Papal Infallibility

[Burning4Christ]

I my self am a Christian of Pentacostal practice, and I have certrain reservations about papal infallibility, but I want to here what the Roman Catholic church has to say concerning the subject. I dont seek to argue out of malice or any sort of divisive spirit, I simply seek to engagfe in dialog with othere brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. Thank you and God be with you all.

~Brendan M

 

[Irish_Saints]

Welcome B4C,

You may want to read the following and then see if there’s some specific questions regarding the topic you may have that can be fleshed out for you.

Papal Infallibility

 

[LDNCatholic]

I my self am a Christian of Pentacostal practice, and I have certrain reservations about papal infallibility, but I want to here what the Roman Catholic church has to say concerning the subject. I dont seek to argue out of malice or any sort of divisive spirit, I simply seek to engagfe in dialog with othere brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. Thank you and God be with you all.

~Brendan M

Brendan as they said above it would be easier to have specific questions and lead from there.

On a side note thank you for including us as brothers and sisters in Christ, the few Pentecostal Christians I know do not include us as such.

God Bless

Peter

 

[Burning4Christ]

On a side note thank you for including us as brothers and sisters in Christ, the few Pentecostal Christians I know do not include us as such.

God Bless

Peter

I beleive that if you subscribe to the basic tenants of the Apostles Creed, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Virgin birth, Christs death and sacrifice for our sin, and that God raised him from the dead, then you are a Brother or Sister in the Body of Christ. It matters not to me if you are Catholic, Methodist, Pentacostal, CRC, Baptist, Lutheran. We are all Christians, we are all servants of the One True God. Even if i may disagree with certian aspects of the Catholic faith, doesent mean that you are not my brother or sister. We must all come together on our similiarities, not divide on our diffrences. We may all worship in difrent ways, but we worship the same God, and we are all baptisted into the Body of Christ. How can a body survive if the hand is always fighting against with the foot because it is diffrent?

With Love,

Brendan M.

 

[Genesis315]

The Holy Spirit preserves God’s revelation (the meaning, not just the letter). Since the successor of St. Peter has the task of “confirming the brethren” Our Lord prays that His faith does not fail–and so when he confirms the truth of the faith for us, we can be sure that it is true.

No man is infallible on his own–just like Simon Bar Jona was hardly steadfast–but the grace and power of God made him a rock and even now the truth of faith is always proclaimed with one unified voice

 

[Genesis315]

As an aside, for whatever reason, many Catholics don’t undertsand this dogma. Many will say there is just two examples of this charism being exercised (in 1950 and 1854), but that makes no sense since it was vigorously defended well before then.

All you have to remember is if the Church, either as a whole, or all the bishops across the world in common, or gathered in council, or the Pope alone as the mouth of the Church and head of the college of bishops, says we all have to believe or hold some truth concerning faith or morals (which may take the form ofa condemnation of error), we can receive it in faith because it is guaranteed to be true. Trying to figure out exactly which specific organ of infallibility is doing the proclaiming can be difficult and frankly pointless because usually there’s a lot of overlap since the truth is infallbily proclaimed over and over again through history.

 

[Burning4Christ]

I understand that and can see that if many people agree on something it can held as truth. I would also though encourage anyone who heads papal or Vatican decree (which I’m not condemning) to read Gods Word and see what it has to say. I do understand that Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura though. but the bible is another source of truth. It may not be the only source of truth, but it is none the less Gods word and therefore must also be consulted in decisions of faith and Dogma, at least to ensure there is no direct contradiction. I say this not in arguement, and I apologies if there is any offense taken by it. I seek not fighting and bickering.

God bless and be with you all, my brothers and sisters in the body of Christ

~Brendan M.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I understand that and can see that if many people agree on something it can held as truth. I would also though encourage anyone who heads papal or Vatican decree (which I’m not condemning) to read Gods Word and see what it has to say. I do understand that Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura though. but the bible is another source of truth. It may not be the only source of truth, but it is none the less Gods word and therefore must also be consulted in decisions of faith and Dogma, at least to ensure there is no direct contradiction. I say this not in arguement, and I apologies if there is any offense taken by it. I seek not fighting and bickering.

God bless and be with you all, my brothers and sisters in the body of Christ

~Brendan M.

Good point Brendan. The Scripture should always be consulted. Read any encyclical or the Catechism and it is chock full of Scripture references.

