Questioning Papal Infallibility

[DavWan]

I do not need to demonstrate that my interpretation of Scripture is authentic.

Actually, you do. There are as many interpretations as there are Sola Scripturists. Do we interpret scripture in our way or in His way?

Yes, I have said certain passages mean such and such, but you should check for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, check it out. Be a Berean.

I do indeed read the scriptures. Next issue? Perhaps you should consider that Catholics do have a Scriptural basis for what they believe.

 

[notJaneAusten]

re: my belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity

While those beliefs were clarified and presented in a definitive format by the Church councils, I can see the basis for these beliefs in the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

I understand that the Bible is not a theology textbook that lays out all of our beliefs in a logical, straight-forward manner. I am also not advocating sola scriptura which I reject as a false, unscriptural, unhistorical and illogical doctrine. I am just looking for evidence from the Bible or Sacred Tradition for the belief in papal infallibility. If the evidence exists it shouldn’t be that difficult to get to it.
Gary

I am new to the thread so if someone else has posted something similar, I apologize in advance.

It seems to me that you are saying that the Incarnation and the Trinity seem reasonable because they make sense based on what the Bible says. Correct me if I am wrong. I seem to think that it is reasonable to think the promise that Jesus gave to the chuch that the gates of hell will not prevail against it indicates infalibility. Are you saying that the Church is infallible, but just not the pope?

My reasoning goes like this: If Jesus is the son of God, he is infallible right? He started a Church. How could His Church teach error? Would he want error to be taught in His name? Would He allow that? If He did, how would He or could He expect people to find the truth? Does Jesus want people to muddle around on earth blindly with no indication of what is truth? If what you are saying is true, what are the answers to all of these questions. How does one develop a theology to explain these problems. As I have said in other posts, there can only be one truth by the mere definition of the word. Aren’t we supposed to seek it? How are we supposed to find it if there is no indication of what or where it is?

I know this is not an apologetic answer, but I am just trying to play out the implications of what you propose if the Church is not infallible. As for the office of the pope, if you believe the Church is infallible, how could it have a fallible head?

I am not sure about how many times the infallibility of the pope has been used, but I know that many things are considered to be infallible because they had always been taught with consensus. So the only things that need to be pronounced upon would be those in dispute. Therefore, it would not need to be used much.

 

[garysibio]

It seems to me that you are saying that the Incarnation and the Trinity seem reasonable because they make sense based on what the Bible says.

Not just the Bible, Sacred Tradition also. I’m not a proponent of sola scriptura.

I seem to think that it is reasonable to think the promise that Jesus gave to the chuch that the gates of hell will not prevail against it indicates infalibility.

I don’t think that prevailing over the gates of Hell means that it is impossible for the pope to make an error. It’s possible to make a mistake and still maintain the lead and ultimate victory. Pope John Paul II apologized for errors made by the pope in the case of Galileo. Popes have made mistakes in the past. Consider the Avignon papacy or the d’Medici popes.

Are you saying that the Church is infallible, but just not the pope?

A week ago I wouldn’t have had a problem with any of it. Then, in my private Bible study, I came upon a passage (Rom 15:14-15) which I could not reconcile with the doctrine of papal infallibility. I started this thread hoping that others here would be able to show me a foundation for the doctrine in the Bible or Sacred Tradition. So far no one here has been able to provide a satisfactory answer but, I’m starting to see some stuff that I’ve found on other Web sites that is helping. I’m not all the way back yet but at least I’ve been able to prove to myself that this was not just something they thought up in the 19th century.

My reasoning goes like this: If Jesus is the son of God, he is infallible right? He started a Church. How could His Church teach error? Would he want error to be taught in His name? Would He allow that? If He did, how would He or could He expect people to find the truth? Does Jesus want people to muddle around on earth blindly with no indication of what is truth? If what you are saying is true, what are the answers to all of these questions. How does one develop a theology to explain these problems. As I have said in other posts, there can only be one truth by the mere definition of the word. Aren’t we supposed to seek it? How are we supposed to find it if there is no indication of what or where it is?

