Papal Infallibility

[DavidMark]

2 Timothy3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

People don’t really mean “all scripture” when they read this, just the parts they like.
But why bash your head against a wall. Suffer the little children.:banghead:

 

[kepha1]

2 Timothy3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Sola scripturists CONSTANTLY abuse this verse and quote it out of context.

2 Timothy 3:12-17: Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1. Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2. Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul’s list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.

In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-Deformation Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:

Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The so called reformers abandoned all this in favor of a more literal appraoch to Bible interpretation, which is why they were rejected by their Catholic contemporaries for ignoring 2 Tim. 3:16, which didn’t become a slogan until Protestants scrambled to defend the anti-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.

Now also note that St. Paul says that St. Timothy has known the Scriptures “from childhood.” We know that Timothy was of Jewish extraction through his mother and that St. Paul circumcised him as an adult (the pagan Greeks thought that circumcision was a horrible mutilation of the perfection of the human body and even some Greek Jews did not do it at that time).

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Consequently, St. Timothy had known the Bible from childhood because he was Jewish. There was no New Testament at the time this epistle was written or when Timothy was a child, so it is the writings of the Old Testament that are being recommended to him, NOT our two testament Bible.

Now we must take this section as a whole to understand St. Paul’s teaching here. He told St. Timothy that he should hold to sound doctrine and not be led astray by “impostors” and “deceivers.” He gives the sources of sound Christian doctrine to be the traditions of the Church as handed on by its authoritative teachers (including himself) along with the OT scriptures. He admonishes St. Timothy not to ignore the Jewish Scriptures because they were inspired by God and are full of good information on how to live in accordance with God’s will.
It is by adding the teaching of the OT Scriptures to the traditions and the authoritative teaching of the Apostles that the man of God is made “fully equipped for every good work.” It is not by the Scriptures alone.

The “man of God” is one who is ordained or one who is called by God. Nowhere in the Bible is the “man of God” an individual bible reader.

(extracted from catholic-legate.com/qa/2Tim3.html )

 

[DOShea]

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?

One thing that stands out is that when Peter received his vision, it wasn’t a vision that clearly told him to convert Gentiles (Acts 10). It was an invitation for him to eat foods that Jews considered unclean. Peter, still practicing Jewish dietary laws, initially refused until he heard the words “What God has called clean, you will not call unclean.” It was only after his journey to a household full of people willing to accept the teachings and be baptized did he make the connection.

In the case of the Popes declaring teachings about the Blessed Mother, it would not require some kind of vision that signifies a radical departure from the status quo because the belief was already there and had been since the beginning. By comparison, when you read in the American Declaration of Independence that the Founding Fathers of the country “…hold these truths to be self-evident,” do you think those thoughts first began on the day they were written down, or were they simply making a formal declaration of something they already believed?

 

[twb1621]

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.

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?

I refer you to post #7 and ask your opinions there if you don’t mind.

 

[garysibio]

Thanks to all who responded. I’m going to break up my remarks into smaller chunks since that makes things easier to follow.

re: God inspired the authors of the Bible

zach_dunn>> 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. <<

Except that, if you are dealing with a Fundamentalist or Evangelical, this is not something you would have to demonstrate. They already accept that.

Luke65>> 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. <<

The problem here is just that because God can do something, He did do it or will do it. That’s not a valid argument. He could have made zebras red and green, He made them black and white.

Also, we run into another problem when we draw a comparison between biblical authorship and papal infallibility: We believe that public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle. If papal infallibility is like the protection from error afforded the biblical authors, it could be argued that it also ended with John’s death.

 

[garysibio]

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

You asked me to post my comments to this post but I have to confess I’m a bit confused by them. I do accept all Scripture. Part of my problem with papal infallibility is that I don’t see it taught in Scripture without really jumping through some hoops. I don’t hold to sola scriptura but I also know of no passages in the early Church Fathers that teach papal infallibility. Petrine primacy yes, but papal infallibility, no. I asked about this in another thread and in other forums but the earliest reference to infallibilty that I have been able to find is around the time of the Reformation.

Most of the comments in your post deal with the Church, not the pope. That may be why I am confused about how your comments deal with the issue of papal infallibility. They are not the same thing.

 

[garysibio]

One thing that stands out is that when Peter received his vision, it wasn’t a vision that clearly told him to convert Gentiles (Acts 10). It was an invitation for him to eat foods that Jews considered unclean. Peter, still practicing Jewish dietary laws, initially refused until he heard the words “What God has called clean, you will not call unclean.” It was only after his journey to a household full of people willing to accept the teachings and be baptized did he make the connection.