 

[Burning4Christ]

Good point Brendan. The Scripture should always be consulted. Read any encyclical or the Catechism and it is chock full of Scripture references.

Thats good, but nothing beats reading the word of God as the spirit guides you. Catechisms and Encyclical’s are great if there is something you don’t understand, but sometimes its best to read the bible it self. When ever i Read the word, I pray that the holy spirit guide me to what God wants to speak into my life, and every time i do it speaks to me and feeds me spiritually.

Peace be with you,

~Brendan M

 

[Orionthehunter]

Thats good, but nothing beats reading the word of God as the spirit guides you. Catechisms and Encyclical’s are great if there is something you don’t understand, but sometimes its best to read the bible it self. When ever i Read the word, I pray that the holy spirit guide me to what God wants to speak into my life, and every time i do it speaks to me and feeds me spiritually.

Peace be with you,

~Brendan M

Your practice of reading the Bible may be unique in your faith tradition but it is the overwhelming way that Catholics are taught to read Scripture. We call it lecto divina. We don’t read the Scripture like it is a history book or a textbook to prove particular points. This is why verse memorization is not common for Catholics.

Catholic Daily Scripture devotionals are to my knowledge nearly all consistent with what you suggest. It was the great Catholic Biblical Scholar, St. Jerome who said: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”

Sometimes one is struggling over a particular matter and wants to discern God’s will or teaching. The Catechism could be a good first source because it will then give them the Scripture basis of the teaching in context on the particular issue. Then, in reading that Scripture they can truly discern the wishes of God on the matter.

 

[kfp4]

I my self am a Christian of Pentacostal practice, and I have certrain reservations about papal infallibility, but I want to here what the Roman Catholic church has to say concerning the subject. I dont seek to argue out of malice or any sort of divisive spirit, I simply seek to engagfe in dialog with othere brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. Thank you and God be with you all.

~Brendan M

Hi Brendan. I come from a fundamentalist, charasmatic, Protestant background and “came home to Rome” about 15 years ago. This doctrine also gave me some trouble for awhile. For me, I came to understand that if the writers of the many books of the bible could be infallible, it wasn’t a far stretch that God could protect His church in this way. Also, the bible was declared to be inspired by the Catholic church-beforehand, other letters and writings were able to be read during the weekly mass.
Hope this helps,
Kathy

 

[Burning4Christ]

Hi Brendan. I come from a fundamentalist, charasmatic, Protestant background and “came home to Rome” about 15 years ago. This doctrine also gave me some trouble for awhile. For me, I came to understand that if the writers of the many books of the bible could be infallible, it wasn’t a far stretch that God could protect His church in this way. Also, the bible was declared to be inspired by the Catholic church-beforehand, other letters and writings were able to be read during the weekly mass.
Hope this helps,
Kathy

true that an incarnation of the Catholic church did put together the bible. I just think there are reasons why the other epistles and books were not put in the bible, and therefore, reasons why the bible was put together in the first place. God knew that people are sinful and have a natural inclination towards sin and rebelion against God. Without The bible, we will inevitablly go astray. Without a pillar of truth that is established for sure to be absolutly infalliable for all time, how can we guide ourselfs? How can we know we are on the right road to get to our destination unless we have a map? one that was inspired by the one who built the road. The Catholic Church may have formed the bible, but they did so through holy inspiration, as did the writers of the letters and Gospels. God intended the bible to be a unmovable pillar of truth, an absolute roadmap to the way of salvation.

One other thing, With things like the catachisms, (spelling is probobly off forgive me) tracts and such, although they may be full of scripture refrences and although they may convey a true message sound in doctrine, they are just that, scripture refrences, not scripture in it of themselfs. In order to gain a full and complete understanding of the scriptures, one must not only refer to catachisms, tracts and such, (not trying to discredit them at all) one must read what context those scriptures are in. When Paul wrote his letters, I doubt he intended for the corinthians or the Galatians, or the Ephesians or whomever, to just read the part that fit what they were themselves trying to say. He wanted them to read the entire letter, or else why would he write the entire letter. Again im not trying to debate weather or not catachisms and tracts are not conveying of truth, im just saying that the scriptures themselves are more reliable than just putting together parts of them to convey a certain message.

One thing that I cant stand and I see not only in the catholic church but in may protestant churchs are one verse doctrines. Although there are some that are true, often times people take verses out of context and create a doctrine out of them. Take for example 1 corinthians chapter 9. It talks about rights of an apostle. It says in verse 11:

“If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?”