If what you say is true then:

• Why would the protection from error extend to doctrine and morals only? God cannot be wrong about anything. Following your logic, neither should the pope or the Church.
• Jesus was also sinless and would also want His Church to be sinless, but we don’t believe the pope is impeccable.

When it comes to determining the truth, papal infallibility has only been used twice in the 2,000 year history of the Church and the doctrines it defined are rather low on the hierarchy of truth. In addition, there are doctrines that most Catholics, including myself, hold to be true even though they have not been declared as dogma by an ecumenical council of by papal infallibility. I’m thinking particularly of Mary as co-redemptrix.

I know this is not an apologetic answer, but I am just trying to play out the implications of what you propose if the Church is not infallible. As for the office of the pope, if you believe the Church is infallible, how could it have a fallible head?

I also believe the Church is Holy but we’ve had some popes whose behavior was abominable.

I am not sure about how many times the infallibility of the pope has been used, but I know that many things are considered to be infallible because they had always been taught with consensus. So the only things that need to be pronounced upon would be those in dispute. Therefore, it would not need to be used much.

It’s only been used twice:

• The Immaculate Conception in 1854
• The Assumption of Mary in 1950

In both cases the belief was long a part of the teaching of the Church. Neither was in dispute at the time. (Ecumenical councils generally decide on these matters when a dispute has arisen and, in theory, papal infallibility could also function this way but it has not.)

Gary

 

[Church_Militant]

I realize that I will never convince any of you guys of anything. Nor will anything I say make any change in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The reason I am here, though, is to expose people to things that the Bible says, in the hopes that sooner or later someone somewhere will see the light. Not because I said it, but because the Holy Spirit confirmed it.

Are you saying that you have an agenda to lead Catholics out of the Catholic Church?

 

[Church_Militant]

B. Lots of people claim lots of things.

Yeah, they do. As in several thousand different non-Catholic denominations of men in the last 500 years. Almost none of which believe the the same things that are found in the New Testament or that we can verify that the earliest of the Christian fathers wrote that they believed and taught.

C. My point all along has been that God does not contradict himself.

Yeah, and that’s something that the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years, and especially in the face of the errors that have cascaded down in the last 500 years.

Perhaps the same can be said of you that St. Paul said of a similar opponent in writing to St. Timothy, “… hath done me much evil: the Lord will reward him according to his works:”

Don’t listen to us if you don’t want to, but don’t come into our “home forums” with an agenda to proselytize our brethren.

 

[notJaneAusten]

Not just the Bible, Sacred Tradition also. I’m not a proponent of sola scriptura.

Sorry, I meant both.

I don’t think that prevailing over the gates of Hell means that it is impossible for the pope to make an error. It’s possible to make a mistake and still maintain the lead and ultimate victory. Pope John Paul II apologized for errors made by the pope in the case of Galileo. Popes have made mistakes in the past. Consider the Avignon papacy or the d’Medici popes.

I think popes can make errors, but they can’t teach them in the name of the chuch. They cannot say that something immoral is ok and allow the flock to do it. Have the popes that you pointed out done that? They can be bad examples. They can cause scandal. They could make some lose faith, but we recognize they are sinful beings just like the rest of us. I also think that the church’s survival despite popes such as those speaks to infallibility because they did not teach error. The church’s teachings were preserved.

A week ago I wouldn’t have had a problem with any of it. Then, in my private Bible study, I came upon a passage (Rom 15:14-15) which I could not reconcile with the doctrine of papal infallibility. I started this thread hoping that others here would be able to show me a foundation for the doctrine in the Bible or Sacred Tradition. So far no one here has been able to provide a satisfactory answer but, I’m starting to see some stuff that I’ve found on other Web sites that is helping. I’m not all the way back yet but at least I’ve been able to prove to myself that this was not just something they thought up in the 19th century.

