Infallibility - revisited

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

There was no discussion of papal infallibility in the 5th century (Pope St. Leo the Great's time). Nor for many centuries after. So, my only point is, that this quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great was always traditionally understood to refer, primarily, to primacy, regardless of what later interpretations may have been added to it.

The quotation, in its original context, had nothing to do with papal infallibility (unless you understand such to mean "anything to do with the Pope" which of course then it does).

And, of course, any time the Church teaches a fundamental truth, the Church presents it as continuous with Tradition. But when and how such a given teaching became explicit is a matter of historical development. The Scriptures alone do not define all that Catholics believe, nor do the teachings of the first 5 centuries, or the second 5 centuries, etc.

You refer to primacy and the "later interpretations may have been added to it." Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy. As pointed out in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

"...what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching." ...

They list Chalcedon quote about Leo among others and continue with:

"Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils."

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

You refer to primacy and the "later interpretations may have been added to it." Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy. As pointed out in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

"...what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching." ...

They list Chalcedon quote about Leo among others and continue with:

"Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils."

Sure, the older version of the Catholic Encyclopedia may have included this quotation, but Vatican I did not. Nor does the current Catholic Encyclopedia.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Sure, the older version of the Catholic Encyclopedia may have included this quotation, but Vatican I did not. Nor does the current Catholic Encyclopedia.

You missed the meaning of my post which is not about a quote in Vatican I, rather that the infallible teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff is not a later interpretation of the primacy. That is why I began with:

You refer to primacy and the "later interpretations may have been added to it."

Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

Clearly Vatican I is asserting that the teaching authority has always been maintained as clearly explained in Session 4, Chapter 4, and that it is not a later interpretation added to the primacy.

Yes, of course.

But is that claim true? Where, prior to Vatican I, is any such teaching proclaimed by the Church?

Of course such a teaching is coherent with Catholic Tradition, but where prior to Vatican I has it ever been explicitly taught?

Thanks for any reference.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Yes, of course.

But is that claim true? Where, prior to Vatican I, is any such teaching proclaimed by the Church?

Of course such a teaching is coherent with Catholic Tradition, but where prior to Vatican I has it ever been explicitly taught?

Thanks for any reference.

There are references given at Vatican I, given by me before in this thread, which they have presented to show how the tradition has been constant. It is the finality of the teaching authority of that implies infallibility. I do not dispute the Church on their statement or that it is constant, as has been done by those that object to Vatican I and II, such as Kung, Tierney, August Hassler. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia they have been criticised for denying "a priori, legitimate development of the doctrine through history." (See p. 450-452 Catholic Encyclopedia). The definition was necessary to put down Gallicanism. Other sources were given in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

It was stated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (written 1265-1274) second part, question 1, part 10, that:

Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. ...

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

There are references given at Vatican I, given by me before in this thread, which they have presented to show how the tradition has been constant. It is the finality of the teaching authority of that implies infallibility. I do not dispute the Church on their statement or that it is constant, as has been done by those that object to Vatican I and II, such as Kung, Tierney, August Hassler. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia they have been criticised for denying "a priori, legitimate development of the doctrine through history." (See p. 450-452 Catholic Encyclopedia). The definition was necessary to put down Gallicanism. Other sources were given in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia.

It was stated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (written 1265-1274) second part, question 1, part 10, that:

Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. ...

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10

What article in the old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia are you referring to? I don't have a hard copy, so the page references don't help. I'd like to compare it to what the current edition says.

I of course agree with St. Thomas, my point was that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit there.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

What article in the old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia are you referring to? I don't have a hard copy, so the page references don't help. I'd like to compare it to what the current edition says.

I of course agree with St. Thomas, my point was that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit there.

The pages are in, New Catholic Encyclopedia, second edition, 2003, v. 7. Hol-Jub "Infallability", pp. 448-452.

It is the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching that is constantly maintained by the Magisterium, as explained in Vatican I and by others.

I could not give a reason, based upon what you have posted in this thread, that is not in conflict with the statements of Vatican I, showing how the primacy had no teaching authority of a final nature, on matters of faith and morals, prior to Vatican I. Of course, to put down Gallicanism, the definition was made in 1870, and clarified at Vatican II, yet the Church has long taught infallibly. You seminal posts used the term "teaching infallibly", which is what I responed to:

#61 "The Biblical passage you note is often cited to support Papal primacy, but not necessarily the Church's charism of teaching infallibly."

#62 "Peter has spoken through Leo" has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly."

Even at the Council of Trent, the French contested the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as expressed at the Council of Florence, which was not resolved until Vatican I.

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Vico

Objection 1. It would seem that it does not belong to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith. ...

I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.
[/indent]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10

Interesting quote from St. Thomas Aquinas. He seems to confirm the High Petrine position that the infallible authority of the Pontiff is a universal appellate authority. Indeed this position was affirmed by Vatican 1, Vatican 2, and most recently by Pope Benedict XVI (http://easternchristianbooks.blogspo...tian-east.html).