Paul is saying that apostles (or these days can be aplied to priests, ministers, pastors or anyone who works for the faith and the gospel) deserve money or a material reward from those who they minister to. If we were to just take this part of the letter we would miss pauls point entirely. In verse 12-13 paul says

“12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?”

Paul is saying that as pastors, missionarys, ministers, priests, and other workers of the faith, need not to excersise the right they have to get a material reward from there congregations or those whom they minister to, because God will provide for them.

My point is this, Catachisms, tracts, books that explain the bible or parts of it can most definantly contain truth and are great to read. But if you base your faith solely or mostly on what these say, you run the risk of missing parts of the message that are critical to the faith. Like i said im not trying to knock or berate the catachism or things of the like, im saying that reading the bible on your own, without guidence of another person, but from guidence of the holy spirit, can reveal to you much much more than just reading scripture selected by another individual

God bless and be with you all, my brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ,

~Brendan M.

 

[Irish_Saints]

God knew that people are sinful and have a natural inclination towards sin and rebelion against God. Without The bible, we will inevitablly go astray.

You’re absolutely correct. In fact, I might humbly observe for the past 500 years, many who have HAD the Bible alone have still “gone astray.”

Without a pillar of truth that is established for sure to be absolutly infalliable for all time, how can we guide ourselfs?

Funny you should use that phrase, “pillar of truth.” The Apostle Paul uses almost the exact same words in 1 Tim. 3:15. However, St. Paul says that it is the Church that is “the pillar and ground (one translation says ‘foundation stone’) of truth.”

God intended the bible to be a unmovable pillar of truth, an absolute roadmap to the way of salvation.

Did he? Or did he leave a community here to be that roadmap? To put it another way, did the American Revolutionaries fight and die to give us a couple of documents (the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution), or did they sacrifice their life and liberty to found a nation? I don’t think any real American would contest the value of the founding documents of our country. But in the end, being an American is much more than what is contained in those revered parchments. Likewise, the Church loves the Scriptures. And well they should, they are afterall, written by, to and for Catholics. They are precious to us, and I can’t overemphasize that point. Yet there’s more to being a Christian than is bound up on the pages of holy writ.

One other thing, With things like the catachisms, (spelling is probobly off forgive me) tracts and such, although they may be full of scripture refrences and although they may convey a true message sound in doctrine, they are just that, scripture refrences, not scripture in it of themselfs. In order to gain a full and complete understanding of the scriptures, one must not only refer to catachisms, tracts and such, (not trying to discredit them at all) one must read what context those scriptures are in. When Paul wrote his letters, I doubt he intended for the corinthians or the Galatians, or the Ephesians or whomever, to just read the part that fit what they were themselves trying to say. He wanted them to read the entire letter, or else why would he write the entire letter. Again im not trying to debate weather or not catachisms and tracts are not conveying of truth, im just saying that the scriptures themselves are more reliable than just putting together parts of them to convey a certain message.

Respectfully, you’re setting up a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. Catholics are not under the impression that scripture passages take place in a vacuum. We are encouraged to have our Bible open right next to the catechism precisely so we CAN see the context of any references. In fact, I go one further. I also have “The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church” which expands all the references, be they scripture, writings of a Church Father, Papal documents, etc. I’m also in the habit of reading the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts as well, just to pick up nuance of meaning. I might venture that a faithful Catholic is even more likely to take context into account, because that faithful one understands that sacred scripture was written within the setting of the Church. He understands the words from a historical standpoint, from an analogous and typolgical sense, and a literary understanding. And he sees them through the lens of two thousand years of careful inspection and introspection of the words of life.

continued…

 

[Irish_Saints]

One thing that I cant stand and I see not only in the catholic church but in may protestant churchs are one verse doctrines. Although there are some that are true, often times people take verses out of context and create a doctrine out of them. Take for example 1 corinthians chapter 9. It talks about rights of an apostle. It says in verse 11:

“If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?”

Paul is saying that apostles (or these days can be aplied to priests, ministers, pastors or anyone who works for the faith and the gospel) deserve money or a material reward from those who they minister to. If we were to just take this part of the letter we would miss pauls point entirely. In verse 12-13 paul says

“12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?”

