Protestants Re: The Popes Infallibility, And why does it worry you so much?

[Henree]

Henree,

You are my brother In Christ because you are saved by the Catholic Church.

There’s nothing in scripture which states that the Church is the Savior; however, there is a wealth of scripture identifying Jesus as the Savior. Therefore, I am not saved by the Church, but by the Messiah.

ufamtobie:

Reject it? Wow thats even worse than being “worried”

Why is that?

ufamtobie:

Henree, do you Reject it as well?

I do reject papal “infalliblity.”

 

[Ral91]

Why do you think the Popes Infallibility is something that would worry us? Personally I don’t agree with it but I wouldn’t worry about it. I don’t think you’d ever find a Protestant who actually spent time worrying about it. Yes you’d find many that would dispute it and disagree with it, even those who would spent hours arguing with you about it but to assume it is something that worries us all is a bit stretched.

 

[SteveVH]

Why would I have to consider those statements to be “infallible?”

You don’t have to. But what in the world does that have to do with whether they are infallible or not? Do you consider your opinion to be infallible, or is there any possibility that you could be wrong in your assessment? I choose to place my confidence in Jesus Christ who promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth and who gave it the authority to define that truth. That is a powerful combination.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why don’t you start listing them…and see how far you can go with 2000 yrs worth of papal actions.

Not every papal action is infallible. That is the thing, people can’t even agree which is infallible or not.

 

[Henree]

Do you consider your opinion to be infallible, or is there any possibility that you could be wrong in your assessment?

No, and yes, and you?

SteveVH:

I choose to place my confidence in Jesus Christ who promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth and who gave it the authority to define that truth. That is a powerful combination.

If you’re fallible, your choice could be wrong.

 

[Henree]

Why do you think the Popes Infallibility is something that would worry us? Personally I don’t agree with it but I wouldn’t worry about it. I don’t think you’d ever find a Protestant who actually spent time worrying about it. Yes you’d find many that would dispute it and disagree with it, even those who would spent hours arguing with you about it but to assume it is something that worries us all is a bit stretched.

I’ve never heard anyone say they are “worried” about papal “infallibility.”

 

[ufamtobie]

Which had the greater part in the canon of Scripture, God, or the Church?

It’s a simple question. If you think there is another option, offer it.

Henree, I ask you a question which is greater the Bible New Testament or the Church? Now I am not talking about any church that came 1500 years later, I am talking about the Church founded on Rock the Church established over 2000 years ago, by Jesus Christ himself. Amen

Henree, What did Jesus Christ say: On this Rock I will build my Bible or On this Rock I will build my Church? “CHURCH” Therefore the Church is greater than the Bible and it is the Church that interprets the bible and no other and the Holy Spirit guided the Church to write the new Testament, Cannon etc… etc… therefore the Pope declared it infallible.

Jesus Christ is the Head of this Church that He established and we are the Body of this Church, so it is good to be in this Church, and not out side looking into this Church.

Henree, I see you pick and choose the infallibility of the Catholic Church Teachings, because if it were not for the Catholic Church you won’t have the infallibility of the New testament, you would have nothing to rely on:thumbsup:

Ufam Tobie

 

[Ral91]

I’ve never heard anyone say they are “worried” about papal “infallibility.”

Exactly- which is why I laughed when I read the title of this thread. I have heard a lot of negative and out right ludicrous things about Protestant denominations but I have never heard anyone say we worry about papal infallibility!!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I admire your passion, and I understand you believe that Peter is infallible. My question then is can Peter be so infallible that he could not deny Christ three times? Could a Pope today claim that they have no idea who Jesus is?

Also, you’re speaking to Protestants, but don’t the Orthodox interpret this differently too? And don’t they also claim infallibility?

Infallibility is not the same as impeccability.

In regard to the Church, the charism of infallibility (which is not strictly limited to the Pope) simply is the teaching that the Pope, the bishops in unity, and the deposit of the Faith will never teach error with regard to faith and morals.

That means that individual bishops (and Popes) can personally sin. They can personally be wrong with regard to scientific teachings, economics, football teams, psychology, etc. etc. They can personally be wrong about all kinds of things. . .EXCEPT when it comes to teaching faith and morals.

