An epistemological objection to papal infallibility

[GaryTaylor]

He was placed in hell by Dante.

What authority does Dante have? I thought Jesus was in charge?

 

[cena]

Pope Boniface VIII made a solemn pronouncement at the end of the bull Unam Sactam (1302) that submission to the pope was necessary for salvation. He was placed in hell by Dante.

That was just a theory from Dante. One of Dante’s other books got put on the index of forbidden books (no longer in effect, but it used to be if a Catholic read a book from that list they were excommunicated)

Edit: I think the other book said the pope had no civil power

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ephesians 2:20
Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
Funny, Peter isn’t mentioned specifically here, and I think you will find he isn’t the cornerstone.
Revelation 21:9-14
Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.** And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.**
Not mentioned specifically here either.

Normally, your answers are pretty sharp, but this is just a silly mixing of metaphors that is normally the kind of thing I hear from less knowledgeable Bible Only types.

You are correct about one thing: Simon is not mentioned in those verses since they are about Jesus.

However, there is a verse in which Jesus refers to Himself as the builder of a Church, and in THAT verse, He specifically names someone else the rock.

Orthodox Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Veselin Kesich

“It has long been noticed that Mt 16:17-19 has a Palestinian, Aramaic background. The form of Jesus’ reply to Peter’s confession appears Hebraistic. There are parallels to the Matthean text in the Qumran literature. The use of semitisms such as ‘gates of Hades,’ ‘flesh and blood,’ ‘bind and loose,’ and semitic parallelism again indicates an Aramaic environment…[Jesus] conferred upon Simon Bar-Jonah the title Peter, and promised that he would build his church upon him. ‘You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (ecclesia).’ These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for petros and petra…The confession of Peter, therefore, cannot be separated from Peter himself. Petra or rock does not simply refer to Peter’s faith but also to Peter personally. There is a formal and real identity between Petros and petra. Jesus will build the church upon Cephas.” (Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition” in The Primacy of Peter edited by John Meyendorff [St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992], page 47,48)

“We may conclude that the early church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter’s position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period. He was the spokesman for the group of the Twelve, the leader, the shepherd, and the martyr. Their interpretations of Jesus’ promise to Peter – ‘You are ‘Petros’, and on this petra I will build My Church’ – converge with those of modern exegetes: Peter is the Rock.” (ibid. p. 65)

Fr. John Meyendorff

“for the Patriarch Photius, as for the later Byzantine theologians, the polemical argument artificially opposing Peter to his confession did not exist. By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Savior, Peter became the Rock of the Church. The Council of 879-80, which followed the reconciliation between Photius and John VIII, went even so far as to proclaim: “The Lord placed him at the head of all the Churches, saying ‘Feed My sheep.’” (ibid. p. 72)

“’the coryphaeus’ of the apostolic choir; he is the first disciple of Christ and speaks always on behalf of all. It is true that other apostles, John, James, and Paul, are also called ‘coryphaei’ and ‘primates’, but Peter alone is the ‘Rock’ of the Church. His primacy has, therefore, not only a personal character, but bears an ecclesiological significance…The Byzantine authors consider that the words of Christ to Pter (Mt. 16:18) possess a final and eternal significance. Peter is a mortal man, but the Church ‘against which the gates of hell cannot prevail’, remains eternally founded upon Peter.” (ibid. p. 74)

Theodore Stylianopoulos

“That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well.” (Kasper, 48-49)

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Do you question that Jesus is God? Is Jesus not our Lord & Savior, yet he selected Judas …somehow a Pope selected for a month gives you pause but Jesus choosing a man who would sell His life for 30 pieces of silver does not?

Consider the the Church may have learned something significant in the selection and service of that experience that the Holy Spirit thought was important. Or perhaps that man learned an important truth about God? Do you know? Maybe you don’t understand nor are supposed to. Perhaps you don’t know. Unless you have set yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of our Almighty God. Perhaps you should read the book of Job and spend some time in prayerful contemplation.

And how much faith am I supposed to place in Judas Iscariot, even if Christ did choose him?

 

[cena]

And how much faith am I supposed to place in Judas Iscariot, even if Christ did choose him?

Christ chose him, it was Judas who made the decision to betray Jesus. It wasn’t Jesus’ fault.

When you say put your faith in him you mean?

 

[GaryTaylor]

And how much faith am I supposed to place in Judas Iscariot, even if Christ did choose him?

About the same as Dante. But if your to place your faith in the Lord, than you assimilate His faith, how do you arrive at what His faith is with certainty? And would you say your certainty is absolute or your own moral certainty? Can you feel this certainty, I mean how do you know?