Paul is saying that as pastors, missionarys, ministers, priests, and other workers of the faith, need not to excersise the right they have to get a material reward from there congregations or those whom they minister to, because God will provide for them.

This is a practice known as proof-texting, and I’m sure you’re familiar with the old hermenuetical saw, “A text out of context is pretext.” Catholics are taught to take into account the whole counsel of God; scripture in its context and sacred Tradition.

My point is this, Catachisms, tracts, books that explain the bible or parts of it can most definantly contain truth and are great to read. But if you base your faith solely or mostly on what these say, you run the risk of missing parts of the message that are critical to the faith. Like i said im not trying to knock or berate the catachism or things of the like, im saying that reading the bible on your own, without guidence of another person, but from guidence of the holy spirit, can reveal to you much much more than just reading scripture selected by another individual

Agreed, in general. I might also suggest the following: to take the Bible alone outside of all of its contexts not only can lead to “missing parts that are critical to the faith.” This is why the Bible needs to be viewed through the Church whom God entrusted it to. For half a milenium, many have used the Scripture alone outside it’s intended setting, which has resulted in the lamentable cascading fractures of tens of thousands of demoninations. The tragic fruit of sola scriptura is perpetual division.

God bless and be with you all, my brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ,

~Brendan M.

Right back atcha, Brendan! Take care!

 

[drafdog]

The Pope is “First among Equals.” This means that of the Elders of the Church (Bishops) he is the official spokesman. When a declaration defining faith or morals for the whole church, there must first be substantial agreement among the Elders, and then the spokesman makes a definitive declaration to the church around the world. There is a setting defined by the (first) Vatican Council in which the Pope may make an infallible statement when it is not possible to confer with his brother bishops. During this time of radio, television, telephone and internet communication, there is no likelihood that such a condition of Papal isolation can occur. So the infallibility promised to the church resides in the council of the bishops of the world with the Pope as the official spokesman.

Matthew

 

[kfp4]

true that an incarnation of the Catholic church did put together the bible. I just think there are reasons why the other epistles and books were not put in the bible, and therefore, reasons why the bible was put together in the first place. God knew that people are sinful and have a natural inclination towards sin and rebelion against God. Without The bible, we will inevitablly go astray. Without a pillar of truth that is established for sure to be absolutly infalliable for all time, how can we guide ourselfs? How can we know we are on the right road to get to our destination unless we have a map? one that was inspired by the one who built the road. The Catholic Church may have formed the bible, but they did so through holy inspiration, as did the writers of the letters and Gospels. God intended the bible to be a unmovable pillar of truth, an absolute roadmap to the way of salvation.

One other thing, With things like the catachisms, (spelling is probobly off forgive me) tracts and such, although they may be full of scripture refrences and although they may convey a true message sound in doctrine, they are just that, scripture refrences, not scripture in it of themselfs. In order to gain a full and complete understanding of the scriptures, one must not only refer to catachisms, tracts and such, (not trying to discredit them at all) one must read what context those scriptures are in. When Paul wrote his letters, I doubt he intended for the corinthians or the Galatians, or the Ephesians or whomever, to just read the part that fit what they were themselves trying to say. He wanted them to read the entire letter, or else why would he write the entire letter. Again im not trying to debate weather or not catachisms and tracts are not conveying of truth, im just saying that the scriptures themselves are more reliable than just putting together parts of them to convey a certain message.

One thing that I cant stand and I see not only in the catholic church but in may protestant churchs are one verse doctrines. Although there are some that are true, often times people take verses out of context and create a doctrine out of them. Take for example 1 corinthians chapter 9. It talks about rights of an apostle. It says in verse 11:

“If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?”

Paul is saying that apostles (or these days can be aplied to priests, ministers, pastors or anyone who works for the faith and the gospel) deserve money or a material reward from those who they minister to. If we were to just take this part of the letter we would miss pauls point entirely. In verse 12-13 paul says

“12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?”

Paul is saying that as pastors, missionarys, ministers, priests, and other workers of the faith, need not to excersise the right they have to get a material reward from there congregations or those whom they minister to, because God will provide for them.

My point is this, Catachisms, tracts, books that explain the bible or parts of it can most definantly contain truth and are great to read. But if you base your faith solely or mostly on what these say, you run the risk of missing parts of the message that are critical to the faith. Like i said im not trying to knock or berate the catachism or things of the like, im saying that reading the bible on your own, without guidence of another person, but from guidence of the holy spirit, can reveal to you much much more than just reading scripture selected by another individual

God bless and be with you all, my brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ,

~Brendan M.

