Circular Reasoning: Matt. 16:18 and Infallibility

[martino]

Can Petra (or anyone else for that matter) please provide for me an alternate (or non-Catholic) interpretation of Matt 16:18? I am dying to hear what you think the “rock” refers to, or what they “keys” indicate!

It cracks me up when a Protestant accuses the Catholic Church of using circular arguments when they cannot even form an argument that covers the full 360 degrees! “I only believe what is explicitly taught in the Bible”; ok, but that is only half of an argument, we need to know *why *you only believe in the explicit teachings in the Bible! They cannot say it’s because the Bible says so for two reasons, 1) it doesnt say so, and 2) that would be a circular argument. If you are going to attempt to use a circular argument, first make sure you’ve got more than half of the equation worked out!

 

[martino]

martino:

Can Petra (or anyone else for that matter) please provide for me an alternate (or non-Catholic) interpretation of Matt 16:18? I am dying to hear what you think the “rock” refers to, or what they “keys” indicate!

It cracks me up when a Protestant accuses the Catholic Church of using circular arguments when they cannot even form an argument that covers the full 360 degrees! “I only believe what is explicitly taught in the Bible”; ok, but that is only half of an argument, we need to know *why *you only believe in the explicit teachings in the Bible! They cannot say it’s because the Bible says so for two reasons, 1) it doesnt say so, and 2) that would be a circular argument. If you are going to attempt to use a circular argument, first make sure you’ve got more than half of the equation worked out!

Come on Petra, I know your out there!

 

[CANman]

trogiah:

Your reasoning makes a certain amount of sense but if we read just a little further in scripture we see this:

"From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

It would seem that, whatever Jesus intended by giving Peter the keys, it wasn’t that from now on Peter would be free from serious error. (We haven’t even reached the point where Peter denies knowing Jesus).

Despite finding serious flaws with Peter, Jesus didn’t take the keys back.

-Jim

Jesus didn’t take the keys back because He didn’t give them to him yet. The verse says “I WILL (future tense) give the keys”. He did this in Johns Gospel, chap 21, the famous “feeed my sheep” passage.
So saying Peter already had the keys in Matt 16 is incorrect, therefore the rest of your argument rests on a faulty assumption.

 

[petra]

LaSalle:

Circular?

The Bible is inspired because it says it is inspired.

Now that’s circular!

No, 1 Tim. 3:16 was referring to the Old Testament. Paul was not presenting an argument that his writings were inspired because he said so! There is no circularity here.

 

[petra]

Hi all,

I apologize for my absence this week. I teach at a community college and the semester has begun again, so my time is much more limited. Thank you for all the thoughtful responses regarding the issue of infallability. I’ll try to get caught up on these responses and reply soon.

 

[seeker63]

“If we believe the Bible over the Church, then we must still rely on the Church’s say so in how she interprets it to get the “infallibility” thing as you said. If we assume the Church wrote the Bible and therefore has authority (meaning “authorship”) over the Bible, then it doesn’t matter what the actual words in the Bible even are in terms of this discussion. In the latter case Matt 16:18 could have read “the moon is made of green cheese” and if the author of the Bible says it means she is infallible, then that’s what it means.”

Alan,

Shouldn’t the interpretation at least bear some resemblance to the words used? I would think the point of getting a Church interpretation of a passage would be to cause a believer to say,“Of course! I see it now! Why did I never view it that way before?”

If, on the other hand, a line like “the moon is made of green cheese” actually supports the concept of infallibility (or anything else that is obviously not apparent), then there’s really no point in the laity having Bibles at all, since they don’t have the skills to know what they’re reading.

I just don’t believe that God is the author of confusion or that He inspired the Bible to be written in a way that its messages would be unfathomable to all but the priesthood. But men have been burned at the stake for saying less…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

seeker63:

Shouldn’t the interpretation at least bear some resemblance to the words used? I would think the point of getting a Church interpretation of a passage would be to cause a believer to say,“Of course! I see it now! Why did I never view it that way before?”

If, on the other hand, a line like “the moon is made of green cheese” actually supports the concept of infallibility (or anything else that is obviously not apparent), then there’s really no point in the laity having Bibles at all, since they don’t have the skills to know what they’re reading.

