Pope and the Bible

[pablope]

Can one have reservations about papal infallibility and still be a devout Catholic?

Also, didn’t the Saints Peter and Paul disagree?

I do not think so…in terms of the gospel…for in Gal 1 and 2…even Paul went to see Peter and the Apostles…to submit his gospel that what he was teaching was not in vain.

 

[pablope]

As I understand, the disagreement wasn’t about whose favorite ice cream flavor is better — it was very serious in regards to Gentiles, right? In other words, doctrine/dogma?

No…it was about the behavious and hypocrisy of Peter with regards eating with the Gentiles when Jews were present. It was about a moral failing of Peter…and Paul corrected Peter’s behavious fraternally.

 

[EIF5A]

In my mind-the HolySpirit either works through man or he does not. If a Protestant does not accept the infallability of the Pope, logic dictates that they also cannot accept the Bible as the Truth either. Man is involved with both.

How does logic dictate that?

The Holy Spirit can work through an individual to offer Divine Scripture useful for teaching, rebuking, etc, and quite obviously worked through many people throughout history, but does that make the individual infallible? Was Moses infallible? Was Elijah? St. Peter, St. Paul, or St. Mark?

Edit: OK, apparently there’s a distinction between dogma/morality and non-dogma/morality. So heliocentrism does not apply because it was science, even though the Bible was used to “prove” geocentrism? That it appears that Earth is the center, so it’s a moot point?

 

[pablope]

How does logic dictate that?

The Holy Spirit can work through an individual to offer Divine Scripture useful for teaching, rebuking, etc, and quite obviously worked through many people throughout history, but does that make the individual infallible? Was Moses infallible? Was Elijah? St. Peter, St. Paul, or St. Mark?

Sure…there are many who claim to teach the true gospel…but how can you be sure they are teaching the correct understanding of the gospel?

How can you be sure it is the HS that is guiding these preachers who make such claims?

The Sripture says…even Satan can masquerade as an angle of light.

To put this in perspective…let me cite the example of St. Paul. You know very well his story…he was called directly by Christ.

But in Acts 13…1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Paul is laid hands on, or ordained, before he goes on his first missionay journey.

See how Paul fulfills this passage of Scripture…from Rom 10…15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Paul is sent. So a question can be asked…who sent that preacher claiming to teach the true gospel? Who ordained him?

Second part…Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul submits to authority too…seeking to be sure that he was not teaching anything contrary to the Apostles.

See how Paul’s example follows this passage…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood

Paul is sent…and listened or submitted to Apostolic authority…despite being called directly by God…he did not go out on his own.

 

[SteveVH]

How does logic dictate that?

The Holy Spirit can work through an individual to offer Divine Scripture useful for teaching, rebuking, etc, and quite obviously worked through many people throughout history, but does that make the individual infallible? Was Moses infallible? Was Elijah? St. Peter, St. Paul, or St. Mark?

Edit: OK, apparently there’s a distinction between dogma/morality and non-dogma/morality. So heliocentrism does not apply because it was science, even though the Bible was used to “prove” geocentrism? That it appears that Earth is the center, so it’s a moot point?

No man is infallible in and of himself. As has already been stated, it is the office of the Bishop of Rome that is infallible and then only when officially speaking from the Chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals. Under those circumstances the Pope, along with the magisterium, is protected from error.

This is very important. Infallibility could very possibly mean that the Church remains silent on a particular issue because it just doesn’t know. That would, indeed, be an exercise of infallibility because it has protected the issue from error.

I think what confuses a lot of people is that they believe the Pope could just come up with anything he wanted and decalre it dogma or doctrine. It took centuries for the Church to make its infallible pronouncement concerning the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, but these had been held as true by the Church since very early on. The Church makes an infallible statement of doctrine only concerning the truth it has already received.

People disagree with what they believe to be infallibility rather than the truth of the matter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can one have reservations about papal infallibility and still be a devout Catholic?

Also, didn’t the Saints Peter and Paul disagree?

I am not infallible. To lie is worse than to admit to not understand something.

