Infallibility and Apostolic Succession

[guanophore]

Okay, you’re saying the magisterium will be free from error. This means that they cannot be incorrect. Following so far?

However, you’re also saying that one or more individuals can err, right? Let’s look at the logic…

1. Individuals can err. God won’t stop them.
2. Multiple individuals (in undecided quantities) can err. God won’t stop them.
3. It stands to reason, given 1 and 2, that the majority can also err, and God won’t stop them.

Either God is forcing them to do right (prohibiting them from error), or they (as a teaching authority) are not infallible. It’s that simple. Either there’s free will, or there’s infallibility. You cannot have both in the same situation. It’s not possible.

Regarding the council of Jerusalem – protestants value the information put forth there because it was spoken by men who were godly in their desires, and more importantly, because it fits in with what’s given elsewhere in scripture. We don’t believe that they were infallible, but rather that they simply made a God-honoring decision in that instance, much like individuals do sometimes. Doing something right doesn’t make one infallible.

That is pretty narrow minded of you. I see you have no provision for what we see in the book of Acts, where the Apostles gather together for the express purpose of understanding and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus says “how much more will God give the HS to those who ask?” Yes,they are capable of error, but they CHOOSE to follow God’s will, and gather for the express purpose to determine what that is. In such cases, Jesus says “where two or three are gathered, I am in their midst”. It seems to me that you just don’t trust the holy intentions of the bishops, and the promise of Jesus.

 

[Mannyfit75]

That is pretty narrow minded of you. I see you have no provision for what we see in the book of Acts, where the Apostles gather together for the express purpose of understanding and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus says “how much more will God give the HS to those who ask?” Yes,they are capable of error, but they CHOOSE to follow God’s will, and gather for the express purpose to determine what that is. In such cases, Jesus says “where two or three are gathered, I am in their midst”. It seems to me that you just don’t trust the holy intentions of the bishops, and the promise of Jesus.

They should have know that verse very well (I enlarge the text).

 

[YinYangMom]

Regarding the council of Jerusalem – protestants value the information put forth there because it was spoken by men who were godly in their desires, and more importantly, because** it fits in with what’s given elsewhere in scripture**. We don’t believe that they were infallible, but rather that they simply made a God-honoring decision in that instance, much like individuals do sometimes. Doing something right doesn’t make one infallible.

This is most revealing.

So, you’re suggesting the Catholic bishops today, and throughout history are/were not godly in their desires? That somehow all that stopped after the Council of Jerusalem?

and/or

that everything the Catholic bishops have ruled upon regarding faith and morals since the Council of Jerusalem has not been in accord with what is found in scripture?

The fact is both suggestions are false from the get go.

As for the “they simply made a God-honoring decision in that instance”, how do you know that? Is it because you, yourself, can see the connection between what the body of ‘bishops’ at the time said and what you can find in scripture today?

You do realize, that scripture, as we know it today (the bible) was not in existence then, don’t you? They didn’t have the bible to consult with at the time, and yet you are able to trust in their ruling on the matter for faith and morals. Why is it you can trust that body of individual apostles (equally capable of choosing to disobey God’s will due to free will as the Catholic bishops today) to make such God-honoring decisions when called together to do so but not their successors - the same people upon whom they laid hands, thus conferring upon them the same authority to do so as they received when hands were laid upon them?

Do you not recognize the significance and real effects laying of hands has on preserving God’s Truth as revealed to the original 12 by Jesus Himself and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Why else would the apostles summon the congregation of disciples in Acts 6 to instruct them to go out and find 7 men to bring back to the apostles so that they could lay hands upon those men in order that they may serve the communities to which they would return? Do you not see that the disciples themselves did not have the authority to lay hands on their 7 thus saving them and their 7 the journey to and from Jerusalem? No. The disciples went into the communities to find the worthy servants of our Lord, brought them to the 12. It wasn’t until the 12 laid hands upon those 7 that they received the actual authority from God to do His work.

Why do you have trouble recognizing it is the **same **Spirit who revealed to the 12 at Pentecost all that they would ever need to know in order to protect, preserve and preach God’s Truth until Jesus returns in glory, that protects the Catholic church today? If that Spirit could influence (not force, mind you) the Council at Jerusalem to make a ‘God-honoring’ decision, why do you have trouble believing He can influence the Catholic bishops when they gather to review matters on faith and morals?

 

[PC_Master]

How does the Holy Spirit get you to do what you are supposed to do, when you don’t feel like it, or when you don’t understand His teachings correctly?

He doesn’t always. And that is precisely my point – He always speaks, but I don’t always listen.

So, you’re suggesting the Catholic bishops today, and throughout history are/were not godly in their desires? That somehow all that stopped after the Council of Jerusalem?

and/or

that everything the Catholic bishops have ruled upon regarding faith and morals since the Council of Jerusalem has not been in accord with what is found in scripture?

The fact is both suggestions are false from the get go.