I just don’t believe that God is the author of confusion or that He inspired the Bible to be written in a way that its messages would be unfathomable to all but the priesthood. But men have been burned at the stake for saying less…

Dear seeker63,

I agree completely, and I really like the way you put it. Sometimes I get excited when I come upon a new way to look at something, and I explore taking it to its logical extremes. This is partly because I am constantly searching for absolutes but seldom find any. I’ve often been accused of being a relativist but I see it the other way around; I often have naively bought into others’ claims of absolute, in the likes of Church teachings and corporate “mission statements” and gotten hurt by taking them seriously. Therefore, despite my own hunger for absolutes, I have become very sensitive to relativism in practically all places and am trying to learn how to “play the game” and all the while decide for myself, privately (except on this board) what I really believe. Not that relativism is absolutism is necessarily better in any given situation; Jesus embraced both, often contrary to the “common wisdom” at the time.

Clearly the “moon of green cheese” was problematic, but given the reasoning I had just bought into I didn’t see logically how it differed from the issue at hand. You have given me a rhetorical pathway back to a more sane view of “infallible interpretation.”

Perhaps the Church did write the Bible, and thereby gets some claim to interpreting it, but in Matt 16:18, the idea that Peter or his successors-on-paper would be protected from error is very contrived. If, like one poster suggested, Jesus hadn’t given over the keys yet, then how do we explain the situation in which Paul admonished Peter?

This leaves us with a bit of a problem. If the Church cannot be judged by the Bible because she has authorship of the Bible, that is a double-edged sword. If I cannot question her teachings by it, then neither can she justify her teachings by it. Maybe that’s why the reading of the Bible by the laity used to be discouraged or even forbidden. She claimed it was because laity are prone to misunderstanding it and therefore digested it for us and handed us a set of rules and traditions to go by that we could understand. Personally I’m glad to have the privilege of reading the Bible because I don’t think I ever would have grasped the immense freedom and peace that Jesus’s teachings had to offer, had it been left up to rules, rituals, traditions, and Latin Mass. Perhaps if I had more faith I might have found that peace without any intellectual work on my own, but experience has shown I had to find it despite what others have tried to explain to me.

Alan

 

[CANman]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear seeker63,

Perhaps the Church did write the Bible, and thereby gets some claim to interpreting it, but in Matt 16:18, the idea that Peter or his successors-on-paper would be protected from error is very contrived. If, like one poster suggested, Jesus hadn’t given over the keys yet, then how do we explain the situation in which Paul admonished Peter?

Alan

I believe I said that the keys were handed over top Peter in John 21:15-17.
Anyway, are you saying no one can correct the pope? that certainly is not CAtholic teaching, see St Catherines role in the papal see ast Avignon. She still knew who was pope, but corrested his action. Similarly, Paul knew who was the head, but corrected an incorrect action.

 

[seeker63]

This is not necessarily orthodox, but here goes.

In my reading of the Bible, all through my life, I’ve felt I’ve detected a definite sense of humor in the Christ of the Gospels. Some might find that blasphemous, but I find it comforting. I think much of His humor is very sharp and sarcastic.

The way I’ve always pictured it, when Jesus said, “You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church,” I assumed the name Peter was a nickname–let’s say “Rocky” in modern terms. So Jesus would give him the nickname Rocky because, at that time anyway, he was anything but a rock, the same way other people get nicknames that are the opposite of the way they are–like a big man gets nicknamed “Tiny.”

Jesus knew Peter would goof up now and then, wouldn’t see things clearly all the time, and yes, would even deny Him. But I seem to recall a line (and I cannot for the life of me remember the exact wording and a quick search in a concordance hasn’t helped) that said God would utilize the lowly and the humble as opposed to the great and wise, to achieve His work. (I wish I could remember the exact wording!!!)

But anyway, Peter is, in this way, a type and a forerunner of the typical Christian. We mess up. We make mistakes. We miss the point. We deny Him in a pinch. But Peter is the one He builds His Church on.

That’s why I can relate more with flawed saints like David and Elijah. They did great things for God, and they also messed up really badly.

We read about the Children of Israel, wandering in the desert, complaining, making idols, losing faith the second things go wrong. We think, “Oh, well, if I’d seen the Hand of God in that way, if I’d seen Moses part the Red Sea, I’d certainly not do something as stupid and faithless as build a Golden Calf or complain or lose faith.”