Hi Brendan,
I’m sorry, my intent of my response was only to say that if human beings could be guided to write the holy scriptures infallibly, it’s not much different that God could guide the pope and counsel of bishops. Also, the bible doesn’t say anywhere that it’s meant to be the only authority on faith and morals. It says that it is to be used as an authority but not the only one. Sola scriptura (bible alone) is a doctrine that is not founded on scripture. This is not to say of course that the bible is to be taken lightly. On the contrary, no doctrines in the church can contradict the bible. If you read in the catechism the numerous bible references, you will see this to be true.

Kathy

 

[latinmass]

This is all easily answered by reading the Church Fathers. Christian communities outside the Church overlook the 1500 years of Tradition and teachings before they came about. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch or any of the faithful from the 1st and 2nd century to get the original teachings which have lived until today. All looking to Rome and consuming the Flesh and Blood of our Lord is undenialble.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brendan, you are really preaching to the choir here. There is nothing in your post that Catholics don’t endorse w/ a very small exception. Catholics do not look at single verses to make a point. All of their reading of the Scripture is to considered against the whole. We are taught that if we interpret two Scripture passages that appear to be in conflict, we are to probe deeper until we can understand why they don’t conflict. God is Truth, His Word is Truth, and Truth can never conflict. And sometimes we don’t have the depth of Biblical understanding to reconcile this apparent conflict so we turn to the Church for understanding. The same “holy inspiration” that we rely on for the canonization of the Bible is the “holy inspiration” we trust. God is perfect always, He loves us perfectly always, and He is with us always. Praise be to God!

true that an incarnation of the Catholic church did put together the bible. I just think there are reasons why the other epistles and books were not put in the bible, and therefore, reasons why the bible was put together in the first place. God knew that people are sinful and have a natural inclination towards sin and rebelion against God. Without The bible, we will inevitablly go astray. Without a pillar of truth that is established for sure to be absolutly infalliable for all time, how can we guide ourselfs? How can we know we are on the right road to get to our destination unless we have a map? one that was inspired by the one who built the road. The Catholic Church may have formed the bible, but they did so through holy inspiration, as did the writers of the letters and Gospels. God intended the bible to be a unmovable pillar of truth, an absolute roadmap to the way of salvation.

One other thing, With things like the catachisms, (spelling is probobly off forgive me) tracts and such, although they may be full of scripture refrences and although they may convey a true message sound in doctrine, they are just that, scripture refrences, not scripture in it of themselfs. In order to gain a full and complete understanding of the scriptures, one must not only refer to catachisms, tracts and such, (not trying to discredit them at all) one must read what context those scriptures are in. When Paul wrote his letters, I doubt he intended for the corinthians or the Galatians, or the Ephesians or whomever, to just read the part that fit what they were themselves trying to say. He wanted them to read the entire letter, or else why would he write the entire letter. Again im not trying to debate weather or not catachisms and tracts are not conveying of truth, im just saying that the scriptures themselves are more reliable than just putting together parts of them to convey a certain message.

One thing that I cant stand and I see not only in the catholic church but in may protestant churchs are one verse doctrines. Although there are some that are true, often times people take verses out of context and create a doctrine out of them. Take for example 1 corinthians chapter 9. It talks about rights of an apostle. It says in verse 11:

“If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?”

Paul is saying that apostles (or these days can be aplied to priests, ministers, pastors or anyone who works for the faith and the gospel) deserve money or a material reward from those who they minister to. If we were to just take this part of the letter we would miss pauls point entirely. In verse 12-13 paul says

“12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?”

Paul is saying that as pastors, missionarys, ministers, priests, and other workers of the faith, need not to excersise the right they have to get a material reward from there congregations or those whom they minister to, because God will provide for them.

My point is this, Catachisms, tracts, books that explain the bible or parts of it can most definantly contain truth and are great to read. But if you base your faith solely or mostly on what these say, you run the risk of missing parts of the message that are critical to the faith. Like i said im not trying to knock or berate the catachism or things of the like, im saying that reading the bible on your own, without guidence of another person, but from guidence of the holy spirit, can reveal to you much much more than just reading scripture selected by another individual

God bless and be with you all, my brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ,

~Brendan M.