How do you defend Papal Infallibility?

[ConstantineTG]

the first head of the Church was John’s brother James and when he was martyred the job went to Jesus’ brother, James.

Are you sure? I never knew James the brother of John was ever the chief elder (episcopate) of Jerusalem. Sources I have come across always have James the Just (the brother of our Lord) as the first bishop of Jerusalem.

Only when Jerusalem was rased to the ground by the Romans in AD 70 and all its inhabitants kicked out (until 1948!!!) did the Christian church move to Rome (or Constantinople?).

No, the Church of Rome I believe exited back then. They didn’t move to Rome but they were dispersed from Jerusalem. Rome just gained prominence because it was the captial of the Empire, and prior to the death of Peter and Paul they have set their sights in evangelizing Rome. To them it was the ultimate goal, to Christianize the captial of the world.

However, Peter definitely seems to be the acknowledged power behind the early church.

Definitely Peter had a higher place among the Apostles, but not in a sense that was removed from the Apostles. He was the “leader of the choir”, not the soloist.

But Paul opposed him “to his face” (Galatians 2:11) so he wasn’t infallible! Nevertheless he is my favourite apostle with a human face, irascible yet loving and caring!

What a lot of people miss about the Council of Jerusalem is that Peter spoke on the authority of the revelation given to him at Joppa, not on the authority of him possessing any primacy or keys or infallability. And it was James who made the pronouncement, Peter merely gave testimony.

 

[IanGE]

Are you sure? I never knew James the brother of John was ever the chief elder (episcopate) of Jerusalem. Sources I have come across always have James the Just (the brother of our Lord) as the first bishop of Jerusalem.

You are quite right, Constantine: I assumed that because Herod killed James, John’s brother, that he must have been Head of the Church. Quite wrong of me, I apologise.

No, the Church of Rome I believe exited back then. They didn’t move to Rome but they were dispersed from Jerusalem. Rome just gained prominence because it was the captial of the Empire, and prior to the death of Peter and Paul they have set their sights in evangelizing Rome. To them it was the ultimate goal, to Christianize the captial of the world.

There may well have been A Christian church in Rome but THE church HQ was in Jerusalem when Peter was martyred. So Peter was never the official head of the Church; the Papal claim to authority as Peter’s successors is suspect and quite needless. The Pope IS the current head of the Roman Catholic church: Amen.
Also, at that time, HQ Jerusalem was still not happy with Gentile conversion, the prevailing thought being that Christianity was yet another Jewish sect. Peter himself was not too happy with Paul’s vision until his own experience with the Gentile conversion of Cornelius and his household as his speech to the council at Jerusalem indicates (Acts 15).
Yet again, your namesake, the Emperor, built a second city named after him, Constantinople, which was to be the Religious capital of the Roman Empire while the political and power capital remained in Rome. Therefore I wonder if the Greek Orthodox church is the true Church?
Whatever. Jesus promised he would not leave us (His Church) orphans but would send the Holy Spirit to be our teacher, our comforter, our guide etc. ANY church that rejects the Holy Spirit and the Spiritual signs which follow the true believer (again Jesus’ promise) may be treading dangerously close to the unforgiveable sin.

Definitely Peter had a higher place among the Apostles, but not in a sense that was removed from the Apostles. He was the “leader of the choir”, not the soloist.
But not the highest, except the highest in esteem.

What a lot of people miss about the Council of Jerusalem is that Peter spoke on the authority of the revelation given to him at Joppa, not on the authority of him possessing any primacy or keys or infallability. And it was James who made the pronouncement, Peter merely gave testimony.

**Then why was that authority not given to Peter by his peers?  The point of his speech was the dramatic conversion of Gentiles in Cornelius' house at which the signs following the outpouring of the Spirit on Gentiles were witnessed by many believers. And Peter's speech is worth quoting again: Acts 15:8 - 11.

“God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for He purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe that it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”**

 

[IanGE]

Wisedom & IanGE,

It seems to me that I’ve been replying in kind (and brusquely) to your comments. Yet, that won’t get us anywhere, other than to feel smug that we’ve defended our own turf.

It seems to me that where the source of our disagreement comes from, is an understanding of what “papal infallibility” means. I’m guessing that if we could agree on what it means, then a lot of this dynamic of sniping back and forth will go away. So, what do you say? How about if we start from identifying exactly what the Church says that “papal infallibility” means? (Or more importantly, what it doesn’t mean!)

