G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, to be precise, they didn’t write ‘infallibly’. They made errors. However, through the inspiration of God, the self-revelation of God in Scripture is present without error (i.e., inerrantly).
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
It is Christ, God the Son, who protects His Popes from teaching error on faith and morals to the whole Church:
**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) Later, also to the Twelve]
**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
His prime function is to TEACH truth and expose error, SANCTIFY and RULE.
**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings **(such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”
tinyurl.com/o35ybz4
**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) Later, also to the Twelve]
**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
His prime function is to TEACH truth and expose error, SANCTIFY and RULE.
**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings **(such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”
tinyurl.com/o35ybz4
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s not the “vote” that produces an infallible pope. A pope is infallible only under the following conditions
From Vat I
- 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.
therefore, conditions necessary for infallible statements- **the pope defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals **
- **to be held by the whole church, **
i.e. Jesus protects the pope from defining a false doctrine on faith or morals, then teaching the whole Church to believe in that false doctrine. It’s a protection that has been discribed as a negative protection rather than a positive protection.
As for times a pope has spoken infallibly on matters of faith and morals that the whole Church is to believe
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
I
Ignatius
Guest
Really?
Which of the Sacred Authors put error in Sacred Scripture? Which of the Canonical books did they write these errors in? And what errors did they put in Sacred Scripture?
meltzerboy
New member
Maybe errors of omission, and that’s why the Magisterium has to fill in the gaps?
I
Ignatius
Guest
Shaloam aleichem!Ignatius:
Well, to be precise, they didn’t write ‘infallibly’. .Gorgias;12962410:
Ignatius:
Really? What errors did the Sacred Writers make when writing Sacred Scripture
Maybe errors of omission, and that’s why the Magisterium has to fill in the gaps?
I’m thinking Gorgias wasn’t referring to about omissions. The Bible never claims to be comprehensive. Indeed, If all were written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books (John 21:25)
G
Gorgias
Guest
Would you like me to return snark for snark? Or perhaps we could have a productive dialogue about what the Church means when it says that the Bible is inerrant?
Well, let’s start with an example… and then follow up with how inconsistencies don’t disprove the Church’s claims of inerrancy:
1 Kings 16:6, 8 – “Baasha rested with his ancestors; he was buried in Tirzah, and his son Elah succeeded him as king. … In the twenty-sixth year of Asa, king of Judah, Elah, son of Baasha, became king of Israel in Tirzah for two years.”
2 Chronicles 16:1 – “In the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, Baasha, king of Israel, attacked Judah”
So, did Baasha really attack Judah ten years after he died?
Now, people can create all sorts of rationalizations to explain away things like this – and perhaps the one that’s easiest to assert is “transcription error” (although it’s completely unprovable) – but the question that this raises is a simple one: if there are ‘errors’ like these in the Bible, does that mean that the Bible isn’t really inerrant?
The answer, of course, is that even though the inspired writers were capable of error, God Himself isn’t. Quoting Dei Verbum, the catechism states, “The inspired books teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.’” (CCC, 107) Dei verbum continues, “However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.” (Dei verbum 12, emphasis mine)
So, we can easily see from the example that men are capable of error. Yet, did God wish to communicate the year of Baasha’s death as a “truth [He] wished to see confided… for the sake of our salvation”? I would answer no. The date of Baasha’s death is part of what’s written there, but it’s a detail that’s incidental to Salvation History. The story of Baasha is important (after all, it’s in Scripture!), but the year of his death is less so.
In other words, Ignatius, the ‘Sacred Author’ didn’t put errors into Scripture – the human authors, since they were capable of error, were certainly capable of doing so. And, even if they did, this doesn’t imply that Scripture is not inerrant.
I
Ignatius
Guest
By all means.
I see that you are not above snarkyness!
Correct, the majority of Scripture scholars believe that it is a transcription error. This would, of course, return to the conclusion that Sacred Scripture is inerrant.
Now, to get back on topic:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Wow… that’s snark? You have a rather low tolerance, when people address you…
And the problem with that conclusion is that it’s completely unprovable. ‘Freely asserted, freely denied’, as the saying goes…
Only because that assertion begs the question (“are there any inconsistencies in Scripture?” – “why no, only transcription errors!” – “how do we know that?” – “Because Scripture is without error, silly!”)
