Infallibility - revisited

[Vince1022]

[quote=Vico;7239373]Yet, Vatican I states that it is a constant tradition that:

"That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching,"

Yes. Exactly. No mention of the quotation referring to Leo

Originally Posted by Vico

and does not exclude Chalcedon where the statement of teaching authority was made: "Peter has spoken through Leo".

Of COURSE it doesn't exclude it, My simple point is that it does not cite or refer to it.

Originally Posted by Vico

The primacy is not independent of the teaching authority so if "Peter has spoken through Leo" has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy, then how can it not apply to teaching infallibly without denying what Vatican I has stated?

Of COURSE primacy is not independent of teaching authority. I never said nor suggested otherwise. Again, simply, Vatican I (in this case, but this applies to other cases too) does not invoke the quote referring to Leo when discussing/defining papal infallibility.

[Vico]

[quote=Vince1022;7241169]

Originally Posted by Vico

Yet, Vatican I states that it is a constant tradition that:

"That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching,"

Yes. Exactly. No mention of the quotation referring to Leo



Of COURSE it doesn't exclude it, My simple point is that it does not cite or refer to it.


Of COURSE primacy is not independent of teaching authority. I never said nor suggested otherwise. Again, simply, Vatican I (in this case, but this applies to other cases too) does not invoke the quote referring to Leo when discussing/defining papal infallibility.

I am trying to understand your perspective of why the quote pertains to primacy but not to teaching infallably.

Since you stated that for papal primacy the quote of Leo has been an important and strong argument, and that the primacy is not independent of the teaching authority, then it is then not clear why you say that the quote of Leo does not apply to teaching infallably, especially since the Vatican I dogma defines the infallable teaching authority of the Roman pontiff which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter is a constant tradition.

[Vince1022]

[quote=Vico;7242276]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

I am trying to understand your perspective of why the quote pertains to primacy but not to teaching infallably.

Since you stated that for papal primacy the quote of Leo has been an important and strong argument, and that the primacy is not independent of the teaching authority, then it is then not clear why you say that the quote of Leo does not apply to teaching infallably, especially since the Vatican I dogma defines the infallable teaching authority of the Roman pontiff which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter is a constant tradition.

Simply because Vatican I never referred to the quote about Leo when discussing infallibility (which of course is not simply a Papal thing, as primacy is).

[Vico]

[quote=Vince1022;7247286]

Originally Posted by Vico

Simply because Vatican I never referred to the quote about Leo when discussing infallibility (which of course is not simply a Papal thing, as primacy is).

Vatican I makes a declaration Chapter 4 "On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff" which is very specific "That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching."

So how do you separate primacy and teaching infallably with regard to Vatican I dogma in Chapter 4?

[Vince1022]

[quote=Vico;7247501]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Vatican I makes a declaration Chapter 4 "On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff" which is very specific "That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching."

So how do you separate primacy and teaching infallably with regard to Vatican I dogma in Chapter 4?

And how does this refer to the Leo quote that has been the subject of many posts on this thread?

But, anyway, to answer your question, Vatican I was incomplete. Vatican II completed the Catholic doctrine regarding infallibility, which Vatican I was unable to do as it was abruptly cut short due to political/national events. Vatican II completed and clarified the teaching of Vatican I by describing all the ways the Church may teach infallibly. Vatican I only addressed one of the methods.

Primacy is one issue, infallibility is one issue. Of course the two are related, but they are not the same.

So, where does this quotation about Leo appear in Vatican I (or Vatican II) teachings regarding infallibility?

[Vico]

[quote=Vince1022;7247623]

Originally Posted by Vico

And how does this refer to the Leo quote that has been the subject of many posts on this thread?

But, anyway, to answer your question, Vatican I was incomplete. Vatican II completed the Catholic doctrine regarding infallibility, which Vatican I was unable to do as it was abruptly cut short due to political/national events. Vatican II completed and clarified the teaching of Vatican I by describing all the ways the Church may teach infallibly. Vatican I only addressed one of the methods.

