Questioning Papal Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter garysibio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

garysibio

Guest
I am a Catholic though I am beginning to have doubts about the doctrine of papal infallibility. First, let me clarify a few things:
  1. I accept the pope as being the visible ruler of the Church on Earth. This is quite clear from the Bible and the beliefs of the early Church.
  2. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura.
I had always believed that, based on the usual passages in John 14 & 16, that the pope was infallible but I’ve been studting the Letter to the Romans lately and some of the things I have read there are raising doubts.

I used to believe that the promises which Jesus made at the Last Supper about the Holy Spirit leading the apostles into the truth as applying only to the bishops since the only ones present became the first bishops of the Church. However, if that is to be taken to support papal infallibility, how can we have bishops who go astray. The Holy Spirit may lead them but that doesn’t mean they will follow. I realize that the magisterium is only considered infallible when it is in union with the pope but, if the Bishop of Wherever can fall into error, why can’t the Bishop of Rome?

Today I was studying Rom 15. In v. 14 St. Paul says that he is satisfied that the individual believers in the church at Rome were capable of teaching and correcting each other. For this to be the case, they must, to some degree, have been led into the truth by the Holy Spirit. In other words, that gift was not limited to the apostles.

I have more to say on this but I’d like to stop here for now.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
I am a Catholic though I am beginning to have doubts about the doctrine of papal infallibility. First, let me clarify a few things:
  1. I accept the pope as being the visible ruler of the Church on Earth. This is quite clear from the Bible and the beliefs of the early Church.
  2. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura.
I had always believed that, based on the usual passages in John 14 & 16, that the pope was infallible but I’ve been studting the Letter to the Romans lately and some of the things I have read there are raising doubts.

I used to believe that the promises which Jesus made at the Last Supper about the Holy Spirit leading the apostles into the truth as applying only to the bishops since the only ones present became the first bishops of the Church. However, if that is to be taken to support papal infallibility, how can we have bishops who go astray. The Holy Spirit may lead them but that doesn’t mean they will follow. I realize that the magisterium is only considered infallible when it is in union with the pope but, if the Bishop of Wherever can fall into error, why can’t the Bishop of Rome?

Today I was studying Rom 15. In v. 14 St. Paul says that he is satisfied that the individual believers in the church at Rome were capable of teaching and correcting each other. For this to be the case, they must, to some degree, have been led into the truth by the Holy Spirit. In other words, that gift was not limited to the apostles.

I have more to say on this but I’d like to stop here for now.

Gary
Click to expand...
Hi Gary,

Infallibility is two fold:

1st it is in Council with all of the Bishops that the Church is Infallible

2nd it is in the person of the Pope when he is speaking ex-cathedra on matters of Faith and Morals that the Church is Infallible

I don’t believe that there are any specific Biblical Passages which clearly define the latter of the two; however, it has been in Catholic Tradition for like forever and was defined officially in the 1800’s.

Anyway, just looking at the issue logically, would it make sense for Christ to leave us with a Pope and at the same time allow that Pope to make definitive statements which we, the faithful, have to believe if they were not true?

No, it makes sense that Christ would prevent the Pope for declaring that we have to believe that was not true since He promised us that the Gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church.

If we had different Popes speaking ex-cathedra in matters of Faith and Morals who contradicted each other causing us the faithful to be going back and forth in our faith and morals, personally, I’d take that as a sign that Gates of Hell had prevailed. It would make our Faith just as worthless as the Latter Day Saints religion, their leader called a President and Prophet have contradicted themselves in matters of Faith and Morals repeatedly over the nearly 200 years of their existence. But Christ in creating the Catholic Church constantly protects us from that kind of nonesense and confusion.

I think that God loves us so much that He made the Pope Infallible on matters of Faith and Morals as a way to lovingly protect us from error.

I can only come at this issue on a logical plain because I’m not familiar with specific passages which address it in the Bible. Someone more educated than me will have to fill in those blanks, but I hope I was able to help even if just a little bit.
 
Dear brother Gary,

I am no aware of any Catholic apologist who uses the Johannine verses in support of papal infallibility. It might be used to support the general infallibility of the Church as a whole (which is Catholic doctrine).

The verses normally utilized by Catholic apologists in support of papal infallibility are Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.

Note that Luke 22:31-32 occurs after the Last Supper, after his promise to ALL the disciples to send the Holy Spirit. Jesus was singling out St. Peter for a special role to be confirmer of the brethren, stating He would have a prayer ESPECIALLY for HIM. Note that except for St. John, ALL the Apostles abandoned Jesus, yet Jesus singles out St. Peter anyway with a special prayer for HIM to be the confirmer of the brethren. This goes beyond the general exhortation of correcting and edifying each other. This role of St. Peter as confirmer of the Faith is verified by St. Paul who, despite St. Paul’s status within the Church (and in his own eyes), he went to St. Peter to make sure that he was “not running in vain.”