Romans 15:14-15 does say that the brothers are filled with all goodness and all knowledge, which I assume is your problem. If it is, I don’t understand why. The verse right after indicated that they still needed teaching. I even think the popes sometimes can need teaching. The charism of infallibility, as I understand it, is preventative. It would not allow their misunderstandings to be passed on as teaching.

I am glad that you are finding answers that are helping you!

If what you say is true then:
Why would the protection from error extend to doctrine and morals only? God cannot be wrong about anything. Following your logic, neither should the pope or the Church.
Jesus was also sinless and would also want His Church to be sinless, but we don’t believe the pope is impeccable.

I see what you are saying. I think that it only extends to doctrine and morals only because we are still humans born with original sin and Jesus is protecting his bride, the church, not keeping humans from sin. If the popes became sinless, would they still need salvation? Also, infalibillity makes the church perfect in her teachings, but is made up of sinful members.

When it comes to determining the truth, papal infallibility has only been used twice in the 2,000 year history of the Church and the doctrines it defined are rather low on the hierarchy of truth. In addition, there are doctrines that most Catholics, including myself, hold to be true even though they have not been declared as dogma by an ecumenical council of by papal infallibility. I’m thinking particularly of Mary as co-redemptrix.

I think that many things are not declared to be dogmas because they don’t need to be at a particular time. I think they need to be discerned before they are declared. The Mary as co-redemptrix idea, in my opinion, could cause protestants to declare proof positive that we worship Mary if it were declared dogma. Not saying they would be right. Just saying that it could be detrimental to unity. If it comes to pass that it is declared, I will understand that Jesus may need further separation between the Catholic Church and other Christians–further definition.

Quote:
I know this is not an apologetic answer, but I am just trying to play out the implications of what you propose if the Church is not infallible. As for the office of the pope, if you believe the Church is infallible, how could it have a fallible head?

I also believe the Church is Holy but we’ve had some popes whose behavior was abominable.

Yes, but the church has had a single vision over the years. With a fallible head, I don’t see how that could be possible. I think the fact that it has remained unchanging proves infallibility. One of the reasons I find it ridiculous to believe in multiple gods is because they could never come to a consensus to create the order in this world that we have. It would just be chaos. The same idea holds true for the head of the church. Infallibility is just a protection of the church by the One True God. It preserves the Church from teaching error, not from human sin.

One other thing I was thinking yesterday: At the end of time when there is supposed to only be a remnant left of the True Church, what will make people recognize it? I think the same thing that identifies it today–unchanging teaching and apostolic succession. If popes can teach error how would anybody be able to identify which is the right Church? Again, the fact that they already haven’t changed teaching throughout all these years proves to me that the Church has protection.

Thanks for the converation.

 

[Malachi_18]

By the way, if you really want to be a Berean, you have to (1) stick to the Old Testament because that was the only Bible they had and (2) use the Septuagint version of the Old Testament canon because, being Greek, that was the canon of the Bible which the Bereans used. That means you can’t just ignore the books of the Bible which Luther tried to get rid of. If you’re going to be a Berean, at least be a consistent one.

Malachi 18>> If your excuse is “that’s the way I always heard it should be,” it might be time to check in with the Holy Spirit, read your Bible, and see for yourself what it says, rather than accept without question the word of some other human or group of humans telling you what they think you should think. <<

In case you haven’t noticed, I am the guy who started this thread because I was having some problems with the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Have you considered the possibility that yuo are the one saying “that’s the way I always heard it should be”? Are you truly open to discovering the true meaning of Scripture?

Although I was raised Catholic, I left the Church for a period of eleven years and attended Evangelical Protestant churches because I had doctrinal problems with Catholicism. While attending a Baptist church I was asked to do a Sunday School class on Catholicism and discovered that Catholic teaching fit much better with Scripture than Evangelicalism. After making this discovery and praying about it quite a bit, I was led back to Catholicism. If you truly want to be a Bible-believing Christian, you must become Catholic.

