Is the Catholic Church infallible?

[Timi_Celcer]

First of all i know Catholics point out some bible “verses” for infallibility like that binding or loosing,… But i have some questions (because i want to know the truth). First did He gave that right (to bind and loose, to forgive sins or retain them,…) to only the Apostoles or to theirs successors too? If yes successors too, then where are any successors of the Apostoles mentioned in the Bible and where in the Bible does He gives them that authority?

Second in 1 Peter 2:5–9 it says that we (believers) are all holy priesthood (correct me if im wrong) so if we are all holy priesthood and the Church i think consists of priests, does that mean that we are all, not only the present priest that became priests but all believers cannot make a mistake about faith because He is with us. So did he actually gave that infallibility to us, the holy priesthood (believers) who are the Church and not only to the ones who are the leaders of the Church(pope) or the ones we usually call priests? Am i assuming correct here?

Also if the Church would be infallible and they did a right thing in the times of crusades, Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica,injustices to women,…why did then pope John Paul II apologize for these things? Did he admitted that the Church did a wrong decision which would of been impossible if the Church is infallible?

 

[The_Wizard]

Someone with a lot more “smarts” then me will be able to give you a more complete answer. But a simple answer to your question is the Church is not infallible in everything. Only in matters of faith and morals does the Church claim infallibility. Many people THINK they know what the Church teaches because they have heard “sound bites”. As with many things it is more complex than “one liners”.

 

[1ke]

First of all i know Catholics point out some bible “verses” for infallibility like that binding or loosing,… But i have some questions (because i want to know the truth). First did He gave that right (to bind and loose, to forgive sins or retain them,…) to only the Apostoles or to theirs successors too? If yes successors too, then where are any successors of the Apostoles mentioned in the Bible and where in the Bible does He gives them that authority?

Yes, authority to bind and loose is for all Bishops, including the successors. You have only to read the New Testament where the Apostles appointed bishops over newly formed churches.

Second in 1 Peter 2:5–9 it says that we (believers) are all holy priesthood (correct me if im wrong) so if we are all holy priesthood and the Church i think consists of priests, does that mean that we are all, not only the present priest that became priests but all believers cannot make a mistake about faith because He is with us. So did he actually gave that infallibility to us, the holy priesthood (believers) who are the Church and not only to the ones who are the leaders of the Church(pope) or the ones we usually call priests? Am i assuming correct here?

No, you are not correct here.

The priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood are not the same thing.

I would suggest that you obtain a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (hopefully one is available in your native language) and read the section on the Church and on Infallibility.

Also if the Church would be infallible and they did a right thing in the times of crusades, Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica,injustices to women,…why did then pope John Paul II apologize for these things?

What the Pope apologized for was the behavior and actions of individuals, not the Church.

Did he admitted that the Church did a wrong decision which would of been impossible if the Church is infallible?

No.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

1ke

You said that apostoles apointed bishops but where does He appoints them? Or where does He says to his apostoles that their successor have the same authority as apostoles?

Is ministerial priesthood mentioned in the bible? As far as i know there is only one priesthood mentioned and that is the priesthood of believers.

1Actually pope John Paul II apologized to everyone who suffered at the hands of the Catholic Churchs. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

 

[1ke]

1ke

You said that apostoles apointed bishops but where does He appoints them? Or where does He says to his apostoles that their successor have the same authority as apostoles?

Again, I encourage you to get a copy of the Catechism and read the entire section on the Church and on Infallibility.

Actually pope John Paul II apologized to everyone who suffered at the hands of the Catholic Churchs. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

There are sinful people in the Church, who acted badly, for which the Pope offered an apology.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

The crusade as far as i know was started by the pope and pope John Paul II apologized for the sins for the sins committed in the name of the church through the ages. Here is the article if you woud like to read:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html

 

[bzkoss236]

The crusade as far as i know was started by the pope and pope John Paul II apologized for the sins for the sins committed in the name of the church through the ages. Here is the article if you woud like to read:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html

Educate yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=Za8iE0RPz0U

Again, his apologies were of people who acted outside of their mission, and not the actions of the Church as a whole.

Also, infallibility does not mean impeccability. People in the Church, even the Pope, can and do sin (some more than others). The Pope goes to confession just like the rest of us faithful Catholics. The infallibility lies with the office, and even then the things he says is limited as to it’s infallibility.

