Papal Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ray98362
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ray98362

Guest
As I mentioned in another post, I have been having religious discussions/debates with an old friend of mine who is now a Christian fundamentalist.

The topic of Papal Infallibility has come up and I’m really not sure how to intelligently discuss that with him.
In all honesty, this is something I still struggle with myself and I don’t fully understand it.

Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
 
As I mentioned in another post, I have been having religious discussions/debates with an old friend of mine who is now a Christian fundamentalist.

The topic of Papal Infallibility has come up and I’m really not sure how to intelligently discuss that with him.
In all honesty, this is something I still struggle with myself and I don’t fully understand it.

Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
Infallibility is a charism given to the Church that ensures when the Church teaches on specific occasions regarding faith and moral that such teaching is free from error.
 
Well since you’re dealing with a Bible-believer, the first thing to point out is that he knows the Holy Spirit led the human authors of Sacred Scripture to infallibly record the Word of God for us. And he knows that our Lord promised the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). And that is what the Holy Spirit has done for 2000 years - lead the Church to infallibly define and declare the doctrines of the faith, based on Scripture and Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). And we see this right there in the Bible with our first pope, Peter, in union with the bishops, define and declare doctrine:

The Council of Jerusalem

"The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:6-11)

And Scripture Catholic will help you to be prepared to defend Catholic teachings with Scripture and the Early Church Fathers. God bless.
 
I’ve come to believe that since God possesses the primary Infallibility, and this became manifest in the Word of Christ, it would follow that when Christ spoke again in the New Advent, He would gather all things under the authority of that same Word. Bahá’ís accept that this Word has been spoken again, almost in our own time.

Count Mastai-Ferretti, Bishop of Imola, the 254th pope since the inception of St. Peter’s primacy, who had been elevated to the apostolic throne two years after the Declaration of the Báb, and the duration of whose pontificate exceeded that of any of his predecessors, will be permanently remembered as the author of the Bull which declared the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin (1854), referred to in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, to be a doctrine of the Church, and as the promulgator of the new dogma of Papal Infallibility (1870)…

This temporal power had, throughout the ages, shrunk to insignificant proportions. The decades preceding its extinction were fraught with the gravest vicissitudes. As the sun of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation was mounting to full meridian splendor, the shadows that beset the dwindling patrimony of St. Peter were correspondingly deepening. The Tablet of Bahá’u’lláh, addressed to Pius IX, precipitated its extinction.

In 1870, after Bahá’u’lláh had revealed His Epistle to Pius IX, (full text here
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-5.html ) King Victor Emmanuel II went to war with the Papal states, and his troops entered Rome and seized it. On the eve of its seizure, the Pope repaired to the Lateran and, despite his age and with his face bathed in tears, ascended on bended knees the Scala Santa. The following morning, as the cannonade began, he ordered the white flag to be hoisted above the dome of St. Peter. Despoiled, he refused to recognize this “creation of revolution,” excommunicated the invaders of his states, denounced Victor Emmanuel as the “robber King” and as “forgetful of every religious principle, despising every right, trampling upon every law.” Rome, “the Eternal City, on which rest twenty-five centuries of glory,” and over which the Popes had ruled in unchallengeable right for ten centuries, finally became the seat of the new kingdom, and the scene of that humiliation which Bahá’u’lláh had anticipated and which the Prisoner of the Vatican had imposed upon himself. (Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith 1921-1957, The Promised Day is Come, p. 53)

**Praise be unto God Who hath made the Most Great Infallibility the shield for the temple of His Cause in the realm of creation, and hath assigned unto no one a share of this lofty and sublime station – a station which is a vesture which the fingers of transcendent power have woven for His august Self. It befitteth no one except Him Who is seated upon the mighty throne of ‘He doeth what He pleaseth’. Whoso accepteth and recognizeth that which is written down at this moment by the Pen of Glory is indeed reckoned in the Book of God, the Lord of the beginning and the end, among the exponents of divine unity, they that uphold the concept of the oneness of God.~**Ishraqat, (Splendours) Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 105)
 
As I mentioned in another post, I have been having religious discussions/debates with an old friend of mine who is now a Christian fundamentalist.

