Infallibility???

[LaSainte]

Any problems I have with certain Church teachings I believe really come back to the question of infallibility and Church authority. I think if I could resolve this issue for myself then everything else would basically fall into place.

Here are a few concerns I have: people always use the statement that Christ said He would not leave us orphans as a promise of infallibility. I don’t see this AT ALL.

People also use the statement of Christ that He would guide us into all truth as proof of infallibility. There is a difference between being guided into truth and possessing the infallible truth about all faith and morals at any given time.

I don’t see anything specific about infallibility anywhere in scripture, and the Church itself didn’t even broach the subject until quite recently, which seems sort of “convenient” to me.

On top of that, every time there is a mistake made by the Church or a pope, somebody goes through what seems like a lot of legalistic verbal gymnastics to somehow prove that such and such was never “declared ex cathedra” or “consistently taught by the magisterium” or “true Church doctrine” or some such thing to prove that it “doesn’t count” or something, when in reality, Jesus never talked about infallibility that we know of and CERTAINLY not in such detail that this kind of hair-splitting about it makes any sense whatsoever.

Believe me, I have done MASSIVE research on this. I understand the “primary and secondary objects of infallibility” and the ordinary universal magisterium vs. Ex cathedra statements, etc., so I don’t need any of that kind of information.

I’m also not looking for the argument that if the Church is wrong about one thing then everything else would be trash, because that’s just not true. Just because my Mom told me Santa was real or was wrong about an answer when she was helping me with my homework in the 4th grade doesn’t mean I can’t trust anything she says to this day.

I’m really searching here and I just haven’t found anything to satisfy these nagging doubts and questions I have about infallibility

Of course, I have faith in the Church, but I have a hard time understanding or putting total confidence in this doctrine.

 

[silicasandra]

I’m looking forward to answers on this too. I am not as well read as LaSainte or many of the other people on this forum about Church teaching, but I would like to learn, as well as know some good resources. Personal research into this topic leaves me seriously overwhelmed.

 

[Little_One0307]

I am going to be watching this thread too. I will respond to it when I get the time. It’s getting closer to dinner time.

God bless.

 

[Bookcat]

A course at Franciscan University of Steubenville or like Universities…(including one of my favorite things…books!) is best for such in depth exploration…

Not an internet forum.

Too limited for such.

The suitable means must be chosen to fit the end.

An extensive course…for it is such is a wonderfully deep and splendid topic.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Any problems I have with certain Church teachings I believe really come back to the question of infallibility and Church authority. I think if I could resolve this issue for myself then everything else would basically fall into place.

Here are a few concerns I have: people always use the statement that Christ said He would not leave us orphans as a promise of infallibility. I don’t see this AT ALL.

People also use the statement of Christ that He would guide us into all truth as proof of infallibility. There is a difference between being guided into truth and possessing the infallible truth about all faith and morals at any given time.

I don’t see anything specific about infallibility anywhere in scripture, and the Church itself didn’t even broach the subject until quite recently, which seems sort of “convenient” to me.

On top of that, every time there is a mistake made by the Church or a pope, somebody goes through what seems like a lot of legalistic verbal gymnastics to somehow prove that such and such was never “declared ex cathedra” or “consistently taught by the magisterium” or “true Church doctrine” or some such thing to prove that it “doesn’t count” or something, when in reality, Jesus never talked about infallibility that we know of and CERTAINLY not in such detail that this kind of hair-splitting about it makes any sense whatsoever.

Believe me, I have done MASSIVE research on this. I understand the “primary and secondary objects of infallibility” and the ordinary universal magisterium vs. Ex cathedra statements, etc., so I don’t need any of that kind of information.

I’m also not looking for the argument that if the Church is wrong about one thing then everything else would be trash, because that’s just not true. Just because my Mom told me Santa was real or was wrong about an answer when she was helping me with my homework in the 4th grade doesn’t mean I can’t trust anything she says to this day.

