Why Was a Council Necessary for Papal Infallibility?

[Volodymyr_988]

If the Pope is infallible and can define Dogmas without a Council (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) why was there a need to call a Council to define Papal Infallibility?

(Not that I dispute any Dogmas of the Catholic Faith, this is more of a question that I can’t answer in my mental apologetics exercises.)

 

[Volodymyr_988]

No takers? C’mon, the Protestants are gonna have us in a corner if we don’t figure this one out.

 

[palmas85]

It merely codified what was already practiced. Remember that at the time of the Council modernism and liberalism were making huge inroads in the Protestant communities and starting to infect the Church as well. I think it was a precautionary move to ensure that at some point in the future the liberals could not use the lack of such a decree to invalidate Papal Infallibilty and claim no basis for it, thus being able to inject whatever they chose into the mix freely.

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If the Pope is infallible and can define Dogmas without a Council (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) why was there a need to call a Council to define Papal Infallibility?

My initial reaction to this is why do you think the Church NEEDED a council? And going one step further, why would the Church EVER need a council?

Because Jesus established apostolic succession and is the more common means to declare His divine truth.

 

[peary]

If the Pope is infallible and can define Dogmas without a Council (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) why was there a need to call a Council to define Papal Infallibility?

(Not that I dispute any Dogmas of the Catholic Faith, this is more of a question that I can’t answer in my mental apologetics exercises.)

Vatican I didn’t ‘invent’ infallibility’. It defined and clarified the term in relation to the Chair of Peter and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. Infallibility was always a special unique charism given to the Chair of Peter - meaning that pope and bishops together cannot err in matters of Faith or morals when proclaiming the fullness of Faith. It is a charism of the Holy Spirit based on Christ’s mandate to Peter himself in Matthew 16:18-19. The papacy was being roundly attacked during the 1800s, and the doctrine of infallibility was being routinely subjugated to misinformation and outright anti-Catholic propaganda. It was necessary to clarify what the papacy was at the time.

 

[brigid12]

It merely codified what was already practiced. Remember that at the time of the Council modernism and liberalism were making huge inroads in the Protestant communities and starting to infect the Church as well. I think it was a precautionary move to ensure that at some point in the future the liberals could not use the lack of such a decree to invalidate Papal Infallibilty and claim no basis for it, thus being able to inject whatever they chose into the mix freely.

.

From what I’ve read of Church history, I would agree.:yup:

 

[scylla]

For the same reason if some Protestants come along in about 100 years and start teaching that Jesus was an android.

If it becomes a wide enough heresy, the truth that Jesus was God and man in human flesh would have to be defended.

The Church doesn’t just make things up, it just maintains and defends the truth of Christ.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Just_Lurking]

Pope Pius IX unmistakably exercised papal infallibility in his 1854 bull on the immaculate conception, but it took him more than a decade after that to proceed to having his infallibility formally defined at the Vatican I council in 1870. Historians can only speculate as to his motives.

 

[rwoehmke]

Papal Infalliblity was a long time teaching accepted by the Church. By the 19th century it was not only being called into question, but there were several viewpoints of just what it entailed. Was it just the Pope affirming the decisions of the Councils, was to apply to anything and everything the Pope taught, what were the boundaries and conditions necessary for an infallible statement? The Council settled that matter, but impending war made it impossible to go further and define the roles of the Bishops in all this. Vatican II took care of that problem, but we are still trying to understand just what was decided about the role of the Bishops. In short there are several schools of thought on just how far the authority of a Bishop goes when it comes to infallibility. The Church has a working position, but I am of the impression that all the dust has yet to settle.

 

[Genesis315]

The Pope is not omiscient–he may not know what needs to be defined and the best way to define it. Having all the bishops present allows him to know the needs of the whole Church.

 

[Genesis315]

The First Vatican Council itself explains (also, in most examples of the pope definitively proclaiming something he consults the other bishops, or at least the Roman clergy):

1. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
   1. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].
2. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
   1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s another great explanation by St. Francis de Sales (sorry it’s kind of long!):

But he cannot err when he is *in cathedra *, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church, and, as the Greek says and the Church seems to understand in a collect of Pentecost, conducts and directs his Church into all truth: *But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth *or, will lead you into all truth (John xvi. 13). And how does the Holy Spirit lead the Church except by the ministry and office of preachers and pastors? But if the pastors have pastors they must also follow them, as all must follow him who is the supreme pastor, by whose ministry Our God wills to lead not only the lambs and little sheep, but the sheep and mothers of lambs; that is, not the people only but also the other pastors: he succeeds S. Peter, who received this charge: Feed my sheep. Thus it is that God leads his Church into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposition of this he who seeks the truth under other leading loses it. The Holy Spirit is the leader of the Church, he leads it by its pastor, he therefore who follows not the pastor follows not the Holy Spirit.

