Papal Infallibility ( Bro

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by mojoala, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

    Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

    Vatican II’s Explanation


    Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

    Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

    The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

    Based on Christ’s Mandate


    Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

    As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, 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?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

    Some Clarifications


    An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

    Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

    At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

    Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

    Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

    Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

    What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
     
  2. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2

    Peter Not Infallible?


    As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

    Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

    Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

    Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

    Their "Favorite Case"


    According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

    But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

    Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

    The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

    This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

    One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

    If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

    All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

    It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

    Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

    But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

    Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
     
  3. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    As requested by Bro. Curtis
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,255
    Likes Received:
    4
    I never requested this, and resent you saying I did.
     
  6. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sure you will get over it.
     
  7. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm truly curious; what is your motivation for coming onto a board that is plainly Baptist evangalizing for the Catholic faith? Yes, I realize there is a forum for Other Denominations, and please don't take this as an attack. Like I said, I am just curious as I'd like to understand your motivation.

    After all, I used to visit Mormon boards in an attempt to "stir stuff up", but it was as one with a very intimate knowledge of the faith. I since gave that up though, but before I did, I focused on beliefs related to Mormonism, not Baptist doctrines.
     
  8. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am trying to give you all the chance to try and prevent me from considering leaving the protestant faith and joining at least an anglican faith if not he catholic faith. This is not a decision I am taking lightly. I am posting the same questions at various forums including the Catholic ones. The Catholic responses tend to be more plausible based on my new look into the scripture. There are tons of Catholic Apogetics sites out there. I am taking some Theology History classess and what I am learning makes me think Protestants have truely drifted from what the early church believed. The Catholic Interpretation is more plausible than the ours. And what got me, is that every christian faith prior to 1930 believed artificial contraception was a SIN. It was a sin for at least 1900 years. What changed. Did we learn someting new that we never saw before? Even looking at what a majority of the Reformation Fathers believed differs from what we believe now. Protestants have almost become Apostate in comparison to them. History is showing me a lot. And this Satanic doctrine of a 3rd coming of Christ called the pre-tribulation Rapture reinforces this. This Doctrine was invented in 1830 exactly 100 years before the issuance that contraception is not a SIN anymore. You put 2 and 2 together, eventually you will get 4.
     
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,255
    Likes Received:
    4
    This post belies your motives. I think your mind is made up, and you are trolling. But if not, I certainly would no longer like to debate anything in the future, with you, if you put words in my mouth and then show such a callous attitude about it.
     
  10. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mojoala:
    Whatever belief system it is that motivates you to act as you do, I would be inclined to want nothing to do with it.

    If you are either Catholic or Orthodox, I believe they also would not want us to know what it is you believe.
     
    #10 Darron Steele, Jul 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2006
  11. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you need at least to consider that the doctrine of papal infallibility is a circular argument. Essentially it says that the pope speaks authoritatively when he declares that he speaks authoritatively, and not at other times. Isn't that really just a tautology?

    And then, in some ways, it seems pointless to worry about the doctrine, since ex cathedra pronouncements have been very rarely used. One wonders why it is even necessary to have the concept if it is not going to be used except on rare occasions.
     
  12. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think had you started ALL of your threads with this intention, you may have gotten a better response.

    When you post one thread right after the other and their ALL seem to be leading us to the Catholic faith, then we, as Baptist's have to wonder why you're doing it.

    To me, your first few posts were ok, but then you continued to post about the same thing over and over again and I thought you were a troll myself.

    Now, that you have explained yourself, it makes sense, what you're trying to do.

    I also have to say that you're either a Catholic or not, a Protestant or not. It's not something that swings one way of the other, in my opinion. I also think, and maybe you have, but I think you should pray to God and ask him for guidence more so than get us to lead you one way or the other.

    Good luck and May God gently nud you in the right direction in your search!


    Jamie
     
  13. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is probablly the most intelligent comment made so far and it was not dripping with anti-catholicism sarcasm.
     
  14. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    The one thing that I am led to do at this point, mojo, is pray that you won't do what you are thinking about doing. That's it.
     
  15. mojoala

    mojoala
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    This will be my last comment on this post.

    God used fallible men to write infallible gospels and epistles.

    It is blasphemous to say God cannot do it again, that is make a man's teaching infallible.


    Here is something I learned a couple of weeks ago concerning the ordination of women.

    The RCC does not have the authority to overrule Jesus by allowing women to be ordained. When Jesus chose his Apostles from the hundreds of Disciples, Jesus chose men. Not one woman was chosen. Just as Moses only chose only the Men amongst the Levites to be Priests.
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Oh good - now to quote some popes!!

    In this form it would appear that all this praise, prayer, honor, veneration and glory applies to Mary and would even at that small level be a gross error.

    So – we sure are glad that it is not out there.

    However - to "correct" that quote so that it IS "exactly" what we DO find the Papal authority saying -- all we have to do is remove all the references to God - and replace them with references to Mary.!!!

    Here is the correct quote – this is what Pope Pius XII “DID” write

    In this case we just TAKE CHRIST OUT of the incorrect quote above – so that it just references MARY ALONE!! Doing that gives us the EXACT teaching as the Pope actually taught it.

    WORSHIP at Mary’s Altars







    =================================================



    All Powerful Mary –




     
  17. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So mojo, does that mean "the canon is open?" Maybe the Bible in the year 2150 will have a hundred and fifty books...is that what you mean?

    And "blasphemy" is a very serious charge...please use it with great caution. I don't understand how you mean it in the above sentence.
     
  18. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I'm in agreeance. The mind has been made up long ago, if there was a "decision". It is very enlightening now that I go back and look at thread history for the profile.

    It reminds me a lot of the trolling I did on the Mormon boards when I was younger and into stirring up trouble (how's that go... "takes one to know one"?) The difference was my intimate personal knowledge of the faith and LDS scripture was used to create debates (arguments?) on doctrine of that faith to cause doubt. I didn't go there cramming an alternative down their throats. I guess you could say I was a "tactful troll" ;)
     
  19. OrovilleTim

    OrovilleTim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    And lest I be labeled as being unfair to MojoAla with that statement, I'll point out that on 3/1/06 (pre-dating his membership on this board by a few weeks) he said the following in a public comment on an unrelated blog (located at http://aliceblogs.blogspot.com/2006/01/im-sort-of-alive.html):

    Umm... "wow!"
     

Share This Page

Loading...