Church Authority: Is it really just a guy in a hat?

[noma]

How do we know these scriptures are infallible? Jesus did not write them. Did Christ ever say that infallible scriptures would be written?

Scriptures already existed, though not including the New Testament. These were accepted to be inerrant. How did we know which scriptures should be considered so and which scriptures not? Faith.

How do we know now that we have scripture? Faith.

Like all faith, this can be tested, using nature (Scripture has no scientific errors) or using reason (Scripture does not contradict itself).

But ultimately holding to the inerrancy of Scripture is like holding that 1+1=2. It is not by the authority of the teacher. It is not because we can prove it beyond doubt. It is because of faith.

 

[noma]

Let me try to use a more relatable example. I say to my best friend, “I’m going out of town for a while. Here are my keys. Could you take care of my cat?” Would you assume, as my best friend, that this meant that all of my friends had free access to my house, or that I only meant you to enter?

Personally, I would assume the later.

By that reasoning, the conclusion is simple. God meant only for Peter to have the keys.

After all, it would be irresponsible for me to say: “Here, have these keys” and for you to give them to your children to let them have free roam.

If it was meant only for Peter, then there is no pontifical line.

If it were meant for more, then we need to discuss how many more.

 

[setter]

I argue that for this passage there are but three reasonable interpretations.

1. That this message was meant only for Peter.

If this is true, then Peter is dead, and so the authority is forever lost. This I reject.

1. That this message was meant for Peter and his successors.

I accept this.

1. That the Scriptures are in error.

This I reject.

So we follow from 2. How do we know who are the successors of Peter? Since we are talking about infallibility, we need an infallible source to establish who these successors will be.

This infallible source is scripture, for we see that Peter was given these keys as a result of his proclaiming Christ.

So I accept that we are given the keys as an effect of our proclaiming Christ.

Christ may not tell everyone this out loud. But this is the answer to: “How do I know that, when I am proclaiming the Gospel, I am proclaiming the Truth?” And the answer: “Because you have been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

The words of Christ, which were later recorded in scripture, are the basis for papal infallibility, i.e., Peter and the first apostles did not wait until scripture was developed and published before exercising the charism of papal authority to teach and instruct infallibly.

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 . . . ").

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).

catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

 

[Verita]

By that reasoning, the conclusion is simple. God meant only for Peter to have the keys.

After all, it would be irresponsible for me to say: “Here, have these keys” and for you to give them to your children to let them have free roam.

If it was meant only for Peter, then there is no pontifical line.

If it were meant for more, then we need to discuss how many more.

I’m glad you see the reasoning. Now, here is the difference between my example and the reality:

I would only be gone for a short time and my friend would be capable of watching my cat until I came back.

Jesus has been in Heaven for two millenia and Peter would only be able to take care of the Church for a few decades. Still, the Church (the sheep that Jesus asked Peter to feed) needs to be taken care of in Jesus’ absence. Therefore, the keys would need to be passed onto another man of God who could care for the Church after Peter died.

 

[noma]

Therefore, the keys would need to be passed onto another man of God who could care for the Church after Peter died.

Why just one other? Why not all who believe?

 

[noma]

Peter and the first apostles did not wait until scripture was developed and published before exercising the charism of papal authority to teach and instruct infallibly.

And neither should we. For all of us are popes in the sense of that infallibility, when we all are acting in accord with Christ’s Will.

And that is why the writings of humans were made so that they could not err, within the Scriptures, for those who were writing were writing in accord with Christ’s Will. As this was in perfect accord, Scripture is perfect. And this I accept by faith.

 

[tee_eff_em]

A good and fair point. The difference is that their speaking, though also being infallible, would be accidental. People who repeat what the councils say, parrot them, would, by the Roman Church, be stating infallible things.

But for the purposeful statement of what is infallible, the Gospel of Christ, proclaimed in accordance with the Will of Christ, takes faith. One must believe what one says for one truly (and not accidentally) to say it.

