Papal Infallibility

[curidud]

I accept with information: 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.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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

The word “infallible” or “infallibility” wasn’t used in 1150-1350 period. The concept was described as “whatever, through the key of knowledge, the Roman pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals persists so immutably that it is not licit for a successor to call it again into doubt nor affirm the contrary.”

 

[CaptainPicard]

One of the best proofs of Petrine primacy is Isaish 22:

Isaiah 22 20-23
" On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family"​

Matthew 16 18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Eliakim was the “governor of the palace”, which was a sort of prime ministerial position in the days of the Davidic kings. Why would Jesus (the fulfillment of the Davidic Kings) reference him when speaking to Peter?

 

[DavidMark]

Christ has returned with the “New Name” but the Popes since Pius IX haven’t seen

**The Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. **Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related. At this time, however, David crieth aloud and saith: ‘O my loving Lord! Do Thou number me with such as have stood steadfast in Thy Cause, O Thou through Whom the faces have been illumined, and the footsteps have slipped!’

The Breath hath been wafted, and the Breeze hath blown, and from Zion hath appeared that which was hidden, and from Jerusalem is heard the Voice of God, the One, the Incomparable, the Omniscient.

Lend an ear unto the song of David. He saith: ‘Who will bring me into the Strong City?’
(Psalms 60:9 & 108:10)
The Strong City is 'Akká, which hath been named the Most Great Prison, and which possesseth a fortress and mighty ramparts… Peruse that which Isaiah hath spoken in His Book. He saith: ‘Get thee up into the high mountain, O Zion, that bringest good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings. Lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah: “Behold your God! Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him.”’ This Day all the signs have appeared. A great City hath descended from heaven, and Zion trembleth and exulteth with joy at the Revelation of God, for it hath heard the Voice of God on every side. (The Proclamation of Baha’u’llah, p. 89)
Call out to Zion, O Carmel, and announce the joyful tidings: He that was hidden from mortal eyes is come! His all-conquering sovereignty is manifest; His all-encompassing splendor is revealed.(Baha’u’llah, GWB, p. 15)

Napoleon could not take Akka in 1799, but the British were given the keys to the city in 1918! Baha’u’llah is speaking as the Root and Stem of Jesse, and the return of the spirit of Christ and announcing the end of the time of the gentile rule, and the return of the Jews, which was probably the most obvious sign of the Avent, but still the Pope’s refuse to see it.

 

[twb1621]

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.

It is good to discuss these things. To look for and only acknowledge what is specifically written in scripture would lack sensibility to say the least. On the other hand, If we acknowledge the truth in the inspired word of God through scripture we have to accept His word when He proclaimed He had much more to tell but it would be too much for us to deal with so it would be revealed through time. If you read the verse, you will see that time does not end with the written gospel and this is verified by the fact it is the written gospel that tells us this. Peter was chosen by Jesus as the lead authority of His Church, Biblical. If The chair of Peter is representative of the authority Bestowed upon Peter by Christ, which it is, as handed over to each successor of Peter and through the laying of hands or Holy Orders, passing on the gift through the Holy Spirit, It is Biblical. Peter did receive this gift, that’s Biblical, the guidance of the Holy Spirit would remain until Christ’s return, also Biblical, Peter asserts the necessity and establishment for the succession of each of the apostles to maintain their consistency in His teachings, also Biblical. Jesus gave the authority to Forgive and retain, loose and biind, until His return, again, biblical. Notice the authority to loose and bind was not limited to anything specific and His teaching (much to tell) would be revealed through time?

Latin Vulgate
John CH16; 6 But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me. 10 And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. 11 And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged. 12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

Do you see any other alternative in the Bible that says anything will change to take the guidance of the Holy Spirit away from His Church or Peter or that his successors would not maintain the authority Gifted Peter or any verse that separates Peter from that authority or an point of expiration of that authority and guidance? Or do you recognize that it was Jesus proclamation for this to continue until His return? The guidance and authority has always been there, some didn’t like to hear it officially acknowledged.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the 6th general council. Doesn’t this prove that the bishops at the time had no idea of any papal infallibility? How can a pope be infallible and at the same time be condemned as a heretic?

Joan of Arc was declared a witch and burned at the stake by pope Eugenious the 4th. But pope Benedict the XV declared Joan a saint in 1919!