I’m really searching here and I just haven’t found anything to satisfy these nagging doubts and questions I have about infallibility

Of course, I have faith in the Church, but I have a hard time understanding or putting total confidence in this doctrine.

What is your question exactly? Are you looking for Biblical verification, or historical evidence of this belief?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Any problems I have with certain Church teachings I believe really come back to the question of infallibility and Church authority. I think if I could resolve this issue for myself then everything else would basically fall into place.

Here are a few concerns I have: people always use the statement that Christ said He would not leave us orphans as a promise of infallibility. I don’t see this AT ALL.

People also use the statement of Christ that He would guide us into all truth as proof of infallibility. There is a difference between being guided into truth and possessing the infallible truth about all faith and morals at any given time.

First let me suggest you observe specifically the audience that Christ was speaking too, when He made His promises. He was speaking only to His apostles, those He chose and appointed over His Church. Statements were made such as ‘forever’, or ‘until the consummation of the world’. These were mortal men that Christ knew would eventually die a fleshly death. Christ spoke to the positions He chose and appointed; He was speaking to His authoritative Church.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
Joh 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more. But you see me: because I live, and you shall live.
Joh 14:20 In that day you shall know that I am in my Father: and you in me, and I in you.
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine; but the Father’s who sent me.
Joh 14:25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.
Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Read prior to John 14 and through to chapter 18. No other, than the apostles, were present until chapter 18, when they came to arrest Him.

When reading scriptures, observe the audience that Christ addressed. Teachings were different between multitudes and those He chose and appointed. with more specific instructions to those He chose and appointed.

Another place that shows the confidence of Christ that God’s truth was protected, and will always be, even through sinful men is found in His instructions to everyone to observe and do whatsoever those that sat on the seat of Moses said to them. Christ gave these instructions knowing He was about building His Church prior to His passion.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[JRKH]

I wrote the following some time ago. Perhaps it will help you.

The passages below seem to me to be a clear demonstration of Christ’s authority and how He passed it on to the Church.
Now before going further, let me clarify that, in the Greek, the word for sin used in the following passages is “Hamartano”, and it means, “to miss the mark or to err”. Certainly spreading a false doctrine is to “err” and “miss the mark”. Therefore the following is just as applicable to “doctrinal” error as it is to disobeying one of the 10 commandments.

Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us:

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. They will point to the passage following this one where Jesus says, “where two or three are gathered in my name I will be there with them” as proof. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?

Matthew 16: 17-19
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with Authority to Bind and loose. Bind and Loose What? Bind and Loose “Whatever”. This is a Pretty Broad latitude.
But then this begs the question of Jesus Authority to grant this power.

Matthew 28: 18-20
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Since this passage is given after Jesus Resurrection, it’s safe to say that Jesus Had “The Father’s” ear. In other words His Resurrection was certainly sufficient to Prove His divinity. So Now He has been given Authority in Heaven and Earth. He in turn gave authority to His Church, soon to be founded upon the Rock of Peter (Kepha). This Authority is to Bind, Loose, hold and teach the Truth of the Gospel.

Finally as to the issue of obeying the Church, I will again point to the Masters own words. When Jesus was teaching in Matthew about the Jewish Law and the interpretations thereof, He sternly reprimanded the Jewish leadership and He did so publicly, but what did He tell the Faithful Jewish “laymen”? He told them:

“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)

Jesus is saying that the teaching of the Jewish leaders remains binding and valid even though the leaders themselves are sinful men. Jesus thus establishes that, under the Old Covenant, those who “Sit on the seat of Moses” have the power to bind and loose. Under the New covenant, that Power resides in those who sit on the “Chair of Peter”, who was selected by Christ to Lead His Church. So when Jesus respected the Office and Authority of the Jewish leadership, He was in effect respecting the Teaching Authority of the Church.
Even if the Church were to teach something in error, it is still up to us to obey her as the rightful steward of Christ the King. The King will deal harshly with the offenders, and mercifully with His faithful servants. I shudder to think what He will do to those who not only reject but also vilify the Authority He established and has maintained for so long.

