St. Gregory the Great says: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets” (in Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12).

With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)

Pope Pius X rejected the liberal Protestant and Modernistic doctrine of the evolution of religion through “New Revelations.” Thus he condemned the proposition that: “The Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles.” D 2021
.
The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made. Christ was the fulfilment of the Law of the Old Testament (Mt. 5, 17 ; 5, 21 et seq), and the absolute teacher of humanity (Mt. 23, 10: “One is your master, Christ” ; cf. Mt. 28, 20). The Apostles saw in Christ: “the coming of the fullness of time” (Gal. 4, 4) and regarded as their task the preservation, integral and unfalsified, of the heritage of Faith entrusted to them by Christ (1 Tim. 6, 14; 6,20; 2 Tim.1, 14; 2,2; 3,14). The Fathers indignantly repudiated the claim of the heretics to possess secret doctrines or new Revelation of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer III 1 ; IV 35, 8), and Tertullian (De praesc. 21) stress, against the Gnostics, that the full truth of Revelation is contained in the doctrine of the Apostles which is preserved unfalsified through the uninterrupted succession of the bishops.b) As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:

1) Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7 : quantum ad explicationem crevt numerus articulorum (fidei), quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite. There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.)
​

1. Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.

1. To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.

1. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ; ab adversario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

1. The exposition of the dogmas in the given sense is prepared by theological science and promulgated by the Teaching Authority of the Church under the direction of the Holy Ghost (John 14, 26). These new expositions of dogmatic truth are motivated, on the one hand, by the natural striving of man for deeper understanding of Revealed Truth, and on the other hand by external influences, such as the attacks arising from heresy and unbelief, theological controversies, advances in philosophical knowledge and historical research, development of the liturgy, and the general assertion of Faith expressed therein.

Even the Fathers stress the necessity of deeper research into the truths of Revelation, of clearing up obscurities, and of developing the teachings of Revelation. Cf. the classical testimony of St. Vincent Lerin († before 450). “But perhaps someone says: Will there then be no progress in the religion of Christ? Certainly there should be, even a great and rich progress . . . only, it must in truth be a progress in Faith and not an alteration of Faith. For progress it is necessary that something should increase of itself, for alteration, however, that something should change from one thing to the other.” (Commonitorium 23.) Cf. D 1800.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…So, if something was at one time highly disputed among the bishops, then according to textbook theology, it can’t ever have been in revelation in the first place.

Your thesis is flawed. The canon of the Bible was “highly disputed” among the bishops. Thus, by your reasoning, it follows that the contents of the Bible itself can never be dogma. Same with such Sacred Tradition as Christ being “eternally begotten of the Father,” as well as numerous other “highly disputed” dogmas throughout Catholic history, such as the Origenist error of apokatastasis. Any epistemology which claims dogmas can only be beliefs that are non-disputed teachings is absurd.

Perhaps you can provide me the “textbook” of Catholic dogmatic theology that you are referencing. I’ve read several, and none claim what you are trying to assert. See Dr. Ott’s “textbook” explanation in my prior post. I also recommend the textbook theology authored by Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Support for Papal Infallibility according to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is as follows:

Christ made Peter the “rock” of His Church (Matt 16:18), that is the guarantor of her unity. This unity is not possible without right faith. Thus, Jesus’ prayer is an assurance of supernatural help for the faith of Peter such that it would never fail. (Lk 22). This prayer is not only for Peter, but also for his successors who vicariously represent Peter throughout every age, first and foremost the Roman Pontiff, who is commissioned by Divine appointment to “strengthen” the other brethren. (Lk 22, 31).

As for early Church testimony, St. Ignatius of Antioch affirmed, “With this Church [of Rome]…the apostolic tradition has*** always been kept pure*.**” [Adv. Haer. III, 3, 2]

Now, this is a testimony of the past purity of the faith, not an explicit testimony of guaranteed future purity. However, according to the context, the future purity of apostolic tradition is implied, otherwise he wouldn’t be arguing that this Church of Rome is that church which all the faithful in the world must agree.

**St. Cyprian of Carthage **characterized the Roman Church as “the teaching chair of Peter” (cathedra Petri), affirming "it is the Romans, whose faith was praised by the commendatory testimony of the Apostles (Rom 1:8), and to which false teaching can gain no admittance" (Ep. 59:14).

He seems here to a guarantee of future purity of faith for the Roman Church, which if not explicit evidence of tradition, is surely weighty implicit evidence.

St. Jerome likewise affirms, speaking of Pope Damasus, “With you alone the heritage of the Fathers will remain unimpaired.” (Ep. 15,1).

St. Augustine of Hippo too held that the teaching of the Roman Pontiff to be decisive in matters of faith: “In this matter [Pelagian controversy] the resolutions of two councils were sent to the Apostolic Chair [Roman Pontiff]. ***Replies have arrived from thence. Thus, the matter is ended (causa finita est). Would that the error were so ended!” ***(Sermo, 131, 10, 10).

St. Peter Chrysologus (d. 450), against Eutyches affirmed: “For the Holy Peter who lives on in his episcopal chair and is its director, offers the true belief to them that seek it” (with Leo I, Ep. 25,2).

This assurance in matters of dispute regarding the deposit of faith implies that the Roman Pontiff is always to be trusted to speak the “true belief,” now and into the future as the successor of Peter. This implies the existence of some supernatural help such that he may never depart from “true belief” in his role as Roman Pontiff.

Pope St. Hormisdas (519) appealing to Mat 16:18 affirmed: "These [words] which are spoken [Matt 16:18] are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion was always preserved without stain" (*Libellus professionis fidei, *added to the epistle Inter ea quae to the bishops of Spain, April 2, 517).

The above rule of faith was subscribed to by all the bishops of the East, by the emperor Justinian, and by the Constantinopolitan patriarchs Epiphanius, John, Menna, and finally in the eighth ecumenical council, Constantinople IV, act. I, by the Greek and Latin Fathers.

So you see, it is not a “new” dogma, but is based upon that which has always been implicit in Scripture and Tradition. This is obvious to Catholics, who hold to the ancient rule of faith and affirm together with Augustine, saint and Doctor of the Holy Catholic Church, that on this matter formerly under dispute, the replies from Rome have come, and as a consequence, “*causa finita est,” *the erroneous claims of schismatics and heretics notwithstanding.