Primacy is one issue, infallibility is one issue. Of course the two are related, but they are not the same.

So, where does this quotation about Leo appear in Vatican I (or Vatican II) teachings regarding infallibility?

Infallability does not apply independent of the primacy, according to both Vatican I and II.

See Lumen Gentium 22 from Vatican II:

"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God." -- LG 22, Chapter III, item 18.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

[Vico]

[quote=Vico;7248441]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Infallability does not apply independent of the primacy, according to both Vatican I and II.

See Lumen Gentium 22 from Vatican II:

"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God." -- LG 22, Chapter III, item 18.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

Errata: the previous post quotes Lumen Gentium 18, and portion of LG 22 is below:

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff."

[Vince1022]

[quote=Vico;7248441]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Infallability does not apply independent of the primacy, according to both Vatican I and II.

See Lumen Gentium 22 from Vatican II:

"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God." -- LG 22, Chapter III, item 18.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html

Of course. Didn't apply to my question though, did it? I never said infallibility and primacy were independent of each other, simply that they weren't the same. And that the quote about Leo didn't apply to infallibility. Your post didn't really respond to that. Thanks anyway.

[Vico]

[quote=Vince1022;7251144]

Originally Posted by Vico

Of course. Didn't apply to my question though, did it? I never said infallibility and primacy were independent of each other, simply that they weren't the same. And that the quote about Leo didn't apply to infallibility. Your post didn't really respond to that. Thanks anyway.

Thank you for clarifying that infallibility and primacy are not independent. There are two different terms "primacy" and "teaching infallaby," and the Church as declared it is a constant tradition that the primacy includes the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff.

Actually the quote about Leo from Chalcedon is applicable to your question, as the statement was not excluded from the Vatican statements, rather is a part of one more more of the custom, councils, or profession of the Holy See, and does pertain to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, although you believe that it is not in Tradition (and did not define). For reference, the statement from Chalcedon with regard to the Tome of Leo is:

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."

(Acts of the Council, session 2, 451 A.D.).
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html

I have gone through all the posts from #62 to try and find the reasoning to answer my query: "I am trying to understand your perspective of why the quote pertains to primacy but not to teaching infallably." Some follow:
-----
Post 65:
The Church's teaching has developed since 1910. See especially the teachings of the Second Vatican (ecumenical) Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Post 69:
I'm saying it's not important because it's not taught, as part of Tradition.
Post 71:
I'm simply saying (again) that the quotation "Peter has spoken through Leo" was primarily used in the Tradition to support Papal primacy. Not papal infallibility. Nothing in Vatican I or II teaching on infallibility referred to this quotation. Nor does the Catechism (when addressing infallibility).
There's a very significant difference between papal primacy and papal (or other) infallibility.
Post 79:
Ecumenical councils by Catholic definition include everyone, east and west. So where did any such council use the quote we're discussing to support infallibility?
-----

A few writers have opposed the dogma of the constant tradition of the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, from Vatican I/II. Such opinions are described in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, those of historian Brian Tierney, modernist Hans Kung, Bernard Hassler, and historian Johann von Dollinger. They are anti-Vatican.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

Thank you for clarifying that infallibility and primacy are not independent. There are two different terms "primacy" and "teaching infallaby," and the Church as declared it is a constant tradition that the primacy includes the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff.

Where does the Church teach this as a constant tradition?

Originally Posted by Vico

Actually the quote about Leo from Chalcedon is applicable to your question, as the statement was not excluded from the Vatican statements, rather is a part of one more more of the custom, councils, or profession of the Holy See, and does pertain to the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, although you believe that it is not in Tradition (and did not define). For reference, the statement from Chalcedon with regard to the Tome of Leo is:

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."

(Acts of the Council, session 2, 451 A.D.).
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html

Yeah...ok...so, again...not cited at Vatican I with respect to infallibility, right? Being "not excluded" is hardly the same as being referenced or cited, which has been my question all along.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

[

A few writers have opposed the dogma of the constant tradition of the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, from Vatican I/II. Such opinions are described in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, those of historian Brian Tierney, modernist Hans Kung, Bernard Hassler, and historian Johann von Dollinger. They are anti-Vatican.

