Infallibility???

[Nate13]

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

very nice. Never thought of it like that before but this definitely sets a pretense for God revealing truth to Peter/successor to Peter directly. It didn’t take a consortium of the apostles to come to this conclusion but rather Peter himself was able to declare the truth as given to him directly from God.

 

[JRKH]

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.

The bolded is a good point and something that hopefully I can address for you.

Take you scenario - The Father leaves and tells the kids that the oldest boy is in charge and they are to do as he says (power to bind and loose and sitting on Moses seat). Now he also tells the oldest son that he needs to be careful and not lead the little ones astray. ( Mt 18:6…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.)

So the father leaves and later returns to find that the younger children were all obedient to the oldest boy, but the oldest had abused his authority and caused the younger children to gorge on ice cream, stay up too late and leave a mess…
Who does the father punish. The ones who were obedient? or the one left in charge?

Now lets make this more realistic and consider a King who leaves on a long journey and leave a steward in Charge of His kingdom with instructions to rule justly and that his subjects are to be obedient to the steward and other officials left in charge.
The King is long delayed and the original steward dies the king’s council appoints another, who abuses his power. The people, though burdened, remain true to the king by being obedient to the steward.
The king returns unexpectedly…Who will the king punish. The obedient subjects? Or rather will he not punish the abusive steward and forgive the obedient subjects.

This is the beauty of the “bind and Loose” authority. Gods words in Scripture help to ground us. The Magisterium guides us…and protects the teachings of the Church from error.
IF someone in authority abuses that office, Church teaching is highly unlikely to be affected, and any that are “led astray” are far more likely to be forgiven than the one who leads them astray.

I hope that helps some.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

I’m glad it helped some.

The thing that I like best about it is that, when one looks at these things together - passages and not just isolated verses - a real vision emerges of how the early church thought of authority.
I honestly cannot see how “listen to the Church” and “bind and loose” can be seen as anything other than spirit guided, Christ protected, infallible authority…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

very nice. Never thought of it like that before but this definitely sets a pretense for God revealing truth to Peter/successor to Peter directly. It didn’t take a consortium of the apostles to come to this conclusion but rather Peter himself was able to declare the truth as given to him directly from God.

This is true, but we should not forget the authority of ALL the Apostles/Bishops of the Church. The passage in Mt 18:15-18 and the council in Acts 15 clearly shows that when difficult questions come up, it is wise, even necessary, to seek the (name removed by moderator)ut of the wider church, taking council with each other in prayer and humble petition to the Spirit, to be sure that the correct interpretation is arrived at.

Peace
James

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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.

The verses that support the claim of infallibility of the Church are Genesis 1 and following. The entire Bible is the product of the Church’s mark of infallibility. If the Church did not have this mark of infallibility then the Bible could not have been made and it could not be venerated as the Written Word of God. You profess the infallibility of the Church every time you profess the Bible to be the written Word of God.

Any Church that does not claim to have this mark is ironically claiming to not be Christ’s True Church.

What is the Bible?
1.) A collection of Scriptures
2.) Written by man (sinners no less)
3.) Inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit (infallible)

Catholic Doctrine:
1.) Interpretations and definitions of Revealed Truths according to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
2.) Written by man (sinners no less)
3.) Inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit (infallible)

Ps. Santa was real. His name is Saint Nicholas.

 

[LaSainte]

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.

God set the hierarchy of the Church.

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.

But not until Vatican 1 did the Church declare infallibility…

 

[LaSainte]

The bolded is a good point and something that hopefully I can address for you.

Take you scenario - The Father leaves and tells the kids that the oldest boy is in charge and they are to do as he says (power to bind and loose and sitting on Moses seat). Now he also tells the oldest son that he needs to be careful and not lead the little ones astray. ( Mt 18:6…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.)

So the father leaves and later returns to find that the younger children were all obedient to the oldest boy, but the oldest had abused his authority and caused the younger children to gorge on ice cream, stay up too late and leave a mess…
Who does the father punish. The ones who were obedient? or the one left in charge?

Now lets make this more realistic and consider a King who leaves on a long journey and leave a steward in Charge of His kingdom with instructions to rule justly and that his subjects are to be obedient to the steward and other officials left in charge.
The King is long delayed and the original steward dies the king’s council appoints another, who abuses his power. The people, though burdened, remain true to the king by being obedient to the steward.
The king returns unexpectedly…Who will the king punish. The obedient subjects? Or rather will he not punish the abusive steward and forgive the obedient subjects.

This is the beauty of the “bind and Loose” authority. Gods words in Scripture help to ground us. The Magisterium guides us…and protects the teachings of the Church from error.
IF someone in authority abuses that office, Church teaching is highly unlikely to be affected, and any that are “led astray” are far more likely to be forgiven than the one who leads them astray.

I hope that helps some.

Peace
James

Well, the father might not punish the little ones as harshly as the one he left in charge, but he would certainly say “When your brother told you to make all those prank calls, why didn’t you ude your own common sense to figure out that I would never approve of such things? You should have known better.”

