How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[Vico]

The source of the infallibility, which is the protection of the supreme teacher of the Church from error in faith and morals and therefore from misleading the people of God, is from the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit. It occurs:

1. when the scattered or assembled bishops, in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful, and
2. in ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope (these are not apart from and against the whole Church) they are unchangeable “of themselves”.

 

[david_ruiz]

The inanity of feeling that Christ gave bishops infallibility as individuals is so preposterous given the evident fallibility of bishops through the ages, it beggars belief that it would now be concocted.

Infallibility is possessed only by the popes as given by Christ and Ecumenical Councils approved by popes when defining faith and morals (post #78). There is no possible reasonable, faithful, and true objection to Christ as He established His Church with His Supreme Vicar.

Thank-you. I agree with your assessment of bishops and their fallibility,thru the ages. It is just that to some, popes fare better, partly due to the nature of the office, but with evident fallibility also.

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #82
It is just that to some, popes fare better, partly due to the nature of the office, but with evident fallibility also.

As Christ gave St Peter and His Successors His authority to teach in His name (post #78) it is a rejection of Christ to denigrate His authority and to deny that His truth is taught infallibly when the Pope teaches:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) 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.

Without that fidelity in obedience there is no valid “response” except “I will not serve”!

 

[Ignatius]

I understand the promises made to Peter in Mathew 16 and to the apostles as a whole in Mathew 18, !

What use would infallibility be while Christ was still walking on the earth in the flesh? He was there to clear up any disputes. It only became necessary for generations following when he Ascended so that His Church could teach The Faith and morals without error. It simply wasn’t necessary while he was still walking on the Earth in the flesh except that He establish it before he Ascended.

 

[david_ruiz]

What use would infallibility be while Christ was still walking on the earth in the flesh? He was there to clear up any disputes. It only became necessary for generations following when he Ascended so that His Church could teach The Faith and morals without error. It simply wasn’t necessary while he was still walking on the Earth in the flesh except that He establish it before he Ascended.

Yes but while on earth did he teach just one ,or three apostles or twelve , and additional disciples ? As pointed out earlier ,He is still here on this earth but not as limited ,thru the Holy Spirit. He did not rest His teaching on just one back then nor does He now .Scripture plainly states our foundation is the “twelve”.

 

[david_ruiz]

As Christ gave St Peter and His Successors His authority to teach in His name (post #78) it is a rejection of Christ to denigrate His authority and to deny that His truth is taught infallibly when the Pope teaches:

(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) 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.

Yes ,there is no freedom of conscience ,hence no valid discussion. Everything is “milk”, that is predigested food for laity. The Holy Spirit goes just so far but then stops with us. No ,we are both obedient to that inner voice that guides us in our belief. We both serve .Hence, the original thread question still stands for discussion ,as it has thru the ages.

 

[Vico]

Yes but while on earth did he teach just one ,or three apostles or twelve , and additional disciples ? As pointed out earlier ,He is still here on this earth but not as limited ,thru the Holy Spirit. He did not rest His teaching on just one back then nor does He now .Scripture plainly states our foundation is the “twelve”.

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #86
Yes ,there is no freedom of conscience ,hence no valid discussion.
No ,we are both obedient to that inner voice that guides us in our belief. We both serve .Hence, the original thread question still stands for discussion ,as it has thru the ages.

Such an illusion is pure self-deception. Truth is not concocted by feelings.

1. Freedom of conscience means the freedom to follow the truth, not to concoct illusions.
2. Conscience has to be formed by right reason.
3. Such a fantasy demeans Christ for giving His authority to His Supreme Vicar through whom He founded His Church, and tries to make Christ fallible.

The fundamental error in fact is in making the conscience supreme and above the doctrine of the Magisterium which dissenters claim should be used merely as “guidance”, from which they pick and choose. This is the same error and confusion stemming from feeling that all must “approve” doctrine before it is true.

Freedom of conscience is ONLY freedom to know and follow the truth – that is what gives conscience its primacy.
The conscience which does not seek and follow the truth is an erroneous conscience. Conscience does not make truth – the Catholic Church alone has the fullness of truth. So the truth is that a conscience must be correctly formed according to the natural law and doctrine from which he has to judge the morality of every action.

Vatican II’s Gaudiem et Spes 16 emphasises: “Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”

Further: “In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by Her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).

There is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Vico;9159753]

From the Decree Ad Gentes on mission (not infallibility),"1. Divinely sent to the nations of the world to be unto them “a universal sacrament of salvation,”(1) the Church, driven by the inner necessity of her own catholicity, and obeying the mandate of her Founder (cf. Mark 16:16), strives ever to proclaim the Gospel to all men. The Apostles themselves, on whom the Church was founded, following in the footsteps of Christ, “preached the word of truth and begot churches.”