Gary

Paul’s commendation of the Bereans was that they listened to him speak and then went and searched the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was true. Sure all they had was the Old Testament, but that does not mean I should limit myself to the Old Testament, and neither should you or anyone else. Nor should we limit ourselves to the Septuagint version. The Bereans used the resources available to them and we should use the resources that are available to us.

If it makes any difference to you (and it shouldn’t) I have available to me a King James, a Jerusalem, and a Douay, and I am not averse to using any of them.

As for your other point, that you are the one who started this thread: You must have noticed something about this doctrine that just does not ring true. Discernment is good.

 

[Malachi_18]

Don’t listen to us if you don’t want to, but don’t come into our “home forums” with an agenda to proselytize our brethren.

I’m not here to proselytize, I am here to see what folks other than the official apologeticists have to say and to inject another point of view because I have noticed points of view being far too constrained and stilted.

I signed up here a year ago (almost) and of late I found myself unable to keep my mouth shut, starting when I came across the thread that had to deal with traditions versus scripture and the Divine Mercy image incident.

 

[mdcpensive1]

This thread is starting to get interesting. Way back in post #52 there was a discussion of scripture and tradition. I wanted to read all the posts before commenting so I won’t look so “uninformed”.
One has to remember that there was only Tradition before the New Testament. The command in Matthew 28 was to go and preach, not write. The culture at the time was oral. Memorization was as common as watching television commercials. Preaching was important because most people were illiterate.

Another post had that the Holy Spirit wrote the scriptures. I would say that the Holy Spirit did not have a pen, but influence. If there were not so many problems in the early Church, the New Testament would be much shorter. Paul did a lot of writing, but that is because he could not cash in his frequent flyer miles and had to get letters to places he could not travel to. If you remember, in Asia Minor, he left there after discerning with the Church community that it was necessary to go somewhere else. His usual mission was to stay in an area a while to preach and bring the Gospel message to the world. (He stayed two years in Ephesis) Sending letters to address problems in communities he founded during his missions was the norm for him. The Church in her wisdom sees these letters as “scripture” and keeps them as part of the deposit of faith. I don’t think that Paul sat down to write scripture intentionally but that is what it was.

To start with, Peter was infallible, at least in the writing of scripture. Therefore, he had some of this gift to begin with.

More to follow.

mdcpensive1

 

[mdcpensive1]

When addressing papal infallibility, there is so much to consider. It is not just taking a passage or two and saying here it is. The New and Old testaments were not catecisms or operating manuals for Christ’s Church, but a collection of sacred writings that came from Revealed Truth that happen to be written down. They provide a continuting understanding and enlightenment of the truth He want us to know.

Papal infallibility has not been invoked only two times as one earlier stated. It is invoked in all ecumenical councils beginning with Jerusalem which James headed because he was the presiding Bishop. Peter ended it when he made the final ruling.

Infallibility is necessary for Christ’s Body to be truth. It is His Body that is being protected so it can be given to us as the way to follow Him to salvation since there are others that preach a false gospel. All understanding of Tradition and scripture are to be understood with the mind of the Church. This is why there can be misunderstandings or conflicts about how an individual passage is understood or how one passage may contradict another. They all are true when understood in context.

What is the context? I can go into some of that if necessary and after I answer some questions I know will come.

mdcpensive1

 

[garysibio]

Paul’s commendation of the Bereans was that they listened to him speak and then went and searched the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was true. Sure all they had was the Old Testament, but that does not mean I should limit myself to the Old Testament, and neither should you or anyone else. Nor should we limit ourselves to the Septuagint version. The Bereans used the resources available to them and we should use the resources that are available to us.

If it makes any difference to you (and it shouldn’t) I have available to me a King James, a Jerusalem, and a Douay, and I am not averse to using any of them.

As for your other point, that you are the one who started this thread: You must have noticed something about this doctrine that just does not ring true. Discernment is good.