This Church is not simply a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance. No different than the system set –up in the OT of Priests and Elders teaching and enforcing the Law from the temple.

The great example in the Bible of the idea of Authority and taking it to the Church is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts (Acts 15:1-29). If the Church was a “body of believers” and not an “institution” then why did Paul feel the need to bring the issue of circumcision to the Apostles (Church Leadership). It was because Jesus told them to “Tell it to the Church”.

Once at the Council, things did not run all that smoothly, there was much debate until Peter Spoke and quieted it. Even once the decision had been made in Council it is logical to assume that there were varying degrees of “acceptance” among the individuals who debated so forcefully earlier. This would only be human nature. However All of them accepted the decision of the Council and submitted their own misgivings to the authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Even St Paul demonstrates this unity by preaching and writing to various Churches throughout the Greek world to assure that all are receiving the same Gospel and that none stray from the path of Truth. He assures us that “All Scripture is useful” 2Tim 3:16-17) but he tells us too that it is The Church that is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.(1Tim 3:15) How could St Paul tell us this if He did not confess that The Church was one, and led by the “Spirit of Truth”, the Paraclete?

To me it is the sum of all of these - a truly consistent thread running through Scripture that is the most powerful biblical evidence for Church Authority.

Peace
James

 

[LilyM]

Well, for one thing if your mother turns out to be wrong about there being a Santa or broccoli being good for you or whatever, the consequences are trivial compared to the church being wrong about matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Our eternal salvation, our relationship with and understanding of God, is dependent on the Church getting it right.

There’s also the question of how it reflects on God that, on your view, He would deliberately conceal Himself and His truth from us and leave us groping in the dark without clear guidance in the way you suggest. A bit odd for Him who condemned the Jewish religious leaders as the blind leading the blind to then turn around and, by not leaving someone with His own teaching authority (which necessarily must be infallible on the essential points as His was), to leave us exactly as blind as we were before He came.

 

[Blacksword]

Any problems I have with certain Church teachings I believe really come back to the question of infallibility and Church authority. I think if I could resolve this issue for myself then everything else would basically fall into place.

Here are a few concerns I have: people always use the statement that Christ said He would not leave us orphans as a promise of infallibility. I don’t see this AT ALL.

People also use the statement of Christ that He would guide us into all truth as proof of infallibility. There is a difference between being guided into truth and possessing the infallible truth about all faith and morals at any given time.

I don’t see anything specific about infallibility anywhere in scripture, and the Church itself didn’t even broach the subject until quite recently, which seems sort of “convenient” to me.

On top of that, every time there is a mistake made by the Church or a pope, somebody goes through what seems like a lot of legalistic verbal gymnastics to somehow prove that such and such was never “declared ex cathedra” or “consistently taught by the magisterium” or “true Church doctrine” or some such thing to prove that it “doesn’t count” or something, when in reality, Jesus never talked about infallibility that we know of and CERTAINLY not in such detail that this kind of hair-splitting about it makes any sense whatsoever.

Believe me, I have done MASSIVE research on this. I understand the “primary and secondary objects of infallibility” and the ordinary universal magisterium vs. Ex cathedra statements, etc., so I don’t need any of that kind of information.

I’m also not looking for the argument that if the Church is wrong about one thing then everything else would be trash, because that’s just not true. Just because my Mom told me Santa was real or was wrong about an answer when she was helping me with my homework in the 4th grade doesn’t mean I can’t trust anything she says to this day.

I’m really searching here and I just haven’t found anything to satisfy these nagging doubts and questions I have about infallibility

Of course, I have faith in the Church, but I have a hard time understanding or putting total confidence in this doctrine.