(2) It is the duty of their successors to make this task endure “so that the word of God may run and be glorified (2 Thess. 3:1) and the kingdom of God be proclaimed and established throughout the world.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

Thank- you.Not sure if the church and the commission is a rite or a sacrament,but it may underlay our differences. Does a church save or does Jesus Christ.? What is the emphasis to the world , my “church” or my “savior”? How institutional is the work of the Holy Spirit ? Put the “wind” in a box and you have nothing but air. Is it not ironic that the “wind” (Holy Spirit) swept thru Europe, against all odds and heavy persecution, the church growing in leaps and bounds those first few centuries,with the least amount of institutionalizing, and simplest nature of universality (catholicity). Yes, amen ,it is the duty of the apostles successors AND the church to continue the spread of the gospel. I do not separate elders,bishops and laity here in that great commission, which your quote by itself seems to suggest…

 

[david_ruiz]

Such an illusion is pure self-deception. Truth is not concocted by feelings.

1. Freedom of conscience means the freedom to follow the truth, not to concoct illusions.
2. Conscience has to be formed by right reason.
3. Such a fantasy demeans Christ for giving His authority to His Supreme Vicar through whom He founded His Church, and tries to make Christ fallible.

 

[DJK100]

I haven’t read through the whole debate but just thought I would add my two cents. Please forgive if I am repeating others. In regards to the above quote.

Actually this is not what the Church teaches. If she doesn’t know the answer she will say so or speculate on what the answer is including the mysteries of faith but not define it. Why? Because she can only protect what God revealed as truth. If God chooses not to fully elucidate a mystery then the Church cannot do it for him she can only define/teach what she knows. They can only infallibly protect what God has made known because as you have heard from other’s and your own OP God will protect his truth with the holy spirit.

He doesn’t say I will protect just the Apostles but will protect his truth through the use of the Apostles. So bacically he just uses the Apostles as an instrument to disseminate this truth. So how can we be sure that this infallibilty gets passed down?

Well, we know that different members of the church are used for different purposes ie teaching, speaking tongues etc… So if the teachers are supposed to teach the truth and the holy spirit is supposed to protect and guide the truth and the Apostles were the first teachers, ie had full knowledge of the faith as taught to them by Jesus and then they taught their knowledge to other teachers ( ie. passed on a Holy spirit protected faith/thruth, meaning those that have been taught the faith by the apostles must have the fullness of truth) then it stands to reason that those who are ordained to teach will be guarded by the same spirit from teaching error because they have been taught the fullness/complete truth. And the truth is what is being protected not the indivdual men.

Now lets extend this further. If you say okay the Apostles had the fullness of truth by Jesus and that truth is protected by the Holy Spirit and since the Apostles obviously taught others the Truth that Jesus taught them, then what they teach as infallible must be true as gaurenteed by the Holy spirit. So if the body of Apostles teaches the the Pope has a Chrism of infallibilty (which they have done) then it must have always been the truth otherwise they would not have been able to make that declaration as they Holy Spirit would have prevented it.

Hope this wasn’t too confusing.

 

[david_ruiz]

I haven’t read through the whole debate but just thought I would add my two cents. Please forgive if I am repeating others. In regards to the above quote.

Actually this is not what the Church teaches. If she doesn’t know the answer she will say so or speculate on what the answer is including the mysteries of faith but not define it. Why? Because she can only protect what God revealed as truth. If God chooses not to fully elucidate a mystery then the Church cannot do it for him she can only define/teach what she knows. They can only infallibly protect what God has made known because as you have heard from other’s and your own OP God will protect his truth with the holy spirit.

He doesn’t say I will protect just the Apostles but will protect his truth through the use of the Apostles. So bacically he just uses the Apostles as an instrument to disseminate this truth. So how can we be sure that this infallibilty gets passed down?

Well, we know that different members of the church are used for different purposes ie teaching, speaking tongues etc… So if the teachers are supposed to teach the truth and the holy spirit is supposed to protect and guide the truth and the Apostles were the first teachers, ie had full knowledge of the faith as taught to them by Jesus and then they taught their knowledge to other teachers ( ie. passed on a Holy spirit protected faith/thruth, meaning those that have been taught the faith by the apostles must have the fullness of truth) then it stands to reason that those who are ordained to teach will be guarded by the same spirit from teaching error because they have been taught the fullness/complete truth. And the truth is what is being protected not the indivdual men.

Now lets extend this further. If you say okay the Apostles had the fullness of truth by Jesus and that truth is protected by the Holy Spirit and since the Apostles obviously taught others the Truth that Jesus taught them, then what they teach as infallible must be true as gaurenteed by the Holy spirit. So if the body of Apostles teaches the the Pope has a Chrism of infallibilty (which they have done) then it must have always been the truth otherwise they would not have been able to make that declaration as they Holy Spirit would have prevented it.

Hope this wasn’t too confusing.

Prety good .Thanks. Thanks for the “if’s” also.

 

[joshua_b]

I also have not read the entire thread, but I wanted to throw this out because this explaination really helped me to understand, and accept, the doctrine of papal infallibility. (I apologize if I am repeating anything previously stated).

Infallibility does not apply to the Pope personally. It is not some special charism whereby the Pope becomes pseudo-perfect in nature. The Pope remains every bit as flawed with the human condition as every other member of the Church. It applies to the Chair of Peter. God protects the integrity of that seat, and thus will not allow its occupant to teach error. Infallibility is not “inherited” by a person so much as the person falls under the jurisdiction of it when they assume the position. Of course the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all Truth, but, should the Pope decide to ignore the guidance of the Spirit, God will intervene.