There are 3 kinds of infallibility:

1. Papal infallibility (infallibility of the Pope)
2. Magisterial infallibility (infallibility of the Magisterium [communion of bishops])
3. Ecclesiastical (I think that’s what it is called) infallibility (infallibility of the whole Church body as is directly evident)

In short, yes, the Church is infallible, but individual members are not impeccable; meaning they are liable to sin.

 

[ahs]

The crusade as far as i know was started by the pope and pope John Paul II apologized for the sins for the sins committed in the name of the church through the ages. Here is the article if you woud like to read:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html

Right…the Church, while infallible, has men in it…and *men *are sinful creatures. Do not confuse “infallibility” with “impeccability”. The Church does not err when declaring Truths about Faith and Morals. However, men in the Church err at times in sinful choices they make.

An example of and Apostle appointing a Bishop would by Paul laying hands upon Timothy. Read Paul’s 1st and 2nd Epistle to Timothy. You should also read the book of Acts where you will see the Church in action, including laying hands on men to confer on them the Holy Spirit and the offices in the Church. Paul talks about these roles as well in his other Epistles, such as those to the Corinthians.

 

[Pilgrim_333]

As I understand it, The Church, the rightly ordained Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome by virtue of the Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ via Apostolic succession claim, and rightly so, to be infallible in matters concerning the Christian Faith. This infallibility is not to be confused with impeccability.

 

[Gorgias]

You said that apostoles apointed bishops but where does He appoints them? Or where does He says to his apostoles that their successor have the same authority as apostoles?

Timi,

Jesus gave the apostles (in general) and Peter (in particular) the authority to make rules regarding the Church – in fact, He said that what they decided on earth would be held ratified in heaven. Therefore, Jesus didn’t need to say, “so make sure that you have successors, and make sure that you put fonts of holy water in churches at the entrance, and make sure that priests wear albs and stoles and chasubles” – He gave authority to the apostles, and the apostles’ exercise of that authority has Jesus’ stamp of approval. It’s like when you leave your kids with a babysitter: although you tell the babysitter what time your children should go to bed, you leave your children under the authority of the babysitter – what she says, goes! (Jesus goes one further, though: whereas a babysitter can make mistakes (e.g., giving the kids candy bars and sugary drinks before bedtime), Jesus has declared that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church against making doctrinal error!)

Also, I see that no one seems to have addressed the question of what ‘infallibility’ means. (Edited to add: It looks like ahs and pilgrim have touched upon exactly this thing! )

Infallibility doesn’t mean that every decision will be proper – rather, it only means that pronouncements about matters of faith and morals (that is, doctrine and dogma) will be free from doctrinal error, when these pronouncements are made in a particular set of circumstances. The notions you’ve mentioned – crusades, etc – don’t fall under this umbrella, and therefore, cannot ever be misunderstood as failures of infallibility.

 

[R_C]

The crusade as far as i know was started by the pope

The crusades were not wrong per se. There is quite a lot of prejudice and misinformation on the matter.

The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins.

For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece.

In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. That is what gave birth to the Crusades. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe, who nevertheless, willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission, impoverishing themselves and their families.

The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up.

Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished.

I have extensively quoted historian Thomas Madden, Ph.D.

 

[R_C]

First of all i know Catholics point out some bible “verses” for infallibility like that binding or loosing,… But i have some questions (because i want to know the truth)

One of the most important – and consequently most attacked – doctrines of the Catholic Church is the doctrine concerning the Church herself. The view that the Church is visible, hierarchical, authoritative and possessed of “all truth” forms a key understanding of all other Catholic doctrines.

Although Saint Paul speaks of the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” in I Timothy 3:15 (a passage which clearly shows that he considered the Church to be massively important) did Jesus want to found a Church? Scripture makes it clear that He did.

In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus says that He will build His Church. Jesus speaks of the Church again in Matthew 18:17-18. Jesus constantly tells the apostles to go out and spread the Gospel – Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16 – why would He do this if He did not wish to found some sort of community? This community is called the Church – and these Scriptures prove that Jesus intended to found one.

One of the major objections to the claims that the Church makes regarding herself is that she alone has authority to interpret God’s word in the Bible, and indeed to formally what the Christian religion is when it is revealed to her by the Holy Spirit. Many people who react badly to this are simply having a problem with any form of authority.

