Apologetic Press - Papal Infallibility

[StillWondering]

Dear friends,

I am pretty sure topics from Apologetic Press have been addressed but I am having trouble finding them with the search option. So I wanted to open a fresh discussion on this particular article from Apologetic Press. They are using what looks to be authentic Church text to argue that Papal Infallibility is unscriptural and contradicts itself in it’s own declaration. I have some ideas of how to defend Papal Infallibility in a dialogue discussion. However, I’m not sure what a written response article would look like.

Would someone knowledgeable look at the article and talk about where the logic missed the mark or what is being left out that is important to the discussion. It looks like they covered how infallibility is declared and that it covers matters of morals and faith. One claim they assert early on is that there is a lack of consensus on what infallibility means and so it is wishy washy. That’s definitely not fair because the very statements they use to show what the Church teaches on infallibility makes pretty clear definitions.

It could possibly be a language issue in much the same way that two people reading poetry, one may understand and can describe accurately what the author intended and the other goes far off to left field. A fresh pair of eyes would really help.

apologeticspress.org/articles/2739

 

[Rence]

That was really well thought-out and well presented article. I’d be interested in reading what the apologists on this forum respond to it. So I hope they respond to this thread.

 

[Spirithound]

Alot of the article simply ignores how the Church says the Pope is infallible. The article mentions it, then says that it simply cannot be that the Pope is only infallible sometimes. Comparing the Pope to Jesus is an inept analogy. Since Jesus is God, he cannot at any time be less than God. In the case of the Pope, however, it is certainly appropriate for God to not protect the Pope in various areas.

In the last section, the author again constructs a strawman, demanding an all-or-nothing approach. It is certainly possible for someone to be, at the same time, anathema and searching for the light. In fact, that is the preferred mode of existence for those who are “set apart”, as “anathema” means.

 

[Abu]

StillWondering
Understanding Papal Infallibility

The mandate from Jesus in passing on His authority to Peter is mangled and obscured by the falsifications in the article.

Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him and predicted that denial, assuring Him that when he returned to faith that he would lead His Church.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Catholics really need to understand infallibility. The Protestant writer doesn’t understand the meaning of dogma or the meaning of doctrine.

“Infallible” is not used for anything but what is irreformable, whether dogma or doctrine.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility.

“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp) or the Vatican Library].
Infallibility for definitions by Bishops in an Ecumenical Council is dependant on the approval of the Pope.

For infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore only dogmas or definitive doctrinal teaching is infallible, not arguments nor any other declarations outside of definitive statements. The Protestant writer confuses all of these distinctions.

Please advise of any other difficulties you may have.