 

[JRKH]

But not until Vatican 1 did the Church declare infallibility…

I believe that It would be more correct to say that at Vatican one the Church “defined” infallibility.

Peace
James

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But not until Vatican 1 did the Church declare infallibility…

The final infallible definition of canonical books came from the Council of Trent in 1556.

Some infallible declarations come from things being endangered…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, the father might not punish the little ones as harshly as the one he left in charge, but he would certainly say “When your brother told you to make all those prank calls, why didn’t you ude your own common sense to figure out that I would never approve of such things? You should have known better.”

Why didn’t Jesus tell the people this instead of observing and doing whatsoever they shall say to you, referencing those that sat on the seat of Moses?

 

[JRKH]

Well, the father might not punish the little ones as harshly as the one he left in charge, but he would certainly say “When your brother told you to make all those prank calls, why didn’t you use your own common sense to figure out that I would never approve of such things? You should have known better.”

Well certainly we will all have a certain culpability, but - as you say above, the father will certainly punish the leader more severely than the followers.
This is especially so if the followers are doing so in an honest manner.

Take the kingdom example - if a steward abuses his authority but the subjects obey him because the king told them to, in other words, so far as they know they are obeying the king, then their culpability is reduced to near zero.

Peace
James

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

But not until Vatican 1 did the Church declare infallibility…

This is not true…the Church has always declared infallibillity. The doctrine just wasnt defined dogmatically until 1870. The Church makes doctrines dogmatic when they go from being held as a common belief of the failful to being attacked by either the faithful or those outside the Church. The Trinity wasn’t dogmatically defind until the Creed but does this mean the Church did not believe in the Trinity until then?

 

[Ignatius1979]

Credo you are right the Church always has declared infallibility, but it is the Church as you said it. The Bishops togetherin Counfil, not to one person. You are also rightr in saying the Church proclaims Dogma becuase of some attack or distortion of the fairh. However, the Popes role and correctness was under the scope for almost a 1000 years by that point. If it was so, it should have been deflared long before then.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Credo you are right the Church always has declared infallibility, but it is the Church as you said it. The Bishops togetherin Counfil, not to one person. You are also rightr in saying the Church proclaims Dogma becuase of some attack or distortion of the fairh. However, the Popes role and correctness was under the scope for almost a 1000 years by that point. If it was so, it should have been deflared long before then.

Blessing Ignatius,

I believe the infallibility of the Church resides in both the Council of Bishops and in one person the Pope. Personally I do not see the Popes role as something new or foreign to the Church. Since the beginning of creation God has appointed one man as representative of all His people. The first being Adam, and so on. I see the Old Testament patriarchs as a prefiguring of the New Testament Fathers (Popes) where in the Old Testament the patriarch’s sat on the Chair of Moses but now in the New Testament they sit on the Chair of Peter as Christ so willed it to be in Matthew 16:18.

ISAIAH 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
ISAIAH 22:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
ISAIAH 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
ISAIAH 22:23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

**MATTHEW 16:16 **And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
MATTHEW 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
MATTHEW 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
MATTHEW 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I know this will not change what you believe. I just wanted to give you a short and simple reason for why I believe it.

God Bless

 

[LaSainte]

Credo you are right the Church always has declared infallibility, but it is the Church as you said it. The Bishops togetherin Counfil, not to one person. You are also rightr in saying the Church proclaims Dogma becuase of some attack or distortion of the fairh. However, the Popes role and correctness was under the scope for almost a 1000 years by that point. If it was so, it should have been deflared long before then.

I guess this is where I get stuck on the issue of contraception and everyone saying it has been infallibly taught. It’s mostly the third form of infallibility, the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. I see in the Bible where Peter lays the smackdown and settles disputes (is this infallibility? I don’t know about that, but I can see how this could be interpreted as such), and I see in Acts how the bishops come together and decide on an issue (again, I can see how one might interpret this as infallibility). My problem is this “constant teaching of the magisterium” aspect of infallibility. This is WAYYYY too vague and seems like the Church is far overreaching here. Just because something has been taught for a certain (undetermined) amount of time it is supposed to be infallible? Yikes.

Even canon law doesn’t really jibe with this, saying that nothing is considered infallible unless it is CLEARLY determined and stated (if someone can find that canon it would be helpful, but I don’t have it on me right now).

 

[Nate13]

I guess this is where I get stuck on the issue of contraception and everyone saying it has been infallibly taught. It’s mostly the third form of infallibility, the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. I see in the Bible where Peter lays the smackdown and settles disputes (is this infallibility? I don’t know about that, but I can see how this could be interpreted as such), and I see in Acts how the bishops come together and decide on an issue (again, I can see how one might interpret this as infallibility). My problem is this “constant teaching of the magisterium” aspect of infallibility. This is WAYYYY too vague and seems like the Church is far overreaching here. Just because something has been taught for a certain (undetermined) amount of time it is supposed to be infallible? Yikes.

Even canon law doesn’t really jibe with this, saying that nothing is considered infallible unless it is CLEARLY determined and stated (if someone can find that canon it would be helpful, but I don’t have it on me right now).