The topic of Papal Infallibility has come up and I’m really not sure how to intelligently discuss that with him.
In all honesty, this is something I still struggle with myself and I don’t fully understand it.

Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
There is a lot of information out there, and it can be very overwhelming to sift through. Is there something in particular about it that’s hard to grasp, or just infallibility in general?
 
Well since you’re dealing with a Bible-believer, the first thing to point out is that he knows the Holy Spirit led the human authors of Sacred Scripture to infallibly record the Word of God for us. And he knows that our Lord promised the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). And that is what the Holy Spirit has done for 2000 years - lead the Church to infallibly define and declare the doctrines of the faith, based on Scripture and Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). And we see this right there in the Bible with our first pope, Peter, in union with the bishops, define and declare doctrine:

The Council of Jerusalem

"The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:6-11)

And Scripture Catholic will help you to be prepared to defend Catholic teachings with Scripture and the Early Church Fathers. God bless.
I’m beging to feel, however like it is a good idea to agree on principals. I’m not questioning that anyone is or isn’t a bible beleiver, but I’ve come to find that there is quite a diversity in what people think it means to be a “bible believer”. I would see if you guys can agree on what I call the 2 Timothy 3:16 principal
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
In this particular case, what the bible means in a literal sense, happens to match what it says literally (no this isn’t the case always). It means that every word in the bible is equally inspired of God, is equally profitable for teaching and there for any doctrine or interpetation must conform to the entirty of scripture.

I would say probably most people will agree, at least that seems to be the case here regardless of demonination (there have been some notable exceptions). Some people see that and read
16 -]All/-] scripture [alone], inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
then go on to manipulate, twist, shove, push and when necessary ignore scripture in order to make it say what they want it to say. It’s worth noting these people are the vast minority of anyone I’ve encountered, in my admitingly breif time discussing topics of religion on the internet. But still, on the off chance the person you’re talking to does happen to fit in this category, it will be necessary to know where exactly each of you stand on the subject of scripture.
 
If a person claims to believe in scripture he or she must accept all scripture. The teachings of Christ are not selective nor are God’s words flexible.

Ephesians CH4; 1 “I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body (the Church) and one Spirit (Holy Spirit); as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism
.”

**That includes the proclamations Jesus made that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church until His return and He would never Abandon Her, also scriptural. If a person accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God, they must also recognize those who gathered, sorted through, selected its contents from many writings and interpreted the inspired word of God, truely were in fact guided by the Holy spirit. Men of the Church Jesus founded and established through the apostles and their successors. Those who performed that service to God were those of the Catholic Church and included the Early Church Fathers and their successors. **

**It would be reasonable to ask any person who believes in the inspired word of God but denies infallibility of the Church to explain such an opposition to Jesus proclamation that the Holy Spirit would guide her until His return. Nowhere in scripture does it say man will ever reorganize the Church. Has there been corruption in the Church over her life? Yes. But the corruption has been of men within the Church, not the Church or her teachings of Faith and morals. Do these corrupt men mean the Church has fallen? Absolutely not, as Jesus also warned us these things would happen and whoa to those responsible but He declared the Church would never fall and we were to persevere. Jesus asserted the infallibility of His Bride, not man. The Pope with the Magisterium teaches infallibly as long as the Holy Spirit guides them and that is until His return. Isn’t that what Jesus asserted? The Church only labeled what Jesus proclaimed. **

Quote from LumenVerum;

“In any discussion of infallibility it must be first acknowledged that Christ founded a Church as a visible and perfect society to govern, teach and sanctify His followers, and he obliged all that may come to know her to belong to and obey her: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (St. Matt. 16:18); “…if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (St. Matt. 18:17). The only questions that need to be addressed then are whether, in what way, and to what extent Christ’s Church is infallible. As the Church founded by Our Lord is made up of teachers and believers, the gift of infallibility will protect her both in teaching and belief. Infallibility is thus found in the ‘Church teaching’ and in the ‘Church believing.’ The ‘Church teaching’ consists of the successors to the Apostles, namely, the Pope of Rome and all the bishops of the world united under him; the ‘Church believing’ is the entire body of all the faithful professing the Catholic Faith.”


http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page99.html
 
Most people confuse Infallibility with impeccability (to be without sin, free from fault or failure).