Scripture is clear that the Church has authority – in Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus delegates His power to the apostles. The authority to perform specific acts is given in other passages – John 20:23 (the power to forgive sin), I Corinthians 11:23-24 (the power to offer sacrifice, the Eucharist), Luke 10:16 (the power to speak with Christ’s voice), Matthew 18:18 (the power to legislate) and Matthew 18:17 (the power to discipline).

From a perspective of pure common sense and logic, what would be the point of founding a Church (which Christ clearly wanted to do) without giving her authority? If the Church has no power, what what is she? She is simply a collection of believers with no power to enforce laws or discipline those who are dissident – anyone could claim to be a member of her even if they denied all the tenets of her laws and beliefs! Organizations logically require authority over their members and authority to determine what the criteria for membership are; otherwise they are not organizations at all, but simply a label without a clear definition.

The Church is often described as bearing four “marks”.

One: the Church is unified, single and one. There are not two or three or more true Churches; there is a single Church which is the one Christ founded. Scripture is very clear that the Church must be one. Whenever Jesus speaks of the Church (or uses a metaphor such as flock or His body) He speaks in the singular. Additionally, the Scripture tells us to avoid divisions of all sorts – Romans 15:5, 16:17, I Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2. Jesus prays that “all may be one” - John 17:17-23. Other verses which show the fact that the Church must be one are; John 10:16, 17:23, Ephesians 4:3-6, I Corinthians 12:13, Romans 12:5 and Colossians 3:15.

Holy: If Jesus specifically founded something (as is shown above) and He intended it (or her) to have the authority to act in His place on Earth, who could it not be holy? If she is acting as Jesus does, does she not – in fact – need to actually be, in some way, Jesus Himself? The answer is found in the references in Scripture the fact that Jesus is married to the Church (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7, 21:2), the teaching that marriage makes man and wife one flesh, and the constant references in Scripture that the Church is Jesus’ Christ’s mystical body. A correct understanding of the nature of marriage is needed to understand the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Church. This does not mean that individual members of the Church are all impeccable (Matthew 13:27-30, Matthew 13:47-48).

Catholic: The word “catholic” means universal – the Church established by Jesus Christ must be universal and be found everywhere. Why is this necessary? If Jesus Christ came to save all men from their sins and directed His followers to preach to everyone (Matthew 28:18-20) then it is necessary that the Church be found in all those nations. The Church must have consistent theological teachings across all individual places of worship. She must be found on every continent and in virtually every country in the world, and must be constantly expanding.

Apostolic: Apostolic means that the Church claims genuine descent from the apostles who were selected and chosen by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ desired to found a Church which would contain genuine priests who were capable of acting in His place to administer the ordinary means of salvation, the sacraments - the notion of apostolic succession. In John 15:16 we see that Jesus chose men to be His apostles and in John 20:21 He gave them a special mission. Acts is full of examples of men being appointed to the office of priest by other priests – Acts 1:20 and 1:25-26 are the first example of apostolic succession, but this is followed by Acts 14:23. Saint Paul speaks of the creation of priests – giving instructions to do it in Titus 1:5 and II Timothy 2:2, and giving instructions to not do it too readily in I Timothy 5:22 (this passage refers to the laying on of hands – I Timothy 4:14 makes it clear that this is the means by which the priesthood is to be passed on). Saint Paul says, very clearly, in Ephesians 2:20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Clearly, therefore, Jesus wanted a Church which not only had a priesthood, but also a Church whose priesthood could claim legitimate descent from the apostles.
**
continued -->**

 

[R_C]

Additionally, simple logic tells us that the Church which has authority, is visible, is apostolic and which was founded specifically by God as the ordinary means of salvation has to be perpetual – would God create a Church which had all these characteristics which would only last for a few years or centuries? Yet there are people who do maintain that this is the case - the “theory of the great apostasy”.

Once again, both logic and Scripture show that the Church must be infallible in matters of religious teaching – if the Church must be perpetual, then she has to never teach something wrong. If she did teach something wrong then she would cease to be correct and therefore could no longer be considered to be Christ’s Church. If this were the case, then Christ’s promise that the Church would be perpetual would be incorrect. Additionally, the Scriptures contain many verses which support the notion that the Church is infallible and cannot make mistakes in teaching (although individual men can make mistakes and members of the Church are not impeccable). John 16:13 says that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth, and John 14:26 once again reaffirms this. The Church will “speak with Christ’s own voice” according to Luke 10:16 and the apostles speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:28. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth in I Timothy 3:16.