Do you have a problem with any of the other teachings that have been laid down through the infallibility of the Pope?

 

[Bookcat]

Even canon law doesn’t really jibe with this, saying that nothing is considered infallible unless it is CLEARLY determined and stated (if someone can find that canon it would be helpful, but I don’t have it on me right now).

Actually Canon Law is not saying such…

It is noting doctrines are not understood as “defined” infallibly unless it is manifestly evident.

A defining act is an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope or the action of an ecumenical council defining something (in communion etc with the Successor of Peter)

A doctrine that is taught infallibly via the universal ordinary Magisterium is not being spoken of here. It is only speaking to what I note above.

(See the CDF document on the Professio)

 

[TimothyH]

Why not put all of the intellectual weight lifting aside and step out in obedience in spite of disbelief or inability to uderstand? Many times in the Bible people didn’t understand, yet the followed out of obedience, and it led them somehwere.

They brought the boy to him. And when he saw him, the spirit immediately threw the boy into convulsions. As he fell to the ground, he began to roll around and foam at the mouth. Then he questioned his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” He replied, “Since childhood. It has often thrown him into fire and into water to kill him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus said to him, " ‘If you can!’ Everything is possible to one who has faith." Then the boy’s father cried out, “I do believe, help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:20-24)

The boy’s father is my hero. He strugges with belief and with understanding. But he makes a concious decision to believe that which he struggles to comprehend and cries out for Jesus to help him with the rest. And Jesus response is to give him reason to believe by curing his son. He struggles to trust. God teaches him to trust.

Why not just take a deep breath and say, “OK, God, I trust you. I trust that you are God and that your Church would never teach error. Help me to believe that.” and then start doing what the Church says? In my life, I have reached a threshold where the Church has been right enough times that I trust her. Every time I didn’t understand or found something difficult to believe but stepped out in obedience anyway, God proved to me that the Church is right. And so I have learned to trust the Church.

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.

Forgive me if I presume too much but I don’t think this is a problem with understanding a specific doctrine of the Church such as infallibiity as much as it is a problem with an ability to trust the Church - to trust God - that he would give us such a Church. So I think you have to ask yourself why you find it difficult to trust the Church. What is holding you back from trusting the Church? What are you afraid will happen if you do? Where does that fear come from?

If the Church is wrong, you can always go back to not trusting her.

-Tim-

 

[LaSainte]

Do you have a problem with any of the other teachings that have been laid down through the infallibility of the Pope?

Aren’t there only 2 or 3 of those having to do with the Immaculate conception and the Assumption of Mary? If so, then no, I have no problem with those (although I do wonder where those teachings actually derive from since they are not evident to me from scripture. Then again, since I have never really had a problem with these doctrines, I have never studied them in depth.)

 

[LaSainte]

Why not put all of the intellectual weight lifting aside and step out in obedience in spite of disbelief or inability to uderstand? Many times in the Bible people didn’t understand, yet the followed out of obedience, and it led them somehwere.

They brought the boy to him. And when he saw him, the spirit immediately threw the boy into convulsions. As he fell to the ground, he began to roll around and foam at the mouth. Then he questioned his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” He replied, “Since childhood. It has often thrown him into fire and into water to kill him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus said to him, " ‘If you can!’ Everything is possible to one who has faith." Then the boy’s father cried out, "I do believe, help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:20-24)

The boy’s father is my hero. He strugges with belief and with understanding. But he makes a concious decision to believe that which he struggles to comprehend and cries out for Jesus to help him with the rest. And Jesus response is to give him reason to believe by curing his son. He struggles to trust. God teaches him to trust.

Why not just take a deep breath and say, “OK, God, I trust you. I trust that you are God and that your Church would never teach error. Help me to believe that.” and then start doing what the Church says? In my life, I have reached a threshold where the Church has been right enough times that I trust her. Every time I didn’t understand or found something difficult to believe but stepped out in obedience anyway, God proved to me that the Church is right. And so I have learned to trust the Church.

Forgive me if I presume too much but I don’t think this is a problem with understanding a specific doctrine of the Church such as infallibiity as much as it is a problem with an ability to trust the Church - to trust God - that he would give us such a Church. So I think you have to ask yourself why you find it difficult to trust the Church. What is holding you back from trusting the Church? What are you afraid will happen if you do? Where does that fear come from?

If the Church is wrong, you can always go back to not trusting her.

-Tim-

Thank you for this. This is what I am trying to do re: contraception. I don’t believe in the doctrine, as much as I have tried to, but I follow it nonetheless…for now. I worry though that because I don’t truly believe in it, I do not have the fortitude to follow it to the extreme. For example, I am about to deliver baby #2, and we do NOT want nor can we handle any more. I will use NFP after the birth and try to pit my trust in God, but I’d the method fails and we have another baby, I cannot see myself continuing to use it. I NEED to believe if I am tomcarry it through no matter what. Right now, I just don’t. If I thought honestly that ABC (non-abortive) was wrong, this would be a piece of cake for me. I do not do things that I believe are wrong, period. Does that make sense?