So, your call… do you want to give a go at defining it, or would you like someone else to do so? (Or, do you want to just keep on trading barbs… 'cause that’s kinda fun, too… )

I don’t know about Wisedom but I would accept the Pope’s infallibilty (without Spiritual error) IF he spoke in the Holy Spirit - AND demonstrated the signs that Jesus said would follow the believer. Pronouncements by Peter and the apostles were enthusiastically accepted BECAUSE they were confirmed by the signs that accompanied them.
In the absence of such I accept the Pope’s words as good reasoned advice, but either way I still accept the Bible as infallible AGAIN when read by someone demonstrably graced by the indwelling Holy Spirit. BTW Not only are the signs testimony that the Lord has accepted what is in someone’s heart that he IS a true believer, but was a testimony to ME (I am graced with all the signs) when I doubted my own faith and commitment.
I’m sorry you see my words as barbs. A long time ago I prayed to the Lord that my words would not hurt anyone. He answered “Oh, they will hurt, Ian, but they will never HARM anyone.”

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know about Wisedom but I would accept the Pope’s infallibilty (without Spiritual error) IF he spoke in the Holy Spirit

Hmm. Could you explain to me what “speaking in the Holy Spirit” means, and how one exhibits it (and, of course, how it is clear that one is not exhibiting it)? Thanks!

• AND demonstrated the signs that Jesus said would follow the believer.

Are you talking about handling serpents and ingesting poisons? I’m confused…

Pronouncements by Peter and the apostles were enthusiastically accepted BECAUSE they were confirmed by the signs that accompanied them.

I guess I’m drawing a blank (I’m not very much a morning person). Can you cite the examples you’re referencing here? Thanks!

I’m sorry you see my words as barbs. A long time ago I prayed to the Lord that my words would not hurt anyone. He answered “Oh, they will hurt, Ian, but they will never HARM anyone.”

No worries… it just seems that, without sufficient definitions around our terms (on all sides), the discussion takes on the tone of “no, it isn’t!”… “yes, it is!”… “NO, it isn’t!”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then why was that authority not given to Peter by his peers? The point of his speech was the dramatic conversion of Gentiles in Cornelius’ house at which the signs following the outpouring of the Spirit on Gentiles were witnessed by many believers. And Peter’s speech is worth quoting again: Acts 15:8 - 11.
"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for He purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe that it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

St. Peter has authority and primacy, but not in the way we think of it today. He was the leader of the Apostles, but not their superior. Think of it this way, the quarterback heads the football team on the field, but he is just another player. He is not the coach who has the final say on plays or who plays or who sits. He is not the GM or team owner who decides which players to sign, which players to release, which players to trade. He leads the players but not above them.

St. Peter is such. He is the leader of the Apostolic Choir, but he is not a Soloist. Other Apostles do not report to him or need his permission to do anything. But definitely they look up to him.

The point of the speech was Peter’s witness to the acceptance of God of the Gentiles as is. And such a revelation was accepted because it was a revelation of God bore witness by Peter, not because Peter as supreme head said they should accept it.

 

[PeterGStanley]

St. Peter has authority and primacy, but not in the way we think of it today. He was the leader of the Apostles, but not their superior. Think of it this way, the quarterback heads the football team on the field, but he is just another player. He is not the coach who has the final say on plays or who plays or who sits. He is not the GM or team owner who decides which players to sign, which players to release, which players to trade. He leads the players but not above them.

St. Peter is such. He is the leader of the Apostolic Choir, but he is not a Soloist. Other Apostles do not report to him or need his permission to do anything. But definitely they look up to him.

The point of the speech was Peter’s witness to the acceptance of God of the Gentiles as is. And such a revelation was accepted because it was a revelation of God bore witness by Peter, not because Peter as supreme head said they should accept it.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Faith and morals only - as far as I know it hasn’t change from the early church - so what is the problem? Its misunderstood.

 

[lyrikal]

St. Peter has authority and primacy, but not in the way we think of it today. He was the leader of the Apostles, but not their superior. Think of it this way, the quarterback heads the football team on the field, but he is just another player. He is not the coach who has the final say on plays or who plays or who sits. He is not the GM or team owner who decides which players to sign, which players to release, which players to trade. He leads the players but not above them.