One of the problems which many non-Catholics have with the Catholic Church is the fact that, throughout history, since the days of the Apostles, there have been men and women in the Church who have been cruel, vicious, violent, hypocritical liars – and worse. How, a number of non-Catholics ask, can the Church be “the Bride of Christ” and “His Mystical Body” if it contains men who are not only imperfect but, in some cases, horrible monsters?

There are men who are members of the Church who have done terrible actions, but the Church herself has not condoned these actions. The teaching of the Church has always, throughout history, been perfectly in accord with the teaching of Jesus Christ.

The first example of this we see in the Gospels – Judas! Judas was one of Jesus’ chosen disciples, and yet he chose to betray Christ for money. Judas was one of the apostles, a central member of the early Church, and yet he was far from perfect. Saint Peter denied Christ, and he and most of Jesus’ followers fled when He was arrested. These men were far from perfect in their actions.

None of this means that the Christian faith as preached by these men is not perfect. In just the same way as a father can tell his son not to steal, and then go out and steal himself. This does not mean that the instruction to not steal is wrong – it merely means that the father is a hypocrite.

The Church remains perfect in her teaching and preaching; it is certain men who are members of her who are imperfect. What individual men say and do does not stain the Church herself, who is perfect and has always taught consistently and with authority from the days of the Apostles.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Again, I encourage you to get a copy of the Catechism and read the entire section on the Church and on Infallibility.

There are sinful people in the Church, who acted badly, for which the Pope offered an apology.

If you ask the Church what team will win the World Series this year, you probably will not get an “infallible” answer. But if you ask the Church to explain whether Adultery is sinful that answer would be infallible because it deals with faith and morals.

 

[KrazyKat]

Yes.

 

[pablope]

First of all i know Catholics point out some bible “verses” for infallibility like that binding or loosing,… But i have some questions (because i want to know the truth). First did He gave that right (to bind and loose, to forgive sins or retain them,…) to only the Apostoles or to theirs successors too?

Well…let me ask you instead…how are we going to continue to receive forgiveness through the apostles if they had no successors?

How would you apply this passage today if there are no successors to the Apostles:

1John 4:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world… 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

If yes successors too, then where are any successors of the Apostoles mentioned in the Bible and where in the Bible does He gives them that authority?

 

[JOE_OBERR]

First of all i know Catholics point out some bible “verses” for infallibility like that binding or loosing,… But i have some questions (because i want to know the truth). First did He gave that right (to bind and loose, to forgive sins or retain them,…) to only the Apostoles or to theirs successors too? If yes successors too, then where are any successors of the Apostoles mentioned in the Bible and where in the Bible does He gives them that authority?

Second in 1 Peter 2:5–9 it says that we (believers) are all holy priesthood (correct me if im wrong) so if we are all holy priesthood and the Church i think consists of priests, does that mean that we are all, not only the present priest that became priests but all believers cannot make a mistake about faith because He is with us. So did he actually gave that infallibility to us, the holy priesthood (believers) who are the Church and not only to the ones who are the leaders of the Church(pope) or the ones we usually call priests? Am i assuming correct here?

Also if the Church would be infallible and they did a right thing in the times of crusades, Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica,injustices to women,…why did then pope John Paul II apologize for these things? Did he admitted that the Church did a wrong decision which would of been impossible if the Church is infallible?