Great post, will be following this with interest. I would agree with some things you seem to express here, I would say that I am Catholic because I believe that the Church is the closest to the full truth one can get. I believe over time, errors of human judgment based on extremes in personal thinking, societal blind spots, and other such human frailties are weeded out and corrected by the Holy Spirit. I have heard another poster say the same about the Church being the CLOSEST to the full truth so can’t claim credit for that concept, but there it is. God’s full truth is incomprehensible, and can never be revealed fly on Earth. But the Church has it closest, while still retaining the potential in some things for human error.

 

[Bookcat]

It is of course tied up with the nature of the Church…

These texts from Pope Benedict XVI will be helpful…they need though be read in the order given…(and take your time in reading…they are not meant to be skimmed …pour a nice cup of coffee…and enjoy)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060322_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060329_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060405_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060426_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060503_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060517_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060524_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060607_en.html

(he continues on from there…but those are the ones to read)

 

[Nate13]

Try this site: scroll down to the bottom of the page and there should be two or three clips related to you question. You need to have realplayer installed to listen though but its free online if you don’t have it. Scott Hahn does a great job at showing the biblical base behind the belief.

salvationhistory.com/library/category/audio_resources

 

[Ignatius1979]

All of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose and forgive sins. Peter in particular was given the keys, hence his position of Primacy. A study of the Church up until the split of Orthodox and Catholic will show that this seat of Primacy was certainly exercised and practiced but there was not the idea of absoulte authority. The other Bishops would appeal to Rome when needed, yet it was still at their discreation to follow the decision. We can see this even in the bible in Acts when the Apostles gathered to discuss if the Gentiles should be circumcised. There was debate and a collective decision made on the outcome which was confirmed by St. James as the presiding Bishop of Jerusalem. ST. Peter’s opinion certainly was held in high regard. The subsequent councils followed this same pattern with the issued document proclaming the decisions made using language such as “it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit…” Infallibility wasnt given to one perso in general, but as a collection of the Bishops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This gift of doesnt apply to an assembly of lay people however, but to the Bishops gathered together in the name of the Lord to guide the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM

 

[LaSainte]

First let me suggest you observe specifically the audience that Christ was speaking too, when He made His promises. He was speaking only to His apostles, those He chose and appointed over His Church. Statements were made such as ‘forever’, or ‘until the consummation of the world’. These were mortal men that Christ knew would eventually die a fleshly death. Christ spoke to the positions He chose and appointed; He was speaking to His authoritative Church.

Read prior to John 14 and through to chapter 18. No other, than the apostles, were present until chapter 18, when they came to arrest Him.

When reading scriptures, observe the audience that Christ addressed. Teachings were different between multitudes and those He chose and appointed. with more specific instructions to those He chose and appointed.

Another place that shows the confidence of Christ that God’s truth was protected, and will always be, even through sinful men is found in His instructions to everyone to observe and do whatsoever those that sat on the seat of Moses said to them. Christ gave these instructions knowing He was about building His Church prior to His passion.

Wasn’t all of this though Jesus predicting Pentecost, and not conferring infallibility upon the leaders of the Church? And how from this do we extrapolate the idea of ex-cathedra statements and the constant teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium? It just seems like about 150 years ago the Church decided it was infallible and came up with VERY specific criteria for it which applies when it is convenient and doesn’t apply when it isn’t. Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

 

[LaSainte]

All of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose and forgive sins. Peter in particular was given the keys, hence his position of Primacy. A study of the Church up until the split of Orthodox and Catholic will show that this seat of Primacy was certainly exercised and practiced but there was not the idea of absoulte authority. The other Bishops would appeal to Rome when needed, yet it was still at their discreation to follow the decision. We can see this even in the bible in Acts when the Apostles gathered to discuss if the Gentiles should be circumcised. There was debate and a collective decision made on the outcome which was confirmed by St. James as the presiding Bishop of Jerusalem. ST. Peter’s opinion certainly was held in high regard. The subsequent councils followed this same pattern with the issued document proclaming the decisions made using language such as “it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit…” Infallibility wasnt given to one perso in general, but as a collection of the Bishops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This gift of doesnt apply to an assembly of lay people however, but to the Bishops gathered together in the name of the Lord to guide the Church.