Jesus said to Simon Peter; "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:31-32).

If Jesus did not leave us someone to solemnly teach certain key doctrines as true, then all of the teachings of the Church, including the Bible which was put together by the Bishops in doctrinal unity with the Pope, are just opinions. **Without Papal Infallibility, I can be my own pope, I can interpret Sacred Scripture anyway I feel (kind of like our Fundamentalist brothers!) **

Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). (catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
There is a lot of information out there, and it can be very overwhelming to sift through. Is there something in particular about it that’s hard to grasp, or just infallibility in general?
I think mainly I was under a misinterpretation of it. I believed it to be totally infallible and impeccable. Now I know the distinct difference as well as the fact that not everything said by a Pope is believed to be infallible, but rather his specific teachings and doctrines.

Thank you so much for your help. I also found where my friend’s belief system lies. He sent me a bunch of literature from Dave Hunt. I had never heard of him, but I assume you all probably have.
To put it politely, the man definitly has a one dimensional view of things.

As I mentioned before, at the very least he has me rereading the Bible and the Catechism. NEVER a bad thing! 🙂
 
I think mainly I was under a misinterpretation of it. I believed it to be totally infallible and impeccable. Now I know the distinct difference as well as the fact that not everything said by a Pope is believed to be infallible, but rather his specific teachings and doctrines.

Thank you so much for your help. I also found where my friend’s belief system lies. He sent me a bunch of literature from Dave Hunt. I had never heard of him, but I assume you all probably have.
To put it politely, the man definitly has a one dimensional view of things.

As I mentioned before, at the very least he has me rereading the Bible and the Catechism. NEVER a bad thing! 🙂
I’d just like to add that while you did admit that you understand that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says, I didn’t see you mention anything about understanding that the Pope is NOT impeccable. If you already know that the Pope isn’t impeccable, I’m sorry, I just wanted to let you know . . . just in case! 😃
 
I’d just like to add that while you did admit that you understand that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says, I didn’t see you mention anything about understanding that the Pope is NOT impeccable. If you already know that the Pope isn’t impeccable, I’m sorry, I just wanted to let you know . . . just in case! 😃
Thanks Zach, but that part was EASY to accept 🙂
 
No need to be sorry. I appreciate you taking the time to make sure I correctly understood it.
 
I’m beging to feel, however like it is a good idea to agree on principals. I’m not questioning that anyone is or isn’t a bible beleiver, but I’ve come to find that there is quite a diversity in what people think it means to be a “bible believer”. I would see if you guys can agree on what I call the 2 Timothy 3:16 principal

In this particular case, what the bible means in a literal sense, happens to match what it says literally (no this isn’t the case always). It means that every word in the bible is equally inspired of God, is equally profitable for teaching and there for any doctrine or interpetation must conform to the entirty of scripture.

I would say probably most people will agree, at least that seems to be the case here regardless of demonination (there have been some notable exceptions). Some people see that and read

then go on to manipulate, twist, shove, push and when necessary ignore scripture in order to make it say what they want it to say. It’s worth noting these people are the vast minority of anyone I’ve encountered, in my admitingly breif time discussing topics of religion on the internet. But still, on the off chance the person you’re talking to does happen to fit in this category, it will be necessary to know where exactly each of you stand on the subject of scripture.
Yes, that verse gets distorted to mean something it doesn’t mean or say by the sola scriptura believers. The first thing to point out is that it says Scripture is “profitable” not “sufficient”; and as you pointed out it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” anyway. The other point to make is that the Bible tells us the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, so obviously Scripture alone is not sufficient. But we must always keep in mind that it requires a special grace from God to believe in Christ’s Catholic Church, just as it requires a special grace to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And this is one reason our Lord tells us not to judge - because we don’t know who has been given those graces. This is the mystery of God’s plan for salvation. His people are always a minority in the world - “one third” - and He brings us through the fire (Zech. 13:8-9). But He also saves His remnant from “every tribe and tongue” (Rev. 5:9). And so our job is to preach the Good News, to live the Gospel, and to pray for our fellow man. God bless.
 