Because both are extremist. I’m not suggesting that the entirety of church history is evil. I’m only suggesting that it hasn’t been totally God-honoring either.

As for the “they simply made a God-honoring decision in that instance”, how do you know that? Is it because you, yourself, can see the connection between what the body of ‘bishops’ at the time said and what you can find in scripture today?

You do realize, that scripture, as we know it today (the bible) was not in existence then, don’t you? They didn’t have the bible to consult with at the time, and yet you are able to trust in their ruling on the matter for faith and morals.

There are a couple of factors…

1. The holy spirit convinces me of this truth.
2. The Old Testament was around, and that tells a great deal about the will of God.
3. We have multiple accounts of the words of Jesus, and these things are completely in line with the decision made at the “Council of Jerusalem”.
4. The persons involved in creating the gospels were either direct witnesses or second-hand witnesses…not 265 generations later as we have today. If they aren’t trustworthy, we have no real written evidence of Jesus existence.

Why is it you can trust that body of individual apostles (equally capable of choosing to disobey God’s will due to free will as the Catholic bishops today) to make such God-honoring decisions when called together to do so but not their successors - the same people upon whom they laid hands, thus conferring upon them the same authority to do so as they received when hands were laid upon them?

1. I don’t believe God would have waited over 15 centuries (sound familiar?) to make a doctrine or dogma clear to his followers.
2. The further you are from the original source, the more likely you are to err. Ever play “telephone”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay, so, let’s look at the logic…

1. Individual bishops are fallible on their own. Each has free will, including the ability to ignore God.
2. In defining matters of faith and morals, one or more bishops may be fallible. This is because they can choose to ignore the will of God.
3. Somehow, despite God allowing free will, to the point where some may err, God is guaranteeing that he will override the free will of a majority of bishops to ensure that they choose correctly?

God is guaranteeing that even if a majority of Bishops believe a false doctrine, the Church will not be allowed to proclaim that teaching formally in an infallible or ex cathedra statement. This was the case during the era of the Arian heresy. Individually, they are free to believe whatever they like; when teaching formally on behalf of the entire Church, then God will prevent them from error.

On one occasion, a Pope died before promulgating a flawed translation of the Bible that he had personally translated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So how does the holy spirit accomplish this, if not by supressing the free will of some of them?

Good preaching…Quiet discussion…Outbreak of war…Death of the leading proponent…Vision of Mary…Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes doing an expose…

Any of these would do the trick.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay, you’re saying the magisterium will be free from error. This means that they cannot be incorrect. Following so far?

However, you’re also saying that one or more individuals can err, right? Let’s look at the logic…

1. Individuals can err. God won’t stop them.
2. Multiple individuals (in undecided quantities) can err. God won’t stop them.
3. It stands to reason, given 1 and 2, that the majority can also err, and God won’t stop them.

Either God is forcing them to do right (prohibiting them from error), or they (as a teaching authority) are not infallible. It’s that simple. Either there’s free will, or there’s infallibility. You cannot have both in the same situation. It’s not possible.

God is not forcing them to do right. He is preventing them from doing wrong.

Do you remember the Tower of Babel? Can God sew confusion among those who are proceeding along a path that He does not condone and halt any progress?

 

[PC_Master]

God is not forcing them to do right. He is preventing them from doing wrong.

Do you remember the Tower of Babel? Can God sew confusion among those who are proceeding along a path that He does not condone and halt any progress?

Interesting – however, if you’re saying God is guaranteeing to prevent them from being able to do wrong (in a certain circumstance), then he is, by definition, forcing them to do what’s right.

 

[YinYangMom]

I’m not suggesting that the entirety of church history is evil. I’m only suggesting that it hasn’t been totally God-honoring either.

No one here would argue with you about the history of members within the Catholic church doing evil things, but that has nothing to do with infallibility.
Infallibility comes into play only when we discuss the teachings of the church on faith and morals, how they came to the conclusions they did and such.

1. The holy spirit convinces me of this truth.

ok.

1. The Old Testament was around, and that tells a great deal about the will of God.

The council was debating (establishing) New Testament guidelines based upon the revelation they received from Jesus, when they walked with Him, and the Holy Spirit, when they received the rest of the Truth on Pentecost. The will of God they were ruling on pertained to His will for then and for the future, not for the past.

1. We have multiple accounts of the words of Jesus, and these things are completely in line with the decision made at the “Council of Jerusalem”.

Where are the multiple accounts of the words of Jesus declaring Gentiles did not need to be circumcised? The words of the Old Testament sided with having them circumcised and yet the Council ruled contrary to that teaching.

Catholics know the ruling of the Council was correct because the Church has the promise of our Lord that no teaching on matters of faith and morals from Her will ever be in error (infallibility).
Protestants know the ruling is right because the Holy Spirit tells each one individually whether or not a particular teaching is correct, but how can you know, in all confidence, that the revelation you are receiving is from the Holy Spirit and not Satan?

Consider abortion. The Church rules definitively on the matter. There are many Catholics and Protestants who agree with the church on this teaching. There are many who do not.