The Orthodox will answer for themselves but I don’t believe that there is anything that either Catholics or Orthodox teach regarding faith and morals that cannot be understood and worked out WHEN the two unify.

 

[Henree]

Henree, I ask you a question which is greater the Bible New Testament or the Church? Now I am not talking about any church that came 1500 years later, I am talking about the Church founded on Rock the Church established over 2000 years ago, by Jesus Christ himself. Amen

Henree, What did Jesus Christ say: On this Rock I will build my Bible or On this Rock I will build my Church? “CHURCH” Therefore the Church is greater than the Bible and it is the Church that interprets the bible and no other and the Holy Spirit guided the Church to write the new Testament, Cannon etc… etc… therefore the Pope declared it infallible.

Jesus Christ is the Head of this Church that He established and we are the Body of this Church, so it is good to be in this Church, and not out side looking into this Church.

Henree, I see you pick and choose the infallibility of the Catholic Church Teachings, because if it were not for the Catholic Church you won’t have the infallibility of the New testament, you would have nothing to rely on:thumbsup:

Are you fallible, or infallible, Ufam Tobie?

 

[bzkoss236]

Okay, then how did God tell YOU which are inspired or not. How do you know that other writings from the time are not inspired?

You’re not answering the questions posed in the post to which you are responding. Please answer the questions.

I didn’t answer them because someone already did. Why should I have to reiterate what someone already said?

So, answer my question.

 

[SteveVH]

No, and yes, and you?

Definitely fallible.

If you’re fallible, your choice could be wrong.

I could be wrong, but Christ cannot be wrong. So I choose to belong to the Church that He built and with which He remains and I submit my fallibility to the Church’s infallibility and follow its teachings rather than my own.

 

[Zachary]

Maybe instead of simply claiming that “even Catholics squabble over which is and is not an infallible statement” why dont you list those in question.

And as for the topic, it “worries” them because they need to cling to something they can use to argue against the Truth, regardless of Scripture and the word of Jesus himself.

 

[adf417]

I admire your passion, and I understand you believe that Peter is infallible. My question then is can Peter be so infallible that he could not deny Christ three times?

He certainly can and did but as we know this was not his teaching correct? A classic example of infallibility vs impeccability in our 1st pope. If denying Christ was to be his teaching then what do you call Mt 16:16 ? They can’t both be teachings. One is teaching and one is simply bad practice.

The above statement should also explain why this…

Could a Pope today claim that they have no idea who Jesus is?

…simply cannot happen – not even by accident.

Also, you’re speaking to Protestants, but don’t the Orthodox interpret this differently too? And don’t they also claim infallibility?

I would look at this as infallibilities.

Peace!!!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dronald;10966658]I admire your passion, and I understand you believe that Peter is infallible.

Correction Peter is never infallible by himself, the Holy Spirit when the pope speaks ex-cathedra from the chair of Peter on faith and morals, He the Holy Spirit makes them infallible.

My question then is can Peter be so infallible that he could not deny Christ three times? Could a Pope today claim that they have no idea who Jesus is?

Peter was infallible because Christ was in his presence, that is why Peter walke on water. When Jesus was taken from his presence, by force, the Popes can never speak infallible. That is why when the Popes were forced by the Emperors to act or sign an imperial order to which the Pope rejected, he never acts infallibly by force.

Also, you’re speaking to Protestants, but don’t the Orthodox interpret this differently too? And don’t they also claim infallibility?

They most certaintly do! I don’t know who was first to make claims of the Pope infallibility as being some supreme human being with super hero powers, the protestants or the Orthodox. Both are wrong.

Infallibility is a protection of the revelations of Jesus Christ and His teachings revealed through His apostles. The Pope cannot deter from this protection which is given to him by Jesus Christ. All the bishops united with the chair of Peter possess a charism of infallibility, thus the councils have infallibility attached to them without ever having to mention the word infallibility.

 

[JonNC]

Peter or the Popes actions or what they say are not infallible here is when they are infallible

“What is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.” -NewAdvent.org

For me? See the bolded. There is nothing in scripture that grants one bishop this, nor am I aware of it in the Sacred Tradition (councils, etc.) of the early Church.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For me? See the bolded. There is nothing in scripture that grants one bishop this, nor am I aware of it in the Sacred Tradition (councils, etc.) of the early Church.