I’m Catholic but I have to admit that I have been having some doubts about papal infallibility. I hope no one objects to me getting in on this conversation.
Well since you’re dealing with a Bible-believer, the first thing to point out is that he knows the Holy Spirit led the human authors of Sacred Scripture to infallibly record the Word of God for us.
The problem with that arguement is that not all of the Bible authors were popes. They enjoyed infallibility only while writing their part of Scripture.
And he knows that our Lord promised the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). And that is what the Holy Spirit has done for 2000 years - lead the Church to infallibly define and declare the doctrines of the faith, based on Scripture and Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). And we see this right there in the Bible with our first pope, Peter, in union with the bishops, define and declare doctrine:
Let’s not confuse papal infallibility with magisterial infallibility or papal infallibility with Petrine primacy. They’re very different.

Papal infallibility has been used exactly twice: (1) the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and (2) Mary’s Assumption in 1950. The Holy Spirit has been using magisterial infallibilit for 2,000 years but not papal infallibility. Also, the doctrine of papal infallibility was not made a dogma until 1871. This raises the question, exactly how important is this doctrine? It’s only been used twice and both times were relatively recent. Also, while not downplaying the importance of truth, neither of these doctrines which came from the exercise of papal
infallibility are particularly important to our salvation.
The Council of Jerusalem
I clipped a little here.

While it is true that God use Peter to deleiver the message that Gentiles were to be allowed into the Church, consider how the message was given to Peter. He received a vision. No vision was given to the pope at either of the two times that papal infallibility was exercised. It’s hard to draw any parallels between Peter receiving the vision and how the two doctrines were declared.

Comments?
 
Most people confuse Infallibility with impeccability (to be without sin, free from fault or failure).

Jesus said to Simon Peter; "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:31-32).

If Jesus did not leave us someone to solemnly teach certain key doctrines as true, then all of the teachings of the Church, including the Bible which was put together by the Bishops in doctrinal unity with the Pope, are just opinions. **Without Papal Infallibility, I can be my own pope, I can interpret Sacred Scripture anyway I feel (kind of like our Fundamentalist brothers!) **

Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). (catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
Mark,

I think you are confusing magisterial infallibility with papal infallibility.
 
I’m Catholic but I have to admit that I have been having some doubts about papal infallibility. I hope no one objects to me getting in on this conversation.
I sure don’t.
The problem with that argument is that not all of the Bible authors were popes. They enjoyed infallibility only while writing their part of Scripture.
I don’t believe Luke65 was trying to use that as a proof that popes are infallible, Luke was just saying that the Bible is inspired which sets him up for his arguments from Scripture.
Let’s not confuse papal infallibility with magisterial infallibility or papal infallibility with Petrine primacy. They’re very different.
Luke wasn’t confusing them, He was solely talking about magisterial infallibility which defined the pope as infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Which is true. Do you accept magisterial infallibility Gary?
Papal infallibility has been used exactly twice: (1) the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and (2) Mary’s Assumption in 1950. The Holy Spirit has been using magisterial infallibilit for 2,000 years but not papal infallibility. Also, the doctrine of papal infallibility was not made a dogma until 1871. This raises the question, exactly how important is this doctrine?
Just because something isn’t made a dogma until a certain time does not make it unimportant. The canon of the Bible was not made a dogma until the council of Trent, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to not accept all 73 books as inspired, right?

