Peter the first pope? and papal infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter FutureCatholic1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FutureCatholic1

Guest
so i was talking to my Quaker uncle it was a friendly talk by the way but as we talked about Catholicism he brought up two things. one he said Catholics cannot trace from our current pope to peter being the first pope and he brought up the issue of papal infallibility on things he might say we both agree the pope is a man and can sin how do i answer him on these things
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
so i was talking to my Quaker uncle it was a friendly talk by the way but as we talked about Catholicism he brought up two things. one he said Catholics cannot trace from our current pope to peter being the first pope and he brought up the issue of papal infallibility on things he might say we both agree the pope is a man and can sin how do i answer him on these things
Click to expand...
Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with sinning or not. The pope is a man, and is therefore capable of sinning just like any of us are. Papal Infallibility is the charism, or gift of the Holy Spirit, that renders him unable to teach error in matters of faith or morals when speaking with the full authority of the Petrine Office. For the record, this charism is also granted to the college of bishops when they speak together (this includes the Pope too, of course). For a quick biblical basis of this belief, look to Matthew 16:18-19 (the promise here is to Peter and his successors) and Matthew 18:18 (bishops/apostles speaking together). Notice how in Matthew 16 Jesus says that he builds his Church upon Peter, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. If the Church began teaching error, would this not mean that the Devil is prevailing?

As for our ability to trace Benedict XVI back through the previous 265 popes all the way to Peter, the first pope; we certainly can. Check out the list here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

I’ve heard non-Catholics make this claim before, but I honestly have no idea where it comes from. A quick search online can yield this list easily, and it can be historically verified. Hope this helps.
 
40.png
ChrisB103:
Papal Infallibility is the charism, or gift of the Holy Spirit, that renders him unable to teach error in matters of faith or morals when speaking with the full authority of the Petrine Office.
Click to expand...
I think it would be better to say “protects him” from error in matters of Faith and Morals. Free will is always present. Same goes for the Magisterium. Remember: All infallibility is actually a participation in Church Infallibility. Church infallibility extends to ALL of the Faithful in matters of Faith and Morals. However the Pope is protected as an individual, and the Magisterium is protected as teachers. The faithful are also protected. The Head of our Church is Jesus Christ, and that is the source of Church infallibility. People are SO concerned with papal infallibility, it’s as if that is where infallibility originates.
 
so if i understand right papal infallibility is the holy spirit protecting the pope from teaching error and against scripture so would that mean that no pope has ever taught anything wrong not saying i disagree but i told him we would come back to these and i want to cover as many bases as i can
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
so if i understand right papal infallibility is the holy spirit protecting the pope from teaching error and against scripture so would that mean that no pope has ever taught anything wrong not saying i disagree but i told him we would come back to these and i want to cover as many bases as i can
Click to expand...
There’s one more little caveat, the Pope has to be teaching something about faith and morals that every Catholic must believe. Popes can hold erroneous private opinions, however, the Holy Spirit protects things official teachings.
 
so if my uncle ask about papal infallibly i should say we believe that papal infallibly is the holy spirit protecting the pope from outwardly speaking wrong about faith and morals and the bible but he can still have private opinions but wouldn’t that take away free will sorry if im being hard i just want to know what im believeing and what to tell him
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
so if my uncle ask about papal infallibly i should say we believe that papal infallibly is the holy spirit protecting the pope from outwardly speaking wrong about faith and morals and the bible but he can still have private opinions but wouldn’t that take away free will sorry if im being hard i just want to know what im believeing and what to tell him
Click to expand...
A little more accurate way of stating it would be this: Papal infallibility is the Holy Spirit protecting the Church from erroneous Papal teaching intended to be binding upon the whole Church in the area of faith and morals. If tomorrow, the Pope said he believes that the NY Giants were going to win the Superbowl, then it’s not infallible. The Pope never makes up anything new when teaching infallibly, by the way. He may “formalize” an existing teaching, but he never makes up anything out of thin air.
 
so the real pope has never said anything going against the bible or faith or morals that would affect the church am i right if so thats would bee all the proff i would ever need that the RCC was Gods church and im not being sarcastic
 