This role has been handed down to the bishop of Rome. The infallibility is scripturally based on the special prayer of Jesus for St. Peter.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Gary, one of the things that are natural to the Church is that faith and reason go together. Benedict 16 was stressing this in his Regensburg address.

Think of it this way. If the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is the Truth, then the Church must always speak the truth for Christ since Christ is the truth and it is His Body. Satan is the father of lies. If lies or falsehoods were possible to polute the truth that Christ gave us then the Church could not be the Body of Christ and Christ would not be the truth.

mdcpensive1
 
If Peter was intended to be the head of the church on earth, is this reflected in the church council of Acts 15 where James gave the judgment? Or in the list of offices in Ephesians 4:1-12? Or in the letters of Paul, James, or of Peter himself? Is Peter ever referred to as the head of the church although certainly such a title is found in scripture, but referring only to Christ?

The power to bind and loose does not refer to Peter’s having exclusive teaching authority but rather to inspiration by the Holy Spirit shared by all the apostles. The rock in Matthew 16, could be the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God. The idea that Peter was intended to be head of the church on earth is so fundamental that it would have been referred in other passages and by other writers of the New Testament.

Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, Justin Martyr, and even the letter from Rome to the Corinthians do not refer to such a role, and the Shepherd of Hermas knows of elders leading the church in Rome but not a singular authoritative head.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
If Peter was intended to be the head of the church on earth, is this reflected in the church council of Acts 15 where James gave the judgment? Or in the list of offices in Ephesians 4:1-12? Or in the letters of Paul, James, or of Peter himself? Is Peter ever referred to as the head of the church although certainly such a title is found in scripture, but referring only to Christ?
Click to expand...
Yes, in Mt 16 😛

There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the primacy of Peter besides that passage; see, for example, Luke 22 and John 21, where Peter and Peter alone is identified as the man with the ministry of confirming the brethren and is given the role of shepherd over Jesus’ sheep.

It’s left to you (and everyone else) to decide whether that evidence is sufficient. But if it isn’t, you need to find an alternative explanation of these passages, and in my view there are reasons why “The ‘rock’ is the revelation of Jesus’ identity” just doesn’t cut it.
The power to bind and loose does not refer to Peter’s having exclusive teaching authority but rather to inspiration by the Holy Spirit shared by all the apostles.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The term “binding and loosing” is a rabbinical term with a known meaning; this is not a matter of interpretation. It refers to active, living authority that God invests in a person (or people) to decide what is forbidden or permitted. It doesn’t refer merely to the ability to write inspired Scripture.
The rock in Matthew 16, could be the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God.
Click to expand...
The rest of the relevant passage is about Peter. There are three statements made in it, one each in verses 17, 18, and 19. Verses 17 and 19 are blessings on Peter, so verse 18 is most likely also a blessing on Peter. Verses 17 and 19 also feature elaborations on their primary statements about Peter, so the elaborations in verse 18 are also about Peter (in particular, the elaboration that “on this rock I will build my church”).

It would be strange indeed for Jesus to go into a list of blessings on Peter, but interrupt it in the middle by claiming something about the revelation of his own identity.
The idea that Peter was intended to be head of the church on earth is so fundamental that it would have been referred in other passages and by other writers of the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Again, if you’ve chosen to place the goalposts beyond the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ statements to Peter, expecting that every epistle and every piece of revelation contain a statement to the effect that Peter was the first pope and that he had certain enumerated powers, then we aren’t liable to be able to meet your standards.
Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, Justin Martyr, and even the letter from Rome to the Corinthians do not refer to such a role, and the Shepherd of Hermas knows of elders leading the church in Rome but not a singular authoritative head.
Click to expand...
Surely you aren’t claiming that there’s a shortage of patristic evidence for the primacy of Peter…
 
There simply is no reference to Peter as head of the church AFTER Matthew 16, so this was not the meaning of Matthew 16. The earliest church fathers make no reference to Peter as head of the church nor to any successors of Peter as head of the church; the silence is deafening.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Gary,

I am no aware of any Catholic apologist who uses the Johannine verses in support of papal infallibility. It might be used to support the general infallibility of the Church as a whole (which is Catholic doctrine).

The verses normally utilized by Catholic apologists in support of papal infallibility are Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.

