Papal Infallibility

[QuagDabPeg]

The question in the OP, as well as the theme of the OP in this thread is a bit of a Red Herring because it is analogous to asking for examples of explicit promulgations of the Trinity before First Council of Nicea. Or explicit promulgations of the Hypostatic Union prior to the Council of Chalcedon. You will find none of this, which proves nothing, since these truths existed prior to the councils which difined them. The same is true of papal infallibility. Having said that, I would say that probably the earliest post-New Testament evidence of papal infallibility is found in St. Clement of Rome, in his First Letter to the Corinthians. I don't mean to sound rude, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to provide the background information surrounding this letter of St. Clement. Especially considering that the entire purpose of this thread would appear to be simply yet another occasion of seeking to find sufficient fault with Catholic doctrine, trying to find some crack to slip through in an apparent ongoing attempt to justify a decision that, seemingly, has already been made. So I would only say this. Pope St. Clement (Pontificate 88-97 A.D.) spoke (wrote) thusly, with the authority of God Himself:

"For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter."

These words of St. Clement, of Pope St. Clement, assume that God Himself is speaking through St. Clement. And if God is speaking through Pope St. Clement, then He (God) is right, He's God. It's infallible. This is, therefore, a very early example of papal infallibility. Yet there is no evidence of any sort to give evidence to support any objections to St. Clement's speaking and writing in this authoritative way, infallibly through the Holy Spirit.

I've actually read quite a bit about the St. Clement issue. Are there some other ones besdies this one, as it is a bit ambiguous as it's more to do, form what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), with resolving a dispute between two major bishops rathers than defining an issue of dogma. I wasn't aware that the trinity was never mentioned before it was defined - very interesting indeed! I will have to look more into that. I assume it was always talked about but then for whatever reason some people started a heresy against it. But I guess I was wrong, I will have to search into that. I would think (hope?) that there was -some- reference to the trinity before the time it was defined. Anyway, if anyone knows some other examples of the pope using his infallibilty it'd be much appreicated (or if I'm wrong about it being in resolving a dispute rather than defining a matter of morals/dogma). Thanks very much!

Edit: And back to my original question - I still don't understand why it took so long to define it.

 

[Skripper]

I've actually read quite a bit about the St. Clement issue. Are there some other ones besdies this one, as it is a bit ambiguous as it's more to do, form what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), with resolving a dispute between two major bishops rathers than defining an issue of dogma. I wasn't aware that the trinity was never mentioned before it was defined - very interesting indeed! I will have to look more into that. I assume it was always talked about but then for whatever reason some people started a heresy against it. But I guess I was wrong, I will have to search into that. I would think (hope?) that there was -some- reference to the trinity before the time it was defined. Anyway, if anyone knows some other examples of the pope using his infallibilty it'd be much appreicated (or if I'm wrong about it being in resolving a dispute rather than defining a matter of morals/dogma). Thanks very much!

Edit: And back to my original question - I still don't understand why it took so long to define it.

. . . sigh. I never said the Trinity was no reference to the Trinity before it was defined. Regarding papal infallibility, look to the concept, not the word itself. Are you confused or not undestand as well about "why" all the other dogmas were not defined until they were?????????????

 

[QuagDabPeg]

. . . sigh. I never said the Trinity was no reference to the Trinity before it was defined. Regarding papal infallibility, look to the concept, not the word itself. Are you confused or not undestand as well about "why" all the other dogmas were not defined until they were?????????????

Yes, I am confused. My understanding has always been that things got defined as they were challenged. So the early fathers all talked about Christ joint nature or whatever, and then some heresy broke out and they said "ok we better define this" and then it got defined. Most of these things happened pretty early becasue as people's nature is, they tend to challenge things. That's why I don't understand why it took so long to define papal infallibilty. I mean, how many teenagers grow up never challenging their parent's aurthority, right? If you have kids that never did that you're about the luckiest parent in the world. So I'm certain that papal infallibilty was challenged before 1870 - heck, we know it was because the Orthodox schism, Luther broke off as did Henry 8th, so why didn't they define it right then? Why did it take them another 800 years after the schism to define anything?

As to the Clemit issue, was I correct that it was a dispute or was it a doctrinal matter? I honestly might be wrong, I just seem to remember when I was reading about it over the summer it being some sort of internal dispute between two of the bishops. I really want to learn about some of the other examples of papal infallibility prior to the declairaion in 1870. How can we explain these things to non-Catholics if we don't know ourselves. Thanks!

 

[Skripper]

You do sound rude! How amazingly defensive of you to automatically detect malice in a question that obviously has intellectual merit and is born out of curiosity! QDP has already made it clear that she's not questioning infallibility in response to some links posted - in other words, she accepts it. It seems to be legitimate curiosity, and QDP seems to be pretty cooperative with the responses given and non-accusatory in her follow up questions. I think she knows she's looking at the date of the defining of infalliblity with incomplete knowledge - that's why she's asking this question.