In the case of the Popes declaring teachings about the Blessed Mother, it would not require some kind of vision that signifies a radical departure from the status quo because the belief was already there and had been since the beginning. By comparison, when you read in the American Declaration of Independence that the Founding Fathers of the country “…hold these truths to be self-evident,” do you think those thoughts first began on the day they were written down, or were they simply making a formal declaration of something they already believed?

It is clear from the context, the reception of Gentile believers into the Church, that food was not the issue here. Jews considered Gentiles to be unclean. Jesus was telling Peter that he was no longer to think that way. At any rate, if you are going to use Acts 10 as a basis for believing in papal infallibility, then you would need a similar vision each time infallibility came into play.

 

[hollypally]

The pope should be right always! Do not ever question anything he says and you will be ok in life!

sincerely,

jewbob

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[garysibio]

re: how often infallibility has been used

zach_dunn>> 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. <<

Not quite. The pope doesn’t need to be protected from error when he isn’t doing anything in the first place. He needs the protection when he is teaching something as the truth.

Luke65>. 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. <<

You are contradicting yourself. If Pope Damasus was using infallibility in his definition of the canon, it would not have had to have been dogmatized at Trent. It would have already been dogma. Damasus was not using a charism of infallibility.

 

[hollypally]

The pope was only recently infallible. he is kind of like superman mixed with bon jovi.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[diggerdomer]

You asked me to post my comments to this post but I have to confess I’m a bit confused by them. I do accept all Scripture. Part of my problem with papal infallibility is that I don’t see it taught in Scripture without really jumping through some hoops. I don’t hold to sola scriptura but I also know of no passages in the early Church Fathers that teach papal infallibility. Petrine primacy yes, but papal infallibility, no. I asked about this in another thread and in other forums but the earliest reference to infallibilty that I have been able to find is around the time of the Reformation.

Most of the comments in your post deal with the Church, not the pope. That may be why I am confused about how your comments deal with the issue of papal infallibility. They are not the same thing.

garysibio, are you looking for “proof” of infallibility in the Bible? It’s not there. Neither are proofs of or evidence for a lot of dogmas, teachings, and beliefs of the Catholic Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I asked about this in another thread and in other forums but the earliest reference to infallibilty that I have been able to find is around the time of the Reformation.

Read The Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 by Brian Tierney for the first formulations of papal infallibility. See here for a thread discussing it, starting at post #17.

 

[DavidMark]

On what basis do Catholics believe ‘that public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle.’ So that’s all the world gets for the rest of life on this planet?

Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at His forbidding voice, “Thou shalt never behold Me!”; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction, “Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!”(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 62)

Men at all times and under all conditions stand in need of one to exhort them, guide them and to instruct and teach them. Therefore He hath sent forth His Messengers, His Prophets and chosen ones that they might acquaint the people with the divine purpose underlying the revelation of Books and the raising up of Messengers, and that everyone may become aware of the trust of God which is latent in the reality of every soul.
Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess. Through a word proceeding out of the mouth of God he was called into being; by one word more he was guided to recognize the Source of his education; by yet another word his station and destiny were safeguarded.
(Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 161)

 

[twb1621]

You asked me to post my comments to this post but I have to confess I’m a bit confused by them. I do accept all Scripture. Part of my problem with papal infallibility is that I don’t see it taught in Scripture without really jumping through some hoops. I don’t hold to sola scriptura but I also know of no passages in the early Church Fathers that teach papal infallibility. Petrine primacy yes, but papal infallibility, no. I asked about this in another thread and in other forums but the earliest reference to infallibilty that I have been able to find is around the time of the Reformation.

Most of the comments in your post deal with the Church, not the pope. That may be why I am confused about how your comments deal with the issue of papal infallibility. They are not the same thing.

In the sense of what governs infallibility, that being the Holy Spirit, there is little difference between Papal and Church infallibility. A more detailed explanation is available at the following link if you are interested. See the excerpt below;

“Christ instructed the Apostles to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (St. Matt. 28:19-20). Together with this commission, Christ promised the Apostles the protection of the Holy Spirit: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (St. John 16:13).