Timi,
Implicit in your question is that all Catholic doctrine and practice must be supported with bible verses. That is, if there are no bible verses indicating Jesus told the Apostles they had to appoint successor bishops or if there are no verses where the Apostles clearly appointed successor bishops, then, ipso facto, it is not supported in the bible and therefore must be a false doctrine and/or practice.
We must remember, though, that Christianity does not come from one’s guesswork on bible verses. Nor can it come from the bible itself as it does not interpret itself nor force its explanation on anyone. We also know from history this is the case as hundreds of thousands of Jews and Gentiles converted to Christianity in the first four centuries and long before the books of the bible, as we have it today, was decided by Catholic meetings or councils in the 390s.
Thousands of first century Christians, for instance, believed that Jesus was God, he was born of a virgin name Mary whose spouse was Joseph, he worked countless public miracles and had an immediate following of twelve men who continued spreading his gospel message after he was tortured to death and rose from the dead. Many of these first century Christians who accepted this gospel gave their lives for it. All this before anyone knew which of the 300 books written after Jesus died and were considered to one degree or another to be inspired actually were. That decision was not made until the 390s at a series of local Catholic Church meetings in Hippo, Carthage and Rome and approved by the Pope.
In short, the teaching that all Christian doctrine and practice must be supported by bible verses is a tradition of men, one started by a Catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther in the 1500s. We should believe the Gospel of Jesus, not the gospel of men as false gospels leads to error and sin and is extremely displeasing to Jesus who died to give us his Gospel. Jesus’ Gospel was taught directly to the Apostles who then preached it as the oral word of God as they were commanded to in Mk 16:15-16. The bible is the written word of God and teaches us salvation history, i.e., how God has intervened in history to save man from slavery to sin in order to lead us to happiness in this world and for eternity in the next. The oral word of God is the Catholic faith which has been practiced since Pentecost Sunday. This faith includes the power of the keys (Old Testament Isaiah 22:22) as well as Apostolic succession. Jesus had to establish that in order to insure the Gospel would be preached until the end of time.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I wish I had a nickel for every post on CAF about infallibility.

 

[steve_b]

First did He gave that right (to bind and loose, to forgive sins or retain them,…) to only the Apostoles or to theirs successors too? If yes successors too, then where are any successors of the Apostoles mentioned in the Bible and where in the Bible does He gives them that authority?

1. 
   *]After Judas hanged himself, the apostles appointed Matthias to replace him. Our Lord’s kingdom will last forever. It doesn’t die with the last apostle.
   *]Linus [2 Tim 4:21] and Clement [Phil 4:3] succeeded Peter in Rome as bishops after Peter was executed in Rome ~67 a.d.
   
   Clements Letter to the Corinthians settling sedition among that Church (he writes this during apostolic times. John is still alive)
   
   Ch 44
   Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties
   T:
   

   Second in 1 Peter 2:5–9 it says that we (believers) are all holy priesthood (correct me if im wrong) so if we are all holy priesthood and the Church i think consists of priests, does that mean that we are all, not only the present priest that became priests but all believers cannot make a mistake about faith because He is with us. So did he actually gave that infallibility to us, the holy priesthood (believers) who are the Church and not only to the ones who are the leaders of the Church(pope) or the ones we usually call priests? Am i assuming correct here?

   There’s a distinction catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-priesthood-is-both-ministerial-and-universal
   T:
   

   Also if the Church would be infallible and they did a right thing in the times of crusades, Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica,injustices to women,…why did then pope John Paul II apologize for these things? Did he admitted that the Church did a wrong decision which would of been impossible if the Church is infallible?

   1.Impeccability is doing nothing wrong. The Church has never claimed that.
   
   2.Infallibility as the CC uses it, has to do with teacing and defining matters concerning faith and morals ONLY. For example, when the pope, teaches & defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the entire Church, then the Holy Spirit promised to Peter, protects that teaching of the pope, successor to Peter, from error. As an aside. Benedict XVI is no longer pope. He loses the charism of infallibility on such matters because he no longer holds the office of Peter.
   
   3… Re: JPII’s apologized to the E Patriarch for the sack of Constantinople in 1204 even though pope Innocent at the time, had never authorized the crusaders to sack the city. In fact when he heard about it he excommunicated all the crusaders who participated. That sacking however paled in comparison to what the Byzantines did to Latins 20 years earlier in Constantinople.
   
   .socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/reflections-on-sack-of-constantinople.html
   
   The Eastern Patriarch never apologised for that.

 

[rfournier103]

First of all i know Catholics point out some bible “verses” for infallibility like that binding or loosing,… But i have some questions (because i want to know the truth). First did He gave that right (to bind and loose, to forgive sins or retain them,…) to only the Apostoles or to theirs successors too? If yes successors too, then where are any successors of the Apostoles mentioned in the Bible and where in the Bible does He gives them that authority?

I will answer the question I am best able to answer, and leave the other questions for members better versed than I.

In Acts 1:15-26, Matthais is chosen to SUCCEED Judas. The Apostles themselves say “May another take his office” (Acts1:20).

An “office” is a position like president, prime minister, governor, etc… Men fill those roles for a time, and then other men replace them. All power, responsibility, duties, etc… is transferred to the new holder of the office.

That’s how it is in the Bible, anyway…