If a kid asks how a several-100-ton airplane can fly despite being so heavy, you do not accuse him of "questioning physics" even if the answer to that question is obvious to you.

Both this hypothetical kid and QDP are just curious and want some answers.

You really need to calm down. I assumed no malice. And you need to not only avoid assuming any on my part, but also take care to avoid what amounts to flaming. QDP has started numerous thread with this same theme. That is all I am referring to. It would appear that a decision has, quite possibly, already been made. Once a person makes a decision, support for that decision is frequently sought after.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

You really need to calm down. I assumed no malice. And you need to not only avoid assuming any on my part, but also take care to avoid what amounts to flaming. QDP has started numerous thread with this same theme. That is all I am referring to. It would appear that a decision has, quite possibly, already been made. Once a person makes a decision, support for that decision is frequently sought after.

I think information should always be sought after. I actually haven't made a decision, which is why I'm seeking answers. This one I'd really like answers to. I think it's important for Catholics to know this stuff, so I hope people will answer.

 

[Michelina]

QDP, definitions respond to challenges when the challenge becomes a serious threat to the flock. And there are other circumstantial considerations. You are oversimplifying. You can't take maxims, adages and rules of thumb so literally. It's bad logic.

 

[Skripper]

I think information should always be sought after. I actually haven't made a decision, which is why I'm seeking answers. This one I'd really like answers to. I think it's important for Catholics to know this stuff, so I hope people will answer.

QDP, there is nothing wrong with asking questions and seeking information. But your questions have been answered, in this and every other similar thread you have started, on a range of doctrines that you are seemingly questioning and quite skeptical about. However, rather than accept these answers or even entertain the possibility that the Catholic Church may indeed be right, you seemingly choose instead to discount them, almost as though seeking to confirm your own doubts and scepticism. This method of "seeking information," while seemingly entrenched in an unwillingness to accept any answers in support of the Church's teachings, may not be a fruitful way to seek.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

QDP, definitions respond to challenges when the challenge becomes a serious threat to the flock. And there are other circumstantial considerations. You are oversimplifying. You can't take maxims, adages and rules of thumb so literally. It's bad logic.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd still like to learn more about it. While it may not be oversimplified, there is bound to be some examples and also then some catalyst. So basically what I'm looking for is

1) Examples of papal infallibilty. (or is it true as some say that it's only been used 3 times in the history of the church, then I understand more why no one has given me a clear example)

2) Some reason as to why it took so long to define. What was the catalyst?

Also, does anyone know if I'm right or not about St. Clemet?

 

[Skripper]

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd still like to learn more about it. While it may not be oversimplified, there is bound to be some examples and also then some catalyst. So basically what I'm looking for is

1) Examples of papal infallibilty. (or is it true as some say that it's only been used 3 times in the history of the church, then I understand more why no one has given me a clear example)

Explicitly, after formally being defined at Vatican I . . . yes, three times. Some would say only twice. However, it is implicit throughout Church history, including the example I provided from St. Clement.

2) Some reason as to why it took so long to define. What was the catalyst?

It was being explicitly challenged at that time. The time it took to develop and be defined is only long from our perspective, not from God's perspective and not from the perspecitve of the timelessness of Christian truth. Also keep in mind that the Chuch moves extremely slowly at times. Hundreds of years in the life of the Church is . . . almost nothing.

Also, does anyone know if I'm right or not about St. Clemet?

Yes, you are correct in that the St. Clement was settling a dispute. But the point is, he claimed to speak for God, through the Holy Spirit, which is the very crux of papal infallibility. Moreover, he was also settling a "dispute" that very much involved doctrine. Because the dispute was about whether or not priests and bishops could be summarily dismissed, i.e., kicked out of their lawfully ordained and lawfully appointed offices, which is doctrinal in nature. So you see, it's not excluded as implicitly infallibly simply because it was a "dispute." In fact, even the few formal infallible papal declarations of more recent times all were centered and revolved around "disputes" within the Church. Clearuly, clearly . . . unless one is predisposed against papal infallibility, one can see it in it's embryonic stage in Pope St. Clement.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

Is there maybe a good website or book I could read on the subject that clearly goes through the different infallible teachings prior to the declairation in 1870?

 

[Skripper]

Is there maybe a good website or book I could read on the subject that clearly goes through the different infallible teachings prior to the declairation in 1870?

You will not find anything prior to Vatican I that explicitly "clearly goes through" any infallibly defined teachings that were formally defined by a pope, formally speaking infallibly, because the dogma was not yet formally defined. It's like asking to see all the documents of the land we now call the USA prior to 1776 . . . they don't exist. Yet the country was clearly forming prior to that and indeed existed in a somewhat embryonic state. I know this is not the best analogy, but it's the best I can do this late. It's also a little bit like asking for "biblical evidence" of the existence of God, in some biblical documental form, prior to the book of Genisis.