I see where we get the Pope, and where we get bishops and priests, and how they would come together and make decisions guided by the Holy Spirit. However, I just can’t see how this extends to infallibility.

It’s one thing for a Dad to leave the oldest son in charge of the kids while he’s away, but that in no way means that the oldest son can’t screw it up somehow if he misinterprets the father’s wishes or take advantage of the power he was given.

 

[LaSainte]

(Cont)

Even St Paul demonstrates this unity by preaching and writing to various Churches throughout the Greek world to assure that all are receiving the same Gospel and that none stray from the path of Truth. He assures us that “All Scripture is useful” 2Tim 3:16-17) but he tells us too that it is The Church that is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.(1Tim 3:15) How could St Paul tell us this if He did not confess that The Church was one, and led by the “Spirit of Truth”, the Paraclete?

To me it is the sum of all of these - a truly consistent thread running through Scripture that is the most powerful biblical evidence for Church Authority.

Peace
James

Hmmm some good things to think about. Thanks for this.

I’m still not quite sure about how this can be strictly tied to how the Church claims infallibility as it exists today, but some good food for thought.

 

[LaSainte]

Well, for one thing if your mother turns out to be wrong about there being a Santa or broccoli being good for you or whatever, the consequences are trivial compared to the church being wrong about matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Our eternal salvation, our relationship with and understanding of God, is dependent on the Church getting it right.

There’s also the question of how it reflects on God that, on your view, He would deliberately conceal Himself and His truth from us and leave us groping in the dark without clear guidance in the way you suggest. A bit odd for Him who condemned the Jewish religious leaders as the blind leading the blind to then turn around and, by not leaving someone with His own teaching authority (which necessarily must be infallible on the essential points as His was), to leave us exactly as blind as we were before He came.

I don’t see God as deliberately concealing Himself, but as Jesus said, guiding us into the truth, which is essentially what He did with the Jews as well. People are ready to accept different truths at different times, which is why we have the development of doctrines over centuries. People make mistakes or misinterpret things. I don’t see that as God concealing himself.

 

[Nate13]

Peter receiving the “keys” from Jesus the King is precluded in the Old Testament. In Isaiah, it talks about how the prime minister to the King was given the “keys” to city and was given the power to open and close the door into the city. If you read the actual text you see very striking similarities in the way it is worded in Isaiah to how Jesus word’s way he says to Peter. He makes Peter his “Prime Minister” and so fulfills the Old Testament and how the Kings of old appointed a prime minister. There is also a great relation for our views of Mary in the Old Testament and how the Kings gave a position of honor to their mother’s and seated them at their right hand. The Queen Mother was also tasked with hearing the complaints of the citizens, and bringing worthy inquiries to the attention of her son. It is only right that Jesus would fulfill this in the new covenant and appoint a position of honor to his Mother.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wasn’t all of this though Jesus predicting Pentecost, and not conferring infallibility upon the leaders of the Church? And how from this do we extrapolate the idea of ex-cathedra statements and the constant teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium? It just seems like about 150 years ago the Church decided it was infallible and came up with VERY specific criteria for it which applies when it is convenient and doesn’t apply when it isn’t. Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

Pentecost was an event that took place before many of those He chose and appointed has passed, and many years prior to ‘forever’ and ‘until the consummation of the world’.

Christ singled ‘one’ out, and granted specific authority to Peter not given to all. Christ said it was the Father that chose Peter through revelation.

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

God set the hierarchy of the Church.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

We can find many writings of the early Church fathers that support the primacy of offices in the Church, many years prior to ‘150 years, or so,’ ago.

Throughout the Church’s history many things had to be declared ‘ex-cathredra’, as teachings became endangered, through many different interpretations. It’s almost as if teachings were widely accepted, or taken for granted that everyone understood and believed. Only in the face of erroneous interpretation and teaching did the Church feel it necessary to make a declaration from the seat of Peter.