Teaching infallibly is a constant tradition and dogma of the Church? Any references to support such a claim from the first 1000 years A.D.?

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Where does the Church teach this as a constant tradition?

Yeah...ok...so, again...not cited at Vatican I with respect to infallibility, right? Being "not excluded" is hardly the same as being referenced or cited, which has been my question all along.

1. You said: "Peter has spoken through Leo" has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly.

Since there is no primacy without the infallible teaching authority, that which supports primacy also supports the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff. That is why I ask for the logic in your statement.

2. However, the postings seem to keep focusing upon the quote about Leo from Chalcedon not being part of the basis given in Chapter 4.

For the first 1000 years, the Vatican I Chapter 4 on the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, includes the first seven ecumenical councils and the Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. -- Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, "Thou art Peter, etc.", and custom, councils, and professions of the Holy See.

There are other references to the first 1000 years tradition.

247. "The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches."

DS 284, Pope St. Leo I: temporal substance of flesh.-
Likewise we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, but we do not say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of the Trinity, but only to the Son, who alone assumed our nature in the unity of His person. Also, we must believe that the entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. However, only the Son took the form of a servant [cf. Phil. 2:7 ] in the singleness of His person, not in the unity of His divine nature; in what is proper to the Son, not in what is common to the Trinity; and this form was adapted to Him for unity of person so that the Son of God and the Son of man is one Christ, that is, Christ in these two natures exists in three substances; of the Word, which must refer to the essence of God alone, of the body, and of the soul, which pertain to true man.

The Vatican I statement proclaims the constant tradition, and includes the first 1000 years:

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff
That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
This holy see has always maintained this,
the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vince1022

Teaching infallibly is a constant tradition and dogma of the Church? Any references to support such a claim from the first 1000 years A.D.?

3. You have not provided any proof that Chalcedon is excluded from Vatican I Chapter 4, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, with nihil obstat and imprimatur has included it in the proof by tradition section:

Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition:

"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."

It gives the following in particular, which you can see items 4 and 5 are from Vatican I Chapter 4 item 2 and the remaining are from the period of the first seven ecumenical councils.

1. Ephesus 431 A.D. -- sacred canons of Pope Celestine
2. Chalcedon 451 A.D. -- "Peter has spoken through Leo"
3. Third Council 680-681 A.D. -- "Peter has spoken through Agatho."
4. Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. -- Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, "Thou art Peter, etc."
5. Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D. & Florence Council 1438-1445 A.D. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians.

There are many sources for the first 1000 years given there:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

1. You said: "Peter has spoken through Leo" has been a traditionally important and strong argument for papal primacy. Not for teaching infallibly.

Since there is no primacy without the infallible teaching authority, that which supports primacy also supports the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff. That is why I ask for the logic in your statement.

Of course there can be primacy without infallible teaching authority. Again, as I've asked, where in the first 1000 years was there any Church teaching regarding papal infallibility? And yet clearly there are teachings about papal primacy. So...logically...and more importantly, historically....the understanding of papal primacy preceded any explicit understanding or exercise of teaching infallibly.

[Vince1022]

Originally Posted by Vico

[font=Arial]

2. However, the postings seem to keep focusing upon the quote about Leo from Chalcedon not being part of the basis given in Chapter 4.

For the first 1000 years, the Vatican I Chapter 4 on the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, includes the first seven ecumenical councils and the Fourth Council 869-870 A.D. -- Pope Hormisdas profession of faith, "Thou art Peter, etc.", and custom, councils, and professions of the Holy See.

Where does Vatican I teaching, about papal infallibility (ch. 4 as you note) refer to the first seven ecumenical councils? Or Pope Hormisdas?

Yes, it refers to Constantinople IV, none of the other first seven, but in terms of primacy, not infallibility.