Does the non-Christian, when he speaks in (coincidental) accordance with Christ’s will, not believe his own words? To go back to your own statement:

all those in Christ’s Church, who put their faith on Christ, when they speak in accordance with His will, speak without error

What is it makes the speech without error? The church membership or faith of the speaker? Or the accord of the speech with Christ’s will?

tee

 

[BlazingBolt]

Scriptures already existed, though not including the New Testament. These were accepted to be inerrant. How did we know which scriptures should be considered so and which scriptures not? Faith.

How do we know now that we have scripture? Faith.

Exactly, the NT was not written. So what is to stop me from praying to God and writing something and proclaiming that it is scripture, you know like Muhammed and Joseph Smith did.

They say the same thing, to take it on Faith.

When the Canon of scripture was defined there was a lot of stuff out there, heretical Gnostic Gospels and such. The Church also defined that there would be nothing more added. Of course protestants later decided to take some things out they didn’t like but that is another point.

We have faith in scripture based on our faith in Christ. Clearly, historically it was the Catholic Church that defined this canon of scripture you have faith in. So apparently at one time the Church had this authority you have faith in, at what point in time did it lose it?

You need to ask yourself, are you open to the truth right now, or have you already made up your mind and are simply trying to justify it?

 

[Image_of_God]

The person who is pope is not infallible. The office of the papacy which is sanctified by the Spirit is. The pope is infallible because of his office, not he himself.

 

[setter]

Why just one other? Why not all who believe?

From a convert to Catholicism and now an astute Catholic apologist:

For some time, I had recognized that if Peter was the rock then he would be the head apostle and thus, when Jesus returned to heaven, the earthly head of the Church. That would make him, in essence, a pope. If Catholics could be right about Peter being a pope, they might be right about other things—about everything. And so I would have to do a thorough re-investigation. When I did, I was forced to conclude the Catholic Church was right, and I became a Catholic.

After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is *explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means *to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is *explained by *“and on this rock I will build my Church.”

No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

 

[Verita]

Why just one other? Why not all who believe?

Well first because they were only originally given to one man. It would be presumptuous on our part to think they could be passed on to many when Christ only gave them to one.

Second, because for many to have that kind of authority would lead to complete anarchy. (This has been demonstrated by protestantism.) For the Church to serve the purpose that Jesus intended it to serve (instruction, forgiveness of sins, binding and loosing, final arbiter in disputes) there has to be a central authority to which we can all look. Anything else just wouldn’t be be efficient.

 

[noma]

What is it makes the speech without error? The church membership or faith of the speaker? Or the accord of the speech with Christ’s will?

What is necessary to guarantee that a statement is without error: Only that it is spoken as a statement in accord with Christ’s will.

That it.

Now, for someone to do this meaningfully, he would have to have faith in Christ and His True Church on Earth. And that faith makes the person a member of this Church. Nothing else is necessary.

 

[Verita]

The person who is pope is not infallible. The office of the papacy which is sanctified by the Spirit is. The pope is infallible because of his office, not he himself.

That is an excellent point which much be made. The authority doesn’t depend on the “man in the hat”, he merely functions with that authority in his position. The authority rests with the institution which was promised never to be prevailed against.

 

[Verita]

What is it makes the speech without error? The church membership or faith of the speaker? Or the accord of the speech with Christ’s will?

What is necessary to guarantee that a statement is without error: Only that it is spoken as a statement in accord with Christ’s will.

That it.

Now, for someone to do this meaningfully, he would have to have faith in Christ and His True Church on Earth. And that faith makes the person a member of this Church. Nothing else is necessary.

It has nothing to do with the person. The Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church into all Truth. Therefore a Pope cannot make an ex cathedra statement in error. The Spirit would prevent it. That is what infallibility means.