St. Peter is such. He is the leader of the Apostolic Choir, but he is not a Soloist. Other Apostles do not report to him or need his permission to do anything. But definitely they look up to him.

The point of the speech was Peter’s witness to the acceptance of God of the Gentiles as is. And such a revelation was accepted because it was a revelation of God bore witness by Peter, not because Peter as supreme head said they should accept it.

Perhaps, It was Peter that God chose to reveal it to BECAUSE of Peter’s role of being a leader of the Apostles. Do you think that is also a possibility?

 

[mardukm]

St. Peter has authority and primacy, but not in the way we think of it today.

Or maybe not in the way you think. Are you sure you are not just projecting?

He was the leader of the Apostles, but not their superior.

He is superior, but in a different sense than the exaggerated notions you accuse some Catholics of believing.

Think of it this way, the quarterback heads the football team on the field, but he is just another player.

He is quarterback because he has a superior quality in a particular way that others do not have. Of course, he must always play with the pack.

He is not the coach who has the final say on plays or who plays or who sits. He is not the GM or team owner who decides which players to sign, which players to release, which players to trade.

I agree with this.

He leads the players but not above them.

I agree with this – he is superior in a certain sense for the good order of the Church.

St. Peter is such. He is the leader of the Apostolic Choir, but he is not a Soloist.

I agree completely. It should be noted that though probably a good number of Latin Catholics believe this (perhaps, including you), it is not the teaching nor the praxis of the Catholic Church that the Pope is a soloist.

Other Apostles do not report to him or need his permission to do anything. But definitely they look up to him.

There’s a big difference between asking for confirmation (as the Church understands it, not the way the secular world understands it), and asking for permission. I think a lot of Catholics, including you, don’t understand the difference. I will attempt to explain it in a new thread in the Eastern Catholic Forum by this weekend.

The point of the speech was Peter’s witness to the acceptance of God of the Gentiles as is. And such a revelation was accepted because it was a revelation of God bore witness by Peter, not because Peter as supreme head said they should accept it.

I agree. The way you explain it is exactly what the Dogma on “papal infallibility” affirms.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother lyrikal,

Perhaps, It was Peter that God chose to reveal it to BECAUSE of Peter’s role of being a leader of the Apostles. Do you think that is also a possibility?

I definitely agree with you that God chose Peter because in fact he was the leader of the Apostles. But brother ConstantineTG does have a good point about the Pope not being a soloist and not lording it over others.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lyrikal]

Dear brother lyrikal,

I definitely agree with you that God chose Peter because in fact he was the leader of the Apostles. But brother ConstantineTG does have a good point about the Pope not being a soloist and not lording it over others.

Blessings,
Marduk

I wholeheartedly agree with you and ConstantineTG on the fact that the Pope is not a soloist. That’s why I only bolded the third part to ConstantineTG’s post.

By the way, you are one of my favorite posters on CAF!

 

[dje101]

How do you defend Papal Infallibility when someone brings up the fact that it wasn’t considered dogma until 1870?

My brother posed this question to me when I was talking about converting. He said “how can the pope be infallible?”. I said, “he’s protected by God from teaching error because, like Jesus said, the gates of hell will not overcome His church. So right there in scripture, we have Jesus promising that His church will be protected. Plus, you believe that scripture is inerrant, right?”. He said “yeah”. I said “well ya know, those individual books were written by people, some very special people, just like the pope. Yet you are quick to accept thqt because our old youth pastor said it was so. So when we see the pope declare something infallibly, we can liken it to us sitting next to St. Paul while he was writing Romans.”

Please, if anyone decides to criticize, please go easy. I was (and still am) continuing to grow in my knowledge of the church and how to defend its beliefs, even though I believe all of them with all my heart.

Basically, it coms down to whether or not we believe that Jesus meant what he said about the gates of hell not overcoming his church, as well as fully understanding the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose that was given to Peter.

 

[IanGE]

Hmm. Could you explain to me what “speaking in the Holy Spirit” means, and how one exhibits it (and, of course, how it is clear that one is not exhibiting it)? Thanks!

Are you talking about handling serpents and ingesting poisons? I’m confused…

I guess I’m drawing a blank (I’m not very much a morning person). Can you cite the examples you’re referencing here? Thanks!

No worries… it just seems that, without sufficient definitions around our terms (on all sides), the discussion takes on the tone of “no, it isn’t!”… “yes, it is!”… “NO, it isn’t!”

