Early Claims Of Inerrancy And Origins Of Infallibility

[dairygirl4u2c]

the following was blocked at catholic answers forums, and was part of what got me banned:

 

 

are there many claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to say, 1000-1300?

i see plenty that he is a "first among equals" and a highly respected leader, and perhaps even deferred to, but nothing in the way of 'inerrant'. it's said that even if that doctrine is true, it wouldn't just spring up in full force. which i understand. but then again, it wouldn't take more than a thousand years to say something about the pope being inerrant.

also, i'm trying to understand a critical point in history. 1050 ish was when the East broke from the West. early 1200 ish is when the Latern Council said the pope should be "humbly defer"ed to. (note they didn't say humbly submit) and late 1200 ish is when a fellow named Olivi (some call him the 'inventor' of infalliblity) came along and without question said the pope cannot error. in the early 1300 ish a pope John XXII decried that idea of infalliblity, at least the extent of the definition given. the pope talked about all temporal and civil power and everything being too much for the pope. it is unclear if he thought any perogative of the pope being inerrant was too much, or the extent described. it's ambiguous... but seems to indicate any inerrancy peroagative was too much. but.... and this is a big but, less than a mere decade after that pope, though, another named Terreni came along and defined infallibliity very similar to the way Vatican I defined infallibility.

so i'm wondering what connections there are between Terreni and Olivi? why did Terreni see fit to limit infallibility better? was he influenced by Olivi or did he act on his own accord? he was almost surely influence by the pope's writing against infallibility, right? and yet he still chose to write it similar to how vatican I would later do it?

that does seem to be pretty compelling in favor of the catholic church. as of now, i just don't have enough info about all the connections.

but even if this time frame was viewed most favorably to catholics, where is the proof of inerrancy pre1000-1200?
to me, that is becoming the deal breaker in becoming a full fledged catholic.

[pippo buono]

There is really no shortage of evidence for papal infallibility from the earliest moments of the history of the Church.

 

Before attempting to answer your question though, I think certain terms need to be clarified. For example, you seem to be using the word "inerrancy" very broadly. I take this from your reference to Pope John XII "decrying infallibility" being linked to civil and temporal power. What's more, this use of "inerrancy" seems to be used equivocally with "infallibility."

 

Finally, it seems that you are making your investigation using these key terms of "inerrancy" and "infallibility," and you are discrediting the existence of these realities in the early Church because they do not appear. Be careful of using anachronistic terminology. It's true that the early Church did not use these terms as much as we do today, but that does not mean that the concepts that they express were not present in the early Church. Such is the nature of one's investigation: to understand if these realities for us were also realities for them, despite a different way of speaking about them.

 

So let's make a precision:

Papal infallibility: The power to define a dogma concerning faith or morals that is binding on the whole Church. This is founded on the belief that God will not allow a person to live out his papal office, which is to be the Chief Bishop of the Church, that will officially lead the Church into error. It is more than anything a negative protection in which we believe that God simply will not allow this to happen.

Papal primacy: This speaks of the pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church in its government. It's a very broad aspect of papal authority, and thus it overlaps a bit with papal infallibility. That being said, are very distinct.

 

Now papal primacy as it was in the early Church had a very different practice in the early Church. While we take part in a Church that is much more centralized around the pope nowadays, the bishops of the early Church acted with, we might say, much greater autonomy.

 

 

However, this does not mean nor prove that papal primacy was non-existent in the early Church. It only means that it was practiced with greater delegation. In theory, we could return to a similar model, but the centralization that we see today was actually a natural and desired development. It was the natural tendency of a Church that sought and seeks to safe-guard its unity, which is the essential mission of the pope in all his authority.

 

In short, the different manifestations of papal authority in different times do not undermine its existence in all times.

 

In terms of the "proofs" you're asking for, I propose this link for evidence of papal primacy. (Sorry, I've gotten lazy after writing what came before, and I'm hoping that the link will be satisfactory for you.)

I also recommend the book The Early Papacy: to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue. It's a very concise book that first explains the papal claims and then offers evidence for these claims in the early Church up to the Synod of Chalcedon.

 

There's so much more to be said, but I hope that is sufficient to resolve the issue.

 

[Basilisa Marie]

The question of how we get to today's idea of papal infallibility is very closely tied to political history. You have to know what was going on in the world throughout the different stages, and how the Church's role grew and shifted throughout. There's evidence for the primacy of Peter in scripture and other documents from the early Church.  Other bishops would ask the Roman bishop to come mediate disputes. They trusted his judgement.  And when you're reading documents you also have to keep in mind that you're reading translations of translations, so any arguments regarding the use of a particular word versus another need to take that into account (and better yet, reference the original language).  In specific regards to "humbly defer" - it's easy to argue that the authors are emphasizing that obeying the pope comes from holy obedience, practiced out of humility, with ultimate respect to the kingship of Christ. They aren't trying to use soft language to convey some idea that the pope's opinions are mere suggestions - that doesn't make sense with what we know of all kinds of religious communities and structures of hierarchy within the Church. 

 

Questions about the pope's inerrancy are really about the greater question of how the pope's authority works. The understanding and particular turn of phrase of inerrancy came along when people where trying to understand and support the pope's authority, an authority which can be traced back to the earliest Church. As the Church grew and new situations arose, the pope's authority grew. The actual pronouncement of papal infallibility comes at the cost of much of the pope's temporal civil power, like that of an earthly king. 

As far as specific connections between specific writers like that, you're much better off asking a real scholar. Or finding some books about papal infallibility and reading those. There's no way any of us around here can actually speak to the connections between Terrani and Olivi (if they can I'd be surprised). And even then, my guess would be that any scholarly opinion would be based on conjecture. 