 

[noma]

Second, because for many to have that kind of authority would lead to complete anarchy. (This has been demonstrated by protestantism.) For the Church to serve the purpose that Jesus intended it to serve (instruction, forgiveness of sins, binding and loosing, final arbiter in disputes) there has to be a central authority to which we can all look. Anything else just wouldn’t be be efficient.

The presumption is already there, if Peter gives the keys away. But I don’t think he can. I don’t think Peter had the power to give of the keys.

Because they weren’t really his to begin with.

Most of the time, we don’t use this authority. We can only when we speak messages that are in accord with the will of Christ.

So when we all have this authority, we cannot speak against each other, but only against those who do not accept Truth. There is but one message.

The multitude is one of two things: either there are conflicting dogmatic assertions, which means that there is no dogma or that the people who stand against said dogma are wrong. We know this through the Scriptures, by nature, and through reason.

Or it is a mark of diversity. One group wants to worship by dancing around the alter. Another group wants to worship by kneeling. Neither is more right than the other, as there aren’t right answers to everything.

And if one is more correct, that one better be able to show me to good authority by the light of Scripture.

 

[noma]

It has nothing to do with the person. The Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church into all Truth. Therefore a Pope cannot make an ex cathedra statement in error. The Spirit would prevent it. That is what infallibility means.

As I believe, the faithful of the Church cannot be in error when they make statements in accord with the Will of Christ. The Holy Spirit would prevent them.

 

[Verita]

As I believe, the faithful of the Church cannot be in error when they make statements in accord with the Will of Christ. The Holy Spirit would prevent them.

But Jesus never promised that all believers would have that protection. He only promised it to the Apostles.

 

[MarkInOregon]

By that reasoning, the conclusion is simple. God meant only for Peter to have the keys.

After all, it would be irresponsible for me to say: “Here, have these keys” and for you to give them to your children to let them have free roam.

If it was meant only for Peter, then there is no pontifical line.

If it were meant for more, then we need to discuss how many more.

noma,

I don’t have my resources to outline the reasons to accept this was meant for Peter and his successors, but when I am where I can access them I will respond. In the mean time I would refer you to I think Isaiah chapter 22–or somewhere in that neck of the woods where there is an example of the keys being given to ? . They were given to the holder of an office and this person respresented the king in his absence. That’s what is happening with Christ and Peter–thats why the “keys” are so important–they represent an office–and office given to Peter and by virtue of the office–his successors.

The peace of Christ
Mark

 

[tee_eff_em]

How can scipture be infallible? Doesn’t infallibility require the active making of a choice between two or more things? How can a book do this? The scriptures are inerrant, they do not contain error, but they are not infallible, because they are not capable of choosing. That is why we have an infallible Church. After all the inerrant scriptures clearly say that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

A good point – noma seems to be conflating infallibility with inerrancy. (wrt more than just scriptures – cf. [post=1721073]this post[/post])

tee

 

[noma]

We have faith in scripture based on our faith in Christ. Clearly, historically it was the Catholic Church that defined this canon of scripture you have faith in. So apparently at one time the Church had this authority you have faith in, at what point in time did it lose it?

Never did. But the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church, nor was it ever.

And as for the other statements about faith… why should I accept that Scripture is inerrant based on what some guys said? Why should I accept their authority?

Because of what Jesus said to Peter. Why should I accept that Jesus really said that?

Because it’s in the Bible that the Roman Church approves of.

You have the same kind of loop. Your’s is just larger.

But the problem of evangelizing to those who do not believe is grave. And it does take reason, and teachings from nature. After all, since Scripture isn’t there, one needs reason, and nature. And also the inborn desire to be with God.

None of these lead me even close to accepting the Roman Church, or that it has any special authority about Scripture.

Scripture was guided by God to be as it is, not because of anything of the Roman Church, but because of the body of believers. And how do I know that this Scripture is correct? Faith. How might I talk about it to others, to show them? That is another post entirely.