Point 1: Jesus tried to explain to a well-known Jewish teacher, Nicodemus in John 3:3, “I tell you the truth, no one can SEE (or ENTER, V.6) the Kingdom of God unless he is Born Again.” Nic replies, “surely a man cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time to be Born Again?” I think he was not being frivolous but genuinely wanted to know, for Jesus’ patient explanation is worth reading. I have mentioned elsewhere Jesus promising “if two or more of you (gathered in My Name?) agree it is already done in Heaven.” We have experienced this vibrant agreement sometimes when another speaks. Perhaps its not just Born Agains who discern when a sermon is dry as dust or vibrantly exciting. Often I have gone up to a priest (not Born Again) and congratulated him warmly on a brilliant sermon: “you were definitely speaking in the Spirit, Father” and got a puzzled look.

Point 2: A puzzling verse, I agree: “they (believers) will walk among snakes and scorpions and even if they drink poison it will not harm them.” Paul demonstrated this truth on Malta, but I’ve come to realize its metaphor: snakes and scorpions mean the powers of darkness who walk the earth; the gift of being able to boot out an attacking evil brings peace, I tell you. The drinking of poison, it has just come to me! is the gift of discernment, so that if we inadvertently read, hear, see, ingest false witness, the Holy Spirit will immediately warn us, nullify it and guide us to the truth. Thank you Lord, I didn’t know that two minutes ago!

Point 3: Miracles at Pentecost, which drew crowds and after Peter’s newly inspired speech, “about three thousand were added to their number” (Acts 2). Signs demonstrated all through Acts of the Apostles (which I think should be renamed Acts of the Holy Spirit!) But my main quote would be from the end of Mark, after Jesus’ ascension: “then the disciples went out and preached everywhere and the Lord worked with them and confirmed His Word by the signs that accompanied it.”
I’m sorry to quote from the Bible it is my life. Those that dont accept the gospel as gospel, please just sit in on a Charismatic prayer group, where the signs STILL follow those who believe. Yes, I guess some will be driven away by the gutteral babbling but put your hands in the hands of the man from Galilee. The Westminster group used to run Catholic Charismatic days of renewal at the huge Quaker hall opposite Euston Station, London. I don’t know if they still do, but 1000+ worshippers singing in tongues used to draw people in from the noisy street. BTW You can’t HEAR anything from outside, on the street Pentacost, AD 2000+

Point 4:

 

[Gorgias]

Point 1: I have mentioned elsewhere Jesus promising “if two or more of you (gathered in My Name?) agree it is already done in Heaven.” We have experienced this vibrant agreement sometimes when another speaks. Perhaps its not just Born Agains who discern when a sermon is dry as dust or vibrantly exciting. Often I have gone up to a priest (not Born Again) and congratulated him warmly on a brilliant sermon: “you were definitely speaking in the Spirit, Father” and got a puzzled look.

Hmm. Ok, then – so, in our context, you’re saying that “you would believe in papal infallibility” if “two or more agree” when listening to the pope? Or that you would agree if his words aren’t “dry as dust” but rather are “vibrantly exciting”? That’s a rather subjective approach, isn’t it? After all, it seems to say that the Bible is lying – the gift of the Spirit doesn’t exist in a person at all, at least not objectively: the gift of the Spirit only exists in a person by virtue of another’s fiat! And, if people disagree that the gift of the Spirit exists in someone, then it does exist for the one, but it doesn’t exist for the other!

Point 2: I’ve come to realize its metaphor: snakes and scorpions mean the powers of darkness who walk the earth; the gift of being able to boot out an attacking evil brings peace, I tell you. The drinking of poison, it has just come to me! is the gift of discernment, so that if we inadvertently read, hear, see, ingest false witness, the Holy Spirit will immediately warn us, nullify it and guide us to the truth. Thank you Lord, I didn’t know that two minutes ago!

That’s a very nice exegesis of the passage! In a spiritual sense, it sounds like a very nice way to understand those verses!

However, it doesn’t help us with our discussion, does it? 'Cause you had said that you’d “believe in the pope’s infallibility” if he “demonstrated the signs that Jesus said would follow the believer.” So, given your insights above, you’re saying that you’d believe in papal infallibility if the pope could handle “the powers of darkness who walk the earth” and who has “the gift of discernment” that allows “the Holy Spirit … (to) guide us to the truth”? I think that Catholics would say that he does have these charisms! Again, who is the arbiter of these gifts? The successor of Peter or any ordinary Joe on the street? And when one Joe says “yes” and another “no”, how is that a tenable situation in any way?