Jon said that not only Protestants have a problem. My problem is one of understanding, not of disobedience. In my fallibility, infallibility is not necessary. I don’t need a proclamation to reaffirm my Faith. My Faith stands and obeys the Church and its Magisterium. It is when I’m weak that He is strong and when I am humble that He sees me with favor.

I can’t disagree with something I don’t understand, otherwise - How can I disagree with it in the first place?

 

[EIF5A]

No man is infallible in and of himself. As has already been stated, it is the office of the Bishop of Rome that is infallible and then only when officially speaking from the Chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals. Under those circumstances the Pope, along with the magisterium, is protected from error.

This is very important. Infallibility could very possibly mean that the Church remains silent on a particular issue because it just doesn’t know. That would, indeed, be an exercise of infallibility because it has protected the issue from error.

**I think what confuses a lot of people is that they believe the Pope could just come up with anything he wanted and decalre it dogma or doctrine. ** It took centuries for the Church to make its infallible pronouncement concerning the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, but these had been held as true by the Church since very early on. The Church makes an infallible statement of doctrine only concerning the truth it has already received.

People disagree with what they believe to be infallibility rather than the truth of the matter.

[Bolded by me]

Ah, ok. I’m starting to internalize all of this.

I guess I just have my biases because of what is taught in history classes about the various…shortcomings…of the Catholic Church. I mean, given the past, how can such an office be endowed by the Holy Spirit with infallibility? If we are to evaluate the fruits to determine what is good, shouldn’t that also apply to the office of the pope? That was my thinking. I hope I didn’t offend anyone. Surely I pray I did not offend or grieve the Holy Spirit with my ignorance.

 

[mommy_k]

Pehaps I need to rephrase my op-my protestant friends say that their should be no obstacle to Jesus. They claim that man is flawed-we are to confess directly to Jesus. That the Pope is a good man, but just that a man just the same and the laws put forth by the Catholic church are considered legalism, also an obstacle put forth by man.
Man wrote the bible- so why do protestants accept what man has written in the bible–

 

[EIF5A]

Pehaps I need to rephrase my op-my protestant friends say that their should be no obstacle to Jesus. They claim that man is flawed-we are to confess directly to Jesus. That the Pope is a good man, but just that a man just the same and the laws put forth by the Catholic church are considered legalism, also an obstacle put forth by man.
Man wrote the bible- so why do protestants accept what man has written in the bible–

Jesus quoted the Scripture, so that must be true. The Disciples were chosen by and were with the Lord, and Apostle Paul received the order directly from the Lord. I guess if Protestants do not believe in Apostolic Succession, then there is no reason to believe an individual received a direct mandate from God…?

 

[JonNC]

=mommy k;10203782]Pehaps I need to rephrase my op-my protestant friends say that their should be no obstacle to Jesus. They claim that man is flawed-we are to confess directly to Jesus.

Well, if confession to a pastor/priest is the issue, let them know that scripture is clear that Christ provided the Church the power to bind and loose. That’s one of the things the ordained clergy is for, to act in persona christi.

That the Pope is a good man, but just that a man just the same and the laws put forth by the Catholic church are considered legalism, also an obstacle put forth by man.
Man wrote the bible- so why do protestants accept what man has written in the bible–

If I thought it was simply men, without the inspiration of the Spirit, I’d agree with you. And let’s face it, we rely in large part on this matter on what the early Church said about scripture.

Jon

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

It is not. Notice that they make an infallible pronouncement regarding infallibility! Who made them infallible? Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the eleven into all truth. We don’t need a bible to believe this because, first and foremost, Jesus said it. It’s a done deal.

Do they consider this: if the men who wrote the Gospels were not infallible, then what? Not one of the Gospels or letters begins with the words “The infallible word of God.” The Church had to determine that the Gospels and letters were inspired. I do not think that your friends are considering what they are saying.

As well, not even many Catholics fully understand the concept and limitations of infallibility.

They were not infallible, the spirit which wrote through them is infallible, and thus the gospels are infallible.

 

[SteveVH]

They were not infallible, the spirit which wrote through them is infallible, and thus the gospels are infallible.