Jon

Peter conducts a church synod to replace Judas teaching office. St.Paul said his gospel was never revealed to him through a human being but by Jesus Christ resurrected. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach and baptise “all” the nations and peoples of the earth beginning with Jerusalem.

The laying on of hands Paul warns his bishop Timothy not to be to hasty of laying on the apostolic blessing of consecration of another bishop, but to try them and test them before laying hands on another bishop.

**Scripture mentions the first three popes in the Roman Church, Peter, Linus and AnaCletus followed by Pope Clement this is confirmed by St. Irenaeus **not to mention the early Church Fathers who list all the Popes who succeeded Peter as being of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

Here is Sacred Tradition;

St.Irenaeus; "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoeing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. …In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.(Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3)

Do you think St.Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians teaching on morals and faith was infallible for all to follow, when the other Catholic Saints were his contemporaries who did not object to his letter, including the apostle John who is believed to be still living during this time?

 

[bzkoss236]

Peter or the Popes actions or what they say are not infallible here is when they are infallible

“What is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.” -NewAdvent.org

While it doesn’t need to be ratified by the whole Church, it does need to be something that is already believed by the Church, meaning the Pope can’t just make something up.

 

[JonNC]

=_Gabriel of 12;10969410]Peter conducts a church synod to replace Judas teaching office. St.Paul said his gospel was never revealed to him through a human being but by Jesus Christ resurrected. Jesus commanded the apostles to teach and baptise “all” the nations and peoples of the earth beginning with Jerusalem.

The laying on of hands Paul warns his bishop Timothy not to be to hasty of laying on the apostolic blessing of consecration of another bishop, but to try them and test them before laying hands on another bishop.

**Scripture mentions the first three popes in the Roman Church, Peter, Linus and AnaCletus followed by Pope Clement this is confirmed by St. Irenaeus **not to mention the early Church Fathers who list all the Popes who succeeded Peter as being of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

Here is Sacred Tradition;

St.Irenaeus; "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoeing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. …In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth,** the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, **exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.(Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3)

Do you think St.Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians teaching on morals and faith was infallible for all to follow, when the other Catholic Saints were his contemporaries who did not object to his letter, including the apostle John who is believed to be still living during this time?

There is no evidence that his teaching/letter was infallible. Correct and infallible and not necessarily mutually inclusive. Additionally, even if it was, there is, as you say, no objection by his colleagues, but agreement.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;10969543]

There is no evidence that his teaching/letter was infallible.

If it was the apostles themselves who eyewitnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus, who were given the divine command to be sent to preach and teach, including writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The blessed apostles handed these down to Popes Linus, AnaCletus and Clement.

Clement “declares” to the Corinthian Church what was given to them by Sacred Tradition the Faith, when the Pope Clement’s letter calls them to the peace and teachings of the apostles.

This is what is meant by infallibility, that the Pope when speaking ex-Cathedra from the Chair of Peter, just like St.Irenaeus points out that St.Clement writes to the Corinthian Church what the pope declares is infallible because what he reveals to the Corinthian Church is what is already been revealed by Jesus and the Apostles handed down to them. These teachings when taught ex-Cathedra are infallible without error holding all the Church’s to them, which are the traditions and teachings from the Apostles.

St.Irenaeus; "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoeing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. …In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.(Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3)

Because the powerful letter came from the Roman Church, it came from St.Peter’s apostolic successor. It is from this Church that all other Church’s are to follow as per Sacred Tradition.

Correct and infallible and not necessarily mutually inclusive. Additionally, even if it was, there is, as you say, no objection by his colleagues, but agreement.

St.Ignatius of Antioch writes to Pope Clement in regards to his letter to the Corinthian Church, but never disagree’s with Pope Clement’s declaration nor questions the infallible content which came from the apostles by faith and the apostolic traditions.

This declaration Pope Clement makes to the Corinthian Church applies to all the Church’s because it declares the teachings of the Apostles and their traditions handed down to the Church.

This same infallibility is what Vatican I describes, when the Popes speak ex-Cathedra on faith and morals, these are the same teachings from the apostles, but declared in a different age maybe in a different language, never the less this infallible statement will never conflict nor contradict the apostolic teachings and traditions.