Again, both of these notions you bring up reduce the action of the Holy Spirit to a subject experience – by your reasoning, the Spirit doesn’t really exist where He is, but only in the minds of those who perceive that He is present. This sounds too much like the dire warnings found at the conclusion of Judges: it all depends on “what is right in the eyes of every man”. If that’s what everyone did in the time when “there was no king in Israel”, that can hardly be what we’re expected to follow, now that the King of Kings reigns in heaven!

Point 3: Miracles at Pentecost, which drew crowds and after Peter’s newly inspired speech, “about three thousand were added to their number” (Acts 2). Signs demonstrated all through Acts of the Apostles (which I think should be renamed Acts of the Holy Spirit!) But my main quote would be from the end of Mark, after Jesus’ ascension: “then the disciples went out and preached everywhere and the Lord worked with them and confirmed His Word by the signs that accompanied it.”

Hmm… I’m not certain that this relates as well as you say it should. The context in Mk 16:20 is the preaching of the apostles – specifically, the preaching that they do that converts people. In this context, the signs that accompany the teaching aren’t the reason that people believe; rather, they are the outcomes of the belief. And what are the outcomes of apostolic preaching? Faith! Baptism! Hope in the Lord! The Gifts of the Holy Spirit!

But, it seems that you are saying that you’d believe in the Pope if his words cause people to be baptized? 'Cause I’m telling you, Pope John Paul II certainly had that effect on people!

In any case, though, the context seems ‘off’ – you’re saying that you’d believe in papal infallibility if all his words led people to come to Christ. Yet, that wasn’t even the effect that Jesus had on people – cf John 6, where Jesus’ words cause many disciples to leave, because they’re so hard to accept. By your standard, here, that would mean that the Spirit wasn’t in Jesus!

I'm sorry to quote from the Bible it is my life.

As it is ours, as Catholics!

Blessings,

G.

 

[IanGE]

Hmm. Ok, then – so, in our context, you’re saying that “you would believe in papal infallibility” if “two or more agree” when listening to the pope? Or that you would agree if his words aren’t “dry as dust” but rather are “vibrantly exciting”? That’s a rather subjective approach, isn’t it? After all, it seems to say that the Bible is lying – the gift of the Spirit doesn’t exist in a person at all, at least not objectively: the gift of the Spirit only exists in a person by virtue of another’s fiat! And, if people disagree that the gift of the Spirit exists in someone, then it does exist for the one, but it doesn’t exist for the other!

That’s a very nice exegesis of the passage! In a spiritual sense, it sounds like a very nice way to understand those verses!

However, it doesn’t help us with our discussion, does it? 'Cause you had said that you’d “believe in the pope’s infallibility” if he “demonstrated the signs that Jesus said would follow the believer.” So, given your insights above, you’re saying that you’d believe in papal infallibility if the pope could handle “the powers of darkness who walk the earth” and who has “the gift of discernment” that allows “the Holy Spirit … (to) guide us to the truth”? I think that Catholics would say that he does have these charisms! Again, who is the arbiter of these gifts? The successor of Peter or any ordinary Joe on the street? And when one Joe says “yes” and another “no”, how is that a tenable situation in any way?

Again, both of these notions you bring up reduce the action of the Holy Spirit to a subject experience – by your reasoning, the Spirit doesn’t really exist where He is, but only in the minds of those who perceive that He is present. This sounds too much like the dire warnings found at the conclusion of Judges: it all depends on “what is right in the eyes of every man”. If that’s what everyone did in the time when “there was no king in Israel”, that can hardly be what we’re expected to follow, now that the King of Kings reigns in heaven!

Hmm… I’m not certain that this relates as well as you say it should. The context in Mk 16:20 is the preaching of the apostles – specifically, the preaching that they do that converts people. In this context, the signs that accompany the teaching aren’t the reason that people believe; rather, they are the outcomes of the belief. And what are the outcomes of apostolic preaching? Faith! Baptism! Hope in the Lord! The Gifts of the Holy Spirit!

But, it seems that you are saying that you’d believe in the Pope if his words cause people to be baptized? 'Cause I’m telling you, Pope John Paul II certainly had that effect on people!