Regardless, though, you’ve managed to completely miss the distinction: an error such as the one I’ve IDed does not mean that Scripture is not inerrant – the Church has stated that inerrancy speaks to the message God wished to reveal to His people. Unless you’re saying that revelation hinges on the year of Baasha’s death, then an error such as this one does not affect the question of inerrancy!
Right… 'cause it’s easier to ignore the assertion being made than it is to address it…
(p.s., now that was snark…
)
In any case, your assertion still uses ‘infallibility’ incorrectly. Scripture is inerrant, not infallible. Your claim fails to describe ‘infallibility’.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Hmm, here is the post:
Now, to get back to the subject:
The same way those fallible human authors infallibly wrote inerrant Sacred Scripture.
The point being, all of the Truth that we have from God we have received through fallible men.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nice slight-of-hand.
Agreed. The miracle of the Bible is that fallible men wrote – without the protection of infallibility – but through God’s inspiration, the works they authored contain truth that is inerrant.
S
StuMondo
Guest
So, you’re essentially saying there’s no way the fallible vote can get it wrong (ie. elect the wrong guy)? As long as the pope is validly elected, he gets the goods from the holy spirit just the same?
G
Gorgias
Guest
What would “the wrong guy” mean, in this context? It doesn’t seem to make any sense. If the selection process is followed properly, then the ‘right guy’ has been selected, by definition, right?
The charism of infallibility (understood properly, of course – not misunderstood as ‘the pope can never make an error ever, in any context’) is part of the office of the pope, so… yeah: a validly selected pope has the charism of infallibility.
S
StuMondo
Guest
The wrong guy would be any guy other than “THE guy” God wanted.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… how in the world would it be possible to determine that this had happened? Moreover, why would we presume that this might happen?
S
steve_b
Guest
I can’t speak for Randy, but are you perhaps thinking of an Antipope ? As we know, there were a few that came on the scene in history
For example: Pope Cornelius, Martyr, Reigned (251 to 253) is the valid pope. At the same time there was Novations in 251, who made himself pope… as in, an antipope. As an aside, besides antipopes not being valid popes in the first place, none of THEM defined any doctrines on faith and morals that the whole Church was to believe in, while impersonating the valid pope.
Definitionally,
When a pope defines a doctrine on faith and morals ONLY, that the whole Church is to believe in, THEN by virtue of his office, he is protected from teaching error by the same Divine assistance promised to St Peter. It’s a simple definition, that Vat I, definitionally laid out. #23
S
StuMondo
Guest
Idk, some protestant asked me this and I came here for answers, not to be lawyered.
I still don’t have an answer for this chap mind you.
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL! OK, fair enough!
I don’t think we’re ‘lawyering’ you, though – we’re trying to get to the bottom of what this question might mean, exactly!
After all, on the surface, it doesn’t really ask something that makes sense. If I said to you, “how do you know if the right person was elected President of the U.S.?”, you’d look at me like I had two heads! Naturally, you’d answer, “what in the world are you talking about? They followed the rules, they counted the votes, so of course they ‘elected the right guy’!!!”
So, on one level – from the perspective of ‘procedure’ – we know that the ‘right guy’ was selected.
On a deeper level, though, there’s the question of the action of the Holy Spirit. Asking the question on this level, then, means he’s really asking “how do we know that the Holy Spirit is active and working in the Church, protecting it and keeping it safe?” That’s a whole different kind of question, of course. The answer there, naturally, is one that requires a response from faith. How do we know that the Holy Spirit is active in the Church? How do we know that the Holy Spirit inspires the faithful? We know it from our faith in Christ; we know it from Christ’s own words in the Bible; we know it because we believe that Christ is neither a liar nor impotent to make good on His promises.
Does that help?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Well if we hold that the Pope has the charism of infallibility - then whoever is legitimately made Pope MUST possess that charism.
How do we know with certainty that Christ actually intended the successors of Peter have this charism is a whole other question
.It certainly isn’t the obvious or only reading of any mined NT texts I have seen.
D
davidv
Guest
Re: boldWell if we hold that the Pope has the charism of infallibility - then whoever is legitimately made Pope MUST possess that charism.
How do we know with certainty that Christ actually intended the successors of Peter have this charism is a whole other question
It certainly isn’t the obvious or only reading of any mined NT texts I have seen.
To me this strong evidence that Scripture is not the whole truth. The Church is also dependent on Tradition and the Magisterium for the whole truth.
- Status