Note that Luke 22:31-32 occurs after the Last Supper, after his promise to ALL the disciples to send the Holy Spirit. Jesus was singling out St. Peter for a special role to be confirmer of the brethren, stating He would have a prayer ESPECIALLY for HIM. Note that except for St. John, ALL the Apostles abandoned Jesus, yet Jesus singles out St. Peter anyway with a special prayer for HIM to be the confirmer of the brethren. This goes beyond the general exhortation of correcting and edifying each other. This role of St. Peter as confirmer of the Faith is verified by St. Paul who, despite St. Paul’s status within the Church (and in his own eyes), he went to St. Peter to make sure that he was “not running in vain.”
Click to expand...
Luke 22

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

This passage has nothing to do with Peter having a role as head of the church.but is to do with Jesus preparing Peter for his denial and repentance: “turned back” and “strengthen your brothers”. i.e. reassure them you believe that Jesus is indeed the Christ.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
Luke 22

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

This passage has nothing to do with Peter having a role as head of the church.but is to do with Jesus preparing Peter for his denial and repentance: “turned back” and “strengthen your brothers”. i.e. reassure them you believe that Jesus is indeed the Christ.
Click to expand...
Don’t think so…that’s an interpretation being forced onto the text. Typically done by Protestants and a-Cs who simply wish to avoid the truth of the passage.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
There simply is no reference to Peter as head of the church AFTER Matthew 16, so this was not the meaning of Matthew 16. The earliest church fathers make no reference to Peter as head of the church nor to any successors of Peter as head of the church; the silence is deafening.
Click to expand...
That is so misleading it reeks of deliberate and intentional!

Everyone who can read (ECFs) can see the ‘ignorance’ necessary to even entertain the emboldened assertion above!

:cool:
 
garysibio said:
I am a Catholic though I am beginning to have doubts about the doctrine of papal infallibility. First, let me clarify a few things:
  1. I accept the pope as being the visible ruler of the Church on Earth. This is quite clear from the Bible and the beliefs of the early Church.
  2. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura.
I had always believed that, based on the usual passages in John 14 & 16, that the pope was infallible but I’ve been studting the Letter to the Romans lately and some of the things I have read there are raising doubts.

I used to believe that the promises which Jesus made at the Last Supper about the Holy Spirit leading the apostles into the truth as applying only to the bishops since the only ones present became the first bishops of the Church. However, if that is to be taken to support papal infallibility, how can we have bishops who go astray. The Holy Spirit may lead them but that doesn’t mean they will follow. I realize that the magisterium is only considered infallible when it is in union with the pope but, if the Bishop of Wherever can fall into error, why can’t the Bishop of Rome?

Today I was studying Rom 15. In v. 14 St. Paul says that he is satisfied that the individual believers in the church at Rome were capable of teaching and correcting each other. For this to be the case, they must, to some degree, have been led into the truth by the Holy Spirit. In other words, that gift was not limited to the apostles.

I have more to say on this but I’d like to stop here for now.

Gary
Click to expand...
Read around, garysibio! The Pope is NOT DIVINE! Infallibility is only available to him when he ‘invokes’ it, and cites it to declare something THAT GOD wants His followers to know!

Matt.16 - shows that God ACTUALLY intervenes into Peter’s mind, to tell him that Jesus is "…the Christ, Son of The Lving God."!!

Every other time, Pete was just an impulsive bungler and scaredy-cat!

Same with The Popes. Not everything the Popes SAY or WRITE are infallible! Many volumes of work have been penned by the Popes of history! But we do not cite or view them as infallible or must have books for our faith!

Popes remain created human creatures, just like the rest of humanity and CAN sin, like everyone else! THAT IS WHY WE PRAY FOR THEM AT EVERY MASS, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, as well as the rest of God’s clergy…and ourselves, of course.

:cool:
 
SingleMomMonica>> Anyway, just looking at the issue logically, would it make sense for Christ to leave us with a Pope and at the same time allow that Pope to make definitive statements which we, the faithful, have to believe if they were not true?

No, it makes sense that Christ would prevent the Pope for declaring that we have to believe that was not true since He promised us that the Gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church. <<

First, whether something makes sense or not tells us nothing about whether or not it is true. The concept of the Trinity is true even though it doesn’t make sense to our limited minds.

Second, if papal infallibility were so necessary, why has it only been used twice and, quite frankly, never on an issue on which our salvation was an issue. (While I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, a person can reject them and still get into Heaven.)

Third, if what you say is true, why wouldn’t Jesus make the pope infallible every time he made a statement on religion rather than being infallible only under a certain set of circumstances. Popes have disagreed on religious issues.

SingleMomMonica>> If we had different Popes speaking ex-cathedra in matters of Faith and Morals who contradicted each other causing us the faithful to be going back and forth in our faith and morals, personally, I’d take that as a sign that Gates of Hell had prevailed. It would make our Faith just as worthless as the Latter Day Saints religion, their leader called a President and Prophet have contradicted themselves in matters of Faith and Morals repeatedly over the nearly 200 years of their existence. But Christ in creating the Catholic Church constantly protects us from that kind of nonesense and confusion. <<

Popes get it wrong all the time but the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church. We survived the Avignon papacy intact; we survived the d’Medici popes intact; we have had popes contradict each other; we’ve even had popes excommunicate each other. Satan will not win.

The problem with Mormonism is not its lack of a papacy, it’s their making the Bible second to the Book of Mormon and other Mormon “scriptures.” I’m not rejecting the Bible or Sacred Tradition. Rather I’m trying to take them and find out why I should believe in papal infallibility.

SingleMomMonica>> I think that God loves us so much that He made the Pope Infallible on matters of Faith and Morals as a way to lovingly protect us from error. <<

Again, why then has it only been used twice?

mardukm>> I am no aware of any Catholic apologist who uses the Johannine verses in support of papal infallibility. It might be used to support the general infallibility of the Church as a whole (which is Catholic doctrine). <<

The Catholic Answers tract entitled “Papal Infallibility” uses them. Look in the library.

mardukm>> The verses normally utilized by Catholic apologists in support of papal infallibility are Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32. <<

These passage teach the existence of the office of the papacy. I have no problem with that. They do not, however, tell us that the pope is infallible.

mardukm>> The infallibility is scripturally based on the special prayer of Jesus for St. Peter. <<

I assume you are referring to the passage where Jesus tells St. Peter that Satan has demanded to test him and that He has prayed that Peter would withstand the temptation. If so, this has nothing to do with infallibility. We all get tested. Peter was just going to undergo a testing more severe than we usually get. Jesus prayed for Peter. As I mentioned above, if this is evidence of papal infallibility, why has it only been used twice?

mdcpensive1>> Think of it this way. If the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is the Truth, then the Church must always speak the truth for Christ since Christ is the truth and it is His Body. Satan is the father of lies. If lies or falsehoods were possible to polute the truth that Christ gave us then the Church could not be the Body of Christ and Christ would not be the truth. <<

I hate to keep repeating this but, if this is true, why has it only been used to define the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

Gary
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
There simply is no reference to Peter as head of the church AFTER Matthew 16, so this was not the meaning of Matthew 16. The earliest church fathers make no reference to Peter as head of the church nor to any successors of Peter as head of the church; the silence is deafening.
Click to expand...
This is an Argument from Silence fallacy actually.

In order for you to actually prove your point, you would need to take the examples the Church uses (Clement of Rome for example certainly saw he had the right to intervene in the dispute in Corinth) and prove a different intent.

Second, you would have to prove that the silence on the part of some Fathers was because they did not believe it as opposed to the fact that this was not the topic of discussion.

“I can’t see any proof so it means there is none” is not a valid proof.
 
Second, if papal infallibility were so necessary, why has it only been used twice and, quite frankly, never on an issue on which our salvation was an issue. (While I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, a person can reject them and still get into Heaven.)
Click to expand...
Not true. The Pope has spoken infallibly on these two points and a person may not reject them and still be saved.
 
DavWan said:
This is an Argument from Silence fallacy actually.

In order for you to actually prove your point, you would need to take the examples the Church uses (Clement of Rome for example certainly saw he had the right to intervene in the dispute in Corinth) and prove a different intent.

Second, you would have to prove that the silence on the part of some Fathers was because they did not believe it as opposed to the fact that this was not the topic of discussion.

“I can’t see any proof so it means there is none” is not a valid proof.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between the existence of the office of the papacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility. I am not denying the authority of the pope, although others might. I’m just trying to figure out why I should believe he is infallible under any circumstances.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
There is a difference between the existence of the office of the papacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility. I am not denying the authority of the pope, although others might. I’m just trying to figure out why I should believe he is infallible under any circumstances.

Gary
Click to expand...
Does this quote from the CCC article 891 help you in figuring it out?
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
Click to expand...
 
expectthebest said:
Not true. The Pope has spoken infallibly on these two points and a person may not reject them and still be saved.
Click to expand...
So all of our separated brethren are going to Hell? After all, they do not believe these doctrines. I don’t know where you got that idea but it is simply wrong. We are saved by the grace of God, not how much doctrine we know.

Gary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top