In any case, though, the context seems ‘off’ – you’re saying that you’d believe in papal infallibility if all his words led people to come to Christ. Yet, that wasn’t even the effect that Jesus had on people – cf John 6, where Jesus’ words cause many disciples to leave, because they’re so hard to accept. By your standard, here, that would mean that the Spirit wasn’t in Jesus!

As it is ours, as Catholics!

Blessings,

G.

The church does not accept charisms which are a strong part of the New Testament. Discernment is not mentioned as one of the gifts of the Spirit: neither is this sudden glowing love for every word in the Bible. But they are common in Born Again Christians. These perks are difficult to witness. The most common gift is Tongues, together with miracle healings: they are witnessed by millions.I do not know at what point subjective becomes objective but, statistically, there are some 2 billion Christians in the world, about half of which are Roman Catholics. But Pentecostals, Charismatics and Evangelical or Bible-believing Christians are rapidly catching up, currently some 40% of Christians. Will those become objective when they pass 1 billion? Won’t be long according to current growth. That is to say, 40% of Christians demonstrate through the signs of the Holy Spirit that they out Jesus first and meld together, guided by the unifying Holy Spirit, not as a “church” per se but an “ecclesia” - Jesus word for those people who are called out.

I wouldn’t know if the Pope has “discernment” - in any case that’s not one the Gifts of the Spirit quoted in Mark 16. But tongues and healing would CONFIRM that the Pope and clergy speak for the Lord. Unless Mark wrote porky pies!

I fully agree that Pope John Paul II had charisma: footballer, man of the people etc. But I don’t know about charisms: he was a Marian. Before he died he renewed his vows to Mary and had Mary’s sign on his coffin. The charisms come from Jesus.

Jesus often says “let those who have ears to hear, hear.” Those who walked away obviously didn’t. God gave us all free will, which places us above angels who cannot help but follow orders. Which is a whole other ball game.

If the Bible has an important place in Catholic life why do respondents to this forum quote from catechism instead of God’s Word? If I have a problem I ask the Lord, he does and WILL answer through my indwelling Holy Spirit and the personal hot line to upstairs given to all Born Agains. (It’s called “tongues”)

 

[eyezayah]

Hi.
Not sure if this is the right thread to bring this issue up…it was the closest related topic to the one on my mind.
What is to be done when it is shown that two (or more) ex-cathedra (ie infallible) teachings contradict, are reversed or annulled?

 

[Gorgias]

The church does not accept charisms which are a strong part of the New Testament.

It doesn’t? Of course it does!

Now… if what you mean is that “the Church doesn’t accept the particular examples of charisms that I accept, and accepts others that I don’t accept”, then that’s a completely different issue, and one that’s all about authority, not charism!

The most common gift is Tongues, together with miracle healings: they are witnessed by millions.I do not know at what point subjective becomes objective but, statistically, there are some 2 billion Christians in the world, about half of which are Roman Catholics. But Pentecostals, Charismatics and Evangelical or Bible-believing Christians are rapidly catching up, currently some 40% of Christians. Will those become objective when they pass 1 billion?

That’s just the thing: subjective is subjective, whether the subject is one person or one billion. As Fulton Sheen put it, “Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. Right is right even if nobody is right.” So, papal infallibility can’t be a matter of taking a straw poll and ‘deciding’ whether the pope is right or not; if it’s not an objective matter (and it is, as can be demonstrated Scripturally), then it’s nothing.

not as a “church” per se but an “ecclesia” - Jesus word for those people who are called out.

‘Ekklesia’ is the Greek word for ‘community’; in the early Christian Church, it’s the word that they chose to mean their Christian community – that is, their church! Later, the word ‘church’ came to be associated with ‘ekklesia’. You’re picking nits if you wish to separate ‘church’ from ‘community’ and say that you’re the latter but not the former…

I wouldn’t know if the Pope has “discernment” - in any case that’s not one the Gifts of the Spirit quoted in Mark 16.

Hmm… now you’ve confused me. When I asked what you would consider sufficient for saying, “yes, papal infallibility’s correct”, we had this exchange:

IanGE:

Gorgias:

- AND demonstrated the signs that Jesus said would follow the believer.