Just like you will not find formal "infallible" teachings on the Trinity prior to First Nicea. Nor will you find formal "infallible" teachings on the Hypostatic Union prior to Chalcedon, or formal "infallible" teachings on the Thetokos prior to the Council at Ephesus . . . though you will find plenty of implicit evidence of these dogmas prior to those times. Likewise you will, as I have already said, find plenty of implicit evidence of papal infallibility, before it was made dogma. For example, every single ecumenical council submitted it's teachings and canons to the reigning pope, either directly or through a papal legate, before being officially promulgated. Why do you suppose that is? Out of respect? Out of honor? Partly. But it's also because only the pope had the charism to make the final decision on them. Consequently, it was only then that they would be considered "infallible." Only after the pope gave his approval. This is another indication of papal infallibilibty, throughout the history of the Church.

 

[QuagDabPeg]

You will not find anything prior to Vatican I that explicitly "clearly goes through" any infallibly defined teachings that were formally defined by a pope, formally speaking infallibly, because the dogma was not yet formally defined. It's like asking to see all the documents of the land we now call the USA prior to 1776 . . . they don't exist. Yet the country was clearly forming prior to that and indeed existed in a somewhat embryonic state. I know this is not the best analogy, but it's the best I can do this late. It's also a little bit like asking for "biblical evidence" of the existence of God, in some biblical documental form, prior to the book of Genisis.

Just like you will not find formal "infallible" teachings on the Trinity prior to First Nicea. Nor will you find formal "infallible" teachings on the Hypostatic Union prior to Chalcedon, or formal "infallible" teachings on the Thetokos prior to the Council at Ephesus . . . though you will find plenty of implicit evidence of these dogmas prior to those times. Likewise you will, as I have already said, find plenty of implicit evidence of papal infallibility, before it was made dogma. For example, every single ecumenical council submitted it's teachings and canons to the reigning pope, either directly or through a papal legate, before being officially promulgated. Why do you suppose that is? Out of respect? Out of honor? Partly. But it's also because only the pope had the charism to make the final decision on them. Consequently, it was only then that they would be considered "infallible." Only after the pope gave his approval. This is another indication of papal infallibilibty, throughout the history of the Church.

I think you misunderstood my question. I was not talking about documents, but a book or website that someone wrote that says like "xyz is an example of this, abc is another example." And something that explains why it took them so long to define it.

Does anyone know why it wasn't defined earlier? That's the major thing I just want to know. They'd clearly been having the legitamcy challenged so why didn't it get defined earleir?

 

[Skripper]

I think you misunderstood my question. I was not talking about documents, but a book or website that someone wrote that says like "xyz is an example of this, abc is another example." And something that explains why it took them so long to define it.

Does anyone know why it wasn't defined earlier? That's the major thing I just want to know. They'd clearly been having the legitamcy challenged so why didn't it get defined earleir?

I don't know of a website or book that exactly fits the bill as you've described, but I would suggest a book by Stephen Ray called, Upon This Rock. Though I know of no book that focuses exclusively on infallibility this book, though not limited to the infallibility issue only, covers pretty much all aspects of the papacy, in a historical context, from the first century.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Explicitly, after formally being defined at Vatican I . . . yes, three times. Some would say only twice. However, it is implicit throughout Church history, including the example I provided from St. Clement.



It was being explicitly challenged at that time. The time it took to develop and be defined is only long from our perspective, not from God's perspective and not from the perspecitve of the timelessness of Christian truth. Also keep in mind that the Chuch moves extremely slowly at times. Hundreds of years in the life of the Church is . . . almost nothing.



Yes, you are correct in that the St. Clement was settling a dispute. But the point is, he claimed to speak for God, through the Holy Spirit, which is the very crux of papal infallibility. Moreover, he was also settling a "dispute" that very much involved doctrine. Because the dispute was about whether or not priests and bishops could be summarily dismissed, i.e., kicked out of their lawfully ordained and lawfully appointed offices, which is doctrinal in nature. So you see, it's not excluded as implicitly infallibly simply because it was a "dispute." In fact, even the few formal infallible papal declarations of more recent times all were centered and revolved around "disputes" within the Church. Clearuly, clearly . . . unless one is predisposed against papal infallibility, one can see it in it's embryonic stage in Pope St. Clement.

Hi Dave . . .what dispute was the dogma of the Assumption of Mary related to? I understood that this was one that was not surrournded by dispute, but was one whose time had come to be defined for the good of the Church.


Peace in Him!

 

[marciadietrich]

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 447,76 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.

...
76 Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.

 

[marciadietrich]

Hi Dave . . .what dispute was the dogma of the Assumption of Mary related to? I understood that this was one that was not surrournded by dispute, but was one whose time had come to be defined for the good of the Church.

That is what I heard, that after all the death in WWII the Pope decided it would be a great sign of hope for the faithful to define this. As it gave hope for the resurrection of all those who died in the war.

 

[marciadietrich]

.... double post deleted - sorry ....