 

[YADA]

And how much faith am I supposed to place in Judas Iscariot, even if Christ did choose him?

You were looking askance at the election of a Pope and doubting the work of God in his selection …I merely pointed out that the same God selected Judas… See here is the thing …you fail to comprehend the works of God and then doubt God’ s work … I am merely pointing out to you the possibility that something beneficial in God’s plan was accomplished - even in a mere 33 days … As God asks in Job … Where were you when I created …

God’s ways are not always easily discernable by us mere mortals. We do know that He built His (Jesus’) church upon Peter and promised that the same church would never fail and He (Jesus) gave to Peter the very keys to Heaven and Earth … Jesus is the King of Kings of a Kingdom that has no end and he (Jesus) left a visible head here on Earth in Peter and Peter’s successors …

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You were looking askance at the election of a Pope and doubting the work of God in his selection …I merely pointed out that the same God selected Judas… See here is the thing …you fail to comprehend the works of God and then doubt God’ s work … I am merely pointing out to you the possibility that something beneficial in God’s plan was accomplished - even in a mere 33 days … As God asks in Job … Where were you when I created …

God’s ways are not always easily discernable by us mere mortals. We do know that He built His (Jesus’) church upon Peter and promised that the same church would never fail and He (Jesus) gave to Peter the very keys to Heaven and Earth … Jesus is the King of Kings of a Kingdom that has no end and he (Jesus) left a visible head here on Earth in Peter and Peter’s successors …

What was beneficial about electing a Pope, and then having him drop dead 33 days later?

 

[joe371]

But is papal infallibility the sure anchor for such religious assent that it is supposed to be?

Only if God is actually guiding the Catholic Church into all truth. John 16:13 reminds us that God is in fact guiding the church founded by God into all truth. It’s every person’s job to decide which church in the world today, is in fact the church of John 14:16 and John 16:13. If I did not believe that God was/is preserving doctrinal truth via the fallible sinners that comprise the leaders of the Catholic Church, then I would not believe that there was and continues to be, a sure anchor protecting Jesus’ church from doctrinal error. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[joe371]

What was beneficial about electing a Pope, and then having him drop dead 33 days later?

The Petrine office as per Matthew 16? Doctrinal truth for a few seconds…

 

[joe371]

Expatreprocedit;12589756]…But is papal infallibility the sure anchor for such religious assent that it is supposed to be?

Very few things have been infallibly declared by the Petrine office in communion with the Ecumenical Council e.g. the Eucharist, but they are still believed as truth, rightfully so.

While religious assent is required to papal declarations which meet Vatican I’s criteria for infallibility, there is authority that in matters of fact, the most that can be given, and therefore the most that can be required from a believer, is belief with moral certainty.

Could you simplify that comment for me?

This is much lower standard than that required for religious assent. And it makes sense; not being omniscient, ordinary human beings cannot be expected to know matters of fact with absolute certainty, other than matters of fact which have become part of the faith (e.g. the Resurrection of Christ).

What about certainty when it comes to doctrines that divide Christianity like the Eucharist? Did God leave the world a way to know the truth regarding, for example, the Eucharist in view of the obvious fact that “ordinary human beings cannot be expected to know matters of fact with absolute certainty”?

Believe it or not, this was a matter of controversy in the RCC in the seventeenth century. No papal or conciliar definition on the matter was ever given,

What’s your point?

But the matter of the valid election of a pope is a matter of fact. As the papal selection process has developed, there must be an election of a pope by the college of cardinals, free of any coercion whether internal or external. Whether a given papal election is free of coercion is of course a matter of fact, and one which cannot be known with certainty outside the college of cardinals.

OK. Christians belonging to the CC, trust that God protects and preserves doctrinal truth within Jesus’ Catholic Church, using fallible and sinful humans.

But, again, once a “pope” has been elected, his “infallible” proclamations must command religious assent, and herein lies the problem. To make an “infallible” proclamation somoeone must, of course, be the (one, true) pope, validly elected as such.

True.

But, as we have seen, the most that can be given to the issue of whether a putative pope has been validly elected is moral certainty.

We have faith that God protects the Petrine office…

So if the infallibility of a statement depends on whether it is made by a validly elected pope, and the valid election of said putative pope is a matter only of moral certainty, it follows logically that the highest assent that can be required of an “infallible” papal declaration is moral certainty.

The highest assent that can be required of an “infallible” papal declaration is God, for Catholics; it is a matter of faith i.e. moral certainty is the belief that God preserves truth via the Petrine office. It is a faith-based thing of course, just as many non-Catholics insist that the highest assent vis-a-vis doctrinal truth is sacred scripture via individual interpretation.