If a later pope can change the teachings of an earlier one, then where’s the infallibility? Where’s the unity?

 

[djeter]

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.

Hi Ray:

A relatively clear and straightforward explanation of the magisterium and papal infallibility:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2…e-magisterium/

Uses the Constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council, the Catechism, First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution, De Fide, and The Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium as sources.

regards,

dj

 

[diggerdomer]

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the 6th general council. Doesn’t this prove that the bishops at the time had no idea of any papal infallibility? How can a pope be infallible and at the same time be condemned as a heretic?

Joan of Arc was declared a witch and burned at the stake by pope Eugenious the 4th. But pope Benedict the XV declared Joan a saint in 1919!

If a later pope can change the teachings of an earlier one, then where’s the infallibility? Where’s the unity?

Infallible does not mean free of sin.

It’s not accurate to say “How can a pope be infallible” – he can’t. He can teach infallibly.

Infallibility is not a personal trait or characteristic. It’s a charism the Church can excercise on specific occasions when teaching authoritatively.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the 6th general council. Doesn’t this prove that the bishops at the time had no idea of any papal infallibility? How can a pope be infallible and at the same time be condemned as a heretic?

Yankee_drifter now spends his time searching anti-Catholic websites looking for additional reasons for remaining an ex-Catholic. However, he fails to find the true facts concerning Honorius. I am happy to assist, as always.

Articles about Pope Honorius

**THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS **
By ROBERT SPENCER
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn’t Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

White Is Wrong
Rebutting James White’s Rebuttal on Pope Honorius
By Steven O’Reilly
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

If a later pope can change the teachings of an earlier one, then where’s the infallibility? Where’s the unity?

Because Yankee_drifter does not understand papal infallibility, he asks questions that make no sense. A decision regarding Joan of Arc is not protected by the charism of infallibility which applies only to formal teaching on matters of faith and morals.

Popes can and do make mistakes and errors in judgment all the time (ie, Honorius) on temporal matters, but this has no bearing on the question of infallibility.

Perhaps less typing and more reading of good Catholic books would be a better use of one’s time.

 

[zach_dunn]

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.

You believe the Church is infallible except when it says that the Pope is infallible??

 

[Randy_Carson]

You believe the Church is infallible except when it says that the Pope is infallible??

BOO-YAH!

 

[DavidMark]

I want to remind my Catholic friends that Pope Pius IX, who issued the Edict of Papal Infallibility was the one addressd by Bahá’u’lláh in this great Epistle, the original of which is in the Vatican Library, and which everyone should know about:
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-5.html

To summarize: Bahá’u’lláh showed insight into the private thoughts and dreams of the kings that He wrote to from prison. He warned the Pope about the ornaments, and materiality, and told him to come out and travel and counsel the kings and leaders to be just and fair, which many of the Popes since have done! He said to leave the Papal estates to others, and within two years of telling Pius IX this, Victor Emmanuel took those domains from him! What better demonstration of divine might?
Bahá’u’lláh was in Akko, Palestine. This “strong city” alluded to in Psalms (60:9 & 108:10) could not be taken by Napoleon in 1799 and had become a Turkish penal fortress. There, He wrote His Most Holy Book and spoke about the topic of Infallibility:
**He Who is the Dawning-place of God’s Cause hath no partner in the Most Great Infallibility.
He it is Who, in the kingdom of creation, is the Manifestation of “He doeth whatsoever He willeth”. God hath reserved this distinction unto His own Self, and ordained for none a share in so sublime and transcendent a station.
This is the Decree of God, concealed ere now within the veil of impenetrable mystery.
We have disclosed it in this Revelation, and have thereby rent asunder the veils of such as have failed to recognize that which the Book of God set forth and who were numbered with the heedless. (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, #47, p. 36)

So, what are the fruits of this Spirit? A body of teachings for the healing of the nations that have never been assembled or backed up in such a way before. Let those seeking God’s Infalliblity in this world take notice of the appearance of the Tree of Life, in this New Jerusalem. Remember, adventists in the West were looking to 1844 as the time of the end, while Shí’ites in the East were looking to 1260 AH (which was 1844). That is a clue to how the Unifier and Divine Physician can reconcile the nations.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

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.

