C
Church_Militant
Guest
Wasn’t really…it was just relevant to the Berean part of the discussion.
That’s pretty much it. I just saw that and thought you might find it of some interest.
- Status
H
HereticAmI
Guest
Gary:
Some say that there can’t be error ex cathedra on faith and morals. Right. But one can be denounced, excommunicated, jailed, and then burnt at the stake. So what good is infallibility if we can still make a mistake regarding those matters? Another way of putting the matter is, simply, what good does an infallible dogma accomplish if it does not prevent murder?
And for the context, both Roman Catholics and Protestants did their fair share of murder on the basis of heresy. There’s a story in the NT about wheat and its imposter. Some asked, why are the imposters allowed to live and spread the lie? The answer wasn’t, it is error to do so, and so please learn to kill them. But that was the later practice of some, some of whom claimed an infallibility on matters of faith and morals. There is nothing more faith and morals than the decision to spare or take a life. And if you can’t get that right, please spare me and the rest of our humanity your notions of infallibility.
And recall here those certain words, to wit, whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, that you do to me. And so some claiming to be infallible in matters of faith and morals denounced their God, excommunicated Him, jailed Him, and then murdered Him. So, again, who really cares about a purportedly infallible dogma, I mean, if it can’t stop you from murdering God, what’s the point?
Lastly, when they try to jump through those hoops like the dolphins at Sea World, build the wall. Do so by starting with the words of cardinal Bellarmine:
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles. "
The excerpt is from cardinal Ballarmine’s letter to Paolo Foscarini. And the definition of faith and morals apparently included the definition that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe, and so Galileo had to be condemned as a heretic as he was not entitled to his own view on the matter.
And so the point is not lost, does not the RCC also speak to the necessity of Eucharist-communion? With Eucharist-communion in mind, can see why the excommunication must be ex cathedra? If you can’t, here’s why: one had better be infallible if one is going to make the claims that one makes regarding Eucharist-communion and then claim that one has the right to exclude others from participation in the same. In other words, if one is going to remove some from participating in Eucharist-communion, and one does so in error, please don’t claim to be infallible. At least not when you make the claims that the RCC makes when it comes to Eucharist-communion.
And ever of pope Honorius? Posthumously declared a heretic and excommunicated [for his one will, and not two will, Jesus]. As the one soul writes regarding Honorius:
“This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.”
That’s the problem, as in he was excommunicated and anathametized solely on the basis of his dogmatic belief. How can that be reconciled with notions of papal infallibility? He can’t speak moral error to us but he can do so to himself everyday? And, no, no tortured jumping through hoops can solve the problem, as the relevant report from the relevant council proves beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that Honorius was anathemetized in his capacity as pope *. In other words, a purportedly infallible council condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. As the one soul wrote:
“In its official condemnation of him [Honorius], he is judged on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An “infallible” Ecumenical Council has condemned an “infallible” pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility.”
Truly lastly, as to why I am a heretic, simple, pope Boniface VII decreed excommunication for anyone who failed to carry out a sentence of death for heresy as ordered by the Inquisition. Sorry, pope Boniface, but I recall the story of the wheat and its imposter, and so we don’t execute heretics, and the RCC, and some Protestants, were in clear moral error in doing so. You might say that in doing so they surrendered all moral authority. Or you might instead say that it would inconsistent to believe in the moral perfection of an institution that carries out (and admits to) moral error.*
Some say that there can’t be error ex cathedra on faith and morals. Right. But one can be denounced, excommunicated, jailed, and then burnt at the stake. So what good is infallibility if we can still make a mistake regarding those matters? Another way of putting the matter is, simply, what good does an infallible dogma accomplish if it does not prevent murder?
And for the context, both Roman Catholics and Protestants did their fair share of murder on the basis of heresy. There’s a story in the NT about wheat and its imposter. Some asked, why are the imposters allowed to live and spread the lie? The answer wasn’t, it is error to do so, and so please learn to kill them. But that was the later practice of some, some of whom claimed an infallibility on matters of faith and morals. There is nothing more faith and morals than the decision to spare or take a life. And if you can’t get that right, please spare me and the rest of our humanity your notions of infallibility.
And recall here those certain words, to wit, whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, that you do to me. And so some claiming to be infallible in matters of faith and morals denounced their God, excommunicated Him, jailed Him, and then murdered Him. So, again, who really cares about a purportedly infallible dogma, I mean, if it can’t stop you from murdering God, what’s the point?
Lastly, when they try to jump through those hoops like the dolphins at Sea World, build the wall. Do so by starting with the words of cardinal Bellarmine:
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles. "
The excerpt is from cardinal Ballarmine’s letter to Paolo Foscarini. And the definition of faith and morals apparently included the definition that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe, and so Galileo had to be condemned as a heretic as he was not entitled to his own view on the matter.
And so the point is not lost, does not the RCC also speak to the necessity of Eucharist-communion? With Eucharist-communion in mind, can see why the excommunication must be ex cathedra? If you can’t, here’s why: one had better be infallible if one is going to make the claims that one makes regarding Eucharist-communion and then claim that one has the right to exclude others from participation in the same. In other words, if one is going to remove some from participating in Eucharist-communion, and one does so in error, please don’t claim to be infallible. At least not when you make the claims that the RCC makes when it comes to Eucharist-communion.
And ever of pope Honorius? Posthumously declared a heretic and excommunicated [for his one will, and not two will, Jesus]. As the one soul writes regarding Honorius:
“This one fact, that a Great Council, universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church.”
That’s the problem, as in he was excommunicated and anathametized solely on the basis of his dogmatic belief. How can that be reconciled with notions of papal infallibility? He can’t speak moral error to us but he can do so to himself everyday? And, no, no tortured jumping through hoops can solve the problem, as the relevant report from the relevant council proves beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that Honorius was anathemetized in his capacity as pope *. In other words, a purportedly infallible council condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. As the one soul wrote:
“In its official condemnation of him [Honorius], he is judged on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An “infallible” Ecumenical Council has condemned an “infallible” pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility.”
Truly lastly, as to why I am a heretic, simple, pope Boniface VII decreed excommunication for anyone who failed to carry out a sentence of death for heresy as ordered by the Inquisition. Sorry, pope Boniface, but I recall the story of the wheat and its imposter, and so we don’t execute heretics, and the RCC, and some Protestants, were in clear moral error in doing so. You might say that in doing so they surrendered all moral authority. Or you might instead say that it would inconsistent to believe in the moral perfection of an institution that carries out (and admits to) moral error.*
G
garysibio
Guest
HereticAmI,
You ask a lot of good questions and, I have to admit, I don’t have answers for all of the objections you bring up.
One thing I would point out is that infallibility (protection from error) is not impeccability (protection from sin). Even the holiest of the popes were still sinners. I read once that Pope John Paul II went to confession on a weekly basis. I believe that the closer you are to God, the more you will see yourself as He sees you and you become more aware of your own sinfulness.
Regardless, we still operate under free will. If God were to take away the ability to sin, He would have to destroy his free will in the process. This is not the case with infallibility, however. Also, not to defend the errors made in the past, when you consider the power wielded by the popes in the past, it’s rather remarkable that the abuses were not more common.
As far as excommunications go, I don’t get your point. Infallibility simply does not apply in such cases. Excommunication do not establish doctrine or morals. At any rate, if someone was wrongly excommunicated, do you really believe that God would punish them for someone else’s error? God is a lot more just than you and I can even conceive of.
Pope Honorius I is often held up by Protestant apologists as evidence against the doctrine of papal infallibility. Honorius may have held to a heretical position regarding the Monothelite heresy, there is evidence to both support and reject this idea, but he did not proclaim it as an infallible doctrine to be held by the entire Catholic Church. In other words, he did not teach his heretical beliefs ex cathedra. Therefore his error, if there was one, has no bearing on the doctrine.
Gary
You ask a lot of good questions and, I have to admit, I don’t have answers for all of the objections you bring up.
One thing I would point out is that infallibility (protection from error) is not impeccability (protection from sin). Even the holiest of the popes were still sinners. I read once that Pope John Paul II went to confession on a weekly basis. I believe that the closer you are to God, the more you will see yourself as He sees you and you become more aware of your own sinfulness.
Regardless, we still operate under free will. If God were to take away the ability to sin, He would have to destroy his free will in the process. This is not the case with infallibility, however. Also, not to defend the errors made in the past, when you consider the power wielded by the popes in the past, it’s rather remarkable that the abuses were not more common.
As far as excommunications go, I don’t get your point. Infallibility simply does not apply in such cases. Excommunication do not establish doctrine or morals. At any rate, if someone was wrongly excommunicated, do you really believe that God would punish them for someone else’s error? God is a lot more just than you and I can even conceive of.
Pope Honorius I is often held up by Protestant apologists as evidence against the doctrine of papal infallibility. Honorius may have held to a heretical position regarding the Monothelite heresy, there is evidence to both support and reject this idea, but he did not proclaim it as an infallible doctrine to be held by the entire Catholic Church. In other words, he did not teach his heretical beliefs ex cathedra. Therefore his error, if there was one, has no bearing on the doctrine.
Gary
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother mdcpensive1,
Infallibility is not given to the Church through a Council or Pope; it is not given to a Council through the Church or a Pope; nor is it given to a Pope through the Church or a Council. Rather, it is given by GOD to whomever or whatever He deigns to give it for the edification of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
You have hit the nail on the head here. The idea that papal infallibility is anything different or separate from the infallibility of the Church is one of the most pernicious misconceptions about papal infallibility out there. Brother Garysibio complains that papal infallibility has ostensibly been used only twice, whereas conciliar infallibility is more commonplace, and assumes that such a fact somehow invalidates papal infallibility. Opponents or doubters in papal infallibility invariably forget the fundamental teaching on infallibility - that it belongs to GOD first and foremost. It is not the Church’s to dispense, nor a Council’s, nor a Pope’s. It is first and foremost a character of divinity. Just as God permits the Church to share in the divine prerogatives of intercession and sanctification/divinization, He also permits the Church to share in the divine prerogative of infallibility - all for the upbuilding of the Church.
Infallibility is not given to the Church through a Council or Pope; it is not given to a Council through the Church or a Pope; nor is it given to a Pope through the Church or a Council. Rather, it is given by GOD to whomever or whatever He deigns to give it for the edification of the Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
G
garysibio
Guest
I’ve pretty much reconciled myself to the truth of papal infallibility but I wanted to comment on a couple of recent posts.
mdcpensive1 wrote>> Papal Infallibility is the same as those exercised by the councils. It was a gift given by Jesus to the Pope and to the communion of Bishops acting in accordance with the Holy Father, which is what a council does. (Lumen Gentium 25) <<
mardukm wrote>> The idea that papal infallibility is anything different or separate from the infallibility of the Church is one of the most pernicious misconceptions about papal infallibility out there. <<
I’m not saying that this is the case but it is entirely possible, had God chosen to do so, that infallibility could have applied to either the bishops as a whole or the pope by himself without also granting it to the other. You can’t argue logically that, because one has it, so does the other. Again, let me reiterate, I accept that both the bishops, when in union with the pope, and the pope by himself, are infallible under the conditions specified.
At any rate, your posts would not have been helpful to my original question because they do not provide evidence from Scripture or Sacred Tradition.
Gary
mdcpensive1 wrote>> Papal Infallibility is the same as those exercised by the councils. It was a gift given by Jesus to the Pope and to the communion of Bishops acting in accordance with the Holy Father, which is what a council does. (Lumen Gentium 25) <<
mardukm wrote>> The idea that papal infallibility is anything different or separate from the infallibility of the Church is one of the most pernicious misconceptions about papal infallibility out there. <<
I’m not saying that this is the case but it is entirely possible, had God chosen to do so, that infallibility could have applied to either the bishops as a whole or the pope by himself without also granting it to the other. You can’t argue logically that, because one has it, so does the other. Again, let me reiterate, I accept that both the bishops, when in union with the pope, and the pope by himself, are infallible under the conditions specified.
At any rate, your posts would not have been helpful to my original question because they do not provide evidence from Scripture or Sacred Tradition.
Gary
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother garysibio,
When I offered the Lukan verses to you, here was your response:
garysibio:
It is not true that Jesus prayed for Peter to withstand the temptation. Here is the text: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith will not fail; and once you have turned back, you must confirm your brothers in the faith.” (Luke 22:31-32)
First, if Jesus prayer was for Peter to withstand the test, then it failed miserably, because Peter did in fact deny Jesus. Thus, we can only conclude that the prayer of Jesus was not in regards to what would eventually occur at the courtyard.
Second, notice that this special prayer will permit Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren AFTER Peter has turned back from his fall/denial.
Third, notice that this special prayer, despite Jesus’ recognition that ALL the Apostles would be tested, is given ONLY FOR Peter.
This, I believe is the clearest bibilical proof for Petrine/papal infallibility in matters of Faith and morals. Catholic apologists also normally utilize Matthew 16:18, but I think that the Matthean verses can be used EQUALLY to support the idea of the infallibility of the CHURCH, whereas the Lukan veses EXCLUSIVELY refer to St.Peter.
The idea of this specialness of the Petrine office in regards to matters of doctrine is validated by St. Paul. Surely, even at this earliest of dates, there was a Tradition already extant that there was something special about St. Peter. When St. Paul finally converted, he heard this Tradition. Thus, despite his confidence in his very own apostleship, he nevertheless visited St. Peter “to make sure [he] was not running in vain.” St. Paul himself understood that that he could depend on St. Peter to confirm his own Faith.
Brother Gary, answer this question: What was the basis for St. Paul’s confidence in St. Peter’s ability to confirm his own faith? It can certainly be regarded as nothing less than confidence given St. Paul’s own confidence in his (i.e., St. Paul’s) own apostleship.
As far as the Fathers are concerned, I’m sure you have heard or read of the Catholic appeal to St. Irenaeus - that one can look to Rome to verify the Faith. What was the basis for St. Irenaeus’ confidence in Rome’s solidness in the Faith? There are many other quotes from the early Fathers indicating that the Faith of the Church in Rome has never been defiled or is the standard of doctrine.
Answer this question: Is this not at least a reasonable basis for believing that there is something unique about the Church of Rome as far as the indefectibility of her doctrine? And what is the basis for indefectibility if not infallibility (note that I am NOT saying that ONLY the Church of Rome has infallibility, as in fact I have always stated that the infallibility of the bishop of Rome is merely a unique manifestation of the infallibility of the Church, which is the infallibility of God).
Blessings,
Marduk
Way back in the beginning, I offered you Luke 22 - Jesus special prayer for Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren - as proof of infallibility. The special prayer is part and parcel of the Petrine office. Everyone who holds this unique office will have that special prayer from God by virtue of the principle of apostolic succession, whereby the holder of that office will be able to confirm his brother bishops in the faith.
When I offered the Lukan verses to you, here was your response:
Sorry I was not around to give you an immediate response. Here is my response now.
It is not true that Jesus prayed for Peter to withstand the temptation. Here is the text: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith will not fail; and once you have turned back, you must confirm your brothers in the faith.” (Luke 22:31-32)
First, if Jesus prayer was for Peter to withstand the test, then it failed miserably, because Peter did in fact deny Jesus. Thus, we can only conclude that the prayer of Jesus was not in regards to what would eventually occur at the courtyard.
Second, notice that this special prayer will permit Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren AFTER Peter has turned back from his fall/denial.
Third, notice that this special prayer, despite Jesus’ recognition that ALL the Apostles would be tested, is given ONLY FOR Peter.
This, I believe is the clearest bibilical proof for Petrine/papal infallibility in matters of Faith and morals. Catholic apologists also normally utilize Matthew 16:18, but I think that the Matthean verses can be used EQUALLY to support the idea of the infallibility of the CHURCH, whereas the Lukan veses EXCLUSIVELY refer to St.Peter.
The idea of this specialness of the Petrine office in regards to matters of doctrine is validated by St. Paul. Surely, even at this earliest of dates, there was a Tradition already extant that there was something special about St. Peter. When St. Paul finally converted, he heard this Tradition. Thus, despite his confidence in his very own apostleship, he nevertheless visited St. Peter “to make sure [he] was not running in vain.” St. Paul himself understood that that he could depend on St. Peter to confirm his own Faith.
Brother Gary, answer this question: What was the basis for St. Paul’s confidence in St. Peter’s ability to confirm his own faith? It can certainly be regarded as nothing less than confidence given St. Paul’s own confidence in his (i.e., St. Paul’s) own apostleship.
As far as the Fathers are concerned, I’m sure you have heard or read of the Catholic appeal to St. Irenaeus - that one can look to Rome to verify the Faith. What was the basis for St. Irenaeus’ confidence in Rome’s solidness in the Faith? There are many other quotes from the early Fathers indicating that the Faith of the Church in Rome has never been defiled or is the standard of doctrine.
Answer this question: Is this not at least a reasonable basis for believing that there is something unique about the Church of Rome as far as the indefectibility of her doctrine? And what is the basis for indefectibility if not infallibility (note that I am NOT saying that ONLY the Church of Rome has infallibility, as in fact I have always stated that the infallibility of the bishop of Rome is merely a unique manifestation of the infallibility of the Church, which is the infallibility of God).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
C
catechumen
Guest
One of the better books in explaining the infallibility of the Pope is a book published by “Saint Paul Editions”, copyright 1986 by the Daughters of St. Paul, ISBN 0-8198-3042-9 and 0-8198-3041-0 titled "The Gift of Infallibility "
This book presents the actual work of Bishop Vincent Gasser who presented his drafts to the 1 Vatican Council in 1870 for the council to vote on. The footnotes alone make this book worth its cost…
This little short book speaks from the heart of the Church and is a must read to truly grasp Papal Infallibility.
.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Gift+of+Infallibility+
This book presents the actual work of Bishop Vincent Gasser who presented his drafts to the 1 Vatican Council in 1870 for the council to vote on. The footnotes alone make this book worth its cost…
This little short book speaks from the heart of the Church and is a must read to truly grasp Papal Infallibility.
.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+Gift+of+Infallibility+
G
garysibio
Guest
No, I’m saying the scriptures you provided did not prove papal infallibility. Other truths about the papacy yes, but not infallibility.
Gary
A
adolfo123
Guest
look ok lets question not only the papal infallibility, but also the canon of scripture … the authors of the bible etc… not… look people of the past told us l that the 27 books are the only inspired word of GOD why should we listen to them if they where not infallible.
My question to you are u hot or cold…? you do not have to be hidden for your believe to bring people into the same faith you are in …
G
garysibio
Guest
re: Luke 22
As I’ve mentioned before, papal infallibility has only been used twice: once in the 19th and once in the 20th centuries. St. Irenaeus was late 2nd century well before any exercise of papal infallibility. He could not, therefore, be referring to it.
Gary
If I remember right the “your” in “I have prayed that your own faith will not fail” is in the singular. This proves petrine primacy, or, at least, it is evidence of it, but says nothing about infallibility. Infallibility is not the same as faith not failing. I pray that my faith, and the faith of others that I am close to, will not fail but I am not praying for infallibility.
Peter’s faith did not fail; he repented. Are you suggesting that Jesus is praying that Peter would not sin. The Catholic Church does not teach papal impeccability. Peter died faithful to Jesus. He had his moments of weakness - as we all do - but he died crucified upside down because he did not believe himself worthy to be crucified the same way Jesus was. He was faithful to the end.
The Greek work used here is sterizo. This means ‘strengthen.’ Peter is to strengthen his brethren. Granted infallibility would be a great tool in strengthening the brethren but it is not specifically mentioned here.
Again, this confirms petrine primace but not infallibility.
I have to disagree with you on this.
Again, St. Peter was the head of the Church. That is why St. Paul would check with him. This is not evidence of infallibility.
Could you elaborate on this please. I’m not sure what you are referring to.
Again, petrine primacy is not the same as papal infallibility.
As I’ve mentioned before, papal infallibility has only been used twice: once in the 19th and once in the 20th centuries. St. Irenaeus was late 2nd century well before any exercise of papal infallibility. He could not, therefore, be referring to it.
Defending the faith requires more than just a feeling that something is or isn’t true. We need evidence.
Gary
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother garysibio,
When Jesus states, “I will pray that your faith may not fail,” I understand that Jesus is referring to BOTH senses of the word “faith.” This would include not only his trust in God, but also his beliefs ABOUT God vis-a-vis Matthew 16:17-20 (i.e., doctrine). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you understand the word “faith” in the Lukan verse to refer ONLY to faith in the first sense (i.e., confidence/trust) - thereby, you can conceivably and justifiably claim that the Lukan verses only applies to Petrine primacy. I, on the other hand, understand that Jesus uses the term “faith” in the Lukan verse in the FULLEST sense of the word, to not only refer to confidence/trust in God, but also to right doctrine. In that light, the Lukan verse must necessarily refer to BOTH primacy AND infallibility. In other words, Jesus’ special and unique prayer for St. Peter ALONE refers not only to his ability to turn back to God, but also to the doctrine that he believes.
Do you understand where I am coming from? Do you think that my belief (based on a understanding the term “faith” in its FULLEST sense) is reasonable and logical?
Blessings,
Marduk
I think I percieve the disconnect. As you know, the Church uses the word “faith” in two senses. First, it refers to confidence/trust (as in, “I have faith that you will issue a response”) in God; second, it refers to religious beliefs.
When Jesus states, “I will pray that your faith may not fail,” I understand that Jesus is referring to BOTH senses of the word “faith.” This would include not only his trust in God, but also his beliefs ABOUT God vis-a-vis Matthew 16:17-20 (i.e., doctrine). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you understand the word “faith” in the Lukan verse to refer ONLY to faith in the first sense (i.e., confidence/trust) - thereby, you can conceivably and justifiably claim that the Lukan verses only applies to Petrine primacy. I, on the other hand, understand that Jesus uses the term “faith” in the Lukan verse in the FULLEST sense of the word, to not only refer to confidence/trust in God, but also to right doctrine. In that light, the Lukan verse must necessarily refer to BOTH primacy AND infallibility. In other words, Jesus’ special and unique prayer for St. Peter ALONE refers not only to his ability to turn back to God, but also to the doctrine that he believes.
Do you understand where I am coming from? Do you think that my belief (based on a understanding the term “faith” in its FULLEST sense) is reasonable and logical?
Once again, I think you can only draw this conclusion if you understand the “faith” spoken of in the Lukan verse to refer ONLY to trust/confidence. In fact, St. Paul did not go to St. Peter to have a pep talk. He went to him specifically so that he could “make sure that [he] was not running in vain.” This refers to doctrine, brother - St. Paul was trying to make sure that what he believed was not false. Do you think otherwise? Assuming you accept that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his own (St. Paul’s) beliefs/doctrines, why do you think St. Paul would do that, especially given the fact of St. Paul’s confidence in his own apostleship? What I’m trying to get at is that St. Paul must have understood, either through a Tradition already extant in the Church at the time, or through a revelation from God, that St. Peter possessed a certain solidity in doctrinal truth that no one else had, even more than he himself possessed. That is a recognition by St. Paul of infallibility, brother - the fact that he went to St. Peter to confirm his own (St. Paul’s) own doctrine. To put it another way, why would St. Paul, for the sake of confirming his belief, go to someone who had the possibility of teaching him error in belief? To me, he would not, unless he knew that in matters of belief, St. Peter would not teach error.