Also,
your Quaker friend may be wanting proof of the title, POPE, going back to Saint Peter himself. This will not be found.
PETER was given the keys of the kingdom by Jesus Christ and declared to be
the ROCK upon which Jesus would build his Church on earth.
So PETER, though a “bishop” like the other apostles,
was the **Chief **of the Bishops, the one with whom all the others
had to be in communion, as HE held (and holds through his successors)
the Keys of the Kingdom.
Thus, long before the Nicene Council of 325 A.D., under Constantine,
long before this, the early Church recognized the bishop of the Roman Church
as holding the place of Peter in the ENTIRE Church. This can be found, for example,
in the records of the Council of Sardica, held in 300 A.D. when the Church was
still ILLEGAL.
The title POPE comes from a later time.
Eventually, there came to be five major church patriarchates – large cities in the empire, ruled over by a Patriarch (a papa, a POPE). Each Patriarch was considered the Pope of that Patriarchate. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome, and Antioch (I believe).
But only the Pope of Rome had been and continued to be, regarded as THE Successor of Saint Peter in the Church’s Episcopate.
Eventually, the word “Pope” came to be used of the Pope of Rome, alone.
But the bishop or pope of Rome, is the successor of Saint Peter and
holds, on earth, Peter’s Keys of the Kingdom until the Second Coming of Christ.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
so i was talking to my Quaker uncle it was a friendly talk by the way but as we talked about Catholicism he brought up two things. one he said Catholics cannot trace from our current pope to peter being the first pope
Click to expand...
Then what he needs to do is disprove with evidence, the history the Church puts forward. He can’t just deny it
FC:
and he brought up the issue of papal infallibility on things he might say we both agree the pope is a man and can sin how do i answer him on these things
Click to expand...
as a suggestion, so that there are no mischaracterizations of what the Church teaches,
quote the definition of papal infallibility put forward by the CC

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  • *that is, when, *
    1. ***in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, *
    2. *in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, *
    3. *he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, ***
    4. *he possesses, *
    5. *by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, *
    6. *that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. *
    7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
    then discuss this definition, so that rabbitt trails aren’t followed or created as a result of polemics or misunderstandings or mischaracterizations.

    if he doesn’t accept infallibility, then ask your uncle a few questions.
    • Did Peter teach fallibly or infallibly. How does he know either way?
    • Did Paul teach fallibly or infallibly. How does he know either way?
    • are the selection of books in the canon a fallible collection or infallible collection of books. How does he know either way?
    • etc etc
    If he says infallible to any, he has to accept all as infallible. Which means he has 2 issues to deal with.
    • infallibility isn’t a “modern claim” never before heard of. It’s been around a long time.
    • when did infallibility end? how does he know that it ended?
    If he says fallible to these, then the bible can’t be trusted to be without error either. So have him list all the errors… and of course, ask him for proof

    Then once these ideas have been bounced around between you 2, and some groundwork established, then the issue of papal authority and infallibility can take on a different conversational direction for you…imo;)
 
can you dumb down that explination for me :confused::confused:

also i might need to add he is a pastor
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Also,
your Quaker friend may be wanting proof of the title, POPE, going back to Saint Peter himself. This will not be found.
PETER was given the keys of the kingdom by Jesus Christ and declared to be
the ROCK upon which Jesus would build his Church on earth.
So PETER, though a “bishop” like the other apostles,
was the **Chief **of the Bishops, the one with whom all the others
had to be in communion, as HE held (and holds through his successors)
the Keys of the Kingdom.
Thus, long before the Nicene Council of 325 A.D., under Constantine,
long before this, the early Church recognized the bishop of the Roman Church
as holding the place of Peter in the ENTIRE Church. This can be found, for example,
in the records of the Council of Sardica, held in 300 A.D. when the Church was
still ILLEGAL.
The title POPE comes from a later time.
Eventually, there came to be five major church patriarchates – large cities in the empire, ruled over by a Patriarch (a papa, a POPE). Each Patriarch was considered the Pope of that Patriarchate. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome, and Antioch (I believe).
But only the Pope of Rome had been and continued to be, regarded as THE Successor of Saint Peter in the Church’s Episcopate.
Eventually, the word “Pope” came to be used of the Pope of Rome, alone.
But the bishop or pope of Rome, is the successor of Saint Peter and
holds, on earth, Peter’s Keys of the Kingdom until the Second Coming of Christ.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Click to expand...
Actually the doctrine of Papal infallibility was not FORMALIZED until Vatican I in 1870.
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
so i was talking to my Quaker uncle it was a friendly talk by the way but as we talked about Catholicism he brought up two things. one he said Catholics cannot trace from our current pope to peter being the first pope and he brought up the issue of papal infallibility on things he might say we both agree the pope is a man and can sin how do i answer him on these things
Click to expand...
maybe you want to read this.