If one believes abortion is wrong at all times then you say they know this because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to them. But isn’t that the same answer those of faith who believe there are exceptions to the rule would give? Which person received the message from the Holy Spirit? Only the message from the Spirit can be true.

Catholics who follow the church’s teaching know their position is true because of the promise of our Lord that the church would never rule on such a matter in error. That their personal revelation from the Spirit coincides with the church’s assures them the revelation did indeed come from the Spirit.

Catholics and Protestants whose opinion contradicts that of the Church cannot truthfully claim the revelation they received is from the Holy Spirit, no matter how convinced they are personally, because that would mean the Holy Spirit lies. Impossible.

1. The persons involved in creating the gospels were either direct witnesses or second-hand witnesses…not 265 generations later as we have today.

I’m with you on that, just remember the gospels do not contain a record of all that Jesus did and said during his time with the apostles. They were never designed to be the only source of God’s truth, even the authors acknowledge this. They were recorded for posterity and for guidance to supplement/reinforce/authenticate the oral teachings of the early church fathers/leaders as they spread the good news (so the scriptures say).

1. I don’t believe God would have waited over 15 centuries to make a doctrine or dogma clear to his followers.

Doctrines and dogma are clarifications of the Truth revealed from the beginning. The Church cannot add to or contradict the Truth which was revealed to the apostles and preserved through Tradition. It not only doesn’t have the authority to do so, but it has the protection of the Holy Spirit to make sure it never happens.

Why is it difficult to believe in the stubborness of man and the power of the devil to confuse man as he struggles with coming to know God’s Truth? If the church called a council or synod or ruled on doctrine or dogma 25, 1500, or 5000 years after the Truth was revealed it is because the masses just aren’t grasping it and making matters worse by spreading lies (sometimes this comes from the church’s own priests and bishops which is one reason councils become necessary).

1. The further you are from the original source, the more likely you are to err.

That’s why we take comfort in the fact that the Church is the bride of Christ and that He is the head of the Church. It doesn’t get any closer than that even 2000+ years since He left this earth. That is, since his body left this earth. He has remained here in His church through apostolic succession and the Eucharist.

 

[YinYangMom]

Interesting – however, if you’re saying God is guaranteeing to prevent them from being able to do wrong (in a certain circumstance), then he is, by definition, forcing them to do what’s right.

As parents we often prevent our children from doing whatever they want when the environment is dangerous. This could be protecting them from the fireplace, from small shards of glass on the floor, whatever.

The child wills to run around or put his hand in the fire, but we either redirect his focus of attention to something safer or we physically restrain him. I suppose if that’s your definition of ‘force’ then it would be acceptable.

Force, in this context, is done out of love for our own safety because God knows better than we do, just as the older parent knows better than a 3 year old child. We are God’s children. Even when we are ‘forced’ to do what’s best for us despite our own desires, we can always trust that in the long run, it was the right thing to do at the time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting – however, if you’re saying God is guaranteeing to prevent them from being able to do wrong (in a certain circumstance), then he is, by definition, forcing them to do what’s right.

Actually, no.

There is a third option.

They can decide to do nothing.

They are not obligated to declare a teaching infallibly.

They can remain silent, pass over the matter, defer the decision for a future date, etc.

They cannot teach error, but they are not forced to teach truth.

 

[YinYangMom]

There is a third option.

They can decide to do nothing.

They are not obligated to declare a teaching infallibly.

They can remain silent, pass over the matter, defer the decision for a future date, etc.

They cannot teach error, but they are not forced to teach truth.

Ah, yes. Very good catch.
Sorry I missed that one.
You’re right. They aren’t forced to teach truth, they are prevented from teaching in error.

 

[ltravis]

Ah, yes. Very good catch.
Sorry I missed that one.
You’re right. They aren’t forced to teach truth, they are prevented from teaching in error.

Also, this may be a weak point, but couldn’t infallibility coexist with free will in that the pope and bishops originally used free will when they chose to submit themselves to positions that would be subject to infallibility? I mean, God didn’t force them to be in the magesterium, right?

LT

 

[fellowChristian]

Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations
and Approaches of Exegesis Today
by
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

But today, certain forms of exegesis are appearing which can only be explained as symptoms of the disintegration of interetation and hermeneutics. Materialist and feminist exegesis, whatever else may be said about them, do not even claim to be an understanding of the text itself in the manner in which it was originally intended. At best they may be seen as an expression of the view that the Bible’s nessage is in and of itself inexplicable, or else that it is meaningless for life in today’s world. In this sense, they are no longer interested in ascertaining the truth, but only in whatever will serve their own particular agenda. They go on to justify this combination of agenda with biblical material by saying that the many religious elements help strengthen the vitality of the treatment. Thus historical method can even serve as a cloak for such maneuvers insofar as it dissects the Bible into discontinuous pieces, which are then able to be put to new use and inserted into a new montage altogether different from the original biblical ontext.

christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm