Questioning Papal Infallibility

[garysibio]

Does this quote from the CCC article 891 help you in figuring it out?

That defines it but it doesn’t prove it. I know what the doctrine is. My problem is that the more I study the issue, the less support for it I see.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Gary, these articles may help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a44.htm

catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9303iron.asp

Thanks for the references but they didn’t help much. I understand the doctrine and I can even see why it would be a good thing but I’m looking for evidence for the truth of the doctrine and I’m just not finding it. The first and third articles you mentioned didn’t even seem to address the proof. The Catholic Answers tract did try to prove it but I mentioned in msg #1 of this thread why I find those arguments unconvincing.

I’m also still nagged by the question of, if it is so important, why has it only been used twice in the 2,000 year history of the Church and on doctrines which I do not see as essential to the faith. (I’m not saying I don’t believe them but rather that, when you consider their position on the hierarchy of truth, they are not as relevant as, say, the incarnation or the Trinity.

Gary

 

[cfrancis]

Thanks for the references but they didn’t help much. I understand the doctrine and I can even see why it would be a good thing but I’m looking for evidence for the truth of the doctrine and I’m just not finding it. The first and third articles you mentioned didn’t even seem to address the proof. The Catholic Answers tract did try to prove it but I mentioned in msg #1 of this thread why I find those arguments unconvincing.

I’m also still nagged by the question of, if it is so important, why has it only been used twice in the 2,000 year history of the Church and on doctrines which I do not see as essential to the faith. (I’m not saying I don’t believe them but rather that, when you consider their position on the hierarchy of truth, they are not as relevant as, say, the incarnation or the Trinity.

Gary

Your insistence on the use of infallibility only twice in 2000 years is interesting, and it’s your comment re: the Incarnation and the Trinity that bring this to mind.

Everything you know about the the nature of Christ and the Trinity comes from an infallible declaration by the Church.

To test this, attempt to define the Trinity, or the nature of Christ, without using the language of the councils.

If you accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, as they are not spelled out/defined by Scripture, you are accepting the infallible declarations of the Church.

Really, if you accept the canon of Scripture, you are accepting an infallibly declared canon…unless you accept the “fallible collection of infallible books” argument, which, imo, is intellectually dishonest…

BTW, your “evidence” of the immorality of some of the popes, and their disagreement on religios yet non-doctrinal matters is not evidence against infalliblity, but evidence for it. As Keating (I think) said “infallibility is not impeccability.”

By the “evidence” you give, Peter’s letters in the NT are not Scripture, as he was surely a sinner - documented in Scripture - and therefore cannot have written inerrant, inspired Scripture.

Seems to me your argument against the power of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from teaching error begins to unravel all of Christianity.

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks for the references but they didn’t help much. I understand the doctrine and I can even see why it would be a good thing but I’m looking for evidence for the truth of the doctrine and I’m just not finding it. The first and third articles you mentioned didn’t even seem to address the proof. The Catholic Answers tract did try to prove it but I mentioned in msg #1 of this thread why I find those arguments unconvincing.

I’m also still nagged by the question of, if it is so important, why has it only been used twice in the 2,000 year history of the Church and on doctrines which I do not see as essential to the faith. (I’m not saying I don’t believe them but rather that, when you consider their position on the hierarchy of truth, they are not as relevant as, say, the incarnation or the Trinity.

Gary

Why do you believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, though? By what authority do you accept these as coming from Christ - your own? Or is is not that you accept that it came through the infallibility of the Church and the Pope as the guarantor of the Church’s infallibility? Do you accept these because you have studied all the questions raised through the centuries and have come to your own decision that these are come from Christ? Or do you trust that the Church has preserved Christ’s Self-revelation without error? How do you determine just what is to be believed as coming from Christ? How do you say yay or nay?

Now the sola scripturist would advert to Scripture only, but that leaves him being one of many who simply chose for themselves - even within a group of the like-minded - what is to be accepted as revealed by Christ through the written Text. The difference between a living hierarchy with God’s authority to teach and a non-living text left for each fallible individual to come up with his best and figure it out for himself is that there is no obedience of faith in the latter, but each individual controls what he will accept, i.e., no surrender to another, only satisfaction of his own judgment. This not only fosters pride of mind, but it is unhistorical and inhuman. We learn about God’s Revelation from being taught by the Church, even that there is a Bible or what books are in it. An inert text can not speak to new circumstances and problems by itself. Someone needs to apply it to the subsequent times and places. If the fallible individual does that on his own (unheard of in the early Church - except by heretics!) error follows. *

To accept the doctrine of Infallibility and any other official teaching of the Magisterium does not always mean to understand it, and given that each person has his own way of understanding things he may NOT understand or may have a difficulty understanding what he is willing to accept, since he may easily have attitudes partially formed by the non-believing world of society that would contradict the attitudes of Faith assumed and expressed. In short, there would be no basis in the life of faith to reject this teaching of the Church, just as there would be no basis in the Faith to reject the Creed. But acceptance in faith does not automatically remove all difficulty for the mind. Faith, after all, does not require everything to be explained or it wouldn’t be faith, would it? But one is not free to reject the doctrine of Infallibility, whether one is uneducated in the Faith or a theologian, since there is one standard for all: acceptance of the Faith of the Church as promulgated and understood by the Church, rather than the individual. Fallible laymen simply accept what the infallible hierarchy proclaims and thus have the infallible belief of the Church as their own.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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

The so-called Letter of Clement to the Corinthians does not claim to be written by Clement. Also, it was not an intervention but a response to an invitation from Corinth. This letter provides no support for Roman primacy let alone papal primacy or authority for there was no pope in Rome, nor a singular bishop, at this time.

Comment:

1. Rather than claiming authority over the Corinthian church, the church at Rome is responding to a request for an opinion or advice.
2. The leaders of the Roman church are apparently struggling with similar challenges and remind the Corinthians of the presbyters and deacons who were appointed by the whole church in Corinth.
3. It is important to recognize that the “episcopate” or “bishop” are terms used synonymously with “presbyters” and that these are plural in number rather than having a singular head over the Corinthian church.
4. With the attitude of humility as a recurring theme, the Roman church applies all the admonitions to themselves as well as to the Corinthians so as to avoid any implication of superiority over them.
5. At no point does the Roman church request obedience to themselves but rather pleads for the Corinthians to submit to their own elders.

The following quotations demonstrate important insights about the spirit and intent of the letter:

Chapter 1: we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us….giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you

Chapter 7: These things, beloved, we write unto you…to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us.

Chapter 13: …let us act according to that which is written

Chapter 16: For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock.

Chapter 42: The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God… And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Chapter 44: Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. …gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church…"

Chapter 45: Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.

Chapter 47: Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. (no reference to Peter as Pope)

Chapter 54: …only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.

Chapter 56: Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not unto us, but to the will of God.

Chapter 57: …submit yourselves to the presbyters…

Chapter 59: Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus: that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.

 

[garysibio]

A couple of people wrote and brought up the same points.

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.

re: How often papal infallibility has been used

Aside from the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, what other doctrines have been made binding by the use of papal infallibility. I realize that some people consider canonizations to also be the result of papal infallibility but I see the requirement of miracles to put canonizations in a separate category.

It may be that, in the future I find another particular doctrine that I do not see any support for but, if that happens, I’ll deal with it then.

re: Papal immorality

I am not using these examples to disprove anything much less papal infallibility. I’m not trying to disprove anything. I am only looking for evidence that papal infallibility is true. I used to be one to argue for papal infallibility but I am starting to think that the arguments that even I used to use are not as convincing as I previously thought. The fact that a lot of people seem to be trying to sidetrack this discussion into something else rather than giving me a straight-forward answer is making me think that there is no support for it.

Gary

 

[cfrancis]

The so-called Letter of Clement to the Corinthians does not claim to be written by Clement. Also, it was not an intervention but a response to an invitation from Corinth. This letter provides no support for Roman primacy let alone papal primacy or authority for there was no pope in Rome, nor a singular bishop, at this time.

Very nice opinion, but not substantiated with fact.

Comment:

1. Rather than claiming authority over the Corinthian church, the church at Rome is responding to a request for an opinion or advice.

And why would Corinth appeal to Rome, as opposed to Thessalonica, Berea, Philippi, or even the churches in Galatia, all closer than Rome?

1. The leaders of the Roman church are apparently struggling with similar challenges and remind the Corinthians of the presbyters and deacons who were appointed by the whole church in Corinth.

Your logic being the church in Rome would have no troubles? Or that the Bishop of Rome would not respect, and call for respect of, the Bishop and presbyters of Corinth? That’s quite a shaky foundation upon which you’ve rested those assumptions…

1. It is important to recognize that the “episcopate” or “bishop” are terms used synonymously with “presbyters” and that these are plural in number rather than having a singular head over the Corinthian church.

True, and has no bearing on disproving the primacy of Rome; again, why Corinth’s appeal to Rome?

1. With the attitude of humility as a recurring theme, the Roman church applies all the admonitions to themselves as well as to the Corinthians so as to avoid any implication of superiority over them.

Again, a non-sequitur.

1. At no point does the Roman church request obedience to themselves but rather pleads for the Corinthians to submit to their own elders.

Ah, putting the cart before the horse. The letter ends as Catholics would ahve it end: those who are spreading heresysedition are to present themselves to their local bishop. How is this a denial of infallibility or the primacy of Rome?
Why would anyone, especially those troublemakers, do as Rome says?
We come back the fundamental question: why is Rome involved in this matter?

The following quotations demonstrate important insights about the spirit and intent of the letter:

Chapter 1: we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us….giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you

**Why is Rome tardy? **
“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel…”

Who has given “all fitting honour to the presbyters among you”?
“For who ever dwelt even for a short time among you, and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly stablished? Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you.”

Clement is speaking to the congregation about their respect and honor given to their presbyters.

You have provided some curious editing…
(to be continued)

 

[cfrancis]

A couple of people wrote and brought up the same points.

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.

Whoa! I ask you, define the Trinity, describe the nature of Christ, without the language of the infallible statements of the Church.

And then you appeal to the Bible - and Sacred Tradition - without examining the underlying premise to each.

Is the canon of the Bible infallibly delcared?

Is Sacred Tradition infallible?

You’re not answering the questions posed to you.

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.

re: How often papal infallibility has been used

Aside from the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, what other doctrines have been made binding by the use of papal infallibility. I realize that some people consider canonizations to also be the result of papal infallibility but I see the requirement of miracles to put canonizations in a separate category.

It may be that, in the future I find another particular doctrine that I do not see any support for but, if that happens, I’ll deal with it then.

If you can answer the questions above, we may be moving forward!

re: Papal immorality

I am not using these examples to disprove anything much less papal infallibility. I’m not trying to disprove anything. I am only looking for evidence that papal infallibility is true. I used to be one to argue for papal infallibility but I am starting to think that the arguments that even I used to use are not as convincing as I previously thought. The fact that a lot of people seem to be trying to sidetrack this discussion into something else rather than giving me a straight-forward answer is making me think that there is no support for it.

Gary

Bishop Sheen tells the story of his leading a priest retreat. After a reflection he gave, a young priest approached him and began to bemoan the wealth and extravagance of the Church, how rich the Church was, etc…
Bishop Sheen patiently listened, and when the young priest stopped, Bishop Sheen paused, then asked, “How long have you been stealing from the collection?” The priest was shocked, then overcome with grief, he asked Bishop Sheen if he would hear his confession.

I recall this story to ask: Gary, which stance by/belief of the Catholic Church is bothering?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Very nice opinion, but not substantiated with fact.

And why would Corinth appeal to Rome, as opposed to Thessalonica, Berea, Philippi, or even the churches in Galatia, all closer than Rome?
Your logic being the church in Rome would have no troubles? Or that the Bishop of Rome would not respect, and call for respect of, the Bishop and presbyters of Corinth? That’s quite a shaky foundation upon which you’ve rested those assumptions…
True, and has no bearing on disproving the primacy of Rome; again, why Corinth’s appeal to Rome?
Again, a non-sequitur.
Ah, putting the cart before the horse. The letter ends as Catholics would ahve it end: those who are spreading heresysedition are to present themselves to their local bishop. How is this a denial of infallibility or the primacy of Rome?
Why would anyone, especially those troublemakers, do as Rome says?
We come back the fundamental question: why is Rome involved in this matter?

**Why is Rome tardy? **
“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel…”

Who has given “all fitting honour to the presbyters among you”?
“For who ever dwelt even for a short time among you, and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly stablished? Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you.”

Clement is speaking to the congregation about their respect and honor given to their presbyters.

You have provided some curious editing…
(to be continued)

Why did the church in Corinth appeal to the church in Rome? It is not stated other than that they did. Notice that in chapter 47, the reference to Cephas does not indicate he was head of the church, and the appeal is for the Corinthians to go to scripture and to read the letter from Paul. The church in Rome asserts no authority in this so-called letter of Clement. Other Catholic theologians are of a similar view as mine, such as the late Robert Eno, professor of theology at Catholic University and author of “Rise of the Papacy” (Theology and Life Series, Vol 32).

 

[cfrancis]

Why did the church in Corinth appeal to the church in Rome? It is not stated other than that they did. Notice that in chapter 47, the reference to Cephas does not indicate he was head of the church, and the appeal is for the Corinthians to go to scripture and to read the letter from Paul. The church in Rome asserts no authority in this so-called letter of Clement. Other Catholic theologians are of a similar view as mine, such as the late Robert Eno, professor of theology at Catholic University and author of “Rise of the Papacy” (Theology and Life Series, Vol 32).

Because the letter does not provide a rationale as to why the Corinthians appealed to Rome, you have not thought about it.
Yet, while the letter is at best silent on the issue at hand - infalibility - you make a judgment based upon the letter.
This is inconsistent at best.

And again, your comment carries some bizarre implications, calling into question your understanding of Catholic theology.

• why wouldn’t Rome use Scripture?
• how does the reference to 1 Cor 1:12 in Ch 47 prove/disprove Peter’s primacy?

Here’s the passage:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you
concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.

• finally, your comment re: Rome not asserting authority…read the letter again. Is there any language there such as, “If you think it would help…” or, “We’re only suggesting, you don’t really have to…” or, “Hey, what did the Bishop of Philippi suggest?”

No.

Instead, Rome is forthright in its direction as to what the Corintians should do.

Which brings us back to this question: why would Rome tell the Corinthians what to do if there was no expectation of obedience?

Which brings us back to: why did Corinth go to Rome with this issue?

Perhaps you should ponder these questions…

 

[garysibio]

cfrancis>> Whoa! I ask you, define the Trinity, describe the nature of Christ, without the language of the infallible statements of the Church. <<

The doctrine of the Trinity has nothing to do with the issue of papal infallibility. If you read my initial post in this thread (#1) you would see that one of the reasons these doubts arose is because, in Rom 15:14-15 St Paul seems to be saying that all believers can determine what is true since that would be a prerequisite to being able to correct each other.

14 My brothers, I am quite sure that you, in particular, are full of goodness, fully instructed and capable of correcting each other. 15 But I have special confidence in writing on some points to you, to refresh your memories, because of the grace that was given to me by God.

I’m not answering the questions you pose because they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

cfrancis>> Bishop Sheen tells the story of his leading a priest retreat. After a reflection he gave, a young priest approached him and began to bemoan the wealth and extravagance of the Church, how rich the Church was, etc…
Bishop Sheen patiently listened, and when the young priest stopped, Bishop Sheen paused, then asked, “How long have you been stealing from the collection?” The priest was shocked, then overcome with grief, he asked Bishop Sheen if he would hear his confession.

I recall this story to ask: Gary, which stance by/belief of the Catholic Church is bothering? <<

I’m not sure what you are getting at but my only problem with any of the Church’s teachings is the issue of papal infallibility. If it’s true, somebody here should be able to show me why. That’s all I’m looking for.

Gary

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

We simply do not find a call to obedience as for example we find in the letters of Paul.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

 

[expectthebest]

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

You are entering an entirely different arguement in regards to how one is saved and by what means. I am simply saying that these infallible statements and as such, we are required to believe them just as we are with any other doctrine whether it be the Trinity, the Mass or anything else.

 

[cfrancis]

cfrancis>> Whoa! I ask you, define the Trinity, describe the nature of Christ, without the language of the infallible statements of the Church. <<

The doctrine of the Trinity has nothing to do with the issue of papal infallibility. If you read my initial post in this thread (#1) you would see that one of the reasons these doubts arose is because, in Rom 15:14-15 St Paul seems to be saying that all believers can determine what is true since that would be a prerequisite to being able to correct each other.

14 My brothers, I am quite sure that you, in particular, are full of goodness, fully instructed and capable of correcting each other. 15 But I have special confidence in writing on some points to you, to refresh your memories, because of the grace that was given to me by God.

I’m not answering the questions you pose because they have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The questions are very relevant to the issue at hand. If what you say re: Rom 15:14-15 is true, then there are some logical conclusions that come from your understanding of those verses:

1. The church at Rome would be able to deal with the Judaizing heresy via only themselves, without Paul’s involvement
2. Beyond Rome, any heresy that arose in any location would need only those people “full of goodness, fully instructed and capable of correcting each other…” to deal with the heresy. Therefore, Arius, Nestorius, et al would have been handled at the local level, with no need for:
   – councils to declare the Truth
   – and councils to anathematize them

What does the historical evidence reveal?

And I’ll say it again - the questions are relevant, though I understand your reluctance to answer them.

I’m not sure what you are getting at but my only problem with any of the Church’s teachings is the issue of papal infallibility. If it’s true, somebody here should be able to show me why. That’s all I’m looking for.

Gary

I’m willing to bet there is a particular Church teaching that’s leading to this issue with you. Be that as it may, no one but the Holy Spirit working within you will be able to show you why. All we can do is present the history, the teaching and Doctrine and reason.

 

[cfrancis]

We simply do not find a call to obedience as for example we find in the letters of Paul.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Uh…is the following a suggestion?

Chapter LVII.–Let the authors of sedition submit themselves.

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

In chapter 57, the letter of Rome called for readers to obey the elders of Corinth, not to obey Rome. Paul called for readers to obey his instructions by his letter with the threat of exclusion.

 

[cfrancis]

In chapter 57, the letter of Rome called for readers to obey the elders of Corinth, not to obey Rome. Paul called for readers to obey his instructions by his letter with the threat of exclusion.

Do you always just ignore that which goes against your position?

1st, there is nothing incongruous with Rome telling the Corinthians to honor and obey their bishop. Following your logic, the fighter pilot in a squadron is only answerable to his squadron commander, not the President!

2nd, re-read the directive given in Ch 57, the same one to which you refer above! Is this a suggestion?

Chapter LVII.–Let the authors of sedition submit themselves.

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.

 

[garysibio]

You are entering an entirely different arguement in regards to how one is saved and by what means. I am simply saying that these infallible statements and as such, we are required to believe them just as we are with any other doctrine whether it be the Trinity, the Mass or anything else.

Then you shouldn’t have said that you need to believe these doctrines in order to be saved.

Gary

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Do you always just ignore that which goes against your position?

1st, there is nothing incongruous with Rome telling the Corinthians to honor and obey their bishop. Following your logic, the fighter pilot in a squadron is only answerable to his squadron commander, not the President!

2nd, re-read the directive given in Ch 57, the same one to which you refer above! Is this a suggestion?

Still not request to obey Rome, and no reference to “their bishop” but rather “bishops” plural.

 

[garysibio]

The questions are very relevant to the issue at hand. If what you say re: Rom 15:14-15 is true, then there are some logical conclusions that come from your understanding of those verses:

1. The church at Rome would be able to deal with the Judaizing heresy via only themselves, without Paul’s involvement
2. Beyond Rome, any heresy that arose in any location would need only those people “full of goodness, fully instructed and capable of correcting each other…” to deal with the heresy. Therefore, Arius, Nestorius, et al would have been handled at the local level, with no need for:
   – councils to declare the Truth
   – and councils to anathematize them

What does the historical evidence reveal?

And I’ll say it again - the questions are relevant, though I understand your reluctance to answer them.

Again, I am not denying papal authority - and, by the way, St. Paul was not a pope - I am only looking for any evidence that the doctrine of papal infallibility is true. No questions are needed to resolve this issue. If you have proof, please let me know what it is and stop the dime-store psychology.

I’m willing to bet there is a particular Church teaching that’s leading to this issue with you. Be that as it may, no one but the Holy Spirit working within you will be able to show you why. All we can do is present the history, the teaching and Doctrine and reason.

Yeah, there is. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY!!! I thought by now that should have been clear.

Gary