But RCC teaching requires that such declarations receive an assent higher than moral certainty. A contradiction.

Yes, the CC teaching requires that such declarations receive an assent higher than moral certainty - in other words - God, Who founded the Catholic Church in my humble opinion, and preserves doctrinal truth via fallible leaders!!!

It may be argued that this is a merely theoretical objection. Well, maybe not. We have the prior precedent of the Great Western Schism, in which first two and then three individuals claimed to be the true Pope, and each received a large number of followers.

The Petrine lineage has been preserved. Just because someone claims to be something does not make it so.

It is undisputed that, during the schism, the followers of each antipope could have made their allegiance in good faith; i.e. such followers could have moral certainty that they were obeying the true pope. The deadlock between competing “popes” was only broken by a council (which itself is problematic for papal supremacy, but that’s another thread).

Not true, but you are right; it deserves another thread. You should start it.

As it happened, none of the competing players made an ostensibly “infallible” pronouncement, but there is no reason why any of the three could not have done so. Then the problem I have outlined would be more than just theoretical.

Just because neither the antipope nor the actual pope, made a infallible pronouncement at the time, does not mean the Petrine office was lost. You are assuming that the Petrine office was no longer active; this is false, based on faith of course, and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. That of course is interpreted differently by different people, which is why God is required in terms of guiding His church into all truth.

And it could still happen. Suppose a conservative bishop challenges Pope Francis’ election? He gains a significant following of both lay and clergy, is elected pope himself, and then makes an “infallible” pronouncement. Very unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility.

It has happened, and continues to this day: SSPX.
I will stick with the valid Petrine office…

My point with all this is that any attempt to locate ultimate authority in the Church in any one office, even the papacy, does not give the absolute certainty that is sought for.

OK. Forget the authority of any one church. Let’s assume that God did not and does not continue to ineffably guide Jesus’ church into all truth, as per John 16:13: Where can one locate the ultimate authority vis-a-vis doctrinal truth?

 

[YADA]

What was beneficial about electing a Pope, and then having him drop dead 33 days later?

Oh my - you are so certain in your knowledge of God’s will …

What was beneficial about Judas betraying Jesus? - certainly Jesus could have been arrested without that betrayal …

What was beneficial about the suffering and loss that Job suffered?

What was beneficial in the death of David and Bathsheba’s first child?

I lost a grandchild at birth; what was beneficial about that one might ask? … I tell you that little girl was loved and her life, short as it was had great meaning. In her short life she taught us that love does not depend on perfection nor longevity.

So, sir, you can think that there was no benefit whatsoever in the election of a Pope for 33 days but you cannot know what is or was God’s plan … a person can lead for a day or for 50 years … they can lead well or badly. A single decision can mean life or death, happiness and joy or sadness and despair … longevity is not necessary.

I say - you are not God … It is a truth - to some people God gives long life; to others a short one … I imagine that leadership responsibility can also be long and short - its God’s will though - not yours

 

[Randy_Carson]

What was beneficial about electing a Pope, and then having him drop dead 33 days later?

It’s a mystery, but just a day or so ago, I read a post in this forum by someone who was really touched by John Paul I, and became Catholic as a result.

Not sure what the full details were, but the thread is still active.

You just never know.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh my - you are so certain in your knowledge of God’s will …

What was beneficial about Judas betraying Jesus? - certainly Jesus could have been arrested without that betrayal …

What was beneficial about the suffering and loss that Job suffered?

What was beneficial in the death of David and Bathsheba’s first child?

I lost a grandchild at birth; what was beneficial about that one might ask? … I tell you that little girl was loved and her life, short as it was had great meaning. In her short life she taught us that love does not depend on perfection nor longevity.

So, sir, you can think that there was no benefit whatsoever in the election of a Pope for 33 days but you cannot know what is or was God’s plan … a person can lead for a day or for 50 years … they can lead well or badly. A single decision can mean life or death, happiness and joy or sadness and despair … longevity is not necessary.

I say - you are not God … It is a truth - to some people God gives long life; to others a short one … I imagine that leadership responsibility can also be long and short - its God’s will though - not yours

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s a mystery, You just never know.

And without absolute certainty, only a kind of personal moral certainty. Well, it leaves those final finite moments with a realization you might have been wrong. Its a bad time to be wrong about your own salvation.

 

[TarkanAttila]

It’s a mystery, but just a day or so ago, I read a post in this forum by someone who was really touched by John Paul I, and became Catholic as a result.

Not sure what the full details were, but the thread is still active.

You just never know.

Do you think that thread would be relevant? If so, please, post a link!