I wasn’t talking about “feelings.” I was talking about rationality (i.e., “is it reasonable…”). In epistemology, that goes towards proof, not “feelings.” Let me put it this way - given the confidence the early Church CONTINUOUSLY and UNWAVERINGLY had in the doctrine that comes from the Church in Rome, is it reasonable to conclude that they believed the Church in Rome had a special guidance from God on matters of Faith?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
Gary, one of the gifts God has given to us is intellect. The ability to reason is what makes us higher than any other animal.
I appeal to your reason for I understand you are an intelligent person. Would God allow false doctrine in His Church? If it is Christ that builds His Church (Matt 16) then how can He build it using false doctrine? That is contrary to who He is. He is all truth and we know for certain that He teaches the truth. We cannot say that the doctrines of His Church can be wrong because they are from Him and they are what He wants us to know.
When He walked on this earth we knew He was teaching the truth. So it is today that the truth is still taught, but through the Holy Spirit in His Church. As nothing evil or unclean can enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Rev 21) so then no evil or false doctrine can be a part of the Church He established. He would not allow it and the Holy Spirit is the guarantee.
mdcpensive1
I appeal to your reason for I understand you are an intelligent person. Would God allow false doctrine in His Church? If it is Christ that builds His Church (Matt 16) then how can He build it using false doctrine? That is contrary to who He is. He is all truth and we know for certain that He teaches the truth. We cannot say that the doctrines of His Church can be wrong because they are from Him and they are what He wants us to know.
When He walked on this earth we knew He was teaching the truth. So it is today that the truth is still taught, but through the Holy Spirit in His Church. As nothing evil or unclean can enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Rev 21) so then no evil or false doctrine can be a part of the Church He established. He would not allow it and the Holy Spirit is the guarantee.
mdcpensive1
M
Mickey
Guest
Correct. The “prayer of the Lord” is in reference to St Peter’s repentance after he falls away, so that he can in turn fulfill his calling to strengthen his brethren after Pentecost. It has nothing to do with the innovation of papal infallibility.
A
ausculta
Guest
If this question (problem) needs to be cut off and made a new thread, please do so.
Before I begin let me be clear: I am a Catholic in full communion with Rome and I accept through obedience all teaching from the chair of Peter (even before or in the temporal absence of my understanding of them – which isn’t necessary to begin with). The following problem was posed to me by a potential convert who was wrestling with the idea of papal infallibility. His concern is about individual autonomy in the face of “theoretically possible” error (as perceived via conscience, etc).
The thought experiment:
Pope proclaims worship of Baal in a message with the language of infallibility. Are we bound to obey?
My answer is: We must simply trust that Divine Providence would not let this happen. Two thousand years of history have preserved us from error, which is a miracle (and proof) in itself.
Your thoughts?
Before I begin let me be clear: I am a Catholic in full communion with Rome and I accept through obedience all teaching from the chair of Peter (even before or in the temporal absence of my understanding of them – which isn’t necessary to begin with). The following problem was posed to me by a potential convert who was wrestling with the idea of papal infallibility. His concern is about individual autonomy in the face of “theoretically possible” error (as perceived via conscience, etc).
The thought experiment:
Pope proclaims worship of Baal in a message with the language of infallibility. Are we bound to obey?
My answer is: We must simply trust that Divine Providence would not let this happen. Two thousand years of history have preserved us from error, which is a miracle (and proof) in itself.
Your thoughts?
G
garysibio
Guest
You are correct in my opinion. Even if God had to hit the pope with a lightning bolt, it would not happen.
Gary
- Status