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said *he shall carry the Church into all truth, *but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the *Urim *and *Thummim *of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail. Happy the man who follows him and puts himself under the discipline of his crook! Happy the man who embarks in his boat, for he shall feed on truth, and shall arrive at the port of holy doctrine !

Thus he never gives a general command to the whole Church in necessary things except with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who, as he is not wanting in necessary things even to second causes, because he has established them, will not be more wanting to Christianity in what is necessary for its life and perfection. And how would the Church be one and holy, as the Scriptures and .Creeds describe her? -for if she followed a pastor, and the pastor erred, how would she be holy; if she followed him not, how would she be one? And what confusion would be seen in Christendom, while the one party should consider a law good the others bad, and while the sheep, instead of feeding and fattening in the pasture of Scripture and the Holy Word, should occupy themselves in controlling the decision of their superior?

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope14.html

 

[ProVobis]

My initial reaction to this is why do you think the Church NEEDED a council? And going one step further, why would the Church EVER need a council?

Because Jesus established apostolic succession and is the more common means to declare His divine truth.

Hmmm. The OP makes a good point. I suppose a council provides more of a legal foundation, definition, and limitations of papal infallibility. While a Pope could have technically done the same, who would hold him to that as it would appear that he would be usurping more power than he had been known to have beforehand.

 

[Genesis315]

Hmmm. The OP makes a good point. I suppose a council provides more of a legal foundation, definition, and limitations of papal infallibility. While a Pope could have technically done the same, who would hold him to that as it would appear that he would be usurping more power than he had been known to have beforehand.

The infallibility of the papal magisterium was already well known as it had been vigorously defended during the Protestant Reformation by the like of St. Francis de Sales (see above) as well as St. Peter Canisius and others. It was solemnly proclaimed and confirmed by the First Vatican Council because the doctrinal authority of the Pope was being attacked by the Rationalists of the time.

Calling a Council to make decisions (doctrinal or disciplinary) is prudential for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but also because it is more prudential to decide things in common to avoid any suspicion of impropriety, as St. John Chrysostom says of St. Peter’s decision in Acts to not appoint a successor to Judas himself:

Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.

newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

 

[LilyM]

If the Pope is infallible and can define Dogmas without a Council (Immaculate Conception and Assumption) why was there a need to call a Council to define Papal Infallibility?

(Not that I dispute any Dogmas of the Catholic Faith, this is more of a question that I can’t answer in my mental apologetics exercises.)

Because even though Popes are infallible they aren’t universally respected nor their teachings universally followed, so the extra weight of a Council teaching can become necessary.

Even the Apostles and their followers didn’t all want to do as St Peter taught, which was to treat Gentile Christians the same as Judaic Christians. Mind you, St Peter himself blurred the matter unnecessarily by himself on occasion refusing to eat with Gentiles, for which he was rightly criticised by St Paul.

So they had to come together in council to sort the matter out … funnily enough it turned out Peter had been teaching rightly all along, even if he didn’t always live up to that same teaching

 

[ProVobis]

Because even though Popes are infallible they aren’t universally respected nor their teachings universally followed, so the extra weight of a Council teaching can become necessary.

You said it better than I did.

That being said, the Pope (or Popes if the council runs a few years) can overrule the council or can simply refuse to sign documents. Or make pronouncements as to the degree of infallibility, such as whether new doctrine has been defined or not. It seems the Pope(s) and the council have to work well together in order to accomplish the council’s goals.

 

[consumedconvert]

Think of this declaration of Papal Infallibility from the perspective of the faithful, especially the unsubtle faithful, the people who say “the CHurch says so, so I believe it” without wondering why the Church says so.

1. Authority A (Councils) is absolutely accepted by the faithful.
2. Authority B is generally accepted, but without absolute certaintly.
3. Authority A declares Authority B to be as authoritative as itself.
   Result: The authority of A and B are now absolutely accepted by the faithful.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Vatican I didn’t ‘invent’ infallibility’. It defined and clarified the term in relation to the Chair of Peter and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. Infallibility was always a special unique charism given to the Chair of Peter - meaning that pope and bishops together cannot err in matters of Faith or morals when proclaiming the fullness of Faith. It is a charism of the Holy Spirit based on Christ’s mandate to Peter himself in Matthew 16:18-19. The papacy was being roundly attacked during the 1800s, and the doctrine of infallibility was being routinely subjugated to misinformation and outright anti-Catholic propaganda. It was necessary to clarify what the papacy was at the time.

Yes, I know that.