For the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill its mission as teacher, she must never teach error with respect to faith or morals, otherwise she would be failing as a mother of souls and faithful spouse of Christ. Following from this, it is logical that the supreme head of the Church of Christ be also a perpetual source of truth. Christ, foreseeing that false teachers would arise**––“false messiahs and false prophets will appear” (St. Mark 13:22)––**

endowed the supreme head of the Church with the power and authority to decide infallibly all controversies concerning written and unwritten doctrine (St. Matt. 16:18-20). This supreme head of the Church is the Pope of Rome. Infallibility is a negative protection, the inability of the Church or Pope to teach error with respect to faith and morals when a formal teaching is
proclaimed. It is distinct from inspiration, in that it does not help the Pope to know the truth or inspire him to teach it. The Pope must still work to know the truth and know it to an extraordinary level, considering his unique position. Infallible pronouncements are sparingly made, usually only when a key doctrine is doubted or denied.”

http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page120.html

Additional material;

'Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church’s infallibility; and of these the principal are:

• Matthew 28:18-20;
• Matthew 16:18;
• John 14, 15, and 16;
• I Timothy 3:14-15; and
• Acts 15:28 sq.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

 

[garysibio]

In the sense of what governs infallibility, that being the Holy Spirit, there is little difference between Papal and Church infallibility. A more detailed explanation is available at the following link if you are interested. See the excerpt below;

“Christ instructed the Apostles to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (St. Matt. 28:19-20). Together with this commission, Christ promised the Apostles the protection of the Holy Spirit: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (St. John 16:13).

For the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ to fulfill its mission as teacher, she must never teach error with respect to faith or morals, otherwise she would be failing as a mother of souls and faithful spouse of Christ. Following from this, it is logical that the supreme head of the Church of Christ be also a perpetual source of truth. Christ, foreseeing that false teachers would arise**––“false messiahs and false prophets will appear” (St. Mark 13:22)––**

endowed the supreme head of the Church with the power and authority to decide infallibly all controversies concerning written and unwritten doctrine (St. Matt. 16:18-20). This supreme head of the Church is the Pope of Rome. Infallibility is a negative protection, the inability of the Church or Pope to teach error with respect to faith and morals when a formal teaching is
proclaimed. It is distinct from inspiration, in that it does not help the Pope to know the truth or inspire him to teach it. The Pope must still work to know the truth and know it to an extraordinary level, considering his unique position. Infallible pronouncements are sparingly made, usually only when a key doctrine is doubted or denied.”

http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page120.html

Additional material;

'Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy might be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church’s infallibility; and of these the principal are:

• Matthew 28:18-20;
• Matthew 16:18;
• John 14, 15, and 16;
• I Timothy 3:14-15; and
• Acts 15:28 sq.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II

Actually I see a big difference between the infallibility of the Church and papal infallibility - the former is clearly taught in Scripture and the Church Fathers, the latter is not, at least that I can find.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually I see a big difference between the infallibility of the Church and papal infallibility - the former is clearly taught in Scripture and the Church Fathers, the latter is not, at least that I can find.

I think it’s important to distinguish between the gift of infallibility (given to the Church) and the way that gift is exercised (by the Pope teaching ex cathedra, by the Pope and bishops gathered in council, or by the Pope and bishops united in teaching yet dispersed throughout the world). In that sense, one can’t really talk about papal vs. Church infallibility, it’s all part of the same equation.

 

[garysibio]

garysibio, are you looking for “proof” of infallibility in the Bible? It’s not there. Neither are proofs of or evidence for a lot of dogmas, teachings, and beliefs of the Catholic Church.

I’m not restricting myself to the Bible. I don’t see any mention of it prior to the time of the Reformation. Papal primacy, yes; papal infallibility, no.

 

[garysibio]

Read The Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 by Brian Tierney for the first formulations of papal infallibility. See here for a thread discussing it, starting at post #17.

Would you believe the Chicago Public Library system has only one copy of this book and it is in the reference section so I can’t check it out. I checked Amazon.Com and Half.Com and, with the exception of one copy that was going for $40.00, all of the rest were way over $100.00. Guess which book I won’t be reading.

I’ll take a look at the thread you mentioned but, if 1150 is the ealiest date we can find a reference to the doctrine, my doubts about its veracity are going to be even stronger.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not restricting myself to the Bible. I don’t see any mention of it prior to the time of the Reformation. Papal primacy, yes; papal infallibility, no.

ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

Would you believe the Chicago Public Library system has only one copy of this book and it is in the reference section so I can’t check it out. I checked Amazon.Com and Half.Com and, with the exception of one copy that was going for $40.00, all of the rest were way over $100.00. Guess which book I won’t be reading.

I’ll take a look at the thread you mentioned but, if 1150 is the ealiest date we can find a reference to the doctrine, my doubts about its veracity are going to be even stronger.

Just because the phrase “papal infallibility” didn’t arise until later in the tradition has nothing to do with its truth, reasonableness, etc.

“transubstantiation” was a word coined in the later Middle Ages yet became a key element of Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. Right?