thecatholictreasurechest.com/
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
can you dumb down that explination for me :confused::confused:

also i might need to add he is a pastor
Click to expand...
I was just giving you some ideas. Likewise this post is just sharing some ideas. Conversationally, you might explore
  • why your uncle thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on the history of the popes from Peter. He can’t just deny it, he has to prove our geneology is wrong.
  • What’s your uncle’s knowledge about how scripture arrived in his hands. This is an important point. Most Protestants are shocked to know the NT scriptures were written in, by, for, and canonized by the Catholic Church.
  • What’s your uncle’s reasons for pushback on infallibility? The ideas I presented in the last post were pretty self explanatory. If the Catholic Church can’t act infallibly then how does he know we got the scriptures correct?
  • explore with him, who started the Quakers since he apparantly is interested in historical events. Have him show you in scripture, where division (such as the Quakers) is allowed and NOT condemned. See where he goes with that. (see the following quote from Romans)
explore with your uncle the following

Paul writing to the Romans,** aka Letter to the Church of Rome**
Rom 16:
*17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. *20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Catch that? Division from the Church is caused by Satan [Rom 16:20]. Those who divide from the Church do evil*[Rom 16:19]* are NOT serving Our Lord but their own selfish appetites*.[Rom 16:18]* and Paul says stay away from them *[Rom 16:17]. *Here’s a list of those who divided from the Church of Rome. Division that Paul condemned in advance
  • Luther knew about this passage from Romans. But he divided from the Church of Rome anyway
  • Calvin knew about this passage from Romans. But he divided from the Church of Rome anyway
  • Henry VIII knew about this passage from Romans. But he divided from the Church of Rome anyway
  • all Protestants ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm knew about this passage from Romans. But either they divided from the Church of Rome or divided from those who originally divided from the Church of Rome down to today. It became division on steroids.
Therefore, conversationally, ask your uncle how he as a Quaker AND a pastor, gets around this division and condemnation of division and those who divided?

as an aside,

“Quakers began in mid-17th century England including James Naylor, George Fox, Margaret Fell and Francis Howgill who broke away from the Church of England, bringing together groups of English Dissenters, attempting to restore what they believed were the practices of the early Church.” wiki

In history, heretics think they know better than the Catholic Church. Or they “claim” they are returning to the practices of the early Church. As Paul warns, these people who divide also by smooth argument, that deceives the minds of the naive get them to divide also.* [Rom 16:18] .* They do evil *[Rom 16:19] *And Paul says the God of peace will soon crush Satan under the Church of Rome’s feet [Rom 16:20] :cool:

Just some ideas to bounce around with your uncle.
 
i like your ideas and i am going to talk about those things you and others have suggested
but i will ask this so the pope has never made a deceleration,rule i don’t know what we would call it so the pope has never made a decision that pushed the church away from God or did i get that wrong

sorry if im getting on some peoples nerves but i do want to learn so well im gonna learn
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
i like your ideas and i am going to talk about those things you and others have suggested
but i will ask this so the pope has never made a deceleration,rule i don’t know what we would call it so the pope has never made a decision that pushed the church away from God or did i get that wrong

sorry if im getting on some peoples nerves but i do want to learn so well im gonna learn
Click to expand...
when a pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he is protected from making a mistake by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.

infallibility, must be on matters of faith and morals “alone” not on any other matters.
 
lol i finally get it now but just one more thing so if i told my uncle what you just said

quote
steve b
infallibility, must be on matters of faith and morals “alone” not on any other matters.

end quote

he would not be able to find a factual thing were a pope was fallible
 
FutureCatholic1 said:
lol i finally get it now but just one more thing so if i told my uncle what you just said

quote
steve b
infallibility, must be on matters of faith and morals “alone” not on any other matters.

end quote

he would not be able to find a factual thing were a pope was fallible
Click to expand...
As someone said earlier, it’s possible for a pope to teach error in his personal opinions. For example, Pope Benedict XVI wrote and published a book recently called “Jesus of Nazareth”. Since this book is a personal work of his, it would not be protected under the charism, or gift, of infallibility. In contrast, when a pope clarifies that he is speaking ex cathedra (a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff) on a matter of faith and morals that will be binding for the whole Church, the statement would be infallible.

It might be worth mentioning a few things that wouldn’t fall under these parameters:

Pastoral decisions (i.e. excommunications, personal advice, etc)
Personal conversations, letters, etc.

Any example that someone could show you that seems to contradict Papal Infallibility will inevitably not fit into the criteria of being an ex cathedra statement, so keep that in mind. Even if you’re not familiar with the particular instance, don’t worry. Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” has a good section on this. You can probably pick up a used one online for under ten bucks.

Good luck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top