And it is the same Spirit that guides the Pope and the magisterium of the Catholic Church, preventing error from creeping into divine revelation, as promissed by Christ.

The Gospel cannot be infallible, rather it is inerrant. Those proclaiming the sacred Scriptures as the inspired word of God were infallible, or at least you had better hope they were. If they were not, then you only have fallible men’s opinions concerning the inspired nature of Scripture.

 

[EIF5A]

So infallibility is in reference to the authority to declare some sort of doctrine or moral issue, not to the person, per se?

In other words, the pope is infallible at the issuance or clarification of a belief but infallibility is not an intrinsic, all-encompassing characteristic of him?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So infallibility is in reference to the authority to declare some sort of doctrine or moral issue, not to the person, per se?

In other words, the pope is infallible at the issuance or clarification of a belief but infallibility is not an intrinsic, all-encompassing characteristic of him?

It was defined in Vatican I:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    that is, when,
        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 possesses,
    by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined

 

[SteveVH]

So infallibility is in reference to the authority to declare some sort of doctrine or moral issue, not to the person, per se?

In other words, the pope is infallible at the issuance or clarification of a belief but infallibility is not an intrinsic, all-encompassing characteristic of him?

You got it, I think.

The Church has the task of protecting the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. How, then does the Holy Spirit guide the Church? Through its leaders, the Pope and his brother bishops. This doesn’t mean that the Pope all of a sudden becomes brilliant (though we have had many brilliant popes) and begins writing new doctrine. It simply means that he is protected from bringing error into the doctrines already held since the beginning.

Here is a good way to understand infallibility:

If the Pope was asked to take a trigonometry test with 100 questions and was asked to do this “infallibly”, how many questions should he answer correctly? The answer is that he should answer none of them because of the possibility of even one answer being in error.

 

[EIF5A]

You got it, I think.

The Church has the task of protecting the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. How, then does the Holy Spirit guide the Church? Through its leaders, the Pope and his brother bishops. This doesn’t mean that the Pope all of a sudden becomes brilliant (though we have had many brilliant popes) and begins writing new doctrine. It simply means that he is protected from bringing error into the doctrines already held since the beginning.

Here is a good way to understand infallibility:

If the Pope was asked to take a trigonometry test with 100 questions and was asked to do this “infallibly”, how many questions should he answer correctly? The answer is that he should answer none of them because of the possibility of even one answer being in error.

Oh my goodness, am I starting to understand a Catholic Catechism?!

So the Pope speaks of morality and doctrine if and only if there is certainty of its Divine inspiration and correctness?

 

[SteveVH]

Oh my goodness, am I starting to understand a Catholic Catechism?!

So the Pope speaks of morality and doctrine if and only if there is certainty of its Divine inspiration and correctness?

It is really a matter of defining the deposit of faith given to us in the beginning. Imagine defining a doctrine such as the Trinity which is not specifically laid out in the Scriptures. What does it really mean? What do we really believe about it? When defining such beliefs, we believe that the Pope, together with the magisterium, is protected by the Holy Spirit from bringing error into doctrine. As such, we are obligated as Catholics to believe all that the Church teaches and holds true. We can depend, not on faillible men, but on the Holy Spirit working through these men, infallibly.

 

[po18guy]

Who says the Bible is infallible?

They do. It is the “supreme authority” which tells me that, for some, the bible is very close to being their god.

 

[po18guy]

They were not infallible, the spirit which wrote through them is infallible, and thus the gospels are infallible.

Since the Holy Spirit did not declare, in the King’s English, that those exact 73 separate books were His inspiration, who did? And, by what authority?

 

[fhansen]

When I speak with Protestant friends, the common thread is that they do not believe thsat the Pope or any man can be infalliable, do not believe in Saints, etc. and they go directly to the bible for answers.
What confuses me about this statement is that the bible was written by man with the Holy Spirit working through the writers, and the Holy Spirit works through the Pope.
How is this different?

It’s not different. For whatever reason they’ve determined that the bible is infallible but nothing else can be. Then, of course, they may well go on to interpret the infallible bible differently from each other, all apparently acting as little popes themselves with their own infallible understandings.