Edited September 10, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[pippo buono]

Questions about the pope's inerrancy are really about the greater question of how the pope's authority works. The understanding and particular turn of phrase of inerrancy came along when people where trying to understand and support the pope's authority, an authority which can be traced back to the earliest Church. As the Church grew and new situations arose, the pope's authority grew. The actual pronouncement of papal infallibility comes at the cost of much of the pope's temporal civil power, like that of an earthly king. 

 

I think you're equivocating "inerrancy" too much with the pope's authority. They are not the same. The pope has authority to mandate certain things, but not all of these mandates are protected from error.

 

Inerrancy, as far as I know, only enters into papal infallibility, and that within the limits of faith and morals.

 

Also, I think it's incorrect, or at least imprecise, to say that the pope's authority "grew" as the Church grew. In reality, the pope's authority was the same: it was exercised over the same Church with the same powers. I think it would be more accurate to say that as the Church grew, and with it new cultures and new issues, the expression of this authority began to take on a different form.

 

Finally, we should distinguish what is essential to papal authority from what is not. Civil power is not an essential element of papal authority. The association of civil power with papal authority is more than anything due to the Church attempting to maintain what was a dilapidated Roman Empire (something the citizens largely asked for) and the gift of lands to the Church. While a long history of civil authority made it difficult to distinguish later this non-essential authority of the pope, it was never an inherent aspect of papal authority and never will be.

[pippo buono]

I realized that my last post was based on an incorrect reading of your middle paragraph, Balisa Marie. Sorry. Ignore it.

[Basilisa Marie]

I realized that my last post was based on an incorrect reading of your middle paragraph, Balisa Marie. Sorry. Ignore it.

 

Lol it's all good. Yeah, I meant to say that inerrancy is like a sub-category of authority. :) 

[dairygirl4u2c]

that link to the early quotes didn't say much in the way of inerrancy. just that rome was respected. i still maintain it wouldn't have taken over a thousand years for something like inerrancy to develop if it was legit. seems the orthodox view on the matter is preferrable. 'first among equals' and such.

[pippo buono]

that link to the early quotes didn't say much in the way of inerrancy. just that rome was respected. i still maintain it wouldn't have taken over a thousand years for something like inerrancy to develop if it was legit. seems the orthodox view on the matter is preferrable. 'first among equals' and such.

 

The question is: What was the nature of that respect?

 

Here's a couple more citations concerning early views on papal authority:

 

Pope Zosimus (417-418): 

"The tradition of the Fathers gives so much authority to the Apostolic See that no one dare contradict its judgment.... So great is our authority that no one may go back on our verdict" (Ep. XII, ad Aurelium ac cet., no. I (PL XX, 676)).

 

Emperor Valentinian III (423-455):

"We must defend the faith handed down by our fathers with all care; and we must keep the proper reverence due to the blessed apostle Peter incorrupt in our time also Therefore the most blessed Bishop of the Roman city, to whom ancient right has given the authority of the priesthood over all, shall have his place, and power to judge about the faith and about bishops" (Ad Theodosium among St. Leo I's letters, Ep. LV (al. post XLVII, PL LIV, 859)).

 

The second one most especially doesn't coincide with a "first among equals" perception.

 

Again, I you're putting certain standards on history that history is not bound to give you. It is a fallacy (a jump in logic) to say that a thousand years of time for a definition to appear shows that the concept did not exist before. The premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion. One could still argue for the conclusion, but that in itself is not sound.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The 1st 8 years of being a practising christian i just focused on holy mass on sundays, the eucharist, confession, the holy bible, the holy rosary, prayer, christian music and the odd book written by a saint. Some time in the last 3 i found out about the 5 infallible matters of faith and morals and added these to my focus as absoulte to believe. Recently i just read a bit on the vatican official website about how the pope shouldn't have to exercise his write to speak infallibly and make something official but that he in general matters of faith and morals is to be trusted, in that little bit at the end it didn't say trusted but that's the jist i got neither did it specifacaly say infallible. What you wrote about papal infalibilty pippo helps me a bit more. I definately take the 5 matters official infallible matters of faith and morals 100% and trust the guidance of the pope and magesterium on matters of faith and morals, though not without thought.

 

On the whole pre 1200 stuff i know nothing of the holy roman catholic churches views on the papacy then, except that in holy scripture jesus gave saint peter the keys to the kingdom and the apostles the authority to cast out demons and forgive sins.

 

Dairygirl on the whole the church is not the church pre 1200 perhaps take into consideration jesus words about faith being a seed and growing into a tree that houses all the birds of the air, the operative word being grows and there are various stages of growth and change in the life of a tree, and even when full grown it is wise to manicure a fruit tree that it may continue to bear the biggest, brightest fruit. And a full grown tree looks very different to a sappling though still a tree.

 

I may be totally wrong, but hope that all helps you to keep seeking as am i, searching and growing in the fullness of the truth that is love.

 

Jesus " seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened."

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

the full grown tree still has it's origins from the seed and the sappling.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here are the only two quotes i can find that might say much about infallibility in the early church. 

Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Hormisdas formula in 519
“... in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.” 
(i've seen this worded differently where it makes a big difference what is being said)

it seems though that these are saying the catholic teachings have happened to be immaculate, not that they are in principle necessarily free from error. and this is all i can find in way of explicit support of infallibility in the sense of inerrant in faith and morals. it seems like there would be more support if it was a true doctrine.

i dont buy all that seed growing into a tree stuff. it would be existant if it was true, infalliblity. people woud talk about it. but they didn't. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

 

Well here is this

Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" 

It is starting to add up more I guess

Edited January 20, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

And this is decent

Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 185 Ad

Edited January 20, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c