Are you talking about handling serpents and ingesting poisons? I’m confused…
The drinking of poison, it has just come to me! is the gift of discernment

So, now I’m confused. Discernment is the sign you’re looking for; yet, discernment isn’t a sign you’d accept. Can you see why I’m having a hard time following your criteria for understanding whether papal infallibility is correct?

But tongues and healing would CONFIRM that the Pope and clergy speak for the Lord.

Your assertion here is un-Scriptural! Paul says, “Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”

Notice that there’s a distinction between an ‘apostle’ and gifts such as ‘healing’ and ‘tongues’. In fact, if one were to claim “I’m an apostle, and I heal, and I speak in tongues”, it would seem that he’s saying that Paul (and Scripture) was wrong! After all, not all are apostles! So, the pope, as a successor of the apostles, doesn’t need gifts of tongues or healing in order to ‘confirm’ his office and his charisms! By Paul’s very words, your assertion here cannot stand!

I fully agree that Pope John Paul II had charisma: footballer, man of the people etc. But I don’t know about charisms: he was a Marian. Before he died he renewed his vows to Mary and had Mary’s sign on his coffin. The charisms come from Jesus.

Please show me a Bible verse that says that someone who loves Mary doesn’t love Jesus. Show me a verse that shows that someone who loves Mary receives ‘charisms’ from her, rather than from Jesus. Be careful – it sure looks like you’re replacing the words of God with your own ‘human traditions’…!

If the Bible has an important place in Catholic life why do respondents to this forum quote from catechism instead of God’s Word?

We quote from both. But, I would bring to your attention that the Catechism is filled with Scripture! So, when we quote from the Catechism – which offers explanations of Scriptural precepts – we’re quoting a text that’s fully backed up by Scripture!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps, It was Peter that God chose to reveal it to BECAUSE of Peter’s role of being a leader of the Apostles. Do you think that is also a possibility?

To believe that is to make a meaning out of nothing. What can we say of the other revelations to other Apostles? St. Paul, St. John? There is no evidence to support that claim, so one is just trying to fit a rather large square peg into a small round hole.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

How do you defend Papal Infallibility when someone brings up the fact that it wasn’t considered dogma until 1870?

Tell them to read the Bible

 

[ConstantineTG]

Or maybe not in the way you think. Are you sure you are not just projecting?

It seems the Romans are alone in believing about the Pope’s authority. Are that many Apostolic Churches wrong?

He is superior, but in a different sense than the exaggerated notions you accuse some Catholics of believing.

That is what they believe. Why do you think trads think of writing to Rome if they can’t have their Latin Mass? Tell me, how many bishops attended a council and agreed to implementing Summorum Pontificum? What does Motu Priprio mean? Am I really exaggerating here?

He is quarterback because he has a superior quality in a particular way that others do not have. Of course, he must always play with the pack.

Not in that sense. A quarterback is a player with a specific role. He is not above his teammates and is certainly accountable to his team. The Pope is not.

I agree completely. It should be noted that though probably a good number of Latin Catholics believe this (perhaps, including you), it is not the teaching nor the praxis of the Catholic Church that the Pope is a soloist.

Again, Motu Proprio. Doesn’t sound like something that is done in cooperation with anyone else.

There’s a big difference between asking for confirmation (as the Church understands it, not the way the secular world understands it), and asking for permission. I think a lot of Catholics, including you, don’t understand the difference. I will attempt to explain it in a new thread in the Eastern Catholic Forum by this weekend.

Nope, I understand it fully well. There is a difference between I understand it, and you don’t believe I understand it because I don’t understand it the way you understand it.

I agree. The way you explain it is exactly what the Dogma on “papal infallibility” affirms.

Nope, it is you who misunderstands. The dogma of Papal Infallibility rests upon the character of Pope as one who has inherited the office of Peter and the one who bears the keys to the Kingdom of God. By his authority he can declare anything and everything to be dogma. The Catholic Church believes this is done by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (sounds like a Pentecostal tract if you ask me).

Peter’s witness in Acts has nothing resting on his person or character. It was accepted not because of keys or any charism of infallibility he has. The merit was fully on the revelation, and not because it was Peter who delivered it. It could have been another Apostle who have received the vision and it still would have counted as much. Defenders of the Papal Dogmas such as yourself only try to make a connection because you know after the fact that you have a Papal Dogma to defend. Thus in anything in Scripture where Peter does something, suddenly it is “proof” of Papal Supremacy.