Infallibility is a promise from God to the rest of the Church that He will protect us from heresy or anything else that could lead us from Him. And He will do whatever is necessary to protect us, even if it means striking a sitting Pope dead.

In short, the successor of Peter is infallible in matters of faith because God will not allow otherwise.

 

[DJK100]

Prety good .Thanks. Thanks for the “if’s” also.

I can take out the “if’s” to make it more declarative so you can feel better. How about that?

 

[david_ruiz]

I also have not read the entire thread, but I wanted to throw this out because this explaination really helped me to understand, and accept, the doctrine of papal infallibility. (I apologize if I am repeating anything previously stated).

Infallibility does not apply to the Pope personally. It is not some special charism whereby the Pope becomes pseudo-perfect in nature. The Pope remains every bit as flawed with the human condition as every other member of the Church. It applies to the Chair of Peter. God protects the integrity of that seat, and thus will not allow its occupant to teach error. Infallibility is not “inherited” by a person so much as the person falls under the jurisdiction of it when they assume the position. Of course the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all Truth, but, should the Pope decide to ignore the guidance of the Spirit, God will intervene.

 

[qwfeghy]

BUMPhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[Abu]

david ruiz #95
That is the office of the pope was barely visible or consequential in the first few centuries, some would say non-existent
The idea that Christ needs a Vicar is belittling the fact that Christ is evermore with us ,thru the Holy Spirit You only need a vicar when you are not present.

Such fantasy ignores the fact that Christ Himself anointed His Supreme Vicar and gave us the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that we could consume His Body and His Blood as He gave us priests and bishops at the Last Supper
Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:
The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20).

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).

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).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

The idea of “non-existence” requires to be placed in the rubbish bin of myopic prejudices.

 

[david_ruiz]

Such fantasy ignores the fact that Christ Himself anointed His Supreme Vicar and gave us the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that we could consume His Body and His Blood as He gave us priests and bishops at the Last Supper
Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:
The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20).

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).

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).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

The idea of “non-existence” requires to be placed in the rubbish bin of myopic prejudices.

Thank-you.Sorry I appeared gruff.I like when one says , “this the Catholic position/teaching”, makes it less personal,offensive. So may I say what I wrote was some of the protetstant /orthodox position on these matters. I can gladly give point by point teaching on all of your good points (replacemnet for Judas ,Jerusalem council , Peter and Paul etc.) later.

 

[david_ruiz]

Thank-you.Sorry I appeared gruff.I like when one says , “this the Catholic position/teaching”, makes it less personal,offensive. So may I say what I wrote was some of the protetstant /orthodox position on these matters. I can gladly give point by point teaching on all of your good points (replacemnet for Judas ,Jerusalem council , Peter and Paul etc.) later.

The teaching I have heard on Clement is that he may have written the letter to Corinth but no where is his name signed to it ,and nowhere is there any hint of authoirty in the chair of Peter . Indeed we are told in the letter exactly who it is from, the “church in Rome” I believe, (or from the elders in the church in Rome-Rome had many bishops).This is exactly the same pattern set by the apostles(directed/headed by James) at the first Council in Jerusalem,“that WE write to them…The apostles and the elders and BRETHREN ( is this not ALL of us),greetings unto the BRETHREN which are the gentiles in Antioch”…Acts 15:20,23). There is no mention of the chair of Peter ,keys,etc…At that council Peter did not chair, nor make any decree but was the key “witness” for the vision from God, ,the Holy Ghost falling on gentiles. Did he silence the querry because he was supreme bishop or because he had the supreme testimony,to which Paul also strongly tetsified ? Peter was first amongst equals in this case, for God gave him the vision and the first experience with gentiles besides Paul. It is also noted that Peter did falter with this “vision” and was a bit two faced with the gentiles when the jews came around. Paul contetsed this to Peter’s face scripture tells us, much like an equal.I do not know if this happened after the council or not .I believe it happened before,hence Peter’s not speaking up first at the council. For the next several centuries other bishops would do the same when they thought the head bishop of Rome was wrong- confront as an equal brethren/elder. Again the teaching is that Peter indeed ws a leader ,one of the key apostles,but not "over’ any other apostle. There is other scriptural evidence for this ,perhaps for the next time though.

 

[joshua_b]

Thank-you.Sorry I appeared gruff.I like when one says , “this the Catholic position/teaching”, makes it less personal,offensive. So may I say what I wrote was some of the protetstant /orthodox position on these matters. I can gladly give point by point teaching on all of your good points (replacemnet for Judas ,Jerusalem council , Peter and Paul etc.) later.

My response was to the OP, who asked about the doctrine of papal infallibility. Fortunately, you agree with the Catholic Church, that infallibility is ultimately only posessed by God Himself, so we at least have a common ground to start from.

That aside, the topic at hand is not whether or not the primacy of Peter is legitimate. The original question presupposes that. And, although the subject of the primacy of the bishop of Rome is always a great discussion, it is not the topic of this thread.