Au contraire. Of course you would. So would I. We have seen the Children of Israel and they are us.

But does this run counter to the idea that Matthew 16:18 mandates Papal infallibility? I don’t think so. Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody sins–yes, even the Pope. And I think he’d be the first to agree with that. You can be infallible on matters of faith and morals and still need a confessor. And I think that make a Pope seem more a man and less some demi-god.

But what about Paul correcting Peter? Well, I can’t say. Maybe the Church as we understand it wasn’t fully formed by then. Sure, the Church started on the Day of Pentecost, but maybe things were still in an embryonic stage then.Maybe the Church as we understand it didn’t come together in its fullness until the completion of the Canon of Scripture.

Anyway, I’m not saying any of this is the way it is—it’s just speculation on my part–things I’ve been thinking about.

 

[MariaG]

seeker63,
I agree:yup: I too believe that Christ choose weak Peter to better show His Greatness and Glory. I think what was written down in Scripture shows us that Peter, imperfect Peter, Peter that must be admonished by Paul, Peter to whom Christ gave the keys and renamed to Rock. Only God chooses to go through the weak to better show His Glory. All Glory and Honor to You Lord!

Your sister in Christ
Maria

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

AlanFromWichita:

Perhaps the Church did write the Bible, and thereby gets some claim to interpreting it, but in Matt 16:18, the idea that Peter or his successors-on-paper would be protected from error is very contrived. If, like one poster suggested, Jesus hadn’t given over the keys yet, then how do we explain the situation in which Paul admonished Peter?

This is a common misunderstanding of papal infallibility. A pope is ONLY protected by the holy Spirit from teaching error on a matter of faith or morals when he officially teaching something that is binding on all believers. Paul was correcting Peter’s hypocritical behavior. Paul was NOT correcting Peter’s official teaching on a matter of faith and morals that was binding on all believers. Popes are NOT impeccable (perfect or sinless) they are infallible. Popes are NOT infallible in all things but ONLY when OFFICIALLY TEACHING in matter of FAITH OR MORALS something that is BINDING ON ALL BELIEVERS. It’s really a pretty narrow scope.

This leaves us with a bit of a problem. If the Church cannot be judged by the Bible because she has authorship of the Bible, that is a double-edged sword.

The bible is not meant to be a judge but a witness. The bible is a witness to the truth that first existed in the Church.

If I cannot question her teachings by it, then neither can she justify her teachings by it.

The Church doesn’t justify her teachings by the Bible because her teachings predate the Bible. The Bible is ABOUT the Church. It is a witness to the truth that was given TO the Church. There is a reason that the Church is the upholder, protector, and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) and not the Bible; the truth was given, by God, TO the Church. The Bible acts as witness to that truth.

You can question the Church’s teachings by the bible if you like. The trouble comes when people JUDGE the Church’s teaching by the Bible. The Bible is not meant to be judge of the truth but a witness to the truth.

Maybe that’s why the reading of the Bible by the laity used to be discouraged or even forbidden.

The Church didn’t have a blanket, world-wide ban against reading the bible. It was only in certain parts of the world where error-ridden versions of the bible were in circulation. It was forbidden so these versions could be weeded out.

She claimed it was because laity are prone to misunderstanding it and therefore digested it for us and handed us a set of rules and traditions to go by that we could understand.

Doesn’t the vast array of conflicting and contradictory interpretations of Scripture, all claiming to be the truth, pretty much prove this point?

Personally I’m glad to have the privilege of reading the Bible because I don’t think I ever would have grasped the immense freedom and peace that Jesus’s teachings had to offer, had it been left up to rules, rituals, traditions, and Latin Mass.

As one who, at one point, saw Catholicism as nothing more than rules, rituals, and traditions, I can understand why you are saying it now. As one who now knows better, I assure you nothing could be further from the truth than Catholicism being nothing more than rules, rituals and traditions. It is nothing less than the Church of Matt 16:18, to whom has been promised guidance to all truth (John 16:13), who is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and thereby the fullness of truth (John 14:6), and the God-ordained upholder, protector and defender of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

In Christ,
Nancy