I think it’s incorrect to say that the Holy Spirit has not been using papal infallibility for 2,000 years. As Karl Keating puts it, papal infallibility is a “negative protection.” It prevents a pope from definitively teaching error; I think this can be seen easily from history, considering all of the “bad” popes who never taught anything definitively.
It’s only been used twice and both times were relatively recent. Also, while not downplaying the importance of truth, neither of these doctrines which came from the exercise of papal infallibility are particularly important to our salvation.
The IC and the Assumption are imperatively important to our salvation, they are dogmas. Catholics are required to believe all divinely revealed dogmas, that’s that.
I clipped a little here.
While it is true that God use Peter to deleiver the message that Gentiles were to be allowed into the Church, consider how the message was given to Peter. He received a vision. No vision was given to the pope at either of the two times that papal infallibility was exercised. It’s hard to draw any parallels between Peter receiving the vision and how the two doctrines were declared.
It doesn’t matter how the message was received, the importance is the message itself and the fact that Peter was not challenged because he was the leader and could not be wrong. He had a primacy that no other Apostle had.
 
Mark,

I think you are confusing magisterial infallibility with papal infallibility.
I don’t think he does, he specifically says he is referring to magisterial infallibility in the last paragraph and in the others he is simply showing that the pope is not impeccable.
 
I’m Catholic but I have to admit that I have been having some doubts about papal infallibility. I hope no one objects to me getting in on this conversation.
Of course not! God wants you to come to a knowledge of the truth and know with certainty that you can trust all His promises, including His promise that His Church will be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” that His people will always have till the end of time.
The problem with that arguement is that not all of the Bible authors were popes. They enjoyed infallibility only while writing their part of Scripture.
I’ll add a few points to what Zach already explained. The point here is that it is possible for God to lead humans to infallibly teach His Word - on that Christians agree. So it shouldn’t be an unwarranted leap of faith to believe that the pope or ecumenical councils can do the same - but that’s just the opening argument.
Let’s not confuse papal infallibility with magisterial infallibility or papal infallibility with Petrine primacy. They’re very different.
Papal infallibility has been used exactly twice: (1) the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and (2) Mary’s Assumption in 1950. The Holy Spirit has been using magisterial infallibilit for 2,000 years but not papal infallibility. Also, the doctrine of papal infallibility was not made a dogma until 1871. This raises the question, exactly how important is this doctrine? It’s only been used twice and both times were relatively recent. Also, while not downplaying the importance of truth, neither of these doctrines which came from the exercise of papal
infallibility are particularly important to our salvation.
No, papal infallibility has been exercised numerous times since St. Peter did at the Council of Jerusalem. Zach brought up a good example: Pope Damasus defined the Canon of Scripture in the 4th century at the Council of Rome, but it wasn’t dogmatized until more than 1000 years later at Trent. But that doesn’t mean the pope wasn’t infallible - he demonstrably was. It just means that it wasn’t binding on the whole Church yet, under pain of anathema. And notice, the Council of Rome was not an ecumenical council, but the pope still taught infallibly.

This is generally the way the Church works: it’s when Her teachings are challenged that She usually dogmatizes them, just like She did with the dogma on papal infallibility. The fact that it was dogmatized in 1871 doesn’t mean that it wasn’t true before that (obviously, you gave an example from 1854), on the contrary, it means that it was always true, but when it was being challenged the Church put Her foot down.
I clipped a little here.
While it is true that God use Peter to deleiver the message that Gentiles were to be allowed into the Church, consider how the message was given to Peter. He received a vision. No vision was given to the pope at either of the two times that papal infallibility was exercised. It’s hard to draw any parallels between Peter receiving the vision and how the two doctrines were declared.
Comments?
Well, you might be interested to know that Pope Pius XII saw a vision of the Miracle of the Sun (Fatima) right before he defined and declared the dogma on the Assumption of Mary, which he took as a confirmation of that dogma. But supernatural miracles are not necessary when we have the constant teaching of the Church. A good example of that is when Pope Paul VI infallibly reiterated the Church’s teaching against contraception, and also when Pope John Paul II infallibly reiterated the Church’s teaching against female priests. I hope that’s enough to get you started, just remember to always walk by faith. 🙂 God bless.
 
As I mentioned in another post, I have been having religious discussions/debates with an old friend of mine who is now a Christian fundamentalist.

The topic of Papal Infallibility has come up and I’m really not sure how to intelligently discuss that with him.
In all honesty, this is something I still struggle with myself and I don’t fully understand it.

Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
Papal Infallibility
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

HOW TO ARGUE FOR PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top