I haven’t read the whole thread so this has probably already been mentioned, but have you read this tract?:
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[DavidMark]

Luke 22:34 **And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. **
Like the Prince of Apostles, the Papacy has thrice denied the Lord by denying the three Divine Manifestations of Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. The Papacy has yet to repent as Peter did, and sacrifice itself for the Kingdom of God…or at least “sell all it has to buy this field.”

Baha’u’llah’s Tablet to Pope Pius IX:

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-5.html

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Blah blah blah…
Go stuff it in a sock

Luke 22:34 **And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. **
Like the Prince of Apostles, the Papacy has thrice denied the Lord by denying the three Divine Manifestations of Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. The Papacy has yet to repent as Peter did, and sacrifice itself for the Kingdom of God…or at least “sell all it has to buy this field.”

Baha’u’llah’s Tablet to Pope Pius IX:

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-5.html

 

[zach_dunn]

Luke 22:34 **And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. **
Like the Prince of Apostles, the Papacy has thrice denied the Lord by denying the three Divine Manifestations of Muhammad, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. The Papacy has yet to repent as Peter did, and sacrifice itself for the Kingdom of God…or at least “sell all it has to buy this field.”

Baha’u’llah’s Tablet to Pope Pius IX:

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-5.html

Whoever the bolded person is, they are a deceiver and a false prophet.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[DavidMark]

“Whoever the bolded person is, they are a deceiver and a false prophet.”

That’s what they said about Jesus;
so just because you say it again now
does not necessarily make it true.
They had all their proofs assembed,
and they were still as wrong as sin.

 

[JustaServant]

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.

Archbishop Sheen on the infallibility of the Successor of Peter, the Pope.

What does infallibility mean?

Infallibility is not a personal gift. If you ever visit the Holy Father, and you say to the Holy Father, “I’m very interested in the stock market. Would you tell me if I should invest in General Motors?” and suppose he says, “Yes! I think General Motors is a good investment!” Listen, that’s no more infallible than what I’m making to you. He is infallible only when he functions as the head of the Church. (And I will mention some other conditions a little later on.)

Furthermore, infallibility is not a positive gift – it is a negative gift. Infalliblity is taken from two Latin words: in and fallor – “not to be mistaken”. Our Blessed Lord said to Peter that “the gates of Hell” – that is to say, the judgment of error and sin – would not touch him or His Church.

It’s not a positive gift. He cannot, for example, make an infallible statement on literature or science. Many people think that infallibility is like a faucet: that the Holy Father goes to this great faucet of infallibility, turns it on and the truth just pours out! No! That’s not infallibility!

Infallibility is a levy. It’s a levy that prevents the River of Truth from overflowing and destroying the countryside. (The difference between a river and a swamp is that the swamp has no banks or limits, and a river has.)

And to be infallible, the Holy Father must fulfill three conditions:

1. He must speak as the head of the Church. That is to say, the head of the Church composed of all of the Bishops of the Church.

1. He must speak on the subject of faith and morals.

1. He must address himself to the entire Church, and not to any member of it, or not to any one country.

Many a Pontiff goes through life without making one single infallible decision – not a one.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

That’s what they said about Jesus;.

You are not Jesus

 

[DavidMark]

Peter, who was the Rock (of the Christian dispensation), was firm and solid; but, in the moment of Christ’s deliverance, that Rock quaked a little, until the crowing of the cock was raised. I hope that thou wilt become, in steadfastness, so firm and so solid that thousands of deliverances would not cause thee to tremble. (Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v2, p. 364)

O thou who hast set thy face towards the Realm on High and hast quaffed My sealed wine from the hand of bounteousness! Know thou that the term **‘Infallibility’ **hath numerous meanings and divers stations. In one sense it is applicable to the One Whom God hath made immune from error.
Similarly it is applied to every soul whom God hath guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like. However, the Most Great Infallibility is confined to the One Whose station is immeasurably exalted beyond ordinances or prohibitions and is sanctified from errors and omissions.
Indeed He is a Light which is not followed by darkness and a Truth not overtaken by error. Were He to pronounce water to be wine or heaven to be earth or light to be fire, He speaketh the truth and no doubt would there be about it; and unto no one is given the right to question His authority or to say why or wherefore. Whosoever raiseth objections will be numbered with the froward in the Book of God, the Lord of the worlds. (Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 108)