Oh? Then how do you explain Ineffabilis Deus and Muniffincentissimus Deus, which go on and on quoting teachings the Vatican already accepted (not that they go back to the days of the Apostles, or, in the case of the IC, even predate the schism)? Take for instance the claims of Pastor Aeternus:
Are not many of these backed by other documents or councils, and thus possibly just a reiteration of what is previously believed?are you saying that the Vatican's infallibility is superfluous?
No, but if a document in question already talks about an accepted teaching, then it doesn't need to be infallible.
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church...besides quotations from the Fathers (misused, of course).
And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence...
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
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...
What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession...
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence....
Creating a basis for the definition isn't surprising. The definition is supposed to follow the faith of the RCC and not develop a new understanding.
Do tell Wyatt. He is rather wedded to this development of doctrine thing.
Of course, that causes problems when the infallible pope starts affirming things previously denied: no "development of doctrine" to come to the rescue.
Therefore, it would need to prove that.
According to Pator Aeternus, no, it doesn't: Rome has spoken. The case is closed. The supreme pontiff is quite impowered to legislate from the bench, ex cathedra.
What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.
No, he just says (per Lumen Gentium) act as if everything is a declaration, but leaving himself the wiggle room of plausible deniability.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
And even with those declarations which the Vatican has gone out on a limb and identified as "ex cathedra," e.g. Ineffibilis Deus and Munifficentissimus Deus, we get denials that the declaration
is infallible, but no delineation agreed on which is the infallible part (to be fair, there is some dissagreement on the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, from those who hold the only definition defining the Faith as infallible, to those who hold every syllable any Father in Council uttered as infallible).
IIRC, Lumen Gentium does provide a checklist for meeting the 'ex cathedra' requirements.
Lumen Gentium makes that superfluous.
If Pastor Aeternus is true, yes they have to all be infallible, but that leads to a problem with Pope Honorius' letters. But the first problem is defining what is ex cathedra.Everything needs to be infallible? This doesn't fit the definition.
Btw, yes, for instance Pope Leo IX's bull reiterates the Donation of Constantine.
And the "definition" fails to define what is ex cathedra. So the problem with all those documents, which, as akimori makoto points out, prima facie, fit the appearances of infallibility.
Oh? Can you quote it?
However, besides one of the proponent bishops of V1, there has not been any solid word on what is and is not considered infallible. I think that's probably what you meant, anyways.
yes, the halo of infallibility with no substance to it.