Blessings,
Marduk

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

The pages are in, New Catholic Encyclopedia, second edition, 2003, v. 7. Hol-Jub "Infallability", pp. 448-452.

It is the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching that is constantly maintained by the Magisterium, as explained in Vatican I and by others.

I could not give a reason, based upon what you have posted in this thread, that is not in conflict with the statements of Vatican I, showing how the primacy had no teaching authority of a final nature, on matters of faith and morals, prior to Vatican I. Of course, to put down Gallicanism, the definition was made in 1870, and clarified at Vatican II, yet the Church has long taught infallibly. You seminal posts used the term "teaching infallibly", which is what I responed to:

#61 "The Biblical passage you note is often cited to support Papal primacy, but not necessarily the Church's charism of teaching infallibly."

#62 "Peter has spoken through Leo" has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly."

Even at the Council of Trent, the French contested the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as expressed at the Council of Florence, which was not resolved until Vatican I.

Thanks! Appreciate the reference, I didn't know you were referring to the current Catholic Encyclopedia. Great post.

Still, my point in this thread is not refuted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, for what it's worth.

Thanks again.

[SCALCO]

Dear Vince,

I've sort of been following along the past couple of pages and it's been a little funny seeing you and Vico go back and forth.

Can you please answer a quick question...if I get correctly, your point is that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit prior to Vatican I.

What I don't get is (I may have missed it), what is the point of your point? I've just been curious.

Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Scalco

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Thanks! Appreciate the reference, I didn't know you were referring to the current Catholic Encyclopedia. Great post.

Still, my point in this thread is not refuted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, for what it's worth.

Thanks again.

I am not able to get you to answer my question. The logic for my statement is this:

1. Vatican 1 states that the primacy has always had the authority of "teaching infallibly"
2. Vatican 1 states that (1) above has always been maintained by the Magisterium
3. The statement from Chalcedon regarding Leo pertains to the teaching authority of the primacy (it's finality)
4. Vatican 1 does not exclude (3) above so it might include it.

Therefore it can not certainly be said that the Leo quote has not been used for "teaching infallibly".

There are many documents both before and after Vatican I that use the quote regarding Leo from Chalcedon in regard to "teaching infallibly" in the finality of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Two modern Catholic authors have also published that the particular quote regarding Leo from Chalcedon is an example of ex cathedra (although I am not giving my opinion on that).

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by SCALCO

Dear Vince,

I've sort of been following along the past couple of pages and it's been a little funny seeing you and Vico go back and forth.

Can you please answer a quick question...if I get correctly, your point is that the doctrine of infallibility is not explicit prior to Vatican I.

What I don't get is (I may have missed it), what is the point of your point? I've just been curious.

Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Scalco

Hi Scalco, glad you're amused. We all need to laugh and lighten up, no doubt!

My point, from what I recall, was regarding the claim that Leo I's statement regarding the Council of Chalcedon had to do with papal primacy but not papal infallibility. From what I recall, that's where I chimed in and have been corresponding with Vico and others about. I was responding to what others raised. See my post #62. Hope this helps.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

I am not able to get you to answer my question. The logic for my statement is this:

1. Vatican 1 states that the primacy has always had the authority of "teaching infallibly"
2. Vatican 1 states that (1) above has always been maintained by the Magisterium
3. The statement from Chalcedon regarding Leo pertains to the teaching authority of the primacy (it's finality)
4. Vatican 1 does not exclude (3) above so it might include it.

Therefore it can not certainly be said that the Leo quote has not been used for "teaching infallibly".

Yes, of course. My point is that until Vatican I no Church teaching correlated the two explicitly.

Originally Posted by Vico

There are many documents both before and after Vatican I that use the quote regarding Leo from Chalcedon in regard to "teaching infallibly" in the finality of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Could you please share some pre-Vatican I documents? Thanks!

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Yes, of course. My point is that until Vatican I no Church teaching correlated the two explicitly.


Could you please share some pre-Vatican I documents? Thanks!

Many have posted here already, from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, and Vatican I specifically listing some general councils, etc.. Note that from post #64:

"And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching."

[SCALCO]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Hi Scalco, glad you're amused. We all need to laugh and lighten up, no doubt!

Dear Vince,

Laughter is the best medicine, as the saying goes. And, the gift of perseverance, shown by you and Vico, can be something good.

My point, from what I recall, was regarding the claim that Leo I's statement regarding the Council of Chalcedon had to do with papal primacy but not papal infallibility. From what I recall, that's where I chimed in and have been corresponding with Vico and others about. I was responding to what others raised. See my post #62. Hope this helps.

Understood. I take note you do not see any hint of the Leo quote being used to support infallibility now or ever. On this point, I guess anyone can agree to differ whether or not the charism of infallibility has been understood or taught at all, which isn’t about saying it hasn’t always existed.

Peace and joy to you always,
Scalco