The fact that the Bereans only had the OT and that it was the LXX version is entirely relevant. Evangelicals use the example of the Bereans to “prove” sola scriptura. Therefore we must take a good look at what the Bereans were actually doing and see if it is applicable. When used to defend sola scriptura, those who use this example are implicitly saying that the Bereans had enough Scripture to judge what St. Paul was saying. If the Bereans are to serve as our example, then the NT is completely unnecessary and your OT is insufficient.

Study and discernment are good things. Some day you will discern the truth and convert to Catholicism.

Gary

 

[Malachi_18]

The fact that the Bereans only had the OT and that it was the LXX version is entirely relevant. Evangelicals use the example of the Bereans to “prove” sola scriptura. Therefore we must take a good look at what the Bereans were actually doing and see if it is applicable. When used to defend sola scriptura, those who use this example are implicitly saying that the Bereans had enough Scripture to judge what St. Paul was saying. If the Bereans are to serve as our example, then the NT is completely unnecessary and your OT is insufficient.

Study and discernment are good things. Some day you will discern the truth and convert to Catholicism.

Gary

Your argument does not make sense. We are not defending sola scriptura here. We see the Bereans using the resources available to them. We use the resources available to us. It is irrelevant that we have available to us that which is called the New Testament. They used their Bible, we use our Bible.

Besides that, the point of all this is that you should be checking what I say with your Bible. Would you feel secure not using your New Testament? If I were to check your statements with the scripture available to me I will not be ignoring the New Testament, and in doing so I will be doing exactly what the Bereans did; searching the scriptures.

I was born and raised Catholic.

 

[garysibio]

Your argument does not make sense. We are not defending sola scriptura here. We see the Bereans using the resources available to them. We use the resources available to us. It is irrelevant that we have available to us that which is called the New Testament. They used their Bible, we use our Bible.

Besides that, the point of all this is that you should be checking what I say with your Bible. Would you feel secure not using your New Testament? If I were to check your statements with the scripture available to me I will not be ignoring the New Testament, and in doing so I will be doing exactly what the Bereans did; searching the scriptures.

I was born and raised Catholic.

My point is that, if you are going to use the Bereans as an example of doing what is right and proper, regardless of the point you are trying to prove, then you have to do what they did. Following your logic the Mormons would be justified in using The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants and all of their other “scriptures” which they believe are not only inspired by God but override the Bible. If you can add the NT to what the Bereans had, you have to allow the Mormons to add what they want. That is, unless you have an infallible way of determining what is scripture and what is not. An infallible magisterium, for example. In short, if you add or subtract from what the Bereans had, you are not doing what the Bereans did.

I was also raised Catholic but left the Church for eleven years during which I attended several different Evangelical churches. I returned to Catholicism because I discovered, much to my surprise, that the Bible taught Catholicism, not Evangelicalism.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

When addressing papal infallibility, there is so much to consider. It is not just taking a passage or two and saying here it is. The New and Old testaments were not catecisms or operating manuals for Christ’s Church, but a collection of sacred writings that came from Revealed Truth that happen to be written down. They provide a continuting understanding and enlightenment of the truth He want us to know.

Papal infallibility has not been invoked only two times as one earlier stated. It is invoked in all ecumenical councils beginning with Jerusalem which James headed because he was the presiding Bishop. Peter ended it when he made the final ruling.

Infallibility is necessary for Christ’s Body to be truth. It is His Body that is being protected so it can be given to us as the way to follow Him to salvation since there are others that preach a false gospel. All understanding of Tradition and scripture are to be understood with the mind of the Church. This is why there can be misunderstandings or conflicts about how an individual passage is understood or how one passage may contradict another. They all are true when understood in context.

What is the context? I can go into some of that if necessary and after I answer some questions I know will come.

mdcpensive1

I understand that the Bible is not an organized theological textbook. I’m not looking for it to function that way. What I asked for was anything in Scripture that supports the belief in papal infallibility. (The same thing for the early Church Fathers.)

Papal infallibility is not the same as the infallibility exercised at ecumenical councils. Ecumenical councils involve all of the bishops; papal infallibility comes only from the Bishop of Rome. That is what has only been used twice in the history of the Church.

Gary

 

[Malachi_18]

My point is that, if you are going to use the Bereans as an example of doing what is right and proper, regardless of the point you are trying to prove, then you have to do what they did. Following your logic the Mormons would be justified in using The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants and all of their other “scriptures” which they believe are not only inspired by God but override the Bible. If you can add the NT to what the Bereans had, you have to allow the Mormons to add what they want. That is, unless you have an infallible way of determining what is scripture and what is not. An infallible magisterium, for example. In short, if you add or subtract from what the Bereans had, you are not doing what the Bereans did.

I was also raised Catholic but left the Church for eleven years during which I attended several different Evangelical churches. I returned to Catholicism because I discovered, much to my surprise, that the Bible taught Catholicism, not Evangelicalism.

Gary

Yup. Leave it to a Catholic to impose unnecessary restrictions. You know what Scripture is, I know what Scripture is, the Bereans knew what Scripture is. Basically what you are telling me is that I should be ignoring the New Testament. How about if you do that too, then.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not here to proselytize, I am here to see what folks other than the official apologeticists have to say and to inject another point of view because I have noticed points of view being far too constrained and stilted.

Unlike n-Cs, Catholics who are faithful do not blow around with the winds of doctrines of men like the majority of n-Cs do. The men in question being mostly the individual n-Cs that one might encounter in the course of one’s day.

Unlike them, we have a final authority that really is Biblically based, so if you are looking for “chinks in the armor” then don’t get too excited because until it comes down from the magisterial authority of those who were given authority by Christ Himself, then all you have are clanging gongs and such. They are noisy perhaps but they have no authority to change doctrines

Your POV is certainly welcome so far as it goes, but by that same token when Catholics tell you factually accurate information about the faith then you need to give us the same credibility and depth of consideration that you expect from us.

One of the reasons that I listen so carefully to what the church teaches is because I have never found anywhere near the level of scholarship and depth of teaching that I have access to here as a Catholic. The best n-C scholars have failed to impress me with either their knowledge nor their spirituality, and I have read quite a bit of them over the years outside the Catholic Church.

The Catechism offers more documentation for the Christian faith than anything else that I have ever seen, and Papal encyclicals are some of the most intensive topical studies as well.

Even without any consideration of Papal Infallibility, (which I accept as I find it in both the promises of the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers) I have never seen any Christians with the wealth verifiable documentation and knowledge and the teaching capacity of the Catholic Church. There are enough excellent and faithful scholars that one can always find the answers that one needs if one is really seeking truth. That’s how it works for me.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yup. Leave it to a Catholic to impose unnecessary restrictions. You know what Scripture is, I know what Scripture is, the Bereans knew what Scripture is. Basically what you are telling me is that I should be ignoring the New Testament. How about if you do that too, then.

It’s fortuitous that you bring up those Bereans because I just had a comment on one of my blog articles from a kind and very devout Jew who made some good points about them. His comment is here and the article by Steve Ray that he refers to is found at Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Perhaps you might learn something from him.

 

[Malachi_18]

It’s fortuitous that you bring up those Bereans because I just had a comment on one of my blog articles from a kind and very devout Jew who made some good points about them. His comment is here and the article by Steve Ray that he refers to is found at Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

Perhaps you might learn something from him.

Interesting. Made my point, too, though I don’t know how or why it was decided that I was going for the sola scriptura angle.

 

[Malachi_18]

Well, actually the first line of the Yablonsky article gives me a clue as to why.

 

[garysibio]

Yup. Leave it to a Catholic to impose unnecessary restrictions. You know what Scripture is, I know what Scripture is, the Bereans knew what Scripture is. Basically what you are telling me is that I should be ignoring the New